Super Frank Thread

[killer1257 3,282]

Funny thing is, Lampard supposedly doesn't even see Kante as a defensive midfielder.

He sees Kante as a defensive midfielder in double 6 alongside another DM. Kante is not a lone defensive midfielder like Makelele used to be.

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

[Unionjack 7,531]

We cant go on about ex managers. Whats the point?

We all knew FL had not got enough managerial experience when he came yet many still thought Lamps the player legend would be the same as FL the trainee manager.

When he started out OK we was losing shit home games when we shouldnt but that style of play gave me hope and thought just some top defenders and touch of experience and world class and we are sorted.

But hes fucked about with everything so much I think hes confused himself! And us!

I gotta admit HE worries me as much as Kepa right now but I will wait n see what he does when all the lads are fit and able to play. 

One thing I hope I dont see for awhile is Mason on the wing.

[Jase 43,479]

4 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

You and I remember the UEFA super cup and both the league games against Liverpool very differently if you think that we played them on the counter. 

https://www.skysports.com/football/chelsea-vs-liverpool/408033

I dont think a team on the counter can possibly have more possession than the aggressor But we did against pool at bridge

https://www.uefa.com/uefasupercup/match/2025638--liverpool-vs-chelsea/statistics/?iv=true

52% to 48% possession in super cup 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/53412782

50 to 50 possession at anfield

So exactly on what basis are you saying that we played on the counter? 

Just because we ended up with more possession, it didn't mean we didn't play on the break or tried to do so. Moreover, we shaded only slightly more than 50% of the possession. As I said, it's all about the attacking intent when we did get the ball. We made it work back then.

Also, the game at Anfield was a bit of an anomaly given how crazy that game turned out but that game plus the one at home, we were never going to just continue sitting back while trailing, were we? We went 2-0 down at home last season but we threw caution out of the window and similarly at Anfield, we did that once Pulisic single handedly got us back into the game. Only normal if we ended up with (slightly) more possession because we had to go for it.

13 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

The difference between mount and willian is the ball carrying and the burst of pace. Mount is a brilliant player, but expecting him to do what willian has done is just wrong. Hell, Mount is not even a winger. WIllian's dribbling and burst of pace really set us apart on the counters. Mount was basically played as a 4th CM to give Werner the freedom. Also, werner played a good/great game, but Puli on the wing was different class on the wings. So the gulf in options is massive to what we had last season. 

Then why no CHO then when he is our only available winger right now? Furthermore, we are so super reliant on ball carriers in such games and can't find a way to play around this problem, then we are fucked.

14 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

AS for the last part, agree to disagree. What was Liverpool's threat? What exactly did they do or create in the first half other than the long ball which resulted in the red. It was a cagey half. Where we had the most of oppurtunities - werner 1v1 against fabinho (puli is scoring that btw), werner left footed shot just wide, mount plays Kante in, but he pulled it back (for whatever reason). It was a game plan which was working and working well, until another individual blunder(s) screwed us up.

We did the defending part well but my point is, what did we do going the other way? Werner 1 v 1 as in the one he cut inside onto his right foot? If so, then there's no guarantee Pulisic wouldn't have done the same considering he also prefers to cut inside onto his right foot. Mount played Kante in? When was that? I remember Havertz set Kante up in the first half for a shot but that was a near half chance at best. All in all, that is what...3 chances you mentioned and not all were even clear cut. 

And again, I've yet to see a justification of playing Havertz upfront and then just lumping long balls onto him to win against Van Dijk.

[NikkiCFC 7,582]

So Giroud started last season as 3rd striker. Was out of the team for like 6 months. Then he became 2nd striker over Michy and finished the season as a 1st striker and scoring in almost every game. Without him no chance we would get CL football. He saved us!

And now after all great games he is back to where he was. 3rd striker. What message Frank is sending here? 

Like many said yesterday was perfect game for him. Werner LW, CHO RW and Kai AM. It is clear that this team would do much better. 

Last season he scored twice against Liverpool and was great in 2:0 Cup game. 

In 5:3 loss we started with Willian and Mount wide and they were shit. We became instantly much better team when he introduced real fast wingers in Pulisic and CHO. And he learned nothing from that since he did the same mistake again. Frank is so weird with his lineups. 

 

[Jase 43,479]

25 minutes ago, Unionjack said:

One thing I hope I dont see for awhile is Mason on the wing.

I suspect this will be a regular occurrence unless Pulisic and Ziyech can stay fit and CHO shows his worth.

