Man Utd v Chelsea Champions League final!! [Archive]

Bull Dog

21-05-2008, 23:16

Tbh I don't know what happened to Man Utd in the 2nd half they were a totally different team. They were coasting it till Chelsea scored.

Although Chelsea were the better team in the 2nd half I didn't find them as impressive as Man Utd were in the 1st half.

So to conclude:

The better team won

IMO

Disagree Mate
I thought Chelsea very very slighty edged it

P.S
It says a lot about Anelka that as a forward he didnt want to be 1 of the 5 pen takers,you could see in his face he couldnt give a toss when he was taking or when he missed the pen

Agent Gypo

21-05-2008, 23:23

It says a lot about Anelka that as a forward he didnt want to be 1 of the 5 pen takers,you could see in his face he couldnt give a toss when he was taking or when he missed the pen

Many strikers are actually pretty useless at taking penalties. I think you're being hard on Anelka really, if he wasn't mentally up for taking it then he did the right thing by not volunteering.

Bull Dog

21-05-2008, 23:54

Many strikers are actually pretty useless at taking penalties. I think you're being hard on Anelka really, if he wasn't mentally up for taking it then he did the right thing by not volunteering.

"Wasnt mentally up for it"
Christ its the final of the champions league,if a forward isnt up for taking a penalty in a game like that then as a manager i wouldnt want him in my team or squad
And tbh i dont think Anelka has been anything special since he has joined Chelsea

Longcol

22-05-2008, 00:25

And tbh i dont think Anelka has been anything special since he has joined Chelsea

Don't think he's been much cop since he left Arsenal.

Bull Dog

22-05-2008, 00:42

Don't think he's been much cop since he left Arsenal.

Agreed
Think his brothers have had too much of an influence on him

Agent Gypo

22-05-2008, 08:20

"Wasnt mentally up for it"
Christ its the final of the champions league,if a forward isnt up for taking a penalty in a game like that then as a manager i wouldnt want him in my team or squad

Plenty of Man Utd players didn't volunteer either. It is not unusual for strikers to shy away from taking penalties. Taking a penalty in a high pressure situation like a shootout is nothing like playing normally.

He wasn't up for it, so didn't put himself forward. There is nothing wrong with that. Thousands of players are like it.

And tbh i dont think Anelka has been anything special since he has joined Chelsea

He's played out of position. Grant has inexplicably deployed him on the wings, or as a substitute. He thrives in 4-4-2, or 4-3-3 as the central lynchpin. Since Grant has preferred the often totally inneffective Drogba for much of the season, it doesn't give Anelka much hope.

Don't think he's been much cop since he left Arsenal.

You must not have seen him play for Man City, PSG, Liverpool, Fenerbahce or Bolton then. When he has a strike partner and wingers to cross for him, he's lethal. He doesn't have that at Chelsea.

The Manager

22-05-2008, 08:50

Great match and a credit to the english game in my opinion!! glad man utd won ,

I think perhaps should have been 2 or more sent off , Ballack did my head in
felt sorry for terry tho

scottishdude

22-05-2008, 10:11

Supertramp

22-05-2008, 11:38

In reply to all comments about Anelka. Belleti is a defender who came on about 2 mins from end, took 2nd penalty and scored. Never agreed with Chelsea signing Anelka, should have used Pizarrio more as I think he is a good, intelligent striker.

Defender/Striker doesn't really matter in a Penalty shootout. It's more about handling the pressure.
Beletti is obviously someone who is good at penalties hence they put him on just to take one. And in no way is Pizarro better than Anelka. Anelka is quicker, stronger and has better movement.

If you look at Man Utd, Giggs was the 7th?? taker. No-one is questioning why he didn't go first. Most experienced, good clean striker of the ball, set piece taker etc.

I did expect Chelsea to win once it got to penalties as they had the mentally stronger players.
Before the shootout as Ballack, Lampard and Hargreaves the certain scorers. I wasn't too confident over anyone else.

Anyway Chelsea deserved to lose after their behaviour in extra time.

tosh13

22-05-2008, 11:50

I thought it was a cracking final,MU should have been 3-0 up by halftime & totally dominated the 1st half,but Chelski were great in the 2nd half,what a great defender Terry is the header off the line from Giggs shot,I felt so sorry for him,but in my opinion it was Drogba who lost the match for Chelski he was a disgrace apart from the shot which hit the post what did he do nothing but moan like Joe Cole.Well done to MUFC.

igm1

22-05-2008, 13:45

Before the shootout as Ballack, Lampard and Hargreaves the certain scorers. I wasn't too confident over anyone else.

