[vlad is the man]

Ivanovic is a better right-back than Belletti. I would go as far as saying he would be my 'right-back' of the season. I know the competition is not fierce but I have been impressed with him. Of course he is much better in his own half than the oppositions half. But he has had games where he has got forward and looked dangerous.

However when he is up against an attacking winger he doesn't seem to be able to get forward.

Zhirkov was a strange signing. He should at the Euro's he is a cracking player. But he has Ashley Cole, rightly, in front of him at left back and Chelsea very rarely play with wide players in midfield.

As I mentioned earlier it would have been interesting to see what difference Cole would have made.

[vikingTON]

Hip Priest, on 17 March 2010 - 12:37, said:

It would be nice to be consistent, but then we'd either have to start talking about Bayern Myoonchen, Barthelona and Cheska Moskva, or we'd have to call, say, Roma "Rome", which would seem a bit odd.

Which makes his rebranding of the standardly accepted Sevilla as Seville a case in point. You don't call Roma Rome, don't call Sevilla Seville.

[False Light]

I meant to say this last night but I forgot. Chelsea's full backs just didn't get forward and it really hampered Chelsea's attack. They were probably worried that they might be caught on the break by Inter's forwards but they had to score so had to take a chance and go for it. Ivanovic isn't the most attacking of full backs but Zhirkov should have been bombing forward given the type of player he is and the situation. Malouda also seemed to be too far inside on a few occasions allowing Maicon, arguably the best right back in the world, to stride forward unchallenged.

[banterman86]

False Light, on 17 March 2010 - 14:06, said:

I meant to say this last night but I forgot. Chelsea's full backs just didn't get forward and it really hampered Chelsea's attack. They were probably worried that they might be caught on the break by Inter's forwards but they had to score so had to take a chance and go for it. Ivanovic isn't the most attacking of full backs but Zhirkov should have been bombing forward given the type of player he is and the situation. Malouda also seemed to be too far inside on a few occasions allowing Maicon, arguably the best right back in the world, to stride forward unchallenged.

Which is why Jose deserves credit for altering from his seemingly favoured 4-3-1-2 accordingly. I wonder if he had a swatch at Chelsea-Man utd earlier in the season, where Valencia did a decent job at nulifying the threat from Cole

[H_B]

Skyline Drifter, on 17 March 2010 - 13:01, said:

Inter played very well last night (and Chelsea played poorly, how much one caused the other is a matter for debate) but there's a bit of hyperbole about one performance coming through here. They probably won't win it and based on their first leg performance they won't get much further. Manchester United haven't exactly been firing on all cylinders recently either but looked brilliant over two legs against AC Milan (a team not far removed from Inter in quality). Inter only managed to look good for one.

Agreed. I saw a couple of Inter games from the group stages as well and I thought they looked very poor. They have been dire in the Italian league over the last 5 or 6 games as well - last night's result and performance were a bit of a surprise.

As you say Man U outclassed Milan twice, and Chelsea were much ther better side in the away leg - they should have won the game in my view, never mind losing it.

Mourinho is a good coach, but as you say he has produced one great result defending a 2-1 lead. I would fancy Carcelona, Arsenal and Man U strongly to take care of them in a 2 legged affair.

[False Light]

banterman86, on 17 March 2010 - 14:09, said:

Which is why Jose deserves credit for altering from his seemingly favoured 4-3-1-2 accordingly. I wonder if he had a swatch at Chelsea-Man utd earlier in the season, where Valencia did a decent job at nulifying the threat from Cole

True. It's probably worth noting that Inter looked more dangerous when Balotelli came on a played wide against Malouda in the first leg. It'll be interesting to see how Inter do against a team who play proper wingers, as pinning back Maicon takes a big part of Iner's attacking play away and I do wonder, as good as Zanetti is, whether Zanetti would cope with a really quick winger like Robben, Messi or Valencia.

This post has been edited by False Light: 17 March 2010 - 14:34

[banterman86]

False Light, on 17 March 2010 - 14:32, said:

True. It's probably worth noting that Inter looked more dangerous when Balotelli came on a played wide against Malouda in the first leg. It'll be interesting to see how Inter do against a team who play proper wingers, as pinning back Maicon takes a big part of Iner's attacking play away and I do wonder, as good as Zanetti is, whether Zanetti would cope with a really quick winger like Robben, Messi or Valencia.

I'd fancy Inter against Bayern just due to the fact that their defence looked so shaky against Fiorentina.

Barca are a different story though, although I'd put that down to their sheer mobilty.

A Inter-Arsenal affair in the next round would be fun, Mourinho is too respectful of Ferguson so Wenger's the best bet to wind up. Further they probably are the most comparable side to the barca side that beat inter in the first leg, but i suspect Mourinho would, Like Ferguson and Ancellotti, know how to nulfy them.

Failing that, they would just get a tad physical.

