On Wednesday night, AC Milan beat Liverpool by accident. As a result, they won
the Champions League. Just think of it: the biggest prize in European
football went to Milan because a ball accidentally hit a chap.
It was a free kick from Andrea Pirlo, well struck, and Filippo Inzaghi made a
run in its general direction. That much was intentional. But he didn’t
strike the ball. The ball struck him. It hit him round about the shoulder or
upper arm. No, that doesn’t make it handball. The process was entirely
inadvertent. If anything, he was trying to get out of the way. But the
result of this little swerving half-duck was to propel the ball into the
net; and the game changed for ever as a result.
You can, if you like, say that Milan deserved it on the balance of play, but
I’m not so sure that’s right. Liverpool had the better of the first half, in
terms of shots on goal, and if Milan were better in the second half, that
was because the goal had changed everything. Well, you can say that Milan
were the better side on the night and that their second goal was a thing of
perfection, but the game had changed because Milan had scored by accident.
That accident makes them the best team in Europe: champions, monarchs of all
they survey. Eight months of striving by 32 of the finest teams on the
Continent, preceded by a season’s striving by a few hundred more, and it all
comes down to a chap being accidentally hit by the ball.
And that’s luck. The ball might have rebounded high, or wide, or straight at a
defender. It might have missed Inzaghi altogether and been comfortably
saved. It might any bloody thing you want, but the fact is that Milan are
the best team in Europe by accident. Take nothing away from their victory,
as football people like to say, generally meaning the exact opposite. The
point is that luck is an irrefragable aspect of football.
It evens itself over the long haul. No one wins the Premiership by means of
that kind of luck. You can have bad luck with injuries, as Chelsea did with
Petr Cech this season, but that sort of thing also levels itself out over a
season. Manchester United had an injury crisis of their own. In football,
luck can change a game, it can’t really change a season.
So if you want to rule luck out of the equation in football, the one thing you
must do is to make sure that big prizes are never awarded on the events of a
single match. And that is precisely what football does not do. Football goes
to great lengths to do the exact opposite: to devise competitions that are
decided by means of one great occasion.
Of the four trophies available to a Premiership club in Europe, three are
decided by a single match. There are two great prizes available to a
European national side, and both the World Cup and the European Championship
are decided by a one-off fixture. The great prize can go to a side who, at
the crucial moment, get lucky.
This fantastically high value placed on simple luck is more or less unique to
football. Sure, you can have flukes in all sports, but there is no other
sport in which a fluke can change the destiny of a match and a championship
so often and so drastically. You can win a point on a net-cord in tennis,
but that doesn’t often happen on championship point. No match changes for
ever because the ball landed this side, or the other side.
You can get lucky bounces in rugby. But it is very, very seldom that a lucky
bounce decides the destiny of a match, still less a trophy. In both codes of
rugby, there is a disconcerting tendency for the stronger side to win and
the weaker side to lose. Golf, yes, a capricious bounce can take a ball into
the water or, alternatively, not into the water. But over 72 holes, it’s
unlikely that a single freakish moment will decide a major championship.
In snooker, you can get some spectacular flukes: potting the ball from an
escape shot, or potting the ball at one end after missing at the other. That
can decide a frame, but over, say, 35 frames, a fluke isn’t going to make
all that much difference. You can lose your wicket unluckily in cricket, be
on the wrong end of a decision or deflect a wide one into your stumps. But
you have invariably got to take 20 wickets to win a Test match and it’s
seldom, if ever, that defeat comes down to bad luck.
In horse racing you can have bad luck in running and, as a result, you can
lose the hugest of prizes. You can lose the Derby because you got caught in
traffic in the first two furlongs. But avoiding such things is the jockey’s
job. You very seldom win or lose a great race by means of a freak.
Athletics, rowing, combat sports, judged sports such as gymnastics, skating,
diving: no. You can’t win the Olympic 100 metres with a fluke. Most sports
are carefully framed to minimise the assistance of luck, to make a level
playing field on which excellence will prevail and the best man, the better
team, will win.
