Champions league Semi Finals 2020-21 - April 27-28 and May 4-5

Longshanks

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
320
You are delusional if you actually believe that.
Not only delusional, but I’d question whether anyone who thinks this has even a basic understanding of the game
I mean there struggling to defend there ligue 1 title this season which is pretty laughable.

Do you really think they are so much better than chelsea, liverpool, leicester, spurs, west ham etc that they wouldn't be in a top 4 scrap.

There quite a bit like spurs in many ways, quality attack, functional if unspectacular midfield and questionable defence. Dont get wrong I do rate them above spurs but they have alot of similarities.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,615
Supports
FC Bayern
Am I right in thinking that Lampard would get a winners or losers medal if Chelsea get to the final?

Would that also mean that if PSG play Chelsea in the final, Tuchel will get a winners AND a losers medal?
:lol:

Intriguing

I'm not actually sure it works that way with ex-employees - would have to research whether Kovac has a CL medal
 

WeePat

Full Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
2,719
Supports
Chelsea
:lol:

Intriguing

I'm not actually sure it works that way with ex-employees - would have to research whether Kovac has a CL medal
I think it's optional, at least it is in the Premier League. In 2015 Chelsea requested a couple of extra title winners medals so they could post them to players who had been sold during the January window [Schurrle etc]. Not sure if the Champions League is the same.
 

non profit football

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
24
Supports
Chelsea
Madrid-Chelsea
In these games the effectiveness has to be high, Chelsea missed a great opportunity, Timo cannot currently be Chelsea's starter. The same for Azpilicueta. I hope that Tuchel corrects some things because he will not find the same facilities.
I hope that the physical freshness can be felt more in the second game.

PSG-City
Guardiola not only survived but won, but doubts remain in the air, I do not understand how with PSG dead physically and with only 10 men he only used a single substitution when he could have killed the tie.
 

BalanceUnAutreJoint

Full Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
953
I mean there struggling to defend there ligue 1 title this season which is pretty laughable.

Do you really think they are so much better than chelsea, liverpool, leicester, spurs, west ham etc that they wouldn't be in a top 4 scrap.

There quite a bit like spurs in many ways, quality attack, functional if unspectacular midfield and questionable defence. Dont get wrong I do rate them above spurs but they have alot of similarities.
Do you even know why they are struggling to defend their Ligue 1 title?
Ligue 1 started 2 days before the UCL final in Lisbon was played.

PSG had no time to rest, they were rushed back into Ligue 1 as soon as the UCL final eight ended, and they had countless amount of COVID cases and injuries following that.

Just look at their starting line-ups early on this season, they were STARTING academy kids who can't even make the bench when the squad is full.
 

NasirTimothy

Full Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
474
Supports
Enyimba F.C.
I mean there struggling to defend there ligue 1 title this season which is pretty laughable.

Do you really think they are so much better than chelsea, liverpool, leicester, spurs, west ham etc that they wouldn't be in a top 4 scrap.

There quite a bit like spurs in many ways, quality attack, functional if unspectacular midfield and questionable defence. Dont get wrong I do rate them above spurs but they have alot of similarities.
Yes they are significantly better than all of those teams, with the possible exception of Liverpool (when they have their first choice defenders and are not playing like crap). The fact that you would even posit this question is laughable
 

Daysleeper

Full Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2014
Messages
3,171
Supports
Barcelona
I mean there struggling to defend there ligue 1 title this season which is pretty laughable.

Do you really think they are so much better than chelsea, liverpool, leicester, spurs, west ham etc that they wouldn't be in a top 4 scrap.

There quite a bit like spurs in many ways, quality attack, functional if unspectacular midfield and questionable defence. Dont get wrong I do rate them above spurs but they have alot of similarities.
psg are comfortably better than most, if not all those teams
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Yes they are significantly better than all of those teams, with the possible exception of Liverpool (when they have their first choice defenders and are not playing like crap). The fact that you would even posit this question is laughable
psg are comfortably better than most, if not all those teams
Problem for them is their squad is thin and extremely top heavy. Bakker for instance had no business playing in a CL semi - over the course of a league season that might tell. Agreed that at their best they're comfortably better than most of the top 4 contenders but from a squad perspective I'm not sure they're miles away from Chelsea or Liverpool personally.
 

