Betis punished for taking foot off the gas, says captain Isco
WROCLAW, Poland, May 28 (Reuters) - Real Betis paid the price for taking their foot off the pedal after an impressive first half in Wednesday's Conference League final defeat by Chelsea, said their inspirational captain Isco and veteran coach Manuel Pellegrini.
Betis were a goal up at the break after dominating against their English opponents but were swept away in the second half as Chelsea came back strongly to record a 4-1 victory.
"I think we took refuge in the scoreboard a bit. We sat too deep. They're a team with a lot of quality, a lot of power,' said Isco, a five-times Champions League winner with Real Madrid who was outstanding in the opening 45 minutes but like the rest of his teammates looked jaded after the break.
'It's a very heavy defeat after what we did in the first half. Football is unforgiving,' he said.
'We had a good first half where they barely had any chances. We had it close and we didn't know how to take advantage of the score, something that has penalised us all season. In a European final, mistakes are very punishing.
'In the second half, they ran over us. It's painful,' he added.
'We couldn't maintain the rhythm we expected. It was a tough opponent. A final rout that I don't think reflects the difference between the two teams," added Pellegrini.
"We mustn't forget that we were facing Chelsea. I'm disappointed that we outplayed them in the first half but then let it slip in the second half.
'In the second half, we probably needed to keep pressing higher,' added defender Marc Bartra, another player with past Champions League success, at Barcelona.
But he had fulsome praise for the Spanish club's fans who vastly outnumbered Chelsea supporters and provided a noisy background in the Polish city.
"It's a source of pride to see the fans like this. I love this club for the way they always support us, the way they cheer us on. It's a source of pride even in defeat. It says a lot about this club," added Bartra.
"It seems like the season is worthless now, but we'll appreciate it more as time goes on."
Teary-eyed defender Aitor Rubial promised they would be back. Betis will compete in the higher level Europa League next season after a sixth-place finish in LaLiga.
"We've had a tough time this season, a really tough stretch, but we're confident that we're going to pull through this and we'll do it again," he predicted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Ukraine-Russia war latest: Zelensky accuses Kremlin of ‘engaging in yet another deception' over peace proposal
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia of engaging in "yet another deception" by failing to hand over its peace settlement proposal before a potential meeting between officials from the two countries next week. " Ukraine has not received it. Our partners have not received it. Even Turkey, which hosted the first meeting, has not received the new agenda,' Mr Zelensky said. "Despite promises to the contrary, first and foremost to the the United States of America, to President Trump: Yet another Russian deception." Kyiv says the memorandum was due following those talks. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says Moscow has drafted the memorandum and will present it at the next direct talks, adding that Kyiv had not responded to the offer of talks on Monday.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Drones, doubts as US allies look to NATO summit
LONDON, May 30 (Reuters) - As Estonia's defence minister opened a tech conference this week focused heavily on cutting-edge military equipment, he said his nation's strategy in the face of mounting Russian pressure was to turn itself into a 'fly that can paralyse an elephant'. Estonia and its fellow nearby Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania are among the first of America's allies to make good on U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that they devote at least 5% of their gross domestic product on defence. That means a combination of conscription, drones, long-range rockets and 'whole-of-society' efforts to prepare for war. It's an approach increasingly being advocated for what might be termed a whole new generation of 'frontline' governments and states from Finland and Romania to Taiwan and the Philippines. It's also being talked of in more established Western militaries such as those of the U.S. and Britain, with speculation that upcoming reforms will put much lower emphasis on heavy equipment such as tanks and more on unmanned systems, such as drones. But it's also an approach leaving some worried that excessive talk of technology is being used as an excuse to fail to provide the forces that may still be needed to win or deter a war. Earlier this month, the new U.S. ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, confirmed what had been rumoured for months - that the U.S. intends to cut back troops stationed on the continent, although he said discussions on this were unlikely to start until after the NATO summit in the Dutch capital, The Hague. "President Trump just is going to happen and it's going to happen now," Whitaker told a conference in Estonia earlier this month. "This is going to be orderly, but we are not to have any more patience for foot-dragging in this just need to work through the practical consequences." U.S. officials have made it clear they intend to use that meeting to push every NATO member to spend at least 5% of their GDP on defence, more than twice what many of them commit to at present. How that discussion goes may shape how many U.S. troops stay. In multiple European nations, then, there are growing worries about what that really means. Under former U.S. President Joe Biden's administration, the NATO alliance and U.S. European Command drew up plans to defend eastern, central and northern Europe from potential Russian incursion. But those plans relied heavily on large commitments of tanks and troops led by the United States. Now, despite increasing U.S. defence spending overall, there is mounting speculation that some of those U.S. heavy tank brigades that might fight in Europe may simply be abolished. At the end of April, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the U.S. Army to become "leaner", with Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll telling reporters what the Pentagon called the "old way of doing war" was no longer sufficient. "These are hard decisions," said Driscoll, saying that "legacy systems that have been around a long time" were likely to be cut to make the force "the most lethal they can be." While neither mentioned any particular systems likely to be axed, they said the U.S. Army would be putting more effort into long-range strike missiles to hit both sea and shore targets particularly in the Pacific. They cited the example of recent fighting in Ukraine as showing how effective such weaponry could be. That offers little comfort to nervous European governments. This week, Hegseth met with Polish Deputy Prime Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz – who is also defence minister – at the Pentagon, calling Poland a 'model ally' for spending almost 5 percent of GDP on defence and building the largest army in Europe, a force that will include hundreds of U.S.