test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Jason

closed Chelsea 0-1 Man City

Started by Jason,

Man of the Match   24 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your Man of the Match?

    • Courtois
      2
    • Azpilicueta
      0
    • Rudiger
      2
    • Christensen
      18
    • Cahill
      0
    • Alonso
      0
    • Kante
      0
    • Bakayoko
      0
    • Fabregas
      0
    • Hazard
      1
    • Morata
      0
    • Willian (sub)
      0
    • Pedro (sub)
      0
    • Batshuayi (sub)
      0

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

409 posts in this topic
8 hours ago, Stats said:

Just way too defensive. Fatigue kicked in but no denying it from the first minute we did not really show much. What really disappointed me was seeing Azpi at RWB. Delph is not a LB and is clearly being used as an emergency replacement. Moses or Zappacosta should have started to pose him problems and no surprise, Delph had the game of the life because we had no one with the ability to run at him and Azpi played at RWB for the whole game. Just way too negative.  We missed a trick there.

The scoreline actually flatters us. Should have been a lot more.

I just hope Morata is available after the international break.

Had Moses played, City would have had a much easier time finding space in behind the defence. Although Moses is not a bad player, he just isn't the type of player to change a game like this, even if he is better going forward. (Moses is a bad decision maker, mediocre passer, and he possesses no end product.) Playing Zappacosta would have been a monumental risk as he has had very little time to adapt and was not a real option for a game like this.

As for the scoreline, yes we were dominated by City for most of the match, but to say City deserved anything more than a goal or two is unfair. They may have dominated the ball, but they did not generate many real scoring chances, although they did generate far more than us which is why they're deserving winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Panic said:

Had Moses played, City would have had a much easier time finding space in behind the defence. Although Moses is not a bad player, he just isn't the type of player to change a game like this, even if he is better going forward. (Moses is a bad decision maker, mediocre passer, and he possesses no end product.) Playing Zappacosta would have been a monumental risk as he has had very little time to adapt and was not a real option for a game like this.

As for the scoreline, yes we were dominated by City for most of the match, but to say City deserved anything more than a goal or two is unfair. They may have dominated the ball, but they did not generate many real scoring chances, although they did generate far more than us which is why they're deserving winners.

If we had any desire to win the game Moses would play. 

Instead we went for full defence, "hope we score a fluke and defend lead" type of tactic. It works sometimes but I hoped we will change that by now and try actualy playing games. 

Hell we were quality against arsenal in past years, but recently even they easily stop us with high press.

We have top players. The day we will believe that we will become top european team. But now everytime someone good comes and we revert to bunker tactics. 

Its one thing to come with tactical plan of counter attacking and entirely different playing bunker with no attack.

Now Im not sure if thats down to players or coach, but subbing AM9 for Willian instead of Bats was ridiculous.

Panic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

If we had any desire to win the game Moses would play. 

Instead we went for full defence, "hope we score a fluke and defend lead" type of tactic. It works sometimes but I hoped we will change that by now and try actualy playing games. 

Hell we were quality against arsenal in past years, but recently even they easily stop us with high press.

We have top players. The day we will believe that we will become top european team. But now everytime someone good comes and we revert to bunker tactics. 

Its one thing to come with tactical plan of counter attacking and entirely different playing bunker with no attack.

Now Im not sure if thats down to players or coach, but subbing AM9 for Willian instead of Bats was ridiculous.

I disagree that by playing Azpi meant we had no intention of winning. As we have seen in past matches against City, they targeted the wide areas, in particular the space behind the wingbacks, and this yielded many chances for them. In fact, they had much better scoring opportunities in last year's matches than they did yesterday. Playing Azpi provided security on the flanks and could force them to attack through central areas, which is good as we had 3 central midfielders and 3 cbs. Playing Moses would leave our right flank exposed. I'm not convinced that Moses has enough in his game to be worth the trade offs in a game like this.

As for the "hope we score a fluke and defend lead tactic" that you ascribe us to playing, I can only partially agree. When Morata was on the pitch, we had a clear counter attack strategy. Morata was successfully holding up the ball and we were able to craft a few chances, not great, but nothing that can be described as you have. It was only when he was subbed off that City started the domination. As I have previously stated, I was both surprised and disappointed by the decision, but I can see why Conte went that route. He still takes the blame for yesterday's result, but I won't say he made a blunder.