That's what I thought before England's recent penalty shootout.

Bull Dog

22-05-2008, 16:42

Plenty of Man Utd players didn't volunteer either. It is not unusual for strikers to shy away from taking penalties. Taking a penalty in a high pressure situation like a shootout is nothing like playing normally.

He wasn't up for it, so didn't put himself forward. There is nothing wrong with that. Thousands of players are like it.

He's played out of position. Grant has inexplicably deployed him on the wings, or as a substitute. He thrives in 4-4-2, or 4-3-3 as the central lynchpin. Since Grant has preferred the often totally inneffective Drogba for much of the season, it doesn't give Anelka much hope.

You must not have seen him play for Man City, PSG, Liverpool, Fenerbahce or Bolton then. When he has a strike partner and wingers to cross for him, he's lethal. He doesn't have that at Chelsea.

Granted he has not had much of a chance at Chelsea due to Grant playing only 1 up front,but when Anelka has come on as a sub or started a game do you think he has made any difference?
He Loves being a big fish in a small pond but at Chelsea he is just an also-ran and you can tell by his attitude he isnt happy
When Chelsea lost Terry cried and cried and cried
What emotion did Anelka show???
If Anelka isnt the main main he isnt interested
And if i was paying a forward 60,70,80 grand a week then id expect him to have the bottle to step up and take a pen in a game that meant so much

Agent Gypo

23-05-2008, 15:08

Granted he has not had much of a chance at Chelsea due to Grant playing only 1 up front,but when Anelka has come on as a sub or started a game do you think he has made any difference?

No, because more often than not he is played on the wings!

He Loves being a big fish in a small pond but at Chelsea he is just an also-ran and you can tell by his attitude he isnt happy

Probably because he isn't getting games, and when he does he's played out of position.

When Chelsea lost Terry cried and cried and cried
What emotion did Anelka show???

Terry has been at Chelsea his whole career, and his kick would have won the European Cup. I think that explains the tears.

Besides, why pick on Anelka for this? I didn't see Joe Cole, Essien, Cech or Lampard crying.

If Anelka isnt the main main he isnt interested
And if i was paying a forward 60,70,80 grand a week then id expect him to have the bottle to step up and take a pen in a game that meant so much

That rationale is nonsense. By that logic, nobody in top flight football should ever miss a penalty. Ever.

Footballers, no matter how well paid, are human beings. Penalty shoot-outs are a ridiculous lottery, Anelka obviously wasn't comfortable with the pressure and didn't volunteer. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

As someone else pointed out, Giggs didn't volunteer either. Would you be calling him a coward if he missed his penalty?

plekhanov

23-05-2008, 15:36

Anelka's move to Chelsea obviously hasn't worked out well so far, both I think because he doesn't have the mentality to be a squad as opposed to a 1st team player and because he's been used poorly by Grant. Maybe he'll be better next season if Drogba moves on and he gets to play a bigger role.

I don't think his not being in the 1st 5 to take a pen is of any significance though. Penalty taking is a specialist skill which plenty of attackers lack and which some defenders and goalies excel at. Michael Owen for example has always been a poor penalty taker and I certainly wouldn't want him in the 1st 5 in a shoot out, in contrast Dennis Irwin a full back was United's designated penalty taker for years.

Bull Dog

23-05-2008, 15:39

No, because more often than not he is played on the wings!

Probably because he isn't getting games, and when he does he's played out of position.

Terry has been at Chelsea his whole career, and his kick would have won the European Cup. I think that explains the tears.

Besides, why pick on Anelka for this? I didn't see Joe Cole, Essien, Cech or Lampard crying.

That rationale is nonsense. By that logic, nobody in top flight football should ever miss a penalty. Ever.

Footballers, no matter how well paid, are human beings. Penalty shoot-outs are a ridiculous lottery, Anelka obviously wasn't comfortable with the pressure and didn't volunteer. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

As someone else pointed out, Giggs didn't volunteer either. Would you be calling him a coward if he missed his penalty?

