keen observer wrote: Akokora Gyeene wrote: keen observer wrote:
Akokora Gyeene wrote:
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!!!