Inter - Chelsea (24 Feb 10)

[F U C K MILAN]

i am with playing eto'o he tends to score important goals in important games, kazan,roma,juve r the main 3 that pop up in my mind, and the way he pressures defeders will be very important to keep terry and carvalho moving forward with the ball, he will defiantly push them back

 

[skeet]

probably the one agaisnt bari

it's the one against fiorentina where he had half the pitch to himself

i'm not sure which one you're referring to

 

[pazzainteramala]

it's the one against fiorentina where he had half the pitch to himself

i'm not sure which one you're referring to

ohh against bari i think it was first game he was right in front and shoots it wide

 

[nzinter]

i feel like pandev would be better off the bench then eto'o

 

[highbreed32]

personally feel we have to play eto.. he scored in 2 cl finals he needs to play..on paper pandev over eto is insane against chelsea

Too bad games are played on the pitch, and not on paper

 

[rsz85]

i think we MUST forget that "Just don't conceed at home, because we're out immediately!"-approach.

Because this mentality will get all our players blocked and will paralyzed from the starting minute and won't attack. This was the case last year against ManUtd. We feared the conceeding and didn't dare to attack.

At home we should attack and play to win, not this stupid "not conceed and up-front something will happen"-mentality.

So i would even prefer a 2-1 win over a goalless draw

Chelsea is not a superior fast attacking team like Barca or last year ManU with CR7 and WR.

Opinion?

 

[spiderninja]

i think we MUST forget that "Just don't conceed at home, because we're out immediately!"-approach.

Because this mentality will get all our players blocked and will paralyzed from the starting minute and won't attack. This was the case last year against ManUtd. We feared the conceeding and didn't dare to attack.

At home we should attack and play to win, not this stupid "not conceed and up-front something will happen"-mentality.

So i would even prefer a 2-1 win over a goalless draw

Chelsea is not a superior fast attacking team like Barca or last year ManU with CR7 and WR.

Opinion?

agree with this, we should attack and end up like meelan

losing 2-3 at home is better than 0-0, at least that will proof we still can score in europe

 

[CafeCordoba]

i think we MUST forget that "Just don't conceed at home, because we're out immediately!"-approach.

Because this mentality will get all our players blocked and will paralyzed from the starting minute and won't attack. This was the case last year against ManUtd. We feared the conceeding and didn't dare to attack.

At home we should attack and play to win, not this stupid "not conceed and up-front something will happen"-mentality.

So i would even prefer a 2-1 win over a goalless draw

Chelsea is not a superior fast attacking team like Barca or last year ManU with CR7 and WR.

Opinion?

Of course 2-1 is better than 0-0. But what makes you think we can get 2-1 with more offensive approach? What makes you think that if Inter puts real effort on attack, we won't conceded over one goal?

spiderninja, I assume you were purely sarcastic.

 

[jmaster]

No matter what's the result at home, if we win at Meazza, we've secured quarter finals or whatever it is next. In England we're going to defend full time, you'll see.

 

[Stefan]

How is 2-1 better than 0-0?? If the opposition scores 1 goal at home in either scenario you are in trouble only with 2-1 you have the away disadvantage as well.

 

[Besnik]

How is 2-1 better than 0-0?? If the opposition scores 1 goal at home in either scenario you are in trouble only with 2-1 you have the away disadvantage as well.

I agree.

Even tho I don't want the draw at Meazza, but if comes to compare these results, sure that 0-0 is better than 2-1. Then when we go in Stamford Bridge and if we score any goal then our chances is very big to qualify because we'll have great advantage.

 

[CafeCordoba]

How is 2-1 better than 0-0?? If the opposition scores 1 goal at home in either scenario you are in trouble only with 2-1 you have the away disadvantage as well.

Well it doesn't make any difference if it's 2-1 or 0-0 if we assume we will concede one goal in Stalingrad Bridge.

The differences is that..

..with 2-1 we don't have to score a goal unless Chelsea scores.

..with 0-0 we have to score a goal irregardless if Chelsea scores or not.


But, knowing Chelsea most probably will score a goal in London, it's irrelevant.

Then comes into play the methods to get 2-1 or 0-0 at Meazza. To get..

