What has happened to the English teams in the CL?

I regard both teams as being high ranked in Europe. You regard both teams as being 'weak' or 'not good' for some unknown reason . But then again ,nothing in this forum has any logic behind it .

Like this thread is still going strong when the cup is already back in England .

 

Are people saying Chelsea played well? As far as I can tell, most people are suggesting that they rode their luck and are one of the weakest champions in memory.

As far as RDM's tactics, I think his hands were pretty much tied. Two centrebacks (who haven't really played together) rushed back from hamstring injuries, no real defensive options off the bench, Kalou and Bertrand as the most sensible choice for wide players. Playing Bayern at home. This was always going to be a smash and grab.

 

Bayern bottled it!! simple as that .
Chelsea holding the cup is reality!!

Heynckes made a critical tactical blunder which allowed Chelsea to equalise.
Took Muller off (best performer for Bayern)
moved tymochuk to midfield (when he had marked drogba out of the game)
moved Van Buyten into defence to take over tymochuks role..

and Bang ,chelsea score from a corner moments later because of Heynckes tactical move.

 

Because the FA cup and the Champions League became the priorities (which is understandable for a manager who has no guarantee of being back next season).

 

If Bayern can eliminate Real Madrid they arent a poor team. If Chelsea can get past Valencia ,Napoli ,Benfica ,Barcelona and Bayern ... they arent a poor team.

They are high ranking teams ,whichever way you look at it..
most definitely not weak ,like you claim.

 

I really wonder if half of the people on this board are under 12. One of the fundamental points about football is that you have to have a good defence and build on that in attack to be a great team. In the past few seasons with Barcelona coming to dominance it seems the plastics on this forum who have probably watched football for about 5 years think that anyone who doesn't play this way is negative.

What I find funny is that the same people who use the 'bunker' argument have had their teams do it. Germany did it against Spain in the World Cup, as did Holland - yet people still polish their b*ners over these teams.

It's clear that Chelsea with the relatively slow and ageing squad that we have would get torn apart if we tried to play all out attacking football, so instead RDM has found a system that suits all of our players perfectly - defending with discipline and counter attacking. Football is about playing to your strengths, and Chelsea did that.

 

I remember watching that game (I wanted Germany to win, because I thought the final would have been a much better game), and Germany were terrible. I thought they defend and hit on the break, and after how lethal they were against England and Argentina with their counters, thought they would win....but they seemed toothless.

As for Chelsea, I think they had in them to have played a slightly more expansive threatening game against Bayern (not against Barca though), but they believed their best chance against a very good possession side, at their home ground, with dangerous players on the flanks...was to keep it tight for as long as possible. They probably ended getting pushed back more than they expected, but I think something has to be pointed out regarding the 'Chelsea are lucky as they only had so many shots and\or if only Messi or Robben would have scored the penalty'....Every time they went behind in the last 2 ties, they went up the other end and scored almost immediately. Regardless of whether those penalties\or other chances would have gone in or not, Chelsea proved they had enough to still pull themselves back. With an ageing squad, suspensions, and the tough season they've had, I think for this point in time for them, the defensive tactic was probably their best chance, and so it proved.

 

Mata was always going to struggle. He was anonymous against Barca as well, simply because Chelsea don't yet have the personnel for him to play off of. Not against the best sides, anyways. He's not Sneijder, his game is more 'Spanish' than that, but when your options for keeping possession or a clever piece of passing are Bertrand and Kalou, you're going to have a frustrating night.

 

Which teams in Europe are "good" then??

 

LOL mate ,this forum is about par with World rivalries for football knowledge.

 

What has happened to the English teams in the CL?
Nothing they just won the trophy !!!
Congrats Chelsea !!!
Always thought it was theirs for the taking.
This also proves that the BL is far in distant 4th place behind the EPL, Serie A & La Liga, no matter how high up in UEFA's ranking they go. It is afterall trophies that count & not runners up !!

 

no one can argue that this chelsea side presented a tactical dillemma for two sides that have spent an awful lot of money on players that are supposed to overcome difficulties in big matches. these sides failed to come up with an answer to this chelsea problem. hence, chelsea are the champions. if they are so weak you will be able to easily explain to me how come it is that they are now champions of one of the most sought after and keenly contested elite prizes that humans have ever devised.

 

The execution of the problem's solution was what eluded both teams after they had solved the problem from a tactical point. However, if they only solved the problem once from a tactical point and lacked the ability to execute it fully, is it really the right solution? or do they need to solve it new ways?

 

Still waiting for the list of "good teams" in European football.