So, I wrote about Barcelona over the weekend, and everything that I wrote that illed them against Real Madrid came up to bite them against Chelsea in the 2nd Leg. But man, I could have never expected both Barcelona and Real Madrid to fail to go through at home against two "lesser" teams. I put that in quotes for a reason that we will get to in a minute. Either way, just three and four days after Barcelona and Real Madrid battled for the right to be the team that had the opportunity to win a double, neither team will have that chance. In six days, Pep Guardiola had three massive games to oversee, and didn't win any of them, with two being at home. What a mystifying week of football.
What happened to Real Madrid was, to me, more revelating to me. I didn't think Barcelona would go through with ease. I knew Chelsea would play the way they did against Barcelona, and there is enough evidence that when a good, structured team plays that way against Barcelona, they almost always have a chance. The way the Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich game unfolded was more, in a way, surprising. The only part of the Barca loss that surprised me was the final. Everything surprised me about the Bayern win, including the way they, let's be honest, looked just as good as Real Madrid in Madrid. Bayern created more chances, had more shots, and although they didn't score a goal in play, they definitely deserved that scoreline in any sense. No one, even those that undervalue defense and thinks because one team completes more passes they are obviously the more dominant team, could say that Bayern did not deserve their win. Bayern was the better team in the extra time.
Now, I understand why Real Madrid was more cautious in the late 2nd Half and extra time, and that is because had Bayern scored, Madrid would need to score two quickly to win, so they understandably played back. But what was more surprising is that they didn't get those easy breakouts or counters. They really played Bayern to a draw. But when you look at it, Bayern is an extremely talented team. I don't think they play together on offense as well as Barca or Real, but just on talent, Bayern has some extremely talented offensive players. Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery make one of the best attacking mid-field tandems in the world. Philip Lahm is one of the best two-way full-backs in the world. Bastian Schweinsteiger may have peaked, but he's basically a more solid version of Sergio Busquets, or a comparable player to what Andrea Pirlo is at this point in his career. Mario Gomez is a capable striker, as is Thomas Muller off the bench. The talent is there. I think they are the favorite in the Final, and I think they would be in any stadium (maybe not had the final been in Stamford Bridge). Bayern is a good team. I mean, they've made as many CL Finals in the past four years as Barca has.
One quick note about how it ended. I'm not a fan of the away-goals rule. Sure, it helped Chelsea go through, but it seems totally arbitrary. I guess the biggest positive aspect to the away goals rule is that it avoids penalty kicks (the only way is having both legs won by the home or away side by the same score), but it makes late game scenarios really unfair to the home side. As I mentioned, I felt that Real retreated more in extra time not only because they were fatigued (that's what happens when they have to play full-on over the weekend in the biggest game of their season, while the other team basically rested after having already lost out on the league), but also because they had much, much more to lose if they concede a goal at that stage. If I can propose one switch to the rule, I think goals in extra time should not be subjected to the away goals distinction. I mean, Real Madrid didn't choose to play the extra time in their stadium. It was their luck to have the 2nd Leg at home (definitely an advantage), but they shouldn't be penalized when in Extra Time a goal for them in reality doesn't mean as much as a goal for Bayern. To me, if both teams score in Extra Time, the game should still go to penalty kicks. It is just implicitly unfair for, in that scenario, one club to get 120 minutes to score away goals while the other only gets 90.
Anyway, back to the ending. I really felt bad for Jose Mourinho. I think early in the 1st Leg honestly, he realized that Munich was a damn good team. He had his team prepared (again, Bayern's only goal in the 2nd Leg came off of a penalty) but in the end, for the most controlling, hands-on, interactive manager in football had no control over who won in the end. He sent his four best, most trusted shooters up to the spot, and three of them failed him. Also, after the win of his Madrid career over the weekend, within four days he has to face questions again. I think Mourinho has always seen the Champions League as the goal anywhere he goes, and despite the fact that they will beat the supposed best team in the world in terms of accumulating points over 38 games, the year wasn't complete. When Real Madrid took the field for the 2nd Leg, they were the favorite among the three teams left, and they didn't get it done.
