May 10, 20188 yr Journalist Simon Johnson wrote a piece for the Standard stating how last night was a an act of self sabotage. It's difficult to disagree really.
May 10, 20188 yr 2 hours ago, Stim said: Whats the over/under on how many times he is called a c**t in the match day thread of the fa cup final ? Musta been a new record last night. Even saw someone call Christensen a c**t. These are the same people who are begging for people like Sarri to come and join and win the league in his first season. And if he doesn't do we expect those same people to have the patience? People on here are already calling Conte a bald c**t and all sorts of other personal insults, I guess we'll have to go for the best looking manager possible.
May 10, 20188 yr 4 minutes ago, enigma said: Journalist Simon Johnson wrote a piece for the Standard stating how last night was a an act of self sabotage. It's difficult to disagree really. I don't think he's deliberately trying to sabotage the team, but he definitely doesn't care that much about top 4, hence why he played the team he did.
May 10, 20188 yr 4 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said: 3 central defenders against a team we knew were just going to sit back. Embarrassing tactics but it has become what we are used to. I'm sure people will on this thread will still manage to blame last night on the board and the 'sick club'. How's that bad? Surely 4 at the back is more defensive than 3 at the back. It wasn't the 3 at the back which was the problem.
May 10, 20188 yr 26 minutes ago, Stim said: I think Giroud was rotated because he played 90 mins on Sunday and looked knackered by the end so Conte went with the fresher player. Yeah must suck that you have to play 2 games in 3 days.
May 10, 20188 yr 27 minutes ago, Stim said: I think Giroud was rotated because he played 90 mins on Sunday and looked knackered by the end so Conte went with the fresher player. 19 minutes ago, Nibs said: STOP IT with that rational thinking! Giroud hasn't played many games this season, if the bloke can't play two times a week then we shouldn't have signed him. That's a poor excuse, he did look tired, Conte didn't take him off, but you would expect a professional footballer who hasn't really had a lot of games time to be fresh 3 days later. And it wasn't actually Giroud that annoyed people, it was the benching of Hazard which was the ridiculous decision. Without Hazard we struggle, we can't break down teams without Hazard.
May 10, 20188 yr 20 minutes ago, Slojo said: How's that bad? Surely 4 at the back is more defensive than 3 at the back. It wasn't the 3 at the back which was the problem. I think the fact he went to a back 4 after conceding answers this question. The 3 at the back is basically a back 5 with the wing backs. Keep the wingbacks high and just have 2 CB's on the pitch. We knew what game plan they were going to play so should have had as much attacking talent on as possible. If we can't handle a big ball over the top to a target man with 2 CB's we have bigger problems to worry about. Back 3 was the problem and there was a hell of a lot more too.
May 10, 20188 yr 28 minutes ago, Slojo said: How's that bad? Surely 4 at the back is more defensive than 3 at the back. It wasn't the 3 at the back which was the problem. With 4 at the back you have two CBs against 1 striker who wasn't even playing as a striker anyway. The two full backs play more forward and hug the touchline, give more width to the team.
May 10, 20188 yr 3 minutes ago, RIP Mourinho said: I think the fact he went to a back 4 after conceding answers this question. The 3 at the back is basically a back 5 with the wing backs. Keep the wingbacks high and just have 2 CB's on the pitch. We knew what game plan they were going to play so should have had as much attacking talent on as possible. If we can't handle a big ball over the top to a target man with 2 CB's we have bigger problems to worry about. Back 3 was the problem and there was a hell of a lot more too. Very debatable, I don't think a back 3 is a back 5, it completely depends what system you play with. Conte is a defensive coach but our wingbacks aren't playing at fullback, they're usually with the midfielders. We've often had defensive issues because of our back 3, and left vulnerable to counter attacks when we've given the ball away, a back 4 is obviously a lot more sound. 3 at the back wasn't an issue, the issue is all season we haven't been good enough, we've got nobody to play next to Kante, we've got poor distribution from the back, and we have no striker who's able to score goals. What's funny is that last season we had all those things, this season we don't... Weird that eh? I also think not playing Hazard was a ridiculous decision.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 minute ago, Ernie_blue said: With 4 at the back you have two CBs against 1 striker who wasn't even playing as a striker anyway. The two full backs play more forward and hug the touchline, give more width to the team. Well, you think our fullbacks/wingbacks are relegation level anyway, so what good would that do? With 3-4-3 you still have two players wide either side, two players next to the striker, two players playing as wingbacks. It completely depends on the system, defensive teams don't play with 3 at the back they play with 4, your wingbacks can play much further in a formation with 3 at the back.
