Chelsea vs Liverpool

kryogen

Webb is a poor ref, has been for a long time, been the cause of plenty of poor decisions against United (even though oddly the legend goes the opposite way)

Hate hearing either he or Atkinson is doing a United game

michael999999

smileyj1987 wrote: »

That was graham poll .

Elementary!

GTR63

Skylinehead wrote: »

You'd be wrong. Poor referees don't get to officiate World Cup and Champions League finals.

Did a great job at the WC final & didn't one of the refs in the disgusting 2002 WC get done for smuggling heroin so the bar must be fair low on that.

citytillidie

Team Games and goals

Sunderland - 6 - 7
West Brom - 6 - 3
Arsenal - 6 - 2
Spurs - 6 - 3
Man City - 5 - 1
Wigan - 5 - 5
Villa - 5 - 1
Norwich - 5 - 11
Chelsea - 5 - 2
Stoke - 4 - 4
Newcastle - 4 - 2
Fulham - 4 - 4
Everton - 4 - 3
Swansea - 4 - 1
Man Utd - 4 - 1
West Ham - 3 - 2
Southampton - 3
QPR - 3 - 3
Reading - 2
Birmingham - 1
Palace - 1 - 1
Hull - 1
Cardiff - 1 - 2
Bolton - 1
Wolves - 1 - 1
Blackburn - 1

Skylinehead

Will I Amnt wrote: »

They obviously do.

It was a poor decision. I seem to remember Lionel Messi having a poor game once, terrible player.

HalloweenJack

I think Liverpool were very unlucky with the refereeing decisions today. Some very lenient decisions went in our favour, Eto'o was a very lucky boy today.

I think there was a bit of "control Suarez by getting at him" approach today by us. It was effective to an extent but it was ugly and I am no fan. Eto'o in particular was particularly scummy and I don't want to see another performance like that from a Chelsea player.

I'm delighted with the result and the performance in the first half was exhilarating but there was a nasty side to the game today which I did not like.

SherlockWatson

smileyj1987 wrote: »

That was graham poll .

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote: »

Dont remember Webb doing that.

Humble pie goes down well after a few cans.

GTR63

Skylinehead wrote: »

It was a poor decision. I seem to remember Lionel Messi having a poor game once, terrible player.

His performance in that game was comparable to getting 5 o.g's and getting sent off

rob316

SantryRed wrote: »

I'm not saying it wasn't a bad tackle but that photo makes it look worse than it was.

No that photo shows exactly how it was. Studs up reckless and nearly knee height.

donfers

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I think Liverpool were very unlucky with the refereeing decisions today. Some very lenient decisions went in our favour, Eto'o was a very lucky boy today.

I think there was a bit of "control Suarez by getting at him" approach today by us. It was effective to an extent but it was ugly and I am no fan. Eto'o in particular was particularly scummy and I don't want to see another performance like that from a Chelsea player.

I'm delighted with the result and the performance in the first half was exhilarating but there was a nasty side to the game today which I did not like.

fair play to you buddy - however with mourinho in charge I can see you being disappointed with your teams antics becoming a more regular occurrence - and the ref may not bail them out every time

the thing that mystifies me is that they have the players to win without being nasty/cynical

consigning mata to the bench for most of the season says everything you need to know about your manager

however, unlike you, the majority of fans tolerate this "win at all costs mentality" and would take the three points no matter how they were earned

but as I said, I can understand this kind of mentality with crystal palace or pulis-era stoke, make the most of limited resources and try every trick in the book to get by but with chelsea's squad they can football most teams off the park as they did for a good portion of the first half against liverpool

but it's in mourinho's nature to kill games by whatever means necessary when his team is ahead and it's a deeply unattractive and cynical footballing philosophy that I would certainly hate to have to get behind

rob316

SantryRed wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Freeze frame anything and it can look worse that it was.

