post Chelsea thoughts
- Thread starter localny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
No probs on their pen there was contact and Costa not unreasonably went down like a bag of shite - No problems with their goal post the wrong decision- and it was the wrong decision - I thought so last night - it was right in front of me and subsequently having seen replays.
Incidentally I don't think the ref has to blow his whistle before a free kick unless he insists on it
Last edited:
I thought it was the same old toothless stuff we've been watching for some weeks. Klopp has been going on, since he arrived, about decision making and I'm worried that players are now taking the easiest option to avoid making the big decisions. Has this resulted in less chances being created, because it's like we need 10 chances to create 2 goals. Ironically, we seem to be giving the ball away more from attacking positions than earlier in the season when everything seemed more free flowing with ambitious, riskier passes. Too much Rodger's like, death by possession tippy tappy stuff for long passages of play. I also feel we press with less intensity too when we lose possession in the final third. Tiredness? Our unsettled defence is left too vulnerable at times with Milner and Clyne repeatedly stranded in positions that Alberto would be shot for. This is obviously the payoff from having them so advanced, but without a specialist or tactically aware DM to support the centre backs, the defence will remain shaky 2 points dropped, too few chances created for our toothless strikers and I thought the ref gave them far too much.
I remember Redknapp being booked for trying to take a quick free kick in a European game for us. It seems refs can be as contrary as they like!
Pretty much this.
Though Hazard changed direction it's still a bit clumsy to run him over like that - not a blatant free kick but it's still an easy call for the ref as it looks, well, clumsy. Think most refs would've given it is what I am trying to say.
Costa is a cheat no-one is doubting that but I don't think we can blame anyone but Matip for the pen. He was caught out, too slow to react and contact was made. Pretty clear pen to me.
Problem is that Hazard initiated contact ... as the replays show. Webb showed it on BT's half time show.
Signing of the season ... He's the primary reason they'll win the league ...
Yes, there's 'inviting' contact and there's fucking fishing for it. He was fishing.
Crikey I really enjoyed that last night. Yes we could have been a bit more incisive with the final pass but we were playing the best team in the league and they closed us down as well as we did them, it was a real battle. Collectively apart from one or two dodgy passes we defended ok, considering how adept they are on the counter attack and how far up the pitch we were in the second half no mean feat.
If anything it was a trip on Lallana!
..the worst thing about it all, is that everyone (it seemed that way at least) on here could see his obvious class from his consistent level of performances at Leicester last season, so why on earth didn't we buy him instead!?Signing of the season ... He's the primary reason they'll win the league ...
So many teams must be KICKING themselves ... Arsenal could have had him instead of Xhaka ... Manure could have had him to protect Pogba, Spurs were set with Wanyama (equally fantastic DM) and well we ... we could have had him creating a midfield of Kante-Hendo-Lallana ...
I'm not sure if this belongs here or in the ratings thread, or if the two should be merged anyway, but here goes:
A draw! As in, not a defeat! Hooray!
It's a result that does us no real favours in the league, but in terms of stopping the January Rot and also giving the team and supporters some much-needed belief, this was vital. And what it meant to a demented Klopp, screaming into the fourth official's face after the penalty save, was equally obvious.
But the performance was also positive; far more urgency all over the pitch, and a bit more variety in approach. Many of the long-identified failings were still in evidence: laughable defence, goalkeeping errors, poor finishing, lack of pace and invention etc etc, but the high-intensity playing style was back, in an error-strewn and frantic game of football.
Chelsea were impressive in many ways, with Kante arguably the best player on display, and Costa showing the value of a top quality striker in his movement, aggression and physicality, but we stood toe-to-toe against them, and deserved to get the draw.
Mignolet (5) Redeemed himself to a point with a marvellous save from the correctly-awarded penalty. To a point. His kicking and decision-making were on occasion criminally wayward and the crowd was again starting to nibble at him. And the Chelsea goal was almost comically abject in every way. The dopey cunt wasn't even looking at Luiz when he started his run up. We so badly need a new goalkeeper.
