khaled_a_d
Senior Member
And we had a clear penalty too in 1st leg for Henry IIRC,had it been counted it could have been totally different game in London
Luis Enrique
- Thread starter Barcaman
- Start date
And we had a clear penalty too in 1st leg for Henry IIRC,had it been counted it could have been totally different game in London
StarLord
New member
Yup, I remember that one as well. Essien was also spared several yellows in the 2nd leg.
As for the penaldos that Chelsea thought they merited, Pique's handball was from a grand distance of 50cm. Yaya vs Drogba was shoulder to shoulder until Drogba decided to do what he does best: have his ass dive for it! Eto'o turned his back to the Ballack shot and the creamer from Ballack cought him on the shoulder/upper arm.
The only claim that was legit, was the Alves vs Malouda. The foul from Alves started from outside the box and persisted inside the box. COuld definitely have been given as a penaldo! The ref gave them a free-kick that Valdes miraculously saved!
DrPepper
New member
His Inter team played fantastic football on the whole, and Porto destroyed Monaco in the Final by scoring 3 goals. Can't recall a final that was won by such a huge margin after 90 mins. Inter also scored 2 goals vs Bayern. Funny how he has to "prove" something after already winning 2 Champions League trophies.
You must really hate the guy if you feel the need to repeat the "his football is ugly" argument that often. He actually beat us 3-1 at San Siro by playing an attacking game, no parking the bus whatsoever. Complain about Chelsea who parked the bus and got lucky for the whole 180 mins, not about his Inter team. Style of football is subjective, there's no other way to see that.
Tbh the argument would already be over if you actually had the decency to name 1 coach better than Mourinho. Instead you resort to undermining everything he has done until now. Very classy for sure. As I said, you must really hate him, since you were also the one posting that video in his forum thread.
StarLord
New member
You really aren't following what I am saying.
What I am saying is this: FOOTBALL MANAGERS DO NOT MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE AVERAGE FOOTBALL FUN/PUNDIT MAKES THEM OUT TO.
The question over whether Mourinho is the best manager in the world is of little importance here. The reason I refer to his failures, is to explode from within the notion that Mourinho has some kind of magic touch. Because you see, the argument over Mourinho's alleged greatness is that he has won the CL with Porto and Inter. In fact, had he failed with Porto by losing to United (as should have happened) or losing to Depor (again, highly possible) he would be a random manager somewhere today. No Abrahmovich would have taken him on and provided him with all that fabulous cash with which to build a very powerful Chelsea (the 2nd/3rd strongest team in Euope in thos years after us and AC Milan) and further build his legacy and hype with the UK media (the only media in the world who value their own league so highly)
So, to return back to what I have been saying. Let's say (for the sake of argument) that it is indeed true, that Jose was the deciding factor behind Porto and Inter victories in 2004 and 2010 (I disagree with that, but again, for the sake of argument, let's assume that that was the case)
Why then, I ask, did not this overbearing "Mourinho-factor" come into play when with the most expensive sides in Europe (in Chelsea and Real Madrid) failed to win the thing with him at the helm? This has happened much more often than his victories (dependent on other, more important factors, again in my opinion) with Porto and Inter. This question demands a consistent (according to the initial proposition, namely that Mourinho is such a decisive factor) answer, which I am not getting. My point is that both his successes as well as his failures, have much more to do with other, far more crucial factors that have nothing to do with Mourinho himself.
Likewise, if we are to persist with the "manager-centric" theory, then we must also give equal props to just about anyone that won the CL twice! Because how can Mourinho wins be down to him (and correspondingly, the failures down to him) while not so with all other managers that won the CL twice or Carletto who won it thrice!!!
It is on this ground (and much more) on which I base my own proposition, namely, that the role of managers is overstated! I had a post earlier claiming that there are at least 3 other factors more vital in relation to football results than who the manager happens to be! Not one of you responded to it!
Ultimately, my point is that Mourinho is much more a media personality, rather than a football genius (did he come up with any tactical innovation btw?) He is good for selling papers, creating controversy (always good for TV ratings) and making clownish gestures as well as uttering obscenities that are good for fueling the media hype machines.
