View Full Version : Liverpool's season was greater than Chelsea's.
sl7vk
26 May 2005, 10:33 AM
It's my humble opinion that what Liverpool did this year, was greater than what Chelsea accomplished. Yes Liverpool's domestic form was rubbish, but this European title far outshines Chelsea's EPL trophy. I wonder how J. Morninho is feeling right about now? I'm a neutral when it comes to the EPL, but 5, 10 and 15 years from now, people will be talking about this Liverpool championship, and not the EPL title.
texgator
26 May 2005, 10:35 AM
It's my humble opinion that what Liverpool did this year, was greater than what Chelsea accomplished.
That's a bunch of crap. Liverpool might have done more with less then Chelsea, but a league title is a bigger accomplishment due to the consistently good performance needed versus getting up for a series of knockoff matches.
sl7vk
26 May 2005, 11:06 AM
That's a bunch of crap. Liverpool might have done more with less then Chelsea, but a league title is a bigger accomplishment due to the consistently good performance needed versus getting up for a series of knockoff matches.
Beating the best teams accross Europe, far outweighs beating the hell out of the like of WBA, and Norwich City.
XaviandXabi
27 May 2005, 02:59 PM
agreed, people will remember Liverpools campaign in CL then Chelseas run at the Prem simply because this CL win for Liverpool is just increadible, they knocked out the champions of Italy, England, and Greece(lol, Olympiakos(sp)) and they came back from behind 3 goals, against an italian team, remember italian teams are notorious for being great at killing games off, Chelsea did however break many records but if you spend 300 million pounds on transfers then that shouldnt surprise you much.
Edit: i think chelsea will be remembered for spending 300 mil then breaking the records they did
billyireland
28 May 2005, 03:06 PM
Beating the best teams accross Europe, far outweighs beating the hell out of the like of WBA, and Norwich City.
What about Chelsea's beating Man United three times, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and indeed Liverpool? Liverpool won the Champion's League against all odds, but Chelsea broke records for the most points in a season, least goals conceeded in a season, only lost 1 match, won the Carling Cup (eh, it's still a trophy) and got to the semi-finals of the Champion's League. Liverpool finished 5th with many pitiful losses to small teams and probably won't even be in the Champion's League next season - sure they won the Champion's League, but that doesn't outweight Chelsea's achievements.
sl7vk
28 May 2005, 03:12 PM
What about Chelsea's beating Man United three times, Barcelona, Bayern Munich and indeed Liverpool? Liverpool won the Champion's League against all odds, but Chelsea broke records for the most points in a season, least goals conceeded in a season, only lost 1 match, won the Carling Cup (eh, it's still a trophy) and got to the semi-finals of the Champion's League. Liverpool finished 5th with many pitiful losses to small teams and probably won't even be in the Champion's League next season - sure they won the Champion's League, but that doesn't outweight Chelsea's achievements.
Well, Barca, and Bayern were victories in route to an unsuccessful European campagn. Liverpool looked aweful in domestic play, nobody is arguing the contrary.... But beating Juve, Chelsea and AC Milan was incredible. I'm by no mean a Liverpool fan, but at the end of the day, they will be remembered (possibly the greatest C1 final in history) and not Chelski.
billyireland
28 May 2005, 03:14 PM
Well, Barca, and Bayern were victories in route to an unsuccessful European campagn. Liverpool looked aweful in domestic play, nobody is arguing the contrary.... But beating Juve, Chelsea and AC Milan was incredible. I'm by no mean a Liverpool fan, but at the end of the day, they will be remembered (possibly the greatest C1 final in history) and not Chelski.
They will be remembered, no doubt about that. But it's not as if the team to hold the vast majority of EPL records for one season alone are not going to be remembered.
JoshDB
30 May 2005, 07:44 PM
The only thing I'll remember Liverpool by is conceding 3 goals, taking advantage of an AC Milan side who were quite obviously taking it easy, and being loved by UEFA.
Forza Moskva
30 May 2005, 10:00 PM
sl7vk is delusional
quentinc
30 May 2005, 10:07 PM
The only thing I'll remember Liverpool by is conceding 3 goals, taking advantage of an AC Milan side who were quite obviously taking it easy, and being loved by UEFA.
