Those teams have also won the champions league playing the same style. Man City have won the premier league playing a more attacking style than us, so it is definitely possible. But ultimately it comes down to whatever style of play suits the players that we have and which gives US the best chance of winning. 

 

With the current set of players we have, I would say that an attacking style suits our midfielders and forwards and maybe a more organized and counter attack oriented style suits our defenders, which makes me feel that we are still a team in transition towards a proper style of football. 

 

By being allowed to consistently play aggressive, attacking football in your domestic league it makes it easier to transition that playing style into your European matches. 

 

Where Premier League sides have to grind out results quite frequently on the way to winning titles I think making that attacking transition into Europe is difficult. 

 

City won both their league titles by the skin of their teeth, I don't think they've assembled a "great" Premier League winning side yet, last year they lost 6 league matches and their first title win was on goal difference. 

 

 

City won both their league titles by the skin of their teeth, I don't think they've assembled a "great" Premier League winning side yet, last year they lost 6 league matches and their first title win was on goal difference. 

 

You could make a case that our 2010 team was the last 'great' league-winning side. I think either us or United in 2008 would walk any league from 2011 on such has been the decline of the Premier League.

it's funny how peoples attitudes change over the course of a season. earlier on in the season, on this forum the question was 'will we go the the whole season unbeaten?' now it's will we even win the league? this is only jose's second season back after quite  a period of instability, and now we are on course to win the title for the first time in FIVE years. But it's still not enough for some people who want to win the league AND play total football. jose has not really got started rebuilding, i'm sure there will be  two top quality additions in the close season.

 

 The first half against southampton was lifeless a performance and as jose said about west ham, but for luck it could have been 2 or 3-1 bar costa hitting the post and a worldie double reaction save from the keeper, our perspective would have been, the glass is half full, not christ we are drinking three day old spitfire dregs. But i think if you asked a liverscum supporter in a couple of years do you want see attacking football, week in week out and  win nish,  or a more pragmatic approach,  and be a feared european adversary, because that is what we are to the big 3 (RM, BM, barca) they will take pragmatic after winning nothing, for so long. And so will i for the time being, lets not worry about total football  til next season, once the dust has settled. 

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by croydonblue

You could make a case that our 2010 team was the last 'great' league-winning side. I think either us or United in 2008 would walk any league from 2011 on such has been the decline of the Premier League.

 

I consider the truly great league winners to be sides who generally lose 3 games or less. That's just my own personal yard stick. 

I consider the truly great league winners to be sides who generally lose 3 games or less. That's just my own personal yard stick. 

 

In 2008 we lost just 3 games, United lost 5. Either one of those was a great team though, simply put they were the best in Europe.

 

At the moment we've only lost 2 league games so it's conceivable that we reach your yardstick but I wouldn't call us a great team yet.

 

 

And no-one is asking for total football.

In 2008 we lost just 3 games, United lost 5. Either one of those was a great team though, simply put they were the best in Europe.

 

At the moment we've only lost 2 league games so it's conceivable that we reach your yardstick but I wouldn't call us a great team yet.

 

 

And no-one is asking for total football.

except for you! 

except for you! 

 

Where have I asked for total football? A moment ago I said I'd be happy with us parking the bus and winning games 1-0, so nice one

Where have I asked for total football? A moment ago I said I'd be happy with us parking the bus and winning games 1-0, so nice one

your the one using words like turgid!

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by croydonblue

your the one using words like turgid!

Our last two performances have certainly been 'turgid'

Turgid means swollen, congested or distended as well as boringly pompous, flowery language.

as fans it is about what keeps you happy.

 

if you can't win anything then go and play as entertaining football as possible. aston villa under lambert took the piss out of their fans.

 

if you can win then do it. and try to do it as well as possible.

 

I don't think there is one way of playing that is inherently entertaining. I think atletico madrid are a hugely entertaining side. more than real madrid for example. but the best two sides I've ever seen in terms of entertainment are barcelona under guadiola which was is the absolute model I think. serially winning, cynical when necessary but fantastic in terms of passing, movement and efficiency. the second best side was milan under ancelotti, but that side didn't justify its quality in terms of trophies.

 

under jose the first time we had a team with no effort to improve the quality of football. it was a great side, better than this one and probably better than most if not all teams in europe currently, but in aesthetic terms it got worse season after season. this time we're clearly set up to play in a more progressive way. fabregas playing behind a front four can only be seen as attacking. someone on here described him as a 'turnstile' when defending which I thought was a lovely- and accurate- turn of phrase. overall we've improved clearly in terms of style of play and results compared to last season so I think we have to be hugely encouraged. I hope that trend continues and I think it will do so.