Im not going to get into an argument but wether its sped up, slowed down, freeze framed eto still made a studs up contact with henderson's leg. There is no place for that in the game those are leg breakers. Henderson was hurt and he doesn't strike me as a lad to go down easy or fake injury.

simongurnick

donfers wrote: »

fair play to you buddy - however with mourinho in charge I can see you being disappointed with your teams antics becoming a more regular occurrence - and the ref may not bail them out every time

the thing that mystifies me is that they have the players to win without being nasty/cynical

consigning mata to the bench for most of the season says everything you need to know about your manager

however, unlike you, the majority of fans tolerate this "win at all costs mentality" and would take the three points no matter how they were earned

but as I said, I can understand this kind of mentality with crystal palace or pulis-era stoke, make the most of limited resources and try every trick in the book to get by but with chelsea's squad they can football most teams off the park as they did for a good portion of the first half against liverpool

but it's in mourinho's nature to kill games by whatever means necessary when his team is ahead and it's a deeply unattractive and cynical footballing philosophy that I would certainly hate to have to get behind

That was the funny thing today. Chelski played Liverpool off the park for the last 30 minutes of the first half but came out in the second with a game plan to just kill everything off (defenders diving back in their own half etc.)
Ultimately it worked,but it's ugly stuff, especially when conducted by talented players.

simongurnick

Actually, on the point of defenders diving, does anyone else think this is becoming more prevalent?
Plenty of examples today where the striker is chasing down a defender, defender draws some minimal contact, flops to the ground and gets a free. If the same was done at the attacking end they would be booked for simulation and scorned for being a diver.
So, clever defending or cheating?

donfers

simongurnick wrote: »

Actually, on the point of defenders diving, does anyone else think this is becoming more prevalent?
Plenty of examples today where the striker is chasing down a defender, defender draws some minimal contact, flops to the ground and gets a free. If the same was done at the attacking end they would be booked for simulation and scorned for being a diver.
So, clever defending or cheating?

it's cheating but refs let them away with it 99% of the time so they do it

Andersonisgod

donfers wrote: »

fair play to you buddy - however with mourinho in charge I can see you being disappointed with your teams antics becoming a more regular occurrence - and the ref may not bail them out every time

the thing that mystifies me is that they have the players to win without being nasty/cynical



however, unlike you, the majority of fans tolerate this "win at all costs mentality" and would take the three points no matter how they were earned

but as I said, I can understand this kind of mentality with crystal palace or pulis-era stoke, make the most of limited resources and try every trick in the book to get by but with chelsea's squad they can football most teams off the park as they did for a good portion of the first half against liverpool

but it's in mourinho's nature to kill games by whatever means necessary when his team is ahead and it's a deeply unattractive and cynical footballing philosophy that I would certainly hate to have to get behind

"consigning mata to the bench for most of the season says everything you need to know about your manager"

You'd swear Mourinho has drafted in three burly 6 foot 5 powerhouse centre backs in his place rather than Brazil's brilliant, nimble, starting number 10, Oscar. The gem of the Belgian national team and the phenomenally talented Eden Hazard and the quick footed, creative Brazilian, Willian.

kryogen

You are going to make the case that Willian is better then Mata and more deserving of a spot in the team?

Please do

Andersonisgod

kryogen wrote: »

You are going to make the case that Willian is better then Mata and more deserving of a spot in the team?

Please do

Please point out where in my message I stated or even inferred that.......oh.....what's this? You cant? Elaborate good sir, why is it that you cannot show me where in my message I stated (or inferred) that Willian is better than Mata......oh because a certain poster is once again putting words in my mouth?.......yes Anderson, yes that would be the case.

In my message, my point is quite clearly, and rather eloquently put, if I do say so myself, that this assertion that Mourinho plays negative football because he doesn't play Mata is false. I then, with a dash of humour, point out that the players who are in the team ahead of Mata are all flair players, the previously referred to Oscar, Hazard and Willian, as such, Mourinho is replacing like for like. Whether they are "as good" as Mata is irrelevant on this occasion as that is not the topic which I have taken issue with, my issue is with the false assertion that Mourinho is negative because he doesn't play Mata, yet he has replaced him with similar flair players and not a lumbering centre back or a box to box 6 foot 5 monster midfielder. This however seems to have gone entirely over your head, and unfortunately I cannot explain my stance, or indeed the issue, any clearer than I have in this very comment.

Skylinehead

Oscar, while brilliant, is nowhere near Mata yet.

Andersonisgod

Skylinehead wrote: »

Oscar, while brilliant, is nowhere near Mata yet.

Ok my eloquent, well worded response has quite clearly missed the mark on this occasion. The issue which I addressed, which Kyrogen has so horrifically misunderstood, has nothing to do with whether Oscar is as good as Mata, nothing at all.

My point is that benching Mata doesn't make Mourinho negative when it's players like Oscar, Hazard and Willian (small, creative, nimble attacking midfielders) that he is bringing in.

