Can chelsea do it again

Passport

Ok so 9 points you may say, 9 points, but surely it will be back to 6 once Chelsea play their next match.
considering Man united are playing Liverpool at Anfield next week, where teh reds have been ferocious this season and are due to play both Chelsea and Man city away in the closing games of the season I don't think it is a case of oh hey scary mary the league is in the bag.

herbieflowers

It's by no means whatsoever over. Yes nine points...whatever. The reality is that Man U can afford to lose at both Chelsea and Liverpool, match the remainder of Chelsea's results and still win the title. Still don't think Chelsea will do it though, bad signings and a lack of their "traditional" woek ethic, determination and desire has cost them this season...but it's not over quite yet.

The result against Fulham for Man U was big...if they had drawn that it might be a different story but the fact that they're getting the "championship" results - ie winning when playing badly - like Chelsea have done over the past couple of seasons is crucial.

killbillvol2

The bottom line is it's United's to win or lose. Any team would be happy to have their destiny in their own hands with 10 games to go.

I'd agree with herbieflowers that the Fulham result was huge. It kept the momentum going for Utd.

There are bound to be a couple of banana skins for both Chelsea and Utd between now and May. It might come down to the timing of those bad results.

Last season's Chelsea could have made up the deficit. I'm not sure this year's model is quite as determined.

d22ontour

I have a niggling doubt that Chavski will still take the league though hopefully i am wrong.FA cup and Champions league ..... That would be some haul and i wouldn't rule it out either.

hawker27

got to agree its not over yet far from.but if man utd beat liverpool at anfield on saturday then i think the premiership will return to its proper home {old trafford}.

evad_lhorg

d22ontour wrote:

I have a niggling doubt that Chavski will still take the league though hopefully i am wrong.FA cup and Champions league ..... That would be some haul and i wouldn't rule it out either.

they may get the FA cup but they wont win the Champions league.

hawker27

who do u think will win it m8.

evad_lhorg wrote:

they may get the FA cup but they wont win the Champions league.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

county

killbillvol2 wrote:

The bottom line is it's United's to win or lose. Any team would be happy to have their destiny in their own hands with 10 games to go.

I'd agree with herbieflowers that the Fulham result was huge. It kept the momentum going for Utd.

There are bound to be a couple of banana skins for both Chelsea and Utd between now and May. It might come down to the timing of those bad results.

Last season's Chelsea could have made up the deficit. I'm not sure this year's model is quite as determined.

can`t agree more.

MisterAnarchy

Passport wrote:

Ok so 9 points you may say, 9 points, but surely it will be back to 6 once Chelsea play their next match.

Their next match is away to Portsmouth ,could be a banana skin.
I dont think Chelse will win the league and they certainly dont deserve to considering the drab football they have played this season.

smemon

The league is Utd's.

Put it this way, would you bet AGAINST utd winning the league? That's your answer.

Come away with anything at anfield, and it will only strengthen Utd's position as they are expected to lose that game by Chelsea.

el rabitos

smemon wrote:

The league is Utd's.

Put it this way, would you bet AGAINST utd winning the league? That's your answer.

Come away with anything at anfield, and it will only strengthen Utd's position as they are expected to lose that game by Chelsea.

hows the league utds? what a stupid post.

they seem to concede goals in most games. while they're attack is commendable, they're poor defencively, and it could easily come and bite them in the ass when it comes to playing against teams that will punish them. arsenal have beaten them twice, they drew at home with chelsea and beat liverpool at home. if they can get more than 4 points from liverpool and chelsea i'd be suprised, personally i dont see it happening.

the league is far from over imo

PHB

they're poor defencively

They really aren't. What happens is we go ahead with a two goal cushion, O'Shea normally comes on, Rio switches off, and we concede a ****load of goals. Aside from Fulham and Arsenal, defense has been quite solid. Also, considering United have concedded 19 goals, the same as Liverpool and Chelsea, if we are poor, who exactly are good?

