1 minute ago, Wearyourcolours said:

I didn’t say I had any input, but I was there.

Never knew the board let the guy employed to move the goalposts in on their meetings!

1 minute ago, Argo said:

Never knew the board let the guy employed to move the goalposts in on their meetings!

You live & learn eh!

41 minutes ago, forbzy said:

If that was the case then arguably even worse on Sarri's side. That suggests he bailed because he didn't fancy working with the team for a year without any signings, presumably because he was worried about his reputation. At the time it felt like he only started playing the younger squad players in the second half of the season under duress. Ironically it was those younger players (RLC and CHO), along with Hazard, who played a big part in our run to the Europa Cup final.

If it wasn't for the excitement generated by the younger players when they came into the team the second half of that season, along with a few memorable moments from Hazard, it would have gone down as one of our most boring displays in recent memory. Not to mention some inexcusable performances like the 6-0 defeat at City, and the 4-0 defeat at Bournemouth.

 

OK so 2 out of 3 of our last managers not counting Tuchel wanted to leave us.

1 won the PL and the FA Cup the other finished top 3 and won the Europa league so both won something and both just wanted to get out...

What does that say about our club? It can't be that everyone else is always bad and not good enough for us.

1 hour ago, Paddy said:

Remind me, how many managers have Chelsea gone through since Mr A took over ? 

How is that relevant ?

Did we sack them or they quit ?Sarri is the only one who quit because he simply didn't like living in England and Juve came calling

5 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Why do you say he wouldn't have been sacked if you can't prove it?

None of us can ever prove something definitively, because as far as I am aware, we are not from within the inner circle of the higher echelons of the club.

However there were lots of reports that the club wanted to change the manager (as well as many reports that the manager wanted to go back to Italy).... 

Would that pass in a court of law as "beyond reasonable doubt"? No 

Would it pass a lower burden of proof to the balance of probabilities? Possibly

Was there in this case smoke without fire, and the media were telling lies when then said the club wanted to get rid? Possible - we will never know.

 

 

 

From what I know he left because Juventus called and there were rumors that Jorginho was also going there with him. Why would I believe that the club would have sacked Sarri for no reason at all, just because it's some gossip online?

Anyway if you think that he should have been sacked in any case, then you must also think that Lampard and Conte also totally deserved to go out of their positions just as well, otherwise it's a blatant double standard.

22 minutes ago, dkw said:

I mentioned that in the match thread, it made no sense to me at all to play Giroud with a defence that played a high line and a midfield/attack that played a high press. It showed a few times when we managed to get behind the press and there was no one in the box to pick out as Giroud was way behind .

The problem was we play ziyech,mount and giroud. What is really the point of playing giroud and ziyech ? If he want to play two 10, Tammy is the guy. 

If he want to play Giroud play a puli or werner close to him so we have threar behind

27 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

I would have to disagree with Giroud, he has been very inconsistent this season. He has had his big moments such as the 4 goals against Sevilla & the bicycle kick against Athletico Madrid but he has struggled in making the starting spot his own with a few very ordinary performances in between.

I mean Giroud is Giroud. Clear strength, clear weaknesses.

I personally prefer Giroud as plan B when we need to play long ball (like against pool) or simply when we chase game.

 

13 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

From what I know he left because Juventus called and there were rumors that Jorginho was also going there with him. Why would I believe that the club would have sacked Sarri for no reason at all, just because it's some gossip online?

Anyway if you think that he should have been sacked in any case, then you must also think that Lampard and Conte also totally deserved to go out of their positions just as well, otherwise it's a blatant double standard.

For what it's worth, I did think that lamps deserved the sack.  Conte no

3 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

For what it's worth, I did think that lamps deserved the sack.  Conte no

I would have given Lampard till the end of the season, I would have also signed Rice for him in January since Ole got Fernandes in January which in turn saved his season and his job... But I guess that's having an extreme view. I knew that we won't find someone as good as Conte and no surprise we haven't been close to winning the league since he left, I have a soft spot for Conte and Ancelotti so I'm biased there...

9 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

How is that relevant ?

Did we sack them or they quit ?Sarri is the only one who quit because he simply didn't like living in England and Juve came calling

Whether they quit or were sacked isn’t important or relevant and I don’t know why you would introduce that into this topic ????

The topic under discussion is whether the manager is asked for his opinion prior to players being purchased, I suggested that this may not always be the case and particularly not as far as shevchenko and Torres were concerned, whereby you said ;

I honestly don't know, it was long time ago.

Then you then said;

no manager will want to work when their opinion is not listened, this is obvious.

