So Many Bitter Articles

An Everton fan calling Liverpool fans bitter, then a manc pops uptelling us we are glory hunting plastics.

Comedy Gold

It makes me laugh how much the word 'bitter' is banded about, but more often than not in the wrong context. If you disagree with someone you are bitter or a WUM, how do people come to this conclusion?

What have I got to be bitter towards someone on the Internet who I disagree with? In instances where club loyalties come into it, BIAS, is applicable more often than not, but bitter is not.

This comment will probably get called bitter.

comment by Darren The King Fletcher - Balotelli's a ... (U10026)
posted 45 seconds ago
This article is very ironic.
--------------------------------------
I agree. Not so much with the rest.

Chelsea tactically outplayed Barcelona and Barcelona had no plan b. Gaurdiola showed complete arrogance and disrespect to Chelsea by going with 3-3-4 or 3-4-3 as some are calling it. With Alves coming on, they had a virtual winger, a defensive midfielder and one defender in defence and were vulnerable on the counter -attack. I said before the tie happened that Chelsea would win the game, this is due to Barcelona having only one gear and one plan, if this fails, which I was sure it would against a stronger and defensively solid Chelsea side, Barcelona have no way of changing it.

Starting Cuenca was a huge mistake also.

Football is about two things, attacking and defending, Barcelona did one decently and one awfully over the two ties. Chelsea did one decently and one excellently over the two tie. You have to score goals and you have stop goals going in and Chelsea did both better than Barcelona over the two legs and deserved to go through.

Darren the King - the rules are that if it comes from them it's 'banter', if it's from a fan of another club it's 'bitter'

Chelsea tactically outplayed Barcelona and Barcelona had no plan b. Gaurdiola showed complete arrogance and disrespect to Chelsea by going with 3-3-4 or 3-4-3 as some are calling it.

--------------------

I disagree TOOR. Chelsea didn't tactically outplay anyone. They defended very well but got lucky. Barca hit the woodwork 4 times in the two legs, missed a pen and missed chances that you'd expect themt o put away.

I agree with King Fletcher. This was no tactical masterclass by Chelsea. They decided to be defensive, did that well but over two legs got very lucky. Not bitter at all, but thats what i saw, and not taking anything away from Chelsea.

And why is it arrogant to play 3-4-3. Guardiola would have known that Chelsea would spend all game defending, so what's the point in having 4 defenders on the pitch, instead put in another midfielder.

I do agree with Cuenca. Not sure why he was on the pitch to be honest.

It makes me laugh how much the word 'bitter' is banded about, but more often than not in the wrong context. If you disagree with someone you are bitter or a WUM, how do people come to this conclusion?

What have I got to be bitter towards someone on the Internet who I disagree with? In instances where club loyalties come into it, BIAS, is applicable more often than not, but bitter is not.

This comment will probably get called bitter.

Not sure why that got posted again.

Anyway, I agree with FJM.

Had Chelsea limited Barca I would agree that they were tactically outplayed, however, over the two legs Barcelona dominated them and created enough to have won the game by 3 or 4. Chelsea were fortunate Barca could not finish their chances and they could.

In football the team that deserves to win does not always win. Hence the term 'smash and grab'. As a Liverpool fan you should realise that going off this season. Would you say West Brom tactically outplayed Liverpool at the weekend? I wouldn't, I'd say Liverpool were the much better side and should have won, but football doesn't work like that. But I stand by my point that Barca were the better side and should have gone through.

comment by FatJanMolby (U4297)
posted 18 minutes ago
Chelsea tactically outplayed Barcelona and Barcelona had no plan b. Gaurdiola showed complete arrogance and disrespect to Chelsea by going with 3-3-4 or 3-4-3 as some are calling it.

--------------------

I disagree TOOR. Chelsea didn't tactically outplay anyone. They defended very well but got lucky. Barca hit the woodwork 4 times in the two legs, missed a pen and missed chances that you'd expect themt o put away.
------------------------------------------
Again this is why we disagree on Kenny tactics not being good enough.

I partially agree with both of you.

Chelsea did get their tactics spot on, but also rode their luck big time (particularly at the Bridge). The worlds best player inexplicably missed from the spot as well last night, which just post half time would have turned the game totally in Barca's favour, they'd have relaxed & gone on to win comfortably imo.

As it was he missed & they did start to run out of ideas, they looked one dimensional at times & didn't create the number of chances that you'd expect them to vs 11 men, let alone 10.

The substitutions were odd in the extreme - Keita for Fabregas? & they've badly missed Villa since his injury, a much underated cog in their machine.

Chelsea did great turning over Barca, but it was a mixture of good tactics, hard work & the luck of the devil..................reminded me of your lot in '05

Toblerone Boots