2006 UEFA Champions League Final - Route To The Final

Route To The Final

For more details on this topic, see 2005–06 UEFA Champions League.

Teams qualified for the Champions League group stage, either directly or through three preliminary rounds, based on both their position in the preceding domestic league and the strength of that league. Both Arsenal and Barcelona entered the competition in the group stages: Arsenal by finishing second in the 2004–05 FA Premier League, and Barcelona by winning La Liga. The group stages were contested as eight double round robin groups of four teams, with the top two qualifying for the knockout stages. Knockout matches were decided based on home and away matches, with the away goals rule, extra time and penalty shootouts as tiebreakers if needed.

Barcelona Round Arsenal
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
Barcelona 6 5 1 0 16 2 +14 16
Werder Bremen 6 2 1 3 12 12 0 7
Udinese 6 2 1 3 10 12 −2 7
Panathinaikos 6 1 1 4 4 16 −12 4
Group stage
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
Arsenal 6 5 1 0 10 2 +8 16
Ajax 6 3 2 1 10 6 +4 11
Thun 6 1 1 4 4 9 −5 4
Sparta Prague 6 0 2 4 2 9 −7 2
Opponent Result Legs Knockout stage Opponent Result Legs
Chelsea 3–2 2–1 away; 1–1 home First knockout round Real Madrid 1–0 1–0 away; 0–0 home
Benfica 2–0 0–0 away; 2–0 home Quarter-finals Juventus 2–0 2–0 home; 0–0 away
Milan 1–0 1–0 away; 0–0 home Semi-finals Villarreal 1–0 1–0 home; 0–0 away

Read more about this topic:  2006 UEFA Champions League Final

Famous quotes containing the words route to, route and/or final:

    But however the forms of family life have changed and the number expanded, the role of the family has remained constant and it continues to be the major institution through which children pass en route to adulthood.
    Bernice Weissbourd (20th century)

    But however the forms of family life have changed and the number expanded, the role of the family has remained constant and it continues to be the major institution through which children pass en route to adulthood.
    Bernice Weissbourd (20th century)

    It is in the nature of allegory, as opposed to symbolism, to beg the question of absolute reality. The allegorist avails himself of a formal correspondence between “ideas” and “things,” both of which he assumes as given; he need not inquire whether either sphere is “real” or whether, in the final analysis, reality consists in their interaction.
    Charles, Jr. Feidelson, U.S. educator, critic. Symbolism and American Literature, ch. 1, University of Chicago Press (1953)