There are issues within the team as you and others have pointed out, but if we evaluate the skills this squad has, and compare them to elite attacking sides, you will find this squad is quite lacking. This doesn't excuse our performances, but it adds perspective. This is a good squad and we can still compete for silverware, especially if Conte can find another solution as he did last year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Panic said:

I disagree that by playing Azpi meant we had no intention of winning. As we have seen in past matches against City, they targeted the wide areas, in particular the space behind the wingbacks, and this yielded many chances for them. In fact, they had much better scoring opportunities in last year's matches than they did yesterday. Playing Azpi provided security on the flanks and could force them to attack through central areas, which is good as we had 3 central midfielders and 3 cbs. Playing Moses would leave our right flank exposed. I'm not convinced that Moses has enough in his game to be worth the trade offs in a game like this.

As for the "hope we score a fluke and defend lead tactic" that you ascribe us to playing, I can only partially agree. When Morata was on the pitch, we had a clear counter attack strategy. Morata was successfully holding up the ball and we were able to craft a few chances, not great, but nothing that can be described as you have. It was only when he was subbed off that City started the domination. As I have previously stated, I was both surprised and disappointed by the decision, but I can see why Conte went that route. He still takes the blame for yesterday's result, but I won't say he made a blunder.

There are issues within the team as you and others have pointed out, but if we evaluate the skills this squad has, and compare them to elite attacking sides, you will find this squad is quite lacking. This doesn't excuse our performances, but it adds perspective. This is a good squad and we can still compete for silverware, especially if Conte can find another solution as he did last year.

I agree playing Azpi was crucial if we were about to park the bus. In fact our defending was brilliant considering the quality of city. We nearly managed to get a draw.

But everything else was crap. Playing Azpi instead of Moses gave clear indication we wont attack, and with Azpi and Alonso on wings, Pep used his own fulbacks Walker and Delph nearly in midfield. Because our fullbacks were so poor in attack and city didnt even need to mark them.

Our whole team defended basicaly, except for Eden. For a match at SB, I think thats as ridiculous as it gets. Despite the quality city has, we should go braver in this match.

All in all the only reason this kind of football is tolerated is IF we get a good result out of it. If we lose, its bound to have critics left and right. And rightfully so.  Games like these vs city when we dont get a result are clear indicator what fans think of such tactics when they are not blinded by the win. I want the team to give it all on the pitch and go for the win every game. At least try your best ffs.

We have played counter attack for ages now, but for example under Mou the first time, we actualy played when we needed to. We could go toe to toe with any team in the world and we had that fear factor that we can kill off anyone at SB. If this counter football is what Chelsea wants to continue to play, at least do it with proper way, not letting City rape us at our own stadium.

Panic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

I agree playing Azpi was crucial if we were about to park the bus. In fact our defending was brilliant considering the quality of city. We nearly managed to get a draw.

But everything else was crap. Playing Azpi instead of Moses gave clear indication we wont attack, and with Azpi and Alonso on wings, Pep used his own fulbacks Walker and Delph nearly in midfield. Because our fullbacks were so poor in attack and city didnt even need to mark them.

Our whole team defended basicaly, except for Eden. For a match at SB, I think thats as ridiculous as it gets. Despite the quality city has, we should go braver in this match.

All in all the only reason this kind of football is tolerated is IF we get a good result out of it. If we lose, its bound to have critics left and right. And rightfully so.  Games like these vs city when we dont get a result are clear indicator what fans think of such tactics when they are not blinded by the win. I want the team to give it all on the pitch and go for the win every game. At least try your best ffs.

We have played counter attack for ages now, but for example under Mou the first time, we actualy played when we needed to. We could go toe to toe with any team in the world and we had that fear factor that we can kill off anyone at SB. If this counter football is what Chelsea wants to continue to play, at least do it with proper way, not letting City rape us at our own stadium.

