chelsea: are they really 12 or more points better than the rest?

homerjay2005

Chelsea are a team that bug me, i cant figure them out some times, ok, they have a good side and are well organised, but are they 12 or more points better than the rest of the premiership?

They have spent something in the region of £200 million on players, some good buys, some not so good, like veron, crespo, drogba, SWP, parker, jarosik, even £25 million on essien was way over board. can anybody here say, that for that money, they have a truely world class side?

The only players that could be considered to be world class are czech, terry and lampard and im being generous there. so what makes them so "special",why are they so far ahead of the rest at the moment? Is it a matter that they really are an outstanding team or have the rest of the teams, like arsenal, man u and liverpool, just not got the players? As i said, they have a decent team, but i when when you look at the team you dont feel envious like you do with teams like milan, barca, juve, real, etc. do you?

So where was this league won and lost? As a united fan, i feel that this league for us anyway, was lost in the first 9 games, where chelsea won all 9 games, this put them something like 13 points ahead, since united beat them at OT, the gap has not changed much so in theory, thats were i feel the damage was done.

United had a very average team playing at the start of the season and had some poor results like blackburn at home and boro away. Draws at home to everton, away to birmingham were also costly, and then in the space of a few weeks, we lost away to Blackburn and City again. Liverpool had a decent middle season, but had an awful start and a poor run of late, so that accounts for their position.

As regards chelsea,how many games have they played poorly and still won. as the old cliche says, its a sign of a good team that play poorly and keep winning and also, that good teams make their own luck, but they have had their fair share of it. While United, Arsenal and Liverpool have all had massive injury problems, Chelsea have had relatively nothing major. Also, on the field itself, they have been blessed at times, games like wigan, they really struggled and came away with 2 1-0 wins. how many times have they won 1-0 or 2-1 this year?there is definately 12 or 13 games where they only scrapped home, and without a bit of fortune, they could have easily drawn even lost alot these games.

I feel that the big 3, with a few shrewd buys this year, can easly close the gap on chelsea. for the sake of the game, i hope so anyway.

Big Nelly

homerjay2005 wrote:

chelsea are a team blah blah blah i hope so anyway.

Its called a paragraph! I cant read that jumble of words with no capital, no full stops etc. Is this what the schools call education these days?

I will just go by the heading because cant read the rest. Chelsea are 12 points better becasue they are 12 points ahead. Simple as that, they have been the best team in England over the last 2 seasons but this has been due to the demise and restructuring of squad of the two clubs in England that could be closer to them, Man Utd and Arsenal. Next season if Utd get a midfield I think you will see them getting closer to Chelsea, players are starting to get wary of signing for Chelsea because it could ruin your career, Wright-Phillips. So they will start to find it harder to get player, Smertin has gone and Jarosik has been told not to bother coming back to Chelsea so they are starting a bit of a clear out. Can see Huth and C Cole moving on as well/

So from my opinion yes Chelsea are 12 points better than everyone else because they are 12 points ahead. Not sure why you ask that question? the league doesnt lie. To say if they will be next season is another thing

Villain

IMHO its the system they play, I manage a team and we play the same system and better teams than us can't break us down. Jose has got the players he needs to play that system with the exception of world class striker although Crespo and Drogba aren't bad at all.

Makele protects the back 4 so well its easy to defend then if they manage to break through him they have one of the best center backs in the league in John Terry and behind that one of the best keepers.

Then they have a midfield than can score and create goals easily, Lampard's goal scoring records speaks for itself. I have to say I would add Robben to the list of world class players they have, I can't wait to see him in the world cup he's got such skill and knowledge for a young player its incredible.

Are they 12pts better? well they say the league table doesn't lie and I'd agree with that, no other team has been any where near consistent as Chelsea. Chelsea may get beaten in a one off game by any of the other top 3 but they will always pick up more points over the season.

So to surmise imo it's the system that Jose plays that makes the difference. I also wouldn't regard SWP as a bad buy he's very young and has bags of talent.

casanova_kid

It's down to defence basically and the weakness of the premiership. The only players in the premiership who are world class attackers would be Rooney and Henry so a top class defence like Chelsea have, have it easy. When they come up against players like Ronaldinho and Messi in Europe, they struggle to handle them though. The closest rivals to chelsea in the premiership, Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool have two proper centre halfs between them at the moment, Carragher and Toure so it's easy to see how teams are so far behind what isn't a great team what so ever.

PHB

the only players that could be considered to be world class are czech, terry and lampard and im being generous there.

Excuse me!?
I, as a United fan, would love to have the following Chelsea players in my squad:
Cech
Ferreira*
Terry*
Carvalho
Gallas
MAkelele*
Lampard*
Essien
Robben*

I'm not saying they'd be first choice, also the ones with the star I think would walk into the United team.
Don't be silly!

As for are they 12 points ahead?
This season I've been throughly u****ressed with Chelsea. I feel they havn't won many matches, they've just grinded out wins. I know that is the mark of a champion, when you lose when you are playing badly, but they have been playing badly all season!
They had one period in October imo when they were on top form.

I do not think anyteam in the entire world ever will be able to beat the points mark of 100, and this year Chelsea seem to be on there way. What is important to remember is that they are playing with no pressure, United and Liverpool are so far behind them its unreal. United have only gained ground on Chelsea once in the last 17 months(not including head to head matches)

I think next season, if United can get the two midfielders they need in, we can have an incredible year, but we absolutely have to hit the ground running. If we can get ahead of them after 10 games, well then we've got ourselves a compo.

btw:
I hope that Ballack and Ronaldo join Chelsea, it would signal the goal of more attacking football.
Mourinho alledgely favours attacking football, he just doesn't think it works in England. Maybe after the two CL knockouts, he is finally going to take on the attractive football.
If they did that, I'm fairly confident United could be up there with them.

p.p.s:

The following players I think could leave this summer:

Gallas
Carvalho
SWP
Bridge
Crespo
Maniche(obviously as he is on loan)

I think next year Mourinho is going to have a smaller squad, as his no nonsense is going to bug people. Furthermore the examples of SWP will make chelsea less attractive

Dont be at yourself

I dont think being able to hold down a place in Man Utd's team is a measurement of being World Class. Half the premiership would walk into their midfield.

