Champions League 2006/2007

Seige of Moscow. I dont think Ive ever seen a team savaged 0-0 as badly. Comedy misses from all the offensive players... Still fantastic game to watch.
 
GinandTonic said:
Seige of Moscow. I dont think Ive ever seen a team savaged 0-0 as badly. Comedy misses from all the offensive players... Still fantastic game to watch.

I hate Arsenal! :cry: Their failure to beat CSKA over two games just complicates our (Porto's) mission enormously. Now we have to beat them in Moscow and still get a draw from Arsenal. Otherwise we'll have to beat Arsenal at home by 2 goals.

Oh, and I hate CSKA too! Comprehensively outplayed when playing away, still manage to draw 0-0 in London and Porto. And at home get 1-0 wins and now lead the damn group.
 
Another dissapointing night for a Belgian football supporter...

Maybe we have to put all our hopes on Zulte-Waregem in the Uefa Cup! :D
If they win on thursday, they could be qualified for the next round! :eek:
 
Arsenal was so much better..they failed miserably at finishing!

Zulte-Waregem? They have a good chance now that they kicked Austria Wien's ass. Win against Sparta Praha and you're third!
 
MCdread said:
That Lampard goal was just superb! :eek:

I think it was a fluke, to be honest. He's trying to cross it over for a far post nod-in, gets it wrong, but gets lucky with the result. And I'm sure that he'll claim it was intentional... :rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure.. with his ability and technique it would have been a really bad pass.. Ballack was nowhere near where he put the ball.
 
Lambert Simnel said:
I think it was a fluke, to be honest. He's trying to cross it over for a far post nod-in, gets it wrong, but gets lucky with the result. And I'm sure that he'll claim it was intentional... :rolleyes:

Even if it was so, there are lots of great goals that were missed crosses. I guess in the end only he knows what he wanted to do, if he knows at all. Besides, this is only because it was Lampard, if it had been Ronaldinho, no one would question the geniality of the goal. :/
 
MCdread said:
Besides, this is only because it was Lampard, if it had been Ronaldinho, no one would question the geniality of the goal. :/

Bleh. Heard that argument a dozen times already, and the fact that so many people who rave about the goal use this as an argument I think shows that they're not convinced in their hearts about it. If Steven Pressley had scored a goal like that - hell, if I had scored a goal like that - would it be a useful argument to say that Ronaldinho might have done the same thing and meant it ? I don't think so.

Willem, I think he was just firing it over and hoping someone would be there - sometimes you're in a position where that's all you can do. If your team-mates are good and see what your options are, then they should think about gambling on what you might try to do. And sometimes you get lucky and someone is there. And sometimes you get really, really lucky....
 
Lambert Simnel said:
Bleh. Heard that argument a dozen times already, and the fact that so many people who rave about the goal use this as an argument I think shows that they're not convinced in their hearts about it. If Steven Pressley had scored a goal like that - hell, if I had scored a goal like that - would it be a useful argument to say that Ronaldinho might have done the same thing and meant it ? I don't think so.

But it's not like Lampard isn't a talented player, is it? When Maradona scored the 2nd goal against England in 1986, he surely didn't know how he'd finish the play. He didn't decide to dribble everything that was moving until finishing it off. He even said it himself that all he wanted was to pass the ball to Valdano, but defenders kept coming and blocking the passing angle, and he had to react instinctively to what was coming.
Maybe Lampard just wanted to throw the ball towards some bunch of players in the keeper's box and hope that someone might put it in, and in the end he got very lucky. Even if that's the case, it's still a great goal to watch.

Beside, once I almost scored a goal like that :D (okay, I had a tad more time and space ;)), but hit the crossbar. I always felt that it was perhaps my best move ever. Maybe this time Lampard didn't exactly intend to do it, but I can't see why he couldn't come up with it, and I can't see how looking at the footage and trying to figure out where he was looking at, shows that he didn't intend to.
 
