The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 9120
Original post by Zürich
Ramsey is having a reasonable season too you know. :s-smilie: Giroud looks tired but he'll have had 9 days off for the game and if he's on it then he'll be very useful in helping to play through you. Not so easy to defend deep and narrow with him backing into you and flicking others in. You're not great defensively atm, actually fancy Mertesacker/Giroud to dismantle you from a set piece, never thought I'd feel that way vs Mou!

Think the outcome depends on how we play rather than how CFC play, if were not on it, as we werent in the CC, then I'll want to pull my eyes out by the end of it. If we turn up we win I feel.

For us, I don't think Ramsey will be the main threat. He'll help with controlling the midfield, but I don't see him being a matchwinner in the way that Ozil and Walcott will do so. That's the reason why we have ramires anyway. Giroud may be jaded, but he generally struggles against us, both games last season he was missing sitters against us and generally struggled considering that he was doing the same thing against City last match, I don't think he's going to suddenly improve and actually destroy us in a match even with a 10 day rest.

Depends on who we use in defence, I'd like to use Cahill, Terry and Ivan, they're good enough at defending set pieces, if we use Luiz, we'll probably concede a pen from shirt grabbing, otherwise we'll be fine set piece wise. We've been doing the same tactic for seasons and your record against us has been pretty poor, even this season(albeit with our second teams) we've shown that it's the same story for the most part. Only times you've beat us the past 4-5 seasons were the 3-1 when we were on that poor run of form and the 5-3 when we changed our style of play for that game. Generally, the way we play will make it hard for you guys to win even if you turn up.

I won't be surprised to see a draw or a Chelsea win.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by The Assassin
I have to disagree on the first bit. Some people bring this up but looking through it I don't think it was a foul. I agree with the rest though.


Fair enough, but Sessegnon's goal was just terrible keeping from Cech. Tbh, we should've scored at least 10 minutes before the penalty. We had at least 3 opportunities to get the equaliser. While it was unfair the circumstances in which West Brom conceded, our goal was coming. It's not like we created nothing and suddenly got a lucky break. We were pressurising their defense and something gave, although unfortunately given the circumstances.

I was watching the replay to the incident and whoever fouled Ramires definitely nudged him in the back and didn't take the ball. I've seen free kicks given for that. Maybe he went down easily but Ramires is lighter than a piece of string and when you're running at speed, anything can knock you off balance.
Original post by 9MmBulletz
Fair enough, but Sessegnon's goal was just terrible keeping from Cech. Tbh, we should've scored at least 10 minutes before the penalty. We had at least 3 opportunities to get the equaliser. While it was unfair the circumstances in which West Brom conceded, our goal was coming. It's not like we created nothing and suddenly got a lucky break. We were pressurising their defense and something gave, although unfortunately given the circumstances.

I was watching the replay to the incident and whoever fouled Ramires definitely nudged him in the back and didn't take the ball. I've seen free kicks given for that. Maybe he went down easily but Ramires is lighter than a piece of string and when you're running at speed, anything can knock you off balance.


Ha, whenever I made those responses/those comments I knew what you would say in response yourself! Yes, it was terrible keeping from Cech. Really though if you take those things into account It's not that we were outplayed we were just not feeling it that game. Had Cech saved that and still won the penalty then we would've won e.g.

It's still annoying as hell that we were not able (not much better now) to finish the chances though
just have to share a brilliant comment/article about the team. Basically lots of people stated that there aren't any warriors in the team and no one physically imposing


The other side to this argument, of course, is that we've had players with plenty of "steel" and zero creativity and ended up with the same pattern of results. Think Khalid the Kannibal or Steve "Gerrard" Sidwell.

The raging hard-on for big players who like to put in a hard tackle or two, conflated with the idea that these players are somehow more passionate or more committed always amuses me. Meanwhile the likes of West Ham and Stoke struggle for league survival season after season while the likes of Swansea fly high.

Out of the very top teams in the world at the moment, only Manchester City with Toure have someone i'd consider properly physically imposing. Meanwhile, we have both Michael Essien and Jon Obi Mikel, who are as aggressive as wet lettuce.

