The Conte Thread

[El P. 1,354]

13 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

 

No, Chelsea went back to the top after a poor start because of Conte and that glorious winning streak, not because others were poor. You don't get to win 13 on the bounce, score 30+ goals and keep 10 clean sheets in the process just because "others were just not good enough".

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

[petre.ispirescu 4,928]

1 hour ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Listen mate I do respect your opinion, but from my point of view last season was totally different than how you see it. Chelsea was the first top-flight team in history to win 30 games in a 38-game season and only one game away from breaking that record for wins in a row. Still, Chelsea is tied with Arsenal at 13. This has nothing to do with the opposition being weak IMHO. 

I would agree with you and anybody who would say that Chelsea had a massive advantage of not playing European nights. Lots of rest and time on the training ground for Conte to work on his drills and implement his style of play. 

But honestly, a league consisting of Guardiola at City, Mourinho at United assembling the most expensive squad in football history, Klopp at Liverpool and one of the best teams that Tottenham has ever had is no weak stuff if you ask me.

City with Mark Hughes, United with Moyes, Liverpool with Hodgson or Dalglish, the Spurs team of some years ago, yes that is weak opposition, but not now when you have a plethora of world class managers at the big clubs and a highly talented, stubborn, firing from all cylinders Spurs.

The way you put it then every season you can dismiss the league winners and say they've won it because they had no competition. Does not work like this for me to be honest. 

The City match was the last one from a series of 7 matches in 21 days, I know they are pro athletes, but still, it's no easy job to play a Guardiola team after a match against Stoke away from home and one in Madrid, having only a day to rest and prepare the match. Whereas City played relegation fodder Palace and Shakhtar, both at home.

You win some, you lose some. Our title rivals still have to play against each other, too. City won't play Huddersfield every week, nor will United batter Palace week in, week out. Plenty of time for the big teams to swap position between each other at the top of the table until May.

[Jase 43,479]

3 hours ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Christ! If you're suddenly gonna find fault with last season's achievement after one bad loss, then you might as well do it for every trophy we've won.

[El P. 1,354]

22 hours ago, Tomo said:

Not saying you don't have a point (atleast about City, im still to be convinced United have the staying power over 38 games Jose's second season or not) but why are you comparing City's two star signing's to two of our squad fillers? I could counter that by comparing Morata and Bakayoko to Danilo and Douglas Luiz.

Reason is obvious - Morata and Bakayoko are replacements for Costa and Matić, not really an improvements in our squad (maybe they will be some day, but not now). Walker and Mendy ARE clear improvements, they had Sagna, Clichy, Kolarov etc. I know what I'm talking about.

@Jason I am not doing that after this loss, I have done it since last season actually. I repeat, I think we've done really good last season. But not great. City or United could play and do better than we did last season, if any of them continue to play like they are now. They don't even need to win 90+ points to prove that, they have tougher opponents compared to what we had last season and are playing Europe.

[Leif 6,006]

Us winning the league last season was like when a boxer comes out of retirement & isn't expected to do anything significant due to his age. Yet, he ends up winning a title belt, because the quality of opponents have dropped so dramatically since he was in his prime.
But that's not a measure of how good that title-winning boxer is; it's a measure of how bad the general competition has become at that point. That was our scenario.

Now our scenario is different. It's more dangerous.
The quality of opponent has returned to normal, but the old boxer still considers himself good enough since he just won a belt last season. Well, the big boys aren't fighting while sick anymore, and the rookies are no longer rookies. He'll be losing that belt.

It's also like being a boxer second-in-line for a title shot, but the guy first-in-line for that title shot, Mike Tyson, ended up getting malaria. So, he was weak all year, and we became the new #1 contender in his place, the new favourite, without earning it, simply because the real showstopper wasn't at full strength.

 

[Jase 43,479]

5 hours ago, El P. said:

@Jason I am not doing that after this loss, I have done it since last season actually. I repeat, I think we've done really good last season. But not great. City or United could play and do better than we did last season, if any of them continue to play like they are now. They don't even need to win 90+ points to prove that, they have tougher opponents compared to what we had last season and are playing Europe.

