|
Post by StokieBoy31 on Sept 23, 2017 18:30:19 GMT
They let us have the ball so they could hit us on the counter. Itβs all part of the gameplan
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Sept 23, 2017 18:40:43 GMT
Lots of possession but that counts for shit when you can't create chances.
People should not be fooled by possession stats
We did not play well up front and were a circus at the back
|
|
|
Post by kustokie on Sept 23, 2017 18:42:24 GMT
I thought you'd be jumping up and down when the 4th went in. Didn't look like individuals to me. Some of our passing and movement going forward first half was excellent. Had Chelsea chasing shadows at times. If it were excellent then Courtois might've actually had to do some work. The reality is that they soaked us up perfectly, our attack is simply not good enough and at the back we're still a shambles. To say we're a shambles at the back is a bit OTT even by my standards. We had one recognized CB in a back three with two FBs on each side, one of whom is well past it and hasn't played all season. Then BMI was subbed by a 34 year old midfield player who was knackered.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 23, 2017 18:50:42 GMT
If it were excellent then Courtois might've actually had to do some work. The reality is that they soaked us up perfectly, our attack is simply not good enough and at the back we're still a shambles. To say we're a shambles at the back is a bit OTT even by my standards. Β We had one recognized CB in a back three with two FBs on each side, one of whom is well past it and hasn't played all season. Β Then BMI was subbed by a 34 year old midfield player who was knackered.Β Youβre wasting your time trying to make sense of this characterβs opinion. To judge our overall defence after a game featuring just one recognised central defender is industrial arse gravy. Itβs becoming tiresome reading some of this garbage.
|
|
|
Post by senojbor on Sept 23, 2017 19:03:16 GMT
I agree it was good showing but yet again it showed our managers ineptitude. Awful decision to move Fletcher to the back. It cost us any chance of getting back in the game.
|
|
|
Post by chiswickpotter on Sept 23, 2017 19:16:21 GMT
Obviously it is impossible not to be frustrated by the individual errors but if we can overlook those for a minute, I think that is by far the best we've played this season. We created chances and situations aplenty. I'm more frustrated how we've failed to score than I am about conceding 4. Was pleased to see my mate Erik turn in yet another excellent performance. Chelsea fans on the train said the same thing and at 2-0 they didn't feel comfortable. Clearly issue seems in defence but we moved the ball well. Shaq and Choupo always a threat and Allen and Fletcher held their own. I would love to see us go 4-3-3 with Diouf, who I thought was excellent today, at centre forward
|
|
|
Post by generationex on Sept 23, 2017 19:23:56 GMT
They could've scored at will throughout the entire game. Given the state of the defence that's not the worst indictment.
We had some half chances that we didn't convert.
It's neither set fire to the managers office nor erect a statue.
|
|
|
Post by riccyfuller93 on Sept 23, 2017 19:27:21 GMT
To say we're a shambles at the back is a bit OTT even by my standards. Β We had one recognized CB in a back three with two FBs on each side, one of whom is well past it and hasn't played all season. Β Then BMI was subbed by a 34 year old midfield player who was knackered.Β Youβre wasting your time trying to make sense of this characterβs opinion. To judge our overall defence after a game featuring just one recognised central defender is industrial arse gravy. Itβs becoming tiresome reading some of this garbage. It's not just one game is it though. If you're so miserable stop reading, all you ever do is get abusive.
|
|
|
Post by stokiemarc on Sept 23, 2017 19:29:01 GMT
We played very well untill Johnson gifted them the third goal. Are we letting Fletcher off for his assist because he's not Johnson?
|
|
|
Post by Jamo on the wing on Sept 24, 2017 8:18:42 GMT
Obviously it is impossible not to be frustrated by the individual errors but if we can overlook those for a minute, I think that is by far the best we've played this season. We created chances and situations aplenty. I'm more frustrated how we've failed to score than I am about conceding 4. Was pleased to see my mate Erik turn in yet another excellent performance. Said this earlier mate I read on Twitter that it's impossible to play well when making the mistakes we did. I don't get that and it's not looking at the game in its entirety. In very testing circumstances we gave them a good game and pretty much all of their chances (and therefore goals given how many shots we restricted them too) came from individual errors. You can't ignore the mistakes clearly but surely the same can be said for the long periods of pressure we put them under and the amount of efforts at goal we had? Now don't get me wrong, I don't think we'd have scored if we were still playing now after watching Fletch's missed header but overall given the players at our disposal, that performance was decent.
|
|
|
Post by Scrotnig on Sept 24, 2017 8:22:07 GMT
Regardless of individual performances or errrors, we are the laughing stock of football if we think being thrashed 4-0 constitutes "playing well".
Nothing wrong in looking for positives, and there were some I will grant you, but we definitely did not "play well".
I will just remind everyone that we lost. 4-0. Again.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 24, 2017 8:32:35 GMT
We passed it around nicely but we're so toothless. Courtois won't have an easier game all season. I can see why people think we played well but something needs to change with the front 3. It's been obvious from the get go that Choup or Jese aren't strikers and they just keep proving it. what do you think our front 3 should be?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 8:34:15 GMT
We passed it around nicely but we're so toothless. Courtois won't have an easier game all season. I can see why people think we played well but something needs to change with the front 3. It's been obvious from the get go that Choup or Jese aren't strikers and they just keep proving it. what do you think our front 3 should be? I wouldn't play a front 3. I think it's absolute negative bolocks.
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 24, 2017 8:36:59 GMT
We've got 3 strikers on the books.
