Here are my views on the Barcelona-Chelsea match (and, incidentally, some wider football philosophies).
Football is a team game in which tactics are more often than not of paramount importance, especially in high-stakes knockout matches at the loftiest level. Retaining the ball is good and fine, passing it around with crisp single touches is better, and creating scoring chances is even better than that. But obviously the most improtant thing is to score more goals than the opposition. That's what determines the winner - a simple goal tally.
Football is not some poxy "sport" like diving (although, with certain teams, that could be a moot point) or synchronised swimming, where the only things which count are style, presentation and highly subjective judging. Ultimately, it doesn't matter if a team is camped in the opposition's half for the entire ninety minutes plus stoppage time and pumps in forty spectacular shots on goal if none of them go in and their opponents score on their single counterattack or from their single corner. The scoreboard isn't concerned with statistics pertaining to possession, number of completed passes, corners forced, stepovers, backheels, or nutmegs - the scoreboard shows goals and nothing else.
Let's return to tactics. Nobody can reasonably expect that if technically inferior teams wish to avoid certain defeat they should attempt to match it with absolutely top-class skill merchants like Barcelona and play an open game. In fact, the vast majority of teams Barcelona face will defend deep, put their players behind the ball, and hope to score from a counterattack or set piece. This is exactly what Chelsea did in both legs.
Now, when Barcelona are playing against most clubs, their opponents' comparatively massed defence generally doesn't pose much of a problem, as it is more than likely that the opposition doesn't have sufficient numbers of players who can absorb the pressure of continuous defending and shall therefore consequently crack under the strain sooner or later. Barcelona can simply pass and dribble their way through formations largely consisting of players with relatively limited ability and mental fortitude. The "Barcelona way" does the trick and neither the coach nor the players are forced to radically adjust their style to win matches. If all else fails, they can usually rely on a referee to provide them with a penalty...
Chelsea defended en masse during the first leg in London and managed to grab the only goal of the game against the run of play. So what did Barcelona expect? That Chelsea would come to the Camp Nou and play some kind of open and attacking passing game? Of course not. Barcelona knew that they would have to break Chelsea down, they went about it in their usual manner and managed to go two goals up, which would have been enough to win the tie. They were also given a big helping hand by John Terry's sending off after 37 minutes.
Permit me to digress a moment in order to say a couple of things about Terry's red card. As everyone should know by now, I can't stand Terry and categorically condemn his idiotic knee to Alexis Sanchez's back - it was highly irresponsible and unprofessional, particularly given that Chelsea had conceded a goal two minutes beforehand and the tie was balanced at 1-1 on aggregate. He let his team down and there are no excuses. Yet sanchez put on the type of theatrical performance which one has sadly come to expect from Barcelona players and one wonders if a red card would have been meted out so readily had a Barcelona player committed an identical foul...
Chelsea's goal on the stroke of half time completely altered the complexion of the match, as the tie was now 2-2 on aggregate which would have been enough for the "English" club to go through on away goals. That's where Messi's penalty miss provided a turning point. If he'd scored, then Barcelona would in all probability have progressed to the final, being automatically installed as overwhelming favourites and nobody either here or in the media would be speaking of the Spaniards' / Catalans' apocalyptic demise, the end of an era, the death of the Spanish national team, et cetera. Instead, Messi would be feted as the ever-reliable match winner and the best player in the world, while Barcelona would be "back on track" following their loss to Real Madrid four days earlier.
As things went, Messi missed and Barcelona still required another goal to once again put themselves into a winning position. That's when things really went awry and the Spaniards' lack of versatility emerged. As I mentioned earlier, passing and dribbling through defences may work against most clubs, but if a "top class" team decides to "park the bus" and concentrate solely on keeping the opposition out that isn't always enough. Under normal circumstances, Barcelona's lack of physical presence or a dangerous aerial threat isn't too much of an issue, but against stubbornly determined, more "robust" defending by well organised and seasoned players who don't go to pieces at the mere mention of the Catalan club's name such deficiencies become glaringly apparent and are reflected in all too obvious tactical limitations.
It all boils down to this: Barcelona played at home with a one man advantage for just over 53 minutes, yet couldn't win the game. Chelsea did what they had to do and it worked. It wasn't pretty but that's sometimes how things go. Am I happy that the "blacker" team progressed to the final? No, of course I'm not. In truth, I'm fuming, despite my dislike of Barcelona and their separate domestic television deals, their diving, their influence over referees and the club's traditional leftist leanings. But Barcelona only have themselves to blame, for they were a man up and missed a penalty. How can anyone possibly complain? People need to realise that no team - however talented - has a divine right to win all the time.
which is fine.
