Chelsea 0 Brentford 2

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Personally I think Celery you might be better avoiding the "fine margins" argument, even though I largely agree with you now. Premier League football is not just about arbitrary fine margins, it's about finding ways to win at all costs. We have a young team who will look half decent in a lot of games but have little capacity to get the job done and get the win. Against other stable teams desperate to survive, we were bound to struggle without more experience.

I think a better argument of yours is - do the current run of results matter that much in the grand scheme of project? Does it matter if we finish 12th or 10th or 8th t his season if we see signs of progress?

Personally I think many of the optimists on here downplayed just how bad our start was - the worst in what 45 years with the easiest run of fixtures. Since then I have seen us turn things around and I don't think we will lose every game.

But to some of the questions about the above comments -

I love Sterling. I love Caicedo. I love Enzo. Starting to like Cucurella and Mudryk. These kinds of players are showing signs.

The problem is they play in a system devoid of stability and experience. Yes the likes of Sterling frustrates, but he has shown just how good he is in the right setup (Man City) but ours is in serious transition. 

IMO - the problem largely isn't the talent of the individuals we have recruited any more. Okay we may have overpaid on a number of them. It is the fact we have made so many changes and have so little experience in the side.

Are the owners desperate for top four? If so - we need serious additions in January. Are they okay with "signs of progression" this season like you, Celery? If so, then we don't need to tear our hair out right now.

I suppose it hinges on how one interprets the term "fine margins". For me, it's more aimed at us being in the contest, if not controlling most of the matches we've played this season. What's largely let us down has been our proficiency in front of goal. Obviously we're still able to improve in many other areas but our wastefulness around goal has largely been the deciding factor. 

Otherwise I'm largely on board with the rest of what's said. 

Although, I will say this. I don't think us optimists here have played down just how bad our start was, it's more that we were well aware that this was always a possibility of happening. A new manager, a whole new team more or less, a young side at that, and a few important injuries, even with what was considered a favourable run of fixtures it was always unlikely for things to just naturally click immediately. 

[xceleryx]

8 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Yep , we're set up to stop not to impose , our players are miles better than Brentford's , they're decimated by injury and suspension and had one tactic which was to frustrate us and keep a solid back ten and make us move them about and hit us when we inevitable drop the ball. 

We have trouble breaking these super organised sides down but half the reason is the lack of support out wide for the wingers as he only "allows" one side to attack.

I'm not saying go "Gung Ho" but help your own players play for goodness sake. 

When faced with a smaller team he plays to their strengths and not ours , because he's got the fear.

We had 17 shots on goal vs Brentford, the issue was only 2 of them hit the target. 

Not to suggest we were mesmerising in our play, but we certainly did enough on the attacking front to have scored at least a couple. The problem wasn't how Poch set us up in this instance, it's the long standing achilles heel of not being capable around goal when opportunities arise. Doesn't matter if they're "clear cut chances" or simply half chances that require a bit of additional finesse, we're incapable of taking full advantage.

When that's the case there's not a whole lot more a coach. He's set the side up to allow us to get better results than we have, the players have simply let themselves down more often then not when they've entered the attacking third. We've also shot ourselves in the foot on several other occasions where some silly individual mistakes have made life even harder.

I do agree that we need to still be doing more on the attacking front as a whole, but we should also be doing far better with what we do create as well. 

[Dwmh]

37 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

What's largely let us down has been our proficiency in front of goal. Obviously we're still able to improve in many other areas but our wastefulness around goal has largely been the deciding factor. 

11 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

We had 17 shots on goal vs Brentford, the issue was only 2 of them hit the target. 

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

an awful lot of those 17 shots we had were low probability (low XG) from long distance.
We didn't have a shot from within their 6 yard box, they didn't have one outside the penalty box.
We had 2 decent chances (xg>0.3), they had 5.
 

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, xceleryx said:

I suppose it hinges on how one interprets the term "fine margins". For me, it's more aimed at us being in the contest, if not controlling most of the matches we've played this season. What's largely let us down has been our proficiency in front of goal. Obviously we're still able to improve in many other areas but our wastefulness around goal has largely been the deciding factor. 

Otherwise I'm largely on board with the rest of what's said. 

