|
Weekend Games
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 1 2014, 09:19 AM (1,982 Views)
|
|
santry_gooner
|
Feb 3 2014, 06:50 PM
Post #201
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,772
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #13
- Joined:
- Jul 4, 2013
|
- jays712
- Feb 3 2014, 06:38 PM
- cruyff_turn
- Feb 3 2014, 06:37 PM
Given Pizz's immense respect for the quality and depth of Arsenal's squad this year, you'd think he'd give Wenger a little credit for putting a quality side together on (comparatively) meager resources.
Seems a bit of a contradiction on his part don't it? Precisely. He was blasting Wenger for going into the season with a weak squad. I don't remember hearing the acknowledgement of that being totally and utterly wrong.
|
|
|
| |
|
dream_team
|
Feb 3 2014, 08:06 PM
Post #202
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,001
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Dec 4, 2013
|
- jays712
- Feb 3 2014, 06:37 PM
- santry_gooner
- Feb 3 2014, 06:02 PM
This was an enthralling game for a low scoring game with a lot of defensive tactics.
First of all has man city's midfield got any plan B? Mourinho (while I can't stand the man) has sent out an instruction video on how to stop them. Yaya Touré takes no responsibility in defending (mark down for future discussion on why Busquets is a more complete player). They did lack Fernandinho, but if you are managing a squad you have to expect to be without big name players. As it turn out he is their talisman. And when you bypass city's midfield you are faced by one strong defender and three nervous guys who panic when he occasionally gets caught out of position.
Looking at the game Chelsea might have won 0-3 but they were so focused on their plan to first flood and then isolate Touré and Dimichaelis with Luiz and Matic that it hardly mattered. Hazard looked great tonight at he collected the possession of the man city rubble again and again. The poor city defenders almost deserve sympathy as they faced breaks again and again.
Yaya can provide more on offense than Busquets, while Busquets can provide more in a defensive role. It seems like Yaya has taken a step backwards defensively the last couple of seasons. I don't even remember him coming this much forward, pretty much abandoning any defensive role at all. I think it is the way pellegrini plays, Yaya was more defensive under Mancini, and the only time he was allowed to join the attack, is when Mancini plays 2 CM behind Yaya, making Yaya a CAM. oh and santry Yaya is a more complete player than busquetts who offers NOTHING in attack.
|
|
|
| |
|
dream_team
|
Feb 3 2014, 08:12 PM
Post #203
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,001
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #53
- Joined:
- Dec 4, 2013
|
- cruyff_turn
- Feb 3 2014, 06:37 PM
Given Pizz's immense respect for the quality and depth of Arsenal's squad this year, you'd think he'd give Wenger a little credit for putting a quality side together on (comparatively) meager resources. Except that it wasn't on 'meager' resources.
|
|
|
| |
|
cruyff_turn
|
Feb 3 2014, 08:35 PM
Post #204
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,067
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Jul 3, 2013
|
- dream_team
- Feb 3 2014, 08:12 PM
- cruyff_turn
- Feb 3 2014, 06:37 PM
Given Pizz's immense respect for the quality and depth of Arsenal's squad this year, you'd think he'd give Wenger a little credit for putting a quality side together on (comparatively) meager resources.
Except that it wasn't on 'meager' resources. Ignoring parentheses?
|
|
|
| |
|
KamyFC
|
Feb 3 2014, 10:18 PM
Post #205
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,180
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #7
- Joined:
- Jul 4, 2013
|
So Mourinho did not park the bus. He hit them on the counter.
Phil McNulty of the BBC writes Instead, Mourinho and Chelsea produced a counter-attacking masterclass perfectly designed to take advantage of City's natural attacking instincts
Chelsea, however, were set up to hit the hosts on the counter-attack with pace and movement, a ploy that reduced Manuel Pellegrini's side to the sort of anxiety rarely seen at the Etihad this season.
I did not watch it. Was that true ? The worlds so called best attacking team tactically out thought by the planning of Mourinho.
He used the same tactic at Madrid to beat the all conquering Barca side- defensive solidity, super fast counters, pressing game without the ball
This guy is too much. Can't stand him but boy is he good.
Great result for us
Edited by KamyFC, Feb 3 2014, 10:31 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
phatosas
|
Feb 4 2014, 01:13 AM
Post #206
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2013
|
- KamyFC
- Feb 3 2014, 10:18 PM
So Mourinho did not park the bus. He hit them on the counter.
Phil McNulty of the BBC writes Instead, Mourinho and Chelsea produced a counter-attacking masterclass perfectly designed to take advantage of City's natural attacking instincts
Chelsea, however, were set up to hit the hosts on the counter-attack with pace and movement, a ploy that reduced Manuel Pellegrini's side to the sort of anxiety rarely seen at the Etihad this season.
I did not watch it. Was that true ? The worlds so called best attacking team tactically out thought by the planning of Mourinho.
He used the same tactic at Madrid to beat the all conquering Barca side- defensive solidity, super fast counters, pressing game without the ball
This guy is too much. Can't stand him but boy is he good.