Aggression and the "warrior" mentality have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with a player's physical attributes. It has everything to do with their mindset and while personality plays a part it is something that is the responsibility of the manager to teach, nurture and dare I say enforce.

You want proof? Luis Suarez. Sergio Aguero. Andres Iniesta. Marco Reus. Watch them play. Watch them harass defenders off the ball because they genuinely feel affronted when they don't have it. Watch them run at their defenders because they genuinely desire to humiliate and destroy them. And not a single one of these players could be described as anything else but a "flair" or "tiny nifty" player.

The English-media fuelled perception is that technically gifted players are weak, feminine and in need of protection. I think that Chelsea fans who are so obsessed with justifying our place in "proper" football hierarchy too readily buy into these stereotypes in the face of glaring evidence to the contrary.

We also need to remember that these players are not isolated within their team; their coaches actively encourage the same mentality in all their teammates too, with one notable exception in Sergio Aguero. City are a team with Aguero and Toure who do possess the correct mentality but the rest of the team do not. That to me is proof that for success, this aggression needs to come from the coach down and not from isolated individuals

...It's also not right to label the team 'flat-track bullies either'. I get your point about our home vs away form but that's true of virtually any club. In fact, on the basis of this season alone, we've consistently put in credible performances against quality opposition while struggling against the lesser lights and that pattern is evident across competitions and venues.

It's the shrinking violent syndrome we've discussed in the past, but I think it manifests itself more in the players (and honestly, fans) always wanting to play the safe, victim, underdog option rather than having the balls to actually play as champions and winners.
Original post by The Assassin
Ha, whenever I made those responses/those comments I knew what you would say in response yourself! Yes, it was terrible keeping from Cech. Really though if you take those things into account It's not that we were outplayed we were just not feeling it that game. Had Cech saved that and still won the penalty then we would've won e.g.

It's still annoying as hell that we were not able (not much better now) to finish the chances though


That is irritating to not finish off chances.

Just looking through the stats actually.

City and Liverpool have a similar amount of shots on goal compared to us, yet both have scored significantly more than us. Arsenal have taken fewer shots yet scored pretty much the same amount. Saying that, Arsenal are often accused of trying to walk the ball into the net, so it's no surprise their shooting accuracy is better than ours. In the case of Liverpool and Man City, they have better strikers than us clearly. Would be fair to say we'd probably be top if we had a prolific goalscorer. Wouldve helped us in games that we shouldn't have dropped points in (Everton , Newcastle, West Brom) having created several opportunities
Watched some videos of Guarin today- seems a decent player I guess.

He's very athletic (as plenty of South American players are) and is a decent passer of the ball. Can thread in good passes too. Reminds me a bit of Michael Essien of old although he's quicker. He also seems fairly aggressive as a player. Not sure about his first touch though...

Probably better than Ramires overall but we'll have to see how he fits in with the rest of the team.

Would've liked Rakitic from Sevilla or Cabaye but he seems set to go to Atletico (sad times).

We need a proper cool head in CM, like a Gundogan or Sahin
Original post by The Assassin
just have to share a brilliant comment/article about the team. Basically lots of people stated that there aren't any warriors in the team and no one physically imposing


Toure the correct mentality lmao
Reply 9127
Original post by 9MmBulletz
Watched some videos of Guarin today- seems a decent player I guess.

He's very athletic (as plenty of South American players are) and is a decent passer of the ball. Can thread in good passes too. Reminds me a bit of Michael Essien of old although he's quicker. He also seems fairly aggressive as a player. Not sure about his first touch though...

Probably better than Ramires overall but we'll have to see how he fits in with the rest of the team.

Would've liked Rakitic from Sevilla or Cabaye but he seems set to go to Atletico (sad times).

We need a proper cool head in CM, like a Gundogan or Sahin

Guarin is an interesting player, he's got good technique and is a better option than what we currently have. You're right about us definitely going to go for a CM in january too :lol: I did think when Mourinho said there's a key difference between his last Chelsea side and this side that he was alluding to the Central midfield.

