UEFA Champions League Thread

[Martyn]

You have proof of your FACT?

The idea of football is to win the game. To win the game you need to score more goals than the opposition. The team that scores the most goals is the winner, therefore the better team surely. It doesn't matter how classy your football is if you cannot score goals.

Yer I understand where you are coming from mate...it is similar to Arsenal's ability to dominate games but just not put the ball in the back of the net, but that is emphasised by the fact they always look for the more attractive pass, rather than the one that gives you more chance of scoring.

Regardless though, the better team did lose. Milan are not a better team because they scored a fluke first goal.

english league is bellow spanish and italian at the moment. tards in outher leagues?

you're cheering for a club that's coached by a spanish dude and owned by americans!!!!!

hahahahahahahaha....

Three of the four teams in the semi finals of the European Cup where English...read into that what you will. Most of the players in other leagues do act like a bunch of fairy's.

What does that have to do with Rafa or G & H :unsure:?

[ctebah]

i love arguing with british about soccer, fluke goals, bad refs, better teams, you guys are misserable.

liverpool will never, never be the team milan is.

[.kvn]

typical british, always blame the ref.

I'm not british.

Oh, and also, I don't particularly like football and did applaud both teams, but as for your comment about arguing about football with the british I would love to have an in depth and topical discussion about canadian sports but...ah....emm...I can't think of one.

Oh wait, that's right...lacrosse or something ;)

[dh5]

Liverpool fans look no further than here

:laugh:

[Martyn]

i love arguing with british about soccer, fluke goals, bad refs, better teams, you guys are misserable.

Football :rolleyes:

[metallithrax]

Liverpool fans look no further than here

:laugh:

:laugh:

Q1. How stupid do you think they must feel?

A1. About as stupid as the bidders when they see the small print.

[Rappy Veteran]

^^

:laugh:

[dh5]

heh i did not notice that at first! sorry for the Anti-Liverpool jibes

:devil:

[Martyn]

Liverpool fans look no further than here

:laugh:

They have to prefer the bus before hand no matter what the result is, otherwise there would be no chance of it being finished for the parade the next day.

heh i did not notice that at first! sorry for the Anti-Liverpool jibes

:devil:

Liverpool has one of the lowest crime rates in Britain :p.

[ctebah]

im not gonna argue anything but the fact that liverpool played much much better in the first half than milan and they did not score. milan gave them the ball several times and gerard choked in front of dida.

unacceptable.

[Martyn]

im not gonna argue anything but the fact that liverpool played much much better in the first half than milan and they did not score. milan gave them the ball several times and gerard choked in front of dida.

unacceptable.

Now that I almost completely agree with :)! About Gerrard's shot though...he would of struggled to have done any better than he did because it was a very difficult angle to shoot from with your right foot.

[Dorza]

You have proof of your FACT?

The idea of football is to win the game. To win the game you need to score more goals than the opposition. The team that scores the most goals is the winner, therefore the better team surely. It doesn't matter how classy your football is if you cannot score goals.

Its not "my fact" as you so eloquently put it, its the general concensous within football. It is a fact that football isn't as clear cut as black and white and that the better team doesn't always win.

If you do want proof of "my fact" you only have to listen to the mangers (particularly mourinho) and experts who have actually stated in the past that the best team did not win the match during a post match interview. Your completely wrong about the better team always winning even though I know what your trying to say, it doesn't hold in the real world where there are countless variables that can influence the outcome of the match for both sides.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Dorza

[ctebah]

I can't believe that you would use Mourihno as an example Dorza. He is a weak manager and was even weaker as a player. He never accomplished anything as a player. He has the backing of a rich russian so he can go out and buy the best of the best and he can't even utilize all the good players he has on his team.

Mourihno is one of the worst things to happen to professional football.

[metallithrax]

Its not "my fact" as you so eloquently put it, its the general concensous within football. It is a fact that football isn't as clear cut as black and white and that the better team doesn't always win.

If you do want proof of "my fact" you only have to listen to the mangers (particularly mourinho) and experts who have actually stated in the past that the best team did not win the match during a post match interview. Your completely wrong about the better team always winning even though I know what your trying to say, it doesn't hold in the real world where there are countless variables that can influence the outcome of the match for both sides.