Great result for us
I think it was amazing to see and it has been something I have been talking of all season but nobody seemed to be able to punish City's reckless attacking style. There were some heart in mouth moments for Chelsea because when City come forward they do present a threat but when Chelsea broke on the counter it was extreme chaos for City. Hazard was amazing just dribbling one City player after another on the break. A more efficient Chelsea team could easily have scored 5 or 6 goals in this game and I am not exaggerating.
|
|
|
| |
|
phatosas
|
Feb 4 2014, 01:23 AM
Post #207
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2013
|
- phatosas
- Feb 4 2014, 01:13 AM
- KamyFC
- Feb 3 2014, 10:18 PM
So Mourinho did not park the bus. He hit them on the counter.
Phil McNulty of the BBC writes Instead, Mourinho and Chelsea produced a counter-attacking masterclass perfectly designed to take advantage of City's natural attacking instincts
Chelsea, however, were set up to hit the hosts on the counter-attack with pace and movement, a ploy that reduced Manuel Pellegrini's side to the sort of anxiety rarely seen at the Etihad this season.
I did not watch it. Was that true ? The worlds so called best attacking team tactically out thought by the planning of Mourinho.
He used the same tactic at Madrid to beat the all conquering Barca side- defensive solidity, super fast counters, pressing game without the ball
This guy is too much. Can't stand him but boy is he good.
Great result for us
I think it was amazing to see and it has been something I have been talking of all season but nobody seemed to be able to punish City's reckless attacking style. There were some heart in mouth moments for Chelsea because when City come forward they do present a threat but when Chelsea broke on the counter it was extreme chaos for City. Hazard was amazing just dribbling one City player after another on the break. A more efficient Chelsea team could easily have scored 5 or 6 goals in this game and I am not exaggerating. By the way I dont think it was as hard as beating Barcelona because the Barca team were a juggernut. They dont just attack you, they deprive you of the ball for long periods with their passing, they press when they dont have the ball and they play the offside trap to squeze the play. It took Mourinho quite a few attempts to eventually figure out Barcelona and he at least took some thrashing in the process. This City team is probably the most reckless attacking team I have seen and they have somewhat gotten away with it because they generally outscore the opposition. They send the fullbacks forward, Yaya goes forward and even Kompany also bombs forward with absolutely no cover. They outnumbered Chelsea especially on the flanks and there were times when you have no choice but to let them beat them wide and send in the cross. Chelsea played their normal 11 men behind the ball and City still created a few chances because of the number of players they had forward so Chelsea had to ride their luck. When City lose the ball, they immediately crowd the man on the ball. However whenever Chelsea were able to break the initial pressure which occasionally just required a dribble or two, it was like the red sea parting. I dont think Mourinho had to over think this, City essentially played into his hands. I would even say it is probably the easiest big game Mourinho has played in a while.
Edited by phatosas, Feb 4 2014, 01:25 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
phatosas
|
Feb 4 2014, 02:51 AM
Post #208
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:52 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:50 PM
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:48 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:46 PM
- phatosas
- Feb 3 2014, 04:45 PM
That was a red card in my opinion
big time.
Textbook yellow for a tactical foul. Too far from goal to be an obvious scoring opportunity.
not sure but i thot he was last man. if he was then it should b pure red.
"Last man" (i.e., the number of defenders) is only part of the equation. There are at least three other factors the referee is required to consider: - Distance from the ball - Direction of the player - Distance from the goal That play had three out of the four, hence yellow and not red. A week ago Rose makes a genuine play for the ball and gets sent off because they think it was a mistimed tackle that stopped a goal scoring chance (that tackle has since be deemed as a good tackle). On the other hand a player makes a cynical play to stop a 1:1 potentially developing in that situation and he gets a yellow, it makes no sense. Dogso is supposed to stop cynicism, not stop players that happen to make unfortunate tackles or punish incidental handballs on the goal line.
By the way what is the difference between this and the Aterta red card? I actually think this was a better situation considering this was a better situation because it was very central and Oscar was behind him, not side by side.
|
|
|
| |
|
dsch15
|
Feb 4 2014, 11:40 AM
Post #209
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,526
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Jul 5, 2013
|
- phatosas
- Feb 4 2014, 02:51 AM
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:52 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:50 PM
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:48 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:46 PM
- phatosas
- Feb 3 2014, 04:45 PM
That was a red card in my opinion
big time.
Textbook yellow for a tactical foul. Too far from goal to be an obvious scoring opportunity.
not sure but i thot he was last man. if he was then it should b pure red.
"Last man" (i.e., the number of defenders) is only part of the equation. There are at least three other factors the referee is required to consider: - Distance from the ball - Direction of the player - Distance from the goal That play had three out of the four, hence yellow and not red.
