TorontoChelsea

Fair result. Negative football against a poor side at home. Just awful.

The game just opened up, doubling the number of chances in about 30 seconds. Of course, it was the most boring game ever up to now, so any sort of vertical play is most welcome.

Phew...

What an awful half of football.Has Rafa been brought in to make us unwatchable? People are going to blame Torres because that's what they do now, but he was hardly the problem. We were just garbage. Pointless possession in the midfield. Slow movement. Standing around without the ball. Maybe one or two dangerous moments. Negative football against Fulham at home is inexcusable.

We've got a couple of bad calls from the ref so far....a seriously boring game again.

I mostly agree with you. Torres is the scapegoat now so he's being blamed for everything. (That's the way it goes. There is one player who is deemed "a problem" and draws the ire of the fans). Now, Torres has definitely been very very bad with us. Mostly awful, but the system we play is a poor fit for any striker. Our attack is based on running at defenders. We don't get the ball into dangerous areas with any regularity. It's not like we're getting the ball to Torres in great areas and he's screwing up. He's screwing up 30 feet from the net with 2 defenders in front of him. Yes, he doesn't get into the proper areas enough, but it's not like we provide regular crosses in there anyway. We haven't had a high scoring striker since 2009-2010 and that's not all just Torres. Drogba scored 16 goals in his last 60 league games with us. Anelka scored 7 goals in his last 41 games. I don't think anyone can argue that Torres hasn't been poor, but people who think that getting a new striker in will suddenly fix everything are being delusional. Our offensive issues go far beyond Torres and as our system lies right now, no striker would have prolonged success.

Yes, because under RDM we would have lost to Nordsaelland, a team we beat 4-0 on the road, at Stamford Bridge and what Shaktar does is influenced by who are coach is. Give me a break.

I don't really know what Roman wants. He wants an attacking style that is our own with a manager who has to implement this style almost immediately with the players Roman decided to buy and don't really fit together. Very few teams play consistently attacking football in one particular style. The teams that are able to do this (Barca, Dortmund) have long-term managers, and strong youth systems that produce players who have played together for years.. You can't have the consistent attacking style and also be the team that buys all its players and fires its managers at the drop of the hat.

Ramires wouldn't work as the the more defensive-minded player in the pivot. He's too aggressive with his tackles which is fine if he has support, but for that role, you really want someone who is positionally-minded like Mikel because they are often the last man in defence (when the CBs split wider as they often do). Also, one of Ramires great strengths is making runs that open up space for other players and for himself. He wouldn't be able to do that. Ramires if a very good player, but he simply is never going to properly fit in with the team Roman wants to build. He'd be fantastic as a central midfielder in a Mourinho 4-3-3. Counter-attack football where he gets to play centrally, doesn't have to create much, will be responsible defensively, etc...Ideal for him I think.But on a team that's looking towards the Barcelona, ball control model, a midfielder who isn't creative and isn't a very good passer, is a poor fit. This is what Roman (or the board) doesn't really get. It's not just about buying talent, it's about buying talent that fits together. The best pivot duo IMO would either be Mikel and Oscar or Mikel and someone who isn't on the team right now. Lampard is still probably the best fit skill-wise this season if he ever gets healthy again, but we need a long-term solution.

I've watched a lot of sports in my life and this is obvious: most athletes and managers and even commentators have nothing whatsoever interesting or insightful to say. You can predict 99% of what they will say which is usually some variation on "I thought we played well today but we could also work on some things". Like any movie star or singer, people think that these interviews, by virtue of the fame and celebrity of the interviewee, will be interesting. They aren't. Of course, the questions are almost always idiotic as well, either set up for easy answers or asking pointless questions. I never watch press conferences. I never watch post-match interviews. It's about as interesting as watching people try to hawk jewelry on a shopping channel. (the only exception is after a trophy when the point is not to hear what they are saying but to see the, celebrate.)

Some if it was our tactics. We played very defensively and dropped deep, but some of it was just them. They really looked flat and missed some very simple passes, their communication was was off, and their finishing was very poor.