Only in football does luck play so huge a part. Only in football are the
greatest of all prizes so often decided by means of chance. And yet football
is the most popular game on earth.
Now I ask you this: is that a coincidence? Or is the possibility of luck an
essential part of the game? Is it the high importance of luck that makes
football so phenomenally attractive to so many million people?
In football, to win with a sprinkling of luck, or with a soaking of luck for
that matter, is a wonderful thing. The little team so often beat the big
team – they have 25 attempts on goal but, as luck would have it, they can’t
hit the target and your brave lads break away, the centre half slips, the
shot hits the post and bounces in off the goalkeeper’s back. And then you
argue about who deserved it and who didn’t deserve it. But deserve ain’t
worth doodlysquat. It says 1-0 in the paper and that’s an end to the matter.
Always, in every match, there is the possibility that luck will play a part,
and perhaps a colossal part.
Milan scored a goal by accident and the goal is the highest-value currency in
all sport. A lucky run, a lucky try, a lucky chip-in – all these things have
their place, but they very, very seldom decide the destiny of the great
prizes. Nothing in sport is so lucky as a lucky goal in football.
And it seems to me that the random awarding of luck is a vital part of the
game. We savour luck’s cruelty, luck’s injustice, the clear fact that God
doesn’t love us, and then we are intoxicated by luck’s extraordinary
benevolence; by the fact that we have been singled out and blessed in this
extraordinary fashion. In football, we are luck’s playthings. And that,
clearly, is the way we like it.
At the start of the article it is mentioned that the ball hits the top of Inzaghi's arm, and seems to imply that it is not a handball since it was inadvertent. I have always been under the impression that if a team gains an advantage from the ball hitting one of their player's arms, whether its ball to hand or hand to ball, then it constitutes a foul, and then if it is deliberate handball the offence should be punished with a yellow card. Not that i mind the referees decision in this case because i was a neutral for the final but it's a point that i have wanted clarifying for a while and was hoping someone could enlighten me.
Dave, Bristol,
So many of the contributors do not appear to understand Mr Barnes' article. The suggestion seems to be that because he is English, he must be sore that an Italian team won; or that because he is not a Liverpudlian, he must hate or envy them. Can't people understand that he justs loves all sport (except golf) and compulsively analyses, dissects and assesses it? Of course he would have written the same article if the events had been reversed, and Liverpool had won with a deflection - the point would have been just as valid, and nationalism does not come into it.
Some people try to devalue a win by saying it was lucky. That is not the point Barnes is making. Rather, that flukes matter in a sport where there are rarely more than a couple of scores in a top-level match.
Colm McInerney is right about the 2004 Heineken Cup. It's just less common, because such tight finishes are rare.
Timothy James, Birmingham, UK
No, Liverpool aren't a great side, Chelseabill. No Liverpool fan will say they are. But they have still gotten the better of Chelsea in the Champions League. Every. Single. Time. Thoroughly deserved too!
tinto, soho,
In any game, luck and talent are 2 sides of a coin, get over it.
Costanzia, La la land,
he biggest prize in European football went to Milan because a ball accidentally hit a chap.
oh dear....sour grapes eh? Isnt that football, BTW?
Dr P Mulay, England, UK
More in their DNA ? I think you mean more in their wallet.
Damian, Belfast, Antrim
How often has the apparent 'best team' in Europe won the European Cup recently anyway? Barcelona are the only ones who come to mind.
Paul, London,
"No one wins the Premiership by means of that kind of luck. "
If finishing 21 points off the lead in the premiership is a true indication of their ability, it follows that Liverpool were lucky to be there in the first place.
joe, sydney, Australia
Milan played as poorly as they have all season and were still too good for Liverpool.
Mike Henderson, Singapore, Singapore
I am not sure how you can say that Milan have been poor all season. True,they were utterly out of sorts in the Italian Serie A and to put it euphemistically,beside themselves in the first half of the season when they were in real danger of missing out on a Champions League spot next season but in 2007,Ancelotti's men did start to play like they are used to. AC Milan were certainly the best team in the Champions League this season and were the best right from the very first group match. Granted that Milan played defensive and cautious football in the final but after what happened in Istanbul in 2005,they cultivated the right to play so. You cannot take anything away from Milan's Champions League triumph and I sincerely mean it.