O.K
Your the chairman of a football club who pays a forward 60,70,80 grand a week to score goals but hasnt got the bottle to go 1 on 1 with the keeper and shows about the same emotion as if i had misplaced my fags when he missed the pen
Still happy with him?
And btw,although Terrys miss cost Chelsea the chance of winning,Anelkas miss actually lost them the Cup
And before you ask what the difference is
Its about a player paid and used to scoring goals and a player paid to prevent goals

plekhanov

23-05-2008, 16:14

O.K
Your the chairman of a football club who pays a forward 60,70,80 grand a week to score goals but hasnt got the bottle to go 1 on 1 with the keeper and shows about the same emotion as if i had misplaced my fags when he missed the pen
Still happy with him?
And btw,although Terrys miss cost Chelsea the chance of winning,Anelkas miss actually lost them the Cup
And before you ask what the difference is
Its about a player paid and used to scoring goals and a player paid to prevent goals
Scoring goals from open play and from the spot are distinct skills that don't necessarily go together, what is it about this very simple concept that you don't understand?

Agent Gypo

23-05-2008, 16:16

O.K
Your the chairman of a football club who pays a forward 60,70,80 grand a week to score goals but hasnt got the bottle to go 1 on 1 with the keeper and shows about the same emotion as if i had misplaced my fags when he missed the pen
Still happy with him?

?????????????????????

Abramovich sanctions £15m to buy Anelka, a proven goal scorer, for the purpose of scoring goals. Anelka is told he will play in a 4-4-2 (a formation he always does well in). As the season progresses, he is repeatedly deployed on the wings of a 4-3-3 (a system he spectacularly failed in at Real Madrid also) by his manager and rarely proves a goal threat. Now, is that Anelka's fault, or Grant's? It's like asking Rio Ferdinand to defend play on the left wing.

Most strikers are useless penalty takers. Standing one on one in a dead ball situation is totally, totally different to a strikers role. How much you are paid doesn't even come into it.

And btw,although Terrys miss cost Chelsea the chance of winning,Anelkas miss actually lost them the Cup
And before you ask what the difference is
Its about a player paid and used to scoring goals and a player paid to prevent goals

Anelka had been on the pitch about 15 minutes and hardly had a touch of the ball. He isn't the best penalty taker at the best of times either. It's not rocket science to work out why he didn't volunteer. He might never have had to take it if Drogba hadn't slapped Vidic.

Besides, Anelka didn't blaze it over comically. He struck well, was on target, but Van der Saar saved.

taxman

23-05-2008, 16:44

This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIEOkf0KQHM) is how to take penalties :)

Flug

23-05-2008, 17:12

Agent Gypo,

To be really frank, Anelka placed a penalty to the right of a quality goalkeeper at a perfectly saveable height. In other words, if Van De Sar guesses right he saves the kick. The best penalty takers never give a goalie a chance even when they guess right. I wanted Chelsea to win the game, but Anelka has been overrated ever since he left Arse nal. He reminds me in scoring terms of Graeme Hick the cricketer....a flat track bully who always produces at a slightly lower level.

Agent Gypo

23-05-2008, 18:33

To be really frank, Anelka placed a penalty to the right of a quality goalkeeper at a perfectly saveable height. In other words, if Van De Sar guesses right he saves the kick. The best penalty takers never give a goalie a chance even when they guess right.

But that's just it isn't it. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and never has been. He fluffed a few for Real Madrid, most notably in the semi-final of the World Club Championship in Brazil, and hasn't taken that many since.

Anelka has been overrated ever since he left Arsenal.

I think he was overrated at Arsenal. He had one good season, and there were other players in the league who scored more. Still as strikers go, 124 goals in 382 appearances for club and country is pretty good. Just shy of a goal every 3 games. Take away the clubs where he was been played out of position, he has 2.8 goals per game.

Arsenal 65 (23) (4-4-2)
Real Madrid 19 (2) (4-3-3 and 4-1-3-1-1)
Paris Saint-Germain 39 (10) (4-4-2)
Liverpool 20 (4) (4-4-2)
Manchester City 89 (38 ) (4-4-2)
Fenerbahçe 39 (14) (4-4-2)
Bolton Wanderers 53 (21) (4-4-2 and 4-3-1-2)
Chelsea 14 (1) (4-3-3)

France 44 (11)

His track record shows that when he has a strike partner, Anelka scores goals. He doesn't work the lines very well alone and is totally wasted as a winger. All the more baffling why Grant bought him if he wasn't prepared to use him alongside Drogba.

cimbomGS

24-05-2008, 16:23

manchester United won and game was fair.
Both teams deserve to be finalists already.