Last edited:
Gnidrologist
Senior Member
If managers don't matter and players do everything by themselves (sure, their fitness is also controlled by their own whims), then how could Porto and Inter win the CL at all? Especially Inter against Barca, which had far superior players?
Also, stop equaling boring football with ineffective or incompetent one. Yes, Chelsea plays boring, but their tactics are intentional. There is no other team that fares better without the ball than Mourinho teams, whatever they are. The latest match between CH and MU corroborated that fact once again. Catenaccio of 50s Inter was even more boring, but just as successful. Aesthetics don't enter into this at all.
Also, stop equaling boring football with ineffective or incompetent one. Yes, Chelsea plays boring, but their tactics are intentional. There is no other team that fares better without the ball than Mourinho teams, whatever they are. The latest match between CH and MU corroborated that fact once again. Catenaccio of 50s Inter was even more boring, but just as successful. Aesthetics don't enter into this at all.
StarLord
New member
Allow me to put you right:
a)
That is not what I said at all. What I said was that the role of managers is exaggerated by most football fans/pundits. Let me also add that this is done, partly because it is convenient to "personalize" complicated issues, and partly because going into full analysis takes time and effort (something that many people do not have) and partly because fans of football clubs are loathe to admit that their players (15, or 20 or 25 men) are not good enough. It is much easier to take psychologically that one man is the problem, and not 25! There is a big difference from claiming that managers' role is exaggerated to saying that they play no role at all. I hope that much is clear.
b) Fitness has to do with an insane amount of factors again, hence why people so often avoid this most crucial issue. How many games/minutes a player has played, the stage of the season, consecutive tough games, age, nutrition, the way in which a team plays, nutrition, age, DOPING (!) genetics, training methods, injuries etc. What you need here is a professional managerial team, conscientious players that will not be partying/drinking/smoking/eating shit/boning girls too much etc etc etc... The way doping is managed (doping is an art and a science) throughout the season etc etc etc... Sure the manager has to be aware of at least some of these things, but obviously the people and agencies involved here are far greater than a single manager.
c) Like I have repeatedly said, since there are so many other factors (outside of managers) at play in relation to football results, and outside of the quality of players, you have to look for those. After the quality of the players, you have the fitness to which I have referred already (uber-uber-crucial in the CL) and of course blind-stupid-random luck. Just look at our game versus Celta a few months back, or our first semi against Chelsea in 2012 to see how luck can turn a game completely and utterly on its head.
For me, if we had beaten Celta 8-0 in that game, it would have been less strange than losing 0-1. But there you have it. In that Chelsea semi, had we won 0-4, it would again have been much more rational/expected/likely than the eventual 1-0 result. Football is a real bitch sometimes, and this is one of the reasons why it is so popular. The underdog almost always has some hope.
So how could Inter/Porto win the CL? Two main factors:
a) Fitness
When a team suffers less strain domestically, or when it avoids injuries, or when it has the opportunity to rest players before crucial games (while the opponent does not) or if that team peaked at the exact time of the big CL games. Or the management of doping. A team that wants to win the CL, has to arrange it so, that the beneficial effects of doping kick in at the right time (namely, the time of the CL games) Etc, etc, etc...
b) Luck-randomness:
Anyone who has been watching football for years and has a modicum of intelligence doesn't need any explanation on this one. The examples are infinite here.
Last edited:
I
instinct
Guest
His subs were spot on although Leo could've been subbed off.
Busquets, Suarez and Iniesta got a little bit of rest and the team didn't give 100% in the 2nd half.
Busquets, Suarez and Iniesta got a little bit of rest and the team didn't give 100% in the 2nd half.
StarLord
New member
I think we were too lazy in that 2nd half!
Roberto is nowhere near Barca level. And Xavi is dead on his feet after playing 80mns on Saturday and 40 mns on previous Wednesday!
I
instinct
Guest
Of course we were lazy in the 2nd half. It was crucial to kill the tie in the 1st half. Espanyol will be a hard opponent since they're our arch rival and will give everything they have. Roberto and Xavi did well although the drop in quality compared to Busquets - Iniesta was noticeable.
Iniesta - Rakitic will be the midfield duo vs Espanyol and I reckon Xavi is fit enough to come in for the last 30 minutes.
Kohe321
New member
Home of Barca Fans