Clyne (6) Still looks a bit short of peak form and fitness, almost like he's playing at 90% and isn't quite sure if he can really stretch himself, so he was performing certainly well within his optimum capabilities, even if he was defensively sound.
Matip (4) Mugged off for the penalty, and was jittery around Costa all evening. Didn't help himself by some horrible misplaced passes and didn't look in any way assured. Luckily won't play against a striker like Costa every week.
Lovren (5) Hard to rate, as usual, because he did some parts of his job very well, and was brave in the challenge and positive in possession. But then he's equally likely to make a mess of the exact same situation when it comes up again. His horrible lack of consistency, the fact that he isn't reliable - often due to a self-inflicted moment of carelessness or loss of technique - means we need better.
Milner (6) Such an amazingly massive heart, his desire and willingness to "leave everything out on the pitch" is admirable. But what he's leaving on the pitch is diminishing, and he looked totally shot to pieces at the end. Needs a rest, very badly.
Henderson (8) Easily our best player, he was positive with his use of the ball, with less of the sideways safety that he sometimes reverts to. Never gave an inch and was almost as ubiquitous as Kante. This was more like Henderson at his best, so it's a real mystery why we have seen it so infrequently in the last 6 weeks. Is it the injury?
Can (6) Much improved. This was a game in which he still existed in an state of inconsistency, but it was more good than bad, with plenty of effort and physicality, with some unfortunate profligacy in possession
Wijnaldum (7) Has been a dismal, ghostly presence of late, with many people rightly questioning his role and quality. He was ordinary in the first half, and was happy playing his safe, unchallenging football, scaring nobody. But the half-time roasting from Klopp transformed him into a player with real purpose and he emerged from the fog of mediocrity and duly bagged the equaliser
Coutinho (5) Always looking to be positive, however he didn't actually deliver very much and then faded almost entirely. Chelsea gave him space, but he didn't take advantage.
Lallana (5) Is this now a typical Lallana display? Or atypical? He was so impressive in the first half of the season, but has been almost entirely ineffective for two months. Not sure if this is a reversion to his more usual level, or if playing further up front doesn't suit him because he has no pace. Whatever it is, he needs to improve and quick.
Firmino (4) Everybody knows he isn't a good finisher, so the two missed efforts weren't a huge surprise, but his touch was also erratic and he was almost entirely ineffective, without the pace or threatening movement to make Chelsea lose shape. We need better.
A draw! As in, not a defeat! Hooray!
It's a result that does us no real favours in the league, but in terms of stopping the January Rot and also giving the team and supporters some much-needed belief, this was vital. And what it meant to a demented Klopp, screaming into the fourth official's face after the penalty save, was equally obvious.
But the performance was also positive; far more urgency all over the pitch, and a bit more variety in approach. Many of the long-identified failings were still in evidence: laughable defence, goalkeeping errors, poor finishing, lack of pace and invention etc etc, but the high-intensity playing style was back, in an error-strewn and frantic game of football.
Chelsea were impressive in many ways, with Kante arguably the best player on display, and Costa showing the value of a top quality striker in his movement, aggression and physicality, but we stood toe-to-toe against them, and deserved to get the draw.
Mignolet (5) Redeemed himself to a point with a marvellous save from the correctly-awarded penalty. To a point. His kicking and decision-making were on occasion criminally wayward and the crowd was again starting to nibble at him. And the Chelsea goal was almost comically abject in every way. The dopey cunt wasn't even looking at Luiz when he started his run up. We so badly need a new goalkeeper.
Clyne (6) Still looks a bit short of peak form and fitness, almost like he's playing at 90% and isn't quite sure if he can really stretch himself, so he was performing certainly well within his optimum capabilities, even if he was defensively sound.
Matip (4) Mugged off for the penalty, and was jittery around Costa all evening. Didn't help himself by some horrible misplaced passes and didn't look in any way assured. Luckily won't play against a striker like Costa every week.