There is no right or wrong style. Neither attractive football is important, nor defensive. Everything is point of view. Jose's point of view is that the defense is more important than offensive. Wenger  is his contrast. But both wants to win. 

 

The right question is - is playing defensive football  with these guys a good idea? 

 

My opinion - no, it's not. And scores prove it. I have written how many times we were equalised when we scored first goal. These boys can't be 2005-2007 team. They will fail if Jose try to do the same. But if he gives them what they need(i mean attractive football), they could be better. 

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by Pendergast

This is a results driven industry.  If you want to play nice football, but win very little, then there's a red and white club in north london that'll suit you

I think we do try and play entertaining football and win at the same time. The reason why we don't look entertaining right now is because our form isn't that great.

I am one of only 2 who has voted attractive football.

 

However, this is personal reasons. I gave up my life long Season ticket the after seeing us lift the Champions League having seen us lift every trophy we can (except the Europa league) at the time. I was also justifying the decision to myself that nothing could replace the winning of those trophy's for the first time in my life time.

 

in particular :

 

FA cup 1997

Premier League 2005

Champions League 2012

 

I really can't separate them in hindsight, each one was just an amazing day for me, and each time I was blown away. New or young fans might say how can you compare an FA cup to a Champions League trophy but you can, it was the first major trophy in my lifetime (that I can remember I was too young for the Leeds final)

 

Having been blessed with the full set I do feel now I would like to see the team of course still win things but I am far more interested in style and maybe bringing through young talent to win things. I wouldn't mind going a few seasons without a trophy to build something special.

Great post /\

Interesting read

I couldn't give a f**k about attractive football. That's Wenger's philosophy, and look what he specialises in (clue, it begins with F) .

 

I'll take winning football anyday, now matter how ugly.

I couldn't give a f**k about attractive football. That's Wenger's philosophy, and look what he specialises in (clue, it begins with F) .

 

I'll take winning football anyday, now matter how ugly.

That could be a very good answer if the question was - what do you prefer? - playing tiki-taka(Wenger's tiki-taka, not Guardiola's - his is successful) football or winning football. But it isn't. Read the title carefully. 

Edited March 18, 201511 yr by Pendergast

That could be a very good answer if the question was - what do you prefer? - playing tiki-taka football or winning football. But it isn't. Read the title carefully. 

 

I disagree, the term "attractive football" is open to interpretation. Why should it mean tiki-taka football exclusively?

 

The irony is, we are playing more like Arsenal these days, trying to pass it into the net. God I miss Lampard, he knew when to shoot!

We have as much quality as almost any of the top sides in Europe. We also have one of, if not the best, most tactically astute coach in world football, but we still decide to go into big games with an inferior mindset and it's very frustrating.

 

The thing is, we don't tend to play overly cautious against the smaller sides, but in the CL and against the top 5-6 sides in the EPL, we always seem to hold back from really going for the jugular and it's really irritating to see as a fan.

 

We have more quality over the pitch than the likes of utd, liverpool, arsenal, and are on par with city, yet choose the safe option every time. In the CL we're usually the 4th favourite team behind madrid, barca and bayern, yet we adopt the polar opposite style of play to those 3 and I don't know why. 

im intrigued where some of you get your in depth/ inside knowledge on how the team is set up

deliberately by the manager to play non-attractive football , well done 

 

Personally I know nothing of these internal tactical discussions to upset the fans, invite the media to criticize Chelsea further, etc.

 

beauty is in the eye of the beholder so attraction to attractive is always subjective

 

some teams are blessed with enough talent to play 'attractively' nearly every match - Bayern, Barca, Real M perhaps

but even these teams have mini slumps and bad days. 

 

this season we have witnessed some sublime football and some less than .......but we have a trophy in the bag

and appear in pole position to hoist another in May, pragmatism is always the best approach to winning imo

Despite our lofty position in the League (albeit alongside a relatively poor showing in Europe), there has been much criticism on the forum of late of the style of play we have been employing recently. Our performances clearly haven't been what they were in the first half of the season, and we certainly haven't had the swagger of the early games, but we still maintain a healthy six-point lead with a game in hand. We have only lost three games in all competitions this season, and haven't lost in the league since the catastrophe of New Year's Day, however we have drawn four of our last six in all competitions, and haven't scored more than two goals in a game since beating Swansea in the middle of January.

