Chelsea v Everton (PL) - 4/12/2010 - KO 15:00 GMT

[yorkleyblue]

Is there a 'Y' in the day?

Does the pope sh*t in the woods?

Whoosh!

 

[moi]

Exactly, Richard the Lionheart was the Crusader. Not Saaladin.

Obviously, but he was there as the opposition, wasn't he? Splitting hairs here!

Actually Saladin was said to be a very wise man, whereas in spite of all the romantic films made about him, Richard the Lionheart was quite a foolish one.

 

[bonetti]

Enough already! are you called Saaladin, because you're on a crusade?

...or because he eats lots of lettuce?

 

[Hutch]

A little bit of good news:

Yesterday, some of our members were voicing concerns that the FA might act and hand out retrospective bans to Branislav Ivanovic and Florent Malouda for misdemeanors committed during the weekend fixture with EvertonHowever, it appears that the referee, Lee Probert, who had a bit of a stinker in the eyes of many, saw both incidents and felt neither warranted any punishment.

LINK

Up yours David Moyes.

 

[geezer]

Apologies if you've already answered this earlier in the thread Saaladin but seeing as you're a football coach I'm interested in what you would have done to turn things around against Everton to ensure we won whilst also ensuring we produced the brand of football you allude to

 

[Scooby Blue]

A little bit of good news:

LINK

Up yours David Moyes.

Great news, and yes Moyes can stick his opinions firmly up his arse.

 

[PloKoon13]

retrospective bans to Branislav Ivanovic

I wasn't aware you could get retrospectively banned for three consecutive and perfect sliding tackles.

 

[The Moos]

I wasn't aware you could get retrospectively banned for three consecutive and perfect sliding tackles.

Agree. And I didn't think there could even be a case for it since Probert saw the tackles.

But I wouldn't be surprised if there was a different set of rules just for Chelsea.

 

[Saaladin]

Apologies if you've already answered this earlier in the thread Saaladin but seeing as you're a football coach I'm interested in what you would have done to turn things around against Everton to ensure we won whilst also ensuring we produced the brand of football you allude to

I felt Chelsea didn't have much patience on the ball particularly in the second half. They were giving the ball away easily and trying a ton of long balls that were easily cut out by Everton.

Personally, I would have introduced Josh into the game, taken out Kalou and put Malouda on the wing with Josh in a more advanced Midfield position to be the "link" between defense and attack. I think they would have been more fluid this way. Josh is very calm on the ball and plays a strong possession game. Also knows how to feather in those passes to the front and makes great runs off the ball. Very clever for his age. The most impressive thing about Josh is not even when he has the ball it is when he doesn't. His movement off the ball is impeccable. Even defensively, his awareness of angles when shutting down is fantastic and the kid is pretty good at stealing the ball off opponents.

I also would never have subbed off Bosingwa. Yes he got beat for a couple of crosses but Bonsingwa is very difficult to beat 1v1 which is Ferreira's weakness. Baines is too talented and I would have been worried about a Ferreira v Baines match-up. It's one thing for a cross to get passed you and another to get beaten 1v1. Plus Bosingwa looked dangerous going forward.

So I guess 1 sub I would have made 1 sub I wouldn't have.

 

[dkw]

So your idea to steady the nerves of a very nervous team going through a troubled time is to throw a 17 yea old novice in? Brilliant idea.

 

[Saaladin]

So your idea to steady the nerves of a very nervous team going through a troubled time is to throw a 17 yea old novice in? Brilliant idea.

It would really depend on who that 17 year old is. Josh plays at a superior maturity level so I wouldn't look at it that way. Plus as I said I would keep plenty of cover behind him with Mikel and Essien.

 

[Nibs]

So your idea to steady the nerves of a very nervous team going through a troubled time is to throw a 17 yea old novice in? Brilliant idea.

Think you're doing McEachran a big dis-service there. I think many people would have put him on in that second half.

Ramires had pretty much zero impact and Carlo's other sub, Paulo, got pissed on in the build up to their goal.

Don't think Josh could have done any worse than those two subs to be honest.

 

[sizzler85]

Josh for Kalou would have been a very good subtitution ...

When we think of him as a 17 year old and he can't stand pressure , then it is not going to help him ...

He showed his maturity in the newcastle game ... And against Everton, leading 1-0 , we needed a player like him who has a calmness about his game and will have surely done better than Carlo's other subs ..