How good each one is in contrast to Mata is debatable but it is a debate for a different thread because that has not got a single thing to do with the issue which I raised.

dfx-

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I think there was a bit of "control Suarez by getting at him" approach today by us. It was effective to an extent but it was ugly and I am no fan. Eto'o in particular was particularly scummy and I don't want to see another performance like that from a Chelsea player.

I'm delighted with the result and the performance in the first half was exhilarating but there was a nasty side to the game today which I did not like.

Shades of Pepe's behaviour on Messi previously and the team's tactics in the Copa Del Rey final in Valencia. Standing on his hand etc.

Skylinehead

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Ok my eloquent, well worded response

When you post in a self-loving way like this, how is anybody going to take you seriously?

kryogen

Skylinehead wrote: »

When you post in a self-loving way like this, how is anybody going to take you seriously?

Im not sure people are supposed to take him seriously, not sure he takes himself seriously, though you never know I suppose

stampydmonkey

Skylinehead wrote: »

When you post in a self-loving way like this, how is anybody going to take you seriously?

Found it neither well worded nor eloquent to be honest

TimeToShine

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Ok my eloquent, well worded response has quite clearly missed the mark on this occasion. The issue which I addressed, which Kyrogen has so horrifically misunderstood, has nothing to do with whether Oscar is as good as Mata, nothing at all.

My point is that benching Mata doesn't make Mourinho negative when it's players like Oscar, Hazard and Willian (small, creative, nimble attacking midfielders) that he is bringing in.

How good each one is in contrast to Mata is debatable but it is a debate for a different thread because that has not got a single thing to do with the issue which I raised.

Since we have a pontificator in the house may I ask why, in your eloquent and articulate opinion, is Mata on the bench for Chelsea?

Andersonisgod

kryogen wrote: »

Im not sure people are supposed to take him seriously, not sure he takes himself seriously, though you never know I suppose

Skylinehead wrote: »

When you post in a self-loving way like this, how is anybody going to take you seriously?

stampydmonkey wrote: »

Found it neither well worded nor eloquent to be honest

There must be a breakdown in communication somewhere between Kryogen and I because I am quite certain that this is not the first time that he has misquoted or misinterpreted a comment which I have made. Whether that is down to my language skills and an inability to communicate or his willingness to understand the communication I am not entirely sure, however I do not enjoy when someone makes a false claim in my name, as Kryogen has done.....again!

Because Skyline, short of explaining my motives behind my original post in a Shakespearean manner, I cannot make my meaning any clearer.

To bring this back to football, my point, once again, is that even though Mourinho doesn't play Juan Mata that often, that cannot be the basis for the argument that he is defensive as the players that play in Mata's place, Oscar, Hazard and Willian, are similar players to Mata in terms of build and their responsibilities to the team (to create being their primary responsibility). My point was not, as Kryogen so wrongly stated, to make a case as to why Willian is a better player than Mata. How he got that from my initial comment I am not quite sure.

Andersonisgod

TimeToShine wrote: »

Since we have a pontificator in the house may I ask why, in your eloquent and articulate opinion, is Mata on the bench for Chelsea?

I've discussed that at length already on this forum. Possibly even with some of the participants in this conversation. If you wish we can discuss it through PM, however I wont discuss it here and now because it will only serve to confuse and marginalise my original point, which has literally nothing to do with how good Mata is or why he is on the bench.

Thanx 4 The Fish

MOD HAT

Anderson, Kryo. STOP

Optimalprimerib

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Please point out where in my message I stated or even inferred that.......oh.....what's this? You cant? Elaborate good sir, why is it that you cannot show me where in my message I stated (or inferred) that Willian is better than Mata......oh because a certain poster is once again putting words in my mouth?.......yes Anderson, yes that would be the case.

In my message, my point is quite clearly, and rather eloquently put, if I do say so myself, that this assertion that Mourinho plays negative football because he doesn't play Mata is false. I then, with a dash of humour, point out that the players who are in the team ahead of Mata are all flair players, the previously referred to Oscar, Hazard and Willian, as such, Mourinho is replacing like for like. Whether they are "as good" as Mata is irrelevant on this occasion as that is not the topic which I have taken issue with, my issue is with the false assertion that Mourinho is negative because he doesn't play Mata, yet he has replaced him with similar flair players and not a lumbering centre back or a box to box 6 foot 5 monster midfielder. This however seems to have gone entirely over your head, and unfortunately I cannot explain my stance, or indeed the issue, any clearer than I have in this very comment.

