matbezlima
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2019
- Messages
- 388
In hindsight, should Guus Hiddink's tactics against Barcelona in 2009 receive more acclaim due to how he contained such an amazing team? At the Camp Nou, he parked the bus and played for the 0-0, not even trying to counter-attack. Barcelona was good in the first half, I think, but frustration and nervousness due to not scoring eventually made their performance poor, Chelsea defended like a rock and with a energy and closing of spaces that Barcelona was probably experiencing for the first time in the season.
In the second leg, Barcelona started playing well, but Chelsea's early goal really gave Chelsea reason to play defensive and Barcelona suddenly became nervous, frustrated and unable to break through Chelsea and create even a single clear goal chance, reduced to hopeful shots from outside the box. While Chelsea could and should have tried to hold the ball more and score another goal to finish the tie (they were giving the ball away too much with long balls), Chelsea still created a few clear goal chances in counter-attacks and were far more dangerous. Barcelona's first and only shot on target in the match was Iniesta's goal. After Abidal was sent off, Chelsea should really have gone to score the second goal instead of defending even more their 1-0 lead, this was Chelsea's only big mistake in the tie. Even then, if it was not for terrible refereeing, Guus Hiddink's Chelsea probably would have eliminated Barcelona.
I guess that the reason why he didn't receive much praise neither at the time or now is because it was a Barcelona team that still had to prove how good they were, unlike when Mourinho's Inter faced them next year. We all know now what Guardiola's Barcelona became, but in 2009 many people, specially in England, really doubted if Barcelona was truly that great and believed that Barcelona would be exposed as a "farce" if they played against a top PL team that "knows how to defend unlike spanish teams". The games against Chelsea really reinforced this belief in England and the reason why much of english press was betting on United to defeat Barcelona easily. Even the 6-2 against Real Madrid was dismissed by some as Real Madrid being too poor, since Real lost to Liverpool 4-0 in the same season.
In the second leg, Barcelona started playing well, but Chelsea's early goal really gave Chelsea reason to play defensive and Barcelona suddenly became nervous, frustrated and unable to break through Chelsea and create even a single clear goal chance, reduced to hopeful shots from outside the box. While Chelsea could and should have tried to hold the ball more and score another goal to finish the tie (they were giving the ball away too much with long balls), Chelsea still created a few clear goal chances in counter-attacks and were far more dangerous. Barcelona's first and only shot on target in the match was Iniesta's goal. After Abidal was sent off, Chelsea should really have gone to score the second goal instead of defending even more their 1-0 lead, this was Chelsea's only big mistake in the tie. Even then, if it was not for terrible refereeing, Guus Hiddink's Chelsea probably would have eliminated Barcelona.
I guess that the reason why he didn't receive much praise neither at the time or now is because it was a Barcelona team that still had to prove how good they were, unlike when Mourinho's Inter faced them next year. We all know now what Guardiola's Barcelona became, but in 2009 many people, specially in England, really doubted if Barcelona was truly that great and believed that Barcelona would be exposed as a "farce" if they played against a top PL team that "knows how to defend unlike spanish teams". The games against Chelsea really reinforced this belief in England and the reason why much of english press was betting on United to defeat Barcelona easily. Even the 6-2 against Real Madrid was dismissed by some as Real Madrid being too poor, since Real lost to Liverpool 4-0 in the same season.