[Puliiszola 519]

21 minutes ago, Jason said:

Just because we ended up with more possession, it didn't mean we didn't play on the break or tried to do so. Moreover, we shaded only slightly more than 50% of the possession. As I said, it's all about the attacking intent when we did get the ball. We made it work back then.

Also, the game at Anfield was a bit of an anomaly given how crazy that game turned out but that game plus the one at home, we were never going to just continue sitting back while trailing, were we? We went 2-0 down at home last season but we threw caution out of the window and similarly at Anfield, we did that once Pulisic single handedly got us back into the game. Only normal if we ended up with (slightly) more possession because we had to go for it.

Then why no CHO then when he is our only available winger right now? Furthermore, we are so super reliant on ball carriers in such games and can't find a way to play around this problem, then we are fucked.

We did the defending part well but my point is, what did we do going the other way? Werner 1 v 1 as in the one he cut inside onto his right foot? If so, then there's no guarantee Pulisic wouldn't have done the same considering he also prefers to cut inside onto his right foot. Mount played Kante in? When was that? I remember Havertz set Kante up in the first half for a shot but that was a near half chance at best. All in all, that is what...3 chances you mentioned and not all were even clear cut. 

And again, I've yet to see a justification of playing Havertz upfront and then just lumping long balls onto him to win against Van Dijk.

Well Liverpool had the possession just a shade above 50 too, so they were also on the counter? Infact if you average the possesion of the 3 games (55,48,50), we average more than them. We did have attacking intent. 

If not possession, then lets look at attempts,

UEFA cup: Chelsea 21 Liverpool 20

Bridge: Chelsea 13 Pool 6

Anfield: Chelsea 10 pool 10

Thats a combined 44 shots vs 36 of Pool. With more possession. What are you basing your opinion on exactly? 

Because swapping CHO for mount would have meant that our FBs would have been left exposed. Mount made it a 4-4-2 with him covering RJ, something that CHO would not have been able to give us. Plus even I dont think CHO would have got more out of robertson to give him a start and expose the flanks. We nullified there biggest weapons (FBs) who had a record number of combined assists from FBs last year. 

We did far more on the other end that Liverpool did at our end, is not that the point in a big game.

1. Werner 1v1

2. Werner Shot.

3. Mount playing Kante in. I am sure someone can find a link to that. Mount probably should have taken the shot himself. 

3 great positions vs 0 from Liverpool (one of the best attacking sides in the world right now). I would take it. Specially since all the hoopla that FL cant teach his team to "Defend". Now that he has done, we are still ridiculing him. 

This was not the 1st time Kai has played a false 9 or a RW. He played those positions around 20 games just last season. Again, the point was go 4-4-2 in defence, and counter with Kai and werner linking up. We did that a couple of times. Hoof ball was because of the pool press. Its not as easy as people would have you believe to beat the pool press. City have failed multiple time, barca got annhilated 4-0.  

[Unionjack 7,531]

Just now, Jason said:

I suspect this will be a regular occurrence unless Pulisic and Ziyech can stay fit and CHO shows his worth.

Well we put Werner on LW and use a striker. Its Ziyech We know Puli needs a good dose of regular steroids and raw meat but I want Ziyech staying fit.
We now have the chance of our FBs joining up with the 'wingers' We have a good ballance for a change.

[communicate 2,703]

56 minutes ago, killer1257 said:

If we get Declan Rice, we will play very much like Mou and Conte because Rice and Kante will play alongside each other, so two defensive midfielders.



Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk
 

And that is a problem why? 

[Jase 43,479]

17 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

Well Liverpool had the possession just a shade above 50 too, so they were also on the counter? Infact if you average the possesion of the 3 games (55,48,50), we average more than them. We did have attacking intent. 

If not possession, then lets look at attempts,

UEFA cup: Chelsea 21 Liverpool 20

Bridge: Chelsea 13 Pool 6

Anfield: Chelsea 10 pool 10

Thats a combined 44 shots vs 36 of Pool. With more possession. What are you basing your opinion on exactly? 

I did not say we did not have any attacking intent in those games. We did.

Also and again, the possession stats you used is skewed. We needed to chase the game after falling behind in 2 of those games, so it was only natural that we would end up with more possession.

17 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

Because swapping CHO for mount would have meant that our FBs would have been left exposed. Mount made it a 4-4-2 with him covering RJ, something that CHO would not have been able to give us. Plus even I dont think CHO would have got more out of robertson to give him a start and expose the flanks. We nullified there biggest weapons (FBs) who had a record number of combined assists from FBs last year. 