Original post by baconbutty
Toure the correct mentality lmao

This, Toure is a lazy **** when defending. He goes on one surging run(which is beasty) and gasps for air the next 20mins.
Original post by bammy jastard 27
Guarin is an interesting player, he's got good technique and is a better option than what we currently have. You're right about us definitely going to go for a CM in january too :lol: I did think when Mourinho said there's a key difference between his last Chelsea side and this side that he was alluding to the Central midfield.


This, Toure is a lazy **** when defending. He goes on one surging run(which is beasty) and gasps for air the next 20mins.


Dont talk about my ***** Toure like that.

If you was in prison, he would make you his bitch. how's that for lazy?
How do you know bammy jastard 27 isn't Duncan Disorderly tbh?
Reply 9130
Original post by bammy jastard 27


haha, you a boondocks fan? :biggrin:
Reply 9132
Original post by Zürich
haha, you a boondocks fan? :biggrin:

They call you Chris Hansen, but I'd like to call you Chris Handsome.

Yeah, haven't finished off season 3 though.
Original post by bammy jastard 27
They call you Chris Hansen, but I'd like to call you Chris Handsome.

Yeah, haven't finished off season 3 though.

:biggrin:
haha, one of the best shows around for sure. Season 4 out early next year apparently!
Reply 9134
Original post by The Assassin
just have to share a brilliant comment/article about the team. Basically lots of people stated that there aren't any warriors in the team and no one physically imposing


Where did you find that comment? I think I have read this somewhere but I can't remember the website.
Reply 9135
Boondocks :adore: :adore:

Original post by Zürich
:biggrin:
haha, one of the best shows around for sure. Season 4 out early next year apparently!


That episode has given me so many tears of laughter. C'est genial
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by The Assassin
just have to share a brilliant comment/article about the team. Basically lots of people stated that there aren't any warriors in the team and no one physically imposing


Yes, this articulates a number of my opinions on Chelsea (and football more generally) very well, especially the last comment. I remarked to my friend that our 2012 Champions League win was the best and biggest of a number of opportunities to take on the 'United' mentality - that is, to really explode as a club that teams didn't want to play at all, ever: a team that had games that could be considered 'home bankers', etc. We'd had opportunities of this ilk before - the early Mourinho years and the 2010 Ancelotti side - but none on the scale of the CL win. Given that the Munich triumph was followed by the signing of some of Europe's most desirable and talented youth (Hazard, Oscar), we really had an opportunity to go into games always on the front foot, always looking to put teams to the sword. This just hasn't happened, and whilst identifying the issues is easy, understanding, delineating, and resolving the psychological and tactical problems that lead to these issues seems almost impossible.

To elaborate: one big problem is our tentativeness, and our willingness to just sit on a 1-0 lead. However, we don't 'sit' on a 1-0 lead in a manner that inspires confidence, as we did in the initial Mourinho period. There is a difference between dealing with a 1-0 or 2-1 with confidence, which involves playing predominantly in the opponents' half, holding possession, and stifling all life out of the game; and the converse, which is sitting on the edge of one's eighteen-yard box and praying that nothing goes in. We currently do the latter. This is easily identifiable. Less easy is postulating ways of dealing with this issue.

Another problem: we don't put teams to the sword. This can, in one respect, be put down to the mediocrity of our forwards. However, I am, of course, not the only person who will have noticed the way we retreat after taking an early lead (Crystal Palace was the most recent example, but others are not difficult to come by). The Ancelotti side continued to press for more goals, and kept the play in the opposition half after scoring.

This conduces to the third major problem: we never start to play with urgency or quality until the game is on the line for us (see West Brom at home, Tottenham away, among others). This is a really big problem, because trying to instantly alter the momentum of a game is very difficult, and if, as happened in the West Brom game, the goal goes in midway or late through the second half, there is not much time to gather the requisite momentum to take the win. Thus, we end up scraping draws or clumsy, tentative wins.

These all seem to be largely down to the mentality issues discussed by the above poster, but it isn't an issue of having more physical players. We have the talent to do very well, but we somehow need to instill not just generic 'belief' into the players, but a very specific belief: the belief that Chelsea are a club that should start games as heavy favorites, that it is a club that both can and should bully smaller sides, and that the players should perform with more freedom and license.