Subhankar Mondal, Bangalore, India
The domestic leagues is equivalent to the prose and the Cup competitions denote poetry. In prose,you can meander and explore various dimensions to portray your elements whereas in poetry,one single line,one single word,one single syllable turns on the magic.
Subhankar Mondal, Bangalore, India
It didn't go to extra time So liverpool could not win the game on penalties. Lets face it and the records show,Liverpool qualify and win trophies by penalties. They are not a great side.
Chelseabill, London, England
Gattuso got booked in first ten minutes so couldn't play for next 80; Milan played as poorly as they have all season and were still too good for Liverpool. Its not luck that resulted in Liverpool being so far off the pace in the Premiership that they could focus on the latter stages of the Champions League. Clearly the weakest of the top four teams in England have enjoyed the best results in the Champions League. Luck and a well rested team make all the difference
Mike Henderson, Singapore, Singapore
Couldn't agree more with the crux of the article.
One thing was missing however, and that's the fact that one can make their own luck.
By not scoring from numerous 1st half opportunities and by then giving away a sloppy free kick on the edge of the box, Liverpool had only themselves to blame as they allowed luck to play a part.
Same applies for Aussies in Germany. A harsh 90min penalty indeed, but if you can't score against 10 men for more than a half, you allow yourselves to be vulnerable to bad luck.
Andrew, Melbourne, Australia
It is just incredible how jealous man utd , chelsea and arsenal supporters are of Liverpool's success both on and off the field throughout the years. And some retard, in one of the comments says that Liverpool where not worthy winners on several ocassions When it was the old format. We dominated the english league for years on end now tell me bob paisley was bad too. What ignorant,envious people. Now we have Benitez, and how lucky we are, Two finals in three years "LUCKY" i think not. Utd played milan and where out played "the supposedly best team" and kaka was named a god. He was invisible against Liverpool so were seedorf and gattuso, Why because liverpool played a atactical perfect game and mascherano I believe benitezes buy was Star Performer. Thats why. And luck of course they where lucky very lucky. I am so proud to be a liverpool supporter and will remain till the day I die. And Benitez will get the english league title back very very soon and can see us dominating for a while
Red Dawn, Liverpool, UK
It's like the old argument of if a hole in one is luck or skill. At the risk of getting piles from sitting on the fence it's got to be both. Just like winning a Champions league final, a world cup final or any one off game. Many people are missing the point of this article for what it is.. that football is such a great game, a romantic game because of it's unpredictability, so many upsets, everone has a chance. Other sports have it too (Ireland vs Pakistan in cricket wc) but footy has it in bucketloads and it counts for so much. This is mainly because goals are hard to get. So when they come along the feeling is great, even if they're lucky, especially if they are against a better team in the last minute.. Can anyone say they get the same rush of adrenaline from any other event in sport, probably! But that doesn't detract from my argument. Luck is a great and underestimated part of the game. Thanks Simon for giving it its dues.
glyn, telford, shropshire
Mha... i think you are only gelous... it's only that. we won you lost...
it's not important the why
Paolo, milan, italy
I wonder, is there a reason why when Liverpool won the old European Cup 4 times this was deemed to be easier than winning the Champions League? Was this because there was no league stage to the European Cup?
This is not the case with the Champions League, there is a "league stage" and yet Liverpool have progressed to the final in 2 out of the last 3 years.
Does this mean that luck does play a part in a league competition? or more accurately does it mean that Liverpool know how to play a competion in this format.
I knew Ireland was the Green Isle what I didn't know was that it was also the home of the green eyed monster!
Mick, Wakefield, England
Well, I'll have to disagree with the writer in this matter. If luck plays that big significant role in football, it too does play important role in other goals.