Which would appear that you are agreeing with me , which is why I inferred that this may be reason why CFC have employed so many managers since RA took over ? 

Then you posted the nonsense above which makes no sense to me whatsoever ? 

I think your mixing up your posts ?

39 minutes ago, dkw said:

I mentioned that in the match thread, it made no sense to me at all to play Giroud with a defence that played a high line and a midfield/attack that played a high press. It showed a few times when we managed to get behind the press and there was no one in the box to pick out as Giroud was way behind .

I know you did, but what is surprising me is that it's been largely swept under the carpet on here, i have not seen a reason put forward by anyone on why TT did not recognise that utd were high up the pitch leaving acres of space to attack, and he thought Giroud was the right choice over Turbo ? Weird and worrying.

12 minutes ago, coco said:

I know you did, but what is surprising me is that it's been largely swept under the carpet on here, i have not seen a reason put forward by anyone on why TT did not recognise that utd were high up the pitch leaving acres of space to attack, and he thought Giroud was the right choice over Turbo ? Weird and worrying.

To be fair to Tuchel - Giroud was at least the better choice than Ziyech in that position!

9 minutes ago, coco said:

I know you did, but what is surprising me is that it's been largely swept under the carpet on here, i have not seen a reason put forward by anyone on why TT did not recognise that utd were high up the pitch leaving acres of space to attack, and he thought Giroud was the right choice over Turbo ? Weird and worrying.

If I was to make a case for TT here my guess would be that he assumed that United will setup with a low block and he felt that Ziyech's creativity will be more beneficial to the team in comparison to Werner. My assumption is that Ziyech is the one who came in for Werner because Mount is undroppable and Giroud deserved a start after his brilliant goal against Madrid.

In normal circumstances he may have made the switch at HT with Werner coming on for Ziyech or Giroud but due to the injury to CHO he decided to delay bringing on Werner, even if all those assumptions are correct I still question why Werner came on so late & what is even more puzzling is how Ziyech lasted 80 mins.

13 minutes ago, coco said:

I know you did, but what is surprising me is that it's been largely swept under the carpet on here, i have not seen a reason put forward by anyone on why TT did not recognise that utd were high up the pitch leaving acres of space to attack, and he thought Giroud was the right choice over Turbo ? Weird and worrying.

I expected United to play deep and hit us on the counter like they usually do against top sides ,maybe they saw Giroud was starting and changed their gameplan? We also not scoring goals with a striker on the pitch so why not see something different? City does it all the time. Also we were only without a striker for 10 minutes not the whole 2nd half.

with that being said i would have put Werner on instead of Ziyech but hakim had a great chance to start the 2nd half and was better than in the 1st so maybe he wanted to see how things would go with those 3 up front.

6 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

If I was to make a case for TT here my guess would be that he assumed that United will setup with a low block and he felt that Ziyech's creativity will be more beneficial to the team in comparison to Werner. My assumption is that Ziyech is the one who came in for Werner because Mount is undroppable and Giroud deserved a start after his brilliant goal against Madrid.

In normal circumstances he may have made the switch at HT with Werner coming on for Ziyech or Giroud but due to the injury to CHO he decided to delay bringing on Werner, even if all those assumptions are correct I still question why Werner came on so late & what is even more puzzling is how Ziyech lasted 80 mins.

 

1 minute ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

I expected United to play deep and hit us on the counter like they usually do against top sides ,maybe they saw Giroud was starting and changed their gameplan? We also not scoring goals with a striker on the pitch so why not see something different? City does it all the time. Also we were only without a striker for 10 minutes not the whole 2nd half.

with that being said i would have put Werner on instead of Ziyech but hakim had a great chance to start the 2nd half and was better than in the 1st so maybe he wanted to see how things would go with those 3 up front.

 

So if everyone could see Giroud didnt fit the game early on, why did TT take 75 minutes to bring on our quickest player ?

1 hour ago, Wearyourcolours said:

 

Thats my final conversation with you on this, cos basically, I’ve got a life.

Your learning

15 minutes ago, coco said:

 

 

So if everyone could see Giroud didnt fit the game early on, why did TT take 75 minutes to bring on our quickest player ?

Well i don’t really know, it was an odd decision that’s for sure.he did brought on Pulisic around the 60th minute who is a pretty quick player. No journalist asked the question yesterday?Maybe he was happy with how things where going? He did say before the game that Werner was a bit tired so maybe that played a part. Let’s not assume that just because we put on a Werner all of sudden we were gonna score loads a goals, he didn’t really look threatening when he was on. 

