Chelsea v Barcelona, May 6, Champions League

Chelsea paid the price for not taking their chances when they got them and a painfully late 94th minute equalizer from Andres Iniesta meant that Barcelona have sealed their date against Manchester United in Rome. There is talk of tactics and strategy, but in the end the only fact that separated the two teams was the away goal. For all Chelsea’s defensiveness they created enough to have won it over two legs. For all Barcelona’s lack of shots on target in the second –leg, they managed to score the goal that mattered and the rest are just split hairs.

The second leg mirrored the first in many aspects and yet had significant differences. The most significant being a 9th minute goal scored out of nothing from a Michael Essien left footed wonder strike. Chelsea may have not had too many attacking thoughts even at nil-nil, but the goal gave them an added incentive to defend in numbers. Before the goal and after it, Barcelona kept possession in much the same way as they had done in the first leg. They also made as little use of it at Stamford Bridge as they had done at the Nou Camp.

From there on till the end, the game was mildly more entertaining than last week’s encounter with more occasions for drama and controversy, though with rather little new in terms of spectacular play. Especially poor was Dani Alves, whose crosses throughout the evening would have been better collected in the neighboring field. Eto was no more visible than n the first leg and Messi just marginally better. Busquet, Keita and Xavi looked like a pale shadow of Xavi, Iniesta and Toure, though Chelsea were so far back that the midfield depletion didn’t really hurt Barca. Iniesta stood out as the only Barca player who looked capable of doing damage, but not really in the manner in which he eventually did.

Chelsea’s single solution for creating attacking positions was to seek out Drogba, and he did do a spectacular job in making life difficult for Barcelona many times through the evening. Yet, he failed to score from a chance not too dissimilar to the one he had at the Nou Camp and in that failure, condemned his team to defeat.

Barca should have conceded a penalty or two and were fortunate, but so had Chelsea been when Henry was denied a penalty and Ballack not dished out a red card. The ref stank the whole night through and yet somehow it is difficult to pin the result to him. Chelsea could have scored more and should have been composed enough till the end, not to concede against ten men. Barcelona kept going for it, even after they lost Abidal and were fortunate enough to get the rewards. Had Iniesta shot wide, Barca would have had only their inability to break down a very resolute and well organized defense to blame.

I would have loved if Barcelona had squared off against Arsenal while Manchester United had taken on Chelsea. It probably would have made for better viewing across all the four games and even though the finalists may have turned out to be the same, there would not have been so much unsettlable debate between beautiful and defensive football and the moral rights to a final.

As it is, Barcelona have got there and will have the right to play, moral or immoral. How well they can cope against Manchester United will be seen on the day, but they will know that their superiority in the Liga will mean nothing against the defending Champions. Especially fragile is the look of their defense and Manchester United can play the counter attacking game even better than Chelsea so Barcelona will struggle to keep a clean sheet. The destination of the trophy will be their ability to do significantly better against resolute defending and in that respect, the Chelsea game could prove to be a huge learning experience for them.

Arsenal v Manchester United, May 5, Champions League

United should have had their place in the final sealed and settled even before we kicked off at the Emirates. Almunia and profligacy on United’s part had resulted in the Gunners chasing a mere one goal deficit and Arsenal are up there as one of the teams who should not be given a chance to recover. All three outcomes were distinctly possible and home advantage could potentially have had a strong influence in the result.

Arsenal sure started like they meant business. Some very slick passing resulted in a continued siege of the Red Devils’ goal, though Van der Saar was yet to be tested. Then came a moment where Arsenal’s vulnerability became suddenly evident. A long ball clearance found Ronaldo in the Arsenal box and he fended off three defenders before successfully controlling the ball and then setting up play for a half chance at goal. No damage was done but it was clear that whenever Man U did get into dangerous positions, they would have much more teeth. Just then, I remembered an Arsenal-Man U encounter from last season where Asenal kept playing pretty but Manchester United kept threatening on the break with some brilliant crosses into the box. Before too long one of them ended with a finish and for all their pretty play, Arsenal were behind. That game had ended 2-2 with some late drama, but my current thoughts were limited to expecting Arsenal to concede soon.

