Would you say a semi-final is less important than a final? Or the quarter-final? Would you say we were "up for it" in those two games?
StatsWhat - you mean this?! "Today West Ham set the pace for almost the entire match and Liverpool were always struggling to contain them and playing catch up. Liverpool had very little to offer...
The amount of luck you are trying to credit him, or the team, doesn't exist.
No, we were poor. A team is allowed to be poor for parts of the game. Doesn't mean the victory is any less than deserved, as long as you, you know, score.
Reina saved 75% of the penalties. Is that pure luck? PURE luck?
FACT: We won both.
And what do you mean by "they should have been won"? Are you saying we SHOULD have beaten Milan?
How about nerves? Tired feet? All that?
Are you saying that Benitez' substutitions during the game didn't allow Gerrard to play further up the field, to take a more active role in the offensive midfield?
Eh, he did win both. As did Liverpool. He's the manager of Liverpool.
Weather Alert ** 84No they didn't drag them to the bad part of the stand, they charged a section of the...
Chelsea finished this season with just four points less than last year. You call that a slump? Second last year had 83 points, same as this year.
But, you see, it doesn't matter! He made it to two of the most important cup finals two years in a row! That's your argument pisses me off, because you focus JUST on the final. We had to GET to the final, don't you see that?
Milan played some pretty crap games before they made the CL final last year, then played very good in Istanbul. We played some very good games before the final, and had some not so go periods (you could say!) in the final. Why is the latter scenario more important than the last one?
You can't be firing on any less cylinders in the quarter or semi-finals than in the final, because then you wouldn't reach the final. See?
No, chump, it isn't strange. Let me spell it out for you: HE GOT US TO THE FINAL. How did that happen, then? By pure chance?
