Great, great, show anyway
OT: What a heartbreaker
Moderators: ChosenSavior, UCF, Knightro, UCFJayBird, Def Swami, Howard Mass
OT: What a heartbreaker
-
aleZ
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,196
- And1: 4
- Joined: Mar 28, 2005
- Location: Italy, Europe
- Contact:
OT: What a heartbreaker
I'd like to read axl's and damo's take on this one, the Champions League final was a shocker, 2-1 win for ManUTD after two overtimes and penalties. When I saw Terry sliding and falling on the last penalty I was like...WTF?!!!! and I'm not even english or a Chelsea supporter.
Great, great, show anyway
Great, great, show anyway
-
damo[23]
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,556
- And1: 66
- Joined: Apr 08, 2005
- Location: Retire #25
Was a good game; I always felt we were going to win and when I saw Chelsea hit the post/bar twice - I just knew it [its that luck that aways goes against us, and tonight was a game where we saw those "bad luck" moments actually work for us].
Man Utd were the better team through 120 minutes. The dominance of the 1st half was not matched by Chelsea in the 2nd - but because it was the 2nd half people forget really how class Utd were.
The Extra time period saw 2 or 3 clear chances between the teams - but I felt that overall Utd should have won it in normal - then extra time. Of the 21 odd shots that Chelsea had - only 2 were close to scoring and their goal was gifted rather than created.
The discipline was disappointing. Chelsea once again demonstrated their pure lack of class and how they think they are above the law - and it ruins football. Makalele as per usual was dirty; and "contests" illegally every single call - if that was the premiership he'd have been sent off in the first half. And the whole "gentlemens agreement" was always followed by Utd, and as Andy Gray said - I dont see why Chelsea contested it - we gave the ball back - but that wasnt good enough for Chelsea - who did the extact same thing to us [put the ball miles away from where we had possession then press us] and in the end it deservedly cos them a player [red card] and a penalty taker. Drogba got what he deserved, he wont be rememberd anymore as the "finals man" but the "gets sent off and has terrible champs league finals".
Over all Utd conducted themselves better, had the best of the game over 120 minutes - not just the 30 mins in the 2nd half everyone is talking about; and they go home with nothing.
Man Utd were the better team through 120 minutes. The dominance of the 1st half was not matched by Chelsea in the 2nd - but because it was the 2nd half people forget really how class Utd were.
The Extra time period saw 2 or 3 clear chances between the teams - but I felt that overall Utd should have won it in normal - then extra time. Of the 21 odd shots that Chelsea had - only 2 were close to scoring and their goal was gifted rather than created.
The discipline was disappointing. Chelsea once again demonstrated their pure lack of class and how they think they are above the law - and it ruins football. Makalele as per usual was dirty; and "contests" illegally every single call - if that was the premiership he'd have been sent off in the first half. And the whole "gentlemens agreement" was always followed by Utd, and as Andy Gray said - I dont see why Chelsea contested it - we gave the ball back - but that wasnt good enough for Chelsea - who did the extact same thing to us [put the ball miles away from where we had possession then press us] and in the end it deservedly cos them a player [red card] and a penalty taker. Drogba got what he deserved, he wont be rememberd anymore as the "finals man" but the "gets sent off and has terrible champs league finals".
Over all Utd conducted themselves better, had the best of the game over 120 minutes - not just the 30 mins in the 2nd half everyone is talking about; and they go home with nothing.
-
Magicalltheway
- Analyst
- Posts: 3,216
- And1: 134
- Joined: Jun 29, 2004
I missed the live game and had to wait till 11pm to watch it. Not knowing the result, I never thought I would be up till 2am watching it.
It was a heart pounding game. ManU, played extremely efficiently the first half 63% possession to 37%. Chelsea was actually very disappointing to me in the 1st half. As ManU kept the pressure up they lost focus on defense and Chelsea capitalized. Two Shots comes off the post but Giggs terrible shot was headed out by Terry. That should have been the finisher right there. EPL to me is best league in the world and their fitness clearly shows it. However, with players dropping everywhere in cramps proved to me that they are designed for a 90 min games and most teams that starts very defensively against them will have a very good shot at attacking in overtime.
I am a ManU fan but watching Terry slipping and miss the penalty and him crying made me teary eyed.
It was worth staying up till 2am, I just cant function today though.