And soon enough they did. Once more Ronaldo found the ball, centered it for Park and while poor Gibbs slipped, making life easy for Park, Arsenal had invited enough trouble to not have the defense of poor luck. Now Arsenal had to score three and already you could sense a look of helplessness in the players’ faces. After Ronaldo scored from a free kick (which was a debatable free kick to get and which Almunia should have saved ), the Gunners just gave up. Within ten minutes of the second half, the match was beyond their reach and while they put up the charade of a fight, they never looked determined enough for a fight back.

There was a beautiful counter-attacking goal after a Vidic clearance was met by Ronaldo, carried by Park, taken wide and then played in by Rooney and finished by Ronaldo. There was also a consolation goal from a penalty for Arsenal after Fletcher was red carded. He got the ball but he also brought Fabregas down. Opinion has been divided over whether it was a red card or not. Most of the media (English) has been screaming it was so obviously not, while Graham Poll, retired referee and hence with the maximum credibility has apparently said it was. So there.

Wenger later described the 1-3 rout as the worst night of his career, but it was not a night that crept up suddenly. At the beginning of the season, Arsenal produced some good results against their direct rivals but dropped far too many points against the minnows. Now they have been on a great run against teams lower in the league than them, but in the last three weeks have been outplayed by Chelsea, Liverpool and United. Even though they sneaked in a draw against Pool, their fragility against teams that can match them in skill and outdo them in strength is evident. It may require the abandoning of the youth policy and ideology of Monsieur Wenger, but the arguments in favor of such a change are strong and many and oft repeated. And in the abandoning of the Galacticos policy by Madrid, Arsenal do have a precedence where a declared approach to success is abandoned when the targeted success is so obviously out of reach. Will Wenger heed?

Man U and Sir Alex – Just brilliant. It is difficult to pick a Man U player who did not have a great game. Ronaldo was at his best – smaller on the show boating doses and very large on impact, Rooney is just continuing to outdo Vidic’s bid as United’s player of the year, Anderson, Fletcher, Park…name them and they were all worthy of being finalists. Which they all are going to be now, with the unfortunate exception of Fletcher.

I hope it will be against Barcelona, but the outcome of tonight’s game is far from certain. I expect Chelsea to play exactly as they did last week and would not be surprised to see them nick it by a goal. Unless, Barca score early…then it will be fun.

El Classico at the Bernabeau, 2 May, La Liga

There will be a tendency to go into hyperbole about the class of Barcelona and the entertainment value of this game and a lot of it will be justified. But it is fair to say that throughout the season Barcelona have provided enough evidence to make the eventual outcome of this El Classico encounter, a thoroughly expected proposition. In other words, this result should not elicit any element of surprise. Let’s limit the elements to ‘Wows’.

The Santiago Bernabeau has not so long ago stood up to a man to cheer the genius of Ronaldinho, an act of appreciation so out of character, that even while seeing it live, I was tempted to interpret it as a fans’ way of showing their disgust towards their own team, rather than with the sole objective of praising a phenomenal adversary. On this occasion, they were provided ample opportunity to repeat their act, but they just looked on in amazement. For this time, there was little to berate their own team for and hence little motivation to rile them by praising the enemy. And yet, their appreciation of the beauty of Barcelona’s play would have not been in any measure lesser than that night when the grinning Brazilian had floored them all.

Madrid did not adopt the Chelsea approach to taming Barca. For one they were playing at home, as Chelsea will be this week. Second, they needed the three points to bring the gap down to a single point and give themselves a very real shot at retaining the League and pulling off a stunning comeback. Third, they had already tried the Chelsea approach at the Nou Camp and had failed to shout Barca out for more than eighty minutes or so. Last but not the least, they were on the back of seventeen or so unbeaten games, most of which were wins and had every reason to feel confident.

