lookwhaticando Posted 7 March 2007 Posted 7 March 2007 Who won 1-0, yes Liverpool had more chances but many were on the counter attack in the 2nd half. I know none of you will come round to my way of thinking and I wouldn't want you to. I just felt Barce were crisper, they passed the ball around the defence and wore the Pool out at times, perhaps if they got the goal on the hour rather than 75 minutes we would be reviewing a very different outcome. Furthermore, if Valdes had just caught the ball normally in the 1st leg the Pool would be staring down the barrel at defeat. My opinion may conflict the stats and the opinions of more esteemed FTer's, but I just believe in my theories. Too many ifs in there for my liking. Perhaps if Valdes had stopped the ball then it might have been different... Then again, without the benefit of the two away goals (and win) Liverpool would perhaps have done a lot more to attack than they supposedly did? Perhaps if Liverpool hadn't hit the post/bar twice in the first half, the game would have been buried anyway. Perhaps then Liverpool would have gone all out for a hammering of their Spanish opponents. We don't know, it's all hypothetical. As I said... a few too many ifs, really. Fact of the matter is, the supposedly greatest attack in all of Europe was limited to just two goals over two legs, and that just wasn't enough. As weak as Liverpool's attack has been at times, it's equalled one of the best in the business - and that's what it all comes down to. If Barcelona were truly as good on the night as they looked on paper, they'd be through because their fire-power would have seen them safe. Somewhere along the line it went wrong for Barca - they lost at home and failed to make amends away. Simple truth is that over two legs they were outdone and didn't deserve to progress as a result. Is that down to a misfiring attack or a shambling defence? Both, I'd say. They weren't good enough, they're out. Fin.
davieG Posted 7 March 2007 Posted 7 March 2007 Who won 1-0, yes Liverpool had more chances but many were on the counter attack in the 2nd half. I know none of you will come round to my way of thinking and I wouldn't want you to. I just felt Barce were crisper, they passed the ball around the defence and wore the Pool out at times, perhaps if they got the goal on the hour rather than 75 minutes we would be reviewing a very different outcome. Furthermore, if Valdes had just caught the ball normally in the 1st leg the Pool would be staring down the barrel at defeat. My opinion may conflict the stats and the opinions of more esteemed FTer's, but I just believe in my theories. As I said you may be justified in you views I just think you picked the wrong match to put forward to justify it. If Barca were crisper I didn't see it, sure Liverpool closed them down, do you think Arsenal or Man U wouldn't have done so, it's how you play when you haven't got the ball. As for Barca they may have passed the ball around but you win games by passing it forwards not sideways and backwards, the truth is they weren't good enough on the night to do so. Football is full of 'if', what if Liverpool's 2 shots against the woodwork had gone in they would have been out of sight - game over, so ifs provide no cogent argument.
Geo V Posted 7 March 2007 Posted 7 March 2007 Who won 1-0, yes Liverpool had more chances but many were on the counter attack in the 2nd half. I know none of you will come round to my way of thinking and I wouldn't want you to. I just felt Barce were crisper, they passed the ball around the defence and wore the Pool out at times, perhaps if they got the goal on the hour rather than 75 minutes we would be reviewing a very different outcome. Furthermore, if Valdes had just caught the ball normally in the 1st leg the Pool would be staring down the barrel at defeat. My opinion may conflict the stats and the opinions of more esteemed FTer's, but I just believe in my theories. The problem with the way that some English sides play in Europe, especially at home, is so fast that they seem to give the ball away too often. Yesterday in the second half they gave the ball away and they came up against players who are quality on the ball. With that said, Liverpool beat Barca away and had enough clear-cut chances in the first half to bury them. On another day they would be 3 or 4 up at half-time. As for Puyol, people rate him but I never have. He lacks real pace and is no more than a decent La Liga centre=half. Sometimes you get the feeling that clubs are too scared of dropping players who are almost cult heroes like Puyol when there are far better central defenders in world footy for Barca to go out and purchase. Infact, I would say there are at least 6 better central defenders playing in Spain never mind the world.
Daggers Posted 8 March 2007 Posted 8 March 2007 Liverpool lack the attacking guile I like to watch, Arsenal and Manchester United posess it Not last night they bloody didn't!
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 March 2007 Posted 8 March 2007 The problem with the way that some English sides play in Europe, especially at home, is so fast that they seem to give the ball away too often. Yesterday in the second half they gave the ball away and they came up against players who are quality on the ball. With that said, Liverpool beat Barca away and had enough clear-cut chances in the first half to bury them. On another day they would be 3 or 4 up at half-time. As for Puyol, people rate him but I never have. He lacks real pace and is no more than a decent La Liga centre=half. Sometimes you get the feeling that clubs are too scared of dropping players who are almost cult heroes like Puyol when there are far better central defenders in world footy for Barca to go out and purchase. Infact, I would say there are at least 6 better central defenders playing in Spain never mind the world. Go on then name em
The Reverend Posted 8 March 2007 Posted 8 March 2007 The problem with the way that some English sides play in Europe, especially at home, is so fast that they seem to give the ball away too often. Yesterday in the second half they gave the ball away and they came up against players who are quality on the ball. With that said, Liverpool beat Barca away and had enough clear-cut chances in the first half to bury them. On another day they would be 3 or 4 up at half-time. As for Puyol, people rate him but I never have. He lacks real pace and is no more than a decent La Liga centre=half. Sometimes you get the feeling that clubs are too scared of dropping players who are almost cult heroes like Puyol when there are far better central defenders in world footy for Barca to go out and purchase. Infact, I would say there are at least 6 better central defenders playing in Spain never mind the world. Some good points there. You have to say that if Barca had a much better defence theyd easily be the best team in the world- say if they got someone like Carragher. And yes, Puyols situation is almost like Raul Syndrome- that much of a cult hero that he cannot be dropped however crap he is (although Raul was good). But i agree with apexgeo- i would say the number of defenders that are better than Puyol in the world is well into double figures He is just overrated simple as and ive seen him enough times to answer someone else- i watch a lot of the Barca and R Madrid matches when theyre on Sky Sports- ive definitely seen enough to warrant a valid opinion
Spee-d Posted 8 March 2007 Posted 8 March 2007 Barcalona's problem has always been their defence. I don't know why they dont get a world class centre back its not like they cant attract world class players.
shen Posted 8 March 2007 Posted 8 March 2007 Barcalona's problem has always been their defence. I don't know why they dont get a world class centre back its not like they cant attract world class players. 5 goals conceded in 13 matches in last years edition of CL proves otherwise...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.