River City Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 "Mourinho is shameless. If this team wins the Champions League, it would make you want to retire," said Eto’o. "With so much money and so many players, what they do is not football." I know that Chelsea isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea, but the more times statements like this are made, the more I want to defend Chelsea. I don't think Eto'o had a problem with Chelsea when they were trying to sign him (they changed their minds and signed Drogba instead), nor has Eto'o come out and said the same thing about Real Madrid, Man U, AC Milan and even Barcelona (and I am a Barca suporter). Is it sour grapes, or much more than that? Is Roman's millions bad for football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeta Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 Yes and Yes. Sour grapes for sure. And Roman's mega-millions are bad for football. But not as bad as shameless bitch-diving. And once Roman has had his bit of fun he'll go away. Can't say the same is likely to happen with the diving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 I think Roman has done well in hiring a man who makes the right football decisions under the pressure of seemingly unlimited financial resources. Nobody can have a perfect transfer record, but to my eye it looks like Mourinho has bought the right type of players for England and Europe. From what I've seen of them, I'd rather have Eto'o than Drogba, but I don't know what the former has really done to deserve the respect he seems to demand with his tongue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City I know that Chelsea isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea, but the more times statements like this are made, the more I want to defend Chelsea. I don't think Eto'o had a problem with Chelsea when they were trying to sign him (they changed their minds and signed Drogba instead), nor has Eto'o come out and said the same thing about Real Madrid, Man U, AC Milan and even Barcelona (and I am a Barca suporter). Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something but what does RM, Man U and AC milan have in common with Chelsea in the context of Eto'o's complaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analyst Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 E'Too has good reason to complain. He and Ronadinho and others were fouled twice as much by Chelsea compared to Barca fouls on Chelsea players. E'toos team also had a lot more possession, and with a better goalie and better defence they would have won easily. Sad we didn't see the best Chelsea team play vs Barca. Robben will help Chelsea in the next round. Also sad to see Zidane not advance. He was brilliant in the first game. Would rather see him and RM in the next round rather than the defensive Juve. But as my friends tell me, Chelsea and Juve won and thats all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Hmmm... maybe I'm missing something but what does RM, Man U and AC milan have in common with Chelsea in the context of Eto'o's complaining? Well, Eto's complaints are centred on the fact that Chelsea has unlimited funds to buy the world's best players and therefore have an unfair advantage over everyone else. RM (90's), Man U (80's - 90's) and AC Milan (80's)were the original Chelseas before Chelsea came along. Real Madrid for sure looked like they would keep blowing everyone out of the water for years to come with all the money they were splashing around. Those three teams created a huge gap between themselves and the rest of their respective competition. Chelsea is just the latest team (and won't be the last one)to come along and improve on the model that had been set already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 10, 2005 Share Posted March 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City Well, Eto's complaints are centred on the fact that Chelsea has unlimited funds to buy the world's best players and therefore have an unfair advantage over everyone else. RM (90's), Man U (80's - 90's) and AC Milan (80's)were the original Chelseas before Chelsea came along. Real Madrid for sure looked like they would keep blowing everyone out of the water for years to come with all the money they were splashing around. Those three teams created a huge gap between themselves and the rest of their respective competition. Chelsea is just the latest team (and won't be the last one)to come along and improve on the model that had been set already. Right. But I think alot of Eto'o's whining stems from Chelsea having unlimited funds that still plays 10 men behind the ball most of the time. Man United & RM in the 90's, and I'm assuming Milan in the 80's (altho a little b4 my time) had much more attack-minded teams. There's alot of truth to his argument. I can't think of too many $210 million pound teams - in ANY sport - that sits back and protects a 1-nil advantage as much as Chelsea. They're soccer's version of the New Jersey Devils, only worse because they're the NJ Devils by choice. [xx(] About 50% of their EPL matches have ended 1-nil or 0-0, plus several more that were 1-nil until very late in the game until Chelsea added a goal or two to pull away, due to their opponents getting desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Right. But I think alot of Eto'o's whining stems from Chelsea having unlimited funds that still plays 10 men behind the ball most of the time. Man United & RM in the 90's, and I'm assuming Milan in the 80's (altho a little b4 my time) had much more attack-minded teams. There's alot of