Barca on the other hand had seen a thirteen point advantage significantly reduced, had drawn two straight games and the world press was murmuring about the true extent of their greatness.
This is how it turned out. Higuain scored from a free header to give Real the lead. Barca responded with Messi finding Henry with the defense left behind and it was one all. Then a free kick was met with a Puyol free header into goal. Then it was Messi’s turn to score and it went into the break at 3-1. Barca came out strong again but it was Ramos who got the next goal and at 2-3, Real could have had a chance. But then Henry scored another and then Messi added another after being set up by Xavi and at 2-5 up, guess who it was that met Eto’s cross to score the sixth? Piquet from central defense, that’s who. That’s how crazy Barcelona are.

But to say so-and-so scored and this is how the game flowed is absurdly limiting. This was more cosmic. Like planetary motions or something pre-ordained by mysterious undiscovered scientific laws or the will of the Supreme, Barca moved in perfect harmony, they thought as a system, an entity and they executed with a beauty that can only be associated with things that are natural.
Real were poor or not, is something that was difficult to register. They did score twice and could have scored some more but it was difficult to notice. What is apparent is that in spite of all the money that they spend, Real has a first eleven that is distinctly inferior to teams that would be in its frame of competitor reference – Chelsea for example.

The same Chelsea who will be Barcelona’s next opponent for a different trophy which is not yet sealed and settled like the Liga is. Man-for-man Chelsea are a stronger team than Real (Casillas, Ramos and maybe Robben excluded) but will that be enough to tempt them to look to take the game to Barcelona at the Bridge? I doubt it. The first leg performance showed that Hiddink is not too bothered about footballing ideals and keeping the purists happy and I expect the script to be the same as the first leg. With a suspect central defensive pairing to be expected for Barcelona, Chelsea’s only ploy to score will be through route one flights to Drogba, and Barcelona will do well to conjure up the goal that they never did at the Nou Camp.

Chelsea v Fulham, 2 May, Premier League

The surprise that Guus Hiddink offered came in the form of the team sheet, which looked far too strong to be believable. With a second leg tie against Barcelona looming in the mid-week, it was widely accepted that many fringe players would be seen but the Dutchman chose to field almost the same leven that you would expect to see against Barcelona. Ballack did not start and Obi did and for me that represented the strongest midfield trio that Chelsea can play. After half-time Essien made way for Ballack, but that was the extent of rest and relaxation that Hiddink has provided the Blues with.

As a spectacle it helped matters significantly and the Chelsea that turned up were so different in character and attitude than the team that played Barcelona, that it was hard to believe that almost the same eleven had been repeated. For people who debate that strategy in football is overrated and it all depends on the players eventually, here’s proof that the world is grey.

Anyway, a brilliant move involving one touch play between many players was set for conclusion by Drogba with a simple finish for Anelka. This happened in the first minute. By the third minute Fulham had tested Cech for the first time. By the fifth, they equalized – through Nevland, who latched on to a long ball, found himself an angle to shoot under challenge from two defenders (and with no support) and beat Cech with the only shot he could have made.

Stung, Chelsea troubled Fulham again immediately after and Malouda reclaimed Chelsea’s league by finishing off a move that again involved the attacking trio.

The rest of the game did not quite carry the same momentum, but Chelsea did play some nice attacking football and Fulham provided enough of a fight to keep their fans hoping. The second half was topped off by a brilliant through ball played by Anelka to Drogba who made it 3-1, which is how the game ended.

Malouda continues to impress in his new life, Drogba keeps making a case for his continued greatness while Essien continues to show baffling loss of form. The other thing that hits you about Chelsea is there absolute inability to get any youngster to make the grade. Di Santo has made more appearances this season than season ticket holders but has never done anything that will catch the eye. Mancienne may be a possibility but Hiddink fails to show confidence in his ability to start or feature significantly for Chelsea. How come money has no role to play in the development of talent? Surely, the best talent pool, facilities and coaching can be assembled? What makes the economics of having an academy that consistently produces great players different from the economics of producing a winning team?

