Tottenham Hotspur 1 Chelsea 4

[martin1905]

51 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

Fair enough Martin. Agree to disagree. Not sure why @Mark Kelly is agreeing though after mercilessly judging nearly everyone else from last season. 😏

I think one thing we can agree on is he's absolutely pony when he comes off the bench BUT in games he has stated.....

Bournemouth 0-0

Villa 0-1 taken off on 61 minutes, they scored in  the 73rd 

Fulham 2-0 after 19 minutes, he scored the first and was taken off at half time.

Arsenal 2-2 He scored the second to put us 2-0 up, was taken off at 2-0 after 66 minutes and we were in complete control of the game. 10 minutes later they score and it ends 2-2.

Only other game he has started was Brighton in the league cup. 1-0.

5 starts this season . No goals conceded until he has been taken off. Now I'm not claiming it's solely down to him, far from it but there is definitely something in it and a part of it is how good he has been defensively. Now I'm not trying to claim he's Ashley Cole but he has been very good, for a winger, in the games he has started. He comes on........

Well he's that bad I'd never bring him on, or at least I'd want to find out why there's such a difference. Maybe it's an interpretation thing, more time to understand what the manager is saying, they both speak different languages and neither speak particularly good English, when you have so much time to prepare for a game you know your starting in, compared to trying to get instructions 30 second's before coming on.

Whatever the reasons he's not a viable substitute any more than I am, yet when he starts and before he is taken off we just don't concede goals.

Edited November 9, 2023 by martin1905

[chara]

@martin1905,,,He keeps defences "honest"..they are terrified of his pace and aware of the chaos such pace can cause.

Not necessarily what he does but the situations that arise when being on the back foot/ outpaced.

[Max Fowler]

1 hour ago, martin1905 said:

I think one thing we can agree on is he's absolutely pony when he comes off the bench BUT in games he has stated.....

Bournemouth 0-0

Villa 0-1 taken off on 61 minutes, they scored in  the 73rd 

Fulham 2-0 after 19 minutes, he scored the first and was taken off at half time.

Arsenal 2-2 He scored the second to put us 2-0 up, was taken off at 2-0 after 66 minutes and we were in complete control of the game. 10 minutes later they score and it ends 2-2.

Only other game he has started was Brighton in the league cup. 1-0.

5 starts this season . No goals conceded until he has been taken off. Now I'm not claiming it's solely down to him, far from it but there is definitely something in it and a part of it is how good he has been defensively. Now I'm not trying to claim he's Ashley Cole but he has been very good, for a winger, in the games he has started. He comes on........

Well he's that bad I'd never bring him on, or at least I'd want to find out why there's such a difference. Maybe it's an interpretation thing, more time to understand what the manager is saying, they both speak different languages and neither speak particularly good English, when you have so much time to prepare for a game you know your starting in, compared to trying to get instructions 30 second's before coming on.

Whatever the reasons he's not a viable substitute any more than I am, yet when he starts and before he is taken off we just don't concede goals.

I think you are clutching at straws a bit Martin. We have generally been one of the best sides in the league defensively - he has contributed somewhat to that and I have praised Poch for getting much more out of him. But in the games he has been taken off (Arsenal comes to mind) I often felt it has been a mistake as he has generally been one of our better performers.

At the same time, 2 goal contributions in 10 games isn't great. Let's be honest, he has been showing glimpses rather than setting the world alight, even when he has started. The fact that he has been trying hard won the fans over in recent weeks though.

I still look at Mudryk and think lightweight. Honestly, he's never going to put his body on the line to save the team. He's no Gallagher. He can do a job defensively but that's it. I worry if he's got the mentality to go beyond that, but ultimately if he starts delivering more goals, assists and consistent play overall, I won't care too much about his defensive work.

It is a bit laughable that we are defending a player's integrity and we cannot explain why he cannot play off the bench, even though he's deserved to for most of his Chelsea career.

I think his head isn't in the game when he comes off the bench. He hasn't mentality prepared himself, all that sitting around thinking about the next cheap tattoo he can get. At least when he starts there's a long buildup, the players go out together etc. and he has a lot of time to prepare. When he comes off the bench he's almost immediately thrown into the action and is like a rabbit in the headlights.