truth to his argument. I can't think of too many $210 million pound teams - in ANY sport - that sits back and protects a 1-nil advantage as much as Chelsea. They're soccer's version of the New Jersey Devils, only worse because they're the NJ Devils by choice. [xx(] About 50% of their EPL matches have ended 1-nil or 0-0, plus several more that were 1-nil until very late in the game until Chelsea added a goal or two to pull away, due to their opponents getting desperate. Well, I agree with you that Chelsea does play defensive football. So what? Mourinho gets paid to win games. Not win games with beautiful football. Porto's style of soccer was only exciting if you were a loyal supporter or if they were beating up on some lowly portuguese team. However, if you remember at the beginning of the season, Chelsea were playing some dreadful, unexciting football as the players were learning and adjusting to Mourinho's tactical ideas. As the players got more confortable, Chelsea started to play with more confidence and looked a hell of lot better. Until Robben got hurt anyway. As for hockey analogies, the NY Rangers (the highest payroll if I recall correctly) would have done well to play a tight system that relied on the transition game. They didn't. They relied on their superstars, and look where that got them. One good year and then nothing. Bottom line, it's defense that wins games. RM the modern day Galacticos had a solid back core(with Makelele and Hierro) that enabled the forwards to their stuff. AC Milan has always had a good defense (including the best defender in the last 20 years - Paolo Maldini). Barcelona has always played attractive football as they've always been able to attract awsome forwards, but their defense has been lacking. In the Chelsea game, 'Gio' looked like he was making his debut. I digress.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by analyst E'toos team also had a lot more possession, and with a better goalie and better defence they would have won easily. That's pretty funny. I haven't seen the match yet, but it seems to me that if they were lacking in two of the three general areas of the game then maybe they deserved to lose? quote:Would rather see him and RM in the next round rather than the defensive Juve.Same idea applies here. I also haven't seen this match yet (I'm hoping to get around to my tapes of both of these), but Juve probably won because they are better all around than Real Madrid, which is what happened the last time these two teams met a couple of years ago. So what if Madrid have all the offensive superstars, the game is about offence and defence, but Madrid continue to skimp on the latter because they are more interested in players who can sell shirts. quote:Originally posted by River City RM (90's), Man U (80's - 90's) and AC Milan (80's) Aren't those years a bit off? I think Man U would be '90s only ('80s were mostly Liverpool) while Milan would be late '80s to early '90s (the Van Basten years). And Real Madrid can be extended to the present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted March 11, 2005 Share Posted March 11, 2005 quote:Originally posted by River City Bottom line, it's defense that wins games. RM the modern day Galacticos had a solid back core(with Makelele and Hierro) that enabled the forwards to their stuff. AC Milan has always had a good defense (including the best defender in the last 20 years - Paolo Maldini). Barcelona has always played attractive football as they've always been able to attract awsome forwards, but their defense has been lacking. In the Chelsea game, 'Gio' looked like he was making his debut. I digress.... Well, Graveson is better than Makelele I'd say. But I digress also... I guess its easy to over-analyze these things by talking about what styles of play are required to win. Bottom line, both the Barca and Madrid games could have gone either way. After the first-legs, almost everyone was agreeing that Barca & RM should have been up by about 3 goals each. Now that the second-legs are fresher in our minds, its tempting for people to say Chelsea and Juve deserved to win. But imagine flipping the 2 legs around. I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY would be thinking that Juve and Chelsea deserved to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
River City Posted March 11, 2005 Author Share Posted March 11, 2005 That's the beauty of football. At least we can all agree it was great soccer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elricko Posted March 12, 2005 Share Posted March 12, 2005 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Well, Graveson is better than Makelele I'd say. But I digress also... I guess its easy to over-analyze these things by talking about what styles of play are required to win. Bottom line, both the Barca and Madrid games could have gone either way. After the first-legs, almost everyone was agreeing that Barca & RM should have been up by about 3 goals each. Now that the second-legs are fresher in our minds, its tempting for people to say Chelsea and Juve deserved to win. But imagine flipping the 2 legs around. I mean ABSOLUTELY NOBODY would be thinking that Juve and Chelsea deserved to win. I believe that Makelele is a far,far better player than Graveson, not so tough and gritty maybe, but now that Mak. has settled with Chelsea, he has been magic at times, one of the outstanding players in the EPL this season. Over the 2 combined legs , both Juve and Chelsea most difinitely deserved to qualify, as did ALL the teams through to the quarter-finals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.