robsblubot

disagree with a few points... I don't think it was that easy, despite of what Mourinho said. They managed to at least block the final pass didn't they? Without someone blocking, the pass is always made. You value possession way more than I do. Possession is only important when it leads to goals and/or to keep your opponent from attacking you. Possession counts for nothing if you lose the game. It's hard to make a case for Shalke after they concede the number of goals they've conceded against us. A team that can crumble like that, being after a mistake from the GK or not, is an easy prey in my book. Agree about the attitude. I'm sure the attitude was different for the Shalke match; my point is that the same attitude at newscastle wouldn't have guaranteed us the 3 points much less a 3-goal lead. It was a different game, with its own difficulties. How do you know we wouldn't score 4 goals after conceding the first against Shalke? I thought if they showed one thing is that they can't defend. Think they are going to go home very quickly in the CL.

sorry I don't go with the idea that we win when we want. Newcastle defended in the their own half, played a very physical game. Let us have the football but allowed us no space in the final 3rd (where it matters). Were we sluggish only because it an off day, or Newcastle had something to do with it? I like to think that our opponents have some influence in the game we play, even when they are technically inferior. It's not the only match we are going to struggle against an inferior side, especially away from home. Shalke were embarrassing against us esp if you take both matches. Because they let us play while newcastle decided they could not beat us, so they tried not to let us play. Completely different strategy and big teams tend to struggle more when the smaller side takes newcastle stance. It ahs happened one too many times.

It was good run but not that special; there are a number of strikers and FW that can do the same move, esp the pacey ones. It's a very common play for South American players. Even Corinthians' Guerrero did that against Cahill a few times during the WCC match. I can remember Defoe, and others benefited from Garry's slowness before. The fact that JT is certainly slower than Cahill, but is not so easily beaten is just proof of how good a player he is. People only talk about the reading of the game here, but technique is also very important: not only to pass the ball once you take it, but also to take it in a way you can keep it. Can't regain possession with blocks...

Agreed, but I'd say Mikel should be a rotation option for Ramires - who plays way too much. Lampard offers, or used to offer, a lot in attack an work rate, but not much defensively; and Mikel is completely ineffective in attack. We need a balanced player, prob with a bit of flair in distribution instead of another Ramires I think. If Luiz were 21 we could perhaps turn him into that player I believe.

disagree - not really talking about quality, but pressure, physical game, etc. Away matches are always tricky, especially defensively. Evidence A: We killed them in the away game Evidence B: look at their line up? Would you take any pick? For our B team perhaps?

not playing this match was punishment - it was an easy game. must not compare this with Newscastle away.

agreed, but like I pointed out in the few posts above, his bad form isn't really the reason he gets so much criticism. It's more about style than form, at least that's what I think.

yes, because England is special... How many English players start for Chelsea, City, United, or any other top side? Once you go to the bottom half of the table and Championship, then you see more starters, but there is a reason for that.

The mental aspect of the game is extremely overvalued in England for whatever reason. Whatever, just don’t hold your breath until you win a trophy at international level or play good football because you really need technique for either. As a Brazil supporter, I’m not worried at all about David’s progression. I reckon a move away from Chelsea would have been very good for him, especially to a more flamboyant team like Barcelona. I’d not say move away from England, because I think he’d do very well in other systems such as Arsenal's or even City's for example. IMO he made a career mistake by not forcing his move away when Barcelona offer came in. Not playing him will certainly force him out by Jan - pre world cup is a great time to force players out actually. So, in 5-10 games we will see how things stand. He either starts or he will move on, and we will need to shop for another defender to start or perhaps move Ivanovic back to CB and buy another RB - he’s also a lot better than Cahill. While I think David has been playing poorly this season, supporters and pundits have more of a problem with his style not his current form; his characteristics as a player hasn’t changed and will not change much. That’s actually what Chelsea bought for 25m, because he was exactly the same at Benfica. Not to mention that some of the criticism stems from the push to start the fantastic Gary Cahill. The irony of it to me is that the style these same pundits and supporters want Chelsea to use does not match the type of players the club have been acquiring. David being just one of them. If you can’t see the trend there, oh well.

lol at the headlines...

hah! true, pundits would say stats don't lie... After all they make Garreth Barry and Scott Parker look world class. My bad, I don't think it was only completion, but even attempted passes; so Lamps went missing, and that's why he was subbed off.