If in a tennis match, a scoreline says 5-4 in the final set and the player serving has four games and the 10th game is balanced 30:30, and the player leading the set gets a lucky call, and also wins the next point and wins the Grand Slam that's absolutely significant (Just as Pippo's deflected goal and the cool finish after that). In cricket if a team needs 2 runs to win with one wicket and an over remaining in a world cup final, and the umpire gives a wrong call and gives a decision in favour of the fielding then the world cup's won by luck(Think of the Aussies in the 1999 semis).... So to say that luck is significant only in football is absurd. If Kaka would not have been in the right position and Xabi would not have been forced to tackle him then there was no question of a free kick so no goals. In every sport luck counts.
Vanarp, Liverpool,
Luck saw France effectively winning the 6 Nations rugby by scoring a last minute try against Ireland.
Luck saw England win the Ashes in 2005.
Luck saw England win the rugby world cup in 2003.
Luck saw England win the football world cup in 1966.
The author states "only in football does luck play so huge a part." There are many wonderful teams and individuals throughout the sporting arena who would disagree....
V Clegg, Belfast, N Ireland
Since Benitez became manager, Liverpool's record in the Champions League is superior to that of Arsenal's, Chelsea's and Manchester Utd's. So, if any English team deserves to be the final, it's Liverpool.
tinto, Soho, UK
The only bad luck was on me for having to read this cry baby article.
Im sure there was an article just like this only written by a Milanese jouro based on the uniqueness of cheating to the sport of football. This ref is of course to 2005 and Steve Gs tumble for a penalty for a goal. Which changed a match no??? Which was worse, a final decided solely by luck, as the writer claims? Or a final decided by cheating and luck?
If onlt there was a league system so that Liverpool could win nothing as the need to win a high amount of games without the game of penalties or instances of luck they rely on to progress in the 'lucky' competitions. Oh there is. Go challenge for the Premiership which is less decided on luck. Or is there another thing apart from luck which will keep it far from you???
Oh whatever, go cry a little more.
phil, dublin, ireland
There is no such thing as luck.
You create your own opportunities in life, and of course in football, by hard work, inventiveness and tenacity.
And then you may be rewarded with opportune moments ,luck if you like. but you created it thats for sure.
Milan were not lucky. Rather Benitez was inept.
Arsenal Analysis, London, uk
For goodness sake Simon Barnes, will you just stop bleating on about 'luck'. Football is a sport and by it's very nature as a team game is subject to many instances of luck and chance during every game played from the Champions League Final right down to non-league games. Liverpool experience their fair share of luck just like any other team. When it goes against them, you have to dream up some column about how it's such an injustice and it's not right. What's next? - A column devoted to how many goals Liverpool would have scored in the missing 20 seconds?
Johnny F, Cambridge, UK
Blimey you lot! Milans goal was lucky and it gave them the boss hand, so luck played a role there is no doubt. Unfortunately Liverpool did not have the fire power to force the issue and remount the challenge. Any other nonsense is just bells and whistles or gloating and bitterness. The Italians deserved it because they won simple as that. Last time Liverpool got very lucky, this time Milan had a teensy slice.
Adam, Valencia, spain
Matthew Shaw's comments are just plain silly. They may not be Europe's best 2 teams, but if not, they're pretty close.
It would be interesting to hear who he does think are the best two? Chelsea in there by any chance? With all the money they spent, they still lost in the quarter and semi's and took part in the worst FA Cup Final on record. Look at it objectively Matthew, and try not to apply meaningless statistics to support your non-argument.
Marcus, Richmond upon Thames, UK
Liverpool had their fair share of luck, Kaka was called offside early in the second half when though on goal when he was clearly onside. Kuyt's goal was offside.
Dave, Manchester,
what about greg norman and his play off losses?
joe, adelaide, australia
english gentlemen are worldwide known for never claiming on bad luck. since this article does, i wonder whether it is a changing of the times or what else.
alberto antinori, florence, italy
This article is interesting, but the the concept of "luck" is relative and not absolute, because it can be applied to all events, and, in soccer, to all goals. Think for example the second goal by Inzaghi. If the defender is 1 meter above, Inzaghi it's in offside. So we can tell the goal was lucky for this.
Luck is part of the game. In the end of the game wins who is able to capitalize this luck.
