Re: Old Man Johan: Barca's cycle is over, Only people in chelsea district are happy about CL final

by Noonan22 Fri May 25, 2012 3:15 am

_LMG_10_ wrote:
Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:

Barrettinator wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
LOOOOOOL who said the sport is going downhill?

There's more and more money coming in each year too.

More money doesn't mean squat. There's 7 billion people on earth now ffs. The market is bigger, the demographic is bigger. Also, add in the fact that the world is globalized with all this technology.
It's all relative.
Don't know, mate. I'm not so bent on watching "entertaining" football by all means. There's "good football" and then there's "defensive football". That's all I'm used to so I couldn't give a fook about "tiki taka"(which is boring anyway). Maybe its because I'm English but hey, everyone is different.

That's a poor argument dude. So you'd rather be bored by the game and see Chelsea win?
Wait..if Chelsea wins...then that's entertaining for you, right? No matter the style in which they win.

"Good football"? What is that? Good football has got to be exciting or you wouldn't watch it. And who said anything about tiki taka? Your post made no sense to be honest.

Sometimes I'd rather watch players playing with great passion,putting their bodies on the line and leaving everything on the pitch,rather than watch what you'd call "good football".

Then you should watch UFC or ultimate fighter.

I'm quite happy watching football,thanks for the suggestion though.

by kiranr Fri May 25, 2012 3:23 am

Different styles makes the sport entertaining for me. I cannot support Chelsea's style, but i don't mind it.

Some people care only about the winning. Some people care about how they win too. It is all about perspective anyway. So i have to disagree with old man Johan about Chelsea's win. Sometimes winning is the most beautiful thing in the world, especially when it hard to come by.

by _LMG_10_ Fri May 25, 2012 3:23 am

So you'd like them to TRY to entertain in a final rather than pulling out a win. Nice logic.

No, the team's objective is to win. You can't blame chelsea for parking the bus given the situation. I never blamed them specifically for the tactics - I just said they did not try to attack. The blame is on Bayern then Barca.

I'd like teams to try to entertain AND win at the same time. By "entertain" I mean play good attacking football so that there's end to end action. And don't give me the BS about entertainment being 'putting your body and soul on the line'. If you want that, go watch ultimate fighter. This is the beautiful game.

by Lord Awesome Fri May 25, 2012 3:28 am

kiranr wrote:
Different styles makes the sport entertaining for me.

This.

The beauty of Football is that it's all different. Like in every sport there's different styles and personalities. It would be monotinous if every team played the same.

by Blue Barrett Fri May 25, 2012 3:29 am

_LMG_10_ wrote:
So you'd like them to TRY to entertain in a final rather than pulling out a win. Nice logic.

No, the team's objective is to win. You can't blame chelsea for parking the bus given the situation. I never blamed them specifically for the tactics - I just said they did not try to attack. The blame is on Bayern then Barca.

I'd like teams to try to entertain AND win at the same time. By "entertain" I mean play good attacking football so that there's end to end action. And don't give me the BS about entertainment being 'putting your body and soul on the line'. If you want that, go watch ultimate fighter. This is the beautiful game.

I never said that. Don't know what you're on about.

We were clearly short handed. If Ramires and Ivanovic were available we would have attacked more. Instead, we had Kalou and Bosingwa on the right wing. Laughing

by animal.crackers Fri May 25, 2012 3:36 am

Some pretty decent debate in this thread, actually.

by _LMG_10_ Fri May 25, 2012 3:36 am

stunt wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Oh and football is a sport. It's not entertainment. There's a difference.

In a sport, your goal is to win. You watch because it is entertaining. They don't play it to entertain you. They play it to win.

Faulty logic again, as I pointed out earlier. Without the entertainment factor, there wouldn't be fans, and so those football players wouldn't have jobs. Plain and simple.

Yours is the faulty logic. You are 100% wrong.

Sports exist first and foremost for competition. Football didn't start out as a paid professional sport with millions of fans. The fact that footballers are paid is an aftereffect of the sports popularity! Not the opposite.