Wolf1992

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
49
Draws have a lot to do with it and also form at any particular moment of the season in a KO competition. I mean Spurs made the 2019 final. Doesn't mean they're not Spursy.
They eliminated Barcelona and Bayern Munich, Tottenham never eliminated a big name when they reached the final.
They eliminated City, something that was also done by Monaco and Lyon.

Man Utd couldn't even prove to be better than RB Leipzig to pass the group stage.

Btw by mentioning so many excuses(bad luck,hard fixture,injuries,bad moments) for Man Utd irrelevance at CL in the last years, you are indirectly defending Glazer's incompetence.
 

Wolf1992

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
49
So because they haven’t won the Champions League yet, they’re ‘flaky’ and ‘bottlers’?

Does this also apply to Man City?
City got eliminated by Tottenham,Lyon, and Monaco.

Imagine if PSG would have been knocked out by such teams.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Not a single one of Chelsea's attackers starts for PSG.
I mean, yes? They've spent an absolutely mammoth proportion of their resources on their attack to the detriment of the rest of the squad, which is more or less my point?
 

BalanceUnAutreJoint

Full Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
953
I mean, yes? They've spent an absolutely mammoth proportion of their resources on their attack to the detriment of the rest of the squad, which is more or less my point?
It's not like Navas,Marquinhos,Verratti,Kimpembe or Paredes are bums

They do have a weakness at full back but when fit Bernat and Florenzi are much better options than Bakker and Kehrer
 

432JuanMata

Full Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
1,697
Location
Dublin
It's not like Navas,Marquinhos,Verratti,Kimpembe or Paredes are bums

They do have a weakness at full back but when fit Bernat and Florenzi are much better options than Bakker and Kehrer
Never understood it too. Just because PSG attack is class and worth so much people say the rest of their team is crap but it’s quite the opposite they start for nearly anyone
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
It's not like Navas,Marquinhos,Verratti,Kimpembe or Paredes are bums

They do have a weakness at full back but when fit Bernat and Florenzi are much better options than Bakker and Kehrer
Eh, I've never been a Paredes guy. I also think Chelsea and Liverpool have better options at CB than Kimpembe (though obviously Marquinhos is class). Also at least for me lack of fullback quality can't be dismissed in the modern game.

If you were to build a combined PSG / Chelsea XI, for me it'd be:

-----------------------Navas-----------------------
James-Rudiger-Marquinhos-Chilwell
---------Veratti------------Kante---------------
Di Maria-------Mount------------Neymar
--------------------Mbappe-----------------------

So that's 6 PSG and 5 Chelsea. The issue then becomes the second XI:

------------------------Mendy-------------------------
Azpilicueta-Silva-Kimpembe-Emerson
---------------Kovacic------Jorginho-------------
Ziyech-------------Havertz--------------Pulisic
-------------------------Icardi---------------------------

That's 2 PSG and 9 Chelsea and I don't think it's terribly debatable? This is the issue - PSG's squad depth is shit.
 
Last edited:

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
826
Eh, I've never been a Paredes guy. I also think Chelsea and Liverpool have better options at CB than Kimpembe (though obviously Marquinhos is class). Also at least for me lack of fullback quality can't be dismissed in the modern game.

If you were to build a combined PSG / Chelsea XI, for me it'd be:

-----------------------Navas-----------------------
James-Rudiger-Marquinhos-Chilwell
---------Veratti------------Kante---------------
Di Maria-------Mount------------Neymar
--------------------Mbappe-----------------------

So that's 6 PSG and 5 Chelsea. The issue then becomes the second XI:

------------------------Mendy-------------------------
Azpilicueta-Silva-Kimpembe-Emerson
---------------Kovacic------Jorginho-------------
Ziyech-------------Havertz--------------Pulisic
-------------------------Icardi---------------------------