A week ago Rose makes a genuine play for the ball and gets sent off because they think it was a mistimed tackle that stopped a goal scoring chance (that tackle has since be deemed as a good tackle). On the other hand a player makes a cynical play to stop a 1:1 potentially developing in that situation and he gets a yellow, it makes no sense. Dogso is supposed to stop cynicism, not stop players that happen to make unfortunate tackles or punish incidental handballs on the goal line. By the way what is the difference between this and the Aterta red card? I actually think this was a better situation considering this was a better situation because it was very central and Oscar was behind him, not side by side. Setting aside for the moment Rose may not actually have committed a foul (that's referee error, not an inconsistency in the Laws), the current approach makes very good sense to me.
Speaking generally, yellow cards are meant to discourage cynicism. In the current context, red cards are for a quite different purpose - i.e., to punish fouls that deny an attacker an obvious goal scoring opportunity. That certainly has the attendant effect of limiting the number of cynical challenges, but do you really want to open up the can of worms that requires a referee to divine the intentions of the player? Does it matter to the victim? Not at all. The only thing that matters is that foul play has denied him a chance at a good shot.
Foul play. There's a reason we call it that. The notion that there is such a thing as an "honest" foul has gained far too much acceptance for my liking. I don't want referees letting defenders off the hook simply because they were able to make a bad challenge look like a nice try.
As far as the Arteta example goes, that seemed to me an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Law, as would Dean's have been if he sent City's defender off yesterday.
In unrelated news (now that I've got a real head of steam up)... Here's what I think about players brandishing imaginary cards - Give them the one they're asking for! And here's what I think about managers (a la Mourinho yesterday) running up and down the touchline asking for opponents to be sent off - Send them to the stands (preferably way up high among the opponents' supporters)!
|
|
|
| |
|
phatosas
|
Feb 4 2014, 12:54 PM
Post #210
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,096
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #18
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2013
|
- dsch15
- Feb 4 2014, 11:40 AM
- phatosas
- Feb 4 2014, 02:51 AM
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:52 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:50 PM
- dsch15
- Feb 3 2014, 04:48 PM
- chillyheat
- Feb 3 2014, 04:46 PM
- phatosas
- Feb 3 2014, 04:45 PM
That was a red card in my opinion
big time.
Textbook yellow for a tactical foul. Too far from goal to be an obvious scoring opportunity.
not sure but i thot he was last man. if he was then it should b pure red.
"Last man" (i.e., the number of defenders) is only part of the equation. There are at least three other factors the referee is required to consider: - Distance from the ball - Direction of the player - Distance from the goal That play had three out of the four, hence yellow and not red.
A week ago Rose makes a genuine play for the ball and gets sent off because they think it was a mistimed tackle that stopped a goal scoring chance (that tackle has since be deemed as a good tackle). On the other hand a player makes a cynical play to stop a 1:1 potentially developing in that situation and he gets a yellow, it makes no sense. Dogso is supposed to stop cynicism, not stop players that happen to make unfortunate tackles or punish incidental handballs on the goal line. By the way what is the difference between this and the Aterta red card? I actually think this was a better situation considering this was a better situation because it was very central and Oscar was behind him, not side by side.
Setting aside for the moment Rose may not actually have committed a foul (that's referee error, not an inconsistency in the Laws), the current approach makes very good sense to me. Speaking generally, yellow cards are meant to discourage cynicism. In the current context, red cards are for a quite different purpose - i.e., to punish fouls that deny an attacker an obvious goal scoring opportunity. That certainly has the attendant effect of limiting the number of cynical challenges, but do you really want to open up the can of worms that requires a referee to divine the intentions of the player? Does it matter to the victim? Not at all. The only thing that matters is that foul play has denied him a chance at a good shot. Foul play. There's a reason we call it that. The notion that there is such a thing as an "honest" foul has gained far too much acceptance for my liking. I don't want referees letting defenders off the hook simply because they were able to make a bad challenge look like a nice try. As far as the Arteta example goes, that seemed to me an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Law, as would Dean's have been if he sent City's defender off yesterday. In unrelated news (now that I've got a real head of steam up)... Here's what I think about players brandishing imaginary cards - Give them the one they're asking for! And here's what I think about managers (a la Mourinho yesterday) running up and down the touchline asking for opponents to be sent off - Send them to the stands (preferably way up high among the opponents' supporters)! If that same thing happened in the NBA, it would be a clear path to the basket. I dont think the distance from the goal should matter, what should matter is if there is another player behind the ball that could prevent it from developing into a goal scoring opportunity. In this case, the defender was the last man, the ball was finely placed and there was no other City player that could interfere with the play. If the defender didnt commit the foul, that play was going to develop into a scoring opportunity. I am glad you acknowledge that this is no different from the Arterta incidence.
As for players brandishing imaginary cards, I was watching videos on youtube and I stumbled upon Mike Riley performance in the game that ended our unbeaten run and I was amazed by how bad Riley was but also how meek our players were in making our case to the referee. I also watched Gary Neville analyze the goal that Newcastle had disallowed in the City game and it was obvious that the referee and linesmen were influenced by the City players to disallow the goal. I think referees are human and can be influenced. The brandishing of imaginary card is a bit irritating but players would find other ways to get their message to the referee if they ban the brandishing of imaginary cards.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|