Verbal diahorrea. I think. I could only read the first 2 lines

gosplan

donfers wrote: »

the thing that mystifies me is that they have the players to win without being nasty/cynical

consigning mata to the bench for most of the season says everything you need to know about your manager

I really don't like Mourhino but this isn't correct. He's playing Oscar ahead of Mata, it's not really that big a deal. Oscar tackles more and covers more ground - that's not nasty or cynical.

Now, sneaking up behind someone and gouging them would tell you all you need to know about someone.

LiamoSail

Noticed a Kerry blues banner behind the benches yesterday. Surely that's not Kerry ireland is it?

fozz10

simongurnick wrote: »

That was the funny thing today. Chelski played Liverpool off the park for the last 30 minutes of the first half but came out in the second with a game plan to just kill everything off (defenders diving back in their own half etc.)
Ultimately it worked,but it's ugly stuff, especially when conducted by talented players.

win at all costs, End of... if its an ugly win against the big sides then keep it coming. its great when other fans are giving out stink about a side it usually means the side is doing well. a great game to watch yesterday delighted with the win.

GavRedKing

LiamoSail wrote: »

Noticed a Kerry blues banner behind the benches yesterday. Surely that's not Kerry ireland is it?

Ya, it is. They've a big supporters group from the south west and that banner is there for sometime now.

One of the last game of the season I was at a few seasons ago they gave a half time award to their player of the season.

5live

GavRedKing wrote: »

If Luiz can hide a chainsaw in his afro we might have a chance of stopping Suarez, even at that, I'm not to sure, I'd rather Suarez with one leg over any of our strikers. :pac:

I think Eto'o may have taken your post a little too literally.

ebbsy

Liverpool could have 2 penalties, Chelsea 1, a few blues could have walked.

Webb came out onto the pitch having already decided he was going to make no big decisions, and did just that.

GavRedKing

5live wrote: »

I think Eto'o may have taken your post a little too literally.

He certainly had the bit between his teeth, the Henderson tackle was stupid, it cost us a goal and could have easily cost him a red, at the very least a yellow, neither happened.

The one on Suarez was a brain fart, he done well to track back but had no reason to throw himself across Suarez, it really was a moment of madness and he got away with it, another day its a penalty and hes lucky to play for the team again.

The worst thing about Eto'o is hes had more chances than Torres or Ba and hes fluffed his line a few times, I mean hes missed at elast 5 simple chances I can think of, Everton x2, Stoke, Sunderland, Swansea, Yesetrday, if he had being more profilic and better finishing he'd be close to being our top scorer.

CSF

ebbsy wrote: »

Liverpool could have 2 penalties, Chelsea 1, a few blues could have walked.

Webb came out onto the pitch having already decided he was going to make no big decisions, and did just that.

I don't really get the singling out of Webb on this, he isn't alone in this. I mean how many penalties a game does Skrtel get away with every time Liverpool defend a corner, and while IMO he is the worst for it, he is far from the only one.

Referees are clearly told to referee matches in this week manner by the powers that be, it is incredibly frustrating, but it is consistent. It is why you need to nearly chop someones legs off to get booked in the first 15 minutes of a game, it is why penalties only get given for fouls for tripping people up when on or heading towards the ball, or the most blatant of handballs, whereas outside the box there is a massive variety of free-kick offences.

I refuse to believe that pretty much every referee has weak character, clearly the referees who don't follow these unwritten rules are the ones who end up doing non-league before long, and the ones who stick around are the ones who are willing to play the game.

For me, the Suarez penalty had to be a penalty, but I don't believe for a second that Webb is alone in the list of referees that would have turned a blind eye to it.

Liamalone

Just caught Mourinho's post match interview, quality stuff pointing out that nearly all the tv pundits are biased ex liverpool players. Jose is the man lol

Liamalone

Liamalone wrote: »

Just caught Mourinho's post match interview, quality stuff pointing out that nearly all the tv pundits are biased ex liverpool players. Jose is the man lol

Hoddle, Neville and Carragher.

LFC legends.

EuropeanSon

Liamalone wrote: »

Just caught Mourinho's post match interview, quality stuff pointing out that nearly all the tv pundits are biased ex liverpool players. Jose is the man lol

A lot of them are, but an offence isn't not an offence just because the person calling for it stands to gain/might be biased, and there were several incidents in that game a blind man could see were misjudged.

Arsenal fan here, before I'm accused of bias.

Agueroooo

rarnes1 wrote: »

Hoddle, Neville and Carragher.

LFC legends.

I know ???

When I heard the interview and read that post I was thinking did I see the right match?