JFKvsNixon

24-05-2008, 16:27

"Wasnt mentally up for it"
Christ its the final of the champions league,if a forward isnt up for taking a penalty in a game like that then as a manager i wouldnt want him in my team or squad
And tbh i dont think Anelka has been anything special since he has joined Chelsea

So you wouldn't have wanted Ian Rush playing up front for you? Some players are good at penalties some players are not so good, it's not an attitude thing. Anelka was bought as cover, he is obviously struggling at playing the lone role up front; so it remains to be seen if he is going to be there next year.

Bull Dog

25-05-2008, 01:03

Agent Gypo

25-05-2008, 09:51

JFKvsNixon

25-05-2008, 10:23

Quoted in todays Sun and yes i know its the Sun but this is a QUOTE by Anelka
"I REFUSED to take one of the first 5 penalties as i had been played out of position"
" i told them its out of the question as i had come on as a virtual right back"
"Now you want me to take a penalty,in the end i HAD to take our seventh spot kick"

Anybody else think Anelka hasnt got an attitude problem???

I think that this just some sour grapes from Anelka, he is clouding the fact that he missed the penalty that lost the final. He refused to take one of the first five penalties because he is rubbish at taking penalties.

Bull Dog

25-05-2008, 15:03

I wouldn't believe any of the utter trash printed in the Sun.

I'm still perplexed as to how you find it so difficult to understand why Anelka didn't want to take the penalty. He hardly had a touch of the ball, was played out of position, and isn't a great penalty taker anyway. We've covered this several times now.

If your confidence is low, the last thing you want to do is take a penalty, particularly if you're not very good at them in the first place.

Kuyt (a striker) is played out of position at Liverpool on the right of midfield
Essien (a midfielder) is played out of position at Chelsea at right back
Both big money signings and do you ever hear of them complaining?.....NO because they are prob happy to be on the pitch,earning their money and doing the best for the team
Anelkas confidence isnt low,its just that he couldnt be arsed as he has publicly stated
Belletti hardly touched the ball,yet he still had the bottle to step up as one of the first 5 so that blows away that argument

Agent Gypo

25-05-2008, 16:53

Kuyt (a striker) is played out of position at Liverpool on the right of midfield
Essien (a midfielder) is played out of position at Chelsea at right back
Both big money signings and do you ever hear of them complaining?.....NO because they are prob happy to be on the pitch,earning their money and doing the best for the team

Kuyt started his career as a winger. Essien started as a centre-back. Both players are versatile, and have the ability to play in different positions. Anelka does not.

It really isn't difficult. You don't put Anelka on the wings for the same reason you wouldn't put Michael Owen in goal. They do not have the ability to play there. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they earn.

Anelkas confidence isnt low,its just that he couldnt be arsed as he has publicly stated

Anelka, a striker, has scored once in 14 games, and is regularly played out of position. His confidence is hardly going to be high is it...

And as I mentioned before, I wouldn't believe most of what The Sun print.

Belletti hardly touched the ball,yet he still had the bottle to step up as one of the first 5 so that blows away that argument

How does it? Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

I'll repeat that again, as I know you've been having trouble getting to grips with this: Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

Again: NICOLAS ANELKA IS NOT VERY GOOD AT TAKING PENALTIES.

Bull Dog

26-05-2008, 00:33

Kuyt started his career as a winger. Essien started as a centre-back. Both players are versatile, and have the ability to play in different positions. Anelka does not.

It really isn't difficult. You don't put Anelka on the wings for the same reason you wouldn't put Michael Owen in goal. They do not have the ability to play there. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they earn.

Anelka, a striker, has scored once in 14 games, and is regularly played out of position. His confidence is hardly going to be high is it...

And as I mentioned before, I wouldn't believe most of what The Sun print.

How does it? Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

I'll repeat that again, as I know you've been having trouble getting to grips with this: Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

Again: NICOLAS ANELKA IS NOT VERY GOOD AT TAKING PENALTIES.