Lovren (5) Hard to rate, as usual, because he did some parts of his job very well, and was brave in the challenge and positive in possession. But then he's equally likely to make a mess of the exact same situation when it comes up again. His horrible lack of consistency, the fact that he isn't reliable - often due to a self-inflicted moment of carelessness or loss of technique - means we need better.
Milner (6) Such an amazingly massive heart, his desire and willingness to "leave everything out on the pitch" is admirable. But what he's leaving on the pitch is diminishing, and he looked totally shot to pieces at the end. Needs a rest, very badly.
Henderson (8) Easily our best player, he was positive with his use of the ball, with less of the sideways safety that he sometimes reverts to. Never gave an inch and was almost as ubiquitous as Kante. This was more like Henderson at his best, so it's a real mystery why we have seen it so infrequently in the last 6 weeks. Is it the injury?
Can (6) Much improved. This was a game in which he still existed in an state of inconsistency, but it was more good than bad, with plenty of effort and physicality, with some unfortunate profligacy in possession
Wijnaldum (7) Has been a dismal, ghostly presence of late, with many people rightly questioning his role and quality. He was ordinary in the first half, and was happy playing his safe, unchallenging football, scaring nobody. But the half-time roasting from Klopp transformed him into a player with real purpose and he emerged from the fog of mediocrity and duly bagged the equaliser
Coutinho (5) Always looking to be positive, however he didn't actually deliver very much and then faded almost entirely. Chelsea gave him space, but he didn't take advantage.
Lallana (5) Is this now a typical Lallana display? Or atypical? He was so impressive in the first half of the season, but has been almost entirely ineffective for two months. Not sure if this is a reversion to his more usual level, or if playing further up front doesn't suit him because he has no pace. Whatever it is, he needs to improve and quick.
Firmino (4) Everybody knows he isn't a good finisher, so the two missed efforts weren't a huge surprise, but his touch was also erratic and he was almost entirely ineffective, without the pace or threatening movement to make Chelsea lose shape. We need better.
That's right of course but don't tell me we can't lure players from Leicester?
I get it, there's always going to be competition but had we done everything within our powers, sent him greetings from Klopp on a daily basis, flowers and chocolate we would've had a good chance. Kante wasn't untouchable after Chelsea, who had a wank season, came in especially not when considering the signs of progress in and around our team as well. I won't accept that we couldn't have beaten Chelsea here, but even if you are right, it's insane we didn't even give it a go as this was so obviously a type of player we've been missing for years and years.
We were offered Kante but decided not to bid, so the story goes.
I seem to remember it as Leicester trying to drum up competition to Chelsea for his signature to increase the transfer fee.
I don't know if we ever were really interested in signing him but we seemed uninterested in becoming involved in that particular game
I thought he only has to blow the whistle if there was a booking before.
And why does everyone seem to be ignoring this ? [emoji15]
Not sure anyone is.
Clattenberg is a very good referee. He's a cosmic bellend aswell, but the two are not mutually exclusive. And it's also fair to say that he's a good referee only in the context of refereeing standards.
Yes, it's easy to mock his worryingly low self-esteem, hair weaves, "look-at-me" histrionics and incredibly embarrassing tattoos, but he's still good.
As for his decisions yesterday, well, he got some wrong. He missed things. But who doesn't?
And without the benefits of multiple cameras and the luxury of time in the studio, there's no WAY you could really be furious about the Lallana/ Hazard free kick. It was very hard to call when viewed in real-time and without different angles. And the penalty was another that was hard to get annoyed about.
So why is everyone moaning?
I wasn't watching Ming before the free kick was taken, so 'imagine my surprise...' Watching each replay I was more and more bemused with what the heck he was doing/thinking. But then I started wondering what the rules actually are about preparing for a free kick. Normally, I thought, the ref lets the defence prepare for the kick (or signals if a quick one is going to be taken) - it would surely spark mass controversies if most of them just blew regardless of what was happening, and I've seen loads of free kicks be re-taken because the ref hadn't decided it was right to take it then and there - but obviously not indefinitely. So did he look at Ming and just think, 'Sod him, that's it'?? The fault ultimately is down to Mignolet, obviously, but the incident seemed to me to highlight how vague and manipulable the rules actually are. Footballers are inveterate copycats, so it will be interesting to see how many others try an 'early'/quick free kick at the weekend, and how refs react.