Pure and utter crap.

Lukker-

rarnes1 wrote: »

Hoddle, Neville and Carragher.

LFC legends.

Think he was on about MOTD too. Doesn't really matter he was just winding people up and deflecting the attention away from his players. He doesn't care if he's right or wrong he always backs his players.

Agueroooo

Lukker- wrote: »

Think he was on about MOTD too. Doesn't really matter he was just winding people up and deflecting the attention away from his players. He doesn't care if he's right or wrong he always backs his players.

He really is like a never ending gobstopper for the window licking Sky Sports and UK red tops.

a lazy journalists wet dream.

SlickRic

Chelsea aren't more defensive with Mourinho is charge. they're more pragmatic and cynical.

the sole reason Oscar and Willian are playing over Mata is that they are slightly bigger, stronger and fitter so that Mou can play his pressing game for 90 minutes.

John Terry has said that Chelsea didn't have an identity before Mourinho came back. what the fúck does that even mean? does he mean they weren't dirty and cynical without him? they'd forgotten how to win really ugly?

Chelsea could've and should've won by 2 or 3 on that first half alone. but Mourinho chooses to have his team spoil for some reason instead for the rest of the game. it's probably "winning football", but it is ultimately ugly football too.

cadaliac

SlickRic wrote: »

Chelsea aren't more defensive with Mourinho is charge. they're more pragmatic and cynical.

the sole reason Oscar and Willian are playing over Mata is that they are slightly bigger, stronger and fitter so that Mou can play his pressing game for 90 minutes.

John Terry has said that Chelsea didn't have an identity before Mourinho came back. what the fúck does that even mean? does he mean they weren't dirty and cynical without him? they'd forgotten how to win really ugly?

Chelsea could've and should've won by 2 or 3 on that first half alone. but Mourinho chooses to have his team spoil for some reason instead for the rest of the game. it's probably "winning football", but it is ultimately ugly football too.

No. I don't think they "could have won by 2 or 3" in any half. They are simply nor that good, consistently, which is why they win ugly, but win.

SlickRic

cadaliac wrote: »

No. I don't think they "could have won by 2 or 3" in any half. They are simply nor that good, consistently, which is why they win ugly, but win.

they can, but Mourinho chooses to be pragmatic and cynical.

they'd rather kill a game than try too hard to score a couple more. they had us on the ropes for 25/30 minutes in that first half. they simply chose to sit back a bit deeper, timewaste, foul and generally just break up the game; which is fine, but it doesn't make the greatest spectacle.

slingerz

tbf Rodgers would have been more pragmatic to park the bus v City and Chelsea and try and take 2 0-0's. Would have been pillared by fans though if he had not achieved it then.

after going 1 up in both games it may have been prudent to take a more conservative approach then

cadaliac

SlickRic wrote: »

they can, but Mourinho chooses to be pragmatic and cynical.

they'd rather kill a game than try too hard to score a couple more. they had us on the ropes for 25/30 minutes in that first half. they simply chose to sit back a bit deeper, timewaste, foul and generally just break up the game; which is fine, but it doesn't make the greatest spectacle.

Yes, I have to agree with you there.
Edit: with your last points, I still don't think they can score as much as you or others believe they can/should

SlickRic

slingerz wrote: »

tbf Rodgers would have been more pragmatic to park the bus v City and Chelsea and try and take 2 0-0's. Would have been pillared by fans though if he had not achieved it then.

after going 1 up in both games it may have been prudent to take a more conservative approach then

i agree.

i'm not saying Mou is wrong in the way he goes about it, but it's just a fact that his teams are cynical and quite ugly when they need to be.

cadaliac

cadaliac wrote: »

Yes, I have to agree with you there.
Edit: with your last points, I still don't think they can score as much as you or others believe they can/should

Sorry, that doesn't read right.
Yes they sit back and smother games. Frustrating, yes. Ugly, yes. Effective, mostly.
I agree that they do this. I don't believe that if they hunted for more goals, that they would essentialy get those goals. Hence the changeable play style.

Panthro

cadaliac wrote: »

Yes, I have to agree with you there.
Edit: with your last points, I still don't think they can score as much as you or others believe they can/should

Chelsea aren't doing too bad on the scoring department when you consider theres a grand total of six (Last time I looked) goals between the three strikers. More likely to see a goal from hazard, Oscar, lampard or any of the defenders when they are up for a corner tbh. Hapes a goal threats just been short on actual goals so far this season!