That's right, atletico are far more dangerous then barcelona/munich. Why would we play attractive football against one of the best counter attacking football teams only to lose 0-3? Even more so when we were missing 4 of our most important players and cech for the majority of the game. If atletico were missing Juanfran, Courtois, Costa, Koke and Gabi, how would they cope?
No they aren't. They lack the creativity of the other two but have a better defence than Barca, they repeatedly failed to get overlaps in the hole between the 7 players sitting back. It would have been risking getting caught but also it would have risked getting a goal. Atletico's lack of creativity made it very easy for Chelsea
Watch Jose Mourinho's interview after West Ham, and you'll hear his opinion on why it's wrong to play like that
Even poorer excuse for 1 shot on target against their 17 shots.. 28 per cent possession against the worst Barca side for a decade, 17 points off the title
I have no problem playing like that, and we probably would of played defensively, who wouldn't in an away match in the semifinal? What i'm trying to say is we would of had a far more attacking threat on the counter if our full squad was available.
I have already proved you wrong on this one before, those stats where not from the 2008 match. I have no idea where your getting those from
Yeah Matic and Ivanovic would have probably played, and you might have had both Cech and Shwarzer in goal for the 2nd half, had Cech not come off injured But in all seriousness doubt you would have set up to differently had all been fit, Hazard would have probably played instead of Lampard, though he would have been on a tight leash
http://espnfc.com/gamecast?id=239745&cc=5739 There you go. United parked it even worse than I remembered. 1 shot on goal to Barca's 20 shots. 27 per cent to 73 per cent possession.
And at home, two shots on goal to Barca's 14. And only 38 per cent possession v the worst Barca side in a decade http://espnfc.com/gamecast?id=239781&cc=5739
Are you that dumb that you need to distort the stats , and then post proof that you distorted them. We had 7 shots Barca had 20
I said: "1 shot on goal to Barca's 20 shots." There is a difference between shots (on and off target), and shots on goal (shots on target). Learn to read<> before biting
Man Utd let Barcelona have that possession in these games. They created 0 clear cut chances in 180 minute of football while we missed a pen and a few sitters. Go watch the highlights there be **** all from Barce except longshots.
Ditto us against a much better side in 2009. They had one shot on target at the Bridge. The one that mattered... Iniestaaaaaaaaaaaaa
It doesn't really matter what we think of Chelsea. The real point is being missed. How much does Mourinho think of Chelsea?? And when you look at how he managed his other teams, clearly he doesn't think a lot. I honestly think he has never had the belief any Chelsea side has the ability to beat teams playing attacking football. Not like when he managed Inter(example look how he played against Chelsea and in the semi-final in 2010), Real Madrid (look at ALL his CL knockout rounds over the 3 years there regardless of whether he won or lost) or Porto. He clearly had a higher opinion of these teams and their players. That is the saddest indictment of Chelsea FC if I was their fan. Why the hell doesn't he try and develop teams like those at Stamford Bridge? It comes down to something beyond him IMO.
Interesting point but its not like he doesn't have the finances to develop an attacking team at Chelsea.