A manager is always going to say their team is the better even when they lose. And Mourinho along with Fergie is the biggest ass-hat out there for doing this. And it doesn't matter how many other variables there are, the better team - either by skill or luck/fluke - will win, therefore on the day, thay are the better team.

[Martyn]

Here is the video I said I would post for those interested...

[Dorza]

A manager is always going to say their team is the better even when they lose. And Mourinho along with Fergie is the biggest ass-hat out there for doing this. And it doesn't matter how many other variables there are, the better team - either by skill or luck/fluke - will win, therefore on the day, thay are the better team.

No they don't, what are you talking about? I don't know what you have been watching but I always see managers conceding defeat.

Luck or fluke wins games yes but it doesn't make the team the better side. Some teams will have luck and deserve to have luck because of the way they play whereas other teams don't play for 90 minutes and get a lucky deflection a minute into injury time and don't in anyway deserve to win the match. That doesn't make them the better side. I can't believe you think it's as simple as that and that you can't fathom that out.

The best side doesn't always win. You can think what you like as far as I'm concerned but you are wrong.

[metallithrax]

No they don't, what are you talking about? I don't know what you have been watching but I always see managers conceding defeat.

You always see managers conceding defeat yet use Mourinho to back up your argument. :laugh:

You must watch different interviews to us.

[ctebah]

No they don't, what are you talking about? I don't know what you have been watching but I always see managers conceding defeat.

Luck or fluke wins games yes but it doesn't make the team the better side. Some teams will have luck and deserve to have luck because of the way they play whereas other teams don't play for 90 minutes and get a lucky deflection a minute into injury time and don't in anyway deserve to win the match. That doesn't make them the better side. I can't believe you think it's as simple as that and that you can't fathom that out.

The best side doesn't always win. You can think what you like as far as I'm concerned but you are wrong.

it makes no difference which team plays better, the one that wins, wins because they did something that other team couldn't.

when people look back on the uefa 2006/2007 you think they're going to say liverpool played better in first half?

NO

they're going to say milan won that champions league. no one cares about 2nd place or semi-finalists.

[Dorza]

it makes no difference which team plays better, the one that wins, wins because they did something that other team couldn't.

when people look back on the uefa 2006/2007 you think they're going to say liverpool played better in first half?

NO

they're going to say milan won that champions league. no one cares about 2nd place or semi-finalists.

In relation to your first eight words no it doesn't matter however the discussion that has been going on here is in regards to teams that win are always the best in the match they have just won. It just isn't the case.

In relation to "they did something that other team couldn't." to win, what if a liverpool player had backed passed to the keeper who missed the ball and it goes in the net and thats the only goal scored yet liverpool outplay milan in every regard and milan basically don't turn up. What did milan do there to win the game? Are they the better side even though they won? Of course not. As far as some people are concerned they would be. Frankly it has flawed logic behind it and makes no sense.

Just because they won the EC and are registered winners and will be remembered for it doesn't mean they were better than liverpool on the night. Why can't people understand that. It's not a complex issue to get a grasp of. Overall they were not better on the night as has been mentioned umpteen times already.

A manager is always going to say their team is the better even when they lose. And Mourinho along with Fergie is the biggest ass-hat out there for doing this. And it doesn't matter how many other variables there are, the better team - either by skill or luck/fluke - will win, therefore on the day, thay are the better team.

You always see managers conceding defeat yet use Mourinho to back up your argument. :laugh:

You must watch different interviews to us.

MOTD, FB Focus, Sky - What programs do you watch where every manager says their team is the best? It works both ways to be perfectly honest - Your argument on that front is null and void.

Also where did I link Mourinho in with always conceding defeat? I don't see where you got that link from. Read my posts slowly enough and properly and you will find I didn't and I used him purely for example purposes in previous posts since you wanted me to provide evidence of what I said as being a fact. He was the one that came to mind to me first, sorry about that. I didn't say he was correct in what he says or that he is wrong. It was purely just evidence of "my fact" being said by people who are involved with football on a day-to-day basis. As you gracefully requested in a post above.

You have also conveniently neglected to acknowledge that I said "experts" and manager(S); plural mean more than and have focused exclusively on Mourinho.

