Chelsea vs Manchester United Match Thread 18/4/15 k/o 17.30 Sky

Rayne Wooney

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

utter rollox, you actually think we didn't "play"??!!
At least we didn't out our best striker in midfield and play a donkey like Falcao
up front>Twas like watching Torres all over again.
And not playing Di Maria, once one of the best wingers in the world?
You were much the better team in the first half, but playing Fellaini against poor sides has somehow convinced you all he is actually a good player , when in fact he was owned by a 19yr making a rare start and out of position.
But hey just join the sheep and say we parked the bus instead of giving your own team credit for nullifying our attack!

This is a shít post from start to finish, I'm surprised I even responded.

To Alcohol

Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession. Couple of astute signings during the summer and Utd will walk that league and put in a decent shift in Euope, unlike this years crocks in Europe.

Panthro

To Alcohol wrote: »

Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession. Couple of astute signings during the summer and Utd will walk that league and put in a decent shift in Euope, unlike this years crocks in Europe.

Sure did. T-Bo made how many saves again?

GavRedKing

To Alcohol wrote: »

Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession. Couple of astute signings during the summer and Utd will walk that league and put in a decent shift in Euope, unlike this years crocks in Europe.

Just spend another 150million. Im sure that will help. :rolleyes:

Utd dont need wide spread signings they need a few good additions the core of the team is good and LVG has Utd playing better and pushing up the league unlike Moyes so the fans can be happy with that.

grumpymunster

To Alcohol wrote: »

Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession. Couple of astute signings during the summer and Utd will walk that league and put in a decent shift in Euope, unlike this years crocks in Europe.

Yea Fellani got all that annoying fluff out of Happy's pocket absolutely owned it he did

glued

Another solid Chelsea performance but it is absolutely muck to watch. Not to my taste at all.

Will I Amnt

The phrase was..."Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession"

There is no arguing that statement.

Dozen Wicked Words

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The phrase was..."Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession"

There is no arguing that statement.

It's true.

Chelsea owned United in terms of goals scored and points earned. This is also true.

Barr

SureYWouldntYa wrote: »

you're right. he's 20

lol great post :D

grumpymunster

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The phrase was..."Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession"

There is no arguing that statement.

Possession for the sake of it is meaningless

Kirby

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The phrase was..."Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession"

There is no arguing that statement.

But why would want to make the statement or argue with it? There are no bonus points for possession. Whats that famous saying from Belichick? Something about stats being for losers and the final score being for winners.

United lost. That's what matters. "We had more possession!" is the cry of a fan trying to make themselves feel better. Its ultimately meaningless.

Fuhrer

Kirby wrote: »

But why would want to make the statement or argue with it? There are no bonus points for possession. Whats that famous saying from Belichick? Something about stats being for losers and the final score being for winners.

United lost. That's what matters. "We had more possession!" is the cry of a fan trying to make themselves feel better. Its ultimately meaningless.

We also had far more throw ins.

Will I Amnt

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

It's true.

Chelsea owned United in terms of goals scored and points earned. This is also true.

Yes it is. No arguments here. There were numerous arguments made about the other statement.

Will I Amnt

Kirby wrote: »

But why would want to make the statement or argue with it? There are no bonus points for possession. Whats that famous saying from Belichick? Something about stats being for losers and the final score being for winners.

United lost. That's what matters. "We had more possession!" is the cry of a fan trying to make themselves feel better. Its ultimately meaningless.

There's positives to take from dominating a team that's considered the best in the league with a makeshift defence and players shunted out of position in midfield. Not that hard to understand.
It's not a cry of anything.

Nalz

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There's positives to take from dominating a team that's considered the best in the league with a makeshift defence and players shunted out of position in midfield. Not that hard to understand.
It's not a cry of anything.

Well said

Dozen Wicked Words

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There's positives to take from dominating a team that's considered the best in the league with a makeshift defence and players shunted out of position in midfield. Not that hard to understand.
It's not a cry of anything.

