Chelsea v. Barcelona Part Deux
I was going to let this settle for a bit, but I woke up again this morning with a sore jaw from grinding my teeth in my sleep. So maybe I need to get this out before it becomes another ulcer. Feel free to skip.
However this may sound, I am angry about the defeat but not bitter. There is no shame in losing to the darlings of the modern game, the saviours of football, the best attacking team in the world. How many other teams could lead Barcelona for nearly seventy minutes while down a man? The point is that we should not have had to do so. What should have been a brilliant battle was unnecessarily transformed into an unfair contest, and the fact that it remained a contest at all is a credit to Chelsea.
You know what bothers me about Barcelona? People always talk about the flair and brilliance of Ronaldinho, and maybe one or two others. If I was in the Barca squad, maybe a Motta or even a Valdes, I would be fairly tired of hearing about how my team is riding to fame and glory on Ronaldinho's divine coattails. Football is a team sport. Yes, it is wonderful when a player has a moment of individual genius that can light up a match. But that is not why I watch; if I wanted to see one man's skills I would follow golf or tennis. I watch because I enjoy seeing eleven different men fighting for each other and adapting to each other and working as one unit.
For the same reason I will always prefer to watch a team like Wigan rather than the illustrious Thierry Henry plus ten other blokes. Just because a team lacks a so-called flair player doesn't make it boring. Plenty of excitement and entertainment arises from the struggle, the spirit, the whole that becomes greater than the sum of its parts. I think a lot of people are forgetting that. Even worse, I think some players are too.
A lot was said about who had flair and superior players in the build-up to this match. On one side, at least. There was also a lot of talk about the state of Chelsea's pitch. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom and graciousness that emerged from the Nou Camp.
Former Barcelona president Joan Gaspart: "I don't find it normal and I don't think it is correct. The pitch is already in a bad condition and now they are watering it. I don't know if they have done it to make training more difficult but it's not right. I am sure it was done with bad intentions."
Carlos Puyol: "The state of the pitch will affect us more. We like to move the ball quickly and play at a high tempo. We're not used to playing in these conditions."
Frank Rijkaard: "We are not complaining." (P.S. While we are not complaining, can we have an extra fifteen minutes of practice on this shockingly abysmal pitch, about which we are still not complaining?)
Please. Rijkaard may like to project the aura of a gentleman who is above petty mind games, but his smooth-talking, holier-than-thou attitude rings false in the light of his comments and actions since this rivalry first sparked last year. Mourinho may be the 'enemy of football,' but his Catalan counterpart has not exactly covered himself in glory. Let us not forget, as the press seems to have done, that the ultimate truth of the Rijkaard/Frisk affair was that Mourinho was right.
So, the match itself. The first half was an even, absorbing contest, with one or two chances for each side. Makalele was superb. He has no right to win the balls he does, yet somehow he always comes out with the ball at his feet. Amazing. The lads looked confident, calm, ready for the fight. Ronaldinho was nullified, I hardly noticed Deco or Eto'o, and the only player to consistently threaten at all was Messi.
Even after the sending off Barcelona failed to dominate. Chelsea's goal was fully deserved and they kept Barca under pressure for long spells. Watching the match I fully expected them to go on and score another, and perhaps they would have if not for a linesman's error. Barca's equalizing goal was a gift (and I'd love to see again the 'foul' that led to that free kick), yet even at 1-1 I thought Chelsea could hold on for the draw or even snatch the win. It wasn't until the last fifteen minutes or so that Ronaldinho really began to have an impact, when the Blues were visibly tiring. Still Chelsea fought to the last, none more heroically than JT (who was immense), and might even have equalized with a little luck. So how much more intense and end-to-end could it have been, if Del and Joe Cole had remained on the pitch?
Which brings us to the decision that turned the match. I sincerely hope that even the most rabid Chelsea-hater would agree that the standard of officiating on display was dire, to say the least. Both teams received corners they should not have gotten. Chelsea were denied at least one they should have had. At times the referee's positioning was so poor that he interfered with play, and actually got struck by the ball on more than one occasion! Fouls were called that simultaneously mystified an entire pub of fans, regardless of which team they supported, while some truly horrific challenges went unpunished (Puyol, anyone?). Even the linesman failed to impress, incorrectly denying Drogba a scoring opportunity when he was clearly clean through on goal.
But of course the worst decision by far was showing Del Horno the red card. Yes, it was a clumsy challenge and he missed the ball. But if there was a sending off for every time two players collided like that then the average league match would finish with two men on the pitch--the goalkeepers lobbing the ball back and forth. Seriously, the incident deserved two yellows and nothing more--one to Del for the challenge and one to Messi for his dramatics.