It was a heart pounding game. ManU, played extremely efficiently the first half 63% possession to 37%. Chelsea was actually very disappointing to me in the 1st half. As ManU kept the pressure up they lost focus on defense and Chelsea capitalized. Two Shots comes off the post but Giggs terrible shot was headed out by Terry. That should have been the finisher right there. EPL to me is best league in the world and their fitness clearly shows it. However, with players dropping everywhere in cramps proved to me that they are designed for a 90 min games and most teams that starts very defensively against them will have a very good shot at attacking in overtime.
I am a ManU fan but watching Terry slipping and miss the penalty and him crying made me teary eyed.
It was worth staying up till 2am, I just cant function today though.
-
AdamTheGreek
- RealGM
- Posts: 41,350
- And1: 2,533
- Joined: Dec 30, 2006
- Location: Orlando, FL. Thinking of Greece.
-
Ronaldo better be bowing to Van Der Sar still because that cocky prick f*cked up again:
Terry's PK shot was perfect, right as the ball was about to come off his foot his slips and pushes it a few feet to the right, it sucks.
That pitch was HORRIBLE as everyone was sliding and getting injuries from it.
Terry's PK shot was perfect, right as the ball was about to come off his foot his slips and pushes it a few feet to the right, it sucks.
That pitch was HORRIBLE as everyone was sliding and getting injuries from it.
Bluesky: @adampapageorgiou.bsky.social
Penny & Pops Podcast (Orlando Magic): https://soundcloud.com/137665379
Penny & Pops Podcast (Orlando Magic): https://soundcloud.com/137665379
-
MitchellUK
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,286
- And1: 2,883
- Joined: Apr 13, 2008
- Location: Toronto
-
I would say that United were marginally the better team over the 120mins. In the first half they were well on top, and if not for two great saves by Cech and a miss by Tevez, could have been 2 or 3 goals ahead. Chelsea got a stroke of luck with the deflections that dropped the ball into Lampard's path for the goal, but credit to him for getting into that position and finishing well.
That goal seemed to inspire Chelsea, and they were definitely on top, but for all their posession in the 2nd 45, they only managed 1 shot that caused United any trouble, which was Drogba's effort off the post.
Extra time was more even, and both had chances (Lampard off the bar, Giggs' shot cleared off the line). Drogba's sending off was stupidity, and he is lucky that there were other players there to intervene and hold Vidic back. For all Drogba's size and strength, he is contact shy and not the slightest bit physical. In contrast, Vidic is as tough as they come, and I am pretty sure he would have done some damage to the Chelsea player if given the chance.
Penalties is always an awful way to finish things. I wish there was a better way, but someone would have to think of one. The 'Golden Goal' rule they had a few years ago was also very harsh, but arguably fairer than a shootout. As for Terry, I don't have much sympathy for him. He is not a very popular player over here in the UK, and has a reputation for bullying and intimidating opponents and referees alike. His behaviour in the ruck that surrounded Drogba's red card was a typical, if somewhat mild, representation of his normal behaviour. For that reason I can feel little sympathy for him. There are plenty of Chelsea players I have plenty of respect for - Cech, Carvalho, Bridge, Essien, Lampard, Joe Cole, Shevchenko, Kalou, amongst others - but Terry, Drogba and John Obi Mikel are first class examples of what is wrong with many modern day footballers' attitudes. They whine, moan, and bully to try and get their way on the pitch. Football equivalents of Rasheed Wallace.
That goal seemed to inspire Chelsea, and they were definitely on top, but for all their posession in the 2nd 45, they only managed 1 shot that caused United any trouble, which was Drogba's effort off the post.
Extra time was more even, and both had chances (Lampard off the bar, Giggs' shot cleared off the line). Drogba's sending off was stupidity, and he is lucky that there were other players there to intervene and hold Vidic back. For all Drogba's size and strength, he is contact shy and not the slightest bit physical. In contrast, Vidic is as tough as they come, and I am pretty sure he would have done some damage to the Chelsea player if given the chance.
Penalties is always an awful way to finish things. I wish there was a better way, but someone would have to think of one. The 'Golden Goal' rule they had a few years ago was also very harsh, but arguably fairer than a shootout. As for Terry, I don't have much sympathy for him. He is not a very popular player over here in the UK, and has a reputation for bullying and intimidating opponents and referees alike. His behaviour in the ruck that surrounded Drogba's red card was a typical, if somewhat mild, representation of his normal behaviour. For that reason I can feel little sympathy for him. There are plenty of Chelsea players I have plenty of respect for - Cech, Carvalho, Bridge, Essien, Lampard, Joe Cole, Shevchenko, Kalou, amongst others - but Terry, Drogba and John Obi Mikel are first class examples of what is wrong with many modern day footballers' attitudes. They whine, moan, and bully to try and get their way on the pitch. Football equivalents of Rasheed Wallace.
