Closed Chelsea v Cardiff

[CHOULO19 24,332]

oh dear!!! and do u think we would play this system even with an awesome target man ahead like rvp, cavani or falcao? do u think jose would say things like "i dont know why ivanovic was putting crosses into the box because i dont think DD plays for us!!!"

we are playing in this system because jose knows that right now our AMs are a bigger threat than our strikers. he knows the limitations and constraints of all our strikers and is trying to use them in the best way we can.

to say that we would have been playing the same way with a World Class ST and targetman upfront is ridiculous. i mean even for a moment u think we would play exactly the same way if we had DD in his prime upfront. NO WAY. we would be playing something like how BVB plays. the striker wont just have a role of creating space for AMs (which good ST anyways do for other players thru their movement) but also be a worthy outlet for our AMs.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make originally: If we had a 20+ league goals per season striker, we won't be playing the current system and our midfield won't be scoring as many goals as now since less chances will be falling their way and more to the striker. So even though we'd change the system, it doesn't necessarily mean that the team as whole will score much more goals.

ps - all u need to do is watch our last season's away defeat to WBA. for 60 odd minutes, we had no chances. our only goal came from a hazard freak header. but as soon as rdm changed sturridge from the right wing to the striker position and brought mata on for torres, sturridge had 3 1v1 which had a lot to do with his off the ball movement and his movement to run behind the defence. and that is what will happen with a good striker. we will become far more direct and way more threatening. (like i said before, just like BVB).

I don't want to go into debate on whether or not we would actually change the system because it is purely hypothetical, but we've made around 200m investment between fees and wages in the attacking midfielders our system is currently built around. I'm not too sure we would just change the system that easily.

also those stats about conversion rate, tell me how many of those were clear-cut chances like the ones, etoo had against everton and bucuresti, ba had against norwich or torres had against swindon. falcao/cavani take a number of shots from outside the box, and play a lot of percentages with their runs and headers and shots from crosses. but give them the chances, that our strikers have had and they will convert 9 out of 10 of those chances.

Swindon? Steaua? Those are league one level defenses that we'll barely a few times a season. I'm talking about the level of defenses that we would face on a regular basis. Plus Eto'o must have taken about 5-6 shots from distance against Steaua. So the 17 chances are by no means all clear-cut chances. The point is we are not creating enough chances for our strikers to expect them to score in every game. To compare, United, despite struggling in creating chances, have created 42 chances for their strikers this season in the league while Liverpool have created 20 chances for Sturridge alone.

[Sidzeret 2,257]

taking up the striker role in an unorthodox manner - points a lot to false 9.

as for the 2nd part - dint get it??? i said they wont be better target men than OUR strikers so why the comparision with these strikers?

I was saying we didn't play the false 9 like the way it should be. Shurrle was moving to the flanks often and never moved deep into mid to receive passes. Never a false 9 set-up.

As for the second part, i was reiterating the need for an effecient striker.

[Rmpr 8,977]

hate it, too. There is nothing more corrupted and shamelessly commercialised than international football. The qualifications are full of needless games against midget states, most national football associations are a bunch of undead jackasses. Tournaments take place whereever the most money is paid to Blatter and his fellow parasites. Thousands of families are forced to move and even killed to built stadiums in countries whose infrastructure is completely overchallenged. During the WC, local shops are forced to close so McDonalds and other sponsors don't have competitors. In countries like South Africa, Brazil, a tournament leaves behind scorched earth, a weakened economy, even more impovered population, fleeced by a bunch of corrupt old twats and global corporations. This slaughter is sold as a big party to the media. Horrible crimes committed in the name of sports. One of the most disgusting aspects of our time.

All of that can be applied (in different levels) to Club Football as well!

