robsblubot

That's actually my view - that the game has indeed moved on and Mikel isn't a modern player by any means. He's just too immobile in the very dynamic game of today. Dortmund's midfielders would be the the other extreme, as in extremely mobile players.

Luiz certainly has the quality I've mentioned, but I don't want necessarily Luiz, but a guy like Luiz. Ferdinand was like that back then when he got legs. Phil Jones is like that now, like him very much. There are many ball playing defenders out there. Technically speaking David is probably the very best one, but then he does lack some concentration, and like you say is a work in progress. I just dislike, and always have, pairing CBs with the same characteristics; it's redundant.

Bradley is still a work in progress; a bet that Roma is making. They don't know how good Bradley is going to become, or whether he is top tier material, but they saw some qualities in him for sure. It's just too soon for a club like Chelsea to go after him as a solution or even rotation, because he'd need to show some consistency, including injury-free, for some time before becoming a target. I say keep an eye on him, but right now, way too soon to make a move; unless we are talking about a bargain buy of course.

You have to make up your mind at some point: do you want to play football, have possession, attack, or just NOT concede goals. I know what I want, and playing two stoic defenders is certainly not part of it. See I'm not even talking about quality, technique, but rather characteristics. Iva is not the fastest guy either, so between the 2 CBs and Iva, I'd certainly keep them very deep... but I'm not talking about the goal. Scoring or conceding is a consequence of your play, or so I've learned.

no, not that strange at all...

Sure, but if we go by arithmetic alone, we can't possible win the midfield battle with either the 3 we played today or the 2 we play when using the 4-2-3-1... so the additional midfielders must come from somewhere during a match... it's all dynamic. When David plays he has the quality to join in the midfield and add that additional player there. Same with Oscar who has the work rate to perform the defensive tasks. The game is not that static that you can blame a particular area or section for say lack of possession. Keeping the ball, is the responsibility of all players, including the defenders. Look at WHU how poorly their defenders kept (or didn't) the football and how Oscar and others would win it back over and over again... that's quality, or lack thereof, right there. That's why I called WHU shitty and think they are indeed a terrible side with too many technically inapt players. Back to our defensive pairing... they are fine if you want to play a deep defense line, which makes it difficult to play any way other than counter-attacking football. Same goes for England with their current selections. didier... also, I'd not blame Lampard that much either. You can only pass the football when you have someone to pass to. It's up to the opponent to not give you the option; which Basel were able to do and WHU were not able to do before.

We complain that we are constantly under pressure, but playing a deep and very slow defense line has nothing to do with that... Perhaps they could/should have helped keep the football a bit longer?

Why are you a Barcelona fan?!

true, but their characteristics make it more likely that we will be under pressure; they force us to play a low defense line.

Better opposition who are pressuring our players so that they've got no time on the ball. Completely different situation from the WHU match.

Yes, and he does that work in a consistent basis. Even when technically he's not that sharp (things not working out) the work rate is always there. However, like I said already people are reading WAY too much into this performance. What Oscar did he does in every match; the difference is that WHU were poor on the ball and were caught by Oscar and others in possession. As good as Oscar was, there is no excuse for a player to lose the football on his own half for dabbling on the ball. If our player had done the same he'd be crucified, but since we "caused" it to happen, it was all us.

Really?! You need a great performance from a quality side like Chelsea to make WHU look average?! WOW! whatever... I guess I should be happy and just ignore the fact WHU is in relegation zone. Let Arsenal win the league, because we "ought" to are happy by trashing WHU.

I did... WHU did not foul us enough, were not aggressive enough, and made horrendous mistakes in the back, one of which led to our first goal. Like I said, yes, good pressure from Oscar and cia, but Oscar does that in every match for Chelsea and Brazil! Things don't happen in a vacuum... are you trying to tell me that we'd have dominated anyway had we played Barcelona or Arsenal? You can't be serious. Just take a look at the standings and better yet, check WHU results at home.

table disagrees... Everton and City destroyed them away as well. Are they not relegation fodder right now? Ignore these facts if you wish, but we did not break a sweat today. Just putting things into perspective, something ppl here seem to chose to ignore. A performance like that was only possible because WHU allowed us possession without pressure. So, on the same token they've allowed us to play like that.