-
damo[23]
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,556
- And1: 66
- Joined: Apr 08, 2005
- Location: Retire #25
EasternMagic wrote:i felt so bad for Terry... And i laughed at ronaldo so much when he missed that pk... Man U lucked out Chelsea had so many opportunities and blew it. Disappointing for Chelsea.
Man Utd had the same .. if not more.
Man Utd were simply the better team over the course of the entire game; if we are going to play the "if's and buts" game like saying Drogba could have scored in regulation - then we can do the same and say Tevez should have aswell - 3-2 Utd over 90 mins, gg.
Terry was unlucky - it was a typical English penalty at last knockings - but end of the day he missed it and Utd siezed on that and took it to the end.
The game was a good one and a shame it ended on PK's its a horrible way to win a final.
-
craig01
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 20,958
- And1: 483
- Joined: Dec 24, 2005
- Location: orlando
Fun game to watch. Too bad the field was so spongy on the legs.
A couple of questions though?
Instead of "extra time", why don't they just stop the freaking clock so EVERYONE knows how much time is left?
Wouldn't soccer be better to watch if there were free substitutions (a player comes out, and then goes back in)?
Every player paces himself, which seems a shame when the game could be played at more of a breakneck pace if legs were fresh.
These guys are great athletes.
Rooney comes out at a critical time because his legs are done. Wouldn't the game have more drama if it's best players were able to maintain a higher level of play, and be on the field during crunch times?
A couple of questions though?
Instead of "extra time", why don't they just stop the freaking clock so EVERYONE knows how much time is left?
Wouldn't soccer be better to watch if there were free substitutions (a player comes out, and then goes back in)?
Every player paces himself, which seems a shame when the game could be played at more of a breakneck pace if legs were fresh.
These guys are great athletes.
Rooney comes out at a critical time because his legs are done. Wouldn't the game have more drama if it's best players were able to maintain a higher level of play, and be on the field during crunch times?
Basketball is driven by three principles:
1) Movement 2) Application of fundamentals 3) Predictability
1) Movement 2) Application of fundamentals 3) Predictability
-
aleZ
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,196
- And1: 4
- Joined: Mar 28, 2005
- Location: Italy, Europe
- Contact:
craig01 wrote:A couple of questions though?
Craig, what you said has been discussed for ages in Europe between players, coaches, owners and "experts" alike, especially the clock issue (plus the Instant Replay addition) but FIFA's higher ups still think it's 1930 or something.
While basketball and other sports are costantly changing, soccer has stayed the same over the years. For better or worse.
-
damo[23]
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,556
- And1: 66
- Joined: Apr 08, 2005
- Location: Retire #25
The flow of the game is part of the reason why Football is the biggest sport in the world. 99% of people did not want any changes that would slow the game down.
Right now the pace doesnt seem "that fast" but its a 90 minute game. Adding in things like rolling sub's and longer stopages [which is what a stopped clock ends up doing] will break the momentum of the game. Especially rolling subs.
Rolling subs gets even worse when you think about the money side of the game. Right now in the EPL you can have 11 players and 5 subs - Man Utd could this summer go out and buy 5 super star subs and just have a squad of starters - where as poor old Fulham with their 7 million to spend or whatever are sat with no top flight players at all. Utd have the better talent and can change things up.
Football is a slower paced game anyway - rolling subs wont speed it up that much - sure people will "run a bit more" but even the fittest of the clubs will often drudge out a 0-0 slow game if it suits them - look at Man Utd vs Barca last month - the 2 best attacking teams in the world - and still it came down to a stalwart defense. Rolling subs wouldnt have change the pace of that game in the least.
Football is by far the most watched and supported [and finacially rich] sport in the world - and not in danger of losing that - most suggestions - even the video ref - have been disregarded because they feel they will slow the pace of the game down - and change it from the tempo and free flowing level it has now.
Creating more stopages never speeds up games - it just slows them down immensely.
Right now the pace doesnt seem "that fast" but its a 90 minute game. Adding in things like rolling sub's and longer stopages [which is what a stopped clock ends up doing] will break the momentum of the game. Especially rolling subs.
Rolling subs gets even worse when you think about the money side of the game. Right now in the EPL you can have 11 players and 5 subs - Man Utd could this summer go out and buy 5 super star subs and just have a squad of starters - where as poor old Fulham with their 7 million to spend or whatever are sat with no top flight players at all. Utd have the better talent and can change things up.
