1 minute ago, Sindre said:

Fair enough, but then what you saw was completely wrong as Rudiger had twice as much possession as Jorginho, twice as many passes.
And he was just one of five Chelsea-players with more passes than Jorginho.

Lets say for one moment your'e right. How does stopping Jorginho allow Bournemouth to score FOUR goals in under 45 minutes ? Did Bournnemouth stop Jorginho scoring/assisting FIVE goals ?

Just now, coco said:

Lets say for one moment your'e right. How does stopping Jorginho allow Bournemouth to score FOUR goals in under 45 minutes ? Did Bournnemouth stop Jorginho scoring/assisting FIVE goals ?

Because if you stop Jorginho you generally won't have much to worry about defensively if you stay deep and counter us.
If you don't stop Jorginho and let him run the game as he'd like is when you are in trouble and will have more than enough to do trying to keep a clean sheet.

Now obviously Jorginho isn't solely at fault for us allowing Bournemouth 4 goals, the defence was horrible as well.

But if you stop Jorginho you have little to worry about defensively and you can counter us. Which Bournemouth did with great success. Thats my view on it.

Can someone post a video of how well Sarri's Napoli played against 'parked bus' tactics? Because if that's an example of a typical Serie A Sarriball performance then I'm not surprised it worked so well down there. 

 

 

1 minute ago, coco said:

Lets say for one moment your'e right. How does stopping Jorginho allow Bournemouth to score FOUR goals in under 45 minutes ? Did Bournnemouth stop Jorginho scoring/assisting FIVE goals ?

I think Bournemouth's tactic was to take a calculated risk and allow us the ball in the first half, knowing we would pass it around more than put it in the danger area. Then to hit us on the break with fast counters. This plan relied on them keeping us from scoring in that first half. If we had taken one of our chances I suspect the game would have turned out very differently. Instead once they scored first, we had no change of plan and they just picked us off from there. After the second went in some of our players appeared to give up entirely which is unacceptable regardless of the manager. 

It won't matter if a new coach came in, we would have the same issues again and would have once again shown no patience in a manager. Even if Sarri is sacked, we aren't going to become some world beaters with the squad we have. 

Just now, Sindre said:

Because if you stop Jorginho you generally won't have much to worry about defensively if you stay deep and counter us.
If you don't stop Jorginho and let him run the game as he'd like is when you are in trouble and will have more than enough to do trying to keep a clean sheet.

Now obviously Jorginho isn't solely at fault for us allowing Bournemouth 4 goals, the defence was horrible as well.

But if you stop Jorginho you have little to worry about defensively and you can counter us. Which Bournemouth did with great success. Thats my view on it.

But we were all over Bournemouth for 45 minutes, they were lucky not to concede, we had them pinned in the final third and they just couldn't get out for long periods, all on their home turf. It certainly didn't feel like they were 'stopping' anyone, they were just holding on for their lives.

4 minutes ago, forbzy said:

I think Bournemouth's tactic was to take a calculated risk and allow us the ball in the first half, knowing we would pass it around more than put it in the danger area. Then to hit us on the break with fast counters. This plan relied on them keeping us from scoring in that first half. If we had taken one of our chances I suspect the game would have turned out very differently. Instead once they scored first, we had no change of plan and they just picked us off from there. After the second went in some of our players appeared to give up entirely which is unacceptable regardless of the manager. 

it's eaxctly how it happened, but it dint happen because Bournemouth stopped Jorginho, they stopped our attack.

1 minute ago, coco said:

But we were all over Bournemouth for 45 minutes, they were lucky not to concede, we had them pinned in the final third and they just couldn't get out for long periods, all on their home turf. It certainly didn't feel like they were 'stopping' anyone, they were just holding on for their lives.

Did we though? We had that early chance that hit the crossbar but wasn't that the only time we threatened the first 45? 
We kept possession, mostly deep and back and fourth between defence and midfield. 

Rudiger, Azpi, Luiz having most passes for us supports what i saw in that sense. I would certainly not say we were all over them. The possession we had yes but almost exclusively in non-dangerous positions.
 

