Originally posted by vansmack:
Originally posted by Barcelona:
Mankie, Chelsea just lost 3-0 with Middlesbrough. Aren´t they as solid as last year?
I didn't see the Middlesborough match yet, but the dozen or so games I've seen them play this year, I think they're better this year than last year. I hope this is a sign that they're getting tired. I still like Barca to go through. [/b]
Barcelona is not doing well rigth now, although it is true that the injuries might have influenced the poor performance and next Tuesday we should have all the key players back except for Xavi. Let's see how it goes.
I was surprised to see yahoo.com soccer and see that they are already talking about the game as the main news, five days ahead of the game.
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=AkysFUGGgT0pGKB75Myqa0Amw7YF?slug=cnnsi-stokingtheflame&prov=cnnsi&type=lgns Stoking the flames
Gabriele Marcotti, SI.com
It was the defining rivalry of the second half of last season, and it promises to be just as juicy this time around, as Champions League reaches its knockout stage. Like all good feuds, there is more than a touch of familiarity -- the kind that breeds contempt -- between Chelsea and Barcelona.
Blues boss Jose Mourinho spent several years as an assistant coach at the Camp Nou, and he himself has described it as one of the most formative experiences in his brief but ?ber-successful career.
Barcelona striker Samuel Eto'o has been on Chelsea's wish list for several seasons (though perhaps more a fixation for owner Roman Abramovich than Mourinho himself). And the man who makes Chelsea's midfield tick, Frank Lampard, is a well-known closet Bar?a fan, whose wife is from Catalonia, and he may well end up there in a year or two.
Yet make no mistake about it: Despite the familiarity, these clubs are polar opposites in every way. Barcelona is part of the aristocracy of the game -- it's a community club owned by 100,000-plus members, and it plays in the biggest stadium in Western Europe.
Chelsea, in footballing terms at least, is an upstart whose recent success is based on the fabulous wealth of Abramovich, the club's sole proprietor.
The contrast extends to the managers and their styles. Barça's Frank Rijkaard was a vastly successful midfielder and a winner of three European Cups whose tactical style reflects the attacking mantra of two of his biggest coaching influences, Arrigo Sacchi and Louis van Gaal. Coaching-wise, he started at the top, with the Dutch national team gig among his very first jobs.
Mourinho, on the other hand, never established himself as a professional footballer. Instead, he obsessively studied the game, working his way into the coaching staff of various clubs -- first as an interpreter, then as a scout, then as an assistant -- before finally getting his big break at Benfica six years ago. His approach is comparatively safety-first, based on organization and discipline.
Mourinho is also vastly popular with his players. In fact, that may be his greatest strength: There is no dissent in the camp, everyone buys into his system, and even those who get little playing time seem to genuinely embrace him as a manager. That trait is as rare as it is underestimated.
At Barcelona, the affable Rijkaard is popular, but there is a clear sense that even if someone else were in charge, the club would still excel. Joan Laporta, Barcelona's president, said as much last week when he declared that Rijkaard is "free to leave at any time," which, these days, is either a sign of extreme trust or confirmation that he is, in fact, expendable.
The bad blood extends to last season's clash, in which both legs were mired in controversy. After the first leg, Mourinho accused Barça officials of entering referee Anders Frisk's dressing room at halftime in an effort to influence his officiating. It was a claim UEFA deemed to be spurious, banning Mourinho for three games as a result. And in the return leg, Barça fans were incensed when referee Pierluigi Collina, for once not living up to his reputation, failed to disallow Ricardo Carvalho's decisive goal despite replays showing a likely foul.
It's already shades of last year, with Barcelona complaining about the state of Chelsea's Stamford Bridge pitch, which is about as bare as Michael Jordan's head. Barça argues that the bad playing surface favors Chelsea over its more technical players.
In truth, it's a bit of a silly argument -- it's not as if Chelsea is just a bunch of long-ball merchants who benefit from a pitch that looks like a lunar landscape. But it does show that both sides are getting their licks early and there is no love lost.
In many ways, this is how it should be. There are five outstanding teams in Europe, each of whom is running away with the domestic title and each of whom has to be among the favorites for Champions League. The problem is that the other three sides -- Bayern, Juventus and Lyon -- have not captured the imagination the way Chelsea and Barça have.
What makes this clash special -- beyond the bad blood and the history -- are the extreme contrasts, the whiff of incest and the ultimate showdown between the mind of Mourinho and the genius of Ronaldinho, Eto'o, Leo Messi and the rest of the Barça crew.
Ultimately, despite the depth and quality of the Chelsea team, it's very difficult to frame this clash as anything other than the mind of Mourinho versus the genius of these talented, creative individuals. And that's why the world will be tuning in next week.
Mailbag
What individual players impressed you the most in the recent African Cup of Nations? And as important as that tournament has become, why the lack of coverage on Fox Soccer Channel, Gol TV and Sentanta Sports? The coverage is right out of the 1980s, when nobody respected African football. Your thoughts? -- Steve Adams, New Hope, Minn.
The African Cup of Nations is one of my favorite tournaments, though I find it difficult to name an individual. I was impressed with Didier Drogba's determination and Eto'o's sheer genius, but that's nothing new. Among others I really liked Nigeria's Taye Taiwo and Ivory Coast's Didier Zokora, as well as Ahmed Hassan of Egypt (no surprise there).
In terms of the coverage, I agree that it was disappointing. I get so tired of hearing the same patronizing comments from Anglo-centric commentators who go on about Africans needing "to learn tactical discipline," African goalkeepers who "always lose concentration" and -- believe it or not -- how these players are "great physical specimens."
Those types of comments -- along with the endless whining from European clubs about the timing of the tournament (as if they didn't know their players were African internationals when they signed them) -- border on racism and condescension. I do think the coverage from the Western media is getting better, but we sure still have a very long way to go.
