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

growler

I'm sorry now I didn't take the time to demolish Anarchy's post in the same detail that WWM did. If I came across as arrogant so be it, the post I was responding to was utter drivel ( as far as objective analysis of chelsea's footballing merits) , what "bit of truth" was in there was so glaringly obvious, it was comical.

However, it seems if you dont agree with MrAnarchy then you have been brainwashed by SKy.

WhiteWashMan

Ruskie4Rent wrote:

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.

on the contrary, i think their performances lately have been the performances of winners.

ok, take out the last month, becuase they have lost most of their games, and are looking more like sunder.... no, im not that cruel, lets say portsmouth.

the point is, they do not play attractive football when they play against the vast majority of teams in the premier.
and thats because teams have adapted their style. teams come and harrass them now. i didnt see the fulham game today, but i bet you anything they harrassed the crap out of them.

when you watch chelsea playing against a more freeflowing side, the football is often both beautfiul and brilliant. chelsea also adapt to their opposition.
and just becuase they adapt to bolton and pay a rougher, more direct game, does not mean that they dont 'look' like a team that shouldnt be ahead of utd, but quite the opposite., the fact that they play games against such fast and physical sides, and yet can still win (again, this month not withstanding) game after game after game makes me even more sure that this is a team that should be at the top of the premier, and europe.

but the iront is not lost me that at the moment if chelsea lose, then murinho complains about it, and everyone jumps on the chelsea beating bandwagon.

when utd lost at all when they were the dominant force, it was becuase of the linesman, or the ptch, or there was a y in the day, or some other excuse. its no different for chelsea as it was for utd.
if you look back at their hayday, utd also had a bench full of world class substitutes. they dont have that anymore. they dont even have 11 world class players on the pitch anymore. personally i think arsenal have a better team than utd, but utd play better. but neither have the midfield dynamos they used to have, and until both teams get someone like that back, they will not seriously compete with chelsea.
utd went out of the CL with a whimper., arsenal are still flying the english flag in europe, but i dont think they will do it. but then again, i thought that about liverpool last season. the deserve to win it becuase they wont it, but they were not the best team in there. just the most consistant one.
and you cant beat consistancy.
liverpool are only in the top 4 because they put toegther an amazing run of 12 or 13 game winning streak. a great feat, and i take nothing from liverpool fans, but before that and after it, they have been shakey. they seem to be hitting form again, but they need to be hitting form throughout the whole season.
and thats exactly what chelsea do.
they maintain their form, just as utd did, just as arsenal did.

and they are worth their 9 point lead.

WhiteWashMan

smemon wrote:

im assuming utd beat chelsea and win all remaining games.

i have no problem with blind faith

im still thinking we took 3 points from last years meet with spurs at old trafford

WhiteWashMan

growler wrote:

However, it seems if you dont agree with MrAnarchy then you have been brainwashed by SKy.

brains.

braaaaaaaaaainsssss.......

/dawn of the dead parody

MisterAnarchy

growler wrote:

I'm sorry now I didn't take the time to demolish Anarchy's post in the same detail that WWM did. If I came across as arrogant so be it, the post I was responding to was utter drivel ( as far as objective analysis of chelsea's footballing merits) , what "bit of truth" was in there was so glaringly obvious, it was comical.

However, it seems if you dont agree with MrAnarchy then you have been brainwashed by SKy.

What I said:
Chelsea's success in the Premiership is primarily based on their solid defence.
Fact
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.
Fact
It is very difficult to get in behind the back four.
Fact
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.
Fact
If any player attempts to run at the Chelsea defence thay will be fouled in the vast majority of cases.
Fact
With this solid base the attack is built on pace and long ball probing.
Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring.
Fact
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 .
Fact
Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.
Perhaps I should rephrase that as not a flowing football team
They are a destructive unit that succeeds by stifling the opposing team.
Fact
They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership.
Fact
They lost by one goal but the vast majority of viewers were delighted that 'Beauty' overcame the 'Beast'
Why do you think Chelsea were referred to as the Beast ?

That is utter drivel is it ???
I have seen most of Chelsea's match in full or in extended highlight format this season and it is very rare that they have convinced me .
They struggled against Sunderland ,the worst team ever to grace the Premiership ,and were fortunate to win.
They were hammered by a Middlesborough team fighting relegation.
They scraped an undeserved draw at bottom of the table Everton.
They drew at home against Charlton a team in terrible form.
Mourinho now feels that his team are being 'Cheated and Victimised'
It smacks of hypocrisy.
Mourinho has said 'attacking football ' isnt suited to the English league.
What about Man Utd's and Arsenals dominance of the 90's ?
Was this not attacking football ?

smemon

WhiteWashMan wrote:

i have no problem with blind faith

all faith is blind

man utd can still win this title it aint over till john terry lifts the trophy.

