The English Football Thread

[didierforever 7,349]

We don't play the incisive ball through that Sturridge depends on. Why doesn't Torres have only one shot against Hull? Why did Ba not get a clear cut chance on goal? Simple reasons. Chelsea's transition from defense to attack involves strikers only linking up with the creative midfielders and creating space for others. Not going clean through on goal. Plus we can always talk about his selfishness with ball. That might be good for another team, but we'd like a striker that would pass.

torres does not have a shot on goal against hull because he lacks confidence to take a shot from even 10 yards out. on the other hand sturridge's first instinct is to get the ball on his left foot and take a ping if he sees a 10% chance.

BA was awful/horrendous against villa. he could not hold the ball, could not make one decent run (which was evident by 4-5 offsides), sturridge on the other hand thrives on his movement and his runs.

and when dont we play the inisive ball? what was kdb's ball to oscar against hull, or oscar's ball to hazard against villa. it depends on our striker. torres and ba have poor movement off the ball and hence the lack of incisive balls to them. also if you remember sturridge's performance against WBA, u would know that sturridge had 3 one on one chances and every one of them had majorly to do with his movement. i seriously cant understand how any1 can say we dont play the incisive ball through when we have a player like mata in our team who looks only to play THAT incisive ball.

sturridge is a striker, he is supposed to be selfish. his "selfishness" was the only reason pool could win against stoke. sometimes his decision making is baffling (not selfishness but i would like to call it decision making), but i would take a striker who has the confidence to take on a player and take a shot on the goal from 25 yards rather than whatever torres and BA do (which is nothing).

[hjperdeath 2,226]

torres does not have a shot on goal against hull because he lacks confidence to take a shot from even 10 yards out. on the other hand sturridge's first instinct is to get the ball on his left foot and take a ping if he sees a 10% chance.

BA was awful/horrendous against villa. he could not hold the ball, could not make one decent run (which was evident by 4-5 offsides), sturridge on the other hand thrives on his movement and his runs.

and when dont we play the inisive ball? what was kdb's ball to oscar against hull, or oscar's ball to hazard against villa. it depends on our striker. torres and ba have poor movement off the ball and hence the lack of incisive balls to them. also if you remember sturridge's performance against WBA, u would know that sturridge had 3 one on one chances and every one of them had majorly to do with his movement. i seriously cant understand how any1 can say we dont play the incisive ball through when we have a player like mata in our team who looks only to play THAT incisive ball.

sturridge is a striker, he is supposed to be selfish. his "selfishness" was the only reason pool could win against stoke. sometimes his decision making is baffling (not selfishness but i would like to call it decision making), but i would take a striker who has the confidence to take on a player and take a shot on the goal from 25 yards rather than whatever torres and BA do (which is nothing).

if you'd have read my analysis, you would have known that Torres and Cole were the reason Oscar could score as they dragged defenders away. Incisive ball to the forwards is never our strategy. it's more to the midfielders rather than the forwards. Apart form that, how many more incisive balls have you seen like that? Torres's movement was much much more intelligent than you'd ever seen. The offsides where for what reason? Long balls from our own half. What are we? Stoke? Those are not incisive through balls. Mata was nowhere near playing the incisive ball. If he was, we would have scored so many goals, cause we had intelligent movement from strikers. Take Lukaku for example. He had a chance against Villa, where the through ball was for one of our midfielders. The fielder dropped it and Lukaku took a shot that hit the side netting. He was unlucky.

Not all strikers are selfish. Team play is also required. You can be selfish when you're clean through. Not when you have to go past 3-4 defenders and there are better options. Against Stoke he had one good chance, which came down to Coutinho's dummy. He wasn't selfish till that point.

Ba does nothing? Explain how he scored so many at Newcastle, and after moving to Chelsea his goals suddenly dropped? Simple , we look towards our midfielders for goals and our strikers only to drag defenders away. If we played the way Newcastle played, i.e. have Cabaye push forward and put in a through ball, or Gutierezz and Ben Arfa cutting inside and either taking a shot or putting in a through ball, we would be flourishing with goals.

[didierforever 7,349]

if you'd have read my analysis, you would have known that Torres and Cole were the reason Oscar could score as they dragged defenders away. Incisive ball to the forwards is never our strategy. it's more to the midfielders rather than the forwards. Apart form that, how many more incisive balls have you seen like that? Torres's movement was much much more intelligent than you'd ever seen. The offsides where for what reason? Long balls from our own half. What are we? Stoke? Those are not incisive through balls. Mata was nowhere near playing the incisive ball. If he was, we would have scored so many goals, cause we had intelligent movement from strikers. Take Lukaku for example. He had a chance against Villa, where the through ball was for one of our midfielders. The fielder dropped it and Lukaku took a shot that hit the side netting. He was unlucky.

Not all strikers are selfish. Team play is also required. You can be selfish when you're clean through. Not when you have to go past 3-4 defenders and there are better options. Against Stoke he had one good chance, which came down to Coutinho's dummy. He wasn't selfish till that point.