Football is a slower paced game anyway - rolling subs wont speed it up that much - sure people will "run a bit more" but even the fittest of the clubs will often drudge out a 0-0 slow game if it suits them - look at Man Utd vs Barca last month - the 2 best attacking teams in the world - and still it came down to a stalwart defense. Rolling subs wouldnt have change the pace of that game in the least.
Football is by far the most watched and supported [and finacially rich] sport in the world - and not in danger of losing that - most suggestions - even the video ref - have been disregarded because they feel they will slow the pace of the game down - and change it from the tempo and free flowing level it has now.
Creating more stopages never speeds up games - it just slows them down immensely.
-
damo[23]
- Retired Mod
- Posts: 8,556
- And1: 66
- Joined: Apr 08, 2005
- Location: Retire #25
Also football is often a game of "periods of pressure". Rolling subs will completely ruin that.
Say a low team like West Ham build up pressure on Utd, Man Utd just go to the bench - bosh on 1 defensive midfielder instead of an attacker - break up West Ham's momentum completely - they sub back on Rooney with fresh legs for their attacking response.
Also the teams that come to Old Trafford and sit 10 behind the ball for 90 minutes wont change - and gives them the ability to just sub in more defenders when Ronaldo has worn out the last 3 of them.
Say a low team like West Ham build up pressure on Utd, Man Utd just go to the bench - bosh on 1 defensive midfielder instead of an attacker - break up West Ham's momentum completely - they sub back on Rooney with fresh legs for their attacking response.
Also the teams that come to Old Trafford and sit 10 behind the ball for 90 minutes wont change - and gives them the ability to just sub in more defenders when Ronaldo has worn out the last 3 of them.
-
MitchellUK
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,286
- And1: 2,883
- Joined: Apr 13, 2008
- Location: Toronto
-
Another reason rolling subs should never be implemented in football is because it would simply increase the dominance of the big teams. At the moment in England, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal are the top four clubs. They are also the four richest. With no salary cap in place in football, they are free to spend as much as they like on players in terms of wages and transfer fees, and have built up huge, immensely talented squads.
This would put smaller clubs at a vast and insumountable disadvantage. A team like Everton can put out their best 11 players against the big four and know that if they have a good day, they can compete and even sneek a win. However, after their first 11, the difference in talent between the rest of Everton's squad and a team like Manchester United's reserve players becomes more pronounced. United have 25 international-level players in their squad - Everton have 13. Allowing rolling subs would let teams like Utd switch an entire team of internationals for another, whereas if things were not going well for Everton's first eleven, their subs would not be of the same calibre. It would make the league even less competitive than it is now, and at the moment in the Premier League, the top four always compete for the top four spots, and the best anyone else can hope for is fifth.
This would put smaller clubs at a vast and insumountable disadvantage. A team like Everton can put out their best 11 players against the big four and know that if they have a good day, they can compete and even sneek a win. However, after their first 11, the difference in talent between the rest of Everton's squad and a team like Manchester United's reserve players becomes more pronounced. United have 25 international-level players in their squad - Everton have 13. Allowing rolling subs would let teams like Utd switch an entire team of internationals for another, whereas if things were not going well for Everton's first eleven, their subs would not be of the same calibre. It would make the league even less competitive than it is now, and at the moment in the Premier League, the top four always compete for the top four spots, and the best anyone else can hope for is fifth.
-
aleZ
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,196
- And1: 4
- Joined: Mar 28, 2005
- Location: Italy, Europe
- Contact:
damo[23] wrote:most suggestions - even the video ref - have been disregarded because they feel they will slow the pace of the game down -
I disagree, if used wisely Istant Replay (see the World Cup final) si very useful to find cheaters and, yes, even floppers. I agree however on the spending issue: unless the bigger leagues enforce a salary cap, it's gonna be 4 teams Vs the nation, even worse with Timeouts and unlimited subs.
BTW I didn't know you guys had 5 subs plus starters, it's already 2 more than SerieA, guess it doesn't change the game that much especially when the big teams play.
-
craig01
- Forum Mod
- Posts: 20,958
- And1: 483
- Joined: Dec 24, 2005
- Location: orlando
Ok, I kind of understand the rolling sub thing. Yeah, it'd be an unfair advantage for the richer teams no doubt.
But why not stop the clock? It seems silly that nobody knows exactly how much time is left.
But why not stop the clock? It seems silly that nobody knows exactly how much time is left.
