At 11/5/12 07:00 AM, Ejit wrote:
Man Utd being top of the league isn't exactly a turn up for the books either, after all. Nor City being undefeated. And it's already a 3-horse race for the title. It's difficult to see a team a relative equivalent of Montpellier winning the league.
The sad thing about United being top and City being undefeated still is that neither side deserves those stats. Both have been on rather poor form and yet somehow still cruise to the top. At least we can claim that we were playing well to get where we have this season so far. So yeah I agree that doesn't reflect well on the rest of the league if the Manchester teams being sub-par still don't lose to their opponent. Never used to be able to get away with having a bad day in our league.
Oh, I didn't mean Malaga would win anything and I wasn't commenting on that league, which is artificially imbalanced.
Fair enough. Thats all I wanted to know. Enjoy Malagas matches then.
At 11/5/12 07:34 AM, Haggard wrote:
The difference is, that for the wages the Celtic players recieve, the Chelsea players (and not only them, mind you) wouldn't even tie their shoes. Just look at how pathetic the scottish football is compared to the football played in the english premier league.
Celtic do have something that not many teams in the world can boost actually, or buy for all the money in the world and thats a dogged spirit. Don't think I'm using that as a excuse for Chelsea but you wouldn't believe how passionate and persistence that Scottish side can be and sometimes its the mentality that takes you beyond rather than talent alone.
You will NEVER expect Celtic to win anything against Barca and it's clear right from the start, that their only hope lies in a strong defence and in a lucky goal. Comparing Celtic vs Barca on a national team level, it would be like Liechtenstein playing against Germany or England. You would never expect Liechtenstein to play great attacking football. But if Germany plays against England, you would expect a great match from both teams.
And it is very disappointing if you see a team that someone spent over a billion on to buy players can do nothing else than to completly park the bus. I mean, come on. There are only a handful of teams that can compete with Chelsea on a financial level, and yet all they can come up with is playing with 10 defenders?
This is why Chelsea was critizised for their style of play, while Celtic was called "unlucky" and "brave", even though they played a similar style.
The thing is look at our track record playing Barcelona. Its not too shabby and only the last 2 games were of the 'playing the bus' route. We can play them back, we have done it before. We've lost to them that way, we've drawn to them that way and even won to them that way. So its not all Chelsea can come up with. At the time last season it was. Our team wasn't in the best state and we did what we had to, like most teams have to to try and get a result against Barca. Difference for us is that it actually worked.
Arsenal were the last English side besides us to meet Barca in the Champions League. Like us they got a win at home, unlike us they lost away. They couldn't muster a single shot on or off target and like us had to spend most of their possession clearing the ball and dealing with playing with 10 men for a lot of the match. Were they put down for their display? No, because they didn't win and/or because they aren't Chelsea.
Man United in the final 2011? Also swept away.
Both sides are up there with Chelsea for quality in the Premier League(sure they haven't spent as much, but money can't completely buy you success, especially not against the worlds elite), both sides also had to resort to defending to try and save themselves from an onslaught. Neither of them managed though.
Fact is, at one stage versus Barcelona in the Nou Camp Chelsea were 2-0 down and playing with 10 men. And we ended up not losing the game.
Are you telling me that you cannot find ANY merit in that?