Jump to content

Recommended Posts

At times yesterday he seemed almost surprised to be at the end of a through ball, was so slow to react.

 

It's probably hard for him to adjust. From brutes incapable of hitting a proper through ball  to Xavi, Alonso  and Iniesta. That transition got to hurt :lol:

 

You talk some shite sometimes, like.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At times yesterday he seemed almost surprised to be at the end of a through ball, was so slow to react.

 

It's probably hard for him to adjust. From brutes incapable of hitting a proper through ball  to Xavi, Alonso  and Iniesta. That transition got to hurt :lol:

 

You talk some s**** sometimes, like.

 

Yeah, that's real intelligent. Instead of labeling other views as s***, you could try to argument why you disagree. But I guess that hurts your brain too much. I know I'm right and this particular chelsea problem has also been mentioned by pundits. Why do you think Chelsea - with the best players on paper - have no chances on the title this year?  They have too little mobility,  the players want the ball in their feet, not in space. This stands in contrast to Man U where there's constant mobility and passing. That's why Man U performs better, with a weaker team. They play more effective football, while Chelsea run into problems when they meet teams that matches their physicality and defensive skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an absolute load of s****. :lol:

 

I was in the process of disecting every little bit and responding in an intelligent manner like he requested, instead though, I just sighed and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

 

He's right, though. His posts do hurt my brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'brutish and uncreative' Frank Lampard has more assists than anyone in the history of the PL bar Ryan Giggs, btw.

 

Yeah, but Lampard is not what he used to be, and that's one of the main reasons why Chelsea is struggling. 

 

Sewelly: Chelsea's movement without ball is not good enough. That's my main point. And they do not have a speedy player in the midfield that is able to run with the ball, putting the defenders under pressure,  distributing the ball to the sides when the opponent have to push, ref Fabregas. They should have bought him instead of Torres.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What an absolute load of s****. :lol:

 

I was in the process of disecting every little bit and responding in an intelligent manner like he requested, instead though, I just sighed and decided it wasn't worth the effort.

 

He's right, though. His posts do hurt my brain.

 

Your football intelligence is non-existing, that's for sure..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lampard's best ever season ended less than a year ago. He's been injured for most of this campaign.

 

Hence, he's not what he used to be..He has even said that his injury never will heal properly. As a result, he will not be as good as he was before..

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't expect Punk77 to rate Torres. He cost big money.

 

Of course I rate Torres. Has been out of focus lately, but if he revives the form he had in Lpool, he's the best striker in the world.  I think you're missing the picture..All I'm saying is that Chelsea didn't need Torres, they have good enough attackers.  But their midfield is unbalanced. Essien, Malouda, Mikel, Ramires, Lampard are all good players. But they don't FIT TOGETHER.  Except Lampard, where's the speed, movement (without ball) and creativity? And Lampard has not been himself this season. As a result Torres is not getting the through balls he likes. Instead of widening the play (again as Man U) Chelsea plays to narrow and more difficult.  It's the same predicament England have with Gerrad and Lampard.. Isolated they're world class, but on the same team, they're too identical in their style of play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Chubby Jason

He seems to be making a valid point to be honest, Chelsea do seem to lack pace and a plan B. I'm struggling to understand where all this daft discrediting of his opinion is coming from...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from zonalmarkings analysis of Chelsea Man U.

 

Chelsea were the ‘most’ 4-4-2 they’ve been in recent weeks, with Florent Malouda playing deeper than he has in other matches. They lacked width, though – Malouda still comes inside, as does Ramires on the other side, and therefore Chelsea were unable to take advantage of the space being offered to them on the flanks.

 

 

Again, what I previously mentioned about Chelsea not having width in their play...

 

Chelsea did have their chances – but it was notable that they were generally from set-pieces, furthering the idea that they lacked purpose in open play.

 

 

Surprise since nobody moves. They're often reliable on some individual brilliance, rather than a planned style of play..

 

The introduction of Didier Drogba also helped. Chelsea had the pace of Anelka and Torres upfront, but with no real playmaker, they struggled to provide the clever through balls those two need. With Drogba, more of a launch in his general direction can work, and he held the ball up, helping Chelsea move higher up the pitch.

 

Yuri Zhirkov’s introduction, in place of Malouda, was probably because he likes to to go down the line, stretch the play and cross the ball – particularly helpful now Drogba was on. He didn’t do that too often, but did end up winning the decisive penalty.

 

 

When you have a strong attacker like Drogba, the best thing is to have solid wing players who're  able to provide him with good crosses. What's the point to have a box-attacker if you  have wings that drifts inside.. As I said, Chelsea doesn't need Torres,. What they  need  is quick  wide men who doesn't drift inside, who create width, unlike Malouda and Ramires..That would have created plenty of crossers which both Anelka and Drogba could have exploited.

 

 

Chelsea showed they do have togetherness, team spirit and all the other characteristics that have been questioned in recent weeks, and in Drogba and Zhirkov they had two very good substitutes to throw on. In open play they lacked creativity, but managed to get goals from a corner and a penalty. Michael Essien was excellent – he’s still not quite the all-action combative player of a couple of seasons ago, but he played very intelligently with the ball in this game.

 

Conclusion, this article mentions everything I've posted above..

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...