Needs to keep his place. Think he's been excellent this season and thought he was very good yesterday too. Shouldn't be blamed one bit for the referee allowing Fer to kick him down in my book. Just hope JT is back for Liverpool as he is needed. Luiz and Cahill isn't that great of a partnership usually.

I am disgusted at the amount of fans trying to blame Cahill and call it his mistake.

On another note I am so glad that Chelsea players and manager are finally showing the emotion and trying their best to win games! Win or lose, that is the most important thing to me -- for the players to try their hardest, and actually care.

Cahill will bounce back from this I am sure, and from the early signs in the season in regards to the whole team, I think we will mount a solid title challenge!

Come on Chelsea!

Not Cahills biggest fan, but fair play to him calling it like it was and showing hoe much this means to him. FA deciding to not press charges is the closest you get to an admiting the ref f**ked up

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Xfaxtor

56 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Needs to keep his place. Think he's been excellent this season and thought he was very good yesterday too. Shouldn't be blamed one bit for the referee allowing Fer to kick him down in my book. Just hope JT is back for Liverpool as he is needed. Luiz and Cahill isn't that great of a partnership usually.

1

Literally a Champions League winning partnership 

Luiz is more than capable for stepping in for either, that's why we brought him in.

Graham Poll on Talksport has just destroyed Marriner's refeereing on the Fer goal. Said it was unbelievable that he had not seen not one but two, blatant fouls on Cahill.

1 hour ago, Saru said:

I am disgusted at the amount of fans trying to blame Cahill and call it his mistake.

 

 

I think you're hell bent on trying to defend cahill which make you missed the point..  It's not a case of unfortunate event like slip, blunder etc.. he took too much time than he should have in that situation and that's where we're coming from.. had he been nicked off the ball as soon as he received the pass then I believe many won't be as critical..

 

10 minutes ago, bola said:

 

I think you're hell bent on trying to defend cahill which make you missed the point..  It's not a case of unfortunate event like slip, blunder etc.. he took too much time than he should have in that situation and that's where we're coming from.. had he been nicked off the ball as soon as he received the pass then I believe many won't be as critical..

 

We are clearly playing a style where we are not going to thump it up the field in these situations (whether or not we should is another question), so given that, Cahill done what was expected of him. The first touch was poor, but he done enough to move the ball away and had he not been fouled it would of been a simple backpass, but since he clearly was, a free kick should of been given. In both situations he would of successfully defended without giving them possession... All of this talk of "he took too much time" -- he literally took a second on the ball before he was fouled.

The simple fact is that had the game been called properly, he would of successfully defended the attack and kept possession. 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Saru

It has nothing to do with playing style for this scenario.. When you know there is someone approaching upon you receiving a pass, the simplest option is always do a 1 touch passing to your teammate but cahil didn't do that, he took an extra touch.. This 1 touch passing is pretty common among footballers, they do it all the time in pressurized situation.. I have no idea why cahill didn't do it..

 

1 hour ago, just said:

Graham Poll on Talksport has just destroyed Marriner's refeereing on the Fer goal. Said it was unbelievable that he had not seen not one but two, blatant fouls on Cahill.

 

Despite what Poll says, it was still a foul.

1 hour ago, just said:

Graham Poll on Talksport has just destroyed Marriner's refeereing on the Fer goal. Said it was unbelievable that he had not seen not one but two, blatant fouls on Cahill.

It was defiantly a foul, there are no two ways about it.

I do also think Cahill took far too long on the ball in the first place though and got himself in an unnecessary situation. 

If that had happened to Luiz on his debut I can't help but wonder what you would have had to say about it 

49 minutes ago, bola said:

It has nothing to do with playing style for this scenario.. When you know there is someone approaching upon you receiving a pass, the simplest option is always do a 1 touch passing to your teammate but cahil didn't do that, he took an extra touch.. This 1 touch passing is pretty common among footballers, they do it all the time in pressurized situation.. I have no idea why cahill didn't do it..

 

He took an extra touch and would of been fine if he did not get fouled, or if the referee acknowledged the foul. Blaming him for the goal is ridiculous. What the hell do you not understand?

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by Saru

29 minutes ago, Davey Baby said:

 

Despite what Poll says, it was still a foul.

 

There's no denying that. Cahill just played poor at that moment. Happens to everyone.

1 hour ago, Saru said:

He took an extra touch and would of been fine if he did not get fouled, or if the referee acknowledged the foul. Blaming him for the goal is ridiculous. What the hell do you not understand?

There was no need at all for that extra touch, the pass was very simple and could be hit directly back to Courtois or Terry. I don't think he did himself any favours by rushing back up after such a clear foul either. There are alot of overlooked freekicks whenever players gets closed down like this, although it happens alot more often further up the pitch, best thing to do is not to create an unnecessary situation. 