Not really complaining because Azpilicueta did have an excellent game so he's a very deserving candidate, just that people tend to overlook players who have been around. And yes, aside from one bad mistake early, Luiz was very good. I just have no confidence in him being able to avoid mistakes down the road. Agree with you Ramires. Thought he had one of his best games of the year today. Still not right for what we need from the position though.

I thought City looked terrible today. They missed some absurdly easy passes, fell down a couple of times and looked like they didn't want to be there. They also got ridiculously cute outside our box, trying to play perfect balls in from what were already pretty good positions. Their communication was also quite poor, playing in players who were standing still and passing behind each other. Of course, we were like that too. Maybe it was the heavy rain, but it was one of the worst games between top sides I've ever seen. Almost no pace to the game, really choppy play, and both sides played like they'd be happy with a 0-0 draw.

The big difference in this game is that our forwards dropped much deeper. If you want to compare our positioning versus the WBA game, everyone was much deeper. I have no idea why Romeu was brought in, when he came in, he was basically used as another central defender. We were level 0-0, not sure why we wouldn't try to go for a win. We played very negative football, with one scoring chance against a team that has a lot of defensive problems and played pretty poorly. Also upsetting because it's the same thing that happened before. Roman demands attacking football so sacks the manager who can't bring it and then replaces him with a manager who employs a defensive style. RDM could easily have managed a team that played like this, he managed a fantastic defensive squad last year, but Roman wanted a more attacking game.

We went more for defensive solidity and played probably our worst offensive game of the season. We were pathetic and creating chances. Pretty lucky to get away with a draw so I'm happy with that. Azpilicueta will get voted MOTM because he's the newcomer and he was good but he was not nearly as good as Ivanovic IMO. Ivanovic-13 clearances, 8 effective clearances, 1 interception, 1 offside won, 87% passing. Azpi-4 clearances, 2 effective clearances, 3 interceptions, 0 offsides won, 69% passing

What an awful half of football.

I hate going from goal from there. You basically never score. Would much rather try to go for a header or something indirect.

Wow...City should have scored.

Really poor game right now.

That was sarcasm based on the ridiculous criticisms of RDM having no plan B. You can't have a plan B when you don't have the players for a plan B. (and when your owner tells you the players he wants to play.)

Really proud of our supporters! Great singing today. We look exactly the same so far. Rafa has no plan B. Rafa out!

Geez Luiz!

I don't even know what you're arguing. I never said that Fergie brings players straight into the team. I'm saying that he brings them into the team. (And as for the "proving themselves" you are vastly overstating the success these players had prior to being in ManU. Smalling played 12 games at Fulham the year before. Jonny Evans played 15 games at Sunderland. Welbeck scored 6 goals in a season for Sunderland.) We don't. As for Mikel, 1) That was 6 years ago 2) Mikel was a 16M pound buy. He was very expensive player (one of the most expensive that summer), a situation much closer to say Oscar or Hazard than to any of the players we discussed. That's not developing a young player, that's buying a hot prospect. That we can do and do do. Do you really think that if McEachran has a good loan spell, he'll be back starting regularly for Chelsea? It seems incredible to me that anybody can believe that after watching this team. The only time I ever remember under Roman someone going out on loan and coming back and getting a starting job was Sturridge. And that's because he scored 8 goals in 12 games at Bolton and our only other player capable of playing RW in AVB's system was 32 and a poor fit for the system and Sturridge started scoring immediately. And even though Sturridge is really one of the the only young players we've developed in about 15 years, was our leading goal scorerer last season, we're still going to let him go because the club still feels he's not good enough. Chelsea buy their talent. That's the way it's always been since Roman has taken over. (And it's been a decade already. We have plenty of evidence of that by now. 10 years, no starters developed.)