PHB

Yeh, but pretty much none of the premiership would get into Uniteds defense or attack. Infact there is only one player who would who isn't at Chelsea, and its Henry.

WhiteWashMan

homerjay2005 wrote:

chelsea are a team that bug me, i cant figure them out some times, ok, they have a good side and are well organised, but are they 12 or more points better than the rest of the premiership? they have spent something in the region of £200 million on players, some good buys, some not so good, like veron, crespo, drogba, SWP, parker, jarosik, even £25 million on essien was way over board. can anybody here say, that for that money, they have a truely world class side? the only players that could be considered to be world class are czech, terry and lampard and im being generous there. so what makes them so "special",why are they so far ahead of the rest at the moment?is it a matter that they really are an outstanding team or have the rest of the teams, like arsenal, man u and liverpool, just not got the players? as i said, they have a decent team, but i when when you look at the team you dont feel envious like you do with teams like milan, barca, juve, real, etc. do you?
so where was this league won and lost? as a united fan, i feel that this league for us anyway, was lost in the first 9 games, where chelsea won all 9 games, this put them something like 13 points ahead, since united beat them at OT, the gap has not changed much so in theory, thats were i feel the damage was done. United had a very average team playing at the start of the season and had some poor results like blackburn at home and boro away. Draws at home to everton, away to birmingham were also costly, and then in the space of a few weeks, we lost away to Blackburn and City again. Liverpool had a decent middle season, but had an awful start and a poor run of late, so that accounts for their position. As regards chelsea,how many games have they played poorly and still won. as the old cliche says, its a sign of a good team that play poorly and keep winning and also, that good teams make their own luck, but they have had their fair share of it. While United, Arsenal and Liverpool have all had massive injury problems, Chelsea have had relatively nothing major. Also, on the field itself, they have been blessed at times, games like wigan, they really struggled and came away with 2 1-0 wins. how many times have they won 1-0 or 2-1 this year?there is definately 12 or 13 games where they only scrapped home, and without a bit of fortune, they could have easily drawn even lost alot these games. I feel that the big 3, with a few shrewd buys this year, can easly close the gap on chelsea. for the sake of the game, i hope so anyway.

they are more consistant than every other team.
they can play in a number of formations.
all of their players are exceedingly talented.
they have a technically brilliant coach.

but what makes you think they cant have off days, or there will be time when they rely on luck to win.
its football. football has always been about how you perform on the day, not about how you performed over the last 6 months.

and everyone in the league could be aas good as chelsea, if they won nealry all their games. but can they produce the same consistancy?

WhiteWashMan

Big Nelly wrote:

So from my opinion yes Chelsea are 12 points better than everyone else because they are 12 points ahead. Not sure why you ask that question? the league doesnt lie. To say if they will be next season is another thing

and that is exaclty that.

for anyone else to do the usual 'my teal is brilliant and are better than chelsea but insert xyz excuse here why they arent' is just crap.

they are ahead because they deserve to be ahead.

sometimes i feel that chelsea cant win.
they were 'found out' against barca. well come on. barca are probably the best team in the world. i would be happy to lose by the odd goal against them in the QF of the champions league. it would be better than losing 2 nil at home to benfica quite frankly.

'oh the dont deserve to be 12 points ahead becuase thy dont play football the way my great grandad used to watch from the terraces'

get over it. so you dont like it. so what. really. so what.


'oh, they dont have world class players'

really?
well, it must be exceedingly embarassing for utd and pool and every other team to get beat by them week in and week out by a bunch of none wolrd class players.
very embarassing indeed.

sour grapes. thats exactly what it is.
just too scared to come right out and say 'you know what, i wish we had that much money'

A Dub in Glasgo

chelsea: are they really 12 or more points better than the rest?

Yes..... they have consistantly proved that over the last 2 years!!

Pepe LeFrits

Simple answer: Yes.

Hopefully, next season will be a bit more interesting. Chelsea will no doubt splash more cash in the transfer market, but I don't think Liverpool, United and Arsenal can get any worse. It's fairly obvious where the problems lie with those 3 teams, and you'd expect Benitez/Ferguson/Wenger to try and rectify them in the summer. If they do, Chelsea might be challenged.

Chelsea's first 11 is not that much better than anyone elses. It is very good, solid, organised, strong and quick on the counter, but they don't really steam-roll any of the big 3 despite them being pretty weak at the moment. Chelsea's biggest strength is their quality on the bench; if a game isn't going their way they can throw on £50m worth of subs and turn the game on it's head. When it comes to changing second-half results (for the better), Chelsea's stats read like no other.

I don't think any team in the premiership can afford to have a bench like theirs, so Chelsea won't be out-done in consistency stakes. The best hope is that next season one or more of the big 3 have enough quality in first eleven (and luck to have it available) to put in a strong run, beat Chelsea, and put doubt in their minds.

KdjaCL

League tables never lie.



kdjac

growler

Big Nelly wrote:

, players are starting to get wary of signing for Chelsea because it could ruin your career, Wright-Phillips. So they will start to find it harder to get player,

which players are getting wary exactly ? How any pro footballer thinks that signing for the prem leaders with shed loads of cash is going to ruin their career I don't know. In the past Chelsea were guilty of buying "big" names, in the last few years of their careers ( desailly, leboeuf, petit, gullit etc)..thats not currently the case thankfully. Unless you know different I don't see how SWP could think his career is ruined. SWP is getting better, he still needs gets knocked off the ball too easily but he will be a future star for chelsea I have no doubt.