Every league season is different and to start comparing each team's achievement is just plain silly. How can you tell City/United have tougher opponents when the season is only 7 matches old? Would you say they are lucky if only those two challenged for the title come end of the season? We are still seeking consistency. Can't be sure what you're gonna get with Arsenal and Liverpool and god knows where Spurs will be if their Wembley issue continues. As much as it's great that the Premier League have 6 teams - on paper - that can win the title, there was never any season where all six were in it (or even 3-4), was there? There has always been only two - three on the rare occasion. You can only beat what's in front of you and do your job and if you end up 1st after 38 games, then you deserve to win the league, based on merit as well as consistency over the course of a season, not because of weak competition.

[communicate 2,703]

22 hours ago, El P. said:

If others weren't that poor, that winning streak wouldn't have happened. City was really poor in that 3:1 game, missing an open net to seal the game and conceding 3 from 3 shots, United in that 4:0 too, they were all over the place. Those would never happen again. That second half of a season showed different picture - United and Spurs dominated us and won the games.

Others were poor, no shame in admitting that, our biggest opponent was Tottenham and that says a lot. They played better than us in our encounters too.

I love that season, don't get me wrong, and think we did great. Also, consider we had massive luck with no injuries and there was no European games. Lot of things went our way in that period.

You can't win league if you don't dominate in at least half of those "big games". We didn't really dominate but we somehow won those games last season, yes, because others weren't good enough.

Saying that the others were poor last season is crazy. Do you realize we scored 93 points last year. 

But nobody with clear mind will say that we had better squad compare to united, spurs,arsenal and city last year.

So this season two teams with the best squad from last season (the two manchester squad)spend far more compare to the rest of the teams. So of course they are going to be better.

 

Losing to city after playing tough game against Atletico Away with one day less rest is not a shame result at all. People say we should have played moses. Maybe but Wb is the most demanding position in this team, to play the same player 3 straight games in one week will be tough for a wb. You can see fatigue in our team, Hamstring problem usually happen when muscle is overworked which I think the case for Morata who hasn't played regularly in his previous club.

[Leif 6,006]

Man City had their worst defence of their modern era last season, while United had their worst attacking output of their modern era last season. 

Arsenal perhaps had their worst season of the modern era last season, full stop.

It was just us and Tottenham; little Tottenham; and they played the better football too. If United didn't bend over, and Man City weren't shambolic at the back, we'd end the season level with Tottenham, them with the better goal difference. This is more a sign of failure from others, than a success of ours. Winning the title while scoring less goals than, and playing worse football than the next best, is like winning a boxing match by default due to the opponent revealing a severe arthritis in round 10, saying he can't go on, after having you beat every single round beforehand. You walk away with the title, not because you're great. But because, at the end, the opponent was in a poor state. A title's a title, but this one feels more hollow than the rest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Premier League and its top dogs have never been weaker. Otherwise, they wouldn't lose the title to Chelsea, with the new manager, with barely any new players, following a shambolic season of their own, relying on 1 striker. Not forgetting, these same apparently-not-poor teams, missed out to damn Leicester the season before, and that was without having to deal with us. 

Man City could make it 3 seasons without a significant trophy this time. I can't remember United's last PL title win. Tottenham are bottlers and will probably never win it. And these teams remain toothless in Europe, too.
So it's not like we beat an on-form Atletico Madrid, Juventus and PSG to the title last season. We must be more critical when we measure how much quality we actually have. And we can't measure ourselves against the muts around us. Measure us against the pure-breds elsewhere in Europe.

 

[the wes 7,212]

 

[OhForAGreavsie 5,890]

8 hours ago, Leif said:

Man City had their worst defence of their modern era last season, while United had their worst attacking output of their modern era last season. 

Arsenal perhaps had their worst season of the modern era last season, full stop.