Surely you'd want to have more than 2 shots on goal in a game before you consider anything a "domination"?

Fuhrer

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There's positives to take from dominating a team that's considered the best in the league with a makeshift defence and players shunted out of position in midfield. Not that hard to understand.
It's not a cry of anything.

In the end the game meant very little to United, it was a chance to see if we could keep up the good run of form and in the end we we're only the width of the post from Falco from getting a draw.

So not a bad day all considered.

grumpymunster

Will I Amnt wrote: »

Yes it is. No arguments here. There were numerous arguments made about the other statement.

Thing is finishing with more goals is not meaningless it's sort of the object of the exercise.

Thing is two good teams in various stages of development played out an interesting match, no doubt next season it will be a Chelsea / United one / two. But as was pointed out on the match thread we were never going to do a Liverpool points is all that matters now.

Will I Amnt

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Surely you'd want to have more than 2 shots on goal in a game before you consider anything a "domination"?

United dominated possession, it's just unfortunate that Rooney had to play in midfield and not up front where he would have created space for others and himself. Them's the breaks but I can assure myself that United have the game to match and beat Chelsea in better circumstances.

Kirby

Will I Amnt wrote: »

There's positives to take from dominating a team that's considered the best in the league with a makeshift defence and players shunted out of position in midfield. Not that hard to understand.
It's not a cry of anything.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what "domination" means. Possession certainly isn't it. Bayern had more possession than Porto a few days ago......Porto won the game 3-1.

When United bombard the Chelsea goal with shots, when defenders have to consistently make last ditch tackles, when their keeper has to make several world class saves......then we can talk about domination. Passing the ball sideways for 90 minutes is dominating the clock and nothing else.

Panthro

Kirby wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what "domination" means. Possession certainly isn't it. Bayern had more possession than Porto a few days ago......Porto won the game 3-1.

When United bombard the Chelsea goal with shots, when defenders have to consistently make last ditch tackles, when their keeper has to make several world class saves......then we can talk about domination. Passing the ball sideways for 90 minutes is dominating the clock and nothing else.

+1

Well said.

Fuhrer

Costa really looks a lot older than 26.


All I could think of when I saw him wearing the backwards hat today

duploelabs

Fuhrer wrote: »

Costa really looks a lot older than 26.


All I could think of when I saw him wearing the backwards hat today

leave oscar's dad/badly drawn Cesc alone

Will I Amnt

Kirby wrote: »

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what "domination" means. Possession certainly isn't it. Bayern had more possession than Porto a few days ago......Porto won the game 3-1.

When United bombard the Chelsea goal with shots, when defenders have to consistently make last ditch tackles, when their keeper has to make several world class saves......then we can talk about domination. Passing the ball sideways for 90 minutes is dominating the clock and nothing else.

United dominated possession. This is a massive part of what van Gaal wants from his team, this is his plan working out. Having to start Falcao up front and Rooney in midfield was a big blow to the creativity up front, that's the single biggest reason why the chances were so limited.

Panthro

Will I Amnt wrote: »

United dominated possession. This is a massive part of what van Gaal wants from his team, this is his plan working out. Having to start Falcao up front and Rooney in midfield was a big blow to the creativity up front, that's the single biggest reason why the chances were so limited.

I'd take goals over possession myself.
But hey, Van Gaal is the professional not me!

Gringo180

Chelsea are just desperate to watch. Effective it is but I wouldn't be paying top dollar into see that side week in week out.

Will I Amnt

Panthro wrote: »

I'd take goals over possession myself.
But hey, Van Gaal is the professional not me!

I didn't say I wouldn't. What is it you're not getting?
All things considered, I'm happy with the performance, you're happy with the win, Kirby still supports nobody. Let's just leave it at that.

Dozen Wicked Words

Always loved Robbie Savage.

Fuhrer

Dozen Wicked Words wrote: »

Always loved Robbie Savage.

