Are you seriously comparing losing Nkunku to losing Haaland or Salah?
Pochettino Chelsea Manager - Sack Watch
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) are here to discuss United's last 3 games - two much-needed wins vs. Burnley in the Premier League and Palace in the League Cup, as well as a the 4-3 loss away at Bayern. They discuss the defence, new options in midfield with Hannibal and Amrabat now in contention and look forward to games vs. Palace (again!) and Galatasary.
There isn't. There's one poster successfully trolling about 500 posters.
I tuned in for the last twenty minutes expecting to see a Chelsea onslaught but was greeted by seeing a team playing the ball across the back three and zero attacking impetus! Very worrying for Chelsea!
Look like a transitional team.. they’ll struggle against the likes of Forest who just put out a back seven and a low block.
No way near enough creativity in their side. Also not sure playing a back three against these kind of teams is wise. Just put the extra body up front or in midfield. But yeah you can’t sign 500 players In one year and expect to be consistent.
No way near enough creativity in their side. Also not sure playing a back three against these kind of teams is wise. Just put the extra body up front or in midfield. But yeah you can’t sign 500 players In one year and expect to be consistent.
So far they haven’t moved even an inch under Poch compared to Potter. Toothless in attack, same odd 5 man defence, lack of creativity, mishmash of styles and generally zero end product.
Half their first team is injured, so the jury's still out.
They did look quite good with a 4-2-3-1 with Nknunku at #10. When you put out a back five, no matter what the tacticians / systems people say, you're replacing an attacker with a defender on the pitch. You will loose some attacking impetus.
They've been pretty consistent.
Your manager’s a clown, there were no shitty decisions in that game. Your captain decided to pull down Bruno when he was last man like a moron and then you gave away a clear penalty. Take the L and move on.
Some of the squad he had at Spurs was pretty special. Does he have enough of that at Chelsea? Can't help thinking they'd do better this season under a dull defensive pragmatist , someone like Conte.
Wow. I'm stunned by that. You can't be having that type of mindset if you want to manage the top clubs.
Are they both left footed? Can they play together?
Poch looked double chinned and despondent yesterday, like he'd had an attack of the airport taxi drivers.
If James isn't fit they shouldn't play wing backs.
Problem is that people think Pochettino was the one who made Tottenham a very good team. Truth is that he took over a squad full of internationals well prepared by Redknapp, Sherwood and Boas.
Yes and yes.
Many of the best centre back partnerships had the same favoured foot. Rio and Vidic, Terry and Carvalho for example.
They've signed 35 players in 12 months having spent over a billion.....it's a shell of a club full of mercenaries on massive 8 year contracts
The club is unrecognisable id be disgusted as a Chelsea fan. Doesn't matter who the manager is it's doomed to fail
You know what I hope he gets sacked then we can add the managerial merry-go-round to the cluster feck of problems at Chelsea
The club is unrecognisable id be disgusted as a Chelsea fan. Doesn't matter who the manager is it's doomed to fail
You know what I hope he gets sacked then we can add the managerial merry-go-round to the cluster feck of problems at Chelsea
Last edited:
Yes and I don’t see why not. No one ever asks this question when it’s two right footed players.
Because right footers will have played LCB a lot throughout their career given the majority of players are right footed, whereas left footers will have rarely played RCB as the likelihood of having two left footed CBs in a team is quite low. Can you think of a successful CB pairing where both were left-footed? Not saying it can't work but RCB for a left-footer will take more adaptation than the reverse. Same way in that I can hardly think of any LBs playing at RB but can think of many RBs who have played LB.
Only because one of them would not have experienced playing RCB before as pointed out very well here.
Comparing his importance. Not saying Nkunku is at a similiar level. Nkunku’s is chelsea best attacker, so is the players I mentioned for their respective club
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Must be the unluckiest manager so far in the premier league. Highest number of injuries aside, even with that his team is performing so well.
I m conflicted with regards to Pochettino changing his system. I m certain he needs to change players in the system, but not sure about changing the system as a whole because his side has been one of the best performing team in the league so far. As I stated before, for now keep system with 3 cb in back for tough game, but try to be more adventurous at home against weaker team. The likes of chilwell shouldn't be playing lm that is 100% certain.
I understand the selection headache with Gallagher and Silva, but I believe these players are squad players and shouldn't be starting when there are better alternatives.
Same stats, same excuses, same performances with different managers and different players.