There are plenty sports out there with competitions in which the players are not paid. They are still sports. Exactly the same thing as football, the only difference is that one is globally popular while the other is not.

And I won't even delve into the argument that defensive tactics actually make the sport more entertaining than if they weren't around.

Fair enough but the teams have a responsibility nowadays. Why? Cause the game has changed . Millions of dollars is injected into the sport and it is globalized. Big clubs have fans in every single country and it's not just a local match anymore. Their responsibility goes beyond just "competition". It's about the image of the sport and making it look good and entertaining. aka attacking football.

And nobody said there shouldn't be defensive tactics. It's the nature of the game. You just need a bit of a balance. Attack + defense. Especially in a match which gets 500 million global viewers on television Smile

by _LMG_10_ Fri May 25, 2012 3:39 am

Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:

Barrettinator wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
LOOOOOOL who said the sport is going downhill?

There's more and more money coming in each year too.

More money doesn't mean squat. There's 7 billion people on earth now ffs. The market is bigger, the demographic is bigger. Also, add in the fact that the world is globalized with all this technology.
It's all relative.
Don't know, mate. I'm not so bent on watching "entertaining" football by all means. There's "good football" and then there's "defensive football". That's all I'm used to so I couldn't give a fook about "tiki taka"(which is boring anyway). Maybe its because I'm English but hey, everyone is different.

That's a poor argument dude. So you'd rather be bored by the game and see Chelsea win?
Wait..if Chelsea wins...then that's entertaining for you, right? No matter the style in which they win.

"Good football"? What is that? Good football has got to be exciting or you wouldn't watch it. And who said anything about tiki taka? Your post made no sense to be honest.

Sometimes I'd rather watch players playing with great passion,putting their bodies on the line and leaving everything on the pitch,rather than watch what you'd call "good football".

Then you should watch UFC or ultimate fighter.

I'm quite happy watching football,thanks for the suggestion though.

I'm just saying...the aspects of football which you appreciate are more abundant in ultimate fighter, NFL, and hockey. Physical sports basically lol

by _LMG_10_ Fri May 25, 2012 3:42 am

[/quote]
I never said that. Don't know what you're on about.

We were clearly short handed. If Ramires and Ivanovic were available we would have attacked more. Instead, we had Kalou and Bosingwa on the right wing. Laughing

[/quote]

It wasn't you then, it was one of your Chelsea mates lol

by Zero Fri May 25, 2012 3:48 am

kiranr wrote:
Different styles makes the sport entertaining for me. I cannot support Chelsea's style, but i don't mind it.

Some people care only about the winning. Some people care about how they win too. It is all about perspective anyway. So i have to disagree with old man Johan about Chelsea's win. Sometimes winning is the most beautiful thing in the world, especially when it hard to come by.

by Noonan22 Fri May 25, 2012 3:58 am

_LMG_10_ wrote:

Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:

Barrettinator wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
LOOOOOOL who said the sport is going downhill?

There's more and more money coming in each year too.

More money doesn't mean squat. There's 7 billion people on earth now ffs. The market is bigger, the demographic is bigger. Also, add in the fact that the world is globalized with all this technology.
It's all relative.
Don't know, mate. I'm not so bent on watching "entertaining" football by all means. There's "good football" and then there's "defensive football". That's all I'm used to so I couldn't give a fook about "tiki taka"(which is boring anyway). Maybe its because I'm English but hey, everyone is different.

That's a poor argument dude. So you'd rather be bored by the game and see Chelsea win?
Wait..if Chelsea wins...then that's entertaining for you, right? No matter the style in which they win.

"Good football"? What is that? Good football has got to be exciting or you wouldn't watch it. And who said anything about tiki taka? Your post made no sense to be honest.

Sometimes I'd rather watch players playing with great passion,putting their bodies on the line and leaving everything on the pitch,rather than watch what you'd call "good football".

Then you should watch UFC or ultimate fighter.

I'm quite happy watching football,thanks for the suggestion though.