Then again, if you want to talk about not getting it done, all Madrid fans can just turn right and point South to their Catalan enemies in Barca. That is a team that didn't get it done. Forget not scoring. They scored enough goals in that 2nd Leg. They just gave up two goals too many. The staggering thing was BOTH goals were scored when Chelsea had 10 men. Barca, at home, failed to go through against a 6th-place Premier League team, after that team spotted them two goals and had one Central Back red-carded and the other Central Back subbed out with an injury. I mean, how much more did Barca need to go in their favor. The only thing that was "unlucky" was Messi missing a penalty kick but that was in Barca's control. (For all of Leo's brilliance, his penalty conversion is not that great, and has missed high-pressure penalties before). What was more staggering was that Barcelona seemed a lot more threatening when Chelsea was playing 11 men, and more than that, seemed a lot more threatening in the 1st Leg in Stamford Bridge. In that game, they had 8 shots on goal, while Chelsea had 1. In the 2nd Leg, Barca had just 5, with just 2 of those after Chelsea was reduced to 10 men, and Chelsea had 3. Barcelona, for all its possession and passing brilliance, failed, for the 2nd Time in three years, to score a necessary goal against a 10-man squad.
If I'm playing Barcelona in a game where all I need to do is keep Barca from scoring (Chelsea in 2012, Inter in 2010), it almost makes sense to have a guy red-carded. With one guy out of the game, that team has to deploy more guys to playing defense. In 2010, Jose Mourinho utilized Samuel Eto'o as a Left Back to good success. In this game, Didier Drogba, other than his dubious penalty, was a better left back than any of Barca's defenders, who again showed that Barca's defense is full of holes. Sure, Barcelona's offensive attack is a lot better than Chelsea (and in honesty, every team in the world), but their defense is just average, if not worse. They are finally getting exposed more often for having one defender being incapable of really playing defense (Alves), and one defender being a converted midfielder (Mascherano). That's not a recipe for success. Add to it a goalie who is not good at positioning (witness his mess against the corner that resulted in Real's first goal in the Clasico or him totally out of position against Ramires's goal). Barcelona gave up 4 shots on goal in the two legs. Three of those went into the net. Some may call it luck. I call it a team that isn't all good at defense who doesn't give up more goals because the other team has teh ball so infrequently. Hey, it works 90% of the time with ease when Barca is playing the Levante's and Racing Santander's of the La Liga world, but against the premier teams in Europe that are capable of playing great, organized defense, it doesn't. Barcelona knows how to beat Arsenal like a drum, but doesn't know how to beat Chelsea. It just doesn't.
I'm not going to kill Messi, but I think he does realize that Barca needs him to be brilliant a whole lot more than they needed him to be brilliant in 2009. Xavi and Iniesta are not as good as they used to be even a year ago. This new wave of youngsters are all too green. They all fit into the system, but none seem to me as being singularly talented in the way of a Robben or Ribery. They have no plan B because most of the time they don't need one, but I am sure that Pep Guardiola realizes that the better defensive sides in Europe have realized the formula to keeping the game close. It doesn't always result in wins, but it can. Anyway, back to Messi. He's succeeded in the two Champions League Finals he has played, scoring a goal in each win over Manchester United (not a great defensive team), but has honestly, underperformed late in the CL season. Barcelona has reached the CL Semifinal five straight years that align with Messi's rise (of course, he's been scoring more the past three than the first two in that run), so Barcelona has played 20 matches in the QF and SF of those tournaments. Messi has scored just 9 goals in those 20 games. Now, that is a good haul, but considering his almost one goal a game average in his Barca career, it is less-than. Also, consider that those 11 goals have come in just five games. He scored four in a brilliant performance in the 2nd Leg of the 2010 QF against Arsenal, two in the 1st Leg of the 2009 QF against Bayern, one in the 2nd Leg of the 2011 QF against Stuttgart, two in the 1st Leg of the 2011 SF against Real (after Pepe was redcarded) and two more in the 2nd Leg of the 2012 SF against AC Milan. Three of those 11 were penalties. Only two came in a semifinal match. So, fifteen times in 20 career quarter or semifinal legs in his Barca career, Messi has been held scoreless. Now, the attention it takes to slow him down is enough that everyone else benefits, but he hasn't been as good late in seasons. And it is true of his La Liga performance. Messi scores more goals early in seasons than late, and I think much of that has to do with the fact that he barely ever sits out games or even portions of games. He is human he needs time to rest.
Either way, we are set for an interesting final. Both teams deserve to be there. This is why the CL has a playoff system, because anything can happen. Sure, if both Chelsea and Barcelona were playing in the same league, it is almost guaranteed that Barcelona would end up with a higher rank (coincedently, in that same most fair system, Madrid WILL end up with more points than Barcelona, yet a large majority of people will say Barca is still better), but over two Legs, Barca didn't win either game. Madrid deservedly was ousted by a team that just played better and with more force over 210 minutes. It will be a fun final, with a fun Bayern team at home against the most resilient team that I've seen since Inter in 2010, but either way, it will be refreshing that for once, the Clasico can be shoved away for another six months or so. That the great Spanish sides have fallen, that defense beat offense (again), and that that talent Bayern had showed just what it can be if it plays together.