Ba does nothing? Explain how he scored so many at Newcastle, and after moving to Chelsea his goals suddenly dropped? Simple , we look towards our midfielders for goals and our strikers only to drag defenders away. If we played the way Newcastle played, i.e. have Cabaye push forward and put in a through ball, or Gutierezz and Ben Arfa cutting inside and either taking a shot or putting in a through ball, we would be flourishing with goals.

is that the reason we are buying ROONEY. just to drag defenders away. jose has already said what the problem is with our striker and sturridge is very very different from anything we have got.

also how does 2 matches constitute what we play. what did DD/anelka thrive on. i remember so many instances of the ball being played behind the defences for our strikers, we dont do that anymore because our strikers dont play that way and that is what JOSE is lookig to change. mata was unfit, but to say MATA does not play the incisive ball is UNBELIEVABLE to me. mata thrives on it and i actually cant understand how anyone can say that. again we play the incisive ball to the midfielders because our midfielders are far more fluid in their movement than the strikers we have got. i dont actually think that our players look at the particular player who is taking the run, decide that its the striker that is doing so and then say wait , i should only put an incisive thru ball to one of the midfielders. the fact that u say that the thru ball WAS played is proof enough that we do play the thru ball and its our striker's run and movements which stop us from being direct.

also we were playing the long balls because that is what BA wanted. he was playing on the defender's shoulders the whole match. it was definitely our plan to play that way otherwise i dont understand why we would have been hoofing the ball to him all thru the match. so why wont those offsides be counted. it was pretty obvious what BA was trying to do that match.

newcaslte is a mid-table team which have 50% of the ball compared to our 70%. when teams play chelsea (home or away), they just try to park the bus at the 18 yard line where as against newcaslte it is far from the truth. result for chelsea BA would not get half the space and time that he would get at newcastle. u cant expect chelsea and newcastle to play the same game when the opposition is with a compltely different mindset.

[didierforever 7,349]

We don't play the incisive ball through that Sturridge depends on. Why doesn't Torres have only one shot against Hull? Why did Ba not get a clear cut chance on goal? Simple reasons. Chelsea's transition from defense to attack involves strikers only linking up with the creative midfielders and creating space for others. Not going clean through on goal. Plus we can always talk about his selfishness with ball. That might be good for another team, but we'd like a striker that would pass.

http://videa.hu/videok/zene/west-brom-2-1-chelsea-v-0ovjF4hpVe384itC?start=228.44

watch mata play sturridge in twice (and there was another chance which is not shown in the clip). its on sturridge's movement and run.

on the other hand not a single thru ball is to be seen played by us in this highlight because i remember torres playing as a ST while danny on the wing for about 60 minutes of the match after which he was taken out for mata and danny played as a CF. the difference is clearly visible.

[didierforever 7,349]

We don't play the incisive ball through that Sturridge depends on. Why doesn't Torres have only one shot against Hull? Why did Ba not get a clear cut chance on goal? Simple reasons. Chelsea's transition from defense to attack involves strikers only linking up with the creative midfielders and creating space for others. Not going clean through on goal. Plus we can always talk about his selfishness with ball. That might be good for another team, but we'd like a striker that would pass.

http://videa.hu/vide...tC?start=228.44

watch mata play sturridge in twice (and there was another chance which is not shown in the clip). its on sturridge's movement and run.

on the other hand not a single thru ball is to be seen played by us in this highlight because i remember torres playing as a ST while danny on the wing for about 60 minutes of the match after which he was taken out for mata and danny played as a CF. the difference is clearly visible.

[The only place to be 11,313]

and when dont we play the inisive ball? what was kdb's ball to oscar against hull, or oscar's ball to hazard against villa.

I remember watching those balls and thinking 'I wish Danny Sturridge was still here to finish them off' with a tear in my eye, which was weird because everyone else around me was celebrating the goal.

It's at that point I realised I was a massive cunt.

[didierforever 7,349]

I remember watching those balls and thinking 'I wish Danny Sturridge was still here to finish them off' with a tear in my eye, which was weird because everyone else around me was celebrating the goal.

It's at that point I realised I was a massive cunt.

the only place to be with his classic ... what are you 10? supposedly you are a wanker, so just love the bloody smiley, right wanker?

those kdb and oscar thru balls were a point in a very civilised argument with another poster who said we dont put any incisive thru ball and that not our style.

but why am i wasting my time explaining anything to the most massive arrogant, pompous cunt on the forum.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

I'm done actually. I don't need to explain myself. you're making completely different point. I'll go before I forget my knowledge on managerial strategies. I respect your opinion.

[The only place to be 11,313]

the only place to be with his classic ... what are you 10? supposedly you are a wanker, so just love the bloody smiley, right wanker?

those kdb and oscar thru balls were a point in a very civilised argument with another poster who said we dont put any incisive thru ball and that not our style.

but why am i wasting my time explaining anything to the most massive arrogant, pompous cunt on the forum.