There's quite a difference between (a) not knowing how it's going to end up, but always having control of the ball and doing exactly what you want with it (b) trying to do something, and the end results being very different, but very positive. I don't think the two can be equated at all.

As to whether Lampard meant it, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
I dont buy the bad cross arguement. He cuts back, stops the ball, looks up and chips it. He had too much time on the ball for it to be a hit and hope.
 
Lambert Simnel said:
I think it was a fluke, to be honest. He's trying to cross it over for a far post nod-in, gets it wrong, but gets lucky with the result. And I'm sure that he'll claim it was intentional... :rolleyes:
There are plenty of cross cum shots in this game, just like there are plenty of shots cum passes, but they have ended up in the back of the net eventually. It still takes skill for him to get it into the back of the net regardless of his intentions from that sort of angle
 
classical_hero said:
There are plenty of cross cum shots in this game, just like there are plenty of shots cum passes, but they have ended up in the back of the net eventually. It still takes skill for him to get it into the back of the net regardless of his intentions from that sort of angle
Disregarding anything ever written by CivGeneral, I think that's one of the most ridiculous posts i have ever seen :p

The point is, a lot of people think IT IS A COMPLETE FLUKE. It does not take any skill whatsoever to have a complete fluke, purely by the nature of concept. Sometimes I really wonder about the quality of poster on these forums! :D

I like to think it was intentional btw.
 
Lambert Simnel said:
There's quite a difference between (a) not knowing how it's going to end up, but always having control of the ball and doing exactly what you want with it (b) trying to do something, and the end results being very different, but very positive. I don't think the two can be equated at all.

As to whether Lampard meant it, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, but from a spectator's point of view it comes to the same in this particular case, because it is impossible to prove either view.
 
Originally posted by MCdread
Yes, but from a spectator's point of view it comes to the same in this particular case, because it is impossible to prove either view.

I personally think that Lampard saw the keeper had tried to close him down and floated a ball to the far post. I don't think it was a deliberate chip for the far post corner, but more of a "put the ball in the danger area".

But whether it was intentional or not (we will never know) it was a good goal.
 
MCdread said:
Yes, but from a spectator's point of view it comes to the same in this particular case, because it is impossible to prove either view.
Still disagreeing. I think the intention is key here. I was goping to note some great goals which I think would be lessened if they weren't at all what the scorer intended, but, frankly, I doubt if we're going anywhere with this discussion.
 
Lambert Simnel said:
I think it was a fluke, to be honest. He's trying to cross it over for a far post nod-in, gets it wrong, but gets lucky with the result. And I'm sure that he'll claim it was intentional... :rolleyes:
I don't get this post...

You're just guessing, right? At what you think may have been going on in some other guy's head? It's not like you've got anything solid to go on...but anybody who disagrees with you gets a rolleyes? wtf?

Personally, I don't think it really matters...Even if his intention was just to put it into a "danger area", then he did a fantastic job, and put it in the most dangerous area possible...

Great Goal. :goodjob:
 
And here's the, err, predictable response from Lampard, I guess...

http://www.chelseafc.com/article.asp?hlid=426062&m=11&y=2006&nav=news&sub=latest+news

Frank Lampard has revealed that his angle-defying goal in Barcelona owed just as much to practice as to inspiration.

Solitary training exercises are a regular part of the Chelsea midfielder’s daily routine and a common one is to place the ball a couple of yards behind the goal-line, towards the corner flag, and then to curl it towards the net.

‘Sometimes I do it as a bit of fun,’ Lampard has told Chelsea TV, ‘but it is a test of your skill and I practice shooting from all angles and with both feet.

‘Sometimes it is horrible when you are missing the target all the time but on nights like this, you get your reward if you work hard.

‘Millions of times I have done that and missed the target and then on a night like this it comes good,’ he smiles.

‘The first touch let me down so I suppose that is what made the goal because that is what gave me the angle.

‘When I scored, I didn’t really have any other option than to clip it over the goalkeeper. I had to get the right trajectory and it was a great feeling when it dropped in.’
 
Top Bottom