Pepe: no matter how good a team is you don't see them rolling over all comers (except in Scotland), the difference in skill / players / tactics are not going to be that huge in any league, to infer that chelsea should be doing better is a bit strange imo.

As to the original question: YES, they are.

zAbbo

Huge chunk of text, unreadable.

Big Nelly

growler wrote:

which players are getting wary exactly ? How any pro footballer thinks that signing for the prem leaders with shed loads of cash is going to ruin their career I don't know. In the past Chelsea were guilty of buying "big" names, in the last few years of their careers ( desailly, leboeuf, petit, gullit etc)..thats not currently the case thankfully. Unless you know different I don't see how SWP could think his career is ruined. SWP is getting better, he still needs gets knocked off the ball too easily but he will be a future star for chelsea I have no doubt.

Well if Wright Philips had the option now of moving to any club I bet it wouldnt be Chelsea where they have ruined his chances of forceing his way into the England 11 because he hasnt been playing. Players will notice this and will be reluctant to move there, sure if they move to Arsenal/Man utd/Liverpool they could be guarteed a starting position so why move to a club where they sit on the bench?

Im not talking about Shev or Ballack or players like that but players like Wrigth -Philips etc

ronbyrne2005

the premiership isnt that strong.attacking abiliites of most teams isnt great and the defending ability aint great either.
chelsea have enough ability to stop other teams scoring and have enough going forward to get a goal or two more than opponents but they aint attractive to watch most of the times.
when they were scoring four a game and keeping loads of clean sheets they were better to watch but maybe teams have caught on to them a bit but they still win.
thay have great team spirit and patience and work ethic which is worth a goal start much of the time.
i think mourinho has enough resources at his disposal to be able to win by attacking and flair if he can do that is another question.

WhiteWashMan

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

but they aint attractive to watch most of the times..

so what?

attractive football doesnt win games.
ask any spurs fan that....

Necronomicon

However they measure up man-for-man, they are far, far more consistent than any other Prem team...that's what it boils down to really. Nowadays you can't lose more than 2, maybe 3 games if you have title aspirations.

Pepe LeFrits

growler wrote:

Pepe: no matter how good a team is you don't see them rolling over all comers (except in Scotland), the difference in skill / players / tactics are not going to be that huge in any league, to infer that chelsea should be doing better is a bit strange imo.

I wasn't inferring that the should be doing better, I was suggesting that "Chelsea's first 11 is not that much better than anyone elses."

And the contrast between the best and the rest has often been pretty stark in the PL over the past decade.

Chardee MacDennis

there first team may not be that much better than anyone elses but the fact that the have another ~eleven players in their squad (who could probably get into other prem teams first XI's) that can step in and replace their first eleven helps a lot!!

take united for example they currently have a terrible midfield but chelsea have Gudjohnsson/Geremi/Maniche/SWP who can step in and perform at any time, or even Cudicini he is quite a good goalkeeper and there are probably only 4/5 better keepers than him in the Prem.

so it snot all about the first eleven but a deep squad of good players makes the difference between champions and runners up...

if that makes any sense!!

PHB

Chelsea's second string:

Cudicini
Johnson - Gallas - Huth - Bridge
Maniche - Geremi
Gudjohnson
SWP - Duff
Drogba/Crespo/Cole

MisterAnarchy

Chelsea's success in the Premiership is primarily based on their solid defence.
They play with a very deep back four with Makele right in front of the back 4.
Makelele spends most of his time about 30-35 yards out from goal,moving sideways across the pitch.
It is very difficult to get in behind the back four.
Mourinho knows that nearly every team in the Premiership bar a few have the type of players that can break this defence down ,i.e a good dribbler.
The Chelsea defence is very cynical and get away with alot of minor fouls that would be penalised in a more liberal league,Spain for example.
If any player attempts to run at the Chelsea defence thay will be fouled in the vast majority of cases.
With this solid base the attack is built on pace and long ball probing.
Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring.
Mourinho knows that if Chelsea can grind the other team down that an opportunity will present itself in the form of a defensive error or a setpiece or a flash of skill.
Its football by numbers.
I'd say about half of Chelseas goals come from defensive errors .
Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.
They are a destructive unit that succeeds by stifling the opposing team.
They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership.
Its a woeful league .
The only 2 proper footballing sides in England are Arsenal and Man United.
Liverpool are a less efficient clone of Chelsea.
So are Chelsea 12 points better than Man United ?
Not a chance.
I know which team I'd prefer to watch any day.
Pele once said 'Football is the beautiful game', Chelsea you are not beautiful ,you are ugly,you are the George Graham side of the 21st century.

growler

quality post Anarchy !

"The Chelsea defence is very cynical and get away with alot of minor fouls that would be penalised in a more liberal league,Spain for example."

so they would have more fouls in a more liberal league ? gotcha

"Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring."

Very true. In fact most teams score sometimes from setpieces you'll find, even Man U.

"that an opportunity will present itself in the form of a defensive error or a setpiece or a flash of skill."

as opposed to what ? divine intervention ? What does every other team do then ?

"They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership"

we must have differing definitions of "brutal" then.

"The only 2 proper footballing sides in England are Arsenal and Man United."

since you're two weeks too early for April 1st , I'll assume you actually mean this :eek: Arsenal are a great team to watch when Henry is on form, take him out of the team and they are mediocre at best. Utd certainly have the ability to play good football and have done in the past , but times and the team have changed, watching man u today is not exhibition football, the excitement usually comes from a Rooney run / shot.