And hes not very good at taking orders from his manager or working for the team rather than thinking of himself and sulking
One of the most expensive players in football history if not the most expensive earning a fortune and he refuses........Again: REFUSES to take a penalty in the most important game of the clubs career and only took one because he HAD TO

Its bugger all to do with Anelka not being good at penalties
Its to do with the fact he got the face on and couldnt be arsed

firecracker

26-05-2008, 07:49

Kuyt started his career as a winger. Essien started as a centre-back. Both players are versatile, and have the ability to play in different positions. Anelka does not.

It really isn't difficult. You don't put Anelka on the wings for the same reason you wouldn't put Michael Owen in goal. They do not have the ability to play there. It has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they earn.

Anelka, a striker, has scored once in 14 games, and is regularly played out of position. His confidence is hardly going to be high is it...

And as I mentioned before, I wouldn't believe most of what The Sun print.

How does it? Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

I'll repeat that again, as I know you've been having trouble getting to grips with this: Beletti is a decent penalty taker, and fancied his chances. Anelka isn't a good penalty taker, and didn't fancy his chances.

Again: NICOLAS ANELKA IS NOT VERY GOOD AT TAKING PENALTIES.
If Anelka, a forward, isn't good at taking penalties, then what the hell is he doing in the game? He's highly paid to score goals and take penalties when needed to do so. If I were his manager, he would be bombed out with that attitude.

igm1

26-05-2008, 09:26

All the more baffling why Grant bought him if he wasn't prepared to use him alongside Drogba.

Precisely why I hate Chelski.

Buy players for millions when they don't intend to play them- just because they can afford to. How many other talents are going to waste in their squad? Sidwell? Wright-Phillips?

Agent Gypo

26-05-2008, 12:43

If Anelka, a forward, isn't good at taking penalties, then what the hell is he doing in the game? He's highly paid to score goals and take penalties when needed to do so. If I were his manager, he would be bombed out with that attitude.

I'm amazed that so many find it so hard to grasp that taking penalties and dead-ball situations is different to open play, requiring different skills and high confidence.

THERE ARE LOADS OF GOOD STRIKERS WHO ARE RUBBISH AT PENALTIES!!!

JFKvsNixon

26-05-2008, 12:53

Precisely why I hate Chelski.

Buy players for millions when they don't intend to play them- just because they can afford to. How many other talents are going to waste in their squad? Sidwell? Wright-Phillips?

Chelsea bought Anelka because the only other fit striker that they had was Pizzaro, who was woefully out of form. Chelsea bought Wright-Phillips because the other wingers (Robben, Duff and Cole) were injury prone. Chelsea Bought Sidwell because Ballack was injured, Makel and Essien were going to be away in the African nations leaving them with only Lampard and Makelele as first team midfielders.

But lets not the facts get in the way of a good rant.

igm1

26-05-2008, 13:11

Chelsea bought Anelka because the only other fit striker that they had was Pizzaro, who was woefully out of form. Chelsea bought Wright-Phillips because the other wingers (Robben, Duff and Cole) were injury prone. Chelsea Bought Sidwell because Ballack was injured, Makel and Essien were going to be away in the African nations leaving them with only Lampard and Makelele as first team midfielders.

But lets not the facts get in the way of a good rant.

I agree, lets not. Fact is, they buy quality players to rot in their reserves until one of their first team players gets injured.

Anelka: Drogba at the African cup of nations- so because they are Chelsea they can throw a shed load of money at it and purchase a striker they're barely going to use once Drogba returns. Unsettles the team- they deserve to fail.

Wright-Phillips: Ok yeah, they were injury prone- but then why purchase more and more players that can be played on the wing? Kalou & Malouda. Again- they're not building a team per-se, but just throwing money at it for world class replacements.

Wright Phillips should be a quality England player, but he has little chance to show what he can do on the bench- assuming he makes that. Sidwell should be showing his class too- not rotting in the Chelsea reserves.

Chelsea have a poor transfer policy- but because they are rich they can afford to. Which is precisely what infuriates me. I'm just jealous really :hihi: ;)

JFKvsNixon

26-05-2008, 13:27

I agree, lets not. Fact is, they buy quality players to rot in their reserves until one of their first team players gets injured.