[False Light]

banterman86, on 17 March 2010 - 14:38, said:

I'd fancy Inter against Bayern just due to the fact that their defence looked so shaky against Fiorentina.

So would I. If Bayern hadn't sold Lucio in the summer, it'd be close but Bayern's defence is a bit suspect, especially if they get a couple of injuries. I think Lucio is suspended for the first leg of the quarters, which will be a big blow Inter.

Quote

Barca are a different story though, although I'd put that down to their sheer mobilty.

A Inter-Arsenal affair in the next round would be fun, Mourinho is too respectful of Ferguson so Wenger's the best bet to wind up. Further they probably are the most comparable side to the barca side that beat inter in the first leg, but i suspect Mourinho would, Like Ferguson and Ancellotti, know how to nulfy them.

Failing that, they would just get a tad physical.

I think Barca would comfortably dispatch Inter. I think Inter would struggle against Barca's style. Arsenal would probably do well for the same reasons. Man Utd would probably beat Inter as well, because Ferguson could pick a team that was designed to exploit Inter's weaknesses. Man Utd v Inter would be a really interesting tactical battle.

This post has been edited by False Light: 17 March 2010 - 15:09

[Beano 3d]

dave258, on 17 March 2010 - 12:00, said:

Appreciate Chelski deserved to be papped oot over the two legs, but I'm surprised not more has been made of this.

I watched the game with a group of 5 guys last night, mostly supporting Inter, and we all agreed Chelsea should have had at least 2 penalties, probably a third for Motta fouling Drogba before the red mist descended.

There's shirt pulling and then there's what Samuel was up to, twice he grabbed Drogba and threw him to the ground, not even looking at the ball, and a better refereeing team would have punished Inter.

As for the Drogba incident, if I'd had the kind of treatment he got off Samuel, Lucio, Motta et al all gme, I'd likely have reacted similarly.

The fact Anelka was mince the entire game probably didn't help Chelsea's cause either.

He didn't throw Drogba to the ground, Drogba threw himself to the ground as is his wont. He did have Samuel's arms round him so a penalty could well have been awarded but let's not let Drogba get away with his shameful cheating. All the diving, rolling about and deliberately running into players spoiled the game for me. Both teams were at it from the first minute.

[dubs]

banterman86, on 17 March 2010 - 14:09, said:

Which is why Jose deserves credit for altering from his seemingly favoured 4-3-1-2 accordingly. I wonder if he had a swatch at Chelsea-Man utd earlier in the season, where Valencia did a decent job at nulifying the threat from Cole

Or even more recently, United - Milan.

H_B, on 17 March 2010 - 14:30, said:

Mourinho is a good coach, but as you say he has produced one great result defending a 2-1 lead. I would fancy Carcelona, Arsenal and Man U strongly to take care of them in a 2 legged affair.

I'm not sure how anyone can decipher that from last nights game. Chelsea are so good as all of those teams. You can't deny that.

[dubs]

dubs, on 17 March 2010 - 12:39, said:

Mourinho basically marked the fullbacks out of the game which gave Chelsea zero width, sat two men in the area where Malouda/Lampard/Anelka like to work which gave Chelsea little chance to play through them, harrased Drogba to the point where he got sent off through sheer petulance (and how good were those centre halves by the way?) and gave Sneijder the license to pick out killer balls. It was the perfect away performance.

dubs, on 17 March 2010 - 13:15, said:

Ivanovic still finds himself in the opposing teams half a lot of the time, sure he does not regularly beat his man and hit a cross but he stretches the opponents midfield well enough. I think he has done a superb job up to this point given his own inadequacies. However Inter did not allow him to that last night.

False Light, on 17 March 2010 - 14:06, said:

I meant to say this last night but I forgot. Chelsea's full backs just didn't get forward and it really hampered Chelsea's attack. They were probably worried that they might be caught on the break by Inter's forwards but they had to score so had to take a chance and go for it. Ivanovic isn't the most attacking of full backs but Zhirkov should have been bombing forward given the type of player he is and the situation. Malouda also seemed to be too far inside on a few occasions allowing Maicon, arguably the best right back in the world, to stride forward unchallenged.

Thanks for that stunning insight

This post has been edited by dubs: 17 March 2010 - 15:39

[H_B]

dubs, on 17 March 2010 - 15:33, said:

I'm not sure how anyone can decipher that from last nights game.

Decipher what? That in my opinion Inter aren't as strong as Barcelona, Arsenal or Man U?

Well Barcelona were much the better team in both matches against them in the group stages, Man U owned Milan, who are a point behind them in Italy in 2 legs, and Chelsea were the better side against them in Milan.

As Skyline says, Inter played a terrific game last night, no question. That certainly doesn't mean they can do that again, over 2 legs, against any of the three teams above, or even other dangers like Bayern or Lyon.

Time will tell...