Ruskie4Rent

Chelsea's next game is really important when I think about it. If they miss out on three points ManU might just kick into gear and make for a very interesting last few games. It is a home game against ManC, who have had poor results from their last few games, but so did fulham in fairness so lets hope we get a favour from City.

smemon

yes indeed, a trohpyless season beckons

growler

MisterAnarchy wrote:

What I said:


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.
Fact


If any player attempts to run at the Chelsea defence thay will be fouled in the vast majority of cases.
Fact


Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.
Perhaps I should rephrase that as not a flowing football team
They are a destructive unit that succeeds by stifling the opposing team.
Fact

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

Sorry, I disagree with your above facts, they are your opinions no more. The stuff I have not quoted above falls into the "glaringly obvious" category.


Show me the statistics that show the Chelsea commit more fouls than *average* on attacking ball dribblers or that they foul attakers "in the vast majoity of cases" ? You can't. Nor can you speculate with authority on what might happen in Spain in similar situations (liberal means less strict , btw).

I don't believe that they are a "destructive unit" (whatever that may be) and I believe that given the opportunity they play as good if not better football than most premiership teams due to the quality of players in the squad. This is an opinion, I am not blessed with the infallibility to say its a FACT.

" Brutally exposed" ? by the same team we put 4 past last year ? and there wasn't a whole lot in it this year either imo , even though I accept that Barca are a great and entertaining team to watch. Can you really be so blinkered / opinionated as to claim this as a FACT ?

cournioni

WhiteWashMan wrote:

so what?

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

Unless you are Barcelona.

PHB

Assuming United iwn their game in hand(sunderland), they appear to be only 9 points better.

MisterAnarchy

growler wrote:

" Brutally exposed" ? by the same team we put 4 past last year ?

Firstly you said we ?
So you are obviously a Chelsea supporter and a subjective one at that.
That was a freak result and in all honesty Chelsea were given a football lesson over the two legs this season,it was boys against men .
They couldnt get the ball for vast periods of the matches and when they did they couldnt hold onto it.
Mourinho can say that Chelsea only lost by one goal .
The penalty they were awarded was farcical .
Chelsea knew that they needed to score two goals yet they played defensively and cautiously for the whole match as they knew that they would be trounnced if they came out of their shell.
As Johny Giles and Liam Brady have correctly stated Chelsea are a one dimensional team .
They are not built to chase a game.
They are built to play cautiously and to hold a lead.
They have failed to recover against top teams when they went a goal down ,Liverpool,Barcelona,Betis,Porto and resorted to lumping long balls forward out of desperation.
I believe as do many other people that they will be ultimately found out .

Chucky the tree

Have are they gonna be found out? By only winning the league by 9 points this season?

cournioni

If United win all of their games until the end of the season they will be at least 6 points behind Chelsea at the end of the season. Makes the defeats to Blackburn and City even more annoying.

WhiteWashMan

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Unless you are Barcelona.

barca are attractive and effective.

i said attractive alone wouldnt win you games.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Chelsea's success in the Premiership is primarily based on their solid defence.
Fact
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.
Fact
It is very difficult to get in behind the back four.
Fact
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.
Fact
If any player attempts to run at the Chelsea defence thay will be fouled in the vast majority of cases.
Fact
With this solid base the attack is built on pace and long ball probing.
Setpieces are one of Chelseas main methods of scoring.
Fact
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 .
Fact
Chelsea are an effective team but not a footballing team.
Perhaps I should rephrase that as not a flowing football team
They are a destructive unit that succeeds by stifling the opposing team.
Fact
They were brutally exposed by a footballing side in Barcelona and it exposed all that is artificial about the Premiership.
Fact
They lost by one goal but the vast majority of viewers were delighted that 'Beauty' overcame the 'Beast'
Why do you think Chelsea were referred to as the Beast ?

since you are stating that these are facts and not just your own opinion, id like you to provide evidence of all these facts.
i mean, if you are right, then i would be happy to agree with you if i see the evidence.

if however you are just spouting out stuff and claiming it as fact, then i think people ought to know that you are just spouting your opinion.

so please back up all these facts.

the only fract i have given so far is that chelsea are 12 points ahead. although, you can now make that 9 points.

i will have loads of time tonight to go through each link and piece of evidence you give to support your argument.

TheMonster

Unfortunately they are but this is vs
1. A United team with no midfield
2. An Arsenal team full of kids
3. A Liverpool team with no decent strikers

I would love to see how Chelsea would react in the pressure of a tight title race - from what I have seen they don't like pressure.

cournioni

WhiteWashMan wrote:

barca are attractive and effective.

i said attractive alone wouldnt win you games.

Point taken.

growler

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Firstly you said we ?
So you are obviously a Chelsea supporter and a subjective one at that.