I think United will win the league because we can lose at Liverpool and Chelsea, and win everything else, and still come out top.
But I don't think we'll lose to Liverpool, Chelsea I'm not so sure about. Even if United were poor defensivly, which I don't think they are, Liverpool aren't that strong in attack to punish us. I mean, they've scored two goals more than Reading. Chelsea could punish us with their skill in attack, but then again, Chelsea could punish anybody with their skill in attack.

Either way, we're in a fantastic position.

MrPillowTalk

I think a point at Liverpool or Chelsea and its over bar the shouting.

MisterAnarchy

el rabitos wrote:

while they're attack is commendable, they're poor defencively

Its the tightest defence in the league.

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

They really aren't. What happens is we go ahead with a two goal cushion, O'Shea normally comes on, Rio switches off, and we concede a ****load of goals. Aside from Fulham and Arsenal, defense has been quite solid. Also, considering United have concedded 19 goals, the same as Liverpool and Chelsea, if we are poor, who exactly are good?

****, wow. what a nice position to be in to be able to carry a £20+ million defender in your team that "switches off".

chelsea's defence has been battered with injurys all season and the loss of gallas who wasnt replaced, combined with them playing a completely new formation.

liverpool obviously conceded the guts of those 19 goals during their piss poor start to the season. other than that. i'd consider liverpool to have a "good" defence. excuse the bias.

dont get me wrong regarding chelsea, i really truelly dont care who wins the premiership when it comes to utd or chelsea. but given utds upcoming opponents when you take into account their leaky defence their 9(but more than likely going to be 6) point lead doesnt exactly look so daunting.

larrson is also shipping out soon, that wont help with the attacking end.

i'm not writing off united, chelsea have dropped alot of stupid points this season, i just dont think "The league is Utd's" - its still very open.

el rabitos

MisterAnarchy wrote:

Its the tightest defence in the league.

lol. how'd u figure that?

PHB

what a nice position to be in to be able to carry a £20+ million defender in your team that "switches off".

It really is quite nice, although Fergie is trying to stamp it out. It's why he didn't complain after the Arsenal game that Evra and Scholes were fouled, it's because he realised there was a problem that needed fixing, and used the media to fix it.

Ah yes, the usual Liverpool excuse, if only the league had started in October eh?

United are the opposite, at the start of the season, we weren't concedding at all. Now we've started to get a bit leaky, but since the Arsenal game the defense has started to play a lot better, bar the shocking performance at Fulham.

I think Liverpool have a good defense, I think Chelsea have a very good defense, and I think United have a pretty good defense, probably just a bit worse than Liverpools, but that said, our attack doesn't suffer because of our focus on defense, while Liverpool's does.

Its the tightest defence in the league.

Well it's joint tightest with Liverpool and Chelsea

el rabitos

PHB wrote:

Ah yes, the usual Liverpool excuse, if only the league had started in October eh?

'the hell are u talking about? its a fact. liverpool conceded most of their goals during a poor run at the start of the season. did they not? and why is this a liverpool thing? u asked a question regarding who's defence is good. you have agreed liverpool's defence is good.

PHB wrote:

United are the opposite, at the start of the season, we weren't concedding at all. Now we've started to get a bit leaky, but since the Arsenal game the defense has started to play a lot better, bar the shocking performance at Fulham.

since the arsenal game? they're the last good team they've played!

PHB wrote:

I think Liverpool have a good defense, I think Chelsea have a very good defense, and I think United have a pretty good defense, probably just a bit worse than Liverpools, but that said, our attack doesn't suffer because of our focus on defense, while Liverpool's does.

again, why are u mentioning liverpool, this has nothing to do with liverpool and the particulars about liverpools attack. i'm talking about united, how they're too often conceding goals to have people claiming "the league is utds"

MisterAnarchy

el rabitos wrote:

dont get me wrong regarding chelsea, i really truelly dont care who wins the premiership when it comes to utd or chelsea. but given utds upcoming opponents when you take into account their leaky defence their 9(but more than likely going to be 6) point lead doesnt exactly look so daunting.