As someone noted , Ferreira in one on one situation is pathetic ..

 

[dkw]

Think you're doing McEachran a big dis-service there. I think many people would have put him on in that second half.

Ramires had pretty much zero impact and Carlo's other sub, Paulo, got pissed on in the build up to their goal.

Don't think Josh could have done any worse than those two subs to be honest.

Would it have done Josh any good though. the Manager has to weight up his impact on the match with any impact on him, putting so much pressure on such a young player could be detrimental to his progress.

 

[Nibs]

Would it have done Josh any good though. the Manager has to weight up his impact on the match with any impact on him, putting so much pressure on such a young player could be detrimental to his progress.

I guess it's the two ends of the spectrum. Do we throw him in at the deep end or do we wrap him up in cotton wool.

I'd be inclined to throw him in - Everton at home wasn't such a "deep end" and unless we let him have some big match experience now, we might not be able to reap the benefit later on.

At some point you have to go for it.

 

[dkw]

I guess it's the two ends of the spectrum. Do we throw him in at the deep end or do we wrap him up in cotton wool.

I'd be inclined to throw him in - Everton at home wasn't such a "deep end" and unless we let him have some big match experience now, we might not be able to reap the benefit later on.

At some point you have to go for it.

Normally I would agree with you that Everton at home wasnt too deep and end, but this isnt a normal time for us at the moment. I just think the expectation and pressure may have been too much for such a yuong lad, he`s still only 17 remember and thats an awful lot of responsibility for one so young. Plus, Carlo still has to show some faith with the players he will have to use between now and the end of the season, whether we like it or not. These players are the `st team back up and will be needed again.

 

[geezer]

I felt Chelsea didn't have much patience on the ball particularly in the second half. They were giving the ball away easily and trying a ton of long balls that were easily cut out by Everton.

Personally, I would have introduced Josh into the game, taken out Kalou and put Malouda on the wing with Josh in a more advanced Midfield position to be the "link" between defense and attack. I think they would have been more fluid this way. Josh is very calm on the ball and plays a strong possession game. Also knows how to feather in those passes to the front and makes great runs off the ball. Very clever for his age. The most impressive thing about Josh is not even when he has the ball it is when he doesn't. His movement off the ball is impeccable. Even defensively, his awareness of angles when shutting down is fantastic and the kid is pretty good at stealing the ball off opponents.

I also would never have subbed off Bosingwa. Yes he got beat for a couple of crosses but Bonsingwa is very difficult to beat 1v1 which is Ferreira's weakness. Baines is too talented and I would have been worried about a Ferreira v Baines match-up. It's one thing for a cross to get passed you and another to get beaten 1v1. Plus Bosingwa looked dangerous going forward.

So I guess 1 sub I would have made 1 sub I wouldn't have.

Yep, pretty much what I was thinking. What did you make of Mikel being subbed?

 

[abramovich]

You know, even if all of what you're saying was true, that would still just be MY OPINION. If you don't like it, TOO BAD. I haven't forced anyone to read it and I didn't come here and just start throwing around insults. I came and gave MY OPINION on how I saw Chelsea's season. You are either really sensitive or just being arrogant because I have never seen this type of BS from someone on a message board just for giving THEIR opinion. I don't see why we can't have a decent argument. Now I said IF it was true which a lot of it is not and the annoying thing is I already corrected you before yet you insist on retyping the same nonsense AGAIN and claiming them as my ideas.

- Not impressed with 6-0 wins:

So what if I am not impressed. Maybe I look at the game differently. I like to see free flowing football. IMO, in those games Chelsea did some great things and some not so great things. Their finishing was obviously excellent but their ability to play flowing football consistently has not been there all year. It was better when Frank was around as he stabilized the game and provides a dynamic presence, but it was still an area where Chelsea needed to improve. They give the ball away easily way too often and are not patient enough to allow things to develop often rushing a pass that is not there.

- Had to endure horrible football since August:

I didn't use the word ENDURE, you included that to challenge my fanhood. Nice touch.

- You'd rather see us play well and lose 1-0 to Man U than play this "horrible football" and win 6-0:

This is more of an exaggeration but there is a point there and that is that if Chelsea can play great football against other great teams then it will benefit going forward in the Prem and in the CL. They aren't going to win the CL final winning 6-0. They are going to have to play much better football than they have.