What happened to Real Madrid was, to me, more revelating to me. I didn't think Barcelona would go through with ease. I knew Chelsea would play the way they did against Barcelona, and there is enough evidence that when a good, structured team plays that way against Barcelona, they almost always have a chance. The way the Real Madrid vs. Bayern Munich game unfolded was more, in a way, surprising. The only part of the Barca loss that surprised me was the final. Everything surprised me about the Bayern win, including the way they, let's be honest, looked just as good as Real Madrid in Madrid. Bayern created more chances, had more shots, and although they didn't score a goal in play, they definitely deserved that scoreline in any sense. No one, even those that undervalue defense and thinks because one team completes more passes they are obviously the more dominant team, could say that Bayern did not deserve their win. Bayern was the better team in the extra time.
Now, I understand why Real Madrid was more cautious in the late 2nd Half and extra time, and that is because had Bayern scored, Madrid would need to score two quickly to win, so they understandably played back. But what was more surprising is that they didn't get those easy breakouts or counters. They really played Bayern to a draw. But when you look at it, Bayern is an extremely talented team. I don't think they play together on offense as well as Barca or Real, but just on talent, Bayern has some extremely talented offensive players. Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery make one of the best attacking mid-field tandems in the world. Philip Lahm is one of the best two-way full-backs in the world. Bastian Schweinsteiger may have peaked, but he's basically a more solid version of Sergio Busquets, or a comparable player to what Andrea Pirlo is at this point in his career. Mario Gomez is a capable striker, as is Thomas Muller off the bench. The talent is there. I think they are the favorite in the Final, and I think they would be in any stadium (maybe not had the final been in Stamford Bridge). Bayern is a good team. I mean, they've made as many CL Finals in the past four years as Barca has.
One quick note about how it ended. I'm not a fan of the away-goals rule. Sure, it helped Chelsea go through, but it seems totally arbitrary. I guess the biggest positive aspect to the away goals rule is that it avoids penalty kicks (the only way is having both legs won by the home or away side by the same score), but it makes late game scenarios really unfair to the home side. As I mentioned, I felt that Real retreated more in extra time not only because they were fatigued (that's what happens when they have to play full-on over the weekend in the biggest game of their season, while the other team basically rested after having already lost out on the league), but also because they had much, much more to lose if they concede a goal at that stage. If I can propose one switch to the rule, I think goals in extra time should not be subjected to the away goals distinction. I mean, Real Madrid didn't choose to play the extra time in their stadium. It was their luck to have the 2nd Leg at home (definitely an advantage), but they shouldn't be penalized when in Extra Time a goal for them in reality doesn't mean as much as a goal for Bayern. To me, if both teams score in Extra Time, the game should still go to penalty kicks. It is just implicitly unfair for, in that scenario, one club to get 120 minutes to score away goals while the other only gets 90.
Anyway, back to the ending. I really felt bad for Jose Mourinho. I think early in the 1st Leg honestly, he realized that Munich was a damn good team. He had his team prepared (again, Bayern's only goal in the 2nd Leg came off of a penalty) but in the end, for the most controlling, hands-on, interactive manager in football had no control over who won in the end. He sent his four best, most trusted shooters up to the spot, and three of them failed him. Also, after the win of his Madrid career over the weekend, within four days he has to face questions again. I think Mourinho has always seen the Champions League as the goal anywhere he goes, and despite the fact that they will beat the supposed best team in the world in terms of accumulating points over 38 games, the year wasn't complete. When Real Madrid took the field for the 2nd Leg, they were the favorite among the three teams left, and they didn't get it done.
Then again, if you want to talk about not getting it done, all Madrid fans can just turn right and point South to their Catalan enemies in Barca. That is a team that didn't get it done. Forget not scoring. They scored enough goals in that 2nd Leg. They just gave up two goals too many. The staggering thing was BOTH goals were scored when Chelsea had 10 men. Barca, at home, failed to go through against a 6th-place Premier League team, after that team spotted them two goals and had one Central Back red-carded and the other Central Back subbed out with an injury. I mean, how much more did Barca need to go in their favor. The only thing that was "unlucky" was Messi missing a penalty kick but that was in Barca's control. (For all of Leo's brilliance, his penalty conversion is not that great, and has missed high-pressure penalties before). What was more staggering was that Barcelona seemed a lot more threatening when Chelsea was playing 11 men, and more than that, seemed a lot more threatening in the 1st Leg in Stamford Bridge. In that game, they had 8 shots on goal, while Chelsea had 1. In the 2nd Leg, Barca had just 5, with just 2 of those after Chelsea was reduced to 10 men, and Chelsea had 3. Barcelona, for all its possession and passing brilliance, failed, for the 2nd Time in three years, to score a necessary goal against a 10-man squad.