Marriner got it wrong but Cahill should have been more careful. 

Does Cahill have his own chant?

4 hours ago, mclovin83 said:

It was defiantly a foul, there are no two ways about it.

I do also think Cahill took far too long on the ball in the first place though and got himself in an unnecessary situation. 

If that had happened to Luiz on his debut I can't help but wonder what you would have had to say about it 

Posting to fit an agenda?

 

If Luiz had taken the brief second on the ball Cahill had, and had been fouled so obviously, twice, I would have said it was what it was........ a foul.

 

If Cahill or Luiz or any other of our back four do this... 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1817061-david-luizs-defensive-howler-lets-in-cardiffs-jordan-mutch-to-score-at-chelsea#

I will say it was what it was ...........God awful defending you wouldn't want to see in a school boy game.

You see, even if Cahill had been totally at fault here, which all expert opinion I have heard today says he wasn't, turning this one scenario into a Cahill or Luiz decision would make no difference to me. Because I know without a trace of a doubt that Gary Cahill is by far the better defender of the two. Using practically any metric you want to chose. Positioning, better. Tackling, better. Decision making, better. Covering, better. Blocking, better.

Sure, he isn't the best centre-half I have ever seen but he can do what I always feel defenders should do first and foremost.... defend. He can't ping 40 yard balls, he can't do step overs, he doesn't make me laugh. I don't care, that's not what he is paid for. He can defend and he generally does it consistently and dependably. I like that in our defenders, I think I always will.

 

 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by just

Actually just, if we want to look at metrics, David Luiz has consistently averaged more tackles and interceptions over the years than Gary Cahill!

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 20169 yr by SydneyChelsea

Cahill is stay at back defender. Wouldn't get anywhere near Barca or current City because he clearly lacks playing skills like passing and positioning or the drive going forward.

Now he doesn't have to do it with us under Conte as Kante does the job but with him there is no options either. He does what he does and he is good at it but at the same time a bit limited.

If you compare him to peak Terry or Bonucci he is pretty far. Terry can do pretty much everything although he usually doesn't.

11 hours ago, just said:

Posting to fit an agenda?

 

If Luiz had taken the brief second on the ball Cahill had, and had been fouled so obviously, twice, I would have said it was what it was........ a foul.

 

If Cahill or Luiz or any other of our back four do this... 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1817061-david-luizs-defensive-howler-lets-in-cardiffs-jordan-mutch-to-score-at-chelsea#

I will say it was what it was ...........God awful defending you wouldn't want to see in a school boy game.

You see, even if Cahill had been totally at fault here, which all expert opinion I have heard today says he wasn't, turning this one scenario into a Cahill or Luiz decision would make no difference to me. Because I know without a trace of a doubt that Gary Cahill is by far the better defender of the two. Using practically any metric you want to chose. Positioning, better. Tackling, better. Decision making, better. Covering, better. Blocking, better.

Sure, he isn't the best centre-half I have ever seen but he can do what I always feel defenders should do first and foremost.... defend. He can't ping 40 yard balls, he can't do step overs, he doesn't make me laugh. I don't care, that's not what he is paid for. He can defend and he generally does it consistently and dependably. I like that in our defenders, I think I always will.

 

 

Blimey, my post was intended to be tongue in cheek, hence the 'troll face' 

You should have saved yourself the bother of providing another link (which I haven't even bothered hitting) and repeating your opinions of David Luiz all over again. Serioulsy, who honestly judges his signing on whether he makes people laugh or not? Not me, or anyone I know, that's for sure. 

With regards to Cahill, I do not believe he was 'totally at fault' for obvious reasons, I do however believe he was too slow and invited pressure when he could have passed the ball and avoided it. Yes he was fouled, that is  a crucial & undeniable fact, but he also took a bad touch and was heading back towards his own goal with the ball, with a opposition player breathing down his neck; it always has the potential to go wrong. 

It was purely a mistake on Mariners part, and the line officials. I'm sure they aren't cheats, Mariner looks an idiot for missing the foul, so you have to think he/they didn't see it. 

We are level on game changing mistakes by the officials now. Costa got away with a definite second yellow against WH and went on to score, so we gained a goal, plus he got no suspension and has scored three goals since. 

18 hours ago, SydneyChelsea said:

Actually just, if we want to look at metrics, David Luiz has consistently averaged more tackles and interceptions over the years than Gary Cahill!

 

 

 

Aah good the old stats there Syd.

 

http://eplindex.com/21025/david-luiz-gary-cahill-stats-comparison-chelseas-defenders.html

http://www.thinkfootball.co.uk/statistical-analysis-should-gary-cahill-or-david-luiz-partner-john-terry-for-chelsea/

 

98.76% of people believe them 102.4% of the time.

