5 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

Did he need to?

It's a good question and I think that he really needed to make a sub a bit earlier...

The argument is that even if he could see the structure of the team on the pitch as he predicted it would have been enough to do the job up till the end of the game, it looked like an expensive gamble that showed our own squad out there as a very limited group that was suffering.

To suffer is the key word, nobody should suffer by demand and Conte demanded that the team suffers. All coming from a perspective of a tactical stubbornness and a strong will to keep one vision/view of Chelsea till the very end, Conte is not a bad manager but it was evident that once he set his mind nothing and nobody could ever change it.
Is it the job's fault that changes people into a strict and controlling bosses that devote their whole energy, time and spirit in order to have a sense of an ultimate control of the pitch from the touchline, even at that degree that they might even feel that by not being in control of what is going on the pitch by any means makes them in the total control because they knew it would happen?
 
We had 33% of possession and only 2 shots on target and 5 shots in total, while they had 5 shots on target and in total 13 shots, Mourinho made 2 subs at around min 74' and last one at min 87', while Conte put in an un-interested Morata in the 89'minute and a really not happy Willian at minute 90'.

Obviously the fact is, we won...so we should just say Conte did everything right that game? I don't agree with that, it's not just about the win, it's mostly about that win, 99% but there is that 1% that stays after the game that can make you want to look at yourself in the mirror sometimes.

Anyone else noticed a reluctance for the TV channels to cut to Sarri on the bench, probably because he's chewing away on a dog end? 

14 hours ago, Gol15 said:

really needed to make a sub a bit earlier...

You make a lot of good points, but, given that we won, "needed" and "a bit earlier" is patently incorrect.

For your aesthetic pleasure it might have been nice, but, to win the cup, obviously not.

Get that man a spittoon! 

23 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

Did he need to?

Yeah, we were ultra defensive and could barely get out of own half throughout the whole of the second half, it was horrible to watch and I had my head in hands throughout most of the half. We were lucky that United were having an off day, because we wouldn't have won that if they got their final ball right.

but we did win, that's my point.  Not coulda, woulda, shoulda.

5 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

You make a lot of good points, but, given that we won, "needed" and "a bit earlier" is patently incorrect.

For your aesthetic pleasure it might have been nice, but, to win the cup, obviously not.

You are right but my train of thought was that even if we won, it doesn't mean that Conte did everything right.

7 hours ago, ForeverCarefree said:

Anyone else noticed a reluctance for the TV channels to cut to Sarri on the bench, probably because he's chewing away on a dog end? 

I remember during the Newcastle game they cut to him, a fag butt popped out his mouth and it immediately cut away. 

They should never have banned smoking in stadiums - it used to be considered a sign of civilisation. Sarri should throw off the shackles of the nanny state and brazenly flaunt the anti-smoking rules, sod the fines. The one remaining pillar standing tall against all those who attempt to victimise us poor puffers and label us as degenerates. All will know the truth - that we are noble folk of far finer stock than these velvet-lunged virgins. 

 

I remember working the Leicester games when they were in the Champions League a couple of seasons ago. The away fans were hilarious - more or less all of them (including some of the children) were quite openly smoking. The stewards/coppers working the stand made a few feeble attempts to confiscate the fags of the people closest to the front, but there was really nothing they could do. A good time was had by all (except the cleaners, I imagine). 

Yes but if we legalised smoking at stadiums, wouldn’t it be considered promoting smoking?

5 hours ago, PloKoon13 said:

They should never have banned smoking in stadiums - it used to be considered a sign of civilisation.

Many bad practices used to be considered as signs of civilisation.

Still in some places, stadiums tend to be a place where you can't bring your kids or wives because of the big smokes that can even stop matches mid way...

It used to be the sign of a top football culture to set up 30 flares and to not even care about what is happening on the pitch, but just like with smoking there are people who didn't really have a choice but to deal with it.

43 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

Many bad practices used to be considered as signs of civilisation.

Still in some places, stadiums tend to be a place where you can't bring your kids or wives because of the big smokes that can even stop matches mid way...

It used to be the sign of a top football culture to set up 30 flares and to not even care about what is happening on the pitch, but just like with smoking there are people who didn't really have a choice but to deal with it.

The wives bring their husbands, problem solved.

1 minute ago, Valerie said:

The wives bring their husbands, problem solved.

where do we find these wives? 

11 minutes ago, Barry Bridges said:

where do we find these wives? 

In the stands, probably. 

1 hour ago, Valerie said:

The wives bring their husbands, problem solved.

 Why didn't I think of that

The prestigious Treccani encyclopedia in Italy has officially added the word "sarrismo" to the list of neologisms. Sarrismo can be translated into English as "the Sarri way".

I was fully against him at first and even preferred Conte to stay but I do like this style of play atm, it's just really nice to watch. Conte's style was so frustrating in his 2nd season, this team really wants to play and keep hold of the ball, we just need to break teams down better and I think we will as soon as we get some better attackers including a good striker. 

2 hours ago, Slojo said:

I was fully against him at first and even preferred Conte to stay but I do like this style of play atm, it's just really nice to watch. Conte's style was so frustrating in his 2nd season, this team really wants to play and keep hold of the ball, we just need to break teams down better and I think we will as soon as we get some better attackers including a good striker. 

As we glide along playing this pleasing on the eye football, the media ignore us, w**king themselves stupid over pep, dippers, and y*ds, and our song bellows out "f**k em all, f**k em all"

2 hours ago, Slojo said:

I was fully against him at first and even preferred Conte to stay but I do like this style of play atm, it's just really nice to watch. Conte's style was so frustrating in his 2nd season, this team really wants to play and keep hold of the ball, we just need to break teams down better and I think we will as soon as we get some better attackers including a good striker. 

Agreed, I was the same. I was never a fan of tiki taka and possession football as I generally found it boring. But watching Sarri’s Chelsea, they seem happy to take risks and go for it. Makes it fun to watch football. 

37 minutes ago, chi blue said:

As we glide along playing this pleasing on the eye football, the media ignore us, w**king themselves stupid over pep, dippers, and y*ds, and our song bellows out "f**k em all, f**k em all"

 

15 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Agreed, I was the same. I was never a fan of tiki taka and possession football as I generally found it boring. But watching Sarri’s Chelsea, they seem happy to take risks and go for it. Makes it fun to watch football. 

It's the first time in years I've ever downloaded our games and watched them twice, love watching us play and pass the ball around. 

We have so much confidence and Sarri has inspired a lot of that in us very quickly. Although I do think we will be bound to have some defensive woes later on, that Arsenal game is not just a coincidence, we were too easy to play against. 

28 minutes ago, Slojo said:

. Although I do think we will be bound to have some defensive woes later on, that Arsenal game is not just a coincidence, we were too easy to play against. 

Yeah potentially but Arsenal only had 15 mins where they tore us open. 75 mins of the game we were in control of the game. 

But yeah, goals like Newcastle were frustrating and we need to cut that out. Breaking teams down is still an issue but Sarri will work on that and the team will get better. 

https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2018/9/15/17863346/sarri-working-12-hour-days-as-chelsea-face-7-games-in-23-days

22 hours ago, enigma said:

 

Practically Barcelona with the amount of possession we seem to have! Didn't even realise it was that much either 

6 hours ago, JJP said:

 

Practically Barcelona with the amount of possession we seem to have! Didn't even realise it was that much either 

I prefer suffering with the ball to suffering without it