Ruskie4Rent

That last post smacked of arrogance. How could you dismiss each of those arguments when there is a little bit of truth to each one.
I don't think chelsea are 12 points better than everyone else on any given day. apart from the last liverpool match, I have never seen them dominate a top tier team in the premiership(I'm sure someone* will correct me on this).
However, their ability to find three points in tough games is always present. They have had alot of scraps this season and despite their comfortable league position, chelsea were able to dig out the result whatever the cost. This is down to good management and organisation. On the league table they deserve to be 12 points ahead because of this and their consistancy is now they standard if a team expects to win the PL.
I don't expect this to last though, roll on 2006/07.

*probably chelsea fans

MisterAnarchy

growler wrote:

quality post Anarchy !

I see you are based in London,you arent a Chelsea supporter by any chance .:rolleyes:

"Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring."

Very true. In fact most teams score sometimes from setpieces you'll find, even Man U.

Main method does not equate to sometimes.

Gangsta

Tbh, growler you're extremely arrogant. As Ruskie4Rent pointed out there is truth in all the points MisterAnarchy made.

I believe that Chelsea are NOT the best footballing side in England, far from it but with respect to their take on the 'beautiful game' yes they are better than the rest. I hope that ManU and Arsenal can get their act together in the summer to make more of a competition of the PL but I doubt they'll dethrone Chelsea because of their financial muscle.
(note I didn't include the Pool because they're just a crappier version of Chelsea).

evilhomer

Some people forget that even if Man Utd(91pts in 99/00) and Arsenal (90pts unbeaten seaon 03/04) had their best Premiership winning points total at the end of the season they would still be behind Chelsea's performance last season 95 (And no you can't count the seasons with 22 teams in the Prem ). Not to mention they are on for a 100 points + season this year.

Do I like how defensive Chelsea are most of the time? No
Do I think that they are the best footballing side? No
Do I think they have the best footballers in the Premiership? Yes

I'm not a Chelsea fan, but you do have to admire their ability to win game after game.

Even if Arsenal and United do "sort themselves out" they will have a hell of a time amassing 95+ points in a season.

smemon

no, they aren't that far ahead of utd in reality.

if utd can sort out their mental problems or mental laziness, they're a match for chelsea.

i think people look at the names chelsea have and the money paid for those names. cuz you spend 20/30m on every playr in your side, doesnt mean you have the best team in the world.

chelsea have the equivilent of an EU food mountain at stamford bridge. rather than share their wealth of players and let them go, they keep amassing talent and store it in their reserves/bench.

this year, murinho has gained enemies and is no longer the 'refreshing' man he was last year. people are getting sick of him. not his managerial style, but his personality.

Chucky the tree

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.
They are a destructive unit that succeeds by stifling the opposing team.
They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership..

Since when was the premier league decided on footballing ability? Since when was any competition decided on that? never thas when. Its decided on winning matches. How is the premiership artificial?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The only 2 proper footballing sides in England are Arsenal and Man United.
Liverpool are a less efficient clone of Chelsea..

Yea, and look were Arsenal and united are in relation to chelsea, wow great footballing teams really are the way forward arent they!

Chelsea have alot more talented footballers then united. Look at the united midfield, the cream of footballing talent in there ey.. :rolleyes:

MisterAnarchy wrote:

So are Chelsea 12 points better than Man United ?
Not a chance.

So why are chelsea 12 points ahead of united in the league? Rooney and RVN are the only players who would make chelseas starting 11.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

I know which team I'd prefer to watch any day.
Pele once said 'Football is the beautiful game', Chelsea you are not beautiful ,you are ugly,you are the George Graham side of the 21st century.

No one cares which team you'd prefer to watch, football is about winning.

Pele also advertises viagra.

The Muppet

growler wrote:

Very true. In fact most teams score sometimes from setpieces you'll find, even Man U.

The league Table doesn't lie so yes they are 12 points better than United and more on the rest at the moment.

Their style of football though obviously very successful in the Premiership is not as exciting to watch as Arsenal or Man Utd of a few seasons ago. When is the last time Chelseas tore a team apart? The ananlagy with George Graham is spot on. He proved you could win the premiersship playing defensive negative football.

Chelsea are the best at the moment. In the interest of football as a spectacle I hope who ever overtakes them is playing attacking, exciting to watch football.

anonymous_joe

The OP was aware that Chelsea are 12 points clear...

Ignoring the old cliché that the table never dies, the nature of Chelsea's 12 points is slightly more interesting.

Unlike most of their rivals, Chelsea are a very rigid team, tactically, compare Joe Cole being criticised for 'showboating' to Henry and Pires' 'penalty' earlier in the season, something that was just laughed off as a bit of fun. The ethos is clearly different.

Chelsea themselves use a strong defense as the basic method of their success, with clever midfield play meaning the lack of pace in the centre of their defence is never exposed.

Creatively, Chelsea don't offer a huge amount, barring their wingers, who, in Duff, Robben and Cole are all capable of creative genius.

In Lampard, Gudjohnsen and players of their ilk, goals can come from midfield, which remains the midfield's most visible contribution.

From their you come to the strikers - Drogba and Crespo, one a classic poacher type, the other a very powerful centre-forward, though not as skilled as a Sheva, Eto'o or Henry.

Oh and let's not forget Cech...

WhiteWashMan

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

That last post smacked of arrogance. How could you dismiss each of those arguments when there is a little bit of truth to each one.

arrogance?

www.dictionary.com

use it and learn what arrogance means. i dont see a little bit of truth in any of those points that were made.

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

I don't think chelsea are 12 points better than everyone else on any given day.

its a league, its about 9 months, not any given day. i wonder why chelsea are 12 points ahead though if they arent actually that much better than everyone else.

can you not read in black and white from the league table or something. i mean, do you need glasses that you cant see the league table?
its really written there!

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

However, their ability to find three points in tough games is always present.

oh, so they do win all their games?

i dont understand what you are trying to say?
they are not the best team, they just win all their games.

can you explain that one to me in real simple english?