Anelka: Drogba at the African cup of nations- so because they are Chelsea they can throw a shed load of money at it and purchase a striker they're barely going to use once Drogba returns. Unsettles the team- they deserve to fail.

You also seem to forget that Drogba was injured, and didn't play for Chelsea from the beginning of December until after the African nations. Also Anelka did start a lot of games in the run in.

Wright-Phillips: Ok yeah, they were injury prone- but then why purchase more and more players that can be played on the wing? Kalou & Malouda. Again- they're not building a team per-se, but just throwing money at it for world class replacements.

Kalau was bought as third choice striker and cover for for the wings, seeing that we had just sold Duff, I think he was needed. Maluda was bought to replace Robben, so I can't quit see where you are coming from.

Wright Phillips should be a quality England player, but he has little chance to show what he can do on the bench- assuming he makes that. Sidwell should be showing his class too- not rotting in the Chelsea reserves.

Wright-Phillips played awful when he first went to Chelsea, the difference between being and being a big fish in a small pond a small fish in a big pond is that when you play poorly you get dropped. It took a long time for Wright-Phillips to come to terms with this.

Chelsea have a poor transfer policy- but because they are rich they can afford to. Which is precisely what infuriates me. I'm just jealous really :hihi: ;)

I can see what your on about, you would have rather that Chelsea developed their youth team so in around ten years time they would challenge for the league. Me, I am glad we have bought big, I am also glad we have invested in youth so we can also be successful in ten years time.

Chelsea haven't done so badly seeing that you think that they have a poor transfer policy.

igm1

26-05-2008, 13:53

Chelsea haven't done so badly seeing that you think that they have a poor transfer policy.

Of course they haven't done badly! They've done fantastically, but for that very reason- money to plug the gaps.

The transfer policy, of course they've had some success but I'm just merely saying that Chelsea don't seem to buy players where they can fit into a team, and can afford to make mistakes- i.e. Shevchenko.

Bull Dog

26-05-2008, 14:18

I'm amazed that so many find it so hard to grasp that taking penalties and dead-ball situations is different to open play, requiring different skills and high confidence.

THERE ARE LOADS OF GOOD STRIKERS WHO ARE RUBBISH AT PENALTIES!!!

Different skills???:loopy:
Its 1 on 1 with the keeper with no one allowed to challenge him,jesus christ that takes some skill dont it
YES it requires confidence but confidence wasnt the reason Anelka didnt take 1 of the first 5 pens

Will say it to you again as you seem to be having difficulty grasping this........HE REFUSED TO TAKE ONE because he had been played out of position....NOT a lack of confidence,it was an almighty strop in the most important game of Chelsea,s History

Bull Dog

26-05-2008, 14:20

Agent Gypo

26-05-2008, 15:25

Different skills???:loopy:
Its 1 on 1 with the keeper with no one allowed to challenge him,jesus christ that takes some skill dont it

Well, by your logic every footballer should nail a penalty, every time. It just isn't like that. Being a striker doesn't necessarily make you a good penalty taker.

Strikers. Are. Not. Necessarily. Any. Good. At. Penalties.

YES it requires confidence but confidence wasnt the reason Anelka didnt take 1 of the first 5 pens

Will say it to you again as you seem to be having difficulty grasping this........HE REFUSED TO TAKE ONE because he had been played out of position....NOT a lack of confidence,it was an almighty strop in the most important game of Chelsea,s History

We've already covered this several times. Perhaps an annotated drawing would be easier for you to understand.

Call it what you will. If Anelka truly wanted to refuse, he wouldn't have stepped up at all, either in the first five or for sudden death.

Some sections of the media have blown this issue out of all proportion. You can argue all you like about Anelka having a strop, but he gave what I consider to be a wholly understandable reason for not wanting to take one of the first 5 penalties. If I was in his position, and I didn't feel confident of scoring, I wouldn't volunteer either.

The real villain of the piece is surely Didier Drogba. A player who can at times be brilliant, yet was very poor throughout what was likely his last game in the shirt. His only significant contribution to the Chelsea cause was to get himself sent off for slapping Vidic. Drogba would undoubtedly have been one of those asked to take a penalty.

Bull Dog

27-05-2008, 00:33

Well, by your logic every footballer should nail a penalty, every time. It just isn't like that. Being a striker doesn't necessarily make you a good penalty taker.

