Jump to content

Stoke 1-1 Chelsea


Jase
 Share

Man of the Match  

54 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

Against West Ham we showed great spirit, vs Stoke we played very well and created many chances.

Even when we are creating some chances they are all flukes, improvised by the players in the moment. We play no consistent patterns, no one-twos, no nothing. Players are too far from each other when in possession meaning no shapes are formed to combine past pressing and defenses. How often do we see some player trying to make a run for it only for our brilliant players to completely ignore it and pass sideways. That's why we don't score open play goals, the offensive coaching is very primitive (can't use the pass-to-Hazard-and-see-what-happens tactic anymore because the guy isn't producing).

Oscar pissed me off. He is supposed to be the passer among the wooden legs, but he doesn't know what a through ball is these days or when he remembers, he lacks the skill or brain to pull off what look to be simple passes forward (not fucking sideways to a static Zouma. Kenedy or whoever was overlapping all night long). Fabregas is shit, but as a playmaker/passer he is 100x better than Oscar even in his worst form.

We are facing the grim reality of our players being simply not good enough. Last year they got some kind of mental boost from whatever Mou did, but this year we are seeing how much they actually can do when shit hits the fan and there is no-one to bail them out. Used to be Hazard, but even he is human and cannot carry this bunch on his own for years and years. He needs help in a difficult situation. Mourinho has repeatedly hinted that this group is weak mentally and it is true. I'm not sure they will respond to rough handling. We need a sports psychologist in the team (if we don't have one already) and an attacking coach (if we do have one, then sack him and hire Ten Cate or whoever).

There are three possible options. Either the players are complete morons and cannot apply what they practice in training in a game, or they do apply and the problem isn't the players. Or we are simply cursed, going paranormal for unexplainable might be the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't get to watch the match but I hear that yet again we deserved to win, and we found our attacking football in the locker again.

I didn't see the 1st half, but what attacking game judging by 2nd half and ET? Yes we were attacking more because we were chasing the game obivously, but we were clueless in the final third yet again. Our only goal came from a scrappy corner situation and we couldn't put one past 10 men, one of whom was injured and limping for the last ~5 minutes. Never threatened their box, mostly hopeful long shots. 1st half must have been fantastic if anybody can say it was a good performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We play no consistent patterns, no one-twos, no nothing.

That's what really bothers me (and im jelous of constant one-twos plays by City, especially with Silva on) - our pattern in attack is waiting for defence error, when some of our player is left without marking. However when it happens other players are already marked well and this player is isolated in attack and usually ends in bad dribbling, or pass to the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st half was very good, 2nd half okay, ET terrible. Since we couldn't score for half an hour against a 10 men Stoke we didn't deserve to win on penalties.

Define 'very good'. I didn't watch the first half but have seen a lot of people say the same thing as you there. Any past performances you can use as reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define 'very good'. I didn't watch the first half but have seen a lot of people say the same thing as you there. Any past performances you can use as reference?

For me our two best performances this season were 1st half against Arsenal and 1st half last night against Stoke.

Very good in terms of overall attacking play, with a few clear cut chances chances created from open play, plenty of good passing and runs in behind their back line.. Improvement was definitely there to see, but it stopped in the second half and especially ET when we became shit again. Even defensively we were decent in the 1st half.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define 'very good'. I didn't watch the first half but have seen a lot of people say the same thing as you there. Any past performances you can use as reference?

Pressing was good, aerial duels were mostly won I think, high energy level all over the pitch. Everyone looked in control of the ball (even Ramires), passing was positive and good, the players were moving intelligently causing Stoke all kinds of problems. Costa was particularly good, he wasn't fighting with the ball. In fact, he looked as in control as he ever will. Mikel was surprisingly good as well. Hazard and Willian were leading the troops.

The final pass was lacking though and you can't ignore that. But then again, creating clear-cut chances was always an issue. Ramires wasted a brilliant opportunity after a Baba through pass (Baba was offside when he received the ball but don't tell the conspiracy theorists). I have a hard time remembering another golden opportunity. The rest were more half chances.

Stoke was poor but you could argue Chelsea made them look weak. They created a great chance after some beautiful play right before half-time but I think they only slightly threatened at times before that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define 'very good'. I didn't watch the first half but have seen a lot of people say the same thing as you there. Any past performances you can use as reference?

In the first half it looked like the Chelsea of old.

Fast running, four or five good chances, we should have gone ahead really.

Not so in the second half, even before their goal - we were down physically.

In the ET some good chances again -against 10 men now- but again no penetration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first half it looked like the Chelsea of old.

Fast running, four or five good chances, we should have gone ahead really.

Not so in the second half, even before their goal - we were down physically.

In the ET some good chances again -against 10 men now- but again no penetration.

that was pretty much how I saw it as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first half it looked like the Chelsea of old.

Fast running, four or five good chances, we should have gone ahead really.

Not so in the second half, even before their goal - we were down physically.

In the ET some good chances again -against 10 men now- but again no penetration.

The second half was definitely not so good. We didn't really create too much. Lacked penetration, which has been the story for some time. Our best chance of scoring these days is from a set piece. The last time we actually scored some good goals in game was against West Brom and that was in August!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...