2 minutes ago, coco said:

But we were all over Bournemouth for 45 minutes, they were lucky not to concede, we had them pinned in the final third and they just couldn't get out for long periods, all on their home turf. It certainly didn't feel like they were 'stopping' anyone, they were just holding on for their lives.

Just abit over the top, first half was a typical Sarri performance, all the possession but create f**k all. Howe said himself you let Chelsea have the ball, that's because teams know we don't create much. I never felt like Bournemouth was holding on for their lives.

1 minute ago, Ernie_blue said:

Just abit over the top, first half was a typical Sarri performance, all the possession but create f**k all. Howe said himself you let Chelsea have the ball, that's because teams know we don't create much. I never felt like Bournemouth was holding on for their lives.

Can anyone post the possession/territory stats for the first half ? should be able to get a picture from those figures. But i still say we were all over them for 45 mins.

5 minutes ago, coco said:

Can anyone post the possession/territory stats for the first half ? should be able to get a picture from those figures. But i still say we were all over them for 45 mins.

Wow we had the most possession but like I said created f**k all, what's the point in having all the possession but you don't create anything? Bournemouth had just as many good chances in the first half. Bournemouth wasnt holding on for their lives, wasnt like we was cracking in shots from left right and centre and creating loads of chances. We was just watching a team pass it around the box.

Edited February 1, 20197 yr by Ernie_blue

1 minute ago, Ernie_blue said:

Wow we had the most possession but like I said created f**k all, what's the point in having all the possession but you don't create anything? Bournemouth had just as many good chances in the first half. Bournemouth want holding on for their lives, want like we was cracking in shots from left right and centre and creating loads of chances. We was just watching a team pass it around the box.

This is what i saw too.

3 minutes ago, coco said:

Can anyone post the possession/territory stats for the first half ? should be able to get a picture from those figures. But i still say we were all over them for 45 mins.

I think the general consensus was that we were on top in the first half. But Bournemouth had looked dangerous when they attacked. Boruc made several decent saves in the first half. Even BBC said they were fortunate to be level at the break.

2 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

Wow we had the most possession but like I said created f**k all, what's the point in having all the possession but you don't create anything? Bournemouth had just as many good chances in the first half. Bournemouth want holding on for their lives, want like we was cracking in shots from left right and centre and creating loads of chances. We was just watching a team pass it around the box.

Answer probably lies in this from his press conference. 

“Sarri says Chelsea's front three are making life too easy for opposition defences by playing too narrow - seems aimed at Hazard/Pedro/Willian“

Well two of those 3 want to come inside, and not stretch the opposition, the third wants the ball over the top. The solution to his problem was not in the matchday 18. Wonder how long it takes him to rectify this.

 

16 minutes ago, enigma said:

It won't matter if a new coach came in, we would have the same issues again and would have once again shown no patience in a manager. Even if Sarri is sacked, we aren't going to become some world beaters with the squad we have. 

Agreed. In fact if we brought in some sort of interim I could see it being similar to the last stint that Hiddink had with us.

4 minutes ago, forbzy said:

I think the general consensus was that we were on top in the first half. But Bournemouth had looked dangerous when they attacked. Boruc made several decent saves in the first half. Even BBC said they were fortunate to be level at the break.

I remember one fairly routine-save when Azpi cut in and shot with his left foot. Were there any others?
But in any case, it's quite the difference between this and "all over them".

Just now, ducavis said:

Answer probably lies in this from his press conference. 

“Sarri says Chelsea's front three are making life too easy for opposition defences by playing too narrow - seems aimed at Hazard/Pedro/Willian“

Well two of those 3 want to come inside, and not stretch the opposition, the third wants the ball over the top. The solution to his problem was not in the matchday 18. Wonder how long it takes him to rectify this.

 

It has been hinted that Hazard came in for a fair amount of criticism from Sarri, and this after Sarri has criticized him in recent weeks. I can see Sarri dropping Hazard if this carries on. Ultimately it is hard to imagine both being at Chelsea by the start of next season. 

4 minutes ago, Sindre said:

This is what i saw too.

Kovacic hit the bar, Brooks missed from 6 yards out. Anything else either way was nothing special, teams like Bournemouth will always let Chelsea have the ball because they simply have better players and that's how Sarri sets up. Like Howe said though they don't mind Chelsea having the ball and we know why.