Edited March 1, 20215 yr by DidierDrogbalala

5 minutes ago, DidierDrogbalala said:

Let’s not assume that just because we put on a Werner all of sudden we were gonna score loads a goals, he didn’t really look threatening when he was on. 

Easy to say after he had just 15 minutes, if it was over 90 minutes -on recent form- i would say high chance he is involved in a goal, especially with utds defenders so far away from their box. I hope he realises if were going to get top 4 this season, it'll depend on Werner being involved in every game, and definitely against our peers.

3 minutes ago, coco said:

Easy to say after he had just 15 minutes, if it was over 90 minutes -on recent form- i would say high chance he is involved in a goal, especially with utds defenders so far away from their box. I hope he realises if were going to get top 4 this season, it'll depend on Werner being involved in every game, and definitely against our peers.

Maybe due to fitness concerns he may have thought Werner offers us more of a threat against Liverpool as opposed to United therefore decided to limit his minutes against United as he will be starting the game against Liverpool midweek.

Once again he could've given him more time against United after observing their tactics in the first half.

4 minutes ago, coco said:

Easy to say after he had just 15 minutes, if it was over 90 minutes -on recent form- i would say high chance he is involved in a goal, especially with utds defenders so far away from their box. I hope he realises if were going to get top 4 this season, it'll depend on Werner being involved in every game, and definitely against our peers.

Well he has 1 goal in is last 10-12 last games ? I could also say it’s easy to say he would been involved in a goal if he started the game. 

But i agree with you that we need Werner if we want to make top 4.

45 minutes ago, Imran_CFC said:

If I was to make a case for TT here my guess would be that he assumed that United will setup with a low block and he felt that Ziyech's creativity will be more beneficial to the team in comparison to Werner. My assumption is that Ziyech is the one who came in for Werner because Mount is undroppable and Giroud deserved a start after his brilliant goal against Madrid.

In normal circumstances he may have made the switch at HT with Werner coming on for Ziyech or Giroud but due to the injury to CHO he decided to delay bringing on Werner, even if all those assumptions are correct I still question why Werner came on so late & what is even more puzzling is how Ziyech lasted 80 mins.

I appreciate your making a lot of assumptions but the bloody obvious question we all have is the one you end with - how the f**k did Ziyech last as long as he did ? 

It’s honestly troubling that TT didn’t see what we all saw ? 

I don't think Werner is suited for playing alone striker in a possession-based football, especially in PL. He is like a second striker, coming from between the lines. But why not using Werner earlier is a fair point to make. Maybe we had a chance of a good counterattack or maybe we could force Man United to play deeper since we had a fast player up front. Still, i think Olivier and Tammy are a more appropriate choice for our system, with Werner a bit deeper(Mount/Ziyech position). I think that in this system the striker is sacrificed to highlight the players behind him.

I know i'm pissing against the wind here, but i don't think Ziyech had a bad game.

My biggest concern since Tuchel was how we will do if a good team will press us high. Well, MU did that and the team did well in those circumstances. Still strong defence and midfield, usual headaches in attack.

Now, this 0-0 is for MU. We lost the opportunity to close the gap between us, them and Leicester. 2 huge games are comming and i think we desperately need 6 points from those.

1 hour ago, coco said:

Easy to say after he had just 15 minutes, if it was over 90 minutes -on recent form- i would say high chance he is involved in a goal, especially with utds defenders so far away from their box. I hope he realises if were going to get top 4 this season, it'll depend on Werner being involved in every game, and definitely against our peers.

I have to say I’m really confused and struggling to categorise Werner ?

Often he is totally inept at most every aspect of his game and I’ve said previously that he has worst first touch I’ve ever seen in a professional footballer, he regularly either under or over hits his pass and yet I completely agree with your assessment that he is absolutely vital to our finishing this seasons campaign in the top 4 and maybe with a decent cup ending ? 

If I’m honest I’ve developed a “soft spot’ for him - Its bloody mad crazy, ain’t it ? 

3 hours ago, Paddy said:

I think Giroud is doing a job for us and, on occasion, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat , but I don’t think I am able to consider him reliable and consistent as a main striker , scraps or otherwise ? 

In a team such as this, that's not creating a great deal of chances, I don't think you can underestimate the job he's done in the limited game time he's had. 

I think he's been very reliable. 

39 minutes ago, Dragos said:

I know i'm pissing against the wind here, but i don't think Ziyech had a bad game.

That was the best I have seen Ziyech play for us.

He forced De Gea to make a save and set Mount off on his run into box that almost resulted in a goal.

He looks too relaxed at times and that may be why people don't rate him. 

To me yesterday he was decent though switched off a couple of times.