Hello?! At what point did Bayern lead Real to even park the bus? The point of parking the bus is to protect A LEAD. Which Bayern never had in this match and got in the first leg literally in the last minute. Even if you dislike Chelsea no need to resort to MORONIC statement like this!

Lead to what goal? You mean the Real penalty that that Ronaldo scored in the 6th minute? Yes, they didn't park the bus for the first 5 minutes. Neither did Chelsea. So what's your point? Bayern lead Real for 5 minutes, then went behind, then finally level at 2-1 into penalties. So, beside the first 5 minutes (which Real were actually on top), what other points in the match that Bayern were LEADING?

Do you actually know what parking the bus means? Or do you just throw it around because it sounds fancy? Parking the bus IS NOT the the same as playing defensive. Chelsea played defensive counter attack because its the only way to score against Barcelona. No team in the world can match the midfield possession of Barca's tiki-taka, not Real,not Bayern and not certainly Chelsea. Chelsea played classic 4-5-1/4-3-3 against Barca but flattened to the max due to the midfield pressure of tiki-taka. Only in the second half of the second leg did Chelsea played something like 6-3-0 (A.K.A Parking The Bus) when they were LEADING on away goal AND a man down AND without 2 first-choice center-back. You're confusing defensive counter-attacking with Parking The Bus.

This post has been edited by pokwang: Apr 27 2012, 10:33 PM

No, I'm saying you're misusing the term Park The Bus. Chelsea DID NOT park the bus in the first minute. They park the bus in SECOND HALF of the second leg. Analyze the formation. First half 4-5-1. Second half it's like 6-3-0.

This is normal 4-5-1 (first half), NOT parking the bus.



THIS IS PARKING THE BUS (second half, 6-3-0)



PLEASE DON'T USE THE TERM PARK THE BUS SESUKA HATI!

I'd like to ask everybody, what is your definition of park the bus? Is parking the bus means just playing defensively? Or, if it means to play very very defensively, how do you tell in terms of tactics/formation?

For me, Parking The Bus means a team ABANDONS altogether any attack or goal-scoring effort. IMO, this is the difference between a team that is defensive but uses counter-attacking or route-one (punt the ball to lone striker) to score, and a team that Park The Bus. But how do you differentiate the 2?

This is my criteria for differentiating Park The Bus with a team playing (very) defensive counter-attacking, by looking at the formation:

1) No attacker/striker. The PTB formation would be like X-X-0, meaning there's nobody between the opponent's midfield and defense.

2) Overloaded defense. The number of defensive players is the same or more than the midfield+attack, i.e 5 or 6 players in defense instead of the usual 4 or (very rare)3.

Now if you analyze back Chelsea's games, you'll find that they consistently employ 4-5-1 throughout the first leg and the first half of second leg, even though they look extremely flattened due to Barca's tiki-taka style. For me, this is regular defensive counter-attacking formation because the it indicates they DID NOT ABANDON they're intention of scoring, there's always a target man upfront. Only in the second half did they revert to 6-3-0, with Drogba moving to LB(!) and Kalou to RB to form a 6 men defense. This signified that the have ABANDONED goal-scoring completely, hence Parking The Bus.

So, I'd like to know your definition of PTB. Some you say that Chelsea PTB'ed throughout both leg, so what is you justification for saying that? I like to hear your thoughts.

---

Added on April 29, 2012, 7:27 amIf there's 9 players in the defensive line, that would be 9-0-1 or 9-1-0. A 4-5-1 is a 4-5-1.

This post has been edited by pokwang: Apr 29 2012, 07:27 AM

Well that's not really helpful. Do you mind explaining this further? Could you point to some examples to illustrate you point? Because by this definition, EVERY single team that Pep's Barca has gone against has parked the bus, since they NEVER had less than 50% possession (mind-boggling, isn't it?) since Pep took over. Now that doesn't sound right, does it?

This post has been edited by pokwang: Apr 29 2012, 09:58 AM

Well then explain it, because I'm a 4 year old. Please?

---

Added on April 29, 2012, 12:28 pmSo, do you think Chelsea parked the bus in the first leg? Chelsea maintained 4-5-1 throughout the match. Are you suggesting that all defensive 4-5-1 formation is called parking the bus?

This post has been edited by pokwang: Apr 29 2012, 12:28 PM

I agree with points 1 & 3. See my post #2034 for my interpretation of Park The Bus. For point 2, I feel that teams that PTB don't even try to score, they give up trying to attack completely - e.g Chelsea in the 2nd half of 2nd leg.

---

Added on April 29, 2012, 4:08 pmWho are these "depa", if I may ask?

This post has been edited by pokwang: Apr 29 2012, 04:08 PM

By this definition, every team that has ever faced Barca is parking the bus. I totally disagree with this definition.

If Chelsea just want to stop Barca with their formation, how did they manage to score 3 goals? Are sure Chelsea's formation is to just stop Barca and and nothing else? Did they stick with 1 formation only, or did they change them throughout the 2 legs? Clearly you are underestimating the importance of team formation.

No, I mean where are those people you claim said that Chelsea did not park the bus against Barca. As far as I can see, nobody (Chelsea supporters or otherwise) said what you claim they said - that Chelsea didn't park the bus. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction?

BTW, since you didn't answer me last time, I'll ask again. According to you, did Chelsea park the bus in the 1st leg at SB, since they maintained the 4-5-1 formation throughout that match? If yes, are you suggesting that a 4-5-1 formation is parking the bus?

I appreciate your answer, but I have to disagree with the bolded part. Chelsea's first goal is not luck - what is so lucky about dispossessing you opponent and launching a quick counter? Barca's 2nd goal also came from dispossessing Chelsea and launching a quick counter - is that lucky too?

In fact, Chelsea's 2nd second goal start from the back pass from midfield to defense, back to midfield before Lampard gave that lovely through ball to Remires. Is that luck too?

The only goal you can call lucky is the last goal when Bosingwa's clearance happens to land on Torres' feet. There's nothing lucky about Chelsea's first 2 goal, it's down to formation and tactics that they executed very well.