CL R16: Chelsea vs PSG

WTF why should Mourinho be the "most influential individual of modern football"?
Certainly a great winner but so what. Doesn't make you most influential.

huntsman wrote:

RED wrote:I really hate PSG, but I am buzzing at how they played tonight despite their adversaries.

A potential dark horse for the CL.

Nope. They played awful. Got lucky and thats fine its part of the game. Game was even with a slight advantage to Chelsea.

Getting a non existent red card is not what I would call lucky. They totally deserved to go trough luck has nothing to do with it. They showed more b****s then Chelsea even with a player less. They had 10 players for whole 90 minutes and had more shots and better chances to win.

Did Chelsea have o chance from open play because I can't remember any

Valkyrja wrote:Did Chelsea have o chance from open play because I can't remember any

Nope.

So in the Stadium of Plastic and Silence, Paris against a bogus red card and in the prism of 10 men, beat GENIUS Mourinho's Chelsea who's apprehensive negativity would rival a cruise ship stuck between glaciers.

Costa is a limited gimp who relies on external forces and his best impersonation of an orangutang to monkey his way into the box.

Fàbregas is more invisible than neutrinos when pressured.

Hazard at times can be like a Japanese puzzle box, you spend time uncovering its various nooks and crannies until you end up with..............nothing.

Mourinho was outclassed, outwitted and 'outtactized'.

Marco Verratti is the new Xavi.

We did

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

farfan wrote:

inter was pretty oily as a club too

Yes,all of our 107 year long history in which we have always been winning.

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

Graeme Souness

Jesus Christ.......

Its seriously funny how Mou cultist defend their deity regardless of the game.

Not only do they seem to watch a completely different match, but some probably don't even watch the matches and just ride along with whatever their grand savior claims to be.

I don't think there was any such fandom for any other football person in the history of the game.

PSG are legit, I've seen it with my own eyes in the group stages against Barca and now they have confirmed it even more. PSG.

John Terry stepping on Oscar's head as he runs to tell the referee how hurt he is..

The Ibra red was a red btw or bordering red.

No one had been outclassed today. Get your facts straight. Chelsea actually played for a win this time. From the start they were trying to attack, but the team cant tick from the get go. It's a process. This is what i call a worthy defeat if they learn from it.

Chelsea were not negative today. They tried. But they were playing with Ramires and Oscar.

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Yes,all of our 107 year long history in which we have always been winning.

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

The same can of course be said of Chelsea.

Also, would the oil money argument not be used if it was used for one of the teams you mentioned above.

huntsman wrote:The Ibra red was a red btw or bordering red.

No one had been outclassed today. Get your facts straight. Chelsea actually played for a win this time. From the start they were trying to attack, but the team cant tick from the get go. It's a process. This is what i call a worthy defeat if they learn from it.

Chelsea were not negative today. They tried. But they were playing with Ramires and Oscar.

take everything you just said and think of the opposite and you are correct.

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Yes,all of our 107 year long history in which we have always been winning.

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

and you'd been on your knees gagging on Mourinho's D  right know instead of posting this  if he was coaching PSG in this very same  game .

Chelsea tried to attack, did I just read that

chelsea were negetive against a 10 men side only chelsea can do that.

huntsman wrote:The Ibra red was a red btw or bordering red.

No one had been outclassed today. Get your facts straight. Chelsea actually played for a win this time. From the start they were trying to attack, but the team cant tick from the get go. It's a process. This is what i call a worthy defeat if they learn from it.

Chelsea were not negative today. They tried. But they were playing with Ramires and Oscar.

Facts on the basis of what?

Chelsea were slow, predictable, clunky and devoid of any ideas outside lobbing early crosses into the box when Hazard couldn't work his magic.

You would expect a team playing in their "fortress" to at least trouble a 10 man Paris yet outside the lapses in defence, Paris played relatively better, and deserved the win 100%.