[didierforever 7,349]

I don't want to go into debate on whether or not we would actually change the system because it is purely hypothetical, but we've made around 200m investment between fees and wages in the attacking midfielders our system is currently built around. I'm not too sure we would just change the system that easily.

u do what is best for the team. not for the investments. plus we would be tweaking our set-up. the games will still be controlled by our AMs.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make originally: If we had a 20+ league goals per season striker, we won't be playing the current system and our midfield won't be scoring as many goals as now since less chances will be falling their way and more to the striker. So even though we'd change the system, it doesn't necessarily mean that the team as whole will score much more goals.

the team may not be scoring more goals as all this is hypothetical, but the last balls will be falling on the feet of the best goal-scorer in the team. so the probabilty increases that much more. right now, i would say RAMBO is our best finisher or rather someone i would like a 1v1 fall to. goes on to say a lot about our ST and CAMs

Swindon? Steaua? Those are league one level defenses that we'll barely a few times a season. I'm talking about the level of defenses that we would face on a regular basis. Plus Eto'o must have taken about 5-6 shots from distance against Steaua. So the 17 chances are by no means all clear-cut chances. The point is we are not creating enough chances for our strikers to expect them to score in every game. To compare, United, despite struggling in creating chances, have created 42 chances for their strikers this season in the league while Liverpool have created 20 chances for Sturridge alone.

i think u forgot everton and norwich among them too. dint u? at goodison park and carrow road they are a tough nut to crack. and by the way these will be the level of teams we will be playing against normally. infact everton's organization in goodison park might be one of the top10.

42 chances!!!!! what chances??? i have seen every united match. all i can say is welbeck missed a sitter against us, rvp missed one against sunderlan, and a couple against leverkusen but apart from that, i cant think of any sure-shot chances. if u think rvp putting his shoes thru a cross directed from young and valencia becomes a chance than i simply cant argue with that. compare that with the etoo chance or ba chance (rambo low cross) and u will know the difference.

[didierforever 7,349]

I was saying we didn't play the false 9 like the way it should be. Shurrle was moving to the flanks often and never moved deep into mid to receive passes. Never a false 9 set-up.

As for the second part, i was reiterating the need for an effecient striker.

false 9 is played in a number of ways. what jose wanted is pace upfront. he wanted united to commit their fullbacks (which they normanlly do) and then us to hit them hard on the counter. add to it rio's pace and u have a decent plan but we were poor on the day and united simply dint commit for the win.

no need to re-iterate. we all know the need and the want of a good striker.

[Jase 43,479]

Problems at Cardiff...

Malky Mackay under cloud as owner casts Cardiff City into disarray

[AndersonBLUE 819]

Might be to you, but not for me. Despise International football, horrible.

I don't get why people dislike internationals so much, it's not like the season will be any shorter or longer, and there is football during the summer every two years.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

I don't get why people dislike internationals so much, it's not like the season will be any shorter or longer, and there is football during the summer every two years.

Right now I hate the international break because it broke the momentum that we've built over the past couple of weeks which we could have really used going into the next few matches.

[AndersonBLUE 819]

Right now I hate the international break because it broke the momentum that we've built over the past couple of weeks which we could have really used going into the next few matches.

It could be said for all the other teams as well. It's interesting to see that most forum members dislike internationals though, I thoroughly enjoy them ^^

[kellzfresh 7,226]

It could be said for all the other teams as well. It's interesting to see that most forum members dislike internationals though, I thoroughly enjoy them ^^

I only like the actual competitions. I hate the schedule during club seasons.

[Magic Lamps 11,459]

All of that can be applied (in different levels) to Club Football as well!

In fact, the opposite is the case. In England, France, Spain, Germany, Italy and most european countries, we got infrastructure already. There is no event that completely levers out the economy. It is all highly commerzialized of course, but all the people can choose to participate or not. The stadiums are already there, there are no slums that have to be eradicated, no shops are forced to shut down during the game. It is all routine. The boards might be corrupted, but they have less to decide. The infrastructure is there, the competitions are already established, no need to promote them for the cost of human lives. For the WCs in Brazil and Qatar hundreds and thousands of people are made homeless, killed and enslaved. On the other hand decades of Premier League seasons have gone without anyone being harmed.

[Special Juan 27,104]

I don't get why people dislike internationals so much, it's not like the season will be any shorter or longer, and there is football during the summer every two years.

I just don't like it, period.

[Magic Lamps 11,459]

I don't get why people dislike internationals so much, it's not like the season will be any shorter or longer, and there is football during the summer every two years.