It was just us and Tottenham; little Tottenham; and they played the better football too. If United didn't bend over, and Man City weren't shambolic at the back, we'd end the season level with Tottenham, them with the better goal difference. This is more a sign of failure from others, than a success of ours. Winning the title while scoring less goals than, and playing worse football than the next best, is like winning a boxing match by default due to the opponent revealing a severe arthritis in round 10, saying he can't go on, after having you beat every single round beforehand. You walk away with the title, not because you're great. But because, at the end, the opponent was in a poor state. A title's a title, but this one feels more hollow than the rest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't list 1 worse Man City/Arsenal season that there's been since they've been at the top. It was their worst seasons as we know it.
United were a 6th-place team 2 or even 3 seasons running. They too were poor.

The Premier League and its top dogs have never been weaker. Otherwise, they wouldn't lose the title to Chelsea, with the new manager, with barely any new players, following a shambolic season of their own, relying on 1 striker. Not forgetting, these same apparently-not-poor teams, missed out to damn Leicester the season before, and that was without having to deal with us. 

Man City could make it 3 seasons without a significant trophy this time. I can't remember United's last PL title win. Tottenham are bottlers and will probably never win it. And these teams remain toothless in Europe, too.
So it's not like we beat an on-form Atletico Madrid, Juventus and PSG to the title last season. We must be more critical when we measure how much quality we actually have. And we can't measure ourselves against the muts around us. Measure us against the pure-breds elsewhere in Europe.

 

Can’t argue with you about much of this. 

We win trophies frequently but the mentality and spirit Jose brought to the club thirteen and a bit years ago always plays as big a part in those triumphs as does the outright talent of our players. Those attributes are now being shaped by Antonio’s own brand of brilliance, but Chelsea’s reliance on this, and on the failings of our competitors, cannot go on.

We simply have to address our quality deficit, and must try to begin doing so in January. Stating this requirement is the easy part however. Making it happen is a different matter. The difficulties, including the fact that high calibre  players are in no hurry to join us, are well known but solutions have to be found.

On a brighter note, I’m on my way to watch the ladies play Bayern in the European Cup. Based on recent history their chances aren’t good but surely they’ll produce a less frustrating display than the men did on Saturday. Good luck girls. 

[Tomo 21,733]

9 hours ago, Leif said:

Man City had their worst defence of their modern era last season, while United had their worst attacking output of their modern era last season. 

Arsenal perhaps had their worst season of the modern era last season, full stop.

It was just us and Tottenham; little Tottenham; and they played the better football too. If United didn't bend over, and Man City weren't shambolic at the back, we'd end the season level with Tottenham, them with the better goal difference. This is more a sign of failure from others, than a success of ours. Winning the title while scoring less goals than, and playing worse football than the next best, is like winning a boxing match by default due to the opponent revealing a severe arthritis in round 10, saying he can't go on, after having you beat every single round beforehand. You walk away with the title, not because you're great. But because, at the end, the opponent was in a poor state. A title's a title, but this one feels more hollow than the rest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't list 1 worse Man City/Arsenal season that there's been since they've been at the top. It was their worst seasons as we know it.
United were a 6th-place team 2 or even 3 seasons running. They too were poor.

The Premier League and its top dogs have never been weaker. Otherwise, they wouldn't lose the title to Chelsea, with the new manager, with barely any new players, following a shambolic season of their own, relying on 1 striker. Not forgetting, these same apparently-not-poor teams, missed out to damn Leicester the season before, and that was without having to deal with us. 

Man City could make it 3 seasons without a significant trophy this time. I can't remember United's last PL title win. Tottenham are bottlers and will probably never win it. And these teams remain toothless in Europe, too.
So it's not like we beat an on-form Atletico Madrid, Juventus and PSG to the title last season. We must be more critical when we measure how much quality we actually have. And we can't measure ourselves against the muts around us. Measure us against the pure-breds elsewhere in Europe.

 

With that logic we could pick apart any title win, including the back to back titles under Jose the first time.

[LDN Blue 7,903]

7 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

We simply have to address our quality deficit, and must try to begin doing so in January. Stating this requirement is the easy part however. Making it happen is a different matter. The difficulties, including the fact that high calibre  players are in no hurry to join us, are well known but solutions have to be found.

Nothing is happening in January. We're short term philosophy and will only address the situation in the summer depending on what the damage is from this season. It will be the worst time, post World Cup with little time to implement with god knows who as our manager. 

