Chelsea style or Barca style ??
---------In Soccer, A school of Thought favour free flowing soccer, where there is fantastic display of skills and the Fans are entertained, as in the word entertainment is what qualifies football as a game, games are meant to be enjoyed by the Spectators, anything Outside this, that is employing what analysts call Negative tactics, ugly Tackles, just to win Games without actually playing is considered as anti-football.
The other school of thoughts says Soccer is all about winning , all about putting the ball at the back of the Net and it does not matter how it is done, a fantastic acrobatic Adebayo champions League(2009) goal that left the Fans like WOW!! or a goal mouth scramble involving some heavy pushing.
The first Leg Of the Chelsea- Barcelona (2009) champions league Game At camp nou has again raised the issue Which is stronger THE SHIELD OR THE SWORD?? RUGGED DEFENCE committing seven men to the defence or Free flowing soccer??
Barcelona is Known for their flair for fine and robust attacking soccer that has seen them score 100 goals this season most of those goals came in style giving the spectators their tickets' worth BARCELONA are a skillful side, they are smart and can turn the pace of the game up or down, and has proved that it is possible to play good soccer and still win a league title.
On the other hand chelsea are very powerful physically, which makes it difficult for most decent attack to penetrate without being roughly muscled off the ball, but a player like messi sure knows how to handle such a defence, chelsea dont play they just win (says xavi) and not a few sport analysts share this opinion- the blues are good at winning games, but they dont make good viewing,the Blues have been able to record some impressive results so far but they do not play in the same crowd pleasing way as the Blaugrana side do,chelsea employ an effective style of playing but not at all attractive,Nou camp did not be changing tactics just to ensure that they neutralise the non- pleasing playing stamford bridge side in the first leg though they breached the chelsea defence but could not make the best of it, and Chelsea could have score an undeserved goal against the run of play.
---------In Soccer, A school of Thought favour free flowing soccer, where there is fantastic display of skills and the Fans are entertained, as in the word entertainment is what qualifies football as a game, games are meant to be enjoyed by the Spectators, anything Outside this, that is employing what analysts call Negative tactics, ugly Tackles, just to win Games without actually playing is considered as anti-football.
The other school of thoughts says Soccer is all about winning , all about putting the ball at the back of the Net and it does not matter how it is done, a fantastic acrobatic Adebayo champions League(2009) goal that left the Fans like WOW!! or a goal mouth scramble involving some heavy pushing.
The first Leg Of the Chelsea- Barcelona (2009) champions league Game At camp nou has again raised the issue Which is stronger THE SHIELD OR THE SWORD?? RUGGED DEFENCE committing seven men to the defence or Free flowing soccer??
Barcelona is Known for their flair for fine and robust attacking soccer that has seen them score 100 goals this season most of those goals came in style giving the spectators their tickets' worth BARCELONA are a skillful side, they are smart and can turn the pace of the game up or down, and has proved that it is possible to play good soccer and still win a league title.
On the other hand chelsea are very powerful physically, which makes it difficult for most decent attack to penetrate without being roughly muscled off the ball, but a player like messi sure knows how to handle such a defence, chelsea dont play they just win (says xavi) and not a few sport analysts share this opinion- the blues are good at winning games, but they dont make good viewing,the Blues have been able to record some impressive results so far but they do not play in the same crowd pleasing way as the Blaugrana side do,chelsea employ an effective style of playing but not at all attractive,Nou camp did not be changing tactics just to ensure that they neutralise the non- pleasing playing stamford bridge side in the first leg though they breached the chelsea defence but could not make the best of it, and Chelsea could have score an undeserved goal against the run of play.
The first leg of the Champions League semi-final lived up to expectations. Both Barça and Chelsea tried their best to play the match on their own terms but in the end it was the Premier League side that got the goalless draw they wanted.Faithful to their attacking style of football, Barça had to contend with a highly defensive line-up of four defenders and five midfielders. The result was an overwhelming 67% of possession for Barça, with 515 completed passes as against 182 for Chelsea. 22 shots to 3 Barça had 22 shots on Cech’s goal. An individual effort from Eto’o (min 69), a header from Bojan (min 90) and a left foot shot from Hleb (min 92) came closest to beating the Chelsea keeper. Chelsea had just three shots throughout the match, the most dangerous from Drogba just before the break which was frustrated by an excellent double save from Valdés. Fouls and cards Barça players committed just seven fouls during the match, some thirteen fewer than the visitors. However, both teams received two yellow cards, a fact that didn’t go down too well with manager Pep Guardiola and his players.
This was close to the tactics employed by Greece national team some years ago to Win the European title, but it was not to be a style to stand the test of time like the samba style of Brazil that has won the Brazilian many titles
Unfavourable precedents Finally, Chelsea got what they came for and took a 0-0 draw away from the Camp Nou, the first time Barça has failed to score at home for over a year. The last time was also in the Champions League last season against Manchester United, who played a similarly defensive game to force a 0-0 draw. There have been two goalless draws for Barça in the first leg of a European competition. The other occasion was against Liverpool in the UEFA Cup in the 2000-2001 season. On both occasions, Barça were subsequently beaten 1-0 at Old Trafford and Anfield respectively and denied a place in the final.
As The second leg of this great encounter plays its self out, will the Chelsea tactics which many has even described as CATENACCIO or even ANTI-FOOTBALL prevail and give them the victory over a Barcelona side that plays the crowd pleasing soccer?? Is the SHIELD MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD?? Time will tell!!
As The second leg of this great encounter plays its self out, will the Chelsea tactics which many has even described as CATENACCIO or even ANTI-FOOTBALL prevail and give them the victory over a Barcelona side that plays the crowd pleasing soccer?? Is the SHIELD MIGHTIER THAN THE SWORD?? Time will tell!!
No comments:
Post a Comment