So, is the general consensus that other line ups wouldn't have worked today? That's causality gone wrong. We will certainly need Mourinho's tactical genius when we play a top side with equally capable players. Or when we play a tough opponent like Southampton, esp away from home. Really, what player from WHU would be good enough to be a squad player at Chelsea? 1 or 2? None for me.

Hardly a match to watch for bystanders. WHU had a poor game; some of it was due to our pressuring high up the pitch (esp Oscar), but most of it was just lack of teamwork and overall ability on their side. Their back line is so technically inapt - showcased by their inability to pick up a pass - that applying pressure against them will always produce results; it's like we've provided a playbook to be used against them at the moment. City and Everton prob done the same before. Very risky to take much out of this aside from the 3 points of course. They may or may not improve in the future esp in Jan. If they do, that's good news for us since they will be making their opponent's life more difficult later on. We've played 2 of the worst sides in the premiere, Fulham and WHU. We've won both matches, so if they (or either one) improve that'd be great news. Their also had no aggression, no drive, did not foul us much, which we'd expect in away games against smaller sides. So, very strange and easy match, esp for a "derby." (hardly so these days) Happy for the result and that's about it - no conclusions to be made about tactics or performances IMO.

WHU are a very poor side - we are just doing what we were supposed to do. All other top clubs will beat them too long ball galore. Fulham and WHU huge relegation candidates for me.

3-5-2 is a very risky formation these days because most sides play with lots of width provided by the second attacking line. You end up losing your own wide players because they have to track back to provide defensive width to the back line. It could work in certain circumstances of course.

Fair enough ... please don't take it personally - this whole thing about winning and losing is a lot more about population size, GDP, focus on football, and far less about the empirical things we like to talk about. in fact, being that big of a footballing nation hasn't really helped Brazil in any way - it may actually have hurt its development or so some believe. On technique, quality talent... Back in Brazil there is a southern announcer who says when a poor side is very committed and motivated (for whatever reason) before facing a far better side, that they are going to lose all the same - with or without the extra motivation and commitment. I guess Belgium are especially committed these days; the fact they have Hazard, Benteke, KDB, and host of other extremely talented players probably isn't a factor at all... The answer is also socioeconomic as usual.

right and then we go back to the old discussion: either that forward run is a movement he is allowed (even encouraged) to do or it isn't and he wouldn't have been doing that for so long. Did you notice where he lost the football? No one covered him? What's the difference if he is the one who makes a mistake, when already close to the opponents box? Again, assuming he's allowed (even encouraged) to make those runs. Players in attacking positions (as Luiz was in the video) are allowed to make mistakes due to tight spaces. That's not what we've been criticizing him for. Off the ball movement, positioning, concentration, that's where his deficiencies lie. On the ball, he is flawless as a two-footed passer.

1. Yes, I said it to make a point a hyperbole as we use it so often around here. Commitment is cheap, most professional players playing at this level have enough commitment otherwise they wouldn't be there. It's a competitive sport after all. I was referring to Cahill. Whether he is committed or not makes no difference to me because his technique is not good enough at this level - not for England not for Chelsea. 2. So, you think commitment is enough? So England is not committed enough? That's why they lose?! Brazil won 5 times with the likes of Romario, Ronaldo, Ronaldimho, and Rivaldo, known to be the most committed players ever...

#1 please don't quote what I did not write. I did not say commitment is not needed, but merely that is is hardly enough.There are far more players that give 100% than players who are good enough to play for a top side. Merely based on the small number of top sides in the world. #2 We go back to #1 - they don't win because of their amazing commitment, but their fantastic technique.

no not an agenda at all - as a brazil supporter I actually think he *should* move to Barca; that would be good for David, Brazil, and esp Barcelona! As a pre-abra Chelsea supporter, I am 100% sure that Cahill is not good enough to start for ANY top club in the world. It's just his technique or there lack thereof. I couldn't care less about his commitment. Championship is filled with players who give 100%. The Irish give 110% in every match and they lose every time. Barca look like they couldn't care less (like David) because they use their great technique far more than they use their physique, but that would be the wrong impression to have.

that's where we all disagree here: some of us think Cahill is not good enough == consistently poor.

Agreed. If even after WBA game David doesn't get the nod, then he needs to move. THe only question mark is Roman who's said to be a big fan of Luiz.