I agree concerning the season so far, but not the newcastle game. Didn't he have a very low pass completion rate in last game?

fair enough... The team crumbled in the second half though. Look at the number of saves Cech made in he second half. The number of times, our defenders were one-on-one against the opposition (like in David's missed interception). That's a big no no in football. The logic of if we had X instead of Y only works if X's deficiencies are factored in, not only his virtues. Otherwise the player who did not play, when we lose, is always better than the one who did play. That's why you see ppl saying Mikel should've played. When so many things go wrong in a team, some (prob most of the) blame has to be on the manager who picked the players and the strategy. Was a high defense line correct against a team who (historically) thrive in long balls? On a wet pitch like you said? The strategy wasn't David's, but Mourinho's.

^^ No one questioned his ability, just his fitness. Not suffering from those nagging injuries certainly helped. It's too early in the season to call it a victory (over the injuries) though. I disagree with most here concerning him being MOTM material in last game. He did not make any blatant mistake, but he was also not dominant as he could've been (as he has in the past). I think he had a normal JT performance and was one of the few players (more like a couple) who Mourinho called had a "normal" performance. I'd not criticize him too much either because I thought the midfield crumbled in he second half; that's why we had so many one-on-ones in the back.

Well, Brazil has Luiz Gustavo as a dedicated holding mid who can cover David (and the defense including Marcelo) at all times. I read an article of one of our posters here (can't remember his name) on Brazil, and he joked that Gustavo was going crazy trying to cover for Luiz for Brazil; I thought to myself, well that is his job! If Luiz Gustavo did not provide defensive cover than he wouldn't play - Hernandes or another more technically apt player would take his spot. Perhaps our defense is just way too exposed? Lampard went missing (his stats were pretty bad actually) which caused problems to Ramires and the defense. I could go into cover and pressure again (concerning Terry), but already made that point.

completely agree. Though a bit of consistency (from him) now and then wouldn't hurt.

yes the same Lampard who was taken off with over 30min left to play; because he was not the problem... Opinions are like a*... I know, but we need some consistency here. You can't possibly ask people to trust the manager and at the same time say Lampard was not the problem, when he was taken off by that same manager - I assume for a reason since we were losing and he is a midfielder who can score goals.

Certainly. Some folks here seem to have a hard time understanding the very basic concept of pressure and cover. When Gary and JT play, they both cover (hence the backing off). When David plays, he applies pressure at all times, while the other covers; which is IMO a more balanced pairing. In either case, if they get no support they will succumb all the same. Defenders need cover (from the other lines) at all times because good attackers with possession always have the advantage when being faced 1x1. JT also benefits from David's chasing, because he gets the opponent in a less than ideal situation already while the guy applying pressure in the open space is more likely to get dribbled. There is really no choice really unless you are OK playing counter-attacking football forever. Because if you want high defense line with possession you need someone applying pressure and chasing in open space.

yes, agree that he was actually very good in possession, but that play on the second goal is inexcusable for a defender: he is literally paid not to trust that his teammates are going to clear the ball and should have tracked back while Ramires and William slowed the attacker just enough and yet he was there watching and hoping. I personally don't have a problem with the missed tackle, because he tried a quick interception, which means he might have lacked the balance to win it - it was a decision and considering JT was behind him, I reckon teh correct one.

double post

It tells me they have como Cahill on their lineup. They play very weak sides mostly and setup to beat them. I reckon that's what we tried but ncastle we're not as badas we expected them 2 be. Enders game break...

Do you see much rotation being done by any of those sides? I see the same starting XI every time I see Barcelona play for example. Same defenders (if you can call Mascherano one), same fullbacks, some rotation in the midfield for the older players, granted, but that's a about it. I don't completely disagree with your points; my point is that this is one of the most difficult aspects of managing a top team. Juggling a big squad and not having unhappy players who also cannot be counted on.

I know I know, just wondering about focus. We certainly cared more than Arsenal did.

When I talked to a colleague of mine, Arsenal fan, about what happened midweek he said, "good they will get the win on Saturday when it matters." Now I'm wondering whether we did care too much and fielded too many starters (including Ramires) for a pointless cup game. All in all the strategy backfired; we wanted to dominate a struggling newcastle side, but they've been improving lately.

Agreed, but then again, come CL big matches can we really trust Bertrand then? Or will we need an on form Cole for those? I'll go with the latter. Same reasoning I have with the out-of-form David. We will be facing very pacey and technical strikers in the CL and we will need David then, especially if we plan to apply pressure at some time (playing a high line).