That's 2 PSG and 9 Chelsea and I don't think it's terribly debatable? This is the issue - PSG's squad depth is shit.
I think 9 to 2 is a stretch.They also have Bernat and Kurzawa in full back positions, Danilo, Gueye, Hererra and Paredes in midfield then Draxler in attacking midfield.
Mine will be more like 6-5.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
I think 9 to 2 is a stretch.They also have Bernat and Kurzawa in full back positions, Danilo, Gueye, Hererra and Paredes in midfield then Draxler in attacking midfield.
Mine will be more like 6-5.
Don't rate either of those LBs to be honest - Bernat is so easily bullied and Kurzawa is completely braindead. I'd genuinely prefer Emerson to either one and generally I can't stand Emerson as a player. Also don't think any of those midfielders you've listed are close to Jorginho and Kovacic (for all the limitations of the Chelsea pair), and Draxler gets nowhere near the attacking midfield - Havertz for all his difficulties this season is on another level in my opinion.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,615
Supports
FC Bayern
Don't rate either of those LBs to be honest - Bernat is so easily bullied and Kurzawa is completely braindead. I'd genuinely prefer Emerson to either one and generally I can't stand Emerson as a player. Also don't think any of those midfielders you've listed are close to Jorginho and Kovacic (for all the limitations of the Chelsea pair), and Draxler gets nowhere near the attacking midfield - Havertz for all his difficulties this season is on another level in my opinion.
Funnily enough, Havertz is actually rather similar to how Draxler was at that age, and perhaps Draxler was even better then. In any case, Havertz definitively is not on 'another level' yet.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Funnily enough, Havertz is actually rather similar to how Draxler was at that age, and perhaps Draxler was even better then. In any case, Havertz definitively is not on 'another level' yet.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Draxler or anything, but I'm curious as to why you rate Draxler higher based on his time at Schalke? I'll confess to not following the Bundesliga closely 10 years ago but Havertz scored twice as many goals in 1 fewer appearance.
 

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
826
Don't rate either of those LBs to be honest - Bernat is so easily bullied and Kurzawa is completely braindead. I'd genuinely prefer Emerson to either one and generally I can't stand Emerson as a player. Also don't think any of those midfielders you've listed are close to Jorginho and Kovacic (for all the limitations of the Chelsea pair), and Draxler gets nowhere near the attacking midfield - Havertz for all his difficulties this season is on another level in my opinion.
For all Bernat’s shortcomings I think Emerson still has some catching up to do to get to him especially in attack. I think Danilo is very underrated and in making a choice of a midfield two, Jorginho and Kovacic will fight it out for one slot while Gana and Danilo will do the same for the other slot.

No I don’t think Havertz (who I rate highly by the way) is better than Draxler never mind being on another level compared to him.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
For all Bernat’s shortcomings I think Emerson still has some catching up to do to get to him especially in attack. I think Danilo is very underrated and in making a choice of a midfield two, Jorginho and Kovacic will fight it out for one slot while Gana and Danilo will do the same for the other slot.

No I don’t think Havertz (who I rate highly by the way) is better than Draxler never mind being on another level compared to him.
Really? For me Emerson is comparable attacking-wise and better defensively, but perhaps we are splitting hairs.

I've never really rated Danilo personally - I've watched a lot of him at Porto and frankly for me he's entirely mediocre and nowhere near Jorginho / Kovacic on a technical or positional level. Gana is closer but I've never been overly impressed by him. It's very likely that I'm biased but I don't think either Danilo or Gana have been anywhere near as consistent as Jorginho / Kovacic, especially since Tuchel has come in.

Re: Havertz / Draxler I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. They've scored the exact same number of goals in their career (47), yet Havertz is 6 years younger.
 

ayushreddevil9

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
5,777
Unpopular opinion but I think the away goal rule should only be limited to 180 minutes of football. Why is it still applicable during extra time? Gives the away team(second leg) another 30 minutes to score an away goal and win the tie on level aggregate.
 

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
826
Really? For me Emerson is comparable attacking-wise and better defensively, but perhaps we are splitting hairs.

I've never really rated Danilo personally - I've watched a lot of him at Porto and frankly for me he's entirely mediocre and nowhere near Jorginho / Kovacic on a technical or positional level. Gana is closer but I've never been overly impressed by him. It's very likely that I'm biased but I don't think either Danilo or Gana have been anywhere near as consistent as Jorginho / Kovacic, especially since Tuchel has come in.

Re: Havertz / Draxler I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. They've scored the exact same number of goals in their career (47), yet Havertz is 6 years younger.
I think Chelsea’s approach of a central defensive trio gets the best out of all your defenders including Zouma and Alonso who can be average defenders a lot of times and even Emerson who I also rate.

The tactics being employed will inform who and who gets the nod in midfield but if we are looking at a midfield double, I’d have Kovacic and Gana as the more balanced option. Jorginho will only come in for me if it was a midfield trio or the team will get really exposed especially when they play with two center backs as opposed to the Chelsea setup.