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

They have had alot of scraps this season and despite their comfortable league position, chelsea were able to dig out the result whatever the cost. This is down to good management and organisation.

and the footballers themselves as well, yes? i mean, there are 11 men on the pitch at the start of every game for every team. im sure they have some involvement.

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

On the league table they deserve to be 12 points ahead because of this and their consistancy is now they standard if a team expects to win the PL.

but you said they werent?
im confuzzled....:rolleyes:

smemon wrote:

no, they aren't that far ahead of utd in reality.

nope. ive just looked at skysports.com and i can absolutely promise you that chelsea are 12 points are ahead.

what reality are you looking at the table in?

smemon wrote:

i think people look at the names chelsea have and the money paid for those names. cuz you spend 20/30m on every playr in your side, doesnt mean you have the best team in the world.

chelsea have the equivilent of an EU food mountain at stamford bridge. rather than share their wealth of players and let them go, they keep amassing talent and store it in their reserves/bench.

this year, murinho has gained enemies and is no longer the 'refreshing' man he was last year. people are getting sick of him. not his managerial style, but his personality..

but if we look at your arguement, we see it has nothing to do with chelsea actually being 12 points ahead of the firld, its your own wise words of wisdom whinging about chelsea and the fact that they spent a lot of money.

which really has notihing to do with it except that you are whinging becuase they have more money to spend than your team does.

apart from that stupid 'utd need to get over their mental laziness' effort of an excuse. utd need better players to challenge chelsea. they are not as consistant as chelsea, they dont have the depth and quality of squad, and as such deserve to be 12 points behind chelsea, becuase they just havent scored enough points to be ahead of them.

keep your glasses on and keep whinging.

misteranarchy wrote:

Chelsea's success in the Premiership is primarily based on their solid defence.

and the goal scoring....

misteranarchy wrote:

.
Mourinho knows that nearly every team in the Premiership bar a few have the type of players that can break this defence down ,i.e a good dribbler.
The Chelsea defence is very cynical and get away with alot of minor fouls that would be penalised in a more liberal league,Spain for example.

but since the play in the english premier, with all the other teams in the english premier, i guess that evens things out, doesnt it.
if youre going to make comparisons, at least compare apples with apples....

misteranarchy wrote:

Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring.

those bástards!

every goal should be an exquisit piece of footballing genius and as breathtaking as an early summers sunrise.

get over it. a goal is a goal is a goial is a goal....

misteranarchy wrote:

Mourinho knows that if Chelsea can grind the other team down that an opportunity will present itself in the form of a defensive error or a setpiece or a flash of skill.

again, what is your point? that chelsea should win the league through 90 minutes x 38 matches of pure freeflowing genius football? because i never heard any complains from arsenal or man utd fans when they were grinding out boring wins when they won their league titles. during those times, what was important was that they got 3 points on a saturday afternoon.

apparently chelsea are exempt from this.

misteranarchy wrote:

Its football by numbers.

yes, they get an extra man on the pitch. usually its robert huth. hes so crap the umprire and opposition allow him on the pitch as a 12th man...

misteranarchy wrote:

I'd say about half of Chelseas goals come from defensive errors .

yes, they should stop playu, hand the ball back and say 'im sorry old chap, we were going to score because you lost the ball, and we just feel that isnt cicket.

i didnt hear any arsenal fans complaining last week when gerrard passed a delicate little ball to terry henry to score....

misteranarchy wrote:

Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.

im sorry, what sport are they playing? so all those wins and the 12 points ahead thing is just my imagaination?
oh, and skysports of course. we are both wrong. i must have been looking up the boyscout effective team league tables instead....

]

misteranarchy wrote:

.
They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership.

as someone else said, whats youre definition of brutally?

i saw a goal in the difference over 2 matches. i saw them beat barca last season. i saw them wallop liverpool, the newly crowned kings of europe, in their own back yard by 4 goals. brutally exposed.
come on now, lets have a proper discussion and not resort to childish overenthusiasm of the truth.
honestly, youd dont half exaggerate. they were beaten. thats it.

by sure, by youre reckoning, since boro beat chelsea, and arsenal beat boro, do you think arsenal are 10 goals better than chelsea?
why are they in 5th place then, and 25 points behind?

misteranarchy wrote:

Its a woeful league .

really?
gosh, then you probably dont watch it and have no interest in it.
in fact if thats the case, im going to have dismiss your opinions as second hand rehashed opinions. perhpas you just read someone elses posts on these forums and decided to regurgitated what they were saying?

misteranarchy wrote:

The only 2 proper footballing sides in England are Arsenal and Man United.

whats a 'proper footballing team?
i think spurs play better football than either arsenal or utd at the moment.
perhpas for that reason, we should be at the top of the league?

misteranarchy wrote:

Liverpool are a less efficient clone of Chelsea.
So are Chelsea 12 points better than Man United ?
Not a chance.

again, i will refer you to skysports (or any other reprint of the current league table as it stands this minute)

you are factually quite wrong.

misteranarchy wrote:

I know which team I'd prefer to watch any day.

now thats a different thing altogether. my mate supports southend, and he watches them every week. hed rather go and see them play than barcelona.
does this make him not a real football fan?
or does it make him a better football fan?

im not sure, and i dont care. he can support and watch whoever he wants as far as im concerned. would he tell me that southend are better than chelsea, arsenal or man utd. well, he would actually, but if asked him who would win, hed tell me chelsea, arsenal and man utd would win.
becuase they will get the result.

misteranarchy wrote:

Pele once said 'Football is the beautiful game', Chelsea you are not beautiful ,you are ugly,you are the George Graham side of the 21st century

didnt george graham win some stuff. like a league and some cups and stuff.

you base everytihgn on some 'beautiful game.

you obviously didnt watch the spurs chelsea game last week.
fabulous.
both sides played on the ground, an absolutel joy to watch. better than i have seen arsenal or utd play this year.

so if i was to lower my reasoning down to yours, and base it on the way they play football, after that game, spurs deserve to be in 1st place, and chelse deserve to be in second.

chelsea 12 points better than utd. the table does not lie my friend. no matter how hard you try and justify it, the league is measured on points.

if you want games that measured on marks for performance, take up ice skating...

growler

The Muppet wrote:

Their style of football though obviously very successful in the Premiership is not as exciting to watch as Arsenal or Man Utd of a few seasons ago. When is the last time Chelseas tore a team apart? The ananlagy with George Graham is spot on. He proved you could win the premiersship playing defensive negative football.