May 10, 20188 yr Just now, Slojo said: Well, you think our fullbacks/wingbacks are relegation level anyway, so what good would that do? With 3-4-3 you still have two players wide either side, two players next to the striker, two players playing as wingbacks. It completely depends on the system, defensive teams don't play with 3 at the back they play with 4, your wingbacks can play much further in a formation with 3 at the back. Defensive teams play with 3 at the back not 4. Last night you would have had 2 Cbs and the full backs playing forward, basically the same as 3 but you don't need the extra CB. When have I said there relegation level,the ideal full backs would be Emerson and Dave, they hug the touchline and give width. Alonso plays too much inside.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 minute ago, Slojo said: Very debatable, I don't think a back 3 is a back 5, it completely depends what system you play with. Conte is a defensive coach but our wingbacks aren't playing at fullback, they're usually with the midfielders. We've often had defensive issues because of our back 3, and left vulnerable to counter attacks when we've given the ball away, a back 4 is obviously a lot more sound. 3 at the back wasn't an issue, the issue is all season we haven't been good enough, we've got nobody to play next to Kante, we've got poor distribution from the back, and we have no striker who's able to score goals. What's funny is that last season we had all those things, this season we don't... Weird that eh? I also think not playing Hazard was a ridiculous decision. Last night, whichever formation we play we have the 'full backs' playing high up the pitch. Which of these formations look more defensive to you: Willy Azpi Andreas Rudiger Zappa Cesc Kante Alonso Willian Morata Pedro Willy Cahill Rudiger Zappa Cesc Kante Alonso Willian Giroud Morata Pedro The simple fact that we have another attacker instead of a defender shows that.
May 10, 20188 yr 6 minutes ago, Slojo said: Well, you think our fullbacks/wingbacks are relegation level anyway, so what good would that do? With 3-4-3 you still have two players wide either side, two players next to the striker, two players playing as wingbacks. It completely depends on the system, defensive teams don't play with 3 at the back they play with 4, your wingbacks can play much further in a formation with 3 at the back. Attacking teams don't play with 3 at the back. Stoke have played a back three most of the season. Defensive.
May 10, 20188 yr Just now, RIP Mourinho said: Last night, whichever formation we play we have the 'full backs' playing high up the pitch. Which of these formations look more defensive to you: Willy Azpi Andreas Rudiger Zappa Cesc Kante Alonso Willian Morata Pedro Willy Cahill Rudiger Zappa Cesc Kante Alonso Willian Giroud Morata Pedro The simple fact that we have another attacker instead of a defender shows that. That's 2 at the back, not 4 at the back. That's not fullbacks. DO you honestly believe we could go a full season playing like that? Definitely not.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 minute ago, Slojo said: That's 2 at the back, not 4 at the back. That's not fullbacks. DO you honestly believe we could go a full season playing like that? Definitely not. Who said anything about going a full season? We're talking about a last night. A game that DIDN'T need a back 3. Do you understand how formations transition from defense to attack? that's the attacking line up, when in defense that pushes into a back 4.
May 10, 20188 yr Just now, RIP Mourinho said: Attacking teams don't play with 3 at the back. Stoke have played a back three most of the season. Defensive. A formation doesn't fully determine if you're an attacking team or a defensive team. Pep Guardiola played 3 at the back with Bayern Munich most games, Barcelona often played 3 at the back under Enrique or the manager before him I can't remember. This is a really stupid argument.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 minute ago, RIP Mourinho said: Who said anything about going a full season? We're talking about a last night. A game that DIDN'T need a back 3. Do you understand how formations transition from defense to attack? that's the attacking line up, when in defense that pushes into a back 4. The back 3 wasn't the issue... We've played 3 at the back all season, you're complaining about so many changes yet you expect Conte to go to a back 4? That doesn't make any sense. Obviously, I haven't played Football Manager as much as you have so I lack the great knowledge, captain hindsight strikes again.