Now, I am the first to be censorious of bashing the manager, because he's the easiest and most obvious target - but I can't help but wonder how much of the restraint is down to Mourinho. He's always been a predominantly cautious manager, and that propensity doesn't seem to have altered (as shown by his dropping of Mata, ostensibly because he doesn't offer much defensively). Now, whilst I don't want to fall into the 'armchair fan' trap of suggesting that I could do a superior job to a qualified manager, I certainly think that, were I Mourinho - especially for home games against weak (er) sides - I'd want to set a marker down before kick-off by starting Oscar, Mata, and Hazard, and getting them playing in sync as a three, in the hope that this would put the entire side into a position of attacking impetus from the off. Mata and Hazard especially seem to have the 'dominate' mentality that Suarez and Aguero especially have, and Oscar certainly looks like he could get there soon.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 9137
Original post by KingMessi
Yes, this articulates a number of my opinions on Chelsea (and football more generally) very well, especially the last comment. I remarked to my friend that our 2012 Champions League win was the best and biggest of a number of opportunities to take on the 'United' mentality - that is, to really explode as a club that teams didn't want to play at all, ever: a team that had games that could be considered 'home bankers', etc. We'd had opportunities of this ilk before - the early Mourinho years and the 2010 Ancelotti side - but none on the scale of the CL win. Given that the Munich triumph was followed by the signing of some of Europe's most desirable and talented youth (Hazard, Oscar), we really had an opportunity to go into games always on the front foot, always looking to put teams to the sword. This just hasn't happened, and whilst identifying the issues is easy, understanding, delineating, and resolving the psychological and tactical problems that lead to these issues seems almost impossible.

To elaborate: one big problem is our tentativeness, and our willingness to just sit on a 1-0 lead. However, we don't 'sit' on a 1-0 lead in a manner that inspires confidence, as we did in the initial Mourinho period. There is a difference between dealing with a 1-0 or 2-1 with confidence, which involves playing predominantly in the opponents' half, holding possession, and stifling all life out of the game; and the converse, which is sitting on the edge of one's eighteen-yard box and praying that nothing goes in. We currently do the latter. This is easily identifiable. Less easy is postulating ways of dealing with this issue.

Another problem: we don't put teams to the sword. This can, in one respect, be put down to the mediocrity of our forwards. However, I am, of course, not the only person who will have noticed the way we retreat after taking an early lead (Crystal Palace was the most recent example, but others are not difficult to come by). The Ancelotti side continued to press for more goals, and kept the play in the opposition half after scoring.

This conduces to the third major problem: we never start to play with urgency or quality until the game is on the line for us (see West Brom at home, Tottenham away, among others). This is a really big problem, because trying to instantly alter the momentum of a game is very difficult, and if, as happened in the West Brom game, the goal goes in midway or late through the second half, there is not much time to gather the requisite momentum to take the win. Thus, we end up scraping draws or clumsy, tentative wins.

These all seem to be largely down to the mentality issues discussed by the above poster, but it isn't an issue of having more physical players. We have the talent to do very well, but we somehow need to instill not just generic 'belief' into the players, but a very specific belief: the belief that Chelsea are a club that should start games as heavy favorites, that it is a club that both can and should bully smaller sides, and that the players should perform with more freedom and license.

Now, I am the first to be censorious of bashing the manager, because he's the easiest and most obvious target - but I can't help but wonder how much of the restraint is down to Mourinho. He's always been a predominantly cautious manager, and that propensity doesn't seem to have altered (as shown by his dropping of Mata, ostensibly because he doesn't offer much defensively). Now, whilst I don't want to fall into the 'armchair fan' trap of suggesting that I could do a superior job to a qualified manager, I certainly think that, were I Mourinho - especially for home games against weak (er) sides - I'd want to set a marker down before kick-off by starting Oscar, Mata, and Hazard, and getting them playing in sync as a three, in the hope that this would put the entire side into a position of attacking impetus from the off. Mata and Hazard especially seem to have the 'dominate' mentality that Suarez and Aguero especially have, and Oscar certainly looks like he could get there soon.


