Wow, after watching Barca's performance against Utd methinks Chelsea would have won it all had it not been for those mistakes by the ref.
Allez Les Blues for next season 
Xerxes you should make me an honorary member 
I can just see Fabregas packing his bags and heading back to FC Barca to play for them 
i just love it......finally justice......
Thanks rq I should get the honor, it was my exact words wasnt it.
Funny, how Chelsea fans are using this match as a trampoline. We came up against Chelsea's supposedly "strong" midfield too in January and whipped them 3-0 and if you say things like "..Chelsea had an off day...it was one bad match...", we'd say the same so shut up!
ha ha ha.....lucky i'm not a Spurs fan but i really like you....
Hmmm...the more I think about it the more I think that the Chelsea-barca match @ the Bridge in the semis WAS the final...they defo matched up better against Barca than Utd did in the actual final...utd was so badly outplayed it wasn't even funny...Chelsea offered much stiffer resistance and frankly a better quality of football, befitting that of a team that thoroughly deserves a place in the final
Guys, would you classify the type of football Chelsea played against Barca in the first match @ the Nou Camp as catenaccio, much like the Italians play? It was certainly very effective against Barca, preventing them from scoring for the first time all season...which begs the question: WHY on earth did Hiddink not continue to play that strategy against barca at the bridge...didn't he know that going toe to toe with them would be suicide? You have to know your strengths...the threat of an away goal, ANY kind of tie, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3 would mean that barca went on to the final as per the away goals rule, so why didn't he tell his team to defend like crazy like they had in the first match, and try and prevent barca from scoring any goals whatsoever (by parking a bus in front of the goal and having 10 men defending @ all times?)...NO-ONE would have called those tactics negative if he'd gone on to win the whole thing!!
but chelsea did sit back at the bridge,they just ventured forward more often than in the first leg.i mean wasnt every chelsea player in a 20 yard radius of their own goal line for barcas goal?they did what they planned to do,and it almost worked.it was just 1 lapse in concentration followed by a magnificent goal by iniesta that cost them
And if Ballack hadn't kept calling the ref a schweinhund.
... and Hiddink critizises Fergie for the tactic he used @ final...
Well Hiddink didnt lose did he? He was right.
yeah if he turned out to be Fergie's successor,I would be very2 "happy"...
Of course Hiddink is right, but where's our Michael Essien? Horses for courses, baby!
I don't think chelsea would have beat United just because they shut out Barca doesn't mean they would beat united!
It means that exactly. Barca were 30 seconds away from losing to us and I cant even imagine what Hiddink would of done to United.
There is no almost pregnant, Xerxes.
so basing on what you just said X,middlesborough should have beaten us because they beat liverpool,and liverpool beat us......makes sense 
You must log in to post.
