Johngannonsunderpants
Well-known member
Absolutely
Carrick tactically set us up badly
- Thread starter Boro4life
- Start date
Glover_elbow
Well-known member
No outball can rogers not move up front
BoroMart
Well-known member
he was doubled up by an international legend and a england fringe player. and sometimes triple marked with a 100m CDM. He still managed to get a goal, but needed much more support. His strength isn't running in behind, he isn't rapid enough to get away when there is a tight marker and a covering defender. His strength is dropping deep, taking it on the half turn and running at defenders. He largely couldn't do that because Chelseas CBs were high leaving very little gap between Chelsea CBs and CDMs. He did ok with a near impossible task, but they regularly swarmed him and won it back.
MickaelDebevePhenomenal
Well-known member
well obviously, but can't remember seeing him run off peoples shoulders in behind very often, not his game.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Mad that some think we could have parked the bus (more than we did, which we did as much as we reasonably can), or played lump ball and got much of a different result.
Playing lump ball, to who, Crooks? That's not even his game or position in the Champo, how's he meat to do that against a prem defence?
Rogers isn't a Striker, let alone a loan striker or one who is going to be able to compete on lump balls to him, or over the top, and he's not that quick either, especially not compared to what prem teams are used to.
The second you lump the ball up, to a non target man, target man, or a non off the shoulder striker, who is not even a striker, the ball is gone, and within 20 seconds they're back on the edge of your box, and well structured to take advantage of that.
How would any of our frontline available players retained possession, on their own, as we needed the rest back around our goal to stop their £1bn squad cutting through us.
Even if we did or could do that, Chelsea's defenders would have just stood on the half way line (which they pretty much did anyway), we can't stand any higher up the pitch or we're offside, we can't play balls to run onto as we would be massively outpaced or their keeper would just swallow them up easily. It just condenses the game still, into tight passing, which we're going to struggle to do, and struggle to defend against.
The tie was lost due to the reality of what happens in two leg games, for mid level champo teams playing against top level underperforming teams. The tie was lost in the first game when we only won 1-0, which was nowhere near enough to enable alternate tactics in the second game, which is why I didn't think people should have been getting ahead of themselves. Sure it was a great result, in the first game, but it wasn't like we were the better side, nowhere near. We only won because they couldn't hit a barn door and we tried to hold that lead rather than going for more goals which would have helped us in the second game. I can understand why we didn't go for more goals mind, as they would have likely scored 1 or 2 eventually, or scored at a higher rate than we did.
The stats for the game we won 1-0 were just as bad as the one we lost 6-1, but it's to be expected, they're a million miles (and a billion pounds) better than us, and luck won't win out over 180 minutes. We created just as much in the second game as we did in the first, and I doubt we could have created more. But creating less and with a different style, one which we've not played all year, and with a shaky defence, does not mean that we would have restricted them to less chances, no chance. There's only like 8 teams in the champo who have conceded more than us, it's not like defending is our game.
I don't think restricting them to 6 shots on target was that bad (conceding 6/6 is a bit uncommon, and flattering for them), considering we were away, against a £1bn prem squad, who had already had a game to suss us out. But they were pretty ruthless with those chances, although they had more attempts in the first game and more possession.
People shouldn't get beat up about it, what were they expecting before both legs, or even after the 1-0 win and how they dominated us?
It's not like we played better in the second half when we changed things, due to our controls, it was more down to them letting their foot off the gas in the second half a little, and resting/subbing some players, but they still knocked another two in before we got our goal.
Playing lump ball, to who, Crooks? That's not even his game or position in the Champo, how's he meat to do that against a prem defence?
Rogers isn't a Striker, let alone a loan striker or one who is going to be able to compete on lump balls to him, or over the top, and he's not that quick either, especially not compared to what prem teams are used to.
The second you lump the ball up, to a non target man, target man, or a non off the shoulder striker, who is not even a striker, the ball is gone, and within 20 seconds they're back on the edge of your box, and well structured to take advantage of that.
How would any of our frontline available players retained possession, on their own, as we needed the rest back around our goal to stop their £1bn squad cutting through us.
Even if we did or could do that, Chelsea's defenders would have just stood on the half way line (which they pretty much did anyway), we can't stand any higher up the pitch or we're offside, we can't play balls to run onto as we would be massively outpaced or their keeper would just swallow them up easily. It just condenses the game still, into tight passing, which we're going to struggle to do, and struggle to defend against.
The tie was lost due to the reality of what happens in two leg games, for mid level champo teams playing against top level underperforming teams. The tie was lost in the first game when we only won 1-0, which was nowhere near enough to enable alternate tactics in the second game, which is why I didn't think people should have been getting ahead of themselves. Sure it was a great result, in the first game, but it wasn't like we were the better side, nowhere near. We only won because they couldn't hit a barn door and we tried to hold that lead rather than going for more goals which would have helped us in the second game. I can understand why we didn't go for more goals mind, as they would have likely scored 1 or 2 eventually, or scored at a higher rate than we did.
The stats for the game we won 1-0 were just as bad as the one we lost 6-1, but it's to be expected, they're a million miles (and a billion pounds) better than us, and luck won't win out over 180 minutes. We created just as much in the second game as we did in the first, and I doubt we could have created more. But creating less and with a different style, one which we've not played all year, and with a shaky defence, does not mean that we would have restricted them to less chances, no chance. There's only like 8 teams in the champo who have conceded more than us, it's not like defending is our game.
I don't think restricting them to 6 shots on target was that bad (conceding 6/6 is a bit uncommon, and flattering for them), considering we were away, against a £1bn prem squad, who had already had a game to suss us out. But they were pretty ruthless with those chances, although they had more attempts in the first game and more possession.
People shouldn't get beat up about it, what were they expecting before both legs, or even after the 1-0 win and how they dominated us?
It's not like we played better in the second half when we changed things, due to our controls, it was more down to them letting their foot off the gas in the second half a little, and resting/subbing some players, but they still knocked another two in before we got our goal.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
6 attempts on goal and 6 goals for Chelsea.
The ball did fall very nicely for them for the their first 2 goals.
I would have concentrated on defence more- it seemed niave to me to try and take them on with their own game, which with hindsight played right into their hands.