Premier League - Chelsea vs Manchester United

I find the article quite ridiculous tbh.

1. It assumes that all critiques of Mou and his tactics are purists of football. Which is dumb, some actually believe that his result oriented style Is not going to last and not sustainable. These tactics are short term fixes, and in the long term it is going to hurt us. Added United had their chances, they were just not clinical. Teams like Alti and PSG showed in the cl, It is not going to work and made us look stupid.

2. The Floyd comparison is quite dumb. Floyd maybe a counter attacking specialist in the sport. But he gets in your face and forces u to throw punches. his knockout ratio is not that different then say PacMan, a more aggressive fighter.



A comparable boxer would be someone lets say that win based on wasting time and on decisions. That fighter I'd not Floyd.

3. Spurs and Seahawks comparison is also dumb. American football, the offense and defense are independent of each other. You don't have to sacrifice one for another. Seahaws hava a great defense but on offense they try to score on every possession. The sport is based on physical play, hard hits and dominant defense is loved by the viewers.

There are so many rules in basketball that encourages offense. like 3 point and 24 clock violation. They also have a rule preventing player to act like a wall inside the paint, he cannot tower in the side the paint more then 3 seconds. I can really go on and on tbh, the sport has been changed and defined so many times to ensure there isn't an equivalent "parking the bus" tactic in the sport.

Not going to comment about NFL or Basketball.

However the Floyd comparison isn't quite as dumb as you make out, I wouldn't particular compare the two as such but it's not asif Floyd is a exciting fighter... Infact back in 2 years ago or so he was boring as hell.

I get the point they are trying to make, I think the Manchester United game was just an extreme of Mou's tactics and will be a rare occasion.

He basically shat himself when against Fellaini and I think if we did have Remy we would have played more of an expansive game.

Abramovich wrote:Not going to comment about NFL or Basketball.

However the Floyd comparison isn't quite as dumb as you make out, I wouldn't particular compare the two as such but it's not asif Floyd is a exciting fighter... Infact back in 2 years ago or so he was boring as hell.

I get the point they are trying to make, I think the Manchester United game was just an extreme of Mou's tactics and will be a rare occasion.

He basically shat himself when against Fellaini and I think if we did have Remy we would have played more of an expansive game.

I will admit i can see why some see the similarity. But if when we look closer and unmask the perception we will see the similarity is not there.

I am more of a UFC guy tbh, i don't watch boxing. But i do know two things that are congruent with each other.

1. Stats really matter in fighting, how many punches you land, success rate, avoidance, etc.

In European football obviously we know in the end stats don't matter only goals matter. If Chelsea games were based on judges to evaluate the outcome we would be in trouble. But that is a significant difference between the two sports.

Floyd maybe a boring fighter to many but to purists he is a great and efficient fighter.

2. The origin of Boxing is based on defense though, Boxing and many other marital arts were created for self defense. So the practice was never intended for brawling and attack.

So there is a significant difference in the origin of the two sports.

In the pursitis form what Floyd is doing and in practice is what boxing is supposed to accomplish and meant to do. Can you say the same about the way we play? The game of football was meant to entertain and meant to be an offensive sport.

Giles Smith wrote:"In a game of fetch, after all, the dog usually has most of the possession, but that doesn’t mean he’s in control."

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/04/giles-smith--the-best-laid-plans.html

Another way of looking at it.