Wonder why CHelsea did not park the bus!!

[keen observer]

Parking the bus is a strategy that ought to be used sparingly and only when you have the capital to do so. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea.

However, when you are playing an away match and you decide to play an all-out open, attacking game, you must have committed midfielders who are ready, able, and willing to fight for a win.

True, but the fact is that, if you concede early, you have got to throw it out the window, unless you are trying to limit the scoreline for a second league.

You can park the bus and still play counter attack ala Chelsea vrs. Barca. At Camp Nou when they were a man down plus two goals down they didn't open up, they still played counter attack. It's a strategy that can work if you are committed to it.

First or second leg?

[Akokora Gyeene]

Parking the bus is a strategy that ought to be used sparingly and only when you have the capital to do so. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea.

However, when you are playing an away match and you decide to play an all-out open, attacking game, you must have committed midfielders who are ready, able, and willing to fight for a win.

True, but the fact is that, if you concede early, you have got to throw it out the window, unless you are trying to limit the scoreline for a second league.

You can park the bus and still play counter attack ala Chelsea vrs. Barca. At Camp Nou when they were a man down plus two goals down they didn't open up, they still played counter attack. It's a strategy that can work if you are committed to it.

First or second leg?

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

[keen observer]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

[Akokora Gyeene]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

[keen observer]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

[4th_Official]

Wonder why!!

it was a pre-season friendly match vs. PSG

[keen observer]

Wonder why!!

it was a pre-season friendly match vs. PSG

Are you drunk again?

[boogie]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

[4th_Official]

Wonder why!!

it was a pre-season friendly match vs. PSG

Are you drunk again?

someone cut off your sarcasm / sense of humor again?

[keen observer]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

[NaMrecco$]

Wonder why!!

it was a pre-season friendly match vs. PSG

Are you drunk again?

[4th_Official]

Wonder why!!

it was a pre-season friendly match vs. PSG

Are you drunk again?

[boogie]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

Chelsea certainly parked a bus, but they had no choice, as they lost their central defender in the first half. With regards to calling it a successful tactic, I beg to differ, as events on the day can be attributed to luck, more than anything else... Any football manager that sets out to play that way will lose their job, as the chances of winning a football match will be nil. As far as I am concerned Barcelona lost the match, through desperation and anxiety. They lacked the discipline on the day to play their normal game.

[4th_Official]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

Chelsea certainly parked a bus, but they had no choice, as they lost their central defender in the first half. With regards to calling it a successful tactic, I beg to differ, as events on the day can be attributed to luck, more than anything else... Any football manager that sets out to play that way will lose their job, as the chances of winning a football match will be nil. As far as I am concerned Barcelona lost the match, through desperation and anxiety. They lacked the discipline on the day to play their normal game.

ALL the stats, plus match highlights, plus the match itself showed that they played their normal game. the usual pass the ball around, dominate position, play it through the middle.

so it was also luck that we lost to zambia then. it was also luck that we lost to uruguay (going by your logic)

[NaMrecco$]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

Chelsea certainly parked a bus, but they had no choice, as they lost their central defender in the first half. With regards to calling it a successful tactic, I beg to differ, as events on the day can be attributed to luck, more than anything else... Any football manager that sets out to play that way will lose their job, as the chances of winning a football match will be nil. As far as I am concerned Barcelona lost the match, through desperation and anxiety. They lacked the discipline on the day to play their normal game.

ALL the stats, plus match highlights, plus the match itself showed that they played their normal game. the usual pass the ball around, dominate position, play it through the middle.

so it was also luck that we lost to zambia then. it was also luck that we lost to uruguay (going by your logic)

werent they playing against PSG??

[4th_Official]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

Chelsea certainly parked a bus, but they had no choice, as they lost their central defender in the first half. With regards to calling it a successful tactic, I beg to differ, as events on the day can be attributed to luck, more than anything else... Any football manager that sets out to play that way will lose their job, as the chances of winning a football match will be nil. As far as I am concerned Barcelona lost the match, through desperation and anxiety. They lacked the discipline on the day to play their normal game.