..2-1 we have to attack well but also defend well. The risk of conceding more than one goal is considerably high. The risk of conceding more than one goal is also higher than scoring the third goal.

..0-0 we have to defend very well. Not risking anything for attack. Also chance to keep the clean sheet and score a goal in counter is still there.

 

[spiderninja]

I agree.

Even tho I don't want the draw at Meazza, but if comes to compare these results, sure that 0-0 is better than 2-1. Then when we go in Stamford Bridge and if we score any goal then our chances is very big to qualify because we'll have great advantage.

0-0 better than 2-1 ?

if the score is 0-0, we still need to score at least 1 away goal,
if it's 2-1 we can play with 8-1-1 from the start

 

[Luka]

0-0 is only better than other draws (1-1, 2-2).

0-0 will never be better than any result that favour our team from that point of time. Whether it is 1-0, or 2-1, or 3-2, or 4-3, it will always be better than plain 0-0 result, because the goal advantage is already on our side.

Whether 1-0 is better than 2-1 is a different matter.

 

[pazzainteramala]

if it ends up 00 we will get knocked out we can do that it happened last year.. in stanford bridge they have a good chance of winning especially if it means they will go through to quarters

 

[CafeCordoba]

I agree.

Even tho I don't want the draw at Meazza, but if comes to compare these results, sure that 0-0 is better than 2-1. Then when we go in Stamford Bridge and if we score any goal then our chances is very big to qualify because we'll have great advantage.

If we score in London, Chelsea have to score two goals in both cases. The difference is that..

..if we have 2-1 from Meazza + we have scored + Chelsea have scored two, the score is even and both have one away goal.

..if we have 0-0 from Meazza, + we have scored + Chelsea have scored two, the score is 2-1 to Chelsea and we have to score.

In case of we scoring one and Chelsea scoring one in London..

..if we have 2-1 from Meazza + we have scored + Chelsea have scored one, the score is 3-2 and Chelsea have to score.

..if we have 0-0 from Meazza, + we have scored + Chelsea have scored one, the score is 1-1 and Chelsea have to score.

So 2-1 is really a better result than 0-0 from Meazza. The question is, can we get such a result. It's still maybe better to target the 0-0 because 2-1 risks too much conceding a goal.

edit. Luka, 1-0 is great result compared to 2-1. Away goal is double-valued to home goal. With 1-0, we would be leading and Chelsea scoring at home would just bring the result to even state. Us scoring there would lead to Chelsea having to score 3 goals.

In close history, Inter have crashed out three times because of an away goal rule and one time it has benefited Inter.

+In 02/03 against Valencia we won 1-0 at home and then scored one goal away so Valencia had to score three. They only managed to score two.
-In 02/03 against Milan, it was 0-0 from the first leg and then a 1-1 draw at home, so we crashed out.
-In 05/06 against Villarreal we won 2-1 at home and as Villarreal managed 1-0 at home, we crashed out.
-In 06/07 against Valencia we drew 2-2, and as Valencia managed to keep clean sheet at home, we crashed out.

 

[spiderninja]

if it ends up 00 we will get knocked out we can do that it happened last year.. in stanford bridge they have a good chance of winning especially if it means they will go through to quarters

0-0 is still better than 2-3.

We don't need to play offensively to beat Chelsea. Just hope we can steal 1 or 2 goal from counter and dead ball situation.

 

[Luka]

edit. Luka, 1-0 is great result compared to 2-1. Away goal is double-valued to home goal.

Like I've said, 1:0 vs 2:1 is a different topic, and we're not discussing the comparison of these cases.

People were discussion 0:0 vs 2:1, not 1:0 vs 2:1.

Obviously I agree with what you've said.

 

[CafeCordoba]

0-0 is still better than 2-3.

We don't need to play offensively to beat Chelsea. Just hope we can steal 1 or 2 goal from counter and dead ball situation.

Exactly. Play solidly the own back end and then hope for a random goal. Attacking is suicide, the Chelsea's away goal will destroy everything because we can't win a goal scoring contest in this level (CL-level).

 

[Sassuolu]

Lol why don't we discuss situations after we know the score of the first leg?

Which will probably end 0-0...