alright couple of things...
1) kickinit: how do you conclude Barcelona were the better team just based on the fact that they had the majority of the ball? Is that not taking an "angle" just like people who talk about shots? Barcelona has had possession over almost every single team they play in all competitions. That doesn't necessarily mean they are the better team. Barcelona were not the better team today, they created less oppurtunities and though they had a ton of possession that didn't necessarily mean they did anything with it. And I would argue they were not necessarily the better team in the first leg as well. Chelsea went to the Nou Camp with a gameplan of getting numbers behind the ball and defending as a unit. I think they executed their gameplan better than Barcelona in the first leg as every soccer fan would agree that a 0-0 game in Spain was a good result for Chelsea. Just because they sat back and absorbed Barcelona's attack doesn't mean they were the inferior squad. Chelsea made Xavi, Messi, and Eto'o virtually invisible over two matches and held Barcelona without a single goal for 180 plus minutes. Chelsea and Barcelona have contrasting styles and just because Barca's might be more attractive to the eye doesn't mean they are the best. If Chelsea had finished their chances (Drogba in the FIRST and SECOND leg) they would be advancing. But they didn't and Barcelona found a way to win late on which they deserve a ton of credit for but to say they were the better team I feel is debatable. It was a very very even tie.
2) Eagle#7: while I would not disagree that Ronaldo's goal vs Porto was unbelievable and definitely was worthy of goal of the competition, I just thought Essien's was a bit more magical based on the fact it was a first time volley under pressure, with his weaker foot. But I think the difference in our opinions could be based on the fact you see the games from behind red tinted glasses while mine are most definitely blue haha