United are a much more attacking side than Chelsea so you would expect them to be open to conceding more goals.
Chelsea also play with 2 holding midfielders as cover something United dont do .
19 goals conceded in 29 games is good going considering United are also the highest scorers .
United were very shaky at the back on Saturday though ,the Fulham goal kicks were causing havoc bouncing around the United box.
I'd always prefer an attacking minded side win the league over a defensive minded side as I'm sure most football fans would.

leninbenjamin

as said above it's United's to lose. they are in the drving seat and traditionally United are always at their best in the run in. I'm not saying its over, a few injuries could easily feck things up for them, but i wouldn't bet against them especially seeing as Chelsea still don't look like they are at the levels they were last season, and the team spirit doesn't seem the same as it once was.

as for Fulham, United played sh*te and won, that's what Chelsea have been doing since Mourinho came in, so i wouldn't use that as an example of why they will lose it.

Nalz

elRabitos, I think PHB is mentioning Liverpool for the simple reason that you did! Liverpools defence are in magnificant form, but the fact of the matter is that they never really had major injuries and whether or not they had a poor start to a season or not there defensive record remains equal to Chelseas and Uniteds, with less points in the bag.

Refering to your point about Chelsea having injury problems & new formation. Eh, so? United had a string of injuries last season and didnt have the wealth or numbers that are at Chelseas disposal. New formation alright - to gel together there 80m rated new signings (Kalou,Boularhouz,Shevshenko,Ballack & Obi). Granted only 3 of those would start usually but not a bad pool of players to strengthen the pack. They got in Boularhouz and Ashley Cole to replace Gallas, and Wayne Bridge returned.

I personally think Joe Cole was a major loss to them, but apart from him and Terrys little absense a while back they've had next to nothing in terms of losses. They have 3 really good GKs so that wasnt a major issue.

el rabitos wrote:

if they can get more than 4 points from liverpool and chelsea i'd be suprised, personally i dont see it happening.

If United get 2 points from those games, or just one from the Chelsea game they are still in poll position. Id take Pool away over Arsenal, West Ham and Newcastle away. Plus the fact that Chelseas next two games are tricky away games to City and Pompey.

el rabitos wrote:

.
larrson is also shipping out soon, that wont help with the attacking end.

two goals and no assists in ten games now, great player but not a major loss. Only one goal in league. Smith and Solskjaer if fit will be enough cover for them remaining 7 games.

el rabitos wrote:

they seem to concede goals in most games.

first of all, id like to thank you for making my morning a little bit more brighter. I love you.

The league is far from over - correct. But it is Uniteds league to throw away and I would not bet against them. I would not bet against Liverpool turning UNited over in Anfield though either.

Arsenal were extremely lucky to do the double over United, especially at the Emirates. Two last ditch goals, similar to how lucky United were in '99 and against Fulham last Saturday. United are 3rd in the clean sheet table, wit the glorious Reina and the Pool topping the charts. They've only conceeded more than one goal three times this season, and its always been 2 goals (Arsenal, Newcastle and Reading). They are top of the league and besides the Chelsea game being in Stamford bridge they have an easier run in IMO.

pardon my bias, prob worse than yours!!

iregk

Trilla wrote:

Refering to your point about Chelsea having injury problems & new formation. Eh, so? United had a string of injuries last season and didnt have the wealth or numbers that are at Chelseas disposal. New formation alright - to gel together there 80m rated new signings (Kalou,Boularhouz,Shevshenko,Ballack & Obi). Granted only 3 of those would start usually but not a bad pool of players to strengthen the pack. They got in Boularhouz and Ashley Cole to replace Gallas, and Wayne Bridge returned.

The point is that Chelsea do not have the cover in the right departments. The injuries this season have been to teh back line and gk. Now I'm going to assume after your comment about Chelsea having 3 really good gk's that you have never watched Hillario in goal. He is quite simply shocking. Easily the worst in the prem and hence why he is number 3. With Cech back the defense has looked somewhat solid again. With JT back its a brick wall.

