Football 2013-2014

[Wooderson]

Well the whole thing defines how you define 'better'. Chelsea have beaten Liverpool twice, so are they the 'better' team? Or were Liverpool unlucky on both occasions and have somehow shown in their games against other opponents that they are 'better' than Chelsea?

[Wooderson]

Producing little but risking nothing does not equal entertainment in sport. Chelsea yesterday risked nothing. They got their win and their manager lost the cool at the end - but colour me unimpressed with the entertainment value held therein for the resources spent.

[DomDom1984]

Are West Brom on an even level with Chelsea because they dealt with them quite handily twice this season and didn't really look like losing against them? Of course not. So that argument is thrown out right away.

[mrtourette]

I do agree, I'm just throwing ideas out that everyones notion of 'better' and 'entertaining' is different. Basically can you seperate performance and quality from results? Or do the results always indicate who is 'better'?

[DomDom1984]

I don't think Chelsea will give a f**k about the entertainment value, and why should they? They've kept themselves in the running for the title and that's the job that Mourinho has got right now.

It was up to Liverpool to do something about that, and it was clear at times that Chelsea weren't invincible. Liverpool just weren't good enough to break them down.

[eFestivals]

Liverpool just weren't good enough to break them down.

To be fair to Liverpool, Bayern Munich would find it hard to break down Aldershot Town if the shots played a flat back nine.

[DomDom1984]

No they wouldn't.

[TheGayTent]

No they wouldn't.

[eFestivals]

Agreed. If it were that simple it would happen all the time.

Mourinho's tactics worked because he has the players at his disposal to make it work.

I was being a little flippant.

Any team in the Prem can do the same, but for most teams in most games they need to be winning or at least trying to.

Moaniho is simply playing the averages, but he's got particularly lucky with it this season by mostly getting wins when he's used that tactic. If he sets out to draw then as one of the strongest teams he probably will, and as long as he picks up the points in the other games against the weaker teams then those averages tells him that Chelsea should be champions.

Whether Rodgers was over-ambitious yesterday in not doing the same to try and guarantee the points he needed I don't know, but perhaps he was. It ceased to matter after Gerrard's slip.

Edited April 28, 2014 by eFestivals

[zahidf]

To be fair to Liverpool, Bayern Munich would find it hard to break down Aldershot Town if the shots played a flat back nine.

Edited April 28, 2014 by zahidf

[eFestivals]

Liverpool needed to defend better and play Chelsea at their own game. A draw would have got them the title.

yup.

To be fair, they probably were to some extent. They were a bit less gun-ho than normal, but after Gerrard's slip they had to go for it.

[ThomThomDrum]

Chelsea were extremely organized and very well drilled in defending. Thats down to Jose and that is why they won the game. They knew that if they stuck to their tactics (similar to those employed in Madrid) that they would be very hard to score against and as a result hard to beat.

He also knew the manner in which football games go that they may get a chance or two and the hope was that the expensive talented folk they employ would take them if they got them. They did. Jose got it very much right.

However, that does not categorically mean Rodgers got it wrong.

Lady luck rolled some dice yesterday also to effect the eventual outcome

[thetime]

It's not just this season where Jose has a good record against the top teams, he does it time and time again.

For example I don't think fergie ever got a win against him.

[TheGayTent]

I was being a little flippant.

[TheGayTent]

It's not just this season where Jose has a good record against the top teams, he does it time and time again.

[eFestivals]

He's very good at identifying the tactics required in any given game.

Nope, it's not that.

He's merely identified what he needsd to average to win the league from an already strong position.

Unfortunately for him, he's fucked up this season in other games.

[DomDom1984]

Loads of teams have attempted to sit behind the ball this season and failed miserably. Mainly because they weren't actually good at it.

Chelsea were. I'm afraid there's no way around the fact that Liverpool were totally inept going forward. They showed Chelsea weren't invincible at the back. They could have gotten through them if they were good enough to do so. They weren't.

[ThomThomDrum]

Hey sometimes football tactics from the "19th century" work!

[TheGayTent]

Nope, it's not that.

[eFestivals]

I disagree. I think his record in the big games against his rivals for the title prove my opinion.

Or alternatively, prove mine.

You must think he's going for the win. You're insane.

[thetime]

Loads of teams have attempted to sit behind the ball this season and failed miserably. Mainly because they weren't actually good at it.

Chelsea were. I'm afraid there's no way around the fact that Liverpool were totally inept going forward. They showed Chelsea weren't invincible at the back. They could have gotten through them if they were good enough to do so. They weren't.

[thetime]

What's cost Chelsea

[pink_triangle]

For me personally Total Football is the ideal rather than catenaccio, for example. Ergo, what I view as entertaining and creditable and "best" is defined along those lines for me at least. I would class the manner in which Chelsea went about their business on Sunday as effective, but regressive in broad terms. Footie would rapidly lose its allure if everyone played like Chelsea did. Like it or not people don't get off their chairs for defensive discipline no matter what way you define it. Attacking football makes the blood pump harder - as a Blue the contrast between this and last year brings this point home, no?

Despite my (some say irrational ) hatred for Fergsuson his sides were set up to win - but by and large without cynicism. He depended on pace and guile and skill. Not all managers are as fortunate to have this kind of resources, influence and control - but it was indicative of the Ferguson era that the champions were also playing the game in an expansive and fluid manner. Lightning in a bottle stuff of course but as fans we should never accept that the best is mere accomplishment of the bare minimum. Footie's too important for that!

[eFestivals]

Loads of teams have attempted to sit behind the ball this season and failed miserably. Mainly because they weren't actually good at it.

If you've got a weak team trying to do that against a strong team, then it's going to be hard for that weaker team to hold out.

But if you've got two about-equal teams on the pitch and one is Chelsea doing that, than it's very likely that Chelsea will hold out. If, like Chelsea, you're also able to take one of the very few chances you'll get by playing that way, you get to win the game (and even more so if the opposition get frustrated by those tactics and push forwards).

It's a method of winning, but it's one for those who prefer the victory above all other things.

[TheGayTent]

Or alternatively, prove mine.

You must think he's going for the win. You're insane.