We've got to start at least one of them soon. It's madness
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Sept 24, 2017 9:46:37 GMT
While I thought that we did well to stay competitive and keep our heads up for most of the game, Chelsea will 've quite happy that they executed their game plan perfectly. The extra three goals at the end were just a bonus.
|
|
|
Post by Laughing Gravy on Sept 24, 2017 10:15:04 GMT
I'm just glad I didn't clock this thread last night when I was pissed and my resolve not to respond to some of the wankers a defeat brings out of the woodwork, is severely weakened.
Unfortunately I bit at Benjy's wind ups on another thread.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 24, 2017 10:23:53 GMT
I'm certainly more on the positive than negative side all things considered yesterday but the first three goals had nothing to do with personnel (or lack of it). It was just very, very shit play. When Chelsea are three nil up and you've laid all three on a plate for them, you get exactly what you deserve. The errors were from three very experienced players as well. I think we caused them more problems than a lot of teams will but there were some dire personal performances at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 24, 2017 10:27:38 GMT
what do you think our front 3 should be? I wouldn't play a front 3. I think it's absolute negative bolocks. so you'd play 4-4-2? Diouf and Crouch??
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 10:27:57 GMT
I'm certainly more on the positive than negative side all things considered yesterday but the first three goals had nothing to do with personnel (or lack of it). It was just very, very shit play. When Chelsea are three nil up and you've laid all three on a plate for them, you get exactly what you deserve. The errors were from three very experienced players as well. I think we caused them more problems than a lot of teams will but there were some dire personal performances at the same time. Every issue yesterday was systematic. First goal- way too high line- managers instructions. Second goal- ponderous older player-manager Not having a striker in the front 3 to be there for crosses-manager Third goal etc etc Everything that didn't work yesterday was because of basic fundamentals that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I can see why people thought we played well but for me you can't play well when so much basic stuff was missing.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 10:28:09 GMT
I wouldn't play a front 3. I think it's absolute negative bolocks. so you'd play 4-4-2? Diouf and Crouch?? No
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Sept 24, 2017 10:31:57 GMT
I'm certainly more on the positive than negative side all things considered yesterday but the first three goals had nothing to do with personnel (or lack of it). It was just very, very shit play. When Chelsea are three nil up and you've laid all three on a plate for them, you get exactly what you deserve. The errors were from three very experienced players as well. I think we caused them more problems than a lot of teams will but there were some dire personal performances at the same time. Every issue yesterday was systematic. First goal- way too high line- managers instructions. Second goal- ponderous older player-manager Not having a striker in the front 3 to be there for crosses-manager Third goal etc etc Everything that didn't work yesterday was because of basic fundamentals that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I can see why people thought we played well but for me you can't play well when so much basic stuff was missing. I tend to agree. I really enjoyed much of the attacing intent, the rest of it was like a manual on how not to play against Chelsea.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 10:34:22 GMT
Every issue yesterday was systematic. First goal- way too high line- managers instructions. Second goal- ponderous older player-manager Not having a striker in the front 3 to be there for crosses-manager Third goal etc etc Everything that didn't work yesterday was because of basic fundamentals that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I can see why people thought we played well but for me you can't play well when so much basic stuff was missing. I tend to agree. I really enjoyed much of the attacing intent, the rest of it was like a manual on how not to play against Chelsea. The intent was there but I never felt like we'd score.
|
|
|
Post by RF10 on Sept 24, 2017 10:42:50 GMT
I do feel we did match Chelsea and felt we were better than them during periods yesterday, however with no proper defence and making piss poor errors against such a quality side you are going to get punished.
Failure to capitilise on the chances we made makes it even more frustrating considering this was possibly the major issue last season. If we had a full defence yesterday the result would have been so much different.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 24, 2017 20:33:05 GMT
so you'd play 4-4-2? Diouf and Crouch?? No Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 20:37:10 GMT
Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know. π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 24, 2017 20:55:46 GMT
Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know. π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf The problem with 4 at the back is that we were leaky last season. We've looked far better until yesterday. As for attack, isn't that very similar to what we already play....? Semantics I guess. I do agree Choupo shouldn't be up top but scoring two against Man United made him kind of undroppable. However the idea with the 3 up to is quite similar to your formation really.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Sept 24, 2017 21:00:59 GMT
π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf The problem with 4 at the back is that we were leaky last season. We've looked far better until yesterday. As for attack, isn't that very similar to what we already play....? Semantics I guess. I do agree Choupo shouldn't be up top but scoring two against Man United made him kind of undroppable. However the idea with the 3 up to is quite similar to your formation really. We were but Shawcross and Indi played excellently together and that was always something to build upon. I think Choupo is undroppable tbh but he's not a striker. He needs to be played on the left. And it's not the same. It's 4 attackers and more importantly has a striker up front.
|
|
|
Post by thedarkknight on Sept 24, 2017 21:58:34 GMT
Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know. π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf I hate to say it, but I tend to agree with you. That is the most balanced / team most suited to our squad. It begs the question though why we didn't invest in a right back. And almost makes the zouma loan seem bizarre.....which is a shame considering he's an incredibly exciting prospect! (Albeit not ours)
|
|
|
Post by milky on Sept 24, 2017 23:33:35 GMT
Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know. π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf Never ever going to happen as long as he has an hole in his arse.. Primarily because it involves... A- Diouf up top B- No Allen
|
|
|
Post by darksideofthemoon on Sept 25, 2017 0:01:07 GMT
Tell me. I'm actually interested. I'm not having a go, I'd like to actually know. π Well you either get all the centre halves in and sacrifice the attack with 3 at the back. But I think 4231 is still the best way. It would involve Zouma at right back which is horrible I agree but the rest is imo way better balanced. So if everyone was fit at this present time I'd go; Butland Zouma Shawcross Indi Pieters Fletcher Cameron Shaq Jese Choupo Diouf I'm no expert, and my question might well support this point.....where does Berahino fit in with your set-up? Or, don't you rate him?
|
|