How did Chelsea setlefor 1-0 they created several chances and 4 penalties after they scored but they weren't going to be stupid and leave holes at the back. Fans need to remember that football is about defending and attacking not just attacking though how anyone can declare Barcelona were attacking last night leaves me confused because 1 shot on goal is not attacking...
All Barca did was run around for 90 minutes doing nothing while so called Chelsea bordem created about 8 chances.
Statistics are pretty pointless. Barca had 70% of possession away from home, had one shot on target, and scored it. The only stat that counts is the final score, and Barca won.
Chelsea's display at the Nou Camp showed a chronic lack of ambition. They had ten men in their own half for most of the match. It was clear their intention was to defend for dear life, then try and win at Stamford Bridge, despite Hiddink promising they would attack. To be fair, it's exactly what Man United did last year. The only English team who went to Barcelona and had the bollocks to attack in recent years was Liverpool in 2007, and they were rewarded with two away goals which won them the tie. This was achieved with far scarcer resources than United or Chelsea had - Craig Bellamy scored the winner for fuck's sake!
Away goals are so critical in these games, so for Chelsea to scarely bother to try and get one was monumentally stupid. Even when it was obvious that Barca weren't as good as their hype suggested, Chelsea still defended. Even at home, against ten men, with Barca out of ideas, Hiddink took off a striker for a fullback, determined to keep his lead. They were only 1-0 up, a single lucky goal for Barca would see them win the tie. Iniesta scored that goal.
Regardless of the penalty decisions that weren't given, to sit on a 1-0 lead was stupid, as it would be in any match.