Although, I will say this. I don't think us optimists here have played down just how bad our start was, it's more that we were well aware that this was always a possibility of happening. A new manager, a whole new team more or less, a young side at that, and a few important injuries, even with what was considered a favourable run of fixtures it was always unlikely for things to just naturally click immediately. 

The problem is - the fact that we had a dreadful run of results early in the season means we are now back in an unfavourable league position, with little sign of picking up more points any time soon (given our upcoming fixtures).

Again - I've learned to take the rough with the smooth and haven't got too high expectations for where we finish now.

Other fans on here still have higher expectations and think we should do far better than "being in the contest".

[xceleryx]

2 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

an awful lot of those 17 shots we had were low probability (low XG) from long distance.
We didn't have a shot from within their 6 yard box, they didn't have one outside the penalty box.
We had 2 decent chances (xg>0.3), they had 5.
 

I would say it's a bit of both generally speaking.

I do believe we need to increase the number of shots we generally have per match, I think we rank around 10th or so with something like 14 shots per game on average currently. That's not a good enough standard. We're also around 11th for shots on target with around 4.5 per match. Again, not good enough and certainly makes life tougher. 

With that said, I do feel that in most matches we've played to date we've had 2-3 good opportunities that we've gone on to squander. And on average we're creating 

In the Brentford game we could've, and probably should've, been 2-0 ahead going into the half. Had that happened the dynamic of the match would've changed and likely opened up with Brentford looking to chase a result. So there are variables which do create a knock on effect.

[xceleryx]

2 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

The problem is - the fact that we had a dreadful run of results early in the season means we are now back in an unfavourable league position, with little sign of picking up more points any time soon (given our upcoming fixtures).

Again - I've learned to take the rough with the smooth and haven't got too high expectations for where we finish now.

Other fans on here still have higher expectations and think we should do far better than "being in the contest".

Well yeah, one can't have poor results and be in a strong league position. With that said, and it goes back to something mentioned in the last post, is that we're in a situation where our development as a side somewhat transcends where we sit on the league table. 

If people want to base our entire progress on the league table that's their prerogative, but for me there's more to our development then that alone at this particular stage. 

[Michael Tucker]

3 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

(low XG) 

 (xg>0.3, 
 

It's just a suggestion, but any chance we can all can all this  xg  nonsense? Rubbish, isn't it?

[ROTG]

23 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Successful as a glorified cup side, which has been exactly what I've said we've been. On the domestic front, which is what the discussion was related towards and you've now tried to steer away from (shock horror), we've been fortunate more than worthy. 

Unfortunately being a glorified cup side "your words" along with finishing in the top for bring in huge amounts of revenue from TV, Competitions and Blue Chip sponsorship deals and not the kind of one off with some IT company.

As for being fortunate to qualify for CL since the conte wrecking ball is quite laughable actual it quite insulting to those who go to the matches week in week out.

There is no luck qualifying for the CL over a 38 games, and its going to be a very long time until we see CL football again with the current philosophy. Not forgetting the barrel is almost dry with selling homegrown products to balance the books.

Next you will be saying it not right for supporter to boo after the  poop show they were given on saturday

[ROTG]

11 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

That could be intended to serve us over the next 5-10 years though..

not if you become a mid table team with a bloated squad of 8 year contract staff.

A journalist said on sunday the club have cut there wage bill to the levels of mid table teams, probably says a lot.

The real problem will be sponsors ship and lack of revenue from competitions etc. which will ultimately do the most damage with regards the clubs spending/wages/FFP power going forward.

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Well yeah, one can't have poor results and be in a strong league position. With that said, and it goes back to something mentioned in the last post, is that we're in a situation where our development as a side somewhat transcends where we sit on the league table. 

If people want to base our entire progress on the league table that's their prerogative, but for me there's more to our development then that alone at this particular stage. 

Fancy football delivers sweet FA just ask Spuds, the Arse to name a couple of teams with that dumb philosophy.

[ROTG]

7 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

an awful lot of those 17 shots we had were low probability (low XG) from long distance.
We didn't have a shot from within their 6 yard box, they didn't have one outside the penalty box.
We had 2 decent chances (xg>0.3), they had 5.
 