Regardless of the personnel, City were always going to pin back our wingbacks. This is due to us playing with 3 at the back. Moses would not have been able afford  roaming forward because loss of possession leaves the team far too exposed. This isn't even taking into consideration that outside of the occasional dribble, Moses does not have the skills necessary to break out of a relentless City high press.He just doesn't have the passing ability and good enough ball control to punish a high pressing team.You would be right if the team set up to contest possession, but that would turn out far worse than it did yesterday. Outside of Hazard and Morata, none of the attacking or midfield players in our squad have shown the necessary skills required to control a game against a side as skilled as City, hell I don't think we have the players to play against Arsenal in an attacking manner.

Conte's initial approach to the game was correct, especially given the circumstances. Although it was not an ambitious set-up, we did try to go forward in the right moments. Morata was holding up the ball well and we could have very easily nicked a goal had he stayed on the field for the whole game. His presence also would have provided relief for the defence, but that did not come to pass and we have yesterday's result to cope with. I will say it again, Conte is not blameless. He should face criticism for his response to the Morata injury, and he should face criticism for the lack of organization that our midfield three showed. I'm not satisfied with how he and the team dealt with yesterday's match,  but any suggestion(not necessarily yours but others) that we should try anything more than a solid counter-attack approach against an in-form City side are nonsense. We're not good enough. Outside of buying/developing the necessary talent, you'll never see this group of players play at a similar level to City.

You're right though, fans don't like counter-attack tactics when they aren't working. But ask Arsenal fans how enjoyable it is to see a team play beautiful football and win fuck all. If we wanted an attacking side, the board and Conte would have had to make massive investments during his first summer here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Panic said:

Regardless of the personnel, City were always going to pin back our wingbacks. This is due to us playing with 3 at the back. Moses would not have been able afford  roaming forward because loss of possession leaves the team far too exposed. This isn't even taking into consideration that outside of the occasional dribble, Moses does not have the skills necessary to break out of a relentless City high press.He just doesn't have the passing ability and good enough ball control to punish a high pressing team.You would be right if the team set up to contest possession, but that would turn out far worse than it did yesterday. Outside of Hazard and Morata, none of the attacking or midfield players in our squad have shown the necessary skills required to control a game against a side as skilled as City, hell I don't think we have the players to play against Arsenal in an attacking manner.

Conte's initial approach to the game was correct, especially given the circumstances. Although it was not an ambitious set-up, we did try to go forward in the right moments. Morata was holding up the ball well and we could have very easily nicked a goal had he stayed on the field for the whole game. His presence also would have provided relief for the defence, but that did not come to pass and we have yesterday's result to cope with. I will say it again, Conte is not blameless. He should face criticism for his response to the Morata injury, and he should face criticism for the lack of organization that our midfield three showed. I'm not satisfied with how he and the team dealt with yesterday's match,  but any suggestion(not necessarily yours but others) that we should try anything more than a solid counter-attack approach against an in-form City side are nonsense. We're not good enough. Outside of buying/developing the necessary talent, you'll never see this group of players play at a similar level to City.

You're right though, fans don't like counter-attack tactics when they aren't working. But ask Arsenal fans how enjoyable it is to see a team play beautiful football and win fuck all. If we wanted an attacking side, the board and Conte would have had to make massive investments during his first summer here.

Well with 3:5:2 we had zero width. That allowed city to throw everything in middle and completely dominate us.

Last year, they dominated us too, but here is a difference. 

With 3:5:2, we strenghtened our defence, but had absolutely nothing in attack. With 3:4:3 we punished them on counter. We benched Moses and Pedro for another defender and Cesc who is too slow for city players. 

As you say in a way Azpi instead of Moses makes sense, BUT IF we had to revert to such defensive tactics just to cope with their offense, never even thinking about our attack, thats a prety clear statement Conte and co admited we cant defeat them at all. 

City is amazing team this year, but sooner or later teams will stop them. I guess next year they will be realy unbeatable. However yesterday we didnt even try. From first second we allowed them to say they are the best. And thats not acceptable from PL champions at home. Its too negative.