Alex, Another world,
Italians do it better!!! despite everything, we are always the best. You can have the best supporters, the best stadiums, the best championship, but the winner will be always ITALY.
charles, torino,
The same luck helped Liverpool lift the trophy two years ago.
What goes around comes around.
Claudio, Shanghai,
In the sleepy Market Town of Yeovil, football fever has swept the town like a plague! The team has done really well over the past couple of years and has always been well supported but never as well as they will be at Wembley on this Sunday 25 May.
The Glovers face Blackpool in the League 1 Play off final and – get this – the towns population is 41,871 and to date the club had sold 34,000 tickets, 20,000 within the first 12 hours of them going on sale. 90 coaches have been booked!
I’m not a football fan and won’t be going but even I can’t help wishing them well (what ever it is they do) apart from anything else it will be no fun living in Yeovil if they loose.
Is it me making a fuss or is this extraordinarily patriotic? I’ve only lived here for 25 years so I’m not a ‘local’ yet but I’m quite proud.
Stephanie Barratt
Stephanie Barratt, Yeovil, Somerset
Taking Mr Barnes comments a step further - the fact that Liverpool were even in the final devalues the tournament. Beat Barcelona I hear you say? Yes but lost to them as well! Beat Chelsea? Yes but beat them on PENALTIES! PSV? Newcastle would struggle to loose to them! Are Liverpool really one of the top two teams in Europe? Not a chance! In a European league situation they would probably struggle to make mid-table. As for AC Milan. They couldn't score against Celtic for 120 minutes and only won 2 out of the 4 semi-final games. If you add the amount of points that both Liverpool and AC finished behind the league winners in their respective countries you get a cricket score that Kevin Pieterson would be happy with. I think the final between Dad's Army Milan and Boring Boring Liverpool was a disgrace to football. You know that the tournament is seriously flawed when the standard of teams in the Worthington Cup final is better. Luck in the final? What about the fallacy of being there?
Matthew Shaw, London, England
6 World Champions plus some decent players like Kaka and Seedorf may explain why AC is once again on top of Europe. Plus there is that DNA thing in teams like Liverpool (not Chelsea or Arsenal), AC (not Inter or Juventus), Real (not Valencia), that make them going all the way through. Luck is part of the game, especially in knock out competitions... but why then is always Brasil, Germany, Argentina o Italy, not Spain or Holland to win the world cups? an ugly final I admit, but this is rather due to the Reds (who play to kill the opponents' game not to play their own as we have seen with Chelsea) while AC 's quality was rather clear in both games against ManU. Ciao for now!
Andrea, Podenone, Italy
As a coach myself I know from experience that Simon Barnes is quite correct. As are some of the readers comments, however. You never 'make your own luck' though. Thats just old school myth. You can prepare a team all season and have gameplan for a particular match to reduce the elements of what you cannot control, ocurring (which is what Gary Player means) but ultimately there are things in football and life that are out of your control. No gameplan can prevent a deflected shot. The gameplan (what you can control) prepares a team to 'react' to such things which all well prepared players/teams are aware may occur. I thought Liverpool reacted well - they did not crumble (mentally) and had chances to get back into the game. They could have controlled Inzhagi making his late run to score the decisive winner however!!
Alex Weaver, Washington, US
Watch the 2004 European Rugby Cup final between Wasps and Toulouse again. The bounce at the end of the match that bewildered Poitenraud cost Toulouse the game.
Colm McInerney, Durham, United States
AC Milan had played themselves into a position a few yards out from the Liverpool penalty area and won a free kick. Had Liverpool been down the other end with a free kick then they could have had a similar oppurtunity. Maybe this was more canny defending on the part of the Italians not to make rash Challenges in these areas. So many goals are the result of deflections in the modern game due to the crowding of defendersbetween the ball and the goal. Had the ball bounced over the keepers foot like it did to Robinson in Croatia I would agree about luck, but winning free kicks around the penalty area is a big part of the game.
I Rann, Manchester, UK
Wasn't it Arnold Palmer who, when someone claimed that he made a lucky shot, retorted:
'Funny thing is, the more I practice, the luckier I get'
Mark, Woking, UK
AC Milan had won the Cup already when they beat Man United which is far better team than Liverpool. I fully agree with Stephen,to score goals you need strikers, and not only defenders and midfielders placed on the field to mainly close spaces to the Milan's magicians.