I've read a lot of comments about how Hauge went for red because he had not issued a yellow for a previous challenge (in which, by the way, Del got the ball first). That is a load of bollocks. Perhaps modern officials don't learn basic arithmetic, but I was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right. Every incident should be judged on its own, regardless of what has come before and what may follow.
The saddest part of the whole affair is that, had Messi not disgraced himself by launching into the dying swan routine, there was every likelihood that he might have achieved the same result simply by continuing to play his game. Whatever my feelings about him as a person, I can say that he was the outstanding attacking player on the pitch, and he probably could have forced Del into making a challenge that would have led to a second yellow. On the other hand, perhaps if Hauge had not been so easily duped Del would have learned his lesson from a first yellow, or Mourinho would have made a tactical change to better cope with Messi. The unfortunate reality is that now we will never know.
Anyway, lest I be accused of wearing blue-tinted glasses, here are some other opinions on this Messi business.
From the Times:
LIONEL MESSI, the Barcelona forward, may be only 18, but he has already perfected the art of rolling around on the floor in fake pain.
After his collision with Asier Del Horno in the first half, Messi looked up to see who was watching, took stock of the situation, then rolled across the pitch with agony etched on his face. The referee missed Messi’s sly glance and sent off Del Horno, whose own reaction was hardly exemplary.
Would his decision have been different had he seen Messi’s look? Who knows, but either way the youngster’s actions were cool, calculated and devastatingly effective.
From BBC:
Maradona said: "I have seen the player who will inherit my place in Argentinian football and his name is Messi." (Perhaps if he works very, very hard, young Lionel will one day grow up to achieve true greatness and godlike status by scoring a goal with his hand.)
Former Barcelona player and coach Johan Cruyff said Messi "is the reason why Barcelona are a better team this season. The boy can conquer the whole stage". (I can't help but laugh at this. In light of Wednesday's performance, perhaps Mr. Cruyff would prefer to rephrase that last bit?)
And finally, straight from the horse's mouth:
Messi: I would never play-act!
Messi's dad: My son would never play-act!
Frank Rijkaard: As far as I'm concerned, Messi is not the type of player to ever play-act.
Video evidence: *shows Messi jump into (not away from) Del Horno, fall to the ground, pause, look up at the official, grimace, and throw himself into a roll*
Hmm. What should I believe, I wonder? Maybe if Messi truly wants to take the moral high road he should just keep his head down and his mouth shut. The video speaks for itself anyway.
What I find most intriguing, though, is the coverage of this incident. Surely we all remember the media witch-hunt following the Reina/Robben red card. Where now are all the calls for video replays and retroactive punishments for divers/cheaters/play-actors? Given their genuine and righteous concern for the welfare of the Beautiful Game, I'm shocked that these champions of truth and justice should now be so conspicuous in their absence.
For those claiming some sort of karmic payback for Reina's red card, I find such a comparison laughable. Yes, Robben should have stayed on his feet when Reina shoved him. But whether or not he fell to the ground, slugged Pepe in the eye, sang God Save the Queen, or performed the Macarena in a tutu, his reaction was irrelevant and did not have any bearing on the referee's decision. Reina's action of raising his hand to another player (and no, that was not a 'gentle tap'--his arm extended in a push) warranted at the very least a second yellow and by modern law a straight red, regardless of that player's reaction. That decision also had no effect on the outcome of the match, which had been over as a contest from the moment Liverpool conceded the second goal.
Del Horno's challenge, on the other hand, did not warrant a straight red card. Messi's calculated reaction shows that he knew this, and decided to take the opportunity to elevate the referee's perception of the potential damage involved. Perhaps he knew the officials would not be able to withstand the pressure of his teammates swarming around, as that seems to be standard procedure and has undoubtedly served them well in the past. Motta applauding the red card was a particularly classy touch, though I admit I remain confused as to why that gesture of sporting goodwill did not earn him a yellow card. In any case, Mr. Hauge's ill-advised decision certainly affected the outcome of the match and, no matter who you support, you cannot say the effect was beneficial to the contest.
So what have we learned from these encounters? To me, Barcelona have shown that they know Chelsea can beat them on a level playing field, and they are prepared to do anything to avoid that. Yes, they have some world-class talent. But as people and as sportsmen, I think some of them are sadly far short of that high standard. At the end of the day I can honestly say that I am extremely proud of my team. I wonder if, in his heart of hearts, Frank Rijkaard can say the same.