- and South Korean-built tanks. According to the Pentagon, Poland currently hosts some 8,000-plus U.S. personnel, most of them rotating through from other bases in the U.S. or Europe. Some U.S. forces are also forward-located in the Baltic states including HIMARS batteries in Estonia and Apache attack helicopters in Latvia. Others including airborne forces and armour pass through during the exercise season or have been deployed fast during crises. Exactly how much of that is under question is hard to predict. Outside the high-profile U.S. embrace of Poland, some European officials complain that their U.S. counterparts – particularly in Washington – have shown less interest in discussing such specifics. Senior U.S. European Command personnel have continued to assert U.S. support, but are seen to be much less in the loop. Some current administration officials are rumoured to believe that such U.S. forces in the former Baltic states are antagonising Russia and making matters worse. But others, particularly in the U.S. military, view them as providing much-needed deterrence by making it clear any attack would drag in the United States. What is clear is that the focus of U.S. defence spending is shifting fast, including to homeland defence. The Trump administration's plans to do so include America's first trillion-dollar defence budget. But it is increasingly clear that significant amounts of that will be focused on the U.S. homeland, including $175 billion for a new 'Golden Dome' missile defence shield the administration says it wants ready and operational by 2029. This week, the Pentagon announced more than 1,000 further U.S. military personnel to help secure the U.S. southern border with Mexico, joining more than 8,000 already there. Beyond homeland defence, officials have made it clear the priority is confronting China – but that still leaves a huge amount unclear. At worst, some worry that lack of clarity means more allied effort is now going into posturing than sensible military planning. In the short term, that means working to ensure that next month's NATO summit avoids too much open disagreement. That is one reason why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is expected to at least largely stay away, while other major decisions including getting alliance-wide agreement on the spending target might wait until later in the year Meanwhile, Western diplomats say discussions are underway among European governments – likely including at the NATO defence ministers meeting in Brussels this week – to find mathematical formulas to reclassify spending to reach the Trump administration's 5% target through reclassifying existing spending rather than finding all new money. Suggested examples include the spending definition to include infrastructure such as bridges that can transport heavy weapons or spending on civil preparedness and cyber resilience. Those discussions will also be watched in Asia, where the Trump administration is putting similar pressure on partners including Japan and Taiwan to hit the same 5% target. Some have suggested that Taiwan – widely believed to be under particular threat of Chinese invasion – should be spending as much as twice that to deserve U.S. protection. That is probably politically untenable, particularly given the challenges the Taiwan government is finding in pushing existing spending through its parliament. Speaking to a U.S. House of Representatives committee earlier this month, retired U.S. Admiral Mark Montgomery said he believed 5% was the maximum peacetime democracies could manage. U.S. officials have repeatedly warned that they believe Chinese President Xi Jinping has ordered his military to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. The United States has long maintained 'strategic ambiguity' over whether it would respond militarily should that happen. Montgomery grabbed headlines in Taiwan and beyond by telling the committee the U.S. already had some 500 military trainers on the island, several times the number previously acknowledged or reported – but he said it needed to be at least a thousand. "We absolutely have to grow the joint training team on Taiwan," he said. Montgomery did not describe the make-up of the U.S. training, though it likely comprises a mixture of regular force personnel, contractors and potentially reservists. Much of their focus is reportedly on ensuring Taiwan's military – including its historically ineffective conscript force – is much more prepared for high-intensity, high-tech warfare. At the same Committee hearing, retired U.S. Army Pacific commanding General Charles Flynn warned that the decision of a previous administration to sell 100 harpoon ship missile launchers to Taiwan was largely useless if the island did not have sufficient missile crews with the proper training. The example of Ukraine has shown that conscripted troops can fight hard for years even with only limited support but using cutting-edge technology, particularly drones. But many in both Taiwan and the Baltic states have long believed that U.S. support remains vital to sustaining a successful fight. In this month's 'Hedgehog' drills in Estonia – named for a creature that famously defeats many larger predators, Baltic troops including conscripts and NATO soldiers worked with new drones and dug trenches intended for the current exercise but deliberately positioned to be used if Russia attacks for real. The concept of 'peace through strength' remains as valid as ever, but the current version still needs work, and it remains unclear whether next month's NATO summit will help or hinder that.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Kemi Badenoch accuses Starmer and Farage of 'fantasy economics'
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch has accused Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Reform UK leader Nigel Farage of indulging in "fantasy economics" over their approaches to welfare in the Daily Mail, Badenoch says both leaders believe in getting struggling taxpayers to "fund unlimited child support for others".Her commentary comes after the Labour government indicated that it was looking at the possibility of scrapping the two-child benefit said earlier this week that his party would also get rid of the policy and back more generous tax breaks for married people. Badenoch added the country could not "afford their fantasy economics" and that Britain deserved leaders who did not "treat economics like a branch of showbiz"."This week we have seen Labour and Reform in a race to the bottom to scrap the two-child benefit cap," she wrote."Starmer and Farage now believe in getting taxpayers - many of whom are struggling to raise their own children or choosing not to have them in the first place - to fund unlimited child support for others."The Conservatives have said the policy - which they introduced - of limiting means-tested benefits to just two children in most families should not be UK have pledged to remove the cap if they win power, but have not detailed how they would fund the billions it, and all their other pledges, would cost. In a speech this week, Farage said he wanted to lift the cap "not because we support a benefits culture" but because it would ease the burden on lower-paid Secretary Bridget Phillipson has said the government is looking at scrapping the two-child benefit cap but warned it would "cost a lot of money".Speaking on the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg show last week, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner refused to confirm whether the government would remove the has also grown from Labour backbenchers over the issue since the party's poor performance at the local elections earlier this attack comes after Farage said this week the Conservatives had become an "irrelevance".For his part, Sir Keir said the Conservatives had "run out of road", were in "decline" and "sliding into the abyss". Badenoch argued her party was now "the only major political party to take a serious look at the welfare state".