We definitely played 4-3-3 and not 4-4-2.

Moreover, putting Mount, who is not a winger, just to track Robertson back kinda screams inferiority complex, doesn't it? One could argue that if we had maybe CHO on the RW, it might force Robertson back because we had an attacking threat going the other way. 

17 minutes ago, Puliiszola said:

This was not the 1st time Kai has played a false 9 or a RW. He played those positions around 20 games just last season. Again, the point was go 4-4-2 in defence, and counter with Kai and werner linking up. We did that a couple of times. Hoof ball was because of the pool press. Its not as easy as people would have you believe to beat the pool press. City have failed multiple time, barca got annhilated 4-0.  

Yesterday wasn't the first time Havertz played as the False 9 but I don't think he has been used like a target man before, expecting to win headers against defenders like Van Dijk from long balls. Sure, we played long balls because of Liverpool's pressing but we knew that. We knew Liverpool press opposing teams. So why didn't we play someone like Giroud instead? He may lack Havertz's speed and mobility but given what we tried to do, he would have been able to hold the ball up better and give more physical presence upfront than Havertz. 

[NikkiCFC 7,582]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

I suspect this will be a regular occurrence unless Pulisic and Ziyech can stay fit and CHO shows his worth.

You sound like Frank picks Mount because of his football abilities. 

We would probably need to wait a couple of decades more to find out in some memoirs real truth. 

I also don't buy this defensive part narrative. 

Mount and Willian last season were at fault for some goals we conceded. 

I don't recall the same with Pulisic or CHO. 

 

[Jase 43,479]

1 minute ago, NikkiCFC said:

You sound like Frank picks Mount because of his football abilities. 

We would probably need to wait a couple of decades more to find out in some memoirs real truth. 

I also don't buy this defensive part narrative. 

Mount and Willian last season were at fault for some goals we conceded. 

I don't recall the same with Pulisic or CHO. 

I only said that because Lampard will seemingly play Mount whenever he's fit and available to play. If the others play to their best of their abilities, then Lampard would have little excuse not to play them ahead of Mount, especially on the wings.

[Strike 6,961]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

I only said that because Lampard will seemingly play Mount whenever he's fit and available to play. If the others play to their best of their abilities, then Lampard would have little excuse not to play them ahead of Mount, especially on the wings.

This.

I worry a Tomori situation is developing with CHO. Would love to know more about why he has hardly got any minutes since restart.

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

It's about the bigger picture here. I shared the post with you just now but what has happened to the style of play that Lampard tried to implement this time last season? The one that saw us wanting to play on the front foot, press the opposition, dominate possession and the opposition. We have seemingly moved away from that at the start of the year. 

Again, you draw this conclusion from only two matches? Without Pulisic and Willian? Against the champ where we played pretty solid until one man down? It’s an infinite loop I guess just agree to disagree.

[Puliiszola 519]

19 minutes ago, Jason said:

I did not say we did not have any attacking intent in those games. We did.

Also and again, the possession stats you used is skewed. We needed to chase the game after falling behind in 2 of those games, so it was only natural that we would end up with more possession.

We definitely played 4-3-3 and not 4-4-2.

Moreover, putting Mount, who is not a winger, just to track Robertson back kinda screams inferiority complex, doesn't it? One could argue that if we had maybe CHO on the RW, it might force Robertson back because we had an attacking threat going the other way. 

Yesterday wasn't the first time Havertz played as the False 9 but I don't think he has been used like a target man before, expecting to win headers against defenders like Van Dijk from long balls. Sure, we played long balls because of Liverpool's pressing but we knew that. We knew Liverpool press opposing teams. So why didn't we play someone like Giroud instead? He may lack Havertz's speed and mobility but given what we tried to do, he would have been able to hold the ball up better and give more physical presence upfront than Havertz. 

Super cup, we did not go behind early - equal possession. At bridge even the first half and before the pool goal, we were playing great. I remember mount had scored just before the pool goal only to be cancelled out by VAR for offside. So it definitely was not a case of we just woke up after they scored.

We shifted from 4-3-3 to 4-4-2 within the game. When we were defending, we definitely made it a point to have 2 banks of 4. 

Its not inferiority complex, its basic common sense. We had alonso on one wing against salah, he needed cover from the wing. RJ was quite good defensively, but its not his best characteristic. And thats how you stop the opposition. By nullifying their threats. There is only so much pure defending, even the best of defenders can do. Its the setup which defines the pattern of play. And ours seemed to be quite spot on by FL.