I'd say Poch is incredibly lucky that Xg and stats like it doesn't factor in where the game is played or the strength of the opposition considering that three of their four games have been at home, two of which were against notorious powerhouses Nottingham Forest and Luton, while the last 30min of their away game was played against 10 men.
Outcome? (shown in stats that actually matter) - 5 goals scored, 5 goals conceded resulting in 1 win, 1 draw, 2 losses and a massive 4 points.
Outcome? (shown in stats that actually matter) - 5 goals scored, 5 goals conceded resulting in 1 win, 1 draw, 2 losses and a massive 4 points.
better stat and better performance. Not sure what the excuse was last season for chelsea, wasn’t following them much, but if injuries and lack of finishing was the “excuse” then some of that is still transferred over to this season. However performances has been better and statistically chelsea are better.
This is with pochettino playing chilwell at lw and accommodating silva and Gallagher. Most manager learn about their squad when bad results hit. It happened with ETH and Arteta in recent memory. Pochettino is learning about his squad the same way and he is realizing what the problem are when in competitive competition. Now it is up to Pochettino to make changes to those problems similiar to the way ETH and Arteta did early on in their career.
the worrying part though is chilwell is his vice captain. Pochettino needs to be stern like ETh was when he dropped Maguire. Or chilwell doesn’t even have to be dropped. He can just play the position Colwill is playing and drop silva or diasasi
liverpool and westham are in top four. Chelsea has played two of the strongest team in the league so far.
the stat that you said that actually matter doesn’t paint the complete picture. It is like saying our win against wolves by 1-0 is justified. You need to look at underlying stats rather than just goal scored, goals conceded, win, loss and points.
Last edited:
A West Ham team that plays the last 30min with 10 men doesn't represent one of the strongest teams in the league, it's also something that doesn't show up in any of your stats which is my whole point.
another prime example why he's more suited to clubs with low expectations. The Chelsea owner with the money spent will be demanding Champions league football for next season, with no European distractions they have a big advantage in that regard.
P.S @Zlaatan you are fairly schooling the Poch fanboy there.
Last edited:
Playing with 10 men in that situation suits west ham tactics of playing with a low block and Chelsea weakness of not being able to break down defensive line that plays like that. If west ham had to chase for a goal with 10 men, the story would be different. Also, you know what do show up in my (and other footballing experts) stats? The penalty miss by enzo, which was one of the biggest chance of the game and if buried, chelsea would have gone on and won. That is why underlying stats matters.
In addition, Liverpool beat Newcastle with 10, so playing with 10 men can't be used as a strong argument especially when the minute west ham played with that number was around 30 min and they were not chasing a victory.
You can say west ham is not a strong team despite their league standing and winning a European competition last season, but no one will believe that argument unless they have different motive from telling the truth.
Don't call it a cumback, he's been here for years
Also to add a West Ham that sits back and will probably be easily bottom half for possession stats (and probably passing tbh) come end of the season.
So the only team you'd expect to have a reasonable possession is Liverpool. So Chelsea by rights should have a very high possession standard vs the rest at this point given 3 teams out of 4 will rank poorly on that metric cone the end of the season.
- West Ham were 2-1 up when they got the red card (in a game that ended 3-1 btw) and playing with 10 men in that situation is not something that suits any tactic for any team, that's just batshit crazy on a whole new level.
Is your argument here (and please, please for the sake of the collective sanity of all the things tell me it isn't) that going down to 10 men forced WH to play a low block, that you somehow know for sure they wouldn't have done otherwise, and because a low block just so happens to be Chelsea's/Poch's kryptonite it actually meant it would've been harder for WH to hold on to all 3 points if they hadn't gotten a man sent off?
- Taking a 2-1 lead in the 43rd minute does not mean and will not ever mean that you will go on and win the game. That's just not how anything works.
- Liverpool winning with 10 men is both anecdotal and irrelevant. Having one more player on the pitch than your opponent gives you a massive advantage, period.
- I didn't say West Ham weren't a strong team, I said West Ham having to play the last 30min of a game with 10 men doesn't represent one of the strongest teams in the league.
Is he sacked yet? X100
5 more games then Boehly will draw his 6 shooter and sign spend another half billion
When a team plays with 10, the only smart option is play with a low block and defend till a mistake happens, a set piece or a counter attacking opportunity presents itself. That is exactly what happened that game and falled into west ham play book. West ham are well organized defensively and taking out that extra man for them, just meant that their counter won't be as effective.
-I said that west ham going down to 10 men allowed them to continue playing block. West ham is a team that more often than not play a low block especially against a possession oriented team.