I'm just saying...the aspects of football which you appreciate are more abundant in ultimate fighter, NFL, and hockey. Physical sports basically lol

Yes because you know exactly what I appreciate.There are many aspects of football that i appreciate.All I was saying is I enjoy seeing players playing for the shirt and playing with passion etc.It's not all about talent.

Of course I like watching free flowing football as well,but I'd rather play "ugly" and be European Champions,then play "good football" and be losers.

by animal.crackers Fri May 25, 2012 4:03 am

_LMG_10_ wrote:
Noonan22 wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:

Barrettinator wrote:
_LMG_10_ wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
LOOOOOOL who said the sport is going downhill?

There's more and more money coming in each year too.

More money doesn't mean squat. There's 7 billion people on earth now ffs. The market is bigger, the demographic is bigger. Also, add in the fact that the world is globalized with all this technology.
It's all relative.
Don't know, mate. I'm not so bent on watching "entertaining" football by all means. There's "good football" and then there's "defensive football". That's all I'm used to so I couldn't give a fook about "tiki taka"(which is boring anyway). Maybe its because I'm English but hey, everyone is different.

That's a poor argument dude. So you'd rather be bored by the game and see Chelsea win?
Wait..if Chelsea wins...then that's entertaining for you, right? No matter the style in which they win.

"Good football"? What is that? Good football has got to be exciting or you wouldn't watch it. And who said anything about tiki taka? Your post made no sense to be honest.

Sometimes I'd rather watch players playing with great passion,putting their bodies on the line and leaving everything on the pitch,rather than watch what you'd call "good football".

Then you should watch UFC or ultimate fighter.

*bleep* off with that ignorant statement.

by Gomez83 Fri May 25, 2012 4:12 am

Guiltybystander wrote:
Gomez83 wrote:Correction, money isn't killing the sport it is killing teams.
From a neutrals perspective it is awesome watching two all star teams face each other. Sport is not going down hill because your superior team might lose to a newcomer...

So you like seeing the same 8 quarter finalists each year player each other over and over again, same teams facing each other borefest over having surprises and underdog teams taking part too?

Players who play for lesser teams aren't even considered good anymore, "because they are unproven for a big team". What bullshit is that.

So because you think it is boring that means the sport is going downhill? Maybe for you but in reality it isn't. As-well believe it or not football isn't only in Europe, not the whole sport is revolved around UEFA

by Neutral Fri May 25, 2012 7:16 am

playing nice football AND trying to win is important. it's not just about doing whatever you can to get a win. arsenal haven't won anything in quite some time yet they still have a large fan base and many new football fans begin supporting them because they appreciate their style of play. the club is a business and more fans means more revenue. clubs can get more fans by getting trophies, but if they're winning trophies in style they will get even more fans. i doubt arsenal's failures in the past few years have been because they are trying to win with nice football. we've all seen them outclass top opponents playing their way including city not too long ago, they have the ability. they just have problems with consistency, not holding onto key players and not spending enough to get the right players they need in the right positions.

by Blue Barrett Fri May 25, 2012 7:23 am

Neutral wrote:playing nice football AND trying to win is important to you. it's not just about doing whatever you can to get a win. arsenal haven't won anything in quite some time yet they still have a large fan base and many new football fans begin supporting them because they appreciate their style of play. the club is a business and more fans means more revenue. clubs can get more fans by getting trophies, but if they're winning in style they will get even more fans. i doubt arsenal's failures in the past few years have been because they are trying to win with nice football. we've all seen them outclass top opponents playing their way including city not too long ago, they have the ability. they just have problems with consistency, not holding onto key players and not spending enough to get the right players they need in the right positions.

