To all bigsoccer subscribers, Yes, we like this idea. From now on everyone, please submit your posts directly to Matt Clark to make sure he agrees with them before posting. Also, this forum will no longer be called bigsoccer as we are mulling over a change to mattclarkssoccer.com or simply bigjackass.com. Thank you all for adhering to these new rules. Sincerely, The Management
See? See what I mean? It's enough to bring tears to yer eyes. Doesn't anyone have any standards anymore. Oh - and I already tried the idea of renaming the whole place after me and annoiting me forum God, but Huss said no.
3-1 to Liverpool in both legs. Anyone who considers that to be boring must be a die-hard fan of basketball or Aussie rules.
It is continually irritating to me that a lot of people only consider a winning side to be good if they play exciting and dazzling Brazillian-style football. Flair is fun to watch, true, but utterly pointless if it gets you nowhere. Liverpool played to their strengths and knocked out the champions of Italy and England on their way to winning the Champion's League. Who cares if the football wasn't pretty? The tactics were flawless, the team played with heart and determination, and deserved to win that trophy. They are not worse than any other team to win it.
You know, Barcelona played great football - they lost. Why? Because they failed to adjust their game. For my money, the single best game of this years tourney was the Chelsea v Barcelona second leg btw. Now, whilst I'm all for attacking football, there's this thing called tactics that, at some point in time, during the course of a winning campaign, simply must come to the fore. Those that can't differentiate between league and European tactics are often the first to denounce Champions league play as 'dull'...'boring'...'lacking flair'...etc etc etc....yet, when they lose, they're called tactically naive. European football is not, never was and shall never be, about playing football with reckless abandon. In fact, the vast majority of European games are anything but entertaining, with the exception of some notable clashes. It's these clashes, when they come to the fore, and especially in this day and age of global broadcasting, that brings out all these silly responses to games that are not considered 'appealing' to the masses, and just enforces my opinion that all of the people on here that are continually clamoring for more Champions league football on American telly, may well live to rue the saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it"
yes, the final was dramatic but it definitely wasn't a great game. looked really one sided if you ask most neutrals. only liverpool fans will claim its the greatest european game of all time. the chelsea vs barca was really entertaining so was barca vs milan game.
have you seen a more one-sided match that ended in a tie than the holland-italy SF at euro2000? that was still a superb game in itself and if you wanna talk about one-sidedness, do you recall chelsea doing any attacking whatsoever for more than 5 mins together over the 180 minutes they played vs barcelona? chelsea got 3 goals in 20 mins - all on counters... then they got one off a set piece late in the game liverpool got 3 goals in 5 mins but they all came during a period of sustained presure from liverpool after the half... liverpool contributed more to the final in an attacking sense than chelsea did in 180 mins of the rd of 16 match!
it was a dramatic game, it wasn't superb. well....atleast they tried to play football. 5 minutes of sustained pressure in a 120 minuted game, so yeah...it definitely wasn't one sided...
as a liverpool fan I really don't care what anyone else thinks ,it gave us a record number 5 european trophies and puts us number 3 behind real madrid and AC milan in the all time chart . it was the first and one of the best comebacks ever seen even funnier that everyone said it would be boring and to top it off it was all done in raffas; first season and we can only get better ,laugh ? I almost cried.
wait were liverpool better than milan in the final? no they weren't. well maybe for about 5 minutes.. the best team lost in the final and that's how football is sometimes.
The best team at the end of the day is the one who lifts the trophy. All the flair and attacking is for nought if you can't do that.
I can't agree with you there. It doesn't matter how pretty the football is, if the other team holds out and then nicks a goal, their tactics are clearly better, as they're the team that wins. It is after all, the Italians, who perfected the 'defensive victory', yet no one criticises them for it when they win.
milan were the better side in the first half scoring in the first minute does help though with confidence ,liverpool were the better side in the second half ,milan were the better side in xtra time and liverpool were better at the penalties. anyone saying liverpool are the worst side are just bitter and jealous probably.we played a good side and won them simple as that ,A game ain't over till its over and that the beauty of football . the possession stats bear out that over the course of the game it was more even than people gave liverpool credit for ,practically 50- 50 the first half just distorted in most peoples eyes in favour of milan obviously .Although they did have the clearer chances they didn't take them .
milan dominated the first half. milan dominated 30 minutes of the second half. milan dominated extra time. so yeah, i think you're about right...it was an even game. so even infact liverpool played 10 men behind the ball and let milan create all those chances! Liverpool definitely deserved to win that game.
exactly! Thats why Greece deserved to win Euro 2004 also and the same goes for all "boring" and "defensive" games for Germany as well.
It started to look one sided once Liverpool got their third goal. In the stands, I mean. Once the Liverpool fans started to sing "You Never Walk Alone", I questioned the pride of the AC Milan fans. The singing kept on going on and on. I suppose it only would have stopped if AC Milan were playing Inter or Juve.
I wouldn't even say that they were the weaker side once the second half was well and truly under way. As a team, they defended brilliantly, and Milan had no answer to that.