The best football stat I ever saw was the one someone used to try and prove to me that JFH was better than Theirry Henry! I kid you not.

 

Oh I forgot heading. Cahill is also better.

 

Here are stats that may or may not prove John Stones is better than John Terry.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-21/stats-how-john-stones-compares-to-chelsea-captain/

Edited September 13, 20169 yr by just

5 hours ago, coco said:

I'm sure they aren't cheats, Mariner looks an idiot for missing the foul, so you have to think he/they didn't see it. 

I agree that he is most likely not doing it maliciously, but he seriously has a problem with missing things that a referee shouldn't. He has sent of the wrong player by accident before ffs. 

22 hours ago, just said:

 

Sure, he isn't the best centre-half I have ever seen but he can do what I always feel defenders should do first and foremost.... defend. He can't ping 40 yard balls, he can't do step overs, he doesn't make me laugh. I don't care, that's not what he is paid for. He can defend and he generally does it consistently and dependably. I like that in our defenders, I think I always will.

 

 

How dare you insult Cahilldinho like that!

2 hours ago, just said:

Aah good the old stats there Syd.

 

http://eplindex.com/21025/david-luiz-gary-cahill-stats-comparison-chelseas-defenders.html

http://www.thinkfootball.co.uk/statistical-analysis-should-gary-cahill-or-david-luiz-partner-john-terry-for-chelsea/

 

98.76% of people believe them 102.4% of the time.

The best football stat I ever saw was the one someone used to try and prove to me that JFH was better than Theirry Henry! I kid you not.

 

Oh I forgot heading. Cahill is also better.

 

Here are stats that may or may not prove John Stones is better than John Terry.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-07-21/stats-howdoes -john-stones-compares-to-chelsea-captain/

@just you know I was doing it to get a rise out of you, hoping you'd bite harder. Alas nothing was forthcoming! 

You'll never convince me that stats are useless in football, though. You did mention metrics though, and I provided them before some statistical cowboy tried to sweep you off your feet with a barrage of irrelevant numbers. Stats are important because they are the same records that we observe with our eyes, except the records are kept by a neutral party. Quantitative observations are helpful in managing bias.

Still, stats don't exist in a vacuum and this is the mistake so many people and pundits make when citing them, especially in football. Statistical analysis and relevance is so poor in football compared to other sports, like basketball or cricket where numbers tell a very good story.

It is indeed an established fact that David Luiz makes more tackles and interceptions than Gary Cahill, but those numbers don't mean he is a better defender which is the automatic assumption most people make. In context, if we look at defenders around the world, numbers of tackles and interceptions do not predict how "good" we consider the defender to be. There are lots of top defenders (Terry, Alderweireld) who average less than 2 interceptions per game as there are plenty of top defenders who average more (Chiellini, Godin) so now we have an unreliable metric. You can make a similar argument for tackles, too. These numbers are heavily influenced by playstyle and manager instructions, not just sheer quality. The end result is that defending is incredibly hard to quantify, because you are trying to detect factors that influence the absence of something (goals) rather than factors that influence them to happen.

We can, however, still take those numbers and dig much deeper to tell a story. The numbers seem to put Luiz in a category of defenders who like to chase the ball, as opposed to players like Cahill or Terry who generally read the game to snuff out chances before they arise. And while the number of tackles made isn't terribly useful (Sergio Ramos also makes a lot of tackles) if you dig deeper you can look tackle success. 'Top' defenders - your Terrys, Chiellinis, Kompanys etc. maintain a career average 80%+ success in the tackle. Our friend David Luiz, however, barely scrapes over 70%.

So now our numbers suggest to us a story whereby Luiz a) loves to go after the ball and b) is significantly worse in the tackle than 'top' defenders. Sound familiar?

As I said before, defending is extremely hard to quantify, and numbers-at-a-glance aren't nearly as informative or predictive as they are around scoring goals. So I guess we now need to make a qualitative assessment on how Luiz defends because it's markedly different to other defenders. If you watch him, even in highlight videos, something always seems off and I could never put my finger on it. For me, the main thing I notice is that he seems permanently off-balance when he challenges for the ball. You don't see him making intentional covering blocks like Terry or Chiellini or comfortable interceptions. He's reactive, always just sticking a foot out and hoping for the best. I say that as one of his long-term defenders on here, who argued with you and @g3.7 at length about his defending, but now i'm willing to concede that he just doesn't get the fundamentals of defending. He is always off balance.

So now, we have a centre-half who a) loves to go after the ball b) is significantly worse in the tackle that 'top' defenders and c) is off-balance when he attempts these things.

Can we please just stick with Gary Cahill?