Dont make them better than what they are. Realy good team, but they still have Delph, Stones, Otamendi and Fernandinho who can get exposed. Not mentioning Aguero was not even playing. Real would blast that defence in another dimension, not saying we have quality of real, but with proper character we could defeat them on counter. 

I rather have lost 2:0 and trying realy hard to win than 1:0 and sit in front of goal whole game.

Panic likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

Well with 3:5:2 we had zero width. That allowed city to throw everything in middle and completely dominate us.

Last year, they dominated us too, but here is a difference. 

With 3:5:2, we strenghtened our defence, but had absolutely nothing in attack. With 3:4:3 we punished them on counter. We benched Moses and Pedro for another defender and Cesc who is too slow for city players. 

As you say in a way Azpi instead of Moses makes sense, BUT IF we had to revert to such defensive tactics just to cope with their offense, never even thinking about our attack, thats a prety clear statement Conte and co admited we cant defeat them at all. 

City is amazing team this year, but sooner or later teams will stop them. I guess next year they will be realy unbeatable. However yesterday we didnt even try. From first second we allowed them to say they are the best. And thats not acceptable from PL champions at home. Its too negative.

Dont make them better than what they are. Realy good team, but they still have Delph, Stones, Otamendi and Fernandinho who can get exposed. Not mentioning Aguero was not even playing. Real would blast that defence in another dimension, not saying we have quality of real, but with proper character we could defeat them on counter. 

I rather have lost 2:0 and trying realy hard to win than 1:0 and sit in front of goal whole game.

All back three formations seem to have problems with width. Even with the 3-4-3 we still struggle defending the wide areas. The 3-4-3 also allows their central players too much freedom. They have both Silva and De Bruyne playing centrally, and both have the freedom to move around. The moment one of Kante or Baka presses, they leave a big gap for a roaming Silva or De Bruyne to move into. The 3-5-2 allows us to clog the center of the pitch making it harder for City to penetrate, and Azpi as RWB really helps our right flank.

I disagree about our setup being too negative and showing no desire to attack. With Kante and Baka in the center we could win the ball back when they tried to force things and instantly launch our counter attack. The inclusion of Cesc should help us feed quality balls into our two forward players, who would be occupying two central defenders. With Hazard and Morata upfront, I'd give us a healthy chance of scoring a goal or two.

Each approach has its own flaw. And as you have mentioned, the inclusion of Azpi and Cesc had its own flaws. City have developed a perfect way of dealing with our back three, and other teams, to a lesser extent, have found ways to deal with our formation. In the end, the formation plays a small role, it's about having the right players for whatever philosophy the manager has for the team. You can win the game while you're defending your ass off for 90 mins as clubs like Atl. Madrid have done. Or you can set out to dominate the ball for the whole match like Barca does. I don't think the tactics we had were responsible for our result. It was an inability to carry them out. Once Willian came on the hopes of a successful counter attack occurring died. We only played with two up front and were unable to effectively press them. Willian never exploited the space behind their defence, as someone with his pace should be able to, and he was unable to do anything by coming deep. As a result, we had no outlet and were unable to break out of City's containment. I'm sure Conte and his staff have analyzed this game several times by now, and taken away what we have and much more. Hopefully, Conte will find the right solutions going forward and lead us to a serious title challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't watch it as I was on the way back from Hull with my lad and listened on the radio. Sounded like City deserved this and we lacked ideas, not helped by Moarata going off which disrupted things.

Still in a good position, lots of games left, still confident in this team......Just the fucking international break now:middlefinger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Special Juan said:

Didn't watch it as I was on the way back from Hull with my lad and listened on the radio. Sounded like City deserved this and we lacked ideas, not helped by Moarata going off which disrupted things.

Still in a good position, lots of games left, still confident in this team......Just the fucking international break now:middlefinger:


The team was visibly tired. City too played for Europe but it was a relatively easier affair against Shakhtar and they had one more day to recover.
Conte had to rotate and he did n't. Then Morata's injury and Conte's decision to replace him with Willian. Even if Willian was in his best of forms it was a daft substitution.
Had n't seen us in the role of the mouse at home for donkey's years.
Our chances to win the league are infinitessimal, because we are chasing the both of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.