As Johny Giles and Liam Brady have correctly stated Chelsea are a one dimensional team .


They have failed to recover against top teams when they went a goal down ,Liverpool,Barcelona,Betis,Porto and resorted to lumping long balls forward out of desperation.

well I hadn't realised that Giles and Brady were your football oracles, no way they could be incorrect or biased in any way ! :rolleyes:

Since you are so keen on facts Chelsea v Porto and Porto v Chelsea, Chelsea never went a goal down, Porto won at home with a very late goal after Chelsea had already qualified from their group.

Chelsea went behind to Liverpool in last seasons Carling Cup but went on to win it ( thanks partly to Mr G. tis true).

Is that the same Real Betis that Chelsea beat 4 -0 in October ? Fair enough we lost 1-0 away but were unlucky not to equalise IIRC.

No point in pointing out the Barca result of last year as you have now convinced me it was a freak.

WhiteWashMan

TheMonster wrote:

Unfortunately they are but this is vs
1. A United team with no midfield
2. An Arsenal team full of kids
3. A Liverpool team with no decent strikers

I would love to see how Chelsea would react in the pressure of a tight title race - from what I have seen they don't like pressure.

this is all true, and id love to see it myself.
im getting bored watching a league where one team dominates for a few years and then passes the mantle on.

but at the end of the day, do you not get fed up of people making excuses why they arent up there?
i mean its fine to know what you need, but it seems to me that every second person these days tells me that utd would be winning if they had 2 additinoal midfielders, arsenal would be winning if they could get another viera, lierpool would be winning if they could be scoring, newcastle would be winning if they didnt have souness etc.

the game is about what you do have. at the moment, no one has the consistanty of chelsea.
utd are not 9 points behind becuase of 2 mindfielders.
they are 9 points behind becuase they have lost more games.

Bannor

Chelsea are ahead in the table by such a large margin because they were ready to start winning on the first day of the season, the challengers are still taking a couple of months to clear the cobwebs, by which stage it's almost too late to catch Chelsea given their squad depth. The key to beating Chelsea to the league title is hitting the ground running when the season starts. Traditionally the clubs have started slowly and built up momentum, Chelsea under Mourinho have changed that.

In the opening 9 games of the season Chelsea secured maximum points. Man Utd dropped 10 points in their fixtures and Liverpool dropped 14 points. You can say the difference between the sides is consistency but all three sides have been relatively consistent with each other since then. Man Utd are currently 12 points off Chelsea but have a game in hand, Liverpool are 14 points behind having played a game more.

sprinkles

Bannor wrote:

Chelsea are ahead in the table by such a large margin because they were ready to start winning on the first day of the season, the challengers are still taking a couple of months to clear the cobwebs, by which stage it's almost too late to catch Chelsea given their squad depth. The key to beating Chelsea to the league title is hitting the ground running when the season starts. Traditionally the clubs have started slowly and built up momentum, Chelsea under Mourinho have changed that.

In the opening 9 games of the season Chelsea secured maximum points. Man Utd dropped 10 points in their fixtures and Liverpool dropped 14 points. You can say the difference between the sides is consistency but all three sides have been relatively consistent with each other since then. Man Utd are currently 12 points off Chelsea but have a game in hand, Liverpool are 14 points behind having played a game more.

I agree, for the last 2 seasons United have gotten off to a bad start and for them the season was over in the first 10 games. They need to sort this out. As do the other teams.

astrofool

I think u're probably taking things a bit too literally wwm, its always fun to speculate. After all, why did Tottenham drop two points at Old Trafford last season? Was it because they drew, or because the linesman was a buffoon?

blu_sonic

league tables don't lie, they are the best team in england, they may not be the most attractive or multi dimensional but they are effective, now they are 12 points better becase they've 12 points more than everyone else. better to grind out 1-0's then be amazing and get nicked by 3-3 thrillers etc

WhiteWashMan

astrofool wrote:

I think u're probably taking things a bit too literally wwm, its always fun to speculate. After all, why did Tottenham drop two points at Old Trafford last season? Was it because they drew, or because the linesman was a buffoon?

they drew because the score at the end of the match was 0-0.
what i do believe is that luck like that evens out over a season. although, i have yet to think of a time when the same thing happened to us

i believe we came where ever we came, because thats where we deserve to be.

rondeco

Bannor wrote:

Chelsea are ahead in the table by such a large margin because they were ready to start winning on the first day of the season, the challengers are still taking a couple of months to clear the cobwebs, by which stage it's almost too late to catch Chelsea given their squad depth. The key to beating Chelsea to the league title is hitting the ground running when the season starts. Traditionally the clubs have started slowly and built up momentum, Chelsea under Mourinho have changed that.