Having a quick search, I found another example that affected Chelski, ironically, in 2004, when Henry hit a quick free kick when Cech clearly wasn't ready, and Graham Poll gave the goal. Poll's defended his decision by saying this:
""First you have to deal with the principle of a free-kick.
If the attacking team are fouled then it is they who hold the advantage.
With a free-kick around the penalty area, we always ask the players whether they want it quick or slow.
This is their window of opportunity to surprise the defence. If they want it quick, then they have given up the right to re-take it, no matter if it hits a defender who's three yards away.
The same goes if they kick it over the bar. They only get one chance.
The flip side is if they want it slow, they can't then take it while I count out the ten yards for the wall.
They must wait for my whistle. There is nothing in the laws of the game that say we have to indicate for the free-kick to be taken.
It's just like when someone wants to take a free-kick anywhere else on the field.
As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like."
That still slightly puzzles me, because I can't find any of that information in the FA rules. It all just appears to be a convention that some refs treat as law and others don't. I get his point about there being 'nothing in the laws' about timing, but that only highlights the fact that there are hardly any laws at all about free kicks, even though the fussier refs act as though there are clear and detailed guidelines, when it suits them. Also, the ref yesterday DID count out the ten yards, as is now the norm with the white spray, so I'm not sure where that leaves his interpretation.
Having a quick search, I found another example that affected Chelski, ironically, in 2004, when Henry hit a quick free kick when Cech clearly wasn't ready, and Graham Poll gave the goal. Poll's defended his decision by saying this:
""First you have to deal with the principle of a free-kick.
If the attacking team are fouled then it is they who hold the advantage.
With a free-kick around the penalty area, we always ask the players whether they want it quick or slow.
This is their window of opportunity to surprise the defence. If they want it quick, then they have given up the right to re-take it, no matter if it hits a defender who's three yards away.
The same goes if they kick it over the bar. They only get one chance.
The flip side is if they want it slow, they can't then take it while I count out the ten yards for the wall.
They must wait for my whistle. There is nothing in the laws of the game that say we have to indicate for the free-kick to be taken.
It's just like when someone wants to take a free-kick anywhere else on the field.
As long as the ball is stationary and in the right place then the attacking team can take it as quickly as they like."
That still slightly puzzles me, because I can't find any of that information in the FA rules. It all just appears to be a convention that some refs treat as law and others don't. I get his point about there being 'nothing in the laws' about timing, but that only highlights the fact that there are hardly any laws at all about free kicks, even though the fussier refs act as though there are clear and detailed guidelines, when it suits them. Also, the ref yesterday DID count out the ten yards, as is now the norm with the white spray, so I'm not sure where that leaves his interpretation.
Last edited:
Signing of the season ... He's the primary reason they'll win the league ...
We had that for the preceding 3, or more, seasons with Lucas.
It's a shame we let him down by surrounding him with dross.
I was sat 50 ft away and I could see it was never a foul and I am virtual geriatric by all accounts- he got plenty wrong last night.
I'm pretty objective as a rule when it comes to refs but....
It was a pen - no argument, but so was the foul on Milner when Moses shoved him in the box. Why did he play on the foul on Origi when some bastard went straight through him and should have been booked?
Other issues might be red tinted but he was certainly no homer- he seemed to favour Chelsea with a lot of minor stuff
Are you comparing a player who's absence has destroyed Leicester's title winning team to Lucas?
Come on dude ... Let others troll ... Lucas has never ever been able to dominate games as Kante has - well, bar the game I saw live.
Are you disputing that Lucas topped that table for years?
- Status