[Jase 43,479]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

Again, you draw this conclusion from only two matches? Without Pulisic and Willian? Against the champ where we played pretty solid until one man down? It’s an infinite loop I guess just agree to disagree.

What does implementing a new playing style has to do with just the two games this season? Lampard has been in the job for a over year, hence why I said it's about the bigger picture here. We should be seeing a defined style, his ideas embedded into the team.

Do you see someone like Man City change their style of play to something else when some players are out? If we keep on changing ours because some players are out, then we are fucked and will get nowhere.

Also, we need to stop mentioning Willian because he is gone for good and especially when most were happy to see him gone. 

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

What does implementing a new playing style has to do with just the two games this season? Lampard has been in the job for a over year, hence why I said it's about the bigger picture here. We should be seeing a defined style, his ideas embedded into the team.
Do you see someone like Man City change their style of play to something else when some players are out? If we keep on changing ours because some players are out, then we are fucked and will get nowhere.
Also, we need to stop mentioning Willian because he is gone for good and especially when most were happy to see him gone. 

So for two matches only you can definitely see he’s changing our style? Ironically that’s not very big picture I’ll say.
Of course Man City will change their style of play from playing against Fulham with full squad to playing against Bayern with key players missing.

[OneMoSalah 8,614]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

So for two matches only you can definitely see he’s changing our style? Ironically that’s not very big picture I’ll say.
Of course Man City will change their style of play from playing against Fulham with full squad to playing against Bayern with key players missing.

Your missing the point. Blatantly. Was Lampard only appointed 2 matches ago? No. He has had a full season to implement a structure and playing style. First half of last season it was obvious to see what we were doing and since then it hasnt been clear to see what we are trying to do. You dont buy 200mn on players a season after being appointed and try change your style, you buy the players to fit into your structure and playing style that you should have previously put in place. 

When has Guardiola ever changed his playing style even for personnel issues? Hasn’t done that anywhere. Even at Bayern he was taking over a top team who won a treble playing a more aggressive style of football that was different to his own but instead of adapting and taking some things from it, he kept his style and even when getting beat by Real in the CL in humiliating fashion as well as never making it to the finals with them, didnt change. Even at City year 1 they played the same way he has always done even with Zabaleta and Kolarov as full backs and while they got killed defensively at times he kept his style to implement it and improved his squad next season with players who fit his style. He’s not a manager who adapts his philosophy if he has missing players or not the right players, City without Aguero or Sterling or Rodri or De Bruyne etc still play the exact same way. If you don’t see that then I don’t know, couldn’t have picked a worse example of someone who’s playing style is so set and will be the same at every club. 

Even then look at Klopp at Liverpool and even Pochettino at Spurs after a year you seen what they were trying to do, it wasn’t perfect but the structure was in place and it was so clear to see. Then they bought better quality players to fit the playing style which enhances the performance levels. If you cant see why people are concerned or have said about the playing style and how unobvious it is to see what sort of team we are building towards you can't have been watching too many of our games since December last year. 

[Jase 43,479]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

So for two matches only you can definitely see he’s changing our style? Ironically that’s not very big picture I’ll say.

Oh for fuck sake! The point is Lampard has been in the job for over a year now. This season should be a continuation of the work he started last season. It should not be a reset just because it is a new season or because there are new signings. He has had plenty of time to implement his ideas, instill a defined style of play, a structure into the team and all he needed was better players to make it work, to make us better. The final pieces to complete the puzzle so to speak. He has got the players he wanted but is that defined style of play there? What is his style of play? I mentioned earlier, he went from trying to implement progressive, attacking football to suddenly making us pragmatic and even a one man team again after last season's restart. Not looking for a right or wrong answer here but I want to know, how does Lampard want us to play? What kind of identity does he want to instill? What kind of manager he is? Does he want to play attacking football or does he want to play pragmatic football? You look at Liverpool under Klopp and Man City under Klopp, you know what you will get from them, you know how they will play and the kind of things they will do. They have a defined style of play, an identity. No one is saying or expecting us to be the finished article right now but we should be seeing signs of that under Lampard, signs of what he actually wants in the team. Instead, we are flip flopping from one thing to another game to game and we are guessing the lineup week in week out under Lampard, which should be some sort of alarm bells especially now that we are into his second season here.

17 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

Of course Man City will change their style of play from playing against Fulham with full squad to playing against Bayern with key players missing.

You think Guardiola will move away from his possession, attacking football if he has a few players missing? Okay...