- Chelsea play "immature" and "amateur" football:

Is this a quote? Did I say Chelsea plays immature and amateur football. I know I used that word somewhere but I doubt I said that. And I already know you have no idea how to quote so I won't acknowledge it.

- Chelsea should play like Barcelona (variations thereof):

I never said Chelsea SHOULD play like Barcelona. I said watching Barcelona was impressive. No one can probably reach that level of play because it is unique to them but Chelsea needs to improve on their ability to use inter-connecting passes to create chances. Crosses and long balls have their uses but there are teams that are very good at dealing with those kinds of threats. Chelsea at times this year have done great things keeping the ball on the ground but they need to do it more.

- Not impressed with Malouda

When Chelsea first got Malouda he was not to impressive at all. Pretty sure that is common ground. Last year with Carlo he broke out and had a great year, Frankly, beyond my expectations. Even at the start of this year I thought he was good. And the fact is he is a good player. No doubt. But, to me, he lacks the ability to create on his own. He is not Arjen Robben. Robben you put him out there on the wing and he makes things happen. Malouda not as much. He is not too creative, not a great dribbler and even his crossing lacks consistency. The guy battles and runs hard and has shown a finishing touch, but without someone to feed him dangerous passes as Frank was he struggles to create on his own. Great character guy and a guy you want on your squad but to me, is lacking in areas.

- Stated that Mikel can't pass

- Neither can Essien, Ramires or Malouda:

This comment is just annoying. We have gone over this over and over. And the point is CLEAR. These players are not "great passers of the ball" was exactly what I said originally. You insist on taking it as I am saying they CANT PASS period. Which is honestly just plain RIDICULOUS. For the last time, they are not great passers of the ball, as in, they don't create offensive opportunities with creative passes. And that doesn't mean they have NEVER done it. They have done it before, but they are not CONSISTENT at it OR they don't specialize in it. Frank Lampard does. So IMO, having all three in your midfield AT THE SAME TIME will offer little in the way of creative passes and hold back your attack. CLEAR?

- All four of the above are the same kind of player:

Yes they are all very similar. They are all athletic, strong, energy players 3 of the 4 are known for their defensive quality. Essien can do things offensively but his defensive prowess is what he is best known for, tracking back, tackles, intercepting passes and starting counter attacks with his ability to run with the ball. Ramires was not brought in for his offensive traits, he is not known for being a scorer or a playmaker, they liked his willingness to run A LOT and he does have a bit of skill to him which we saw a glimpse of at the WC. Overall a player who tracks back and gets into tackles. Was supposed to replace Mikel as a more dynamic holding midfielder. Why? Because they didn't feel Mikel provided enough going forward. That idea has changed I am sure because Mikel has proven to be hard to replace due to his strength in the middle. As for Mikel, again, best known for his defensive role. Malouda, he was a left back, part time, at Lyon. We brought him because he would be responsible defensively down the wing and also provide some offensive ability similar to what Dirk Kuyt does for Holland. The problem with Malouda when you put him in the middle is he does not have the dribbling or creative passing to unlock a defense, same as Ramires, Essien and Mikel. So these players are similar in some of the things they provide as responsible defensive players and similar ALSO in some of what they lack going forward.

- Your most hated player is Paulo Ferreira ... because he's past his best.

I already explained this before. I don't like him as a player, never really have, I think he is a liability and FOR ME, I don't like seeing him on the field and it severely bothers me when Ancelotti continues to put him in the game and he gets victimized. Ferreira has always been a weak link. And that is why they went out and replaced him so my thoughts on him as a player are not far from what the Club views him as, a player that needed to be upgraded. I don't hate him, I hate seeing him on the field. And the fact that it was him who missed the tackle on Baines to allow that cross for the tying goal frustrated me even more and I answered that question not long after so a lot of what into that answer was frustration.

Look, I have answered everything very clearly. There is no contradiction or changing of arguments. If you are going to quote something do it properly and make your point. These are my opinions, if you don't agree, great, I don't expect everyone or even anyone to agree, I am a Chelsea supporter whether you like it or not. I simply don't see why the concept of a message board escapes you. It's for people to post DIFFERENT opinions and ideas and to promote discussion between fans. I never attacked anyone either so I don't see why there should be such a drama.

That is actually a well thought out post with some great insights. In my view you may be a bit harsh on Ferreira but otherwise I agree on most of what you said here.