First time ive heard anyone say that.

Iused2likebusts

Typical chelsea performance in the big games. Mourinho had his hand forced somewhat by having no striker but he got the job done as he usually does gave up hardly any chances.

Dozen Wicked Words

Fuhrer wrote: »

First time ive heard anyone say that.

Yeah, should have put some kind of smiley after it for clarity.

Rob Thomas

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Who would you have played in there instead of Rooney? With Carrick and Blind injured I'm struggling to think of any other options.

Maybe Fellaini with Di Maria further forward? But then Di Maria hasn't been great for a while and Fellaini hasn't convinced when played in the role Rooney played today.

I know his hand was forced a bit but I would have played Fellaini and Herrera in the middle and let Rooney play up top with Falcao. The league was over before today but Utd still needed to be looking to win it.

I just think you lose so much by not having Rooney up front and he is just not effective in the middle. Fellaini might not have been great there either but you don't lose as much from him up front.

I never thought Utd, with the injuries would have won before today but as the game panned out it was a great chance to beat Chelsea at home.

Fuhrer

Rob Thomas wrote: »

I know his hand was forced a bit but I would have played Fellaini and Herrera in the middle and let Rooney play up top with Falcao. The league was over before today but Utd still needed to be looking to win it.

I just think you lose so much by not having Rooney up front and he is just not effective in the middle. Fellaini might not have been great there either but you don't lose as much from him up front.

I never thought Utd, with the injuries would have won before today but as the game panned out it was a great chance to beat Chelsea at home.

I would have left Rooney up top on his own and put Di Maria in the middle.

Sgt Pepper 64

Will I Amnt wrote: »

The phrase was..."Absolutely owned Chelsea in terms of possession"

There is no arguing that statement.

as we have seen countless times, possession is nothing if you don't convert it into goals

The better team with the far better manager won, so utd fans get over it.
You will never be the same team you were under fergie, sure you will go and splurge another 200 million but we still wont be able to say you won the league

Will I Amnt

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

as we have seen countless times, possession is nothing if you don't convert it into goals

The better team with the far better manager won, so utd fans get over it.
You will never be the same team you were under fergie, sure you will go and splurge another 200 million but we still wont be able to say you won the league

Your posts are just drivel and everybody can see it. You're wasting your own time typing it out.

PhlegmyMoses

grumpymunster wrote: »

Of course Chelsea have no money so will not strengthen their squad in the summer.

Good call there

I never said that you wouldn't. But you can strengthen all you want and Mourinho will play the same game. He did it last time out at Chelsea, did it for Madrid and did it for Inter. You get some success with it and he'll bring you titles here and there, but the better footballing teams usually end up beating him out. He's not suddenly going to change the habit of a lifetime.

Rob Thomas

Fuhrer wrote: »

I would have left Rooney up top on his own and put Di Maria in the middle.

Wouldn't argue with that either. Its a pity how Falcao turned out. Clearly the play doesn't suit him and he's not the same player since the injury. I thought he was going to be another van Nistelroy for us in terms of goals.

Lukker-

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I never said that you wouldn't. But you can strengthen all you want and Mourinho will play the same game. He did it last time out at Chelsea, did it for Madrid and did it for Inter. You get some success with it and he'll bring you titles here and there, but the better footballing teams usually end up beating him out. He's not suddenly going to change the habit of a lifetime.

Titles here and there is a mild way of talking about the most successful manager in club football.

Bridge93

While Mourinho does go quite conservative in a lot of big games, why do people think he would've done anything different today? United had to win more than Chelsea, a draw suited them fine. So why would he risk opening up and potentially giving united a route back into the title race? I would say a lot of uniteds domination was Chelsea letting them have the ball with their set up and seeing could they break Chelsea down.
I would've thought United would do the same thing if the roles were reversed.

grumpymunster

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I never said that you wouldn't. But you can strengthen all you want and Mourinho will play the same game. He did it last time out at Chelsea, did it for Madrid and did it for Inter. You get some success with it and he'll bring you titles here and there, but the better footballing teams usually end up beating him out. He's not suddenly going to change the habit of a lifetime.

