Champions League 2012-13

It is pretty much a 5v3 scenario and it will be a case of one-happy bunny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

Those 8 games since Juventus (but before Balotelli) were all against teams outside the top 6 (Catania, Torino, Pescara, Roma, Siena, Sampdoria, Bologna and Atalanta). Even the Roma match (which they lost) was against a team that's 7th and two of those wins, Pescara and Siena, came against teams in the relegation zone. Obviously you can only beat what's put in front of you, but those fixtures (with the exception of Roma) were all ones Milan would hope to do well in.

If you look at their 6 games since Balotelli (post feb), you have Udinese, Cagliari, Parma, Inter, Lazio, Genoa. Two of those teams are top 6 (Inter, Lazio) and none are in the relegation zone (although Genoa are very close) - they havent lost any of those 6 games in arguably a harder set of opponents. It's interesting to note that across those 6 game Balotelli has got 5 goals and 1 assist, so in all those six games (except the draw with Inter) he's provided something concrete to the wins (and draw at Cagliari).

I wouldnt put down Milan's turnaround just to Balotelli, but I think having a physical striker (Pazzini or Balotelli) is a huge part of Milan's sucessful attack. In fact if you look at all their 14 games since Juventus (both pre and post Balotelli), there are 13 goals and 2 assists from both. But more tellingly you can see that in only 4 games (Catania, Sampdoria, Atalanta, Inter) was there no contribution (goal or assist) from Pazzini or Balotelli. Having neither really hampered them on Tuesday.

---

Possibly I have been 'outstatted'. :) I now play my last card. They beat Juventus (the top team) and gathered momentum. Balotelli came into a squad that already had that proven momentum and strengthened it. The hard job is to turn the season around and gather the winning momentum :)
Probably Milan would have benefitted from having Pazzini available, Barca would also have benefitted from having a proper centre half pairing instead of still depending on the oft injured, unfit Puyol.
I saw Milan's game plan at the Camp Nou as being similar to last year's CL group game where they defended with elegant ease and even managed to grab an equaliser late on. Then they had Zlatan up front.
This time Barca were a team under immense pressure and just kept the screw on tight with an all-round brilliant, intense and perfect performance.
Of course Barca can be beaten. They have been beaten 4 times at the knockout stage since they won the CL in 2006, by Man U, Liverpool, Chelsea and Inter, but Barca in all probability would have beaten any of those 4 teams in this year's last 16. Barca's standards have endured and now they are favourites to win the CL again.

Yeah totally agree with Geysir on this one. Barca took Milan's near perfect first leg performance and raised it. The problem for the rest of Europe is that Barca's near perfect level is better than anybody elses. Sometimes you just have to give credit where it's due, there are numerous factors which influence every match but Barca got it very right on the night and deserved to go through.

And teh real draw...

Champions League quarter-finals:
Malaga v Borussia Dortmund
Real Madrid v Galatasaray
Paris St Germain v Barcelona
Bayern Munich v Juventus

Dortmund and Real Madrid will be happy with that, I'm guessing Bayern and Juventus wont be too pleased to have drawn each other.

WEll it was gonna happen that there would be one fixture out of the four that would have a Bayern v Juve scenario.

Was the draw seeded? I think it's mad that Gal, Mal and PSG avoided each other.

I'll go with Dortmund, Real, Barca and Juve to go through.

It has the smell of an unofficially seeded draw, with Madrid playing home first, thrown in as 'concrete proof' that it wasn't fixed. Bayern and Juve just happened to pull the short straws last night.

Bayern played like a sack of spuds against Arsenal, yet Juve are rank outsiders to get past them. I'd see that tie as 50/50.
I haven't much of a clue about PSG, i've only seen a few highlights of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnieShels

Was the draw seeded? I think it's mad that Gal, Mal and PSG avoided each other.

---

57% chance of it happening in a random draw. :p

Combine that stat with the top 4 favourites out the 8, avoiding each other in the draw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Combine that stat with the top 4 favourites out the 8, avoiding each other in the draw.

---

I'm surprised to see that Dortmund are favoured over Juventus (though the draw probably affected that) but I doubt that UEFA would want 2 Spanish and 2 German teams in the semis given the choice. You can find something unusual about any draw if you want to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cfdh_edmundo

I think if Milan had been at full strength they would have gone through on the night. There is clearly now a way of beating this Barcelona as Chelsea, Inter, Real Madrid have demonstrated, but you need tactical discipline and you have to deny them space both in your box and a good 30 yards in front of your box. Milan didn't have this tactical discipline last night and were hampered by injury and also by bizzare team selections (Constant at left back ahead of De Sciglio, Bonera or even Antonini). I know the love-in has restarted but I think Barcelona could come a cropper against a top level team like Dortmund, Real or Bayern.