I think Havertz has a higher ceiling but Draxler is the better playmaker at this point.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
I think Chelsea’s approach of a central defensive trio gets the best out of all your defenders including Zouma and Alonso who can be average defenders a lot of times and even Emerson who I also rate.

The tactics being employed will inform who and who gets the nod in midfield but if we are looking at a midfield double, I’d have Kovacic and Gana as the more balanced option. Jorginho will only come in for me if it was a midfield trio or the team will get really exposed especially when they play with two center backs as opposed to the Chelsea setup.

I think Havertz has a higher ceiling but Draxler is the better playmaker at this point.
All sensible positions! Appreciate the chat mate.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,615
Supports
FC Bayern
Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike Draxler or anything, but I'm curious as to why you rate Draxler higher based on his time at Schalke? I'll confess to not following the Bundesliga closely 10 years ago but Havertz scored twice as many goals in 1 fewer appearance.
I'm not saying that I rate Draxler higher than Havertz, but that Draxler was playing at a very high level too already at a young age, similarly to Havertz. I do believe Havertz will have the better career, but I disagree that he's at a much different level now than Draxler was back then.
 

Manchester Dan

Full Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2013
Messages
2,444
Supports
Man City
Unpopular opinion but I think the away goal rule should only be limited to 180 minutes of football. Why is it still applicable during extra time? Gives the away team(second leg) another 30 minutes to score an away goal and win the tie on level aggregate.
To overcome the advantage that the home team get an additional 30 minutes in front of their fans? Makes complete sense to me. If you remove the away goal rule for extra time then the home side is heavily advantaged.

The above can probably be argued away given the grounds are currently empty, but any other normal season I think it should stand.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,615
Supports
FC Bayern
Unpopular opinion but I think the away goal rule should only be limited to 180 minutes of football. Why is it still applicable during extra time? Gives the away team(second leg) another 30 minutes to score an away goal and win the tie on level aggregate.
Don't flatter yourself. This is not an unpopular opinion, I've read many times advocating for it.
 

ayushreddevil9

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
5,777
To overcome the advantage that the home team get an additional 30 minutes in front of their fans? Makes complete sense to me. If you remove the away goal rule for extra time then the home side is heavily advantaged.

The above can probably be argued away given the grounds are currently empty, but any other normal season I think it should stand.
Let's consider the scenario that the fans are there in the stadium.

It has been well established that the home team is anyways under immense pressure right from the begining because nobody wants to give away an away goal. This is why even a 0-0 at home is regarded as a great result in some of important fixtures (Liverpool vs Bayern, 2019 I guess?)

Let's be real, one away goal in ET is far more advantageous than any advantage a home crowd produces. Teams set up to play football to win on away goals under such circumstances.
 

ayushreddevil9

Full Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2015
Messages
5,777
Don't flatter yourself. This is not an unpopular opinion, I've read many times advocating for it.
I might have missed it, I have always read that away goal rule should be totally abolished. I just think that this shouldn't be applicable during ET or ET shouldn't really exist altogether.
 

Hansi Fick

Full Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
1,615
Supports
FC Bayern
I might have missed it, I have always read that away goal rule should be totally abolished. I just think that this shouldn't be applicable during ET or ET shouldn't really exist altogether.
The 'flatter' bit of course tongue-in-cheek, sorry if it came across serious.
But was there maybe even a thread on here once, about the ET issue? Anyway, it is a discussion worth having, you're onto something.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,017
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
I'm not saying that I rate Draxler higher than Havertz, but that Draxler was playing at a very high level too already at a young age, similarly to Havertz. I do believe Havertz will have the better career, but I disagree that he's at a much different level now than Draxler was back then.
Gotcha fair enough!
 

Bearded One

Full Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2017
Messages
826
All sensible positions! Appreciate the chat mate.
There are few things more soothing than a friendly chat even if we disagree on views. I really do appreciate you.

I was very sure that Chelsea had struck gold when you guys appointed Tuchel because he his a very good tactician. I also hope Real Madrid wins the CL but if they don’t then you guys are my next option even though I’m aware that one of PSG and City will be in the finals.

Finally I think that 3 center backs tactic worked very well when Conte won the league for you guys and with the right reinforcements you have a fair chance to win the league next season (even though that is not my wish).