Milan deserved the Cup because they had forwards and strikers on the pitch.
I agree the match was not brilliant but have seen worse.
ALAN, Genoa, Italy
You make your own luck and as Gary Player said,'the harder I practice, the luckier I get'.
Sour grapes, Mr Reporter?
Dudley Wood, Wilby, England
Fair point Mr McAlpine (and that's from a Liverpool Fan).
James Cox, Liverpool,
Champions League is not just final match, so it's ignorant to say anyone can win it by pure luck. To win it any team has to play six matches in group phase, two 1/8finals, two 1/4 finals, two 1/2 finals and final (plus some teams -like AC Milan last year- have to play qualifications). So, there are 13+ games.
Yes, someone can be lucky, but no one can't be lucky 13 times in a season! Not even AC Milan!
Amina E, Gorazde, Bosnia and Herzegovina
no luck guys sorry watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnXuf8MDvlE&mode=related&search=
and note the last one which seems very much like the "accident" you were talking about.
you lost stop whining (BTW i think there was another goal, or maybe they didn't see it in england ?)
amit, marseille, france
This Simon chap is starting to infuriate me! Not only is he a Chelsea hater but he is now discrediting Milans victory because they "were lucky?" How about Liverpool in the Champions league 2005? That surely was "luck." For but for that freakish 6 minutes, Milan were far and away the superior team. People still talk about Carraghers heroics but its easy to forget that he was part of a defence that conceded 3 goals and numerous other chances on the night. In other words Simon, you only seem to focus on aspects of the game that suite you - Mourinho style. You know, like the way he seems to forget that if that "ghost" goal had'nt been given his side would have conceded a penalty and played with ten for the remainder of the game. The difference is that Jose never claims the moral high ground like you. Hes atleast honest in his dilusion. Its very patronising to Liverpool fans.
moses, Cape Town, South Africa
Taking Mr Barnes comments a step further - the fact that Liverpool were even in the final devalues the tournament. Beat Barcelona I hear you say? Yes but lost to them as well. Beat Chelsea? Yes but beat them on PENALTIES. PSV? Newcastle would struggle to loose to them. Are Liverpool really one of the top two teams in Europe? Not a chance. In a European league situation they would probably struggle to make mid-table. As for AC Milan. They couldn't score against Celtic for 120 minutes and only won 2 out of the 4 semi-final games. If you add the amount of points that both Liverpool and AC finished behind the league winners in their respective countries you get a cricket score that Kevin Pieterson would be happy with. I think the final between Dad's Army Milan and Boring Boring Liverpool was a disgrace to football. You know that the tournament is seriously flawed when the standard of teams in the Worthington Cup final is better. Luck in the final? What about the fallacy of being there?
Matthew Shaw, London, England
Taking Mr Barnes comments a step further - the fact that Liverpool were even in the final devalues the tournament. Beat Barcelona I hear you say? Yes but lost to them as well. Beat Chelsea? Yes but beat them on PENALTIES. PSV? Newcastle would struggle to loose to them. Are Liverpool really one of the top two teams in Europe? Not a chance. In a European league situation they would probably struggle to make mid-table. As for AC Milan. They couldn't score against Celtic for 120 minutes and only won 2 out of the 4 semi-final games. If you add the amount of points that both Liverpool and AC finished behind the league winners in their respective countries you get a cricket score that Kevin Pieterson would be happy with. I think the final between Dad's Army Milan and Boring Boring Liverpool was a disgrace to football. You know that the tournament is seriously flawed when the standard of teams in the Worthington Cup final is better. Luck in the final? What about the fallacy of being there?
Matthew Shaw, London, England
I please to accept my apologies owing to Milan have winner Champions league.
The winner of Milan in Athens isn’t a defeat for sport and for football.
Infact last summer Milan was send in 2nd division (serie B) owing to scandal of football, after first muddle.