We got in Boulharous and Cole. We let go Gallas and have Huth. Now out of the 3 center halves they have all had injuries this term that have ruled them out for a couple of games and as a result Essien has been played as at CB alongside Ferrera! The fact is Chelsea do have good strenght in depth, just not where the injuries have effected us this year. Even with 1 CB injured that means we resort to playing the absolutly woeful Boulahrouz. Cheslea have had a dire run of injuries this term and in my opinion had it not been for them we would be leading now.

event

iregk wrote:

The point is that Chelsea do not have the cover in the right departments. The injuries this season have been to teh back line and gk. Now I'm going to assume after your comment about Chelsea having 3 really good gk's that you have never watched Hillario in goal. He is quite simply shocking. Easily the worst in the prem and hence why he is number 3. With Cech back the defense has looked somewhat solid again. With JT back its a brick wall.

We got in Boulharous and Cole. We let go Gallas and have Huth. Now out of the 3 center halves they have all had injuries this term that have ruled them out for a couple of games and as a result Essien has been played as at CB alongside Ferrera! The fact is Chelsea do have good strenght in depth, just not where the injuries have effected us this year. Even with 1 CB injured that means we resort to playing the absolutly woeful Boulahrouz. Cheslea have had a dire run of injuries this term and in my opinion had it not been for them we would be leading now.

this still amazes me when managers moan about no players, do you big teams not have youth or reserve squads?

what about taking in a kid of 18 or 19 and playing him?

PHB

el rabitos wrote:

'the hell are u talking about? its a fact. liverpool conceded most of their goals during a poor run at the start of the season. did they not? and why is this a liverpool thing? u asked a question regarding who's defence is good. you have agreed liverpool's defence is good.

Yes, but you don't seem to agree that United's defense has the same record. You base it on the idea that they've had a good run since the start, yet you don't acknowledge the times when United concede goals. It's as if because it was at the start it doesn't count, which is like me saying, because it was when we were ahead it doesn't count. you can't use one standerd for one team and not the other, it's just silly.

again, why are u mentioning liverpool, this has nothing to do with liverpool and the particulars about liverpools attack. i'm talking about united, how they're too often conceding goals to have people claiming "the league is utds"

Actually, it's lots to do with it. A team isn't two parts, it's not one part defence and one part attack, it's a whole team. United commit a lot more going forward than Liverpool do, which is why they score more (that and better attackers). Liverpool are nowhere near as attacking, and leave more people to cover the defence.
It's easier to defend when you play the Liverpool way, that's what I'm talking about in terms of balance and Liverpool and United's defence.

iregk

event wrote:

this still amazes me when managers moan about no players, do you big teams not have youth or reserve squads?

what about taking in a kid of 18 or 19 and playing him?

Well this is an old argument and one I've had with friends for the last while. The difference with the top clubs and the rest of the league when it comes to promoting from the academy is this. A smaller club lets say Watford for this argument. They have an injury crisis they can take a player who is possibly distinctly average and get away with him for a couple of prem games which they will probably loose some anyway even with their full team. The likes of Cheslea, United etc... are not looking at the same targets as Watford however. A player that comes up through our ranks has to be capable of aiming and indeed winning the league and at least going for the CL. Players like this don't come along every year. So while yes we do have reserver and youth squads the level of the players that they contain isn't high enough for where we are at. If a youth system produces even 1 player a year thats up to it its doing well.

So while smaller teams get away with playing a youth or reserve player when it comes to the big teams the short fall in skill level of these players to where they are required to be is much more noticable...

d22ontour

I don't think having a youth program even applies to Chelsea.They are out for instant success which an open chequebook would seem to tell us has worked so far.To me a youth system is about bringing young kids through and not just buying the best kids that are out there like most top european teams seem to do.A special mention to Arsenal who seem to have brought it to a new level with all their kiddie signings.Clubs like West Ham have great academies and at a time so did United and Liverpool but i don't think that's the case anymore.

event

iregk wrote:

Well this is an old argument and one I've had with friends for the last while. The difference with the top clubs and the rest of the league when it comes to promoting from the academy is this. A smaller club lets say Watford for this argument. They have an injury crisis they can take a player who is possibly distinctly average and get away with him for a couple of prem games which they will probably loose some anyway even with their full team. The likes of Cheslea, United etc... are not looking at the same targets as Watford however. A player that comes up through our ranks has to be capable of aiming and indeed winning the league and at least going for the CL. Players like this don't come along every year. So while yes we do have reserver and youth squads the level of the players that they contain isn't high enough for where we are at. If a youth system produces even 1 player a year thats up to it its doing well.