Chelsea are the best at the moment. In the interest of football as a spectacle I hope who ever overtakes them is playing attacking, exciting to watch football.

I agree with you, I would love to see Chelsea play a more exciting brand of football, but as a Chelsea fan of many years I am currently more concerned with accumulating silverware than worrying about style. I miss the crazy days of watching Zola, Weah, Vialli, Gullit, Di Matteo, Hughes... when Chelsea played "sexy football" , but ultimately we did win more than a few cups and never did anything much in the CL.

I don't know what qualifies as "tearing apart", we put 5 past Bolton early in the season, but then Bolton were one of the few teams brave / daft enough to come out and try and play an open game against us, they got hammered and few teams coming to the Bridge these days (PL games) will be so adventurous.

I don't necessarily think that the perceived negativity is all JM's fault, teams do defend against us and that in turn leads to a more boring game. We beat Liverpool 4-1 and Arsenal 2-0 this season. Last year , a not much changed side, put 4 past Barcelona, Norwich, Fulham, Charlton, West Brom, Bayern Munich, Newcastle. The only true "tearing apart" I guess was the 6-1 at White Hart Lane a few years back.

I too hope someone else comes along playing a more fluid, passing, sexy style of football because I think Chelsea are more than capable of playing that way too and it would make for a more exciting spectacle for all fans.

Ruskie4Rent

WhiteWashMan wrote:

arrogance?

www.dictionary.com

use it and learn what arrogance means. i dont see a little bit of truth in any of those points that were made.

Arrogance noun Overbaring pride evidenced by a superior manner towards inferiors. [syn: hughtiness, hauter, highhandedness, lordliness]

Consider this next time you spend, what was probably alot of your precious time, to quote me and other like minded folk TWENTY times just to get your point across.
You disagree with me about Chelsea? Thats fine. But your demeanor can be regarded as quite highhanded:).
Now I don't like personal insults on these forums, but I came close to calling you a prat but I won't bother.

PHB

nope. ive just looked at skysports.com and i can absolutely promise you that chelsea are 12 points are ahead.

I just spit my drink up laughing at it.


My thoughts on this are simple:
United can score as much as Chelsea
United conceded ten more goals than Chelsea

This is without a midfield.
I think two new midfielders of any sort of decent quality, will both add more goals to Uniteds team tally, and will stop at least 5 of those 10 goals being concedded, if not more.
This will put us up with CHelsea.
That said, we don't have them yet, so

WhiteWashMan

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

Arrogance noun Overbaring pride evidenced by a superior manner towards inferiors. [syn: hughtiness, hauter, highhandedness, lordliness]

Consider this next time you spend, what was probably alot of your precious time, to quote me and other like minded folk TWENTY times just to get your point across.
You disagree with me about Chelsea? Thats fine. But your demeanor can me regarded as quite highhanded:).
Now I don't like personal insults on these forums, but I came close to calling you a prat but I won't bother.

you called someone arrogant for questioning misteranarchy.

i suggested you look up the word.

you quoted the dictionary definition at me and still cant see that the poster was not arrogant.

im not sure if should laugh or cry.

by the way, it is one thing to debate someone elses points, but if all you can contribute to the debate is the justification of your wrong use of a word, then i suggest after hours may be a more suitable forum for you.

chelsea are 12 points ahead in the table. therefore, they are 12 points better...

end of.

WhiteWashMan

PHB wrote:

I just spit my drink up laughing at it.


My thoughts on this are simple:
United can score as much as Chelsea
United conceded ten more goals than Chelsea

This is without a midfield.
I think two new midfielders of any sort of decent quality, will both add more goals to Uniteds team tally, and will stop at least 5 of those 10 goals being concedded, if not more.
This will put us up with CHelsea.
That said, we don't have them yet, so

goals schmoles.

if you can get 12 more points, then you will be equal to chelsea.

really people, are you all so blind that you cant see this.
its really simple.

Villain

WWM, I think what PHB was trying to say is that United have been able to match Chelsea in relation to scoring goals but they have been letting more in and this is in most due to the fact they are missing 2 good central Midfielders. I would have to say I agree with his opinion, if UTD can bring in 2 good central midfielders they may be able to compete with Chelsea.

So yes Chelsea are 12 points clear but aren't we entitled to discuss how and why? Or should we just all copy and paste the league table in and say yes they are 12 points clear and say no more

TheDoc

I find the reason why Chelsea are the best at the moment is because they are a defensive machine, they are consitent and effective.

If you had a team that had unlimited resources, unlimited money, youd expect to have players of the highest quality to trounce teams. When you see a Chelsea play Sunderland/ portsmouth you want 6-0 etc. But Chelsea arnt like that at all.

Mourinho sure had opporutnities to pick up some class players with great attacking ability. But instead opted for another defensive midifelder in Essien, who to be fair, for 25 million isnt that great, what does he actually do.

They jsut take their time, playing mediocre football cause id say in their mind they know they can win. How do YOU spur on a team 13 points ahead, that have the league won by christmas.

I personally think that this Chelsea era will be good for football or very very bad. United,Arsenal,Liverpool will up the anty and become more pwoerful then ever. United have verbally agreed to sign two midfielders that are currently still in the champions league, one of which looks to be Gattuso. United are strongly linked in Spanish media with Fernando Torres, and Van the Mans departure doesnt look to be too worrying if they secure this striker to replace.