And why on earth do you think Arsenal's fanbase is as a result of their style of play? They played some of the ugliest football in England before Wenger arrived and STILL had a large fanbase. Stop trying to cook up fantasies.

by Neutral Fri May 25, 2012 7:36 am

Barrettinator wrote:
Neutral wrote:playing nice football AND trying to win is important to you. it's not just about doing whatever you can to get a win. arsenal haven't won anything in quite some time yet they still have a large fan base and many new football fans begin supporting them because they appreciate their style of play. the club is a business and more fans means more revenue. clubs can get more fans by getting trophies, but if they're winning in style they will get even more fans. i doubt arsenal's failures in the past few years have been because they are trying to win with nice football. we've all seen them outclass top opponents playing their way including city not too long ago, they have the ability. they just have problems with consistency, not holding onto key players and not spending enough to get the right players they need in the right positions.
And why on earth do you think Arsenal's fanbase is as a result of their style of play? They played some of the ugliest football in England before Wenger arrived and STILL had a large fanbase. Stop trying to cook up fantasies.

yes i usually just like to see the team who plays better get the win. i'd only support a team with chelsea style bus tactics if they were true underdogs like apoel or something. but if the squad is as expensive as chelseas, then forget it.

of course playing nice football brings in fans. fans want to be entertained. winning trophies is not the only form of entertain to get from football. arsenal had a large fan base before wenger because they were still a big club and won trophies. winning trophies will always give a club plenty of supporters. but when wenger came you really think their fan base didn't grow because fans enjoyed watching their style as well as them winning? i doubt it. ask many arsenal fans. they'll say they support and started supporting the team because of their brand of football.

by Blue Barrett Fri May 25, 2012 8:16 am

Neutral wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
Neutral wrote:playing nice football AND trying to win is important to you. it's not just about doing whatever you can to get a win. arsenal haven't won anything in quite some time yet they still have a large fan base and many new football fans begin supporting them because they appreciate their style of play. the club is a business and more fans means more revenue. clubs can get more fans by getting trophies, but if they're winning in style they will get even more fans. i doubt arsenal's failures in the past few years have been because they are trying to win with nice football. we've all seen them outclass top opponents playing their way including city not too long ago, they have the ability. they just have problems with consistency, not holding onto key players and not spending enough to get the right players they need in the right positions.
And why on earth do you think Arsenal's fanbase is as a result of their style of play? They played some of the ugliest football in England before Wenger arrived and STILL had a large fanbase. Stop trying to cook up fantasies.

yes i usually just like to see the team who plays better get the win. i'd only support a team with chelsea style bus tactics if they were true underdogs like apoel or something. but if the squad is as expensive as chelseas, then forget it.

of course playing nice football brings in fans. fans want to be entertained. winning trophies is not the only form of entertain to get from football. arsenal had a large fan base before wenger because they were still a big club and won trophies. winning trophies will always give a club plenty of supporters. but when wenger came you really think their fan base didn't grow because fans enjoyed watching their style as well as them winning? i doubt it. ask many arsenal fans. they'll say they support and started supporting the team because of their brand of football.

Maybe you can say that for the gloryhunters.

For the younger fans, probably. But every club has young fans as well. If you're going to measure the number of Arsenal supporters in England compared to Chelsea supporters in England, Arsenal clearly have the upper hand. But that's hardly because of Wenger. They had a large fanbase before Wenger. Surely those fans produce new generations, no?

Internationally, you'd have to go with Chelsea. And then you'd have to wonder why more people around the world support Chelsea over Arsenal. Is it the brand of football? I doubt it. There's this thing called winning. Even City are going to start having international fans in no time.

by Senor Penguin Fri May 25, 2012 8:23 am

This anti-football sanctimonious bull has to end. He's clearly upset because his 'total football' philosophy, which consists of Valdes having more possession than the opponent, failed.

I enjoyed watching Chelsea, the way they ended up beating teams despite being a goal or two behind, lacking key players, having a man sent off and creating less chances. The amount of passion and fighting spirit they showed on the pitch ... you couldn't ask for more.

by Blue Barrett Fri May 25, 2012 8:28 am

Found this on facebook:

Old Man Johan: Barca's cycle is over, Only people in chelsea district are happy about CL final - Page 4 150160_318269701581189_130868503654644_753148_1031250004_n

Old Man Johan: Barca's cycle is over, Only people in chelsea district are happy about CL final - Page 4 150160_318269701581189_130868503654644_753148_1031250004_n

by kiranr Fri May 25, 2012 8:33 am

What are you bowing at? That comment was just as retarded.

by Blue Barrett Fri May 25, 2012 8:37 am

kiranr wrote:
What are you bowing at? That comment was just as retarded.