Yeah, you'll probably forget the fact that they were four minutes away from finishing third in the group stages, played brilliant football against Juve and Chelsea, and made one of the most improbable comebacks in European Cup history.
:rolleyes:
Is it possible for you to give credit to Liverpool, or are you delusional?
sl7vk has a point, but I think the accomplishments are equally impressive.
sl7vk
30 May 2005, 10:27 PM
sl7vk is delusional
Not totally....
I'm not denying what Chelsea did was great, but when you are a major footballing powerhouse, you've got to look at the domestic crown as being second prize. I remember Luxumbergo saying that Real were going to try to salvage their season by winning the primera league.... Real, Barca, Bayern, Man U, Juve, etc... would take a European title over any domestic title. Chelsea's might mean more because it was their first in half a century, but I don't think that changes the premis.
JoshDB
30 May 2005, 11:35 PM
Its actually a point of view sort of thing. I've heard it said either way.
Dist, you wouldn't think of it as improbable once you saw the PSV Milan second leg. Same thing, only changed by aggregate away goals. Milan are either cocky or don't like humiliating their opposition. Either way, it caused their loss.
sarabella
31 May 2005, 09:04 AM
Thanks for the laugh. This thread is ridiculous.
quentinc
31 May 2005, 09:10 AM
Dist, you wouldn't think of it as improbable once you saw the PSV Milan second leg. Same thing, only changed by aggregate away goals.
All that Milan had to do was score an away goal, which they did (albeit pretty late). Try to tell me how overcoming a 3-0 deficit at half-time to actually TIE the game (and don't tell me Milan were looking "lazy"), is anything other than "improbable." Seriously, you need to learn to give credit where credit is due, like this guy (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=5083884&postcount=121), who is a Chelsea fan, BTW.
JoshDB
31 May 2005, 09:46 AM
Milan were tied 3-3 at the end of the second leg, familiar scoreline? (Ignoring the Away Goal.)
I'm not saying what Liverpool accomplished wasn't great, hell, they'd better win if they beat Chelsea. I'm just saying it wasn't improbable, considering that PSV had done it, and would've probably gone on to win a PK shootout had Milan not scored the away goal.
quentinc
31 May 2005, 10:54 AM
Milan were tied 3-3 at the end of the second leg, familiar scoreline? (Ignoring the Away Goal.)
I'm not saying what Liverpool accomplished wasn't great, hell, they'd better win if they beat Chelsea. I'm just saying it wasn't improbable, considering that PSV had done it, and would've probably gone on to win a PK shootout had Milan not scored the away goal.
They did it over the course of 180 minutes, not 90. Also, what adjective would you use to describe the comeback, if it wasn't "improbable?"
sarabella
31 May 2005, 10:56 AM
They did it over the course of 180 minutes, not 90. Also, what adjective would you use to describe the comeback, if it wasn't "improbable?"
Using that argument, do you think you could have beaten Milan over 180 minutes? A useless argument, yes, but they're a MUCH better team than you and I believe 180 minutes would have been too much for you.
quentinc
31 May 2005, 11:07 AM
Using that argument, do you think you could have beaten Milan over 180 minutes? A useless argument, yes, but they're a MUCH better team than you and I believe 180 minutes would have been too much for you.
We beat Juve (who are higher in Serie A), and Chelsea over 180, and we drew with Milan over 120. So yes, I do.
Clan
31 May 2005, 11:08 AM
but when you are a major footballing powerhouse, you've got to look at the domestic crown as being second prize.
Rubbish!
If you truly believe that, you don't a bloody clue what it's like to support from the terraces.
sl7vk
31 May 2005, 11:08 AM
Using that argument, do you think you could have beaten Milan over 180 minutes? A useless argument, yes, but they're a MUCH better team than you and I believe 180 minutes would have been too much for you.
European Finals are disputed over 90 minutes. Pool were dead in the first 45'. Milan were inept in letting them back into the tie in the second half, but Pool deserves credit for that. It's rare to see a great European team like Milan collapse, and credit has to be given to Liverpool for that.