Arsenal are back in flow, they are molded with Hleb finally settling i nand causing havoc, they are on the verge of singing the tallest footballer in the world, a croation at 6ft 10. Arsenal are back in free flow mode and a joy to watch.

Liverpool are finally after years and years of them sobbing bout how they should be the biggest team in england and europe are doing themselevs some justice. But a bunch of rubbish buys like fowler,garcia,morientes,cisse are holding them back, but linked with players like David Villa from Valencia aint bad.

I think youll find not every player wants to go to Chelsea. They dont play attractive football, imo they are an exspensive Wimbeldon. I'm so sad to see great wingers like Cole,Robbe,SW Philips and to an extent Duff subjected to side with a mentalatiy of up to Drogba.

I can see the premiership either truning really exciting, or into an efficent 1-0 2-1 league or boredom.

Dont be at yourself

Is that english?

Ruskie4Rent

WhiteWashMan wrote:

you called someone arrogant for questioning misteranarchy.

i suggested you look up the word.

you quoted the dictionary definition at me and still cant see that the poster was not arrogant.

im not sure if should laugh or cry.

by the way, it is one thing to debate someone elses points, but if all you can contribute to the debate is the justification of your wrong use of a word, then i suggest after hours may be a more suitable forum for you.

chelsea are 12 points ahead in the table. therefore, they are 12 points better...

end of.

When did I try to justify the use of the word? You asked me to look it up, and I did so. By my understanding of the word, Growler in his post came across as slightly arrogant* by running through each of the previous posters arguments as if it held no merit.....slightly like you did in what seemed like an overly long rant. Didn't finish it TBH, but it seemed your point could've been said in a couple of lines. I respect your opinion, but don't use this "I'm right your wrong attitude" towards everyone who disagrees with you. If you want to know what arrogance means.....look in the mirror.


*not saying that Growler was arrogant, I just felt what he said was slightly.

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

WWM, I think what PHB was trying to say is that United have been able to match Chelsea in relation to scoring goals but they have been letting more in and this is in most due to the fact they are missing 2 good central Midfielders. I would have to say I agree with his opinion, if UTD can bring in 2 good central midfielders they may be able to compete with Chelsea.

So yes Chelsea are 12 points clear but aren't we entitled to discuss how and why? Or should we just all copy and paste the league table in and say yes they are 12 points clear and say no more

no, not at all.

we could all have discussions on what we could be though.
spurs could be the best in the world if they had 24 world class players.

utd could be best in the world if they had this that and the other.

however, thats not the question is it.

for people to turn around and say that chelsea are not right now this very second, 12 points better than everyone else, is stupidity.
its a fact.

you can discuss and debate all you want about other things, but that cheslea are 12 points better than everyone else is fact. its not opinion, its not subjective or speculative.

but people are trying to to somehow block that out.

all i am saying is that its a fact that chelsea are 12 points ahead, and are well worth it.

ive quoted three people in the post above, and all of them have talked some rubbish about style and quality. thats great. but chelsea are ahead becuase of consistancy, and i have pointed out the hypocrasy in their arguements and debated other points.

my arguments are based onthe fact that chelsea are ahead, and no i havent pasted in a league table. i'll give most of you more credit than that. however, if you feel that my points are worthy of debate, or that you cant answer then, fine. i guess this discussion is over. however, please feel free to debate or discuss any points i have countered.

unless you feel that i am correct by saying chelsea deserve to be 12 points ahead.

i mean, what is this, the chelsea haters club where we just sit around saying they arent worth the 12 point lead becuase they dont have as much style as barcelona, and therefore are dismissable and discountable as a great team?

because that looks like what it is from my armchair managers poition...

or maybe its just pure tribalism that has clouded a few brains.

WhiteWashMan

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

When did I try to justify the use of the word? You asked me to look it up, and I did so. By my understanding of the word, Growler in his post came across as slightly arrogant* by running through each of the previous posters arguments as if it held no merit.....slightly like you did in what seemed like an overly long rant. Didn't finish it TBH, but it seemed your point could've been said in a couple of lines. I respect your opinion, but don't use this "I'm right your wrong attitude" towards everyone who disagrees with you. If you want to know what arrogance means.....look in the mirror.


*not saying that Growler was arrogant, I just felt what he said was slightly.

if you didnt read what i said, then dont bother giving an answer to it.
im not using an im right and youre wrong attitude.

if you had bothered to read my post, which you admit you didnt, then youd see i am not.

im talking about a fact, and i answered those points that are subjective and open to opinion.

come back when you can put together a cohesive arguement and can be arsed to read someone elses point of view.

WhiteWashMan

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

*not saying that Growler was arrogant, I just felt what he said was slightly.

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

That last post smacked of arrogance. How could you dismiss each of those arguments when there is a little bit of truth to each one.

if you want to change your mind, youre free to do so.

and it seems you have.

i believe the poster you quoted was free to put his opinion forward as well. didnt stop you from commenting about it.
arrogance.

yes indeed.
mirror.
yes indeed.

Villain

WhiteWashMan wrote:

unless you feel that i am correct by saying chelsea deserve to be 12 points ahead.

i mean, what is this, the chelsea haters club where we just sit around saying they arent worth the 12 point lead becuase they dont have as much style as barcelona, and therefore are dismissable and discountable as a great team?

because that looks like what it is from my armchair managers poition...

or maybe its just pure tribalism that has clouded a few brains.

If you read my first post in this thread you will see that I agree with what your saying, I said

Are they 12pts better? well they say the league table doesn't lie and I'd agree with that, no other team has been any where near consistent as Chelsea.

But I do think we should discuss why they are 12 points better and what other teams need to do to close that gap.

MisterAnarchy

Chucky the tree wrote:

No one cares which team you'd prefer to watch, football is about winning.

