Pilko Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 What is with the influx of shite posters lately? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 What is with the influx of s**** posters lately? We have to be seen as doing our bit for the community. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Wasn't there an influx (well, tdeans) around about half-term? It's coming up to the Easter break now... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 If Punk 77 is the last poster. http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b324/PepsiMan34/GrandpaSimpson.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 What is with the influx of s**** posters lately? lately ? or to be more specific since march 15th 2008 ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Guest Chubby Jason Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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 More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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 More sharing options...
midds Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 So are you talking about that game in particular or the whole season? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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... It's because every single one of his posts is long, drawn-out faux intellectual bollocks disguised as deep footballing insight. When infact, as proven from above, he's probably plucking stuff from sites likes zonalmarking, stetching it out into inane drivel and passing it off as absolute fact. Look, I'm sure is there probably some truth to be pulled from what he is saying but when he described the Chelsea midfield as 'brutes incabable of playing a through ball' I lost all interest in what he actually had to say. It's just absolute rubbish. People like Essien, Malouda, Lampard are outstanding top (possibly even world) class footballers who contributed to a very enterprising, entertaining side last season. When they were ripping teams to shreds and taking the piss out of the opposition last season and at the start of this season nobody was criticising their technical ability as footballers. I find this inference laughable to the point that I didn't even want to give it the light of day with response. I hope for his sake there was some hyperbole involved in this comment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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... Thank you I've no problem that people disagree. But I would appreciate that people actually bother to write WHY they disagree, instead of labeling other opinions as shit.. So are you talking about that game in particular or the whole season? Everything went smoothly in the beginning of the season.. But I think that my diagnosis some a great extent explain why they started to struggle. Trying to play everything in the middle is pretty hopeless if the opponent has good stoppers, a solid DM and generally a good physique. The best thing to do in such situations is to create width, distribute the ball to the side where the opponent is unbalanced and constantly bombarding the box with crossers. When you have Drogba and Anelka on your team, that will result in many chances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 You're trying to explain something with tactics that probably has absolutely nothing to do with tactics, mate. The fact that you described Man United as more dynamic and mobile than Chelsea is also nonsense. Have you watched them much this season at all? Their midfield and attack has been one of the most once-paced, one-dimensionalist football you're likely to see from a side leading the league table. Infact their midfield almost perfectly fulfills the description that you have applied to Chelsea's. Nani and Berbatov have carried that side for most of the season whereas people like Carrick, Fletcher and Scholes have been passengers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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... It's because every single one of his posts is long, drawn-out faux intellectual bollocks disguised as deep footballing insight. When infact, as proven from above, he's probably plucking stuff from sites likes zonalmarking, stetching it out into inane drivel and passing it off as absolute fact. I actually identified those problems when I watched Chelsea play. But since you obviously decided that my opinions were of no use, I checked if Zonalmarking concurred, which they did. I have no "deep" football insight, but I hate mucky football: Player that don't see the beautiful in playing simple and effective football. Players that must dribble extra, instead of immediately passing to an opponent in better positions. That may result in 4 min of brilliance, but the rest of the game could as a result be utter shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 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... It's because every single one of his posts is long, drawn-out faux intellectual bollocks disguised as deep footballing insight. When infact, as proven from above, he's probably plucking stuff from sites likes zonalmarking, stetching it out into inane drivel and passing it off as absolute fact. I actually identified those problems when I watched Chelsea play. But since you obviously decided that my opinions were of no use, I checked if Zonalmarking concurred, which they did. I have no "deep" football insight, but I hate mucky football: Player that don't see the beautiful in playing simple and effective football. Players that must dribble extra, instead of immediately passing to an opponent in better positions. That may result in 4 min of brilliance, but the rest of the game could as a result be utter shit. Eh!?!? If there was a definition for 'simple and effective football' it would probably just say 'Chelsea Football Club 2004-2011'. They define that description to a tee, are you saying they don't do this? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punk77 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Have I ever spoken about EARLIER seasons..It's pretty obvious from what I've written that I'm referring to the current season only. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 But I think that my diagnosis some a great extent explain why they started to struggle. Say what you like about this lad but he does a cracking Yoda impression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Have I ever spoken about EARLIER seasons..It's pretty obvious from what I've written that I'm referring to the current season only. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2sKH8yjVsM Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 So you've blamed their faults this season on their technical deficiencies as footballers () and on their tactical inability to play simple and effective football? You really think that's the problem with this Chelsea team? Honestly, I think you're looking for something that simply isn't there whatsoever. I'd say it's simply a mixture of a drop in form psychologically and the fact that they released a load of players without replacing them, resulting in a thread bare, aging (Lampard-less for the most part) squad. It's no surprise that once they've strengthed depth wise and got out of their slump that they've gone on a run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 But I think that my diagnosis some a great extent explain why they started to struggle. Say what you like about this lad but he does a cracking Yoda impression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 BREAKING ENGLAND TEAM NEWS Michael Dawson, Scott Parker, Frank Lampard, Jack Wilshere, Ashley Young and Darren Bent all start. Full line-ups to follow shortly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Michael Dawson is an England player. lol. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hart, Johnson, Cole, Parker, Dawson, Terry, Lampard, Wilshere, Bent, Rooney, Young. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Hart Johnson Terry Dawson Cole Parker Wilshere Young Lampard Rooney Bent or Hart Johnson Terry Dawson Cole Young Parker Wilshere Lampard Rooney Bent or Hart Johnson Terry Dawson Cole Parker Wilshere Lampard Young Rooney Bent ? or none of the above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Shit team whatever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley17 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Bit of a weird team. I'd guess at Sewelly's first predicted formation but who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts