Chelsea 2022/2023 | THIS IS LAST YEARS THREAD YOU NUMPTIES

Status
Not open for further replies.
We looked much better with Broja in. He pulled defenders and created space that finally allowed at least a few other runs.

RLC looked … fine. But his sloppy first touch killed a more than a few fast transitions.

Mendy needs to find himself, or you have to give someone else a chance. At least 4 of the goals this year are directly related to his errors. He just isn’t playing with the same command and assurance he did before.
 
It’s not a run in, they got a win they didn’t deserve but it’s their performances that should really count here. They got away with it v Leicester and lost next game, shouldn’t have won today. That’s the pattern Tuchel needs to turn around. Consistent nothingness.
There’s absolutely nothing in that today which shows Chelsea are ready to knuckle down and kick on.
 
Semper Fudge said:
As long as there are no technical issues with the VAR monitor then you'll be grand.
Click to expand...
Hiw soon we forget Cucurella at Tottenham.

Im not saying West Ham shouldn’t feel aggrieved, and Mendy was absurd to lay there and hope for the foul, but trailing the foot on the goalie like that IS at least a foul. The Cucurella incident was bad enough Mike Dean had to issue an apology.
 
Despite the win, Chelsea look very toothless up top. If they’re hoping for Auba to be their saviour they could be in trouble. Struggling to score nearly every game.
 
TheReligion said:
That would be a good season but to say you expect that from what you’ve seen so far seems odd?
Click to expand...
No, I would say fourth would be amazing. We still have personnel versus style issues, and are very prone when certain players can’t go. With the weird congested WC season coming and all the cup ties… it’s going to be tight, even if we start to play better.
 
Bluelion7 said:
Hiw soon we forget Cucurella at Tottenham.

Im not saying West Ham shouldn’t feel aggrieved, and Mendy was absurd to lay there and hope for the foul, but trailing the foot on the goalie like that IS at least a foul. The Cucurella incident was bad enough Mike Dean had to issue an apology.
Click to expand...
No it’s not a foul one bit. He barely grazed him.
It’s ok to say it
 
Chief123 said:
Despite the win, Chelsea look very toothless up top. If they’re hoping for Auba to be their saviour they could be in trouble. Struggling to score nearly every game.
Click to expand...

Very, very pedestrian. Too slow. Broja made an impact but West Ham we’re happy to just sit back and watch us pass sideways all day long. Very dull and irritatingly toothless.

Once we threw caution to the wind with Broja, Havertz, Sterling, Mount, James and Chilwell all on the pitch, we were pretty threatening, but we were in gung-ho mode with nothing to lose at that point.
 
Good to see a plastic team playing so poorly relying on transparently corrupt VAR decisions to steal a win against West Ham.
 
duffer said:
Improvement on last year. More points, closer to the top.
Click to expand...

Points totals for Chelsea last 5 seasons 74,67,66,72,70 won't be a bold statement to say Chelsea won't top the highest total there. Man City in current form are heading towards another mid to high 90 points season so Chelsea could well find themselves further off the top than last season.
 
WeePat said:
Very, very pedestrian. Too slow. Broja made an impact but West Ham we’re happy to just sit back and watch us pass sideways all day long. Very dull and irritatingly toothless.

Once we threw caution to the wind with Broja, Havertz, Sterling, Mount, James and Chilwell all on the pitch, we were pretty threatening, but we were in gung-ho mode with nothing to lose at that point.
Click to expand...
The problem I see is that teams who want to play 5 at the back normally need exceptional world class players up front who can get the goals without needing overloads. But because chelsea are pretty thin in attack, they need constant overlaps and bodies forward to break teams down. The team will keep becoming unbalanced due to this.

I think there are going to be many more games where Chelsea are struggling to score and throw caution to the wind before getting hit on the counter attack. You really did need a top quality striker to come in, but as we’ve seen they are very limited.
 
always_hoping said:
Points totals for Chelsea last 5 seasons 74,67,66,72,70 won't be a bold statement to say Chelsea won't top the highest total there. Man City in current form are heading towards another mid to high 90 points season so Chelsea could well find themselves further off the top than last season.
Click to expand...

It's all relative, if Man City get 110 points and we get 85, I'll still consider that an improvement.
 
TheReligion said:
That would be a good season but to say you can see that from what you’ve seen so far seems odd?
Click to expand...

Seen so far it’s afew games in and most teams look bang average at this stage until they find fitness and a settled team. Chelsea will be in and around the top 4 I’m sure. What’s new!
 
Great come back win. Onwards and upwards. Havertz on the score sheet. Chilwell looked good. Fofana played well.

For once var did the right thing for chelsea.Foul on gk free kick. Player was a fool. He has to jump instead rubbed him with his shoes.
 
Rajiztar said:
Great come back win. Onwards and upwards. Havertz on the score sheet. Chilwell looked good. Fofana played well.

For once var did the right thing for chelsea.Foul on gk free kick. Player was a fool. He has to jump instead rubbed him with his shoes.
Click to expand...
No /s? I understand you're a Chelsea fan but what are you on about? in no way was that a foul.
Just because VAR has cost you points already this season, doesn't make that decision today the correct one.
 
James_42 said:
No /s? I understand you're a Chelsea fan but what are you on about? in no way was that a foul.
Just because VAR has cost you points already this season, doesn't make that decision today the correct one.
Click to expand...
Goal keeper on the floor put your boot in its a foul. That's the rule. Did I miss something here.

No it's not about i am chelsea fan or not if any chelsea player did that I would blame the player only not oppo gk.
 
arnie_ni said:
It was a bit tongue in cheek. But there's a difference between being wrong and blindly biased.
Click to expand...
There is no bias mate. The player gave the opportunity to cancel the goal. As I said player was stupid to do that if that was chelsea player did that instead of Bowen to oppo goalie I would blame player only.

Once it goes to var they can't validate it's slightest touch or not. Ball is not there he has no excuse to touch the goalkeeper with his boot.
 
The fight for top 4 will likely be decided by couple of points, decisions like this could cost some team up to a 100 million.
 
Dr. StrangeHate said:
The fight for top 4 will likely be decided by couple of points, decisions like this could cost some team up to a 100 million.
Click to expand...

Well I would argue that things have already evened themselves out in the space of 4 games since we we’re screwed out of a win by VAR on the Spurs game. Antonio should arguably have been sent off before he scored too, so lots of iffy decision all round in this game.
 
WeePat said:
Well I would argue that things have already evened themselves out in the space of 4 games since we we’re screwed out of a win by VAR on the Spurs game. Antonio should arguably have been sent off before he scored too, so lots of iffy decision all round in this game.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a bit of a stretch comparing a legitimate goal being ruled out with the hair pull?
 
TheReligion said:
I think that’s a bit of a stretch comparing a legitimate goal being ruled out with the hair pull?
Click to expand...

How is it? Spurs don’t score if ref gives the foul as he should. Or do you want exact identical situations for it to even itself out?
 
WeePat said:
How is it? Spurs don’t score if ref gives the foul as he should. Or do you want exact identical situations for it to even itself out?
Click to expand...

One led indirectly to a goal (you had a corner to defend and didn’t do it after the decision) the other was a decision made incorrectly for an actual goal.

Surely you see the difference?
 
TheReligion said:
One led indirectly to a goal (you had a corner to defend and didn’t do it after the decision) the other was a decision made incorrectly for an actual goal.

Surely you see the difference?
Click to expand...

Semantics.
 
WeePat said:
Chelsea would have had 3 points against Spurs if the ref makes the correct call, do you disagree?
Click to expand...

You’re just being daft now. Take off the blue tinted specs. I was as angry as anyone with the Cucerella incident (check my posts) but to not acknowledge the difference between the two incidents is silly.

One indirectly leads to a goal in a different passage of play. The other is the actual goal itself.
 
TheReligion said:
You’re just being daft now. Take off the blue tinted specs. I was as angry as anyone with the Cucerella incident (check my posts) but to not acknowledge the difference between the two incidents is silly.

One indirectly leads to a goal in a different passage of play. The other is the actual goal itself.
Click to expand...

I mean for fecks sake. The two incidents are literally different incidents but the difference in the type of incident is immaterial when the outcome was the same. I’m saying nothing controversial here. We were denied a win in one, and got an unearned win here. You’re arguing semantics for the sake of arguing semantics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.