 

Either way, we are certainly no longer in the imperious form which saw fans and pundits alike speculate that Chelsea might stroll to the title, with talk even of us going the season unbeaten or winning a treble. The frustration with our recent struggle to get goals probably isn't helped by our general reputation for playing defensive football in our recent history, even taking it to extremes in the bigger games (case in point CL 2012). Recently I have seen criticisms from posters on here who have accused of being 'turgid', even 'clueless', with several people asking why we can't still win but while playing more attractive football.

 

This, to me, begged the question - what if you had to choose between them? Which do you consider more important out of winning and playing attractive football?

 

This is a flawed question I know, as 'attractive' is an entirely subjective term, the specifics of which no one will agree on, but let us assume for argument's sake that it consists of playing a more attacking style which will result in us scoring more goals, but in all probability, run a greater risk of conceding more goals. Would you prefer a slow grind to a title or an expansive style of football which ultimately leads to nothing, in the fashion of Arsenal over the last decade?

 

So, assuming they are mutually exclusive, which would it be for you? Attractive football or winning football?

 

Edit: forgot to actually attach the poll

You don't get it do you? It's not about playing attractive football at all! It's about at least trying to play football. I've never said I want Chelsea to play highline explosive football like Arsenal/Barca. All we want is to at least try to win the game rather than always trying to see out a 1-0 lead. Our players look disinterested in keeping the ball/ moving it around, shows no intensity, no tempo nothing not even trying to score after taking the lead. That's what makes me sad. It's not about playing attractive football at all.

 

There have been several instances of it...

 

We simply take the lead and then sit deep and inviting pressure and put no effort at all to kill the game. That's what f**ked us many times this season.

Be it PSG, City, United etc. We couldn't even beat a 10-men PSG side at home. When our team got the lead, our players were walking! Jesus.

Showing no intensity to seal the game off. And hence karma hit it back and we got out of Champions League by a 10-men side who also played at weekend where our team was having a full week rest. Isn't it lovely no?

 

Against City, we scored and took the lead against 10-men side and after scoring again our players did f**k all, and started defending deep and City started to dominate us with 10-men on the field. And in the 86th minute or w/e our beloved legend scored the equaliser. They deserved it imo. Showing more passion, intensity to win/draw the game than a team who has advantage having and extra man.

 

Against United, we played well untill we got the lead, and again we started to defend deep and inviting pressure then at the last minute of extra time RVP scored. Lovely isn't it? That's what you get when you don't try to win the game and take it granted.

 

Our players don't even try to add another goal after taking the lead, that's what baffles me. Our defence is nowhere that good to sustain a 1-0 lead anymore and we've seen it many many times this season be it City(away & home), PSG(away & home), United, Liverpool and numerous more.

 

We have soo much quality to play good football, but yet we play like Aston Villa even against 10-men teams. Pfft.

im intrigued where some of you get your in depth/ inside knowledge on how the team is set up

deliberately by the manager to play non-attractive football , well done 

 

Personally I know nothing of these internal tactical discussions to upset the fans, invite the media to criticize Chelsea further, etc.

 

beauty is in the eye of the beholder so attraction to attractive is always subjective

 

some teams are blessed with enough talent to play 'attractively' nearly every match - Bayern, Barca, Real M perhaps

but even these teams have mini slumps and bad days. 

 

this season we have witnessed some sublime football and some less than .......but we have a trophy in the bag

and appear in pole position to hoist another in May, pragmatism is always the best approach to winning imo

 

http://www.chelseafc.com/tickets-membership/buytickets-online.html

 

http://www.sky.com/products

Attractive football isn't everything for me but I do enjoy teams that score a lot of goals. The city team last season when they went on that 20 game run or whatever were fantastic at this, they didn't play all that tiki-taka, useless possession stuff, they just scored a lot of goals and looked dangerous every time they went forward.

My dad said something interesting last night that it'll be a while before Chelsea have a team that is as good as this and if Mourinho continues to employ slightly negative tactics when it isn't necessary (PSG at home) and ordering the players to take their foot off the pace in the second half etc, the players will never fulfill their potential, not sure if he's right but it was interesting

http://www.chelseafc.com/tickets-membership/buytickets-online.html

 

http://www.sky.com/products

ha ha ha you are absolutely relentless.