So while smaller teams get away with playing a youth or reserve player when it comes to the big teams the short fall in skill level of these players to where they are required to be is much more noticable...

in chelsea's case, when he tries ferreria (sp) and essien and god knows who else at centre half, you can chance him in one game. Sure how did JT get his chance?

but i wouldnt include united in your arguement, they have had no issues with playing youngsters when they have to

iregk

JT got his chance when he absolutely clattered Vialli (the then manager) out if it in his first training session with the seniors. Vialli appreciated that he didn't care for who it was just wanted to win the ball. A few days later he brought him on for the last 10 ten mins of a carling cup game. The thing is though your away to Liverpool. Would you honestly give a 18 y/o who hasn't had a sniff of first team football a go at CB or play two seasoned pros slightly out of position? I know which one I'd do!

As for united, didn't they not play Keane at CB for a few games while they had injuries. Add giggs playing in the middle also... The top teams have always complained about fixture pile up and the injuries it causes on players. Sure if they all just threw in some youngsters then they wouldn't complain at all!!!

D2 your right, Chelsea did set out for instant success. But what your forgetting is that its only part of the plan. They invested heavily in quick success while in the background building for future success as well. They have pumped millions into the training complex and academy which up to now has been poor. Recently the academy is showing signs of a couple of good youngsters that have beens signed. Some are on loan others such as Fabio Ferrera (ranked by many as the best player in the youth leagues) and Ben Sahair have gotten a small look in at senior level. The trend these days doesn't seem to be creating players in the academy more so (and arsenal are kings at this) buying them up from other academys all over the world when they are in their mid/late teens. Can Arsenal be praised for producing such a talented young team? No. They simply bought all of them from other teams and spent a lot of money doing so. Should this Arsenal team win the league with the young team surely we can say they bought the league no?

PHB

As for united, didn't they not play Keane at CB for a few games while they had injuries. Add giggs playing in the middle also... The top teams have always complained about fixture pile up and the injuries it causes on players. Sure if they all just threw in some youngsters then they wouldn't complain at all!!!

Indeed, last year United had a horrid run of injuries/happenings. We lost Roy Keane, we lost Scholes to injury, we lost Neville for a good bit at the start.

During our best run last year, the midfield was O'Shea-Giggs, and we won a ****load of games in a row with that.

Injuries are not an excuse for anything. Every club gets them, every club, and there was a time when people used to associate injuries with how fit you are, and how well you train.

IMO, Terry was out for such a long time because Chelsea ****ed up his healing process, and also that him and Lampard were getting injections for pain in their first and second season, and those injections are starting to take their tole.

Because Chelsea were stupid enough not to have cover in the proper positions isn't why United are beating them. Chelsea were behind before they had their injury problems.

WhiteWashMan

defo utds to lose.

ive been disappointed with chelsea this year. i thought they would continue to be the unstoppable machine they were for the last 2 seasons, but it seems that the introduction of ballack in midfield hasnt done it for them. in fact, it seems to have disrupted the entire squad.

although, to say that utd have won it already is just blatently stupid. im sure liverpool didnt say that half way through the cl final.

i admired chelseas work rate and ethic. i think it was fantastic for the lst 2 seasons. but this season they just seem to never have stepped out of 3rd gear tops.

although, for the last 2 seasons, so many people complained about chelsea playing crap and winning games and how rubbish that is. how come when utd do it, and lets face it, utd havent been playing well, except ronaldo, then its a great thing?

el rabitos

WhiteWashMan wrote:

although, for the last 2 seasons, so many people complained about chelsea playing crap and winning games and how rubbish that is. how come when utd do it, and lets face it, utd havent been playing well, except ronaldo, then its a great thing?

dont worry man, i'll explain how it works...

its similar to last season in a way, ya see around the same time last year, chelsea dropped a couple of pints, yet were still 7 or so points ahead of utd, but there was a big thread on how utd *can* (read, "will") catch chelsea, but liverpool, who were 8 points adrift of utd had no hope of coming second.

the way this works is, man utd are all mighty and nothing is impossible because ole is a legend and rororo is the future.

mods love liverpool fans

celtic are irish

stan out!1!!

and spurs, arsenal and newcastle dont really bother anyone enough to be banned over it, unless ur lemlin

smemon

el rabitos wrote:

hows the league utds? what a stupid post.

yeah, stupid indeed....