Basketball is driven by three principles:
1) Movement 2) Application of fundamentals 3) Predictability
1) Movement 2) Application of fundamentals 3) Predictability
-
EasternMagic
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,459
- And1: 1,154
- Joined: Oct 17, 2007
[quote="damo[23]"][/quote]
Eh I don't knoq about that. It seemed like to me Chelsea had more scoring oppurtunities throughout the first 90 minutes, and Man U couldnt score with Chelsea man down. And the there were two times where Chelsea hit the post that could have been goals. And Chelsea had 25 shots as opposed to Man U. with 13, but Chelsea just couldnt get them on goal. And I know Man U. had there close shots but they ended up not being goals because of great defensive plays. Dont get me wrong I believe they were evenly matched and Man U deserved to win for sticking with it through the PK's but Chelsea shouldve had it in the first 90 min
Eh I don't knoq about that. It seemed like to me Chelsea had more scoring oppurtunities throughout the first 90 minutes, and Man U couldnt score with Chelsea man down. And the there were two times where Chelsea hit the post that could have been goals. And Chelsea had 25 shots as opposed to Man U. with 13, but Chelsea just couldnt get them on goal. And I know Man U. had there close shots but they ended up not being goals because of great defensive plays. Dont get me wrong I believe they were evenly matched and Man U deserved to win for sticking with it through the PK's but Chelsea shouldve had it in the first 90 min
-
MitchellUK
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,286
- And1: 2,883
- Joined: Apr 13, 2008
- Location: Toronto
-
EasternMagic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Eh I don't knoq about that. It seemed like to me Chelsea had more scoring oppurtunities throughout the first 90 minutes, and Man U couldnt score with Chelsea man down. And the there were two times where Chelsea hit the post that could have been goals. And Chelsea had 25 shots as opposed to Man U. with 13, but Chelsea just couldnt get them on goal. And I know Man U. had there close shots but they ended up not being goals because of great defensive plays. Dont get me wrong I believe they were evenly matched and Man U deserved to win for sticking with it through the PK's but Chelsea shouldve had it in the first 90 min
The shooting numbers are incredibly misleading at first glance - of Chelsea's 25 shots, 16 were from outside the box, and most of those were either blocked as soon as they left the shooter's foot, or went woefully wide/high/both. It wasn't as if they carved out genuine shooting opportunities 25 times. Conversely United created just as many actual chances in the box, and had more efforts on target. I am sure had United taken to Michael Ballack's tactic of shooting every time they got within 25 yards of goal, they would have had a higher shots total as well.
-
EasternMagic
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,459
- And1: 1,154
- Joined: Oct 17, 2007
MitchellUK wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
The shooting numbers are incredibly misleading at first glance - of Chelsea's 25 shots, 16 were from outside the box, and most of those were either blocked as soon as they left the shooter's foot, or went woefully wide/high/both. It wasn't as if they carved out genuine shooting opportunities 25 times. Conversely United created just as many actual chances in the box, and had more efforts on target. I am sure had United taken to Michael Ballack's tactic of shooting every time they got within 25 yards of goal, they would have had a higher shots total as well.
This is true (that shooting numbers can be misleading) but i did watch the game im not just looking at stats, and i felt chelsea had more genuine missed opportunities, than Man U did, they should have been able to capitalize, but they didnt and Man U. won... I still cant get over the Terry slip and the Ronaldo choke though.
-
MitchellUK
- RealGM
- Posts: 10,286
- And1: 2,883
- Joined: Apr 13, 2008
- Location: Toronto
-
EasternMagic wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
This is true (that shooting numbers can be misleading) but i did watch the game im not just looking at stats, and i felt chelsea had more genuine missed opportunities, than Man U did, they should have been able to capitalize, but they didnt and Man U. won... I still cant get over the Terry slip and the Ronaldo choke though.
I'd say in terms of actual goal threatening chances, there were:
Man Utd - Ronaldo's goal, Tevez' header, Carrick's follow up from Tevez' header, Tevez miss when he only got his toe to the ball 6 yards out, and Giggs' effort cleared off the line.
Chelsea - Ferdinand almost heading past van der Sar under pressure from Ballack, Lampard's goal, Drogba hitting post, Lampard hitting bar.
That was really about it. Considering there were 38 efforts on goal, neither team worked the opposing keeper too much. There was plenty of possession an territorial dominance for each side (United 1st half, Chelsea 2nd) but I wouldn't say either keeper had a busy evening, until the penalties of course.
The thing that still sticks in my mind the most is Drogba's red card. I still can't believe he would be stupid enough to slap an opposing player with the officials stood right next to him. But he's always been a temperamental character, so perhaps I shouldn't be so shocked!