The end justifies the means does it ?
Thats why the standard of football is so poor in the EPL.
Fear football is rampant.
Most teams are afraid of losing that they resort to playing ultra defensive football.
Football is a sport and Sky have marketed it as entertainment.
Obviously if football is entertainment ,one should be entertained.
I do not consider Chelsea FC to be one bit entertaining.
Why would one consider paying £50 for watching 90 minutes of them ?
They are an overly physical athletic side that are primarily defensively minded.
If I want to see physical athletes I can see them for free down the gym.
As for Whitewashman I wont even bother responding to your propaganda comments.
I have crossed swords with you before and it is plainly obvious that you are a Premiership marketing spokesman and have been brainwashed by Sky's marketing men.
Next you will be saying England are the best cricket team in the world

Ruskie4Rent

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if you want to change your mind, youre free to do so.

and it seems you have.

i believe the poster you quoted was free to put his opinion forward as well. didnt stop you from commenting about it.
arrogance.

yes indeed.
mirror.
yes indeed.

Ok I said THAT POST WAS ARROGANT. Had I meant to say Growler was arrogant I would've. I don't know why I'm getting annoyed cos I'm not even being mis-quoted. I think i'm being quite clear with my argument, yet you are still trying to find holes in it by questioning my understanding of simple English for some reason.
The whole point of this thread is to argue wether chelsea look like a team that's 12 points better than MAnU. It's not that hard to see that from my, and alot of other people's posts. Your position has been that because chelsea are 12 points ahead in the league, it would be foolish to suggest that they are not 12 points better "End of". Well then I'm being foolish and so are most of the posters who agree chelsea don't look like a team that is 12 points better than ManU........what were the scores today BTW?????

Necronomicon

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The end justifies the means does it ?
Thats why the standard of football is so poor in the EPL.
Fear football is rampant. The Premiership is blah, blah, yawn......

Nearly every post of yours that I read on this forum descends into anti-Premiership bull****. We get it, you don't like watching the Premiership, we don't care.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

it is plainly obvious that you are a Premiership marketing spokesman and have been brainwashed by Sky's marketing men.

Yes, we are all brainwashed by Sky. :rolleyes: We can't form our own opinions at all.
I groan every time I hear Gray and Co. say "This is why the Premiership is the best league in the world" but that's not why I watch it...I know it may be hard to believe, but we are capable of forming our own opinions.

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

But I do think we should discuss why they are 12 points better and what other teams need to do to close that gap.

sure, well a few people here have said that chelsea are not 12 points better and given style as a reason.
or the fact that barcelona have beaten them.

now, im not sure how you guage a team by those factors....

what other teams need to do to close the gap is either play totheir own strengths, adapt to chelsea, and more teams are doing that, or go out an buy better players than the ones they currently have, and better players to sit on the bench.
or develop them. i will only comment on spurs though, becuase i think many people will have an issue with me saying anything untoward about 'their' club.

spurs have not spent as much money as some people think (yes lemlin, thats you again). we have invested wisely over the last 2 seasons on young talented players. we have brought in some good older players, and we have always ahd a good academy.
we wont be there this year, or next year. but we are making progress. i think a lot of teams are making progress. i do however think man utd are no longer to be feared, and neither are arsenal.
before this season, i would have written off our chances of getting points from them, both home and away. this season, i see no reason why we cant go and get 3 points from each game. thats the belief i have in my team. whether we do or not is another thing entirely

misteranarchy wrote:

As for Whitewashman I wont even bother responding to your propaganda comments.
I have crossed swords with you before and it is plainly obvious that you are a Premiership marketing spokesman and have been brainwashed by Sky's marketing men.
Next you will be saying England are the best cricket team in the world

poor show.
i took the time to answer every single point you made about chelsea being crap.
the least you can do is come back and debate my points.

or are you unable.
if you cant or dont want to, then fine, but dont hide behind some pathetic reason and then make a little joke.
becuase i happen to think that the EPL is the most exciting and most watched league in the world does not mean i think its the most technically brilliant. id actually let that accolade go to the argentinian league. dont know, do you watch it? do you have an opinion on it?

why would i say the english cricket team is the best in the world.

quite frankly, your efforts to write off my points by trash talking me are just pathetic.
either answer the points or be quite.

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

The whole point of this thread is to argue wether chelsea look like a team that's 12 points better than MAnU. It's not that hard to see that from my, and alot of other people's posts. Your position has been that because chelsea are 12 points ahead in the league, it would be foolish to suggest that they are not 12 points better "End of". Well then I'm being foolish and so are most of the posters who agree chelsea don't look like a team that is 12 points better than ManU........what were the scores today BTW?????

no, i think they are now 9 points better. and i gave my reasons.
however, saying that barcelona beat them and that they dont play with as much flair as some other team, is not the basis for saying that they are not 12 (and now 9) points better.

i mean come on. the irish army has nicver uniforms than the american, so obviously they would beat them in a war.
thats fundamentally what you are saying...

Ruskie4Rent

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no, i think they are now 9 points better. and i gave my reasons.
however, saying that barcelona beat them and that they dont play with as much flair as some other team, is not the basis for saying that they are not 12 (and now 9) points better.

i mean come on. the irish army has nicver uniforms than the american, so obviously they would beat them in a war.
thats fundamentally what you are saying...

Eh.....what do you mean with the whole uniform analogy?
Why can't you see beyond the painfully obvious fact that chelsea are winning the league? The main point that I think alot of people are trying to get across(not speaking for everyone, i'm just assuming what their arguments are saying) that when it comes to playing football, chelsea don't look like a team that are 9 points(depending on ManU winning their extra game) ahead in the league. Their recent form is a great example because they still managed to win games when still not looking as good as some of the other teams.

smemon

from a utd point of view, we are now 6 points behind, chelsea have 7 games left to play.

im assuming utd beat chelsea and win all remaining games.