9 points clear, 30 points left (33 for chelsea). Utd have dropped a total of 15 points in the entire season so far :cool: (7 months)

They've lost 3 matches up until now, have the joint best defence in the league and runaway best attack.

+17 goal difference over Chelsea effectively means the gap is 10 points.

i'm obviously away with the fairies if i think the chelsea can't come back

iregk

el rabitos, that is the most spot on post regarding the football forum I have ever read. True to absolutely every letter.

el rabitos

smemon wrote:

i'm obviously away with the fairies if i think the chelsea can't come back

glad u said it

iregk

The funny thing is last April with something like 4 games left united are 7 points back and no games in hand but they ARE going to do it. This year Chelsea are 9 back, a game in hand, united still to come to the bridge which in effect could mean 3 points. Remember they are at Anfield this weekend so a loss to the pool and it means it can be all level. This with a hatfull of games to go.

Obviously Chelsea have absolutely no chance what so ever!!!

TheMonster

iregk wrote:

The funny thing is last April with something like 4 games left united are 7 points back and no games in hand but they ARE going to do it. This year Chelsea are 9 back, a game in hand, united still to come to the bridge which in effect could mean 3 points. Remember they are at Anfield this weekend so a loss to the pool and it means it can be all level. This with a hatfull of games to go.

Obviously Chelsea have absolutely no chance what so ever!!!

A lot of ifs and coulds there - even if that scenario happens Utgs goal difference still wins them the league if the other results are matched.

Utds big match is not this weekend but vs Chelsea. Loosing vs Liverpool is not important once they don't lose to Chelsea.

Nalz

TheMonster wrote:

A lot of ifs and coulds there - even if that scenario happens Utgs goal difference still wins them the league if the other results are matched.

Utds big match is not this weekend but vs Chelsea. Loosing vs Liverpool is not important once they don't lose to Chelsea.

I agree.

Can we stop this whole bítchin shíte thats goin here please. Chelsea were by far the better team last season, and have already had a little lucky patch (Arsenal,Wigan,Everton,Newcastle all in a row, where they easily could have slipt up on most of them). Its different this season because of Uniteds consistancy and Chelseas short loss of John Terry and alot longer one of Joe Cole.

The fact of the matter is Manchester United are top, and apart from a poor display against Fulham in the premiership they have been performing well. 9 points clear...and if they dont lose to Liverpool I feel they'll be too dificult to catch. All we can do is predict - I favour Manchester United. Simply because Chelsea fans are hoping that United lose to Liverpool and that they beat Manchester United at home along with Arsenal, Portsmouth and Newcastle away.

Alot of "ifs" and "coulds" as TheMonster said, but at the same time I doubt that Manchester United wil have a 9 point lead come last game of the season.

My money is on United for the league, Liverpool to beat United and elrabitos to win cyber personality of the year.

el rabitos

Trilla wrote:

My money is on United for the league, Liverpool to beat United and elrabitos to win cyber personality of the year.

i appreciate the vote man

Nalz

el rabitos wrote:

i appreciate the vote man

sound Best of luck to the Pool in the return leg in the CL, hope yee get hammered tomorrow (though I doubt it).

iregk

TheMonster wrote:

A lot of ifs and coulds there - even if that scenario happens Utgs goal difference still wins them the league if the other results are matched.

Utds big match is not this weekend but vs Chelsea. Loosing vs Liverpool is not important once they don't lose to Chelsea.

Of course there are a lot of if's and buts but this is what we are saying. Last year it was definites that Chelsea would loose here and there and United would win in the bridge etc...