You're trying to argue that Fergie is not good at developing players because sometimes he chooses not to use academy players? Being good at developing talent doesn't mean that you always develop every single player and you don't buy anybody, it just means that you can develop some. It's like saying "if he's so good at free kicks, why did he miss the net last week"? Sometimes, he realises that the academy players aren't good enough and he has to buy someone, often even.That doesn't mean he's bad at developing talent. I'm not particularly praising Fergie anyway. I'm just pointing out that there's a model that mixes in youth and one that buys its talent. (Barcelona versus Real Madrid too). We have not developed a single starter since John Terry. That's 15 years ago. The second best player to come out of our academy since then is probably Carlton Cole and he's not even a Premier League-caliber player. It's not just about the academy. ManU are constantly buying younger players and giving them opportunities. Chelsea would never have given the opportunity for Ronaldo to develop over a few years. Ronaldo scored 9 goals in his first two seasons. When was the last time Chelsea allowed a young player to struggle and play regularly? Again, you look at us this season. We will never have a better opportunity to play our young players and we aren't. Take someone like Nick Powell. Fergie will work him into 15 games or so this season and more next season if he responds. Even with their surplus of strikers, Welbeck will still probably play in 30 games. Smalling and Evans will get a lot of time. That's what they do (and I should stress, not just them, pretty much every club except us and City). That's what we don't do and never will do. We could have kept McEachran at Chelsea. We could have kept De Bruyne. We could have played them with some regularity. We didn't. Here are our league appearances in the league by unproven young players 2011-2012-Lukaku-1 start, 7 subs, Hutchinson-1 start, 1 sub, Romeu-11 starts, 5 subs, Bertrand-6 starts, 1 sub, McEachran-0 starts, 2 subs 2010-2011-Sturridge-0 starts, 10 subs, Bertrand 0 starts, 1 sub. Kakuta-1 start, 4 subs. McEachran-1 start, 8 subs. 2009-2010-Sturridge-2 starts, 11 subs. Matic-0 starts, 2 subs. Hutchinson-0 starts 2 subs. Kakuta-0 starts 1 sub. Borini-0 starts, 4 subs. Van Aanholt-0 starts 2 subs. Bruma- 0 starts, 2 subs. 2008-2009-Di Santo-0 starts, 8 subs. Mancienne-2 starts, 2 subs. Stoch-0 starts, 5 subs. Want to see the difference? ManU 2011-2012-Welbeck-23 starts, 7 subs, Smalling-14 starts, 5 subs. Cleverly-5 starts 5 subs, Jonny Evans-28 starts, 1 sub Arsenal 2011-2012-Szcezesny-38 starts, Gibbs-15 starts, 1 sub, Oxlade-Chamberline-6 starts, 10 subs, Jenkinson-5 starts, 4 subs. Ramsay-27 starts, 7 subs. This is the fundamental difference. We do not give playing time to unproven young players. We don't work players into our starting XI. We buy them. I don't know why anyone thinks that is suddenly going to change. It's just the way we operate.

Wow...we didn't every game we should have won??? That's horrible. We should fire every coach who does that!!! (which is every single coach) This is the exact ridiculous expectations fans have. It's so annoying. "He should have made this substitution", "he should have played this formation" like there's some sort of magic formula to winning. Sometimes, it's just the players. Everyone wants to be the manager and because their formations and tactics never actually get tested, they are never wrong...and even when they are implemented and don't work, you can just blame some other aspect of the managing. From January through March 2006, Chelsea drew at home to Charlton, tied Villa and Birmingham City away, lost to Fulham, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, and Newcastle. We dropped points in 7 of our last 16 games. All of them winnable. Was Mourinho over his head? Was he tactically unaware because we dropped points to teams we shouldn't have? We had a far better team, facing much worse competition and we had much less excuse for losing. Mourinho should have been sacked then. And as for the first part, it's pertinent. You don't need to get a manager who has managed a big club before. You just need a manager who wins. Our only to visits to the CL finals were under Di Matteo and Grant our two least experienced managers. All managers start somewhere and feeling like you need to get a big name is just insecurity.