---

Milan never showed up. For some reason, the coach tore up and threw away the manual on how to beat them, they used only weeks before. No organisation, no defending, and giving the ball away from a free kick in injury time for the last goal was madness.

Real Madrid destroyed them only a couple of weeks ago. And other sides are capable of dealing with them too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

It's another discussion, but RTE don't have to send the commentary team out there for CL games in order to maintain good standards of CL coverage. Maybe there is some research showing that the extra Irish viewers attracted away from Sky tv coverage towards RTE because of their live commentary, means extra advert revenue, means the commentary team costs are covered.
In the absence of that research, i'd prefer a few more euros from the sport's department kitty, thrown at the MNS.

---

They also sent out a radio commentary team, which is bizarre considering they can't afford to run a basic LOI show on a Friday night.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

I'm surprised to see that Dortmund are favoured over Juventus (though the draw probably affected that) but I doubt that UEFA would want 2 Spanish and 2 German teams in the semis given the choice. You can find something unusual about any draw if you want to.

---

I'm just always suspicious of everything UEFA do. Just can't trust them at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

I'm surprised to see that Dortmund are favoured over Juventus (though the draw probably affected that) but I doubt that UEFA would want 2 Spanish and 2 German teams in the semis given the choice. You can find something unusual about any draw if you want to.

---

Before the draw was made (and the straws were pulled) Dortmund were clear 4th favs at ca 9/2, Juve were a distant 5th @ 11/1.
The 4 clear favourites managed to avoid each other, sometimes it's hard not to be conspiratorial:)

Mypost, do you have the jitters or a stuck keyboard key?

I don't think he can multi-quote.

The advantage of winning your group was shown again this week, when 6 of the 8 second round winners got through, after playing the second leg at home. That's why UEFA give the group winners priority. Instead of facing Bayern, Arsenal had the chance to go to Olympiakos and get an easier tie in the second round. Instead, they rested players in Greece, then got drawn against Bayern Munich and went out.

On an unrelated note, I seriously hate the second round drawn out over 4 weeks. I know that it's a tv-timed tournament, but it's really tedious having to wait so long for return legs, when later rounds are done and dusted in 6-8 days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

The advantage of winning your group was shown again this week, when 6 of the 8 second round winners got through, after playing the second leg at home. That's why UEFA give the group winners priority. Instead of facing Bayern, Arsenal had the chance to go to Olympiakos and get an easier tie in the second round. Instead, they rested players in Greece, then got drawn against Bayern Munich and went out.

---

Did the 6 of the 8 teams who played away first, have the (winning) advantage because they were playing away in the first leg or because they were the better team?

They had the second leg in front of their own fans as their prize for winning their groups, and most of them took advantage of it.

Everyone wants their second leg at home. Playing at home in the first leg doesn't eliminate you overnight, but does reduce your chances of progress, as was the case again this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mypost

They had the second leg in front of their own fans as their prize for winning their groups, and most of them took advantage of it.

Everyone wants their second leg at home. Playing at home in the first leg doesn't eliminate you overnight, but does reduce your chances of progress, as was the case again this year.

---

I know it's the accepted desired scenario to play away first. I have asked, how can you tell that playing away has a definite winning advantage when the supposed better team is playing a lesser team? IMO, the main advantage is with winning your group and getting paired with a 2nd placed team, who for the most part will be (somewhat) inferior opposition. Or in a WC/Euro Qual play off situation, seeded v unseeded.
I have my doubts about how much advantage there is playing away first. Certainly when the game turns on a knife edge in the second leg, the away team has an advantage and also if the game goes into extra time.

Away goals counting in extratime is one of the most unfair anamolies with two-legged ties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

I know it's the accepted desired scenario to play away first. I have asked, how can you tell that playing away has a definite winning advantage when the supposed better team is playing a lesser team? IMO, the main advantage is with winning your group and getting paired with a 2nd placed team, who for the most part will be (somewhat) inferior opposition. Or in a WC/Euro Qual play off situation, seeded v unseeded.

---

Because they have their home crowd behind them, playing on their home pitch, with no travelling involved. 6 of the second round teams at home in the second leg got through this year, another 6 last year, and another 7 of them the year before. Many of the ties are evenly matched, but playing at home last is a huge advantage, as the records demonstrate.

Quote:

---

I have my doubts about how much advantage there is playing away first. Certainly when the game turns on a knife edge in the second leg, the away team has an advantage and also if the game goes into extra time.

---

The away team has the advantage of away goals, should they score any. The home side has their crowd and pitch advantage, (and usually the majority of the possession) to try and get them over the line. You can't ignore the rules of the game, just because there is an extra half hour to play. It's all part of the tie.

There is currently no fairer way of deciding aggregate ties though, and that's why it's used at every stage of European competition, including the group phase. Sometimes the away goals rule will help you, sometimes it goes against you. It's much tougher losing a year's campaign on a few penalties, than away goals over three and a half hours.