DumbYank

I started supporting Chelsea because of Pulisic. I follow the matches pretty closely. I have been disappointed in CP, but saw he was soft mentally when he broke down after being benched in in a USMNT when he was literally crying on the bench. Then he went on a tear after that and was largely responsible for CFC qualifying for last years CL title after the Covid restart. If you didn't see how important he was to that effort, then you don't watch the games. He was going in for his 2nd goal in the FA final and ripped the hammy. Since then, he's been pretty anonymous. I don't think he'd have lingering hammy issues, but he lacks the explosiveness he had. He's also having trouble keeping the ball close on the first touch. However, you also must not watch games if you haven't seen that the entire attack has been lackluster and even though CFC was great before DEC, much of the success was with backs scoring. That being said, I don't know if CP will stay on this squad, but I will continue to be a fan. IF some self important British w**ker doesn't like or respect my fandom, I couldn't care less. 😁

Anonymous for sure. Don’t see the explosiveness. He isn’t keeping the 1st touch close enough either. That said the entire team was outclassed today. Didn’t see anyone out there that looked good except Kovacic but he had a couple bad turnovers too. The entire attack looked the same though, nothing from anyone, subs included. Seems like the back 3 has run it’s course. What offensive players have looked good since end of November? Not much is coming to mind.

Yep. It’s not working. It hasn’t made any difference who is in attack. Still though, RL finishes the one on one right after the half or Ziyech hits the chip off the rebound then CFC has chance against a team that looked better at EVERY position on the pitch today.

I think that was good for him. Thiago was like that is bovine fecal matter. Move the ball son.

One thing I know for sure about formation. The back 4 is much more entertaining for me to watch.

He looked perdy good in the last qualifying rounds. He’s legit. Strong on the ball and decisive.

Makes sense. That Lamptey was dangerous looking.

This is a key to what I’m seeing. But to me it seems like he is playing out of position and i for the life of me can’t understand what Tuechel is trying to do with him. Why doesn’t he play LWB yesterday instead of James? James has excelled at RWB. The back 3 without wingers doesn’t suit CPs game. That is obvious. I’m an American who started rooting for CFC because of CP. but I’m in. I watch a lot of Chelsea games. And will continue to support if and when he leaves. To me it is pretty hard to argue that CFC wins the CL without CP, because they probably don’t qualify and/or lose to Madrid. But his time here might be up if TT stays with a back 3 exclusively. right now it’s not working though. I’m not enough of a tactician to know what teams do, but with the recent struggles, it seems TT might need to mix up formations, but I’ve said many times it’s hard to argue his record.

Pulisic touched the ball very few times from at least the 35th minute on. He was pretty good and almost scored. He hasn’t been good lately, but he played well today as a target striker lol.

I vote Tuechel tries the starters next time. Let's evaluate that before we call for any drastic changes.

Why does a Werner get minutes?

I think that front 3 should cause teams to sh*t down their legs. That is a lot of pace and I really think if CP can stay healthy, he should be a great complement to RL, both playing into and running off of him. CHO looks like he's gotten some man strength over the last year.

Concacaf is ridiculous.

The team could use more goal scoring eventually probably. But CP probably needs to be a wide player and I think he gets knocked off the ball to much for wingback. That said I thought he looked good in the first match back. I think he could be dangerous playing off and into Lukaku.

Concacaf matches are classless, brutal, and dirty. Bush league bullsh*te.

That’s mean. US should actually have a decent side this cycle.

Man that was a great hit.

Puts me in a very vulnerable frame of mind. Like I would do anything that damn cat tells me to do.

Some of us are stupid. Some of us aren’t. Like me with the clever screen name.

I have another son who plays American Football. My family use football a lot of times for both sports. We say FOOTBALLLLL for the American game in a redneck, southern gravelly voice (if you know what that means). And we pronounce the FIFA game in a much more genteel way with a bad admixture of Toff English and Spanish. But is definitely soccer here.