2 goals in our last 6 come from open play and only because the home side were chasing the game. Say it all really

There is still no purpose in any of the play, and as someone stated we seem to be moving back to Sarriball 

[Bones]

9 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

an awful lot of those 17 shots we had were low probability (low XG) from long distance.
We didn't have a shot from within their 6 yard box, they didn't have one outside the penalty box.
We had 2 decent chances (xg>0.3), they had 5.
 

I love stats and xG, but it's not perfect!

For example, do you know how much of xG the chance at the very end to level it? When James crossed it low beautifully and both Gallagher and Washington fell down in their spot without directing the ball goalwards? I'd say that could be a value of anywhere between 0.5 - 0.9, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even cout this as a shot so no xG rating is attached.

[Max Fowler]

28 minutes ago, Bones said:

I love stats and xG, but it's not perfect!

For example, do you know how much of xG the chance at the very end to level it? When James crossed it low beautifully and both Gallagher and Washington fell down in their spot without directing the ball goalwards? I'd say that could be a value of anywhere between 0.5 - 0.9, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even cout this as a shot so no xG rating is attached.

Yeah part of the problem too is it is only including shots. It misses all the good positions we get into where we mess up the buildup and could have easily created a shooting opportunity.

[thevelourfog]

7 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

It's just a suggestion, but any chance we can all can all this  xg  nonsense? Rubbish, isn't it?

Why is it rubbish?

Like anything else, it's an often useful metric for thinking about what happened in a game. That's it, not anything more dogmatic than that. It's really helpful for this match in particular, because the eye test matches up entirely with what xG says. Brentford had three genuine, should-score chances. Two they did, one Sanchez saved. We had, I'd say, one (Cucurella) with another two half-chances (Sterling, the late cross no one connected with). Every other shot we had was the player buying a lottery ticket.

You may as well ask people to can talking about shots, shots on target, possession, any stat that just isn't goals scored and conceded. And while they are the only two that matter, we wouldn't have much to discuss here if that's all we looked at!

[paulw66]

11 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Is that lack of proficiency in front of goal?  Or is that inability to get close to the goal so shooting from distance because their defence is better than our attack?
They had a few great chances.  We had a lot of slim chances.  
[stop reading there if youthink personal statements outrank xg evidence]

https://understat.com/match/21989

an awful lot of those 17 shots we had were low probability (low XG) from long distance.
We didn't have a shot from within their 6 yard box, they didn't have one outside the penalty box.
We had 2 decent chances (xg>0.3), they had 5.
 

Take a deeper dive into those Xgls.

At HT, it was Chelsea 1.26 v Brentford 0.15

At 88 minutes it was Chelsea 1.67 v Brentford 1.13

The fact they accumulated 1.55 xgls right at the end, when we threw the kitchen sink is not reflective of the whole pattern of the game. 

That also shows how we lost the plot in the 2nd half. If we had continued doing what we did in the first half, we'd have won IMO. 

[Bones]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Take a deeper dive into those Xgls.

At HT, it was Chelsea 1.26 v Brentford 0.15

At 88 minutes it was Chelsea 1.67 v Brentford 1.13

The fact they accumulated 1.55 xgls right at the end, when we threw the kitchen sink is not reflective of the whole pattern of the game. 

That also shows how we lost the plot in the 2nd half. If we had continued doing what we did in the first half, we'd have won IMO. 

Agreed.

Again, for the more clever xG counting we should have been at least 1 or 2 nil up at the first half (I'm not even including the potential penalty incident as well) Continue the same way and we'd have won.

[Bones]

2 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

Yeah part of the problem too is it is only including shots. It misses all the good positions we get into where we mess up the buildup and could have easily created a shooting opportunity.

Yes! 100%

[east lower]

On 30/10/2023 at 00:02, xceleryx said:

Never said it didn't. Your analogy doesn't quite work however, as with football you kinda know ahead of time with respects to where the team is at. There's of course a minimum standard expected, and I've not expressed otherwise, but you'd have to be pretty damn naive to not expect us this season to be quite up and down. 

 

I think that calling people naïve is a little disingenuous as is stating that we may be better off without the quiet people at games - 'quite up and down' is not winning one home game thus far this season. In fact it's well below the expectations of the majority I'd venture and probably well below the expectations of our owners. If that was your expectation then you should have had a bet on it.