But all people know how go the word in Italy, Milan is accept in first division in a second muddle and after is accepts in Champion League.
You must remember that Milan is ex-Prime Minister ‘s team.
People that like clean and regular sport cannot be happy for the victory on Milan., beauce if in Italy there are right justice, Milan this Year must play non Final of Champion League but in second division.
This is a really scandal and a defeat for sport.
Fogli Gabriele
CSI Centro Sportivo Italiano Pisa Italy
Gabriele Fogli, San Miniato, Italy
"...the game had changed because Milan had scored by accident."
"In football, luck can change a game, it can’t really change a season".
I beg to differ. Ask the team that unluckily loses a couple of games early in the season . The pressure created, and the morale lost, by being at the bottom end of the nascent league table frequently has long-lasting effects, resulting in teams 'good on paper' struggling all season, or even being relegated.
Likewise, ask Kevin Keegan if the impact of the ball bobbling through to Stan Collymore to make it 4-3 to Liverpool in the 95/96 season run-in cost Newcastle more than one point.
Luck (good or bad) at pivotal moments can indeed determine a whole season
Keith Wallis, Wirral, Merseyside
Right place, right time. That's what being a striker is all about. Liverpool lost to the better team as every member of their team interviewed on television after the game said.
David, Reading, UK
Mmmm, I do believe that the Milan team played very well over the entire competion, which as you say is finally decided in a final. That seems a fair set up, as to winning the final on only luck, well, what does the author say about England's third and deciding "goal" in World cup final 1966.
Seems to me the author does nor understand the concept of football knock out competions
Berti, Cádiz, España
I'm sure exactly the same sentiments would have been expressed had Liverpool scored from a deflected free-kick and subsequently gone on to win the game.
Liike hell they would.
The premiership's representative failed again.
The Italians won - again.
Get over it.
Rob Sault, Burntwood, Staffs.
I'm sure writing this was a cathartic experience for Simon Barnes, helping him get over the disappointment of Wednesday night. It is, of course, wrong, but whoever let that get in the way of sports journalism before?
Mike, Stockton-on-Tees,
It all comes down to the currency of football, the goal. The high price of a goal is the irresistible draw in football, and the fact that you can - and frequently do - score by blind luck makes it all the more attractive to play.
Paul H, Perth, Australia
It is not so much "lady luck" that appeals as the effect of her benevolence when directed our way.
Where there is the possibility of a lucky goal "against the play" then there is always hope. Hope of triumph in the face of adversity, against all the odds, is somehow heroic. It is hope which allows for the unexpected and the undeserved in a life of ordered merit. Hope sprinkles grace to confound justice. It is the friend of the minnow and bane of the mighty.
That`s why we like football because it is a game of hope and as the Bible says "Hope is the helmet of salvation".
Angus, Guisborough, UK
Luck, good or bad, is indeed what makes football the fascinating attraction that it is. While, as Simon Barnes suggests in his usual immaculate analysis, it is a crucial factor in cup competitions, it is also the spice in individual league games, although we take comfort from the thought that aberrations will be balanced out throughout a season or a campaign. Freakish incidents are often pivotal in football, as opposed to other sports, because it is a game in which wins are generally determined by a very small difference in the score line making the contribution of Lady Luck critical to success for the teams and enjoyment for the fans.
Will Sterling , Colchester,
Your examine about Inzaghi chap and ac Milan luck is almost suerficial,you can't win world cup and european champions league within 10 months only by chance. All those boys work hard every day and have something more in their DNA.Hat off to Liverpool players without them we couldn't talk about this match and about Milan's victory.Liverpool feared us playing even without forwarders.See you next year.
Luca Barbieri, Modena, Italy
AC Milan won because they won a free kick from which a goal was scored ...just like many a goal is scored from a won corner where a ball is struck into a goup of players of both sides jostling together....why is it necessary to comment on a very regular occurence and call it an accident.?
ed bradbury , bournemouth, dorset
AC Milan won because eleven other "chaps" couldn't convert theirfirst-half domination of the game into a goal, whether from a foot, an elbow, or a backside.