May 10, 20188 yr 11 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said: Defensive teams play with 3 at the back not 4. Last night you would have had 2 Cbs and the full backs playing forward, basically the same as 3 but you don't need the extra CB. When have I said there relegation level,the ideal full backs would be Emerson and Dave, they hug the touchline and give width. Alonso plays too much inside. You've consistently downplayed the ability of Moses & Alonso, our two top picked fullbacks, so I'm surprised you have that opinion. I'm really not understanding how you think 3 at the back is an exclusive defensive formation, it most certainly isn't. You can still have two forwards in that system. Edited May 10, 20188 yr by Slojo
May 10, 20188 yr 6 minutes ago, Slojo said: You've consistently downplayed the ability of Moses & Alonso, our two top picked fullbacks, so I'm surprised you have that opinion. I'm really not understanding how you think 3 at the back is an exclusive defensive formation, it most certainly isn't. You can still have two forwards in that system. I can't believe how you think 3 at the back isn't defensive. Playing 3 at the back at home against Huddersfield is defensive, at home your full backs would be playing like wingbacks anyway, what's the point in 3 CBs against a team who hardly played a forward all game and you have Kante covering. They are our top two wingbacks in Conte's view, full backs would need more pace and stick to the touchline. 3 at the back is certainly the issue as look at how many goals we have scored and the amount of chances created, going forward we look pedestrian and slow the majority of the season.
May 10, 20188 yr 9 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said: I can't believe how you think 3 at the back isn't defensive. Playing 3 at the back at home against Huddersfield is defensive, at home your full backs would be playing like wingbacks anyway, what's the point in 3 CBs against a team who hardly played a forward all game and you have Kante covering. They are our top two wingbacks in Conte's view, full backs would need more pace and stick to the touchline. 3 at the back is certainly the issue as look at how many goals we have scored and the amount of chances created, going forward we look pedestrian and slow the majority of the season. Conte's setup is defensive, 3 at the back isn't. The 3 at the back isn't the issue, a formation of 5 at the back is obviously defensive. A 3 at the back is not 5 at the back, the wingbacks can play offensively, that leaves the way for 3 offensive players. When Conte first came the likes of Pedro, Hazard, Costa were just too much for the opposition to handle. Neither of those front 3 had any defensive duties. In the back 4 under Mourinho Willian & Hazard always had defensive issues. Kante would cover in any system.. that's his job. I can't believe you actually think it's an argument to say a back 3 is an automatic defensive formation, it simply isn't. The issue is that Conte plays the team too deep, he doesn't look the whole team going forward and being more fluid, he's very pragmatic in his approach. Only the front 3 get freedom and nobody else, he isn't restricted to that because of the back 3, that's just the system he's playing with. Look at how we change when we go 1-0 up, we attack then we defend for the rest of the game. Again, hindsight is a beautiful thing at play right now, I didn't see anyone complain about the back 3 before the match, now people are picking on anything Conte has done wrong this season like the Manager isn't allowed to make mistakes.