ALL the stats, plus match highlights, plus the match itself showed that they played their normal game. the usual pass the ball around, dominate position, play it through the middle.

so it was also luck that we lost to zambia then. it was also luck that we lost to uruguay (going by your logic)

werent they playing against PSG??

you're laughing, but I still think you didn't get that PSG joke

[boogie]

the scenario and the venue both at camp nou second leg. first half chelsea lost terry to red card after going down two goals in first half

Look at the scenario. They were down with 10 men. Why would they open up? Think, dude. Think!!

at 2-0 chelsea were out if they didn't score so keeping that strategy wasn't intuitive ...similar to Ghana loosing 1-0 meant that we couldn't share in the points but it didn't mean we had to change strategy. so point being we could have parked the bus still while losing and prayed a counter attack game which would have drawn zambia from their packed midfield and close marking

They were playing with 10 men and barcelona decided to still attack them. If Barcelona had parked the bus, you think Chelsea would have continued to defend? Against Zambia, they started defending as soon as they went up by one.

With the benefit of hindsight, any tosser can make statements that can justify their warped ideas... Anyone that has a sense of how football is played, cannot justify how Chelsea came out of that game with a result. It had nothing to do with their tactical prowess, but merely a fluke of nature. They defended well and credit is due to them, but Barcelona missed a penalty and missed sitter after sitter, so Chelsea coming out of that game, with an overall win, is not one to justify how a tactical game should be played. In 99.9% of football matches, with Barcelona's dominance and approach play, they would have won the game... So with hindsight, you can say what you like, but any knowledgeable person of the game will not use that game an an example, it was a fluke!!!

Their tactics put them in that position. If Barce had 50 chances in this match, they would have gotten a 100 without that strategy and we all know in simple math that the more chances you have, the more likely you are going to score. So do not underestimate what Chelsea did.

Chelsea certainly parked a bus, but they had no choice, as they lost their central defender in the first half. With regards to calling it a successful tactic, I beg to differ, as events on the day can be attributed to luck, more than anything else... Any football manager that sets out to play that way will lose their job, as the chances of winning a football match will be nil. As far as I am concerned Barcelona lost the match, through desperation and anxiety. They lacked the discipline on the day to play their normal game.

ALL the stats, plus match highlights, plus the match itself showed that they played their normal game. the usual pass the ball around, dominate position, play it through the middle.

so it was also luck that we lost to zambia then. it was also luck that we lost to uruguay (going by your logic)

You obviously forgot the most important statistic in a football game... GOALS! When Barcelona dominate games like that, they score 5, 6 goals... They were missing chances after chances, which ultimately cost them... Even though chelsea parked the bus, they created enough clearcut chances to win comfortably...

[wadada]

They say offensive attack is the best form of defense, but when you absolutely accept the fact that your opponent is 70% better than your team in many departments then going for "parking the bus" is not a bad idea!!! my two cent

[wadada]

Parking the bus is a strategy that ought to be used sparingly and only when you have the capital to do so. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea.

However, when you are playing an away match and you decide to play an all-out open, attacking game, you must have committed midfielders who are ready, able, and willing to fight for a win.

True, but the fact is that, if you concede early, you have got to throw it out the window, unless you are trying to limit the scoreline for a second league.

You can park the bus and still play counter attack ala Chelsea vrs. Barca. At Camp Nou when they were a man down plus two goals down they didn't open up, they still played counter attack. It's a strategy that can work if you are committed to it.

That Chelski win is a fluke

[4th_Official]

You obviously forgot the most important statistic in a football game... GOALS! When Barcelona dominate games like that, they score 5, 6 goals... They were missing chances after chances, which ultimately cost them... Even though chelsea parked the bus, they created enough clearcut chances to win comfortably...

you forgot what happened when Guus hidink played a similar defensive style against barca? they were given the ball to do their usual domination and passing passing and they still couldn't score (1st leg). 1-1 (2nd leg)

chelsea also created chances, but chelsea scored with the chances they created.