That's just not good enough though, we can't support a player for much longer who cannot play off the bench. It needs fixing.

Poch was furious at him on Monday and I think a few more posters on here should be too - naming no names!

Edited November 9, 2023 by Max Fowler

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, martin1905 said:

I won't judge anyone on anything that happend last season especially a 21 year old coming in from the Ukrainian league after 11 starts from his club 

This year he has done a brilliant job defensively when he has started games.

And we've not conceded a goal this year in games he's started, when he's been on the pitch.

 

FWIW - when sterling is on the left he scores the goals that win games.

[My Blood Is Blue]

Maddison is out until the new year and the same for Van de Ven, following their injuries during this match. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to look back on this result as not only a nice victory over Spurs, but also as the starting point for their season imploding? Fingers crossed!

[chara]

1 hour ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Maddison is out until the new year and the same for Van de Ven, following their injuries during this match. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to look back on this result as not only a nice victory over Spurs, but also as the starting point for their season imploding? Fingers crossed!

Oh my Sam..that is mean and nasty...and I agree wholeheartedly!🐔😁

[charlie_sw6]

Two late goals by Wolves. Sweet!

 

[Ham]

Just now, charlie_sw6 said:

Two late goals by Wolves. Sweet!

 

Beautiful.  The equaliser was a stunning goal.

What a way to start the weekend 😂

[My Blood Is Blue]

On 10/11/2023 at 14:02, My Blood Is Blue said:

Maddison is out until the new year and the same for Van de Ven, following their injuries during this match. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to look back on this result as not only a nice victory over Spurs, but also as the starting point for their season imploding? Fingers crossed!

Oh I would hate to think I’ve cursed it… NOT!

[Mark Kelly]

33 minutes ago, Ham said:

Beautiful.  The equaliser was a stunning goal.

What a way to start the weekend 😂

Did they "give it a good go mate"? Twats. 

[Ham]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Did they "give it a good go mate"? Twats. 

Nope.  Dominated from start to finish by Wolves. A Wolves without Neto.

[chara]

17 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Did they "give it a good go mate"? Twats. 

Of course they did....another plucky 90+ minutes with only 9 players and an honourable defeat .... defeat achieved at the last minute as they tired...or was that last week?

Edited November 11, 2023 by chara

[kev61]

On 09/11/2023 at 22:47, Max Fowler said:

I think you are clutching at straws a bit Martin. We have generally been one of the best sides in the league defensively - he has contributed somewhat to that and I have praised Poch for getting much more out of him. But in the games he has been taken off (Arsenal comes to mind) I often felt it has been a mistake as he has generally been one of our better performers.

At the same time, 2 goal contributions in 10 games isn't great. Let's be honest, he has been showing glimpses rather than setting the world alight, even when he has started. The fact that he has been trying hard won the fans over in recent weeks though.

I still look at Mudryk and think lightweight. Honestly, he's never going to put his body on the line to save the team. He's no Gallagher. He can do a job defensively but that's it. I worry if he's got the mentality to go beyond that, but ultimately if he starts delivering more goals, assists and consistent play overall, I won't care too much about his defensive work.

It is a bit laughable that we are defending a player's integrity and we cannot explain why he cannot play off the bench, even though he's deserved to for most of his Chelsea career.

I think his head isn't in the game when he comes off the bench. He hasn't mentality prepared himself, all that sitting around thinking about the next cheap tattoo he can get. At least when he starts there's a long buildup, the players go out together etc. and he has a lot of time to prepare. When he comes off the bench he's almost immediately thrown into the action and is like a rabbit in the headlights.

That's just not good enough though, we can't support a player for much longer who cannot play off the bench. It needs fixing.

Poch was furious at him on Monday and I think a few more posters on here should be too - naming no names!

How many players have we signed that have died a death once they played for us.

We seem to kill potential in players - especially forwards.Our style of play is consistently boring regardless of the manager(except for Tuchel).

Surely it can't be a coincidence?.There has to be a reason.We are like some sort of entity that is cursed.

I would hazard a guess and say we are a club without soul - taken over by clueless bankers.

Roman seemed to care and weilded the axe at the the right time - seriously,god help us with this lot in charge!