Strikers. Are. Not. Necessarily. Any. Good. At. Penalties.

We've already covered this several times. Perhaps an annotated drawing would be easier for you to understand.

Call it what you will. If Anelka truly wanted to refuse, he wouldn't have stepped up at all, either in the first five or for sudden death.

Some sections of the media have blown this issue out of all proportion. You can argue all you like about Anelka having a strop, but he gave what I consider to be a wholly understandable reason for not wanting to take one of the first 5 penalties. If I was in his position, and I didn't feel confident of scoring, I wouldn't volunteer either.

The real villain of the piece is surely Didier Drogba. A player who can at times be brilliant, yet was very poor throughout what was likely his last game in the shirt. His only significant contribution to the Chelsea cause was to get himself sent off for slapping Vidic. Drogba would undoubtedly have been one of those asked to take a penalty.

Jesus Wept
Have you heard or read anywhere that Anelka wasnt confident of taking a penalty???

He.Refused.To.Take.1.Of.The.First.Five.and.only.to ok.one.because.he.HAD.to

When has Anelka ever been short of confidence,he arrogant to the extreme and with arrogance comes confidence

Agent Gypo

27-05-2008, 10:29

Jesus Wept
Have you heard or read anywhere that Anelka wasnt confident of taking a penalty???

Anelka didn't want to take one of the first five as he clearly wasn't up for it. He has stated his reasons, which were perfectly understandable. He stood aside to let five people who fancied their chances have a go.

Anelka didn't have to take one of the sudden-death penalties either, he could quite easily have pulled out of that if he chose to. However, he didn't, and his earlier fears were confirmed when he missed.

There is nothing more to it than that. His objections to his role in the match have been seized upon and misconstrued by some sections of the press, particularly the tabloids. But that's what British tabloids do.

When has Anelka ever been short of confidence,he arrogant to the extreme and with arrogance comes confidence

Anelka has struggled for form at various stages in his career. So has Ronaldo, Figo, Rivaldo, Inzaghi...... All could be considered 'arrogant' players. All suffer dips in confidence, like every other player does.

This has been made plain on several occasions. I'm bored of debating with someone whose argument is based upon rubbish on the back pages of The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Bull Dog

27-05-2008, 14:38

Anelka didn't want to take one of the first five as he clearly wasn't up for it. He has stated his reasons, which were perfectly understandable. He stood aside to let five people who fancied their chances have a go.

Anelka didn't have to take one of the sudden-death penalties either, he could quite easily have pulled out of that if he chose to. However, he didn't, and his earlier fears were confirmed when he missed.

There is nothing more to it than that. His objections to his role in the match have been seized upon and misconstrued by some sections of the press, particularly the tabloids. But that's what British tabloids do.

Anelka has struggled for form at various stages in his career. So has Ronaldo, Figo, Rivaldo, Inzaghi...... All could be considered 'arrogant' players. All suffer dips in confidence, like every other player does.

This has been made plain on several occasions. I'm bored of debating with someone whose argument is based upon rubbish on the back pages of The Sun or The Daily Mail.

Your Obviously not bored because you keep coming back with the same old boring crap that has no substance,it is just your theory
If a Newspaper quotes someone,wether it be a footballer a politician or a Big Issue Seller then it is a QUOTE whatever Newspaper it is
Where have you seen it QUOTED that Anelka lacked confidence???
Where have you read/heard that he wasnt "up for it"?
Where have you read/heard that he let 5 others take the pens who fancied their chances?

Find Proof of any of the above

plekhanov

27-05-2008, 22:30

Different skills???:loopy:
Its 1 on 1 with the keeper with no one allowed to challenge him,jesus christ that takes some skill dont it
Yes different skills, do you really know so little about football that you don't understand why taking a penalty (or an attacking free kick for that matter) is rather different from trying to score in open play?

If scoring from open play were as analogous as you claim penalty specialists such as Dennis Irwin, Steve Bruce and Jan Molby would all have been strikers, after all given such impressive penalty conversion rates they must be goal scoring machines right? And Andy Cole (2nd highest premiership scorer ever) would be an amazing penalty taker, when in reality he has never scored from the spot iirc.