U MAD?

by kiranr Fri May 25, 2012 8:38 am

Barrettinator wrote:
kiranr wrote:
What are you bowing at? That comment was just as retarded.
U MAD?

The whole chelsea fanbase has been trolled by Johan and you asking me if i am mad?

by Neutral Fri May 25, 2012 8:53 am

Barrettinator wrote:
Neutral wrote:
Barrettinator wrote:
Neutral wrote:playing nice football AND trying to win is important to you. it's not just about doing whatever you can to get a win. arsenal haven't won anything in quite some time yet they still have a large fan base and many new football fans begin supporting them because they appreciate their style of play. the club is a business and more fans means more revenue. clubs can get more fans by getting trophies, but if they're winning in style they will get even more fans. i doubt arsenal's failures in the past few years have been because they are trying to win with nice football. we've all seen them outclass top opponents playing their way including city not too long ago, they have the ability. they just have problems with consistency, not holding onto key players and not spending enough to get the right players they need in the right positions.
And why on earth do you think Arsenal's fanbase is as a result of their style of play? They played some of the ugliest football in England before Wenger arrived and STILL had a large fanbase. Stop trying to cook up fantasies.

yes i usually just like to see the team who plays better get the win. i'd only support a team with chelsea style bus tactics if they were true underdogs like apoel or something. but if the squad is as expensive as chelseas, then forget it.

of course playing nice football brings in fans. fans want to be entertained. winning trophies is not the only form of entertain to get from football. arsenal had a large fan base before wenger because they were still a big club and won trophies. winning trophies will always give a club plenty of supporters. but when wenger came you really think their fan base didn't grow because fans enjoyed watching their style as well as them winning? i doubt it. ask many arsenal fans. they'll say they support and started supporting the team because of their brand of football.
Maybe you can say that for the gloryhunters.

For the younger fans, probably. But every club has young fans as well. If you're going to measure the number of Arsenal supporters in England compared to Chelsea supporters in England, Arsenal clearly have the upper hand. But that's hardly because of Wenger. They had a large fanbase before Wenger. Surely those fans produce new generations, no?

Internationally, you'd have to go with Chelsea. And then you'd have to wonder why more people around the world support Chelsea over Arsenal. Is it the brand of football? I doubt it. There's this thing called winning. Even City are going to start having international fans in no time.

doesn't matter if theyre gloryhunters. bringing in fans is important.

whether chelsea has more fans internationally than arsenal is hard to tell.

who knows how city and arsenal will turn out in the future. if city keep winning and they do play nice football, then they probably will get more fans.

also chelsea haven't always been boring. just this season they have. i'm sure theres fans that enjoy watching them play.

i said playing good football could be important because there were some posters that think it doesn't matter how you win, as long you win is all that counts. i don't believe that true. main reason being a team winning trophies with good football is more likely to get more fans than a team winning trophies with a pragmatic and boring approach. club board members would think about these things because more fans means more revenue.

by ELO Fri May 25, 2012 9:04 am

sure guys, the heart and Spirit of Chelsea was admirable. But please, two shots on goal for 120 minutes of Football. and winning is just ridiculous and plain lucky. and i have to agree with cruyff that they could have easily get more goal opprtunities without even compromising their defense too much.

by animal.crackers Fri May 25, 2012 9:12 am

Barrettinator wrote:Even City are going to start having international fans in no time.

Shits already started.

The club is growing EXPONENTIALLY fast. I can't even believe how.

by the xcx Fri May 25, 2012 10:00 am

animal.crackers wrote:I hate that parking the bus upsets people.

It's a strategy, FFS.

Sometimes, the best one.

Its a tactic not a strategy.

by Sponsored content