[sergie's no1 fan]

A classic 1-0 Italian away victory.They are famous for it.

To be fair to Drogba i would of lost the plot last night but for fuxake if your going to stamp on someone make sure you really hurt him.Make the red car worthwhile.

Can anyone tell me what does Micheal Ballack do for Chelsea? Everytime i have seen them play he has been a ghost.Are they just trying to fit him in somewhere?

Hopefully he doesn't play like this for Germany in the summer

[dubs]

H_B, on 17 March 2010 - 15:45, said:

Decipher what? That in my opinion Inter aren't as strong as Barcelona, Arsenal or Man U?

Well, yes, given that there isn't much between the top 3 in England and Inter swept Chelsea aside last night, I wouldn't exactly say you could 'strongly fancy' either of them to beat Inter now. Certainly Arsenal anyway.

You might have a point with Barca given how their previous meetings went this season, but I think last night will give Inter the belief that they can beat anyone now.

[Gall09]

Off topic, but what happened between Mourinho and Balotelli? The commentator made a reference to it but didn't divulge much.

[Zanetti]

Gall09, on 17 March 2010 - 17:08, said:

Off topic, but what happened between Mourinho and Balotelli? The commentator made a reference to it but didn't divulge much.

Balotelli can be a stroppy wee arse at times, and Mourinho doesn't appreciate that, basically.

[ClarkeyAUFC]

Zanetti, on 17 March 2010 - 17:15, said:

Balotelli can be a stroppy wee arse at times, and Mourinho doesn't appreciate that, basically.

Rumours about a training ground bust up with Balotelli and some Inter coaching staff + Mourinho. That's why he didn't even fly to London, although Inter tried to claim it was for "tactical issues" or some sh*te.

[vlad is the man]

Mourinho and Balotelli have been at odds numerous times over the past couple of years. It came as no real surprise.

[Shengus Khan]

vlad is the man, on 17 March 2010 - 13:40, said:

Zhirkov was a strange signing. He should at the Euro's he is a cracking player.

Zhirkov or "Jerk-off" (as the pundits would say) is the new Tony Dorigo. He even has the same hair do!

H_B, on 17 March 2010 - 15:45, said:

Decipher what? That in my opinion Inter aren't as strong as Barcelona, Arsenal or Man U?

Well Barcelona were much the better team in both matches against them in the group stages,

Inter would've humped Arsenal by 3 or 4 last night but I agree that they're not as strong as either Barcelona or Man Utd. In fact, Barcelona destroyed them in the group stages, as you say, and that was without Messi and Ibrahamovich!

[7-2]

craigkillie, on 17 March 2010 - 11:18, said:

If he was talking about the city, then fair enough, but the team's name is Sevilla.

If I was going on holiday to the city to take in the football, I would go to Seville to watch the Sevilla game.

Not exactly. The city's name is also Savilla so why change one to the English pronunciation and keep one Spanish? You should really be going to Savilla to watch Savilla or Seville to watch Seville.

[craigkillie]

7-2, on 17 March 2010 - 19:57, said:

Not exactly. The city's name is also Savilla so why change one to the English pronunciation and keep one Spanish? You should really be going to Savilla to watch Savilla or Seville to watch Seville.

Because it is fairly conventional to use anglicised city names, but to keep club names in their own language.

There are some exceptions, but I certainly wouldn't have Seville/Sevilla down as one of them.

[7-2]

craigkillie, on 17 March 2010 - 20:15, said:

Because it is fairly conventional to use anglicised city names, but to keep club names in their own language.

There are some exceptions, but I certainly wouldn't have Seville/Sevilla down as one of them.

This picking and choosing by the Brits of when we decide to pronounce a name in it's natural language or Anglicise it has always interested me. The classic is going to Paris and watching 'Paree San Jerman'! We pronounce the likes of Berbatov wrongly and nobody would think of saying it in its proper Bulgarian fashion, except perhaps a couple of commentators I can think off trying to be smart.

I just think the mixture is wrong. If we're going native language pronunciations then lets have some consistency please.

[miko]

7-2, on 17 March 2010 - 20:53, said:

This picking and choosing by the Brits of when we decide to pronounce a name in it's natural language or Anglicise it has always interested me. The classic is going to Paris and watching 'Paree San Jerman'! We pronounce the likes of Berbatov wrongly and nobody would think of saying it in its proper Bulgarian fashion, except perhaps a couple of commentators I can think off trying to be smart.

I just think the mixture is wrong. If we're going native language pronunciations then lets have some consistency please.

yeah cause its well important

[Cowden til i die]

Just saw the highlights now. Magic that Lampard gave the ball away in the build up to the goal.

Drogba deserved to be sent off but i find it hard to belive the ref saw his stamp. Oh well.

[7-2]

miko, on 17 March 2010 - 22:23, said:

yeah cause its well important

I'd try to get a basic command of English before commenting on a discussion about other languages.