If I'm playing Barcelona in a game where all I need to do is keep Barca from scoring (Chelsea in 2012, Inter in 2010), it almost makes sense to have a guy red-carded. With one guy out of the game, that team has to deploy more guys to playing defense. In 2010, Jose Mourinho utilized Samuel Eto'o as a Left Back to good success. In this game, Didier Drogba, other than his dubious penalty, was a better left back than any of Barca's defenders, who again showed that Barca's defense is full of holes. Sure, Barcelona's offensive attack is a lot better than Chelsea (and in honesty, every team in the world), but their defense is just average, if not worse. They are finally getting exposed more often for having one defender being incapable of really playing defense (Alves), and one defender being a converted midfielder (Mascherano). That's not a recipe for success. Add to it a goalie who is not good at positioning (witness his mess against the corner that resulted in Real's first goal in the Clasico or him totally out of position against Ramires's goal). Barcelona gave up 4 shots on goal in the two legs. Three of those went into the net. Some may call it luck. I call it a team that isn't all good at defense who doesn't give up more goals because the other team has teh ball so infrequently. Hey, it works 90% of the time with ease when Barca is playing the Levante's and Racing Santander's of the La Liga world, but against the premier teams in Europe that are capable of playing great, organized defense, it doesn't. Barcelona knows how to beat Arsenal like a drum, but doesn't know how to beat Chelsea. It just doesn't.
I'm not going to kill Messi, but I think he does realize that Barca needs him to be brilliant a whole lot more than they needed him to be brilliant in 2009. Xavi and Iniesta are not as good as they used to be even a year ago. This new wave of youngsters are all too green. They all fit into the system, but none seem to me as being singularly talented in the way of a Robben or Ribery. They have no plan B because most of the time they don't need one, but I am sure that Pep Guardiola realizes that the better defensive sides in Europe have realized the formula to keeping the game close. It doesn't always result in wins, but it can. Anyway, back to Messi. He's succeeded in the two Champions League Finals he has played, scoring a goal in each win over Manchester United (not a great defensive team), but has honestly, underperformed late in the CL season. Barcelona has reached the CL Semifinal five straight years that align with Messi's rise (of course, he's been scoring more the past three than the first two in that run), so Barcelona has played 20 matches in the QF and SF of those tournaments. Messi has scored just 9 goals in those 20 games. Now, that is a good haul, but considering his almost one goal a game average in his Barca career, it is less-than. Also, consider that those 11 goals have come in just five games. He scored four in a brilliant performance in the 2nd Leg of the 2010 QF against Arsenal, two in the 1st Leg of the 2009 QF against Bayern, one in the 2nd Leg of the 2011 QF against Stuttgart, two in the 1st Leg of the 2011 SF against Real (after Pepe was redcarded) and two more in the 2nd Leg of the 2012 SF against AC Milan. Three of those 11 were penalties. Only two came in a semifinal match. So, fifteen times in 20 career quarter or semifinal legs in his Barca career, Messi has been held scoreless. Now, the attention it takes to slow him down is enough that everyone else benefits, but he hasn't been as good late in seasons. And it is true of his La Liga performance. Messi scores more goals early in seasons than late, and I think much of that has to do with the fact that he barely ever sits out games or even portions of games. He is human he needs time to rest.
Either way, we are set for an interesting final. Both teams deserve to be there. This is why the CL has a playoff system, because anything can happen. Sure, if both Chelsea and Barcelona were playing in the same league, it is almost guaranteed that Barcelona would end up with a higher rank (coincedently, in that same most fair system, Madrid WILL end up with more points than Barcelona, yet a large majority of people will say Barca is still better), but over two Legs, Barca didn't win either game. Madrid deservedly was ousted by a team that just played better and with more force over 210 minutes. It will be a fun final, with a fun Bayern team at home against the most resilient team that I've seen since Inter in 2010, but either way, it will be refreshing that for once, the Clasico can be shoved away for another six months or so. That the great Spanish sides have fallen, that defense beat offense (again), and that that talent Bayern had showed just what it can be if it plays together.
