Opposition players getting in behind the wingbacks.
2019/20 Rivals - Chelsea
- Thread starter AkaAkuma
- Start date
Then that's when 3 CBs should come in handy
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
So then you have less protection in front of goal than you would have with back 4.
Plus then you have a CB in positions a CB doesnt want to be in.
I'll eat my right arm if Kepa is Chelsea number 1 next season. James. Zouma. Rudi/Christensen Azpi on Sunday. Kante might be back, too
Is the 343 your main set formation now? Seems a few teams using it more and more, Arsenal another one.
Look at the reaction, everyone was like "woooaaahhhh".
Awesome, I always had respect for Lampard, now I have even more respect for him.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don't think United play good football. I think United are really good at exploiting teams on the counter if and when they get ahead in a game. I certainly don't attribute any of the credit for any good football at the door of Solskjaer seeing as it only started when one amazing individual was added into the mix.
I'm happy to give Lampard next season no matter what and would have been even if we finished 8th. He's a smart guy and so is Cech so a decent chance they will make moves to plug some holes in the side/squad.
Leroy ITK 
, cat out of the bag.Squad going to be very top heavy next year though. Can't see us getting anywhere near the league due to defensive issues, we might pick up cup or two hopefully and should be very good fun to watch.
Chelsea attack and our attack are going to be good to watch if we get Sancho this year.
They're improving though. It's not scintillating (yet) but they're pretty effective once they get a little bit of a jump start.
No you don't because you have more players. You're talking like RBs/LBs don't play up the pitch and get caught out of position either. Have you seen how high up the pitch fullbacks of City/Liverpool are playing?
If you think 4 defenders is more protection than 5, then by all means do so. I can't be bothered to debate this further.
Glorious
Haha amazing. Just saw the full minute long exchange. Lampard fully giving it to
klopp.
Apparently it was to someone on the staff and not Klopp. Lamps'd have to be a real Ihni binni dimi diniwiny anitaime to downplay Klopp's accomplishments elsewhere.
Go on Frank!
More than Kai Havertz, I am worried about Timo Werner. He's a finished article and will score tons of goals for Chelsea for several years. Great buy.
If they can buy one GK, one CB, and keep Kante fit, they might be a serious contender for the League title.
If they can buy one GK, one CB, and keep Kante fit, they might be a serious contender for the League title.
Last edited:
How do you know I haven’t?
It’s not like you to lose your temper. Obviously feeling tetchy for some reason.
Youre not seriously admitting to being sad enough to call sky up over this are you?
Never thought Werner and Havertz would end up at Chelsea out of all clubs. Werner, Havertz and Ziyech, three players that would imo walk right into our starting 11. Chelsea never mess about in the market I wish our club could be like that. Pulisic as well, another great signing by them. Lampard is signing incredibly smart.
I think that's pretty short sighted really and shows you haven't seen much of United consistently from Mourinho leaving to the present day. There's clearly a style and pattern of play which had developed and its a case of adding the right personnel, and trimming the excess, to continue the progress. To say United don't play good football full stop is narrow minded and misinformed.
How long you been a Chelsea fan for again?
Yeah what the hell? Especially as a Chelsea fan this argument is puzzling when we have more often than not played predominantly reactive football in our recent league wins - the only exception being under Ancelotti in 09-10.
Of course not, but duffer should not make assumptions
What's crazy to me is Chelsea could still easily miss out on the CL, yet they've managed to sign Wener, Ziyech and almost Havertz without having to have CL football 'confirmed'. Seems all they had to o was basically look comfortable in the top 4 and that was enough.
Whereas we apparently have to wait to confirm top 4 before we go for Sancho, or any other player it seems for that matter.
Whereas we apparently have to wait to confirm top 4 before we go for Sancho, or any other player it seems for that matter.
They're coming for the love of the club, not personal glory-hunting.
Nothing to do with wages and a fat signing on bonus, no way.
London as well
Chelsea are private, no external debt just to Mr A. Utd have £429m of debt and are listed partially. Very different, only one person at Chelsea to make the decisions.
What is key is what happens to revenue in football for next few years, not going to be pretty in my view. Abramovich taking a little risk allowing us to buy players at "prior to crisis" market prices (partly because we sold Morata and Hazard at this price level pre covid of course), we could be in the "phony war" part of this crisis from an economic perspective.
Looks like Kepa is a gonner next season from reports, will be interesting to see if whoever we get in to replace does much better next year.
Same amount as you been a city fan.
If by jump start you mean a lead then I agree and said as much, one of the most dangerous counter-attacking sides in Europe. That doesn't equate to playing good football in my eyes, even though I like and enjoy seeing effective counter attacks.
You're making assumptions there. For every 10 games United play I watch probably 8 on average. xG is quite low too especially if removing penalties from all sides and focusing solely on creativity from open play. Added individual quality in Fernandes and Greenwood have led to improvement and at the same time unlocked more of Martial but I still do not think the football is good, certainly not from a coaching perspective. Funny you mention Mourinho and a perceived departure from his ways, I disagree. I think his spurs side now look similar to what his United side looked, ploddy and disjointed. The difference as mentioned is superior individual talent. If you plugged Fernandes and Greenwood into Spurs' side now in place of Lo Celso and Moura they would transform the side and unlock and free up more room for Son and there would be scope for more individual moments and they'd be much more dangerous on the counter. The improvement (under Mourinho) would be down to individual talent not good football though and there would be so much more scope to get more from the squad with a better coach in terms of attacking play and patterns, much like this United squad.
You're implying I can't think United don't play good football because you correctly assert that Chelsea have largely not played good football in recent times? This isn't a tit-for-tat scenario, very strange! I'd hate to be a Burnley fan then forced into looking upon 99% of teams in Europe as reincarnations of Pep's Barcelona
Seems to me from your post that the implication was that counter attacking football is mutually exclusive from good football, which I find very odd. It's especially odd as a Chelsea fan, where excellent reactive football has been the key to our recent title challenges (and of course the CL in 2012).You're implying I can't think United don't play good football because you correctly assert that Chelsea have largely not played good football in recent times? This isn't a tit-for-tat scenario, very strange! I'd hate to be a Burnley fan then forced into looking upon 99% of teams in Europe as reincarnations of Pep's Barcelona
If I am going to watch a team i have never seen or heard anything off before and I am told they "play good football" then yes i am walking in expecting to see front foot football.
Playing good football and being a good football team are not the same thing.
And again, me being a Chelsea fan has zero relevance, not sure why you repeatedly attempt to lean on it.
Liverpool were basically in party mode and stuck 5 past them.
We're 3rd ahead of Chelsea having beaten them away from home and beating City away from home, where 2-1 flattered the outgoing champions if anything.
Well that's fair enough but it's an odd opinion is my point. Narrowing the definition of "good" to exclude reactive styles is just strange to me.
As to being a Chelsea fan, my point there is that we've watched brilliant counterattacking play lead to big trophies for years now and that has underpinned some of our greatest ever sides. It'd odd that you'd say that the below video doesn't qualify as good football on the basis of it being reactive.
Attack is the best form of defence.
Improving the attack will have a bigger impact on Chelsea than people think. Against Liverpool, Chelsea could not hold the ball up the other end of the pitch until Pulisic came on. With better attackers, Chelsea will be able to pin their opposition back in their own half on a more consistent basis and lose possession less in such a position. This, in turn, will reduce the number of times the ball is down their end and consequently reduce the number of goals conceded.
On top of this, they should score more goals. This will demoralise the opposition (not all the time, but sometimes), which will put them on the backfoot. Again, this will help to reduce goal concession. If Werner, Ziyech, and Havertz (if they sign him) fulfil their potential, then it won't just increase goals scored but also the number conceded will reduce.
They have scored nowhere near the number of goals they should have this season. They have been wasteful, and have failed to put games to bed when they are on top because of their lack of talent up front. Giroud has his uses, but stats wise he is not great; Willian's output is also similarly low; Abraham is massively inconsistent, and can be pretty ineffective at times.
The question is what do you prefer to improve first? Attack or defence? I think the attack is a priority. We saw what happened with us when we chose defence over the attack in the summer. I think if Fernandes was signed in the summer and Maguire in January, we would have more points now. Remember that our goal concession did not really go down until Fernandes came into the team. Why? Because he is an actual threat, unlike Lingard and co.
Improving the attack will have a bigger impact on Chelsea than people think. Against Liverpool, Chelsea could not hold the ball up the other end of the pitch until Pulisic came on. With better attackers, Chelsea will be able to pin their opposition back in their own half on a more consistent basis and lose possession less in such a position. This, in turn, will reduce the number of times the ball is down their end and consequently reduce the number of goals conceded.
On top of this, they should score more goals. This will demoralise the opposition (not all the time, but sometimes), which will put them on the backfoot. Again, this will help to reduce goal concession. If Werner, Ziyech, and Havertz (if they sign him) fulfil their potential, then it won't just increase goals scored but also the number conceded will reduce.
They have scored nowhere near the number of goals they should have this season. They have been wasteful, and have failed to put games to bed when they are on top because of their lack of talent up front. Giroud has his uses, but stats wise he is not great; Willian's output is also similarly low; Abraham is massively inconsistent, and can be pretty ineffective at times.
The question is what do you prefer to improve first? Attack or defence? I think the attack is a priority. We saw what happened with us when we chose defence over the attack in the summer. I think if Fernandes was signed in the summer and Maguire in January, we would have more points now. Remember that our goal concession did not really go down until Fernandes came into the team. Why? Because he is an actual threat, unlike Lingard and co.
It has something to do with financial not Sancho's desire.
Beside, we signed Bruno in January and we already have the most ''potent'' front three in the country.
Ok bluehaze. Nudge nudge wink wink.