1-0 for the chels today😉

[kev61]

On 09/11/2023 at 08:29, Chelsea_Matt said:

I’m *far* from convinced BUT there’s talent there, for sure. However it seems that we have paid a hell of a lot of money (which of course isn’t Mudryk’s fault!) for very little so far, tbh. He would appear to need quite intense and strict coaching to come up to scratch. It’s hope rather than expectation for me at the moment. 

Mudryk is a player that needs link up play.You can't stick him out on the wing and expect wonders.

We are the worst team in the league at the moment that can link up play.

Mudryk is another player that is floundering because he is expected to work wonders when he is on the ball..

[CarefreeMuratcan]

The VAR audio show on TNT Sports and Sky Sports has done the Caicedo disallowed goal, Romero red card situation. It's a pretty good watch. 

[Backbiter]

1 hour ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

The VAR audio show on TNT Sports and Sky Sports has done the Caicedo disallowed goal, Romero red card situation. It's a pretty good watch. 

Is it available on catch up?

[Proud-Blue]

3 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Is it available on catch up?

You can see it here 

 

[ROTG]

On 12/11/2023 at 11:20, kev61 said:

Mudryk is another player that is floundering because he is expected to work wonders when he is on the ball..

The dietitians should recommend a pint of double diamond daily. 

(There is one for the teenagers )

[Backbiter]

1 hour ago, Proud-Blue said:

You can see it here 

 

Thanks for the link. Ultimately, the decision worked out correct. I was astounded by the line-drawing with the Jackson offside call. We picked out earlier in the thread that they chose a frame AFTER the ball had left Caicedo's foot, as shown by the blurred image of the ball.

Having frozen the action a frame too late, they then draw lines that do not show Jackson as offside:

Having not found him to be offside, one of the VARs decides his back might be offside. They then draw a line a few inches behind his back to 'prove' Jackson is actually offside:

That is just taking the piss. They don't even notice that they have stopped the play a frame too late, and come up with totally inaccurate lines. 

The only redeeming feature is that they got the penalty call and red card decision right.

[Sciatika]

7 hours ago, ROTG said:

The dietitians should recommend a pint of double diamond daily. 

(There is one for the teenagers )

I would have suggested a pint of old and mild but maybe a winter warmer would be better.

[CarefreeMuratcan]

10 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Thanks for the link. Ultimately, the decision worked out correct. I was astounded by the line-drawing with the Jackson offside call. We picked out earlier in the thread that they chose a frame AFTER the ball had left Caicedo's foot, as shown by the blurred image of the ball.

Having frozen the action a frame too late, they then draw lines that do not show Jackson as offside:

Having not found him to be offside, one of the VARs decides his back might be offside. They then draw a line a few inches behind his back to 'prove' Jackson is actually offside:

That is just taking the piss. They don't even notice that they have stopped the play a frame too late, and come up with totally inaccurate lines. 

The only redeeming feature is that they got the penalty call and red card decision right.

Yes the frame situation is travesty because they are going by the frame, but it's clearly not a reflection of the reality, but they have nothing else to go on. Once they get the offside technology in, these will be more accurate. 

[Backbiter]

18 minutes ago, CarefreeMuratcan said:

Yes the frame situation is travesty because they are going by the frame, but it's clearly not a reflection of the reality, but they have nothing else to go on. Once they get the offside technology in, these will be more accurate. 

You'd have thought that would be a pre-requisite for VAR making offside calls, as they have been for the last few seasons.

[Mark Kelly]

12 hours ago, Backbiter said:

Thanks for the link. Ultimately, the decision worked out correct. I was astounded by the line-drawing with the Jackson offside call. We picked out earlier in the thread that they chose a frame AFTER the ball had left Caicedo's foot, as shown by the blurred image of the ball.

Having frozen the action a frame too late, they then draw lines that do not show Jackson as offside:

Having not found him to be offside, one of the VARs decides his back might be offside. They then draw a line a few inches behind his back to 'prove' Jackson is actually offside:

That is just taking the piss. They don't even notice that they have stopped the play a frame too late, and come up with totally inaccurate lines. 

The only redeeming feature is that they got the penalty call and red card decision right.

 

They actually have one bloke absolutely insistent it should be "frame 2" when the ball has already left his foot and that , I believe is because they knew that had it been "frame 1" when the kick was made , Jackson would have been onside