/rant
Wow, I didn't think I had that much to say. But I do feel slightly better now. Bring on the next leg, and let us all hope that the fates conspire to make it a fair contest this time!
However this may sound, I am angry about the defeat but not bitter. There is no shame in losing to the darlings of the modern game, the saviours of football, the best attacking team in the world. How many other teams could lead Barcelona for nearly seventy minutes while down a man? The point is that we should not have had to do so. What should have been a brilliant battle was unnecessarily transformed into an unfair contest, and the fact that it remained a contest at all is a credit to Chelsea.
You know what bothers me about Barcelona? People always talk about the flair and brilliance of Ronaldinho, and maybe one or two others. If I was in the Barca squad, maybe a Motta or even a Valdes, I would be fairly tired of hearing about how my team is riding to fame and glory on Ronaldinho's divine coattails. Football is a team sport. Yes, it is wonderful when a player has a moment of individual genius that can light up a match. But that is not why I watch; if I wanted to see one man's skills I would follow golf or tennis. I watch because I enjoy seeing eleven different men fighting for each other and adapting to each other and working as one unit.
For the same reason I will always prefer to watch a team like Wigan rather than the illustrious Thierry Henry plus ten other blokes. Just because a team lacks a so-called flair player doesn't make it boring. Plenty of excitement and entertainment arises from the struggle, the spirit, the whole that becomes greater than the sum of its parts. I think a lot of people are forgetting that. Even worse, I think some players are too.
A lot was said about who had flair and superior players in the build-up to this match. On one side, at least. There was also a lot of talk about the state of Chelsea's pitch. Here are some of the pearls of wisdom and graciousness that emerged from the Nou Camp.
Former Barcelona president Joan Gaspart: "I don't find it normal and I don't think it is correct. The pitch is already in a bad condition and now they are watering it. I don't know if they have done it to make training more difficult but it's not right. I am sure it was done with bad intentions."
Carlos Puyol: "The state of the pitch will affect us more. We like to move the ball quickly and play at a high tempo. We're not used to playing in these conditions."
Frank Rijkaard: "We are not complaining." (P.S. While we are not complaining, can we have an extra fifteen minutes of practice on this shockingly abysmal pitch, about which we are still not complaining?)
Please. Rijkaard may like to project the aura of a gentleman who is above petty mind games, but his smooth-talking, holier-than-thou attitude rings false in the light of his comments and actions since this rivalry first sparked last year. Mourinho may be the 'enemy of football,' but his Catalan counterpart has not exactly covered himself in glory. Let us not forget, as the press seems to have done, that the ultimate truth of the Rijkaard/Frisk affair was that Mourinho was right.
So, the match itself. The first half was an even, absorbing contest, with one or two chances for each side. Makalele was superb. He has no right to win the balls he does, yet somehow he always comes out with the ball at his feet. Amazing. The lads looked confident, calm, ready for the fight. Ronaldinho was nullified, I hardly noticed Deco or Eto'o, and the only player to consistently threaten at all was Messi.
Even after the sending off Barcelona failed to dominate. Chelsea's goal was fully deserved and they kept Barca under pressure for long spells. Watching the match I fully expected them to go on and score another, and perhaps they would have if not for a linesman's error. Barca's equalizing goal was a gift (and I'd love to see again the 'foul' that led to that free kick), yet even at 1-1 I thought Chelsea could hold on for the draw or even snatch the win. It wasn't until the last fifteen minutes or so that Ronaldinho really began to have an impact, when the Blues were visibly tiring. Still Chelsea fought to the last, none more heroically than JT (who was immense), and might even have equalized with a little luck. So how much more intense and end-to-end could it have been, if Del and Joe Cole had remained on the pitch?
Which brings us to the decision that turned the match. I sincerely hope that even the most rabid Chelsea-hater would agree that the standard of officiating on display was dire, to say the least. Both teams received corners they should not have gotten. Chelsea were denied at least one they should have had. At times the referee's positioning was so poor that he interfered with play, and actually got struck by the ball on more than one occasion! Fouls were called that simultaneously mystified an entire pub of fans, regardless of which team they supported, while some truly horrific challenges went unpunished (Puyol, anyone?). Even the linesman failed to impress, incorrectly denying Drogba a scoring opportunity when he was clearly clean through on goal.
But of course the worst decision by far was showing Del Horno the red card. Yes, it was a clumsy challenge and he missed the ball. But if there was a sending off for every time two players collided like that then the average league match would finish with two men on the pitch--the goalkeepers lobbing the ball back and forth. Seriously, the incident deserved two yellows and nothing more--one to Del for the challenge and one to Messi for his dramatics.
