Didn't Messi miss a penalty at the Nou Camp? I don't remember too well which chances came in which leg but I think they hit the woodwork 4 or 5 times over the tie and had far more chances. That's not to take away from what was an excellent defensive performance but you did rely on some fortune in both legs of the tie. Celtic since have shown that frustrating Barca and getting a result can be achieved by any team if they have the workrate.
As David Ginola (your own club legend) says hitting the woodwork isn't bad luck. It's the frame of the goal. If you hit the woodwork you have missed the intended target. Luck is something out of your control. Winning the lottery is luck because you do not know which 6 balls some random no-mark celeb will pick out on a Saturday/Wednesday Night. Messi wasn't unlucky it was just a bad penalty. He bottled it, as he always does when he plays against Chelsea.
Celtic beat Barcelona and it's down to tactical genius of Lennon, resilience and it's a great night for football. Chelsea beat a better Barcelona side and come back from behind to do so (with 10 men) and it's luck, a fluke and a bad night for football. That's football tribalism summed up for you. There are very few genuine football fans out there today. In the old days it was never as tribal, particularly in the 50s/60s/70s. That generation of football fan are a special breed.
I didn't say Barca were unlucky, I said you lot had some fortune in both games. It was Messi's fault he missed the penalty but when you concede a penalty and their taker(the best player in the World) fluffs it, you're lucky. You know what the difference is between Chelsea and Celtic? Celtic defended for their lives with a team that cost a fraction of Barca's, Chelsea defended with a multimillion £ side that cost either a similar amount or more than Barcelona's. Anyway no one's claimed that Chelsea didn't do well to get past Barca or that it wasn't a great night for your lot, the reason I brought up the comparison is that other teams can beat Barca too by frustrating them by sticking numbers behind the ball too.
Yep,we were so defensive against Barca I still to this day wonder how the **** we managed to score 3.
You mean Barca with the largest wage bill in Football and on par with that of NBA sides? As I've said before... Value > Cost.
We would have scored 6 or 7 had we really gone for it.... [video=youtube;U-8dOjeVC80]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-8dOjeVC80[/video] A shot on target "Torture numbers, and they'll confess to anything." ~Gregg Easterbrook
Wasn't trying to WUM but it was the only basic hit and hope shot I could ind which actually constitutes to a shot on target. My point is that Barca were shooting from way outside the box, it's not like Cech had a MOTM game. He had few saves to make over the 180 mins.
The keeper was out of position and he tried to lob him which should've been a goal not just a shot on target. Of course there are times when shots on target are actually pretty awful but you're only going on about this because you're taking what I said out of context and assuming it's a dig at Chelsea. If you notice I was replying to CPofL, who couldn't understand how they could be a defensive team and score 3 goals and I explained that it was because you converted nearly all your shots on target, compared to the more aggressive team who took far more shots(most of which were not lobs from the halfway line ) but only converted a very small percentage of them.
