surprised this hasn't appeared here yet - or am i supposed to assume that every RAWKite goes to .tv?
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG155647070418-1101.htmPaul Tomkins
18 Apr 2007
Let me start by saying that I'm still seriously irked by the notion that victory over Chelsea in the 2005 Champions League semi-final was controversial. Or, indeed, lucky.
This is the biggest fallacy in football, and it should never have been allowed its gross propagation. Like a genetically modified marrow left in a science fiction greenhouse to expand to the size of a blue whale, it has little to do with reality, and is massively out of proportion.
It amazes me that people still only talk about whether or not the ball crossed the line following Luis Garcia's instinctive prod – and not that the referee later admitted that had the goal not been given, he'd have brought play back to send off Petr Cech and award a penalty.
I'm sure even Jose Mourinho would have taken his chances at being just 1-0 down at that point in the game –– rather than facing the last 87 minutes starting with a Liverpool penalty and his team down to 10 men. And all in front of a raucous, baying Kop who were setting new decibel records. In other words, the referee did Chelsea a favour.
To remind people, this is what referee Lubos Michel said: “If my assistant referee had not signalled a goal, I would have given a penalty and sent off goalkeeper Petr Cech.”
Hardly any grey area in that statement. Why aren't these words better known? What irritates me is that Mourinho, his players and the press will unite behind the mythical version of events. I'd like to see more made of the true circumstances, as indicated by the referee.
Mourinho, who is reportedly still convinced Chelsea "won" the tie, will no doubt milk the 'was woz robbed' mantra.
(I'm not sure of the Portuguese for this phrase. Babelfish suggests nós fomos roubados, although translating it back into English gives 'we were stolen', which suggests Eidur Gudjohnsen was bundled by Rafa and Pako into the back of a Ford Transit in Walton Breck Road. Although maybe they did steal his contact lenses.)
The truth is that Chelsea, who didn't trouble Jerzy Dudek in either game, were beaten fair and square. And had Chelsea been victorious it would have been in part to Gudjohnsen's dive that ruled out Xabi Alonso from the 2nd leg. So please, an end to this myth.
I'm definitely more apprehensive this time around. Back then it was all part of a big adventure, an unexpected journey. The underdog status worked well. Now there's a more serious look about the Reds, and greater expectations as a result.
Revenge is a strange concept in football. It's why I'd be much more fearful of AC Milan should an 'Istanbul' re-match take place in Athens. They would want to put the record straight, as they see it.
However, the obverse is that they have to overcome the psychological blow of being defeated in such a humiliating fashion. I can recall all the talk in 2001 of Roma gaining revenge for the 1984 European Cup final defeat to the Reds. But Liverpool knocked them out of the Uefa Cup and Champions League in quick succession.
Revenge is all part of developing a siege mentality. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, or if you're perennially paranoid. It can unite. Liverpool wanted retribution for Gudjohnsen's dive in the first leg, and it ramped up the Anfield crowd that extra one percent in the return leg, from an already hysterically noisy starting point.
Since 2005 the Reds have gradually found parity with Chelsea, in one-off games at least. Three of the last four have been won, with Benítez's team the better performers on each occasion. And in the other, at Stamford Bridge, Liverpool had all the chances, and Chelsea, who had none of any note, scored out of nothing. Depending on your viewpoint that's the mark of a great team, or it's downright lucky.
That said, Chelsea will not be anywhere near limp as in the most recent meeting, which the Reds won at ease. And what's gone before won't totally dictate what happens now.
Of course, it can't hurt from a psychological standpoint that the two semi-finals in which the teams have recently met both ended in Liverpool's favour. It also can't hurt that Benítez has got the upper hand, tactically speaking, in the last few meetings. But Chelsea will have an immense hunger to win this tie. They are nothing if not determined.
The Londoners will be happier to be facing a Liverpool side they can now try to paint as favourites, to reduce the expectations on their own shoulders. But they'll also be putting themselves under greater pressure to win a first European Cup – something that was very much part of the Chelsea manager's remit. After all, they are the almost certainly the most expensively assembled team in Europe.
In footballing terms Chelsea were fully deserving of their recent league title successes, but now they absolutely crave that defining achievement that needs to follow: the kind with which Liverpool and Manchester United crowned their league dominance in 1968, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1984 and 1999.
Liverpool need to win this trophy as it's the last chance of silverware. But Chelsea, who could still fall at the last in the FA Cup and Premiership, haven't invested £500m to win nothing more this season than a League Cup.
I always felt Arsenal's greatest problem a few years back was that they wanted to win the Champions League too much; they knew they'd not get the credit they felt they deserved until they were European Champions. It was only once they clearly declined as a force – and the pressure diminished – that they managed to belatedly make the final.
An obsession with winning a trophy can prove counter-productive, although equally, a lack of hunger is no use to anyone. It's about finding the balance between wanting it badly enough, and not transmitting that to make the players too nervous. You need hunger, but only relaxed and focused footballers produce their best.
Everywhere you look in the Champions League there's a story waiting to be written for the Reds. It's Chelsea again – we all know the backstory there from recent seasons – and if successful, it's either Manchester United or AC Milan. The rivalry with United needs no mentioning, but the Italians are not just 'any other team' as far as the Reds are concerned; they feel they have a score to settle.
Silvio Berlusconi, Milan's President, is already quoted as saying he wants Liverpool in the final to "erase" the result from 2005. Perhaps it's another case of lost in translation, but nothing can change what happened then. However, you can understand his desire for his team to atone for their horrific collapse.
Then of course there's the Shevchenko factor – who, as Chelsea's record signing, will want to stop any possibility of a rematch of that 2005 final. Few players have been as guilty of such glaring misses in a major game as he was that night.
He showed then what a threat he can be in and around the box, in finding time and space, but ultimately missed his chances, and fluffed his penalty – one he approached with such an all-pervading air of resignation.
Again, it could go either way for the Ukrainian. He could be so haunted by Istanbul that a real mental block appears. Or he could find himself, as so many have over the years, the villain turned hero (or, from our perspective, hero turned villain). In football, there's almost always another occasion for redemption.
I never thought there could be a bigger night than Istanbul, and yet there's the possibility of something altogether more significant occurring should Chelsea be vanquished.
While the sheer drama of Istanbul will almost certainly never be topped by any team in any major final, beating Manchester United in Athens – even if it's the dullest match ever seen – would be by far and away the best night the club has ever known. Defeat would rank up there with the worst.
To be honest, at this stage I dare not even contemplate either scenario.
After all, the two teams meeting in the Youth Cup final is hard enough on the nerves.
I can't find a direct quote from the referee about how he would have sent off Petr Cech though... anyone got a link for that? I would like to bookmark it. I did go back and look through the match reports though... practically every single one says Cech should have been sent off... maybe we should wite a song about that 'ghost goal' that EMPHASISES how Chelsea were LUCKY not to get Cech sent off AND a PENALTY to boot that we can sing for the semi and change perception a little.
i'm no song-writer now, but something along the lines of
He should have been sent off
He should have been sent off
Cech fouled Baros
He should have been sent off
Repeat twice. Simple, and gets the message across. Sing it to our old friend Mourinho in the Chelsea dugout.