The analogy is spot-on, match-going fans invest their money and their time to watch and support their team - and you might get a bad steak occasionally but if you get scrag-end on a number of occasions you stand-up and make your case. Non-vocal support is more and more commonplace - I see it and witness it first-hand. It most certainly isn't just our issue.

On 30/10/2023 at 00:02, xceleryx said:

 

Let's not pretend we secured many top four finishes in recent years with ease. Since winning the league last under Conte in 2016/17 we've finished.

• 5th (2017/18) - 5 points behind Liverpool
• 3rd (2018/19) - 2 points ahead of 5th place Arsenal and nearly choking it after winning 2 of our last 6 games of the season. 
• 4th (2019/20) - 4 points ahead of Leicester who were 3rd at the beginning of July, and eventually choked to finished 5th. Man Utd went from 5th to 3rd.
• 4th (2020/21) - 1 point ahead of 5th placed Leicester. Had our own future in our hands and lost to Villa on the final day, needing Spurs to beat Leicester (which they did) for us to hold on. 
• 3rd (2021/22) - 5 points ahead of Arsenal in 5th, about the only season we comfortably finished within the top 4 but were no real title threat either. 
• 12th (2022/23) - No words needed here. 

So yeah, I think "papering over the cracks" is quite appropriate when you think that we've largely been a glorified cup side for quite some time now. Our domestic performances haven't been strong, despite securing Champions League football, and at times required other sides to help us out. 

We're only massively underperforming and underachieving if you had warped expectations to begin with. We are performing more or less exactly as I felt we would, given the nature of the rebuild we've had. Even then, I think we've been better, or at least generally good enough to be sitting on more points if it wasn't for our sheer inability around goal. 

All I think you've done there is prove the point that we were achieving top four with RA the majority of the time and with the new owners and their methods they'll have a 100% record. If there were cracks they were ones that still did not prevent us achieving one of the prime objectives that was qualifying for the CL. We were at that time realistically chasing Man City & Liverpool (latterly Arsenal) who's points tallies were beyond the one we actually won the last title with. What we've got now is subsidence and their underpinning has solved nothing.

Pochettino is solving nothing currently, we're still soft at the back, not creating enough chances at the other end and if we get into a battle we look like we're going to lose it.

FWIW I seriously believe that the owners have dropped us in it - Sacking Tuchel was the first big mistake made, even though it was clear he had issues with the team at the time of his sacking. If they'd have given him the same money that has been spent subsequently, he'd have solved those.

[Dwmh]

10 hours ago, Michael Tucker said:

It's just a suggestion, but any chance we can all can all this  xg  nonsense? Rubbish, isn't it?

Not rubbish at all - but non-moderators can skip after the warning I gave.

For nearly 20 years on the old site posters were talking about shots on target, off target, and corners.
xg is just a more sophisticated and objective version of that.
i never heard anyone calling for a ban on discussion of shots taken.
or on possession stats, or foul count.

If you want to eliminate rubbish speak how about the "i know what i saw so don't give me stats" pov.  Isn't that far less valid?

4 hours ago, Bones said:

I love stats and xG, but it's not perfect!

For example, do you know how much of xG the chance at the very end to level it? When James crossed it low beautifully and both Gallagher and Washington fell down in their spot without directing the ball goalwards? I'd say that could be a value of anywhere between 0.5 - 0.9, but I wouldn't be surprised if they don't even cout this as a shot so no xG rating is attached.

100% agree.  And in particular xG doesn't quite match the fans view of whether we should have won or lost.  Unfair sendings off, wrong off-side decisions, dubious penalties, none of these get included in xG.  Nor as you say does a player missing the ball as opposed to missing the goal.

But then the old shots on target and off target couldn't resolve those issues either.

1 minute ago, east lower said:

but if you get scrag-end on a number of occasions you stand-up and make your case.

scrag-end!  You were lucky.

3 minutes ago, east lower said:

FWIW I seriously believe that the owners have dropped us in it - Sacking Tuchel was the first big mistake made, even though it was clear he had issues with the team at the time of his sacking. If they'd have given him the same money that has been spent subsequently, he'd have solved those.

Big, largely unknown, issues, this is likely the start of a decade of underperformance.  
And I'm pretty sure TT wanted out just like everyone else.
 

[east lower]

2 hours ago, Dwmh said:

 

scrag-end!  You were lucky.
 

That was only served on high-days and holidays!