-Of course taking a 2-1 lead in the 43rd minutes doesn't guarantee a victory, but you know what it does a guarantee?? (Unless that team is winning in aggregate in a cup competition
) For the team that is loosing to be more agreesive in the attack and change their defensive shape. If that happened, it would have favored chelsea who struggles against a team with a low block.-Liverpool winning with 10 men is relevant because it shows how strong a team they are and also, that when a team get a player sent off, it doesn't mean that they are destined to loose.
- playing the last 30 minutes with 10 men, doesn't change the holistic outlook on whether a team is strong or not. You admitted that west ham is a strong team, so even if they loose 1 player, they suddenly become a weak team? That isn't how football works. Sometimes when a team goes down to 10 men, they become stronger in one area of the pitch e.g. defensively. 1 player will only affect their defensive shape if they don't fill that hole left from the player that got carded. So, west ham was still a strong side because only their attack was blunted because of that card and their defense still remain resilient or even more resilient than without the card because their objective was clear when that event happened.
So the team that more often than not plays a low block against possession oriented teams was allowed to continue doing that when they went down to 10 men in a game against a possession oriented team? Right.When a team plays with 10, the only smart option is play with a low block and defend till a mistake happens, a set piece or a counter attacking opportunity presents itself. That is exactly what happened that game and falled into west ham play book. West ham are well organized defensively and taking out that extra man for them, just meant that their counter won't be as effective.
-I said that west ham going down to 10 men allowed them to continue playing block. West ham is a team that more often than not play a low block especially against a possession oriented team.
-Of course taking a 2-1 lead in the 43rd minutes doesn't guarantee a victory, but you know what it does a guarantee?? (Unless that team is winning in aggregate in a cup competition
-Liverpool winning with 10 men is relevant because it shows how strong a team they are and also, that when a team get a player sent off, it doesn't mean that they are destined to loose.
- playing the last 30 minutes with 10 men, doesn't change the holistic outlook on whether a team is strong or not. You admitted that west ham is a strong team, so even if they loose 1 player, they suddenly become a weak team? That isn't how football works. Sometimes when a team goes down to 10 men, they become stronger in one area of the pitch e.g. defensively. 1 player will only affect their defensive shape if they don't fill that hole left from the player that got carded. So, west ham was still a strong side because only their attack was blunted because of that card and their defense still remain resilient or even more resilient than without the card because their objective was clear when that event happened.
No West Ham doesn't become a weak team with 10 men, but just like every other team in the PL they do become worse and I'm just going to go ahead and agree to disagree with you about a team already playing with a low block becoming stronger defensively if they go down a man and leave it at that. I have enough grey hairs in my beard as it is.
all the numbers suggest that chelsea is the third best team in the league. Their board and recruitment staff made a mistake not signing a traditIonal No. 9. but also unlucky with injuries Especially to nkunku.
i still don’t see that this chelsea team has the quality needed for top four because as the numbers showed, they lack that experience to put chances away. Maybe in January, if they sign Toney, chelsea will look much more complete. I haven lost faith in Jackson, just that he needs a player like nkunku to improve his side of his game.
Gone by Christmas.
I can't see him getting the sack unless they're in the relegation zone.
One league win in five, with the only win being at home against Luton. It's not even as if they've had a tough schedule, Liverpool at home has been the only one where you wouldn't automatically favour a club of Chelsea's stature. Considering the money they've spent, this is catastrophic.
Feels a lot like United. Even if the squad isn't top tier by any means, it's far better than the performances the players deliver. It doesn't really feel like it's the manager's fault, and a revolving door of new managers hasn't helped at all.
The difference is that Chelsea have spent incredible amounts of money. You'd think that such astronomical expenditures would guarantee at least some improvements, but instead it seems to have had the opposite effect.
I doubt it matters who the manager is. Like at United, it seems largely irrelevant, and it looks like the manager has no way of solving the problem. I think such things as a toxic workplace environment can take hold of a football club just as much as it can an office, and you can't really coach your way out of that.
Feels a lot like United. Even if the squad isn't top tier by any means, it's far better than the performances the players deliver. It doesn't really feel like it's the manager's fault, and a revolving door of new managers hasn't helped at all.
The difference is that Chelsea have spent incredible amounts of money. You'd think that such astronomical expenditures would guarantee at least some improvements, but instead it seems to have had the opposite effect.
I doubt it matters who the manager is. Like at United, it seems largely irrelevant, and it looks like the manager has no way of solving the problem. I think such things as a toxic workplace environment can take hold of a football club just as much as it can an office, and you can't really coach your way out of that.