The rules of association football were codified in England by the Football Association in 1863, and the nickname association football was coined in England to distinguish the game from the versions of football played at the time, in particular rugby football. The word soccer is an abbreviation of association (from assoc.) and first appeared in English private schools and universities in the 1880s (sometimes using the variant spelling "socker").[1][2][3][4] The word is sometimes credited to Charles Wreford-Brown, an Oxford University student said to have been fond of shortened forms such as brekkers for breakfast and rugger for rugby football (see Oxford -er). However, the attribution to Wreford-Brown in particular is generally considered to be spurious. Clive Toye noted "they took the third, fourth and fifth letters of Association and called it SOCcer."[5] The term association football has never been widely used, although in Britain some clubs in rugby football strongholds adopted the suffix Association Football Club (A.F.C.) to avoid confusion with the dominant sport in their area, and FIFA, the world governing body for the sport, is a French-language acronym of "Fédération Internationale de Football Association" – the International Federation of Association Football. "Soccer football" is used less often than it once was: the United States Soccer Federation was known as the United States Soccer Football Association from 1945 until 1974, when it adopted its current name and the Canadian Soccer Association was known as the Canadian Soccer Football Association from 1958 to 1971. Reaction against soccer[edit] For nearly a hundred years after it was coined, soccer was an accepted and uncontroversial alternative in Britain to football, often in colloquial and juvenile contexts, but was also widely used in formal speech and in writing about the game.[6] "Soccer" was a term used by the upper class whereas the working and middle class preferred the word "football"; as the upper class lost influence in British society from the 1960s on, "football" supplanted "soccer" as the most commonly used and accepted word. There is evidence that the use of soccer is declining in Britain and is now considered there as an American English term.[6] Since the early twenty-first century, the peak association football bodies in soccer-speaking Australia and New Zealand have actively promoted the use of football to mirror international usage and, at least in the Australian case, to rebrand a sport that had been experiencing difficulties.[7] Both bodies dropped soccer from their names.[8] These efforts have met with considerable success in New Zealand.[9] I found this on Wiki too. Interestingly, soccer here in America is still an upper middle class game. It's one of the main reasons why we are behind other countries. You pretty much need money to become well trained in soccer here. Or the willingness to sacrifice. The game is largely unavailable to lower middle and lower classes here, with the exception of Mexican-American communities, many of which have plenty of Dads who can get the kids started. Here very few Dads have any clue about this game. It's getting better and in 10 or 20 years, most American communities will have Dad's who can get kids going with some decent knowledge. I think it's the sport with most American youth participants. But in the youth rec leagues for younger kids, it's mostly what I call Boosh Ball. Just kick it and try to run past people. Little to no competent coaching for free. My youngest son is a decent player and his club fees and trips amount to several thousand annually for him as a U13. It can be much more expensive than this. It's a lot for us and a sacrifice.

It's what I read on the net one time so it must be true. Apparently, there was Ruggers Football and Association Football. I guess for short back then they would say assocca or something which became soccer. I guess Brits used the term. Ruggers Football obviously became Rugby. Here's a blurb from Wikipedia "Football is one of a family of football codes, which emerged from various ball games played worldwide since antiquity. The term soccer comes from Oxford "-er" slang, which was prevalent at Oxford University in England from about 1875, and is thought to have been borrowed from the slang of Rugby School. The slang also gave rise to rugger for Rugby football, fiver and tenner for a five-pound and ten-pound note, and the now archaic footer for association football.[9] The word soccer (which arrived at its final form in 1895) was first recorded in 1889 in the earlier form of socca.[10] Within the English-speaking world, association football is now usually called "football" in the United Kingdom, whereas people usually call it "soccer" in countries where other codes of football are prevalent, such as Australia,[11] Canada, South Africa and the United States. A notable exception is New Zealand, where in the first two decades of the 21st century, under the influence of international television, "football" has been gaining prevalence, despite the dominance of other codes of football, namely rugby union, and rugby league.[12]"

Yeah but you guys say association and football funny.

I've been told on here, presumably by Englishmen, that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to the game as association football, or the s word for short.