No point defending Mourinho here when his tactics were akin to Davide Ballardini.

btw who is suspended for PSG in their next leg?

i know veratti and ibra are for sure

farfan wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

and you'd been on your knees gagging on Mourinho's D  right know instead of posting this  if he was coaching PSG in this very same  game .

Although I do appreciate you following me around replying to everything I post with irrelevant comments full of semi-intelligent babbling,you shoud probably try to understand some things first.

I fully acknowledged PSG was better.I put Chelsea in the same pot of artificial history making.I am a fan of Mourinho but I have't said a word in his defense in relation to what he did today.

So what exactly are you on about?

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Yes,all of our 107 year long history in which we have always been winning.

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

So it was Oil Money against Gas Money, who cares?
Soon it'll be everyone against TV money...

Arquitescu wrote:

huntsman wrote:The Ibra red was a red btw or bordering red.

No one had been outclassed today. Get your facts straight. Chelsea actually played for a win this time. From the start they were trying to attack, but the team cant tick from the get go. It's a process. This is what i call a worthy defeat if they learn from it.

Chelsea were not negative today. They tried. But they were playing with Ramires and Oscar.

Facts on the basis of what?

Chelsea were slow, predictable, clunky and devoid of any ideas outside lobbing early crosses into the box when Hazard couldn't work his magic.

You would expect a team playing in their "fortress" to at least trouble a 10 man Paris yet outside the lapses in defence, Paris played relatively better, and deserved the win 100%.

No point defending Mourinho here when his tactics were akin to Davide Ballardini.

My beef is not with what Chelsea are capable of (re-slow, predictable...etc). I comprehend that they're not a high end fully developed team.

But, they tried. They werent negative in their approach. I actually think this is one of their best performances this year. The question is will they capitalize from it and learn from their mistakes? (Get rid of Ramires and Oscar and get technical fwd)

Mourinho got this right. Two goals from set pieces? I am the first to criticize Mourinho and his tactics, but not today. I cant. He did fine.

Hazard was excellent. 8 or 9 out of 10. I am not going to debate over this its not even worth it.

DeviAngel wrote:

Vibe wrote:That awkward moment when a Veratti points a finger and laughs at a man who is probably the most influential individual of modern football and one of the most successful and intelligent people in the sport

Even thou you are right, I am 1000% sure that if it hadn't been Mou you would laughed too

Plus that picture is taking out of context. Veratti was pointing at one of his own team mates celebrating, not pointing and laughing at Mourinho. That angle makes it look that way

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Yes,all of our 107 year long history in which we have always been winning.

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

So ?

PSG was found in 70s, for that so called short period, they achieved good things, like I said "decent" not "glorious" or "great". Luis Fernadez didnt have crap for money and he won with his PSG side. I dont like oil money as much as u do but that's modern football and PSG is not some random club to get sugar daddy.

Didn't watch the game but not a chance in hell that is a red card, if anything it's more of an Oscar foul

Shame as PSG will go out in the next round unless they face some scrubs without Ibra.

Twoism wrote:

Vibe wrote:

Twoism wrote:

Lets not pull history, PSG has decent history themselves. Moratti was every bit as "oily" as PSG owners when he's in his prime in the 90' and early 00'

If not for oil money PSG would be just another slightly above average French club.They still have less history to this day than teams like Nantes,Reims,St Etienne,Bordeaux,Lille...Even Nice Not to mention Lyon,Marseille and Monaco.

So ?

PSG was found in 70s, for that so called short period, they achieved good things, like I said "decent" not "glorious" or "great". Luis Fernadez didnt have crap for money and he won with his PSG side. I dont like oil money as much as u do but that's modern football and PSG is not some random club to get sugar daddy.

Because money has never had such a role in football as it did in the past 10 years or so.Football as a sport has been diminished for the sake of football as a business.There have always been rich people buying clubs and investing,but today's model of it has gotten ridiculous.I'll never be fine with it.