[CL] Champions League 2010/11 (3 Viewers)

Nedvěd

Guest
You have never heard of game plan, tactics maybe? Which were totally ruined by that red card.
Tactics? Real were playing at home FFS they should win this game at all costs. If it was an away game and he used those tactics then I'd praise him but he used those anti-football tactics at home. Last season Inter attacked Barcelona when they played at San Siro, and had the balls to go forward unlike Real this season.
 

Yamen

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2007
11,809
That's the plan which brought Mourinho's team the title in the previous season.
I also agree. but when you are in Real madrid expectations are different I believe, from the fans and all. Believe me if he pressed hard on barcelona he would get a good result. And inter are more inclined to defend rather than attack, so its easier to establish such a system there probably.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
Nedvěd;3001775 said:
Tactics? Real were playing at home FFS they should win this game at all costs. If it was an away game and he used those tactics then I'd praise him but he used those anti-football tactics at home. Last season Inter attacked Barcelona when they played at San Siro, and had the balls to go forward unlike Real this season.
He probably wanted a 0-0 at home, how come is this anti football? Or probably as he suggested, he aimed to attack when Barca players were already tired, a plan which never worked because of that red card.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
I also agree. but when you are in Real madrid expectations are different I believe, from the fans and all. Believe me if he pressed hard on barcelona he would get a good result. And inter are more inclined to defend rather than attack, so its easier to establish such a system there probably.
No. Whatever tactics he had planned to do would have never worked anyway because the ref was always going to make a game changing decision in Barca's favor, like they always do.
 

Nedvěd

Guest
He probably wanted a 0-0 at home, how come is this anti football? Or probably as he suggested, he aimed to attack when Barca players were already tired, a plan which never worked because of that red card.
Who would want a 0-0 at home? Barcelona have a wide pitch which mean they'll pass the ball easier at Nou Camp.

He had 60 minutes to attack Barca but Real did not.

I love it how when Mourinho uses negative tactics he gets praised for it but when others do it they get called names for it.
 

Yamen

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2007
11,809
No. Whatever tactics he had planned to do would have never worked anyway because the ref was always going to make a game changing decision in Barca's favor, like they always do.
then no point of playing if its always gonna be this way. You can play the octupus's role and always predict a barca win - Lets all make money :D
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
Nedvěd;3001801 said:
Who would want a 0-0 at home? Barcelona have a wide pitch which mean they'll pass the ball easier at Nou Camp.

He had 60 minutes to attack Barca but Real did not.

I love it how when Mourinho uses negative tactics he gets praised for it but when others do it they get called names for it.
What negative tactics? His team has played the best football this season attacking wise but it's like committing suicide against Barca. So if you plan to defend against Barca only to get a result (like what Chelsea and Inter did, against both Barca struggled to make goal opportunities) it is anti football but if they attack on Barca leaving Messi and Xavi big space up front thus conceding a dozen of goals it's only an unfortunate but fair and beautiful style of football? What bullshit. Whatever tactics which can bring you results, victories and titles are just equally good in my book.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
75,228
He'd take a 0-0 at home simply because it means they haven't conceded an away goal. Then he'd do the same in Barcelona and try to nick an away goal where he could kill the game. Or he'd drag it through to extra time and take penalties, because he knows he has a good penalty stopper, it doesn't matter to him.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
I believe that the benefit of doubt should have been given, but also that Barça seem to get a referee advantage in matches because the dominate play, have most attacks, and are fouled more often.
That close calls are not what people complain about. I don't remember anyone even mentioning Pique's goal because it was a very close call. Everyone was talking about Busquests-Motta incident. And all the calls which went in Barca's favor against Chelsea, who even based on your philosophy of watching football, was the better team in both legs against Barca two seasons ago.
 
Sep 1, 2002
12,745
It was a very close call on Milito's goal, no one is angry at Barca getting those calls because we are football fans and we have accepted that these mistakes happen in football. Pique's goal in the second leg against Inter was offside too, a similar close call so it's all even.

Lol at the Ibra incident, because his jersey is torn doesn't mean he was fouled. There is no replay included in that video, surprisingly.

Then I stopped watching at Alves incident. Are you too that delusional to see a penalty in that clear dive? I suggest someone make a compilation of Alevs diving everywhere on the pitch, it's no surprise that he keeps doing that. He's simply never been punished for that.
Alves is a very unsavory man, I can't stand his cheating.

I like Xavi though. And Ronaldo, even though he also dives.
 

Yamen

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2007
11,809
Hoori, the difference is, Real did nothing at all against Barca in this game, whilst with Inter and Chelsea they defended but still played the ball.
I don't recall Inter nor Chelsea sitting behind and just waiting. Anyhow, I dont to keep feeding my point cause I think its clear.
 

Yamen

Senior Member
Apr 20, 2007
11,809
He'd take a 0-0 at home simply because it means they haven't conceded an away goal. Then he'd do the same in Barcelona and try to nick an away goal where he could kill the game. Or he'd drag it through to extra time and take penalties, because he knows he has a good penalty stopper, it doesn't matter to him.
yes, but if he wanted that, Adebayor shouoldnt' have went in. Instead, another defender possibly.
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
54,070
Hoori, the difference is, Real did nothing at all against Barca in this game, whilst with Inter and Chelsea they defended but still played the ball.
I don't recall Inter nor Chelsea sitting behind and just waiting. Anyhow, I dont to keep feeding my point cause I think its clear.
Barca played anti-football as much as Real did. They played in order not to give Real a chance to counter (until 60th minute and the red card). Endless passing from Valdes to 40 meters from Real's goal and then back. Both teams are guilty for not allowing the other team to play football. But just because the useless possession was Barca's, Real are the anti-footballers in the eyes of some viewers.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
75,228
yes, but if he wanted that, Adebayor shouoldnt' have went in. Instead, another defender possibly.
It depends, Adebayor is a big striker who helps the team defend from the front, if you have too many defenders and play too deep the pressure becomes too much eventually.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)