Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
I'm not reading all that drivel, but my two pennies worth is would they rather have CHelsea in the final? A team who after having spent £300m in the tansfer market in the last 3 and a half years have as their only tactic to send long and hopeful balls up to a big man up front to use his strength to outmuscle defenders? A team who despite having the advantage over every other club of being bankrolled by a billionaire still resort to diving, cheating and tying to get opponents booked and are the most ungracious losers who ever played the game? A team with no European pedigree, no history, not even really a very big club? Yeah, because that would be so much better for football than having Liverpool in the final
On a wider point there is an argument that a team like us, who haven't been serious championship contenders for quite some time, reaching the final is a bit of an insult to the competition as a whole. One could argue that the Champions League should be reserved for the league winners, though that is different to the author's view regarding the style of football. Certainly nobody in their right mind would suggest Chelsea won their two titles playing the sort of football that purists dream.
Mind you, Milan shouldn't even be anywhere near this season's competitions. I can't believe more hasn't been made of the fact that a side who apparently fixed their way into the tournament are now 1 match away from winning it.
Every time someone clicks on that link it is registered and the more clicks the more successful the writer is deemed to be.
I haven't read it but as I right to assume it's not going to enhance my day or my knowledge?
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
A person is welcome to their opinion but that doesn't mean to say I need to pay any account of it. It's just an opinion.
Of course, that's just my opinion so feel free to ignore it (as ever).
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Comment