Stephen McAlpine, Sheffield,
This would be a valid argument had liverpool rained down shots on Milans goal and failed to score. However they didnt and given the circumstances the best Liverpool could have hoped for was a 'lucky' goal or perhaps a win on penalties. Thats never down to luck in Liverpools case
Ash, Reading,
What an undignified & petulant storm in a tea cup. Does it really matter that Inzaghi's goal happened the way it did? What matters is Milan got a shot on target & Inzaghi got in the way to unsight Reina or get a lucky deflection. Why not ask why no one in a red shirt was there to deflect it away? After all, Liverpool had a wall set up, but Inzaghi got to it. I recall a Milan defender's pass hit the ref and fell to Gerrard. Had he then scored the game's only goal, would you have undermined the credibility of the win? Football is a game of fortune, you accept the ones that do and don't go your way. It happens at important an unimportant moments; keepers fumble, balls rebound, linesmen miss offsides. But you improve your chances by creating chances, so if a shot on target goes in, good on them. Possession means nothing if L'pool score 1 from 4, Milan 2 from 3. Anyway, L'pool and Man U only won their Champs Lg crowns through freakish periods in games, so don't complain too loud.
Hugh, Sydney, Australia
That is why football is so unpredictable and - thanks to this, loved by billions of people. One match finals have it's own electric, passionate, unique atmosphere that wouldn't be such intense if we were to play two or more legs. During each competition we have groups, two-legged play-offs etc. But a final game is actually The FInal Game - it doesn't accept plurals. Even if one team win it by accident it doesn't mean that they are not the real and worthy winners. Luck goes with a class. You simply have to accept it.
Krzysztof, Gdynia, Poland
Not up to your usual high standard, Simon. You make the point that a horse can lose the Derby but it might be because a jockey didn't do his job properly. But by the same token, Liverpool should have won if their striker(s) did their job properly and converted a couple of the several opportunities that came their way. And your comments about the lucky bounce of a rugby ball or one piece of good luck over 72 holes can be looked at in another way: how often do you hear the players afterwards referring to just that little bit of good or bad luck as being the turning point? The moment when their chins went up or down and they knew it was or wasn't their day?
Mark, Silsoe, UK
Luck evens out things, doesn't it, Mr Barnes?
2 years back the better team on the pitch lost and it happened again this week. It was the same two teams- so that's natural justice.
Alex, Wolverhampton,
I have never before seen such a quantity of "diarrhea and dysentery of the mouth" to cover up the fact that English sports journalists are nothing but poor losers!
As I've written before........... take a lesson from your teams that have lost matches and have always honored the victors for their merits!!
Mike, Gallarate, Italy
If the rules of footbal were changed so as to produce more goals in a game, the outcome would better reflect the relative skills of the teams - and matches would be more entertaining.
Ian Howie, Glasgow,
Terrible.
Most wrong-headed piece since alyson Rudd.
Simon, Belfast,
Once of the best sporting intros I've read this season (no luck here). And Having read this piece, I now wonder why I study the Fink Tank so assiduously.
Roy Rubensteinr, Omer, Israel
Liverpool sought to disrupt the game and did well. But while that approach can derail a creative attacking team, it also keeps the game low-scoring. That means a single mistake/break will most likely decide it. Liverpool banked on that break going their way; it did not. While pippo's 1st goal was lucky, the fact that the game was decided by a mistake was by design. Benitez's design.
one, hampton, virginia
First of all, Milan had used talent to reach the final. Although it can be the case that a team has an easy passage to a final - as England did in the rugby world cup, only meeting a Southern Hemisphere team in the final. But as Milan had beaten Man Utd on the way I think it is more a case of talent.
Secondly, Milan used to talent to create the opportunity for luck. Kaka made Alonso make a rash challenge in a dangerous area.
Finally, luck is a vital part of life. Why do people enjoy gambling so much? Part talent (maybe) mostly luck. Napoleon wanted lucky generals. Gordon Brown has enjoyed terrific luck. How many CEOs that have 'masterminded' business recovery have done so as a result of a lucky change in the market. Britain was lucky that Hitler invaded Russia.and Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.
eddie reader, birmingham, uk