Let's all laugh at Chelsea

El Zoido

Full Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2013
Messages
12,259
Location
UK
They were absolutely woeful against us, it's laughable that some people thought they'd hit title winning form under Hiddink.
 

Summit

"do the dead, spread your seed and get out"
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
51,054
discounting todays game, it's worrying that we have the same points as them in the last 10 games.
 

Nucks

RT History Department
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
4,462
The extra time was so long, it was only fair that it get its own extra time.
 

Amethyst

It's banter lads, inn't?
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
9,383
Location
In an apple vacuum...
For Chelsea to finish on 70 points (standard top four finish total, though it may be lower this year) they need 45 points from 16 games - 2.81 PPG. Not going to happen.

For them to finish on 62 points and beat Blackburn's 61 from the 1995/96 season (which I believe is the worst title defence in the Premier League) they would need 37 points from 16 games - 2.31 PPG. That form over a 38 game season would accumulate 87 points.
 

Fener1907

Full Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
3,102
Location
Istanchester
For Chelsea to finish on 70 points (standard top four finish total, though it may be lower this year) they need 45 points from 16 games - 2.81 PPG. Not going to happen.

For them to finish on 62 points and beat Blackburn's 61 from the 1995/96 season (which I believe is the worst title defence in the Premier League) they would need 37 points from 16 games - 2.31 PPG. That form over a 38 game season would accumulate 87 points.
Interesting post. Good insight, thanks.

I suppose they could just use Liverpool's 'next year is..' logic to get over just how bad this season is for them.
 

All 3 United

His tinfoil hat protects him from the Glazers.
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
5,845
Location
Manchester
For Chelsea to finish on 70 points (standard top four finish total, though it may be lower this year) they need 45 points from 16 games - 2.81 PPG. Not going to happen.

For them to finish on 62 points and beat Blackburn's 61 from the 1995/96 season (which I believe is the worst title defence in the Premier League) they would need 37 points from 16 games - 2.31 PPG. That form over a 38 game season would accumulate 87 points.
Good post. Not wanting to sound too negative about our situation if we won every home game and drew every away game remaining we would finish the season on 69 points (1 less than last season). Doesn't look good does it.
 

Gol123

Mouthfull (of) Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5,117
Supports
Chelsea
A bad game salvaged into a decent result. The second half was great end to end stuff.
 

MDFC Manager

Full Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2005
Messages
24,045
Everton's goal fell at 90:00 and the game resumed at 91:20 again. So actually the ref was in his right to let the extra time go on another minute
That's really a moot point given the blatant offside for the last goal
 

Gol123

Mouthfull (of) Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5,117
Supports
Chelsea
That's really a moot point given the blatant offside for the last goal
Referee's are incompetent. They are constantly fecking up every single game and are completely unaccountable for their incompetence, leading to a lower standard of refereeing. Sometimes Chelsea are helped by it, most of the time, they are not.
 

esmufc07

Brad
Scout
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
49,858
Location
Lake Jonathan Creek
Martinez needs to wind his neck in considering his side got away with a clear foul on Sterling in the box mid week. Didn't see him getting irate about that decision.

The debate about added time has been done to death, the time shown is a minimum. 5 minutes added on allows upto 5:59 to be added. Everton scored so another minute was added. It's not controversial at all.
 

Amethyst

It's banter lads, inn't?
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
9,383
Location
In an apple vacuum...
Martinez needs to wind his neck in considering his side got away with a clear foul on Sterling in the box mid week. Didn't see him getting irate about that decision.

The debate about added time has been done to death, the time shown is a minimum. 5 minutes added on allows upto 5:59 to be added. Everton scored so another minute was added. It's not controversial at all.
No, the referee can play on for as long as he wants so long as it is justified. If he adds on 5 minutes and then a player gets a bad injury within in the added on time and stays down for 10 minutes, then the referee should be playing on until about 105 minutes.
 

esmufc07

Brad
Scout
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
49,858
Location
Lake Jonathan Creek
No, the referee can play on for as long as he wants so long as it is justified. If he adds on 5 minutes and then a player gets a bad injury within in the added on time and stays down for 10 minutes, then the referee should be playing on until about 105 minutes.
I alluded to that at the end of my post.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
Martinez needs to wind his neck in considering his side got away with a clear foul on Sterling in the box mid week. Didn't see him getting irate about that decision.

The debate about added time has been done to death, the time shown is a minimum. 5 minutes added on allows upto 5:59 to be added. Everton scored so another minute was added. It's not controversial at all.
That's not true actually. Howard Webb spoke about it the other week and said that the ref got it wrong by letting it run for 3 minutes and 40 seconds when it said 3 minutes on the board. The "minimum" element only refers to their ability to add on extra time if there's significant events (injuries, goals, an extended break in play for a foul) as you say. If nothing like that happens (and this includes if there's a number of throw-ins, free kicks etc. which eat up half that time) then the amount shown on the board should be seen as the maximum.

He didn't say that exactly but that was the jist. I thought it was weird and pretty stupid but I suspect he knows what he's talking about.
 

Gol123

Mouthfull (of) Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5,117
Supports
Chelsea
That's not true actually. Howard Webb spoke about it the other week and said that the ref got it wrong by letting it run for 3 minutes and 40 seconds when it said 3 minutes on the board. The "minimum" element only refers to their ability to add on extra time if there's significant events (injuries, goals, an extended break in play for a foul) as you say. If nothing like that happens (and this includes if there's a number of throw-ins, free kicks etc. which eat up half that time) then the amount shown on the board should be seen as the maximum.

He didn't say that exactly but that was the jist. I thought it was weird and pretty stupid but I suspect he knows what he's talking about.
So you're saying, if a team is one-nil ahead, with three minutes added on, they can have a player go down injured and be subbed off, taking the whole of added time?
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
So you're saying, if a team is one-nil ahead, with three minutes added on, they can have a player go down injured and be subbed off, taking the whole of added time?
That's basically the opposite of what I said...
 

Gol123

Mouthfull (of) Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
5,117
Supports
Chelsea
But wrong to allow the goal.
Refs are shit and unaccountable for their actions. We all know it and it has cost us games before. This time it went our way. The refs need to be held up for poor refereeing rather then defended by the FA.