This post is poetic. :congrats:
Original post by KingMessi
Yes, this articulates a number of my opinions on Chelsea (and football more generally) very well, especially the last comment. I remarked to my friend that our 2012 Champions League win was the best and biggest of a number of opportunities to take on the 'United' mentality - that is, to really explode as a club that teams didn't want to play at all, ever: a team that had games that could be considered 'home bankers', etc. We'd had opportunities of this ilk before - the early Mourinho years and the 2010 Ancelotti side - but none on the scale of the CL win. Given that the Munich triumph was followed by the signing of some of Europe's most desirable and talented youth (Hazard, Oscar), we really had an opportunity to go into games always on the front foot, always looking to put teams to the sword. This just hasn't happened, and whilst identifying the issues is easy, understanding, delineating, and resolving the psychological and tactical problems that lead to these issues seems almost impossible.

To elaborate: one big problem is our tentativeness, and our willingness to just sit on a 1-0 lead. However, we don't 'sit' on a 1-0 lead in a manner that inspires confidence, as we did in the initial Mourinho period. There is a difference between dealing with a 1-0 or 2-1 with confidence, which involves playing predominantly in the opponents' half, holding possession, and stifling all life out of the game; and the converse, which is sitting on the edge of one's eighteen-yard box and praying that nothing goes in. We currently do the latter. This is easily identifiable. Less easy is postulating ways of dealing with this issue.

Another problem: we don't put teams to the sword. This can, in one respect, be put down to the mediocrity of our forwards. However, I am, of course, not the only person who will have noticed the way we retreat after taking an early lead (Crystal Palace was the most recent example, but others are not difficult to come by). The Ancelotti side continued to press for more goals, and kept the play in the opposition half after scoring.

This conduces to the third major problem: we never start to play with urgency or quality until the game is on the line for us (see West Brom at home, Tottenham away, among others). This is a really big problem, because trying to instantly alter the momentum of a game is very difficult, and if, as happened in the West Brom game, the goal goes in midway or late through the second half, there is not much time to gather the requisite momentum to take the win. Thus, we end up scraping draws or clumsy, tentative wins.

These all seem to be largely down to the mentality issues discussed by the above poster, but it isn't an issue of having more physical players. We have the talent to do very well, but we somehow need to instill not just generic 'belief' into the players, but a very specific belief: the belief that Chelsea are a club that should start games as heavy favorites, that it is a club that both can and should bully smaller sides, and that the players should perform with more freedom and license.

Now, I am the first to be censorious of bashing the manager, because he's the easiest and most obvious target - but I can't help but wonder how much of the restraint is down to Mourinho. He's always been a predominantly cautious manager, and that propensity doesn't seem to have altered (as shown by his dropping of Mata, ostensibly because he doesn't offer much defensively). Now, whilst I don't want to fall into the 'armchair fan' trap of suggesting that I could do a superior job to a qualified manager, I certainly think that, were I Mourinho - especially for home games against weak (er) sides - I'd want to set a marker down before kick-off by starting Oscar, Mata, and Hazard, and getting them playing in sync as a three, in the hope that this would put the entire side into a position of attacking impetus from the off. Mata and Hazard especially seem to have the 'dominate' mentality that Suarez and Aguero especially have, and Oscar certainly looks like he could get there soon.


After seeing Willian play for us on a few occasions now, i think he has it too. He doesn't run past defenders as much as Hazard, but he has the pace and control to keep hold of the ball. And he isn't too bad at picking out a pass. Having Willian, Mata, Hazard and Oscar is always going to cause a selection dilemma
Reply 9139

Spoiler



TL;DR it's not a question of mentality, it's due to the fact our players aren't currently good enough to hold onto leads or finish games off early by a surplus of goals. If we get that midfield man and he performs, we'll be sorted in at least one of those avenues if not both.

United are currently going through the same problem this season now they're not getting as many goals. I said on that thread on the defeat to liverpool they needed two midfield players, now I believe that we need the same thing, although a striker and a midfielder would do more good than 2 competent midfielders.
(edited 10 years ago)

Latest