Fulham for their part will finish the season happy even if they have a bit of a stutter from now on. There are of course no obvious reasons to suspect a blip, but maybe the thought and talk of European action may cause the anxiety of anticipated overachievement. Hopefully not. Well done Fulham and hope Nevland recovers soon from his injury. He was on fire till he had to be substituted in the 35th minute.

Middlesbrough v Manchester United, 2 May, Premier League

Middlesbrough have consistently taken points off and even beaten top four opposition in the last few seasons so you could be forgiven for setting a degree of expectation from this game. The completely real threat of relegation demands heroic and desperate play and the stage was perfect for an underdog story to be scripted. Only the brutal bully was in no mood to oblige and Manchester United sealed a two goal victory with very little trouble and legs to spare.

The only thing worth remembering from the game is the mood of complete disinterest that it had propagated before the sixtieth minute was played. It was evident that Boro were not going to get anywhere near scoring a goal and the difference in league table positions was clearly reflected in the quality of play.

Giggs scored the opener for United and Park added a second in the second half. Macheda got his first premiership start. As expected United rested players. All this game means is that United are a game closer to winning it three in a row. If there is some late drama in the title-race, it certainly did not start on Saturday.

Manchester United v Arsenal, Champions League, 29 April

Manchester United failed to turn their massive superiority over the first thirty minutes (and sustained superiority over the next sixty) into a bagful of goals and will travel to Ashburton Grove with a single goal advantage. It is an advantage but ‘what could have been’ may just come and haunt United when the proceedings are completed next Tuesday.

A Rooney lob could have earned United the opener as early as the second minute but a Gordon-esque save by Almunia kept it at nil-nil. Before the half hour was up, Almunia had made yet more superb saves to prevent Tevez (twice) and Ronaldo.

In between though, he could not prevent a John O Shea poke from going into goal though the blame for that would lie with all the defenders who left O Shea alone in space and not the goalkeeper. Thus, in a matter of thirty minutes, United could have on a different day been up by five, but had to be contended with one.

For those thirty minutes, Arsenal were overwhelmed by United’s ability to keep possession at all areas of the field and their spectacular movement and passing. O Shea, Fletcher and Carrick were especially impressive, even as the attacking trio of Tevez, Ronaldo and Rooney threatened to make something of every opportunity. Five up after thirty would have been maybe too flattering for United, but definitely a 3-0 score line would not have seemed unjustified, such was their command.

It was after the save off Ronaldo that Arsenal finally got into the game. Song and Nasri finally started finding the ball and keeping it, while Fabregas connected well with the pair (and Diaby) to eventually start getting the ball into difficult areas for Man U. The fifteen minute spell after the Ronaldo save till half-time, consisted of pleasant, attacking football from both the sides with some very fluent passing and movement.
The second half had moments of equal intensity but they were interspersed with passages of play where both teams struggled for ideas. The excitement was provided by a superb Ronaldo kick from outside the box which rattled the bar and was reminiscent of that great goal against Porto and the other was a goal from substitute Ryan Giggs which was correctly disallowed for offside (it was Giggs’ 800th game for United and a goal would have been one mushy story).

There was not too much new to learn from the performances except acknowledging that Arsenal’s young left back Kieron Gibbs has a future at this level. There was also the opportunity to see Nasri has a deep lying midfielder and while he gave a decent account of himself, I think he adds too much value to that attacking line to be withdrawn from it, especially when Arshavin is missing.

So as this goes into Tie-2, there is little room for the claiming of moral victories or making of bold predictions. All outcomes are possible and I suspect, it is going to be a lot of fun.

Barcelona v Chelsea, Champions League, 28 April

The Game

There was pre-match talk of a goalfest or something similar, but in the end Chelsea replayed Manchester United’s game at the Nou Camp at the same stage last year. Just replaced the kits, changed player names and then set the tactics to “same as last year Barca V MU semi-final”. Wish they got that feature in FIFA Manager.

Essien on the right side of midfield signaled lack of width for Chelsea even before the game kicked off. Their occupation of the pitch confirmed that they would lack width, breadth, length and any dimension needed to really get a game of football going. Goalkeeper plus nine were to be found on a patch of the field no broader than thirty yards and it was less of a game and more of a complicated training drill in which Barca failed to meet the objective.