I'd rather waive football in summer when further human rights abuse is committed to provide it.

[meetdoscar 335]

Don't expect our midfield to come up with the same number of goals if we get a striker who will score 20+ league goals. We create a number of chances, and right now the vast majority fall to our midfielders. If they start to fall more to our striker, then the number of goals scored by our midfield will obviously decrease.

If you want the team to score more goals, you have to get the team to create more chances.

You are on point but this is what people don't understand with the lukaku loan, he is too young for a club like chelsea to depend on and trust constantly for goals at the highest level so he will not at the moment get as much goals as people expect in chelsea because we are not yet ready to play for lukaku despite most teams defending against us. We need strikers who can play for the team (which lukaku isn't ready to do or built for) until lukaku is ready for us to change our set up to suit him as a striker we will be able to trust hopefully. Falcao, messi, ronaldo, ibra, lewandowski are all trusted and prolific because their teams started playing to their strength. When CR7 was in manu and messi in his earlier days their teams did not play for them it was rather the opposite hence less goals for them.

Although with slight digress i agree with you. For now our strikers are not prolific so we need high scoring midfielders but when we have an experienced, trusted and prolific striker we can play for the striker to score hence less goals from midfield, hopefully that striker will be lukaku. So the need for the lukaku loan is more as a result of him needing more experience and playing time than for us having a young prolific centre forward on the bench who we are not yet ready to fully trust and play to his strength and who doesn't exactly fit into our current system hence will be less prolific and could have less confidence in himself.

[meetdoscar 335]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that (mind you I'm not agreeing with it all either), but it's kinda besides the original point which was that we are currently creating a certain amount of chances per game which won't be affected too much even if we had someone like Gomez leading our line. If you want a striker who scores every match you'll need to change the system and make most of the chances fall to him instead of falling to the AMs as is the case atm.

I agree. But even more so the chances have to be those that suit the strikers style(style of finishing) and that means playing to the strikers strength which isn't happening at chelsea because we don't have one we can trust and the one we hope to trust(lukaku) is still too young to engage pressure at the highest level e.g champions league knock-out stage.

[The only place to be 11,313]

You are on point but this is what people don't understand with the lukaku loan, he is too young

Here's where I stopped reading. We have a saying in this country, 'if you're good enough you're old enough'. Now you might mean he's not experienced enough, and you might have a point (although 150 first-team appearances and 20-odd international caps is not to be sniffed at) but age is just a number.

There are players five years older who aren't mature enough for this club to rely on, but I see no issue with his maturity. He seems an articulate, well-mannered young man who is dedicated to football. Again there are footballers who are maybe a decade older who don't exhibit the same level of dedication to their JOB that he does.

So this 'too young' thing is a load of bollocks in my opinion.

[Strike 6,975]

Absolutely, but it won't make a HUGE difference, imo. Which was one reason why I was against us spending ridiculous money like 50-60m for Falcao or even Cavani.

Last game was an exception because it was practically the first time our striker was the key man in our offensive game plan since DD left. When was the last time before that when a striker of ours got 4 clear cut chances against decent opposition? Torres had one half-chance against Spurs when Mikel played a long for him behind the defense but his control let him down. Even against Steaua who were shit, Eto'o barely had two chances.

Yes, getting better strikers will increase our overall goals because obviously they'll (hopefully) take their chances better, but it won't be a huge difference, imo.

It'll make a difference in the big games. Ofcourse, chance-creation is important but with Oscar as our main goal outlet, we won't win much. Against tough opposition, the team creates very few chances to begin with and our strikers pass them up. Maybe a world class forward was not needed but atleast someone like Mandzukic, Negredo, who can be a handful and take chances up front was enough.

[kellzfresh 7,226]

It'll make a difference in the big games. Ofcourse, chance-creation is important but with Oscar as our main goal outlet, we won't win much. Against tough opposition, the team creates very few chances to begin with and our strikers pass them up. Maybe a world class forward was not needed but atleast someone like Mandzukic, Negredo, who can be a handful and take chances up front was enough.

I wish we got negredo. For 25 million, his movement reminds me of aguero and negredo is very good in the air.