The fact that you have swiftly moved the focus of the argument discussion to something else which is totally irrelevant to the discussion we have been having has indicated to me that you have been squashed and don't have a leg to stand on. Like I said think what you like. Place sarcastic use of laughing smiley to try and make metallithrax seem small and clueless here: :laugh: .

If you can't grasp what it is that I am trying to say then thats your problem. Before you try to counter that, I do understand what your saying, really I do but like I said it doesn't always hold true.

End of story as far as a I'm concerned.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Dorza

[profets]

these debates about being the "better team" will go on forever. its as simple as looking back at 2005. milan played incredible and were terring liverpool apart in the first half. liverpool came back strong for a small portion of the 2nd half, but still milan was dominant. liverpool won on PKs. does that mean they were the "better team"?

soccer is a game where the team with most goals wins. trying to judge which is the better team is very difficult. do you look at goals? opportunities? players? ball possession? i think shots on net were 4-3 for liverpool, and posession was 53-47 for milan. liverpool came out very strong in the first half and had some chances, but milan was mostly holding off. toward the end of the game, it seemed like liverpool was losing too much energy from the amount of running in the first half.

its not that milan was getting killed. they played decently.

why does inzaghi's first goal have to be a fluke? pirlo took a free kick and put it into a dangerous area in the box. obviously inzaghi wasnt expecting to score like that, but milan were in an offensive position to score.

i could probably call kuyt's goal a fluke then at the end of the game. off of a corner the ball hit between a few different players and kuyt was "lucky" to find himself unmarked right infront of the net.

[ctebah]

2005 was horrible. milan did play better for the most part of the game back then, but liverpool played better when it actually mattered and staged a comeback of huge proportions. and then came penalty kicks and they won. i can't deny that, i was crushed but i was also mad at my team for letting a 3-0 lead dissapear.

wednesday was different. liverpool started strong and finished strong, they overplayed milan but it didn't matter. milan scored when they wanted to, inzaghi even said that the whole play was setup so that the ball bounced off him. scoring in 45th is huge, it puts a lot of pressure on the other team. the 2nd goal was beautiful was well.

liverpool fans should be angry at their team for wasting the chances that they had. milan is my #1 team and the entire first half i was hoping for only one goal against them because i just couldn't see them scoring.

what gerrard missed was a hard shot, for me or you guys, but not for him. that was a huge chance and he gets paid millions to convert those kinds of chances.

[rajputwarrior]

eh, i do think liverpool deserved but what ****ed me off was the reffing. five minutes for rafa to make a sub and wow hand of god 2, how did the linesman or the ref miss inzaghis hand ball?

[ctebah]

what hand ball?

[Martyn]

these debates about being the "better team" will go on forever. its as simple as looking back at 2005. milan played incredible and were terring liverpool apart in the first half. liverpool came back strong for a small portion of the 2nd half, but still milan was dominant. liverpool won on PKs. does that mean they were the "better team"?

soccer is a game where the team with most goals wins. trying to judge which is the better team is very difficult. do you look at goals? opportunities? players? ball possession? i think shots on net were 4-3 for liverpool, and posession was 53-47 for milan. liverpool came out very strong in the first half and had some chances, but milan was mostly holding off. toward the end of the game, it seemed like liverpool was losing too much energy from the amount of running in the first half.

its not that milan was getting killed. they played decently.

why does inzaghi's first goal have to be a fluke? pirlo took a free kick and put it into a dangerous area in the box. obviously inzaghi wasnt expecting to score like that, but milan were in an offensive position to score.

i could probably call kuyt's goal a fluke then at the end of the game. off of a corner the ball hit between a few different players and kuyt was "lucky" to find himself unmarked right infront of the net.

The debate can go on forever. Who was the better team? Who deserved to win? Milan totally "out classed" Liverpool in 2005, but you can argue Liverpool had the better team spirit, and deserved to win because of the way we fought back from 3-0 down, which does not happen very often in a final (if ever).

Congratulations though!

what hand ball?

I take it he is talking about Inzaghi's first goal, which looked like it came off his arm/elbow at the time. Although I have not really watched the goal again because it is quite painful, so I cant be sure. Not many people have pointed it out anyway so it must not of been a handball.

[Crazysah]

Sorry Martyn, Just wasn't your day.