Just now, Ernie_blue said:

Kovacic hit the bar, Brooks missed from 6 yards out. Anything else either way was nothing special, teams like Bournemouth will always let Chelsea have the ball because they simply have better players and that's how Sarri sets up. Like Howe said though they don't mind Chelsea having the ball and we know why.

Boruc actually tipped that effort onto the bar to be fair.

Just now, forbzy said:

Boruc actually tipped that effort onto the bar to be fair.

So 1? Having lots of possession is alot different from creating lots of chances. 

38 minutes ago, Sindre said:

Fair enough, but then what you saw was completely wrong as Rudiger had twice as much possession as Jorginho, twice as many passes.
And he was just one of five Chelsea-players with more passes than Jorginho.

That is a fact but how relevant, it means that we passed the ball a lot from our centre backs, Jorginho has over 2100 passes in the league and that makes him the player that passed the ball the most, this last game he had 73 passes while Rudiger had 121 passes but before the first goal when the opposition had the ball on the left side, in comes the cross and Rudiger isn't even marking his player right he lets him have the ball in the box and lets him pass freely for the first goal - very poor defense by Rudiger that only put 1 hand up wishing it was offside and it has nothing directly to do with the amount of passes that Jorginho had but that first goal made the whole team stop playing and Rudiger basically wasn't even present at the moment which makes him one of the key player to be blamed.

What is Rudiger doing?

If we had 68% possession and managed to get beaten 4:0 in those 32% of the times that we didn't have the ball it only means that we played highschool defense, which would be evident if you had watched the f**king game. 32% of the time and 4:0 basically means that every time they had the ball they could score at least a goal, no wonder Rudiger got a 5.9 score and D.Luiz 5.2 while Jorginho had a 6.3 score, he was a better player than Rudiger, the only one that matched him from the defense was Emerson that also had a 6.3 performance.

Second goal D.Luiz loses the ball by a bad pass and defends like an amateur but Rudiger is AGAIN the main reason why the opposition scores the goal because he leaves his man that he is supposed to be marking, and the pass comes to Brooks that is left unmarked by Rudiger that chooses not to stick with him but to simply be outside of the game and D.Luiz needs to run an extra 10 yards to catch up to Brooks by which point Brooks has a clear advantage in that 1v1. 2 goals where Rudiger did very poor, now here is a situation that could have been the third goal where Rudiger did NOTHING AT ALL:

Brooks unmarked, but with a poor first touch that otherwise should have been the real third goal.

 

 

By the time the 3rd goal comes in, we have no defense, non-existant. So before you want to make Rudiger look like a god compared to Jorginho based on 1 game, WATCH THE f**kING GAME FIRST

Edited February 1, 20197 yr by Gol15

5 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

So 1? Having lots of possession is alot different from creating lots of chances. 

That was the closest we came but Boruc made 4 other saves in the first half.

1 minute ago, forbzy said:

That was the closest we came but Boruc made 4 other saves in the first half.

Kepa made 3 but none of the shots was any good. From what I can remember all Borucs other saves was comfortable from outside the box, doesn't really say to me we was all other them. The Spurs game at home was all over them, we made plenty of chances against Spurs best defence.

9 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

That is a fact but how relevant, it means that we passed the ball a lot from our centre backs

No, i am saying it because i think its an issue.
I checked the stats on whoscored and Top 3 in terms of passes against Bournemouth were Rudiger, Luiz and Azpilicueta.
It certainly tells you that we had a lot of what i call "non-threatening" possession which is pointless and helping our opponents more than ourselves.

Sarri said he has not attack any players during the so call 50 minutes conversation. He said he wanted to know what is happening and so on. He wanted to go home fast, and to rewatch the match, that`s why he took hes car, not team bus.

He also call for patience and that Klopp was in the middle of the table when he first took charge, He also said there is 3 teams that are above else, because one of them is working in the team for 5 years, the other one for 4, and the last one for 3. It`s obvious who he means.

He said we need time to work, to change the mentality and behaviour of the team/players and to move forward. And that is a long process, cant happen for 6 months.

Exactly the truth.

 

Edited February 1, 20197 yr by loshlosh