I've read a lot of comments about how Hauge went for red because he had not issued a yellow for a previous challenge (in which, by the way, Del got the ball first). That is a load of bollocks. Perhaps modern officials don't learn basic arithmetic, but I was always taught that two wrongs do not make a right. Every incident should be judged on its own, regardless of what has come before and what may follow.
The saddest part of the whole affair is that, had Messi not disgraced himself by launching into the dying swan routine, there was every likelihood that he might have achieved the same result simply by continuing to play his game. Whatever my feelings about him as a person, I can say that he was the outstanding attacking player on the pitch, and he probably could have forced Del into making a challenge that would have led to a second yellow. On the other hand, perhaps if Hauge had not been so easily duped Del would have learned his lesson from a first yellow, or Mourinho would have made a tactical change to better cope with Messi. The unfortunate reality is that now we will never know.
Anyway, lest I be accused of wearing blue-tinted glasses, here are some other opinions on this Messi business.
From the Times:
LIONEL MESSI, the Barcelona forward, may be only 18, but he has already perfected the art of rolling around on the floor in fake pain.
After his collision with Asier Del Horno in the first half, Messi looked up to see who was watching, took stock of the situation, then rolled across the pitch with agony etched on his face. The referee missed Messi’s sly glance and sent off Del Horno, whose own reaction was hardly exemplary.
Would his decision have been different had he seen Messi’s look? Who knows, but either way the youngster’s actions were cool, calculated and devastatingly effective.
From BBC:
Maradona said: "I have seen the player who will inherit my place in Argentinian football and his name is Messi." (Perhaps if he works very, very hard, young Lionel will one day grow up to achieve true greatness and godlike status by scoring a goal with his hand.)
Former Barcelona player and coach Johan Cruyff said Messi "is the reason why Barcelona are a better team this season. The boy can conquer the whole stage". (I can't help but laugh at this. In light of Wednesday's performance, perhaps Mr. Cruyff would prefer to rephrase that last bit?)
And finally, straight from the horse's mouth:
Messi: I would never play-act!
Messi's dad: My son would never play-act!
Frank Rijkaard: As far as I'm concerned, Messi is not the type of player to ever play-act.
Video evidence: *shows Messi jump into (not away from) Del Horno, fall to the ground, pause, look up at the official, grimace, and throw himself into a roll*
Hmm. What should I believe, I wonder? Maybe if Messi truly wants to take the moral high road he should just keep his head down and his mouth shut. The video speaks for itself anyway.
What I find most intriguing, though, is the coverage of this incident. Surely we all remember the media witch-hunt following the Reina/Robben red card. Where now are all the calls for video replays and retroactive punishments for divers/cheaters/play-actors? Given their genuine and righteous concern for the welfare of the Beautiful Game, I'm shocked that these champions of truth and justice should now be so conspicuous in their absence.
For those claiming some sort of karmic payback for Reina's red card, I find such a comparison laughable. Yes, Robben should have stayed on his feet when Reina shoved him. But whether or not he fell to the ground, slugged Pepe in the eye, sang God Save the Queen, or performed the Macarena in a tutu, his reaction was irrelevant and did not have any bearing on the referee's decision. Reina's action of raising his hand to another player (and no, that was not a 'gentle tap'--his arm extended in a push) warranted at the very least a second yellow and by modern law a straight red, regardless of that player's reaction. That decision also had no effect on the outcome of the match, which had been over as a contest from the moment Liverpool conceded the second goal.
Del Horno's challenge, on the other hand, did not warrant a straight red card. Messi's calculated reaction shows that he knew this, and decided to take the opportunity to elevate the referee's perception of the potential damage involved. Perhaps he knew the officials would not be able to withstand the pressure of his teammates swarming around, as that seems to be standard procedure and has undoubtedly served them well in the past. Motta applauding the red card was a particularly classy touch, though I admit I remain confused as to why that gesture of sporting goodwill did not earn him a yellow card. In any case, Mr. Hauge's ill-advised decision certainly affected the outcome of the match and, no matter who you support, you cannot say the effect was beneficial to the contest.
So what have we learned from these encounters? To me, Barcelona have shown that they know Chelsea can beat them on a level playing field, and they are prepared to do anything to avoid that. Yes, they have some world-class talent. But as people and as sportsmen, I think some of them are sadly far short of that high standard. At the end of the day I can honestly say that I am extremely proud of my team. I wonder if, in his heart of hearts, Frank Rijkaard can say the same.
/rant
Wow, I didn't think I had that much to say. But I do feel slightly better now. Bring on the next leg, and let us all hope that the fates conspire to make it a fair contest this time!