Damn...just think if that coin had come up tails 6 years ago and you'd decided to support Man United instead.

Oh well, you're here now. Feel free to keep calling me a cunt on the internet. If you ever figure out how to put SW6 into Google Maps and want to say it in person then give me a shout.

[didierforever 7,349]

Damn...just think if that coin had come up tails 6 years ago and you'd decided to support Man United instead.

Oh well, you're here now. Feel free to keep calling me a cunt on the internet. If you ever figure out how to put SW6 into Google Maps and want to say it in person then give me a shout.

oh , i think you are the one who actually started the name-calling be it in this thread or the sturridge thread, so dont try to act as the poor-innocent victim here.

give me a shout out when u can get off your high horse and except chelsea has more than one fan. unfortunately that would require you to be more mature, so i wont bet on it.

[The only place to be 11,313]

oh , i think you are the one who actually started the name-calling be it in this thread or the sturridge thread, so dont try to act as the poor-innocent victim here.

give me a shout out when u can get off your high horse and except chelsea has more than one fan. unfortunately that would require you to be more mature, so i wont bet on it.

I know Chelsea has more than one fan. I love Chelse supporters, they've been my family (literally) for most of my life.

Thank god the football season is back so I can talk about Chelsea with Chelsea supporters every week.

Oh, and if you want to call me a cunt in person then feel free. Seriously.

[didierforever 7,349]

I know Chelsea has more than one fan. I love Chelse supporters, they've been my family (literally) for most of my life.

Thank god the football season is back so I can talk about Chelsea with Chelsea supporters every week.

Oh, and if you want to call me a cunt in person then feel free. Seriously.

again, i dint start it, you are the one who came up with the word, so i just went with the flow.

as for you talking with other chelsea supporters about chelsea, i can imagine how that conversation would go.

[The only place to be 11,313]

again, i dint start it, you are the one who came up with the word, so i just went with the flow.

as for you talking with other chelsea supporters about chelsea, i can imagine how that conversation would go.

I guarantee you don't.

[didierforever 7,349]

I guarantee you don't.

its not that difficult. judging by the way you ridicule and abuse any1 who does not agree with you around here, and your OTT attitude about being the only or the best chelsea fan ever, i seriously CAN imangine how the conversations would go.

ps - see an argument can be made what calling some1 a cunt, or telling them to "fuck off to other forums".

[Ljpaddock 187]

Why don't you two lovebirds connect on Facebook or something and stop wasting the bandwidth of the forum server with this bullshit.

[The only place to be 11,313]

its not that difficult. judging by the way you ridicule and abuse any1 who does not agree with you around here, and your OTT attitude about being the only or the best chelsea fan ever, i seriously CAN imangine how the conversations would go.

ps - see an argument can be made what calling some1 a cunt, or telling them to "fuck off to other forums".

I don't though. I'm happy to disagree. I'm happy to have a bit of banter with supporters. That's exactly what you don't understand which is why you keep on having pops at me saying I think I'm the best Chelsea fan ever.

I don't.

I know some of the best supporters, the guys who kept this club alive through blood, sweat and many, many tears so that people could still enjoy this club now. The guys who turned up in the pissing rain when it wasn't fashionable to do so and worked their bollocks off all their lives so they can continue to do so.

And I love the guys who travel from places like Belgium and Holland every other week to support this club because they enrich this club. I don't think I'm anything special - I think I'm very lucky to be part of this club's family though which is why I don't constantly look to rehash old transfers and take pops at the club.

I leave that to 'fans' like you, and I will occasionally criticise that. Either in person or on t'internet. Enjoy. :heart:

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Please take to PMs, lads. We don't want to derail this thread.

[didierforever 7,349]

I don't though. I'm happy to disagree. I'm happy to have a bit of banter with supporters. That's exactly what you don't understand which is why you keep on having pops at me saying I think I'm the best Chelsea fan ever.

I don't.

I know some of the best supporters, the guys who kept this club alive through blood, sweat and many, many tears so that people could still enjoy this club now. The guys who turned up in the pissing rain when it wasn't fashionable to do so and worked their bollocks off all their lives so they can continue to do so.

And I love the guys who travel from places like Belgium and Holland every other week to support this club because they enrich this club. I don't think I'm anything special - I think I'm very lucky to be part of this club's family though which is why I don't constantly look to rehash old transfers and take pops at the club.

I leave that to 'fans' like you, and I will occasionally criticise that. Either in person or on t'internet. Enjoy. :heart:

continously ridiculing posters does not make you look as the most pious supporter though.

people ARE different. some can easily accept a thing and move on while the others would like to hold on to that something as long as they can. but name-calling and ridiculing and specially doubting the "fans'" credibility is no way to answer or argue here specially when that something WILL turn out to be the one of the biggest and the most obvious mistakes we have made.