It's the consequence we live with but you've alluded to it anyway. This is how we win trophies, it's a frustrating model but it's tedious to keep complaining about it now when we've seen it cyclical over the last 14 years. 

I don't actually think our team is that bad. We have some obvious shortcomings from this transfer window, no doubt, but we're still competitive enough to be finishing top 4 and have a decent push in the CL. The loss versus City was more down to Pep finally getting it right against Conte but that's tactical battle that can go either way in any given match between those 2. Only 6 points off top place, topping our CL group so far. 

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

I know that performance against City was terrible, but I think that the mid-week match had a huge toll.  It was the toughest test of the group and we were brilliant.  They worked their socks off in that match.  Then, they returned on Thursday morning and match Saturday.  We had our moments early, but after Morata went off, I figure Conte would be happy with a point, and maybe try to steal all 3 on the counter with Willian and Hazard.  Didn't work, obviously.

I thought that this was a pretty good analysis of the match:  

 

 

[communicate 2,703]

17 hours ago, OhForAGreavsie said:

Can’t argue with you about much of this. 

We win trophies frequently but the mentality and spirit Jose brought to the club thirteen and a bit years ago always plays as big a part in those triumphs as does the outright talent of our players. Those attributes are now being shaped by Antonio’s own brand of brilliance, but Chelsea’s reliance on this, and on the failings of our competitors, cannot go on.

We simply have to address our quality deficit, and must try to begin doing so in January. Stating this requirement is the easy part however. Making it happen is a different matter. The difficulties, including the fact that high calibre  players are in no hurry to join us, are well known but solutions have to be found.

On a brighter note, I’m on my way to watch the ladies play Bayern in the European Cup. Based on recent history their chances aren’t good but surely they’ll produce a less frustrating display than the men did on Saturday. Good luck girls. 

The problem in term of quality deficit is not just on our side, for me it is more the fact that the two teams that have the best squad last year spend far the most money. If this continue, it will be difficult to close the gap.

We all know that we need upgrade on wb the same as city. City then spent 120 m on fb alone without selling anybody, whereas we can only get zappacosta.

The same with united, they need a dm and a CF. They signed lukaku for 75 m + a 29 years old DM for 40 m.

 

[LDN Blue 7,903]

11 hours ago, Sideshow Luiz said:

I know that performance against City was terrible

Were we terrible? I'd say we were worst against Arsenal in the 0-0 than we were in the 1-0 loss to City. Read Zonal Marking's analysis of the tactical battle than ensued at SB. I believe it was more of a case of Guardiola surprising us and getting it on point with his use of Delph, Silva, De Bryune & Walker. It's not like we didn't have chances, Alonso & Azpi were getting the run ins on Delph & Walker sometimes but our passing accuracy was highly lacking unfortunately. 

It's like I said before. Conte v Pep is a very interesting tactical battle, they're both adaptable but as stubborn as each other.. An interesting paradox. But it means one usually gets it right over the other. We got it right twice last season, only team to do City home & away. This game could've gone in any direction. 1-1, 2-0 to them or even 1-0 to us.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

11 hours ago, LDN Blue said:

Were we terrible? I'd say we were worst against Arsenal in the 0-0 than we were in the 1-0 loss to City. Read Zonal Marking's analysis of the tactical battle than ensued at SB. I believe it was more of a case of Guardiola surprising us and getting it on point with his use of Delph, Silva, De Bryune & Walker. It's not like we didn't have chances, Alonso & Azpi were getting the run ins on Delph & Walker sometimes but our passing accuracy was highly lacking unfortunately. 

It's like I said before. Conte v Pep is a very interesting tactical battle, they're both adaptable but as stubborn as each other.. An interesting paradox. But it means one usually gets it right over the other. We got it right twice last season, only team to do City home & away. This game could've gone in any direction. 1-1, 2-0 to them or even 1-0 to us.

I thought we were pretty terrible, toss up as to which match was worse, IMO.

[Blusan Alamb 295]

 

[the wes 7,212]

Claudio Ranieri backs Antonio Conte to remain in charge of Chelsea: 'I'm not convinced by his homesickness'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-4966324/Ranieri-not-convinced-Antonio-Conte-s-homesickness.html