Titles here and there classic in time he will be one of the best PL managers of all time on top of being one of the best ever in the CL.

Squad has been paper thin all season now is time to be pragmatic. Do I as a Chelsea fan care how we win ..... No not a jot I only care that we win.

PhlegmyMoses

Lukker- wrote: »

Titles here and there is a mild way of talking about the most successful manager in club football.

Mourinho is absolutely a good manager and you're right, he brings success, particularly in years when his rivals are faltering. His pragmatic style will see him come out on top in a down year.

But if the league is in any way stronger next year and he continues with the style he has shown in the last 4 months, it won't last. It's not Spain where he only really had Barca to contend with. City, United and arguably Arsenal have the infrastructure to compete financially and most likely will strengthen greatly this summer.

Basically what I'm saying is that I don't particularly rate this Chelsea side. I think that they have a really good group of players but Mourinho's negative style hinders them quite a bit and will prevent them from dominating the league on a regular basis, like that squad, with some additions, potentially could.

jive

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Basically what I'm saying is that I don't particularly rate this Chelsea side. I think that they have a really good group of players but Mourinho's negative style hinders them quite a bit and will prevent them from dominating the league on a regular basis, like that squad, with some additions, potentially could.

You don't rate this Chelsea side? Christ, they've won the league at a canter.

Mourinho's negative style stifles good teams in '6 point games' which is why he never gets beaten by the top4 in the league. AFAIK since his return he hasn't conceded more than 1 goal in a game against arsenal/liverpool/united/city. Off the top of my head United have 2 in 4 games and Arsenal have 0 in 3 games. Mourinho wins everywhere and will continue to.

Ordinary man

jive wrote:

Mourinho's negative style stifles good teams in '6 point games' which is why he never gets beaten by the top4 in the league. AFAIK since his return he hasn't conceded more than 1 goal in a game against arsenal/liverpool/united/city. Off the top of my head United have 2 in 4 games and Arsenal have 0 in 3 games. Mourinho wins everywhere and will continue to.

He learned a lot when they tried to go toe to toe with spurs and got massacred. Safety first and play to teams strengths

Polo_Mint

jive wrote: »

You don't rate this Chelsea side? Christ, they've won the league at a canter.

Mourinho's negative style stifles good teams in '6 point games' which is why he never gets beaten by the top4 in the league. AFAIK since his return he hasn't conceded more than 1 goal in a game against arsenal/liverpool/united/city. Off the top of my head United have 2 in 4 games and Arsenal have 0 in 3 games. Mourinho wins everywhere and will continue to.

Will Chelsea be a "Top Team" next season if they dont win it in 2016?

Nalz

Kirby wrote: »

When United bombard the Chelsea goal with shots, when defenders have to consistently make last ditch tackles, when their keeper has to make several world class saves......then we can talk about domination. Passing the ball sideways for 90 minutes is dominating the clock and nothing else.

sideways for 90 minutes? What a load of cock.


COCK



hii!

Kirby

Trilla wrote: »

sideways for 90 minutes? What a load of cock.


COCK



hii!

Put down the bottle and go to bed. :P

Nalz

Kirby wrote: »

Put down the bottle and go to bed. :P

I don't drink

Kirby

Well then you have no excuse for that post.

Nalz

Kirby wrote: »

Well then you have no excuse for that post.

Tell me whats your excuse for saying United passed the ball sideways for 90 minutes? Its as bad as the Mourinho me me me "we knew exactly what they were going to do " arrogant post match interview.

I'm sure the ball went side-wards the whole way down the pitch, rugby style... when Rooney, Falcao (twice), McNair and Fellaini had great chances to score.

hence the reply "COCK"

Barr

Trilla wrote: »

I don't drink

Maybe you should :pac: