closed Chelsea 0-2 Liverpool

[Unionjack 7,531]

On 21/09/2020 at 4:15 PM, bigbluewillie said:

Give it time mate.

We've got players to come back from injury etc, things are not going to happen overnight, Lamps needs to know what his best 11 are when all are fit.

The system has to be understood by the players, they got to get to know each other it all takes time, if you're expecting to see a miracle change in the short term then you are going to be disappointed.

Give time now is the gelling period next season is when we'll be ready to go, and by that I don't mean things will not improve as the season wears on.

What i'm really pleased about is that on here most realise that, and haven't condemned Frank and the lads, as I feared would happen

KTBFFH

What needs to be done bud is FL to FIND a system 1st!

But without all the new lads available and he finally working out his best starting 11 that wont happen any time soon I dont see.

[killer1257 3,282]

Good Analysis ... shows that Lampard is trying to change the strategy based on his players on field. Feel that once the team chemistry is built, Chelsea can be a whole different side. 

Most TC fans would not agree with that analysis. They just want Lampard out, even though his tactics were spot on.

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

[coolhead23 1,146]

17 minutes ago, killer1257 said:

Most TC fans would not agree with that analysis. They just want Lampard out, even though his tactics were spot on.

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk
 

Well ... everyone is entitled to their opinions but it is not necassary that what we think will happen ... however we have seen opinion can change whenever their is something positive (case & point: Marina ... damn we want to built a statue for her now)

Anyways thats how we fan behave!!!

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

Good Analysis ... shows that Lampard is trying to change the strategy based on his players on field. Feel that once the team chemistry is built, Chelsea can be a whole different side. 

Instead of realizing Lampard was trying to twist his tactics to adapt to certain opponents with limited available players, the general consensus on TC is that he has no system and no style. [emoji2371][emoji2371][emoji2371]

Each to their own.

[Puliiszola 519]

12 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

Instead of realizing Lampard was trying to twist his tactics to adapt to certain opponents with limited available players, the general consensus on TC is that he has no system and no style.

Each to their own.

Actually sad to see how negative things are here. I always thought Arsenal Fan TV was staged, that fans cant be THAT bad. But its worse on here. 

[Unionjack 7,531]

I must have missed seeing someone saying to get FL out.

But if someones going to tell me they have looked at some of his formations and team selections,substitutions without frowning or shrugging then thats what I dont understand.

I know hes going to fuck up and make mistakes. I just pray to the atoms he learns from them.

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Ryan Fong said:

Instead of realizing Lampard was trying to twist his tactics to adapt to certain opponents with limited available players, the general consensus on TC is that he has no system and no style.

Each to their own.

Sunday's starting XI wasn't our ideal best new XI but judging by how some people keep on using the absentees as an excuse, you would think that our squad was actually down to its bare bones and had to rely on academy players for the match. Werner and Havertz aside, the team was basically the same one that played against Liverpool and competed very well and looked very threatening against them last season. There were also enough options that were sitting on the bench to do more than what we did on Sunday. If this is how we're gonna play every time we have a few absentees, well then, we are truly fucked going forward. 

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

Sunday's starting XI wasn't our ideal best new XI but judging by how some people keep on using the absentees as an excuse, you would think that our squad was actually down to its bare bones and had to rely on academy players for the match. Werner and Havertz aside, the team was basically the same one that played against Liverpool and competed very well and looked very threatening against them last season. There were also enough options that were sitting on the bench to do more than what we did on Sunday. If this is how we're gonna play every time we have a few absentees, well then, we are truly fucked going forward. 

If you don’t think we looked absolutely solid before the red card, instead of leaking goals left and right like what we did last season, then we’re definitely looking at different aspects.

[Strike 7,285]

2 hours ago, killer1257 said:

Most TC fans would not agree with that analysis. They just want Lampard out, even though his tactics were spot on.

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk
 

The Kepa disaster was waiting to happen with how deep the team set its defense up. Also, there was zero wing play and no idea how to progress in attack. Calling for Lampard's head is extreme and the absences did have a big impact but putting the loss down to individual mistakes is deluded thinking. 

 

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, Ryan Fong said:

If you don’t think we looked absolutely solid before the red card, instead of leaking goals left and right like what we did last season, then we’re definitely looking at different aspects.

No one said we didn't defend well. We did.

The game at Anfield aside, did we leak many goals against Liverpool last season? The aggregate score of the other 3 games was 5-4 in our favor.

Why do you focus only on the defending side? Does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we do both sides well? Again the game at Anfield aside, we had the right balance between defence and offence in the other 3 games. Sure, there were some silly defensive mistakes in the goals we conceded (not that it was any different on Sunday) but we were still okay defensively and didn't look like we were going to get blown away. And not to mention, we had threats going forward, more so than on Sunday.

Have said it a few times, I wasn't necessarily against the counter attacking approach on Sunday but what was our plan to win the game? How were we going to hurt them? Because as it turned out, it didn't look like we had a proper plan. Hoping Werner did something was like hoping Hazard did something in the past. Werner is great in his own right but he is not like Hazard who can conjure something out of nothing. We had Havertz upfront but ended treating him like a target man by lumping long balls up to him to win against Van Dijk. Other than that, we didn't look like we had a proper plan on how to hurt Liverpool because we had a defensive player on the RW and 3 midfielders who couldn't do anything offensively to save their lives. 

[Hutcho 8,443]

No one said we didn't defend well. We did.

The game at Anfield aside, did we leak many goals against Liverpool last season? The aggregate score of the other 3 games was 5-4 in our favor.

Why do you focus only on the defending side? Does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we do both sides well? Again the game at Anfield aside, we had the right balance between defence and offence in the other 3 games. Sure, there were some silly defensive mistakes in the goals we conceded (not that it was any different on Sunday) but we were still okay defensively and didn't look like we were going to get blown away. And not to mention, we had threats going forward, more so than on Sunday.

Have said it a few times, I wasn't necessarily against the counter attacking approach on Sunday but what was our plan to win the game? How were we going to hurt them? Because as it turned out, it didn't look like we had a proper plan. Hoping Werner did something was like hoping Hazard did something in the past. Werner is great in his own right but he is not like Hazard who can conjure something out of nothing. We had Havertz upfront but ended treating him like a target man by lumping long balls up to him to win against Van Dijk. Other than that, we didn't look like we had a proper plan on how to hurt Liverpool because we had a defensive player on the RW and 3 midfielders who couldn't do anything offensively to save their lives. 

Everyone is reading way too much in our second game of the season without 5 players who will most likely be starters. You may say the players were the same as last year but the fitness levels definitely weren't.

 

The only thing we can take from it is that we played pretty well defensively and some pretty good performances in tough circumstances from the likes of kante and Werner James and a good cameo from tomori when he came on.

 

Its obvious that's not gonna be our game plan long term and it will be a completely different team when we next played Liverpool. The game plan was to keep it tight and see if we could nick something at the end and we will never know how that could have worked out.

 

Everyone on here would be going nuts (common theme there) if we went super attacking and lost 4-1.

 

[Jase 43,479]

29 minutes ago, Hutcho said:

Everyone is reading way too much in our second game of the season without 5 players who will most likely be starters. You may say the players were the same as last year but the fitness levels definitely weren't.

The only thing we can take from it is that we played pretty well defensively and some pretty good performances in tough circumstances from the likes of kante and Werner James and a good cameo from tomori when he came on.

Its obvious that's not gonna be our game plan long term and it will be a completely different team when we next played Liverpool. The game plan was to keep it tight and see if we could nick something at the end and we will never know how that could have worked out.

If it's because the fitness level isn't the same, then guess everyone will be happy if we play pragmatically against Barnsley, West Brom, Crystal Palace and Southampton then? 

29 minutes ago, Hutcho said:

Everyone on here would be going nuts (common theme there) if we went super attacking and lost 4-1.

No. What is the common theme here is people simply assuming showing more attacking intent equates to going gung-ho, as if we can't strike a balance between defending and attacking. 

[Hutcho 8,443]

If it's because the fitness level isn't the same, then guess everyone will be happy if we play pragmatically against Barnsley, West Brom, Crystal Palace and Southampton then? 

Eh? 

Are you seriously comparing Liverpool to Barnsley and West Brom etc. What are you on about lol.

 

Also every game we play we get more players available and better fitness levels. So comparing Liverpool in game 2 to Southampton in game 7 or whatever it'll be by then is even more ludicrous

 

 

 

[Jase 43,479]

Just now, Hutcho said:

Eh?

Are you seriously comparing Liverpool to Barnsley and West Brom etc. What you on about lol.

Also every game we play we get more players available and better fitness levels. So comparing Liverpool in game 2 to Southampton in game 7 or whatever it'll be by then is ludicrous

Everyone's fitness level will still be different when you take into consideration not everyone will play every game and there are players returning from injury. 

[Hutcho 8,443]

No. What is the common theme here is people simply assuming showing more attacking intent equates to going gung-ho, as if we can't strike a balance between defending and attacking. 

Come on. This is TC. Every single thing is magnified to another degree. If we played more open and got smashed there would have been people going "Tactically naive against a good team with lots of players out bla bla bla"

Of course we can strike a balance. But the situations I have already mentioned made it a reasonable tactic despite it being shite to watch.

[Hutcho 8,443]

Everyone's fitness level will still be different when you take into consideration not everyone will play every game and there are players returning from injury. 

Of course. That is football. But more people will be fit more people will be available than game week 2 with no preseason. Less passengers and more players back as we go through the games, training sessions etc.

 

Also the fitness demands playing against Liverpool compared to a team like Burnley or West Brom is a lot different.

 

Does anyone truly believe that we are gonna play that defensive going forwards? The system, players and (hopefully) performance will be completely different if you compare the first 2 games to 4 weeks time.

 

[Ryan Fong 2,776]

No one said we didn't defend well. We did.
The game at Anfield aside, did we leak many goals against Liverpool last season? The aggregate score of the other 3 games was 5-4 in our favor.
Why do you focus only on the defending side? Does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we do both sides well? Again the game at Anfield aside, we had the right balance between defence and offence in the other 3 games. Sure, there were some silly defensive mistakes in the goals we conceded (not that it was any different on Sunday) but we were still okay defensively and didn't look like we were going to get blown away. And not to mention, we had threats going forward, more so than on Sunday.
Have said it a few times, I wasn't necessarily against the counter attacking approach on Sunday but what was our plan to win the game? How were we going to hurt them? Because as it turned out, it didn't look like we had a proper plan. Hoping Werner did something was like hoping Hazard did something in the past. Werner is great in his own right but he is not like Hazard who can conjure something out of nothing. We had Havertz upfront but ended treating him like a target man by lumping long balls up to him to win against Van Dijk. Other than that, we didn't look like we had a proper plan on how to hurt Liverpool because we had a defensive player on the RW and 3 midfielders who couldn't do anything offensively to save their lives. 

Why the Anfield game aside? We well could’ve been ended up like that on Sunday if we didn’t play it the pragmatic way considering the current general condition of our squad (missing players, unfit, new boys unsettled, etc.).

“Why can’t we do both side well?” Why? Maybe it’s because simply in reality we are not capable to yet, especially against a unchanged full squad champion of last year? Come on be realistic, who doesn’t want to do well on both ends, when we’re not that certain we can deliver it’s very sensible to prioritize your focus. For Frank, second game of the season, not ideal squad condition, 200m spent with higher expectation, to nick even a point from the scums is the most logical and ideal approach, I see nothing wrong with it. You mentioned other 3 games last season, we lost didn’t we? For Frank Sunday’s game’s top priority is to not lose simple as that.

And why you keep mentioning lumping the ball to Havertz? Yes we did, not that many of times though. We also have created a couple of chances through ground work, if Werner Mount and Kante could be more decisive to take shots we might be even leading before half time.

The only questionable selection for me is no Giroud, but can you blame Frank to start our 70m pound shiny new toy who is also known as capable to play No.9?

[Jase 43,479]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

Why the Anfield game aside? We well could’ve been ended up like that on Sunday if we didn’t play it the pragmatic way considering the current general condition of our squad (missing players, unfit, new boys unsettled, etc.).

I didn't count the Anfield game because we performed far better in the other 3 games and it was a better representation of what we can actually do. The one at Anfield just turned into one of those silly games.

24 minutes ago, Ryan Fong said:

And why you keep mentioning lumping the ball to Havertz? Yes we did, not that many of times though. We also have created a couple of chances through ground work, if Werner Mount and Kante could be more decisive to take shots we might be even leading before half time.

The only questionable selection for me is no Giroud, but can you blame Frank to start our 70m pound shiny new toy who is also known as capable to play No.9?

Doesn't matter how many times we lumped the ball to Havertz, we still did. We ended up doing that partly because of Liverpool's pressing but that should have been known beforehand since it's Liverpool's play style. As you said, it was questionable not to start Giroud since he would be better equipped for this than Havertz. Also, since you are all here saying Lampard set up the way he did because of unfavorable circumstances and prioritized getting a result over anything else, then why didn't he play Giroud instead of Havertz upfront? Havertz may have played upfront before but he played as a False 9 as opposed to a traditional No.9. Moreover, if Lampard could take time to ease Pulisic into the team last season, then shouldn't he at least try to do the same with Havertz?