Bull Dog

28-05-2008, 00:59

Yes different skills, do you really know so little about football that you don't understand why taking a penalty (or an attacking free kick for that matter) is rather different from trying to score in open play?

If scoring from open play were as analogous as you claim penalty specialists such as Dennis Irwin, Steve Bruce and Jan Molby would all have been strikers, after all given such impressive penalty conversion rates they must be goal scoring machines right? And Andy Cole (2nd highest premiership scorer ever) would be an amazing penalty taker, when in reality he has never scored from the spot iirc.

Serious?
Steve Bruce a penalty specialist
FFS He and Irwin played for the same team,what did they do,take it in turns to take pens
Bruce was NEVER a penalty specialist,he scored goals from set pieces with his head
If he could take a penalty with his head he would do
Serious.....Steve Bruce Penalty specialist:loopy:
Jan Molby: a FREE KICK specialist NOT a penalty specialist

And Yes you idiot i know the difference between a penalty/free kick and open play,that isnt my argument

My argument is,is that Anelka couldnt be arsed about taking a penalty in such an important match

Venables

28-05-2008, 01:07

I had to `lol` @ Terrys arrogance in the shoot-out.

May it haunt him forever.

plekhanov

28-05-2008, 01:59

Serious?
Steve Bruce a penalty specialist
FFS He and Irwin played for the same team,what did they do,take it in turns to take pens
Because of course it's just impossible to have two people with the same specialisation in the same squad :roll:

Bruce was NEVER a penalty specialist,he scored goals from set pieces with his head
If he could take a penalty with his head he would do
Serious.....Steve Bruce Penalty specialist:loopy:
He (Steve Bruce) finished the 1990–91 campaign as United's third top goalscorer behind Mark Hughes and Brian McClair with 19 goals, helped by scoring eleven goals from the penalty spot. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bruce#Manchester_United)

Jan Molby: a FREE KICK specialist NOT a penalty specialist
While at Liverpool, Jan scored a total of 62 goals – 42 of which were from penalties. In fact, during his time at Anfield, he only failed to score three times from the penalty spot and still holds the club record for the most penalties scored by a Liverpool player.Source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/radiofivelive/janmolby.shtml)

And Yes you idiot i know the difference between a penalty/free kick and open play,that isnt my argument
Really so I take it somebody else hacked your account and has been using it to post nonsense which would suggest otherwise throughout this thread such as this then:

I'm amazed that so many find it so hard to grasp that taking penalties and dead-ball situations is different to open play, requiring different skills and high confidence.

THERE ARE LOADS OF GOOD STRIKERS WHO ARE RUBBISH AT PENALTIES!!!
Different skills???:loopy:
Its 1 on 1 with the keeper with no one allowed to challenge him,jesus christ that takes some skill dont it
YES it requires confidence but confidence wasnt the reason Anelka didnt take 1 of the first 5 pens

Will say it to you again as you seem to be having difficulty grasping this........HE REFUSED TO TAKE ONE because he had been played out of position....NOT a lack of confidence,it was an almighty strop in the most important game of Chelsea,s History

My argument is,is that Anelka couldnt be arsed about taking a penalty in such an important match
No that is simply part of your argument, your having said other stupid things in this thread doesn't magically mean you haven't also denied that scoring penalties and from open play are different skills.

Agent Gypo

28-05-2008, 16:26

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Still, I'm sure someone will find a way to argue against cold, hard statistics.

e5c4p3

28-05-2008, 20:12

Grant: ''Nicolas, I want you to take the fifth penalty. I'm giving you the chance to fulfill every schoolboys dream and score the winning goal in the champions League final.''

Anelka: ''No. I'm not interested.''

Guderian

29-05-2008, 11:05

Serious?
Steve Bruce a penalty specialist
FFS He and Irwin played for the same team,what did they do,take it in turns to take pens
Bruce was NEVER a penalty specialist,he scored goals from set pieces with his head
If he could take a penalty with his head he would do
Serious.....Steve Bruce Penalty specialist:loopy:
Jan Molby: a FREE KICK specialist NOT a penalty specialist

And Yes you idiot i know the difference between a penalty/free kick and open play,that isnt my argument

My argument is,is that Anelka couldnt be arsed about taking a penalty in such an important match

Steve Bruce was an excellent penalty taker.

I am still not quite sure how he managed it, but I was always confident when he stepped up for Utd.