If Chelsea were ever going to score it would have had to be from a long ball, a set piece or a defensive error and Marquez presented them with one when he handed the ball over to Drogba, who should have scored but was prevented well (twice) by Valdes. Then there was a second half corner which found an unmarked Ballack who used to put them all in, once upon a time. This time he headed over. That was about it from Chelsea.

Barcelona were as good as they needed to be as a team but were let down by some key individuals – Messi and Eto to be precise. Bosingwa was Messi’s marker on the left and there was a whole battalion of Chelsea players on him whenever he went central, but it wasn’t simply the tight marking that was behind Lionel’s poor show. He seemed to lack focus and made too many bad decisions and lost possession far too easily. Maybe he was ill. It’s hard to think of an explanation and while I have seen games where his involvement has been low, I can’t recollect another where it has been poor.

Eto failed to convert the one big chance he had (a combination of Alex and Terry errors presented him with a clear run on goal) and was otherwise completely out-bullied by Chelsea’s defense. Henry was better than the pair of them, but even he was hardly having his best night. A couple of shots on target and a dangerous moment when he should (or could) have won a penalty for being hauled down in the box.

The rest of the lot was almost as good as they are on any other day. Xavi, Abidal and Alves looked completely at ease while Iniesta had a delightful first half. Toure, Marquez and Piquet not only never allowed Drogba to win a Cech long goal kick, they also consistently rid the Chelsea midfield of the ball on the few occasions that the Blues did try and string a move together.

For Chelsea, it was hardly a case of rating one player over the other as they came with a specific purpose as a unit and achieved it as a unit. Still, amidst all the discipline and efficiency, it was difficult not to note the struggle that Essien is having with his passing game. On a positive note, Petr Cech pulled off some great saves and after that penalty save against West Ham, he is looking as assured as a shot stopper as he was at his peak. There’s still some way to go before we can say that about his command of the area, but one hopes that this performance will provide an overall confidence boost to one of those rare goalkeepers who makes his job look very exciting indeed.

A not to forget moment – Frank Lampard getting substituted. That’s a rare one.

To dismiss the game as a non-spectacle would be harsh though it definitely was more interesting than it was exciting. Yet, there were plenty of critical moments which could have changed the score board and turned this into a well-loved 2-2 instead of a boring 0-0. Drogba, Ballack and Eto have been mentioned before but there were also Hleb (who should have done better) and Bojan (who should have scored… period). Defensive mistakes, which have been consistently followed by some superb finishing in the last few weeks, were forgiven time and again and the set-piece boots were all forgotten at home. Piquet found some good passes into the box and on another day Alves would have trapped one and secured a Bergkamp‘esk’ finish. Some days however, are not just for goals.

Chelsea came in with a plan and as far as the result goes, it seems to have worked, if not completely then quite significantly. But I’m sure they’ll realize that their own endeavors had as much to do with the result as the inexplicable loss of form to two of the world’s most dangerous players.

The After Game

As I expected to when I switched off the television set last night, I have woken up to a day where Chelsea have been praised and ridiculed for their approach and where inevitably the talents of Messi on the big stage have been questioned. Also on expected lines, there’s not a word about the penalty kick that Henry may have earned and the fact that for all their talk of superiority, even the best English teams have a single game plan for containing Barca (but they succeed everytime dammit).

As it stands, it is of course a double edged sword for Chelsea. They could hope to face a team of fragile minds next week (especially if Real manage to cause more torment on the weekend) and yet a single Barca goal could do so much more damage at the Bridge than it would have had at Nou Camp. That is why I had expected Chelsea to attack a little more in the second half but it did not happen.

For Barca, apart from the headache of filling in the central defensive gap (created by the injury to Marquez and the suspension of Puyol) will be the challenge of keeping themselves fresh and fit and getting their most important players in the correct state of mind when they reach London. That done, they will always be a team capable of beating anyone anywhere.