In the opening 9 games of the season Chelsea secured maximum points. Man Utd dropped 10 points in their fixtures and Liverpool dropped 14 points. You can say the difference between the sides is consistency but all three sides have been relatively consistent with each other since then. Man Utd are currently 12 points off Chelsea but have a game in hand, Liverpool are 14 points behind having played a game more.

Good to see you back bannor. Your posts are always very informed as is your information generally. Any insider info?

Bateman

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Firstly you said we ?
So you are obviously a Chelsea supporter and a subjective one at that.

Yes. But most other people are starting to dislike Chelsea with such intensity that they are hardly more objective than Chelsea fans.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

That was a freak result and in all honesty Chelsea were given a football lesson over the two legs this season,it was boys against men .

There is no way on earth that a team of Barcelona's ability could "give someone a lesson", and fail to beat them 11-on-11. I have seen Barcelona dish out footballing to many teams, but Chelsea are not one of them. If Barcelona gave a football lesson over the two legs, what is their excuse for failing to beat 10 men by more than one (late) goal, and only drawing with the 11? I don't call that a footballing lesson, and I doubt many Barcelona players do.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

They couldnt get the ball for vast periods of the matches and when they did they couldnt hold onto it.

Not being smart, but Barcelona probably have superior possession stats for EVERY game they play; they are a better team than Chelsea, and they will inevitably have more possession. Mourinho is the only manager I have seen who has mastered (actually I think he invented it) the art of coaching his team to control the game even they do not/cannot dominate the game. The proof of this is when they were able to sieze the initiative in the early stages of the 2nd half in the first leg against Barcelona, with 10 men. Chelsea do this in many matches, and although they didn't/couldn't do it against Barcelona, it's not exactly a crying shame to lose out to Barca on possession.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Mourinho can say that Chelsea only lost by one goal.

Because they did.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

The penalty they were awarded was farcical.

Not farcical. Debatable maybe, but not farcical. Let's also say that Drogba's sending off in last season's Camp Nou game was also debatable, if you really want to use refereeing decisions to justify Barca's winning of the game.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Chelsea knew that they needed to score two goals yet they played defensively and cautiously for the whole match as they knew that they would be trounced if they came out of their shell.

Laughable. Chelsea don't fear anyone. Were they playing with fear when they lashed Barca out of it for a good 15 minutes with only 10 men at the Bridge in the first leg?

MisterAnarchy wrote:

As Johny Giles and Liam Brady have correctly stated Chelsea are a one dimensional team.

Whatever fondness I had for him as a player, I think it's a disgrace that a bitter, twisted Arsenal employee who hates everything to do with Chelsea, and used the words "hopefully" about Barca, gets paid by our national broadcaster, as well as Shelstalk 106, to give an objective expert opinion on Chelsea. Giles, I'd give more credibility to, but it was a shame to see him fall into the trap of the lazy "Chelsea were outplayed" attitude.

MisterAnarchy wrote:

They are not built to chase a game.
They are built to play cautiously and to hold a lead.
They have failed to recover against top teams when they went a goal down ,Liverpool,Barcelona,Betis,Porto and resorted to lumping long balls forward out of desperation.
I believe as do many other people that they will be ultimately found out .

Champions aren't used to chasing games. Barca might be, but for a top team, you see them conceding the first goal so often that they have no choice a lot of the time.
Play cautious, hold a lead; a winning formula if applied correctly. Might not be great to watch, but Mourinho's job isn't to entertain neutrals; his job is to win football games.
Liverpool, Porto, and Betis aren't top teams. Liverpool won a game via a goal that might not have crossed the line. Betis and Porto beat Chelsea by taking them on at their own game; physical strength, defensive solidity, smart (if not very creative) in possession. Barcelona, in case I haven't admitted it yet, ARE a top team, and deservedly beat Chelsea. But narrowly. And without teaching any so-called lessons.
Champions are always found out eventually. You could say Barcelona found them out, you could say Man City found them out last season. As long as what seldom is wonderful for the anti-Chelsea brigade, they can have it.

MisterAnarchy

WhiteWashMan wrote:

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

end of.

Is that so ?
Going by your logic so David Villa is a better forward than Ronaldinho because he has scored more goals than him in La Liga this season ?
Better still going on your 'stats' Diego Forlan was the best forward in Europe last season because he scored the most goals.
Goals are to forwards what points are to teams .
Seeing as Benfica beat Man Utd and Liverpool this season they must be a better team than the other 2.
Benfica are a 3 goals better team than Liverpool.

Bateman

Ronaldinho might (hehe, might) be a better footballer than Villa, but I would say that yes, Villa is a better striker than Ronaldinho. I have seen him play for Zaragoza a couple of times before he moved to Valencia, and although he clearly doesn't have footballing ability of Ronaldinho, he has no less a footballing brain, and no less mental reflexes.