May 10, 20188 yr 3 minutes ago, Slojo said: Conte's setup is defensive, 3 at the back isn't. The 3 at the back isn't the issue, a formation of 5 at the back is obviously defensive. A 3 at the back is not 5 at the back, the wingbacks can play offensively, that leaves the way for 3 offensive players. When Conte first came the likes of Pedro, Hazard, Costa were just too much for the opposition to handle. Neither of those front 3 had any defensive duties. In the back 4 under Mourinho Willian & Hazard always had defensive issues. Kante would cover in any system.. that's his job. I can't believe you actually think it's an argument to say a back 3 is an automatic defensive formation, it simply isn't. The issue is that Conte plays the team too deep, he doesn't look the whole team going forward and being more fluid, he's very pragmatic in his approach. Only the front 3 get freedom and nobody else, he isn't restricted to that because of the back 3, that's just the system he's playing with. Look at how we change when we go 1-0 up, we attack then we defend for the rest of the game. Again, hindsight is a beautiful thing at play right now, I didn't see anyone complain about the back 3 before the match, now people are picking on anything Conte has done wrong this season like the Manager isn't allowed to make mistakes. I can't be bothered to keep going backwards and forwards over something so obvious, 3 defenders vs 1 is more defensive than 2 defenders against 1, you simply don't need 3. Its that obvious when Conte changes to a back 4 when we are losing. Chelsea don't even have the defenders to play 3 at the back without Luiz. The manager isn't allowed to make mistakes, I've lost count of how many. Regarding playing with a back 4, posters have been talking about it all season, its not going to happen anyway.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 hour ago, Slojo said: These are the same people who are begging for people like Sarri to come and join and win the league in his first season. And if he doesn't do we expect those same people to have the patience? People on here are already calling Conte a bald c**t and all sorts of other personal insults, I guess we'll have to go for the best looking manager possible. Who has even suggested he would win the league in his first season? I think most have accepted it's unlikely with the combination of Pep bang in his prime and the change of style will need a bit of time.
May 10, 20188 yr Back 3 definately didn't help last night. We would've had more success with over lapping fullbacks. Everytime the ball went wide to alonso or Zappacosta, there was never a forward pass, and they found themselves up against 2 Huddersfield players, and neither have the tools to be effective in that situation. Willian and pedro both play inside, so we weren't able to get in very often in wide areas. Personally i am sick of the back 3. Even though the 2 wing backs do play advanced, they are all defenders 1st and foremost, apart from moses, who is a failed winger. The attacking quality just isn't there for me, and we are potentially choosing to play another defender, rather than an attacking midfielder, or a striker, if we played a back 4. We are still a dangerous side when teams come on to us, because the 343 let's us overload in wide areas, but now teams have worked out how to shut off our passing lines, we struggle to create good chances.
May 10, 20188 yr 2 hours ago, Nibs said: STOP IT with that rational thinking! It's not rational thinking though Nibs, not in my opinion. Yes Morata was fresher, we all get that. All the players that came in were fresher, we all get that, but you play your best team. Liverpool was on Sunday at 4.30, this was a Wednesday night game, the players had time to recover, besides, Giroud has hardly played any games this season, it's not like he's had a long, gruelling campaign. Look at the players that came in. Caballero, Christensen, Zappacosta, Pedro, Morata. Look at those five players, seriously. That's almost half our team. They were out of the side for a reason, because they were playing poorly, simple as. He brought them all in together, at the expense of players that were doing the business, playing well and winning games. Without Pedro, Zappacosta, Christensen and Morata we were winning games, with them we were losing games, that's why they were out. Hazard is our talisman, our game-breaker, our magic man. Against a packed defence, his omission is inexplicable. People can say we dominated the game. It's irrelevant. You have to break them down. Another thing, you don't have to be at your absolutest freshest for this game. You don't have to run a million miles. This is Huddersfield. At home. Desperate for a point. You need players that can hurt them. Ironically, the one player who was playing well and helping us keep clean sheets and win games was Palmieri. If anyone deserved to be brought back in, it was him. He could have helped us last night, IMO, because he'd shown he can get round a defence, get to the byline and cause problems, and that's what we needed. I understand that Alonso kept his place, I'm just saying that the fact that five players who were playing poorly came back and not him is laughable. Well it would be if it wasn't so tragic. It's a long season. It lasts 9 months. A lot happens along the way. You work hard and you work together for a common cause. That cause being top 4, if you can't win the title. We came to the end. We needed to win. We absolutely had to win. You absolutely have to play your best team.
May 10, 20188 yr 1 hour ago, Argo said: Who has even suggested he would win the league in his first season? I think most have accepted it's unlikely with the combination of Pep bang in his prime and the change of style will need a bit of time. So if Sarri finishes outside top 4 in his first season at Chelsea, do you think people on here will accept that? Conte has come here and got us into 2 FA cup finals and won the league, and he's getting called all names under the sun by members on this forum in the matchday thread. I highly doubt people will have the patience with any manager who finishes outside of the top 4.
Create an account or sign in to comment