Chelseas midfield

No disriputor? Play Romeu a few more times and we may see a better functioning midfield... Didn't play well in league cup but the guy hasn't played minutes on the pitch for a long time. More game time, the more you will see of how great his distribution will be...

RealGunner wrote:

Barrettinator wrote:

RealGunner wrote:no you didn't

Yes, we did.

if that helps you

RG

They didn't even dominate a weak, injury plagued Tottenham midfield...

They were better than the Tottenham midfield sure (most teams would have been on that day), but they didn't dominate. Almost all of their goals came through bad bad defensive errors unrelated to the effect of the Chelsea midfield, not by a domination of the midfield.

They have a lot more work to do before they're dominating a good midfield. They can dominate the weak ones sure, but they still need work.

I think they'll be a big force to be reckoned with in the future though.

Who exactly are their midfielders? Mikel, Ramires and...? I'm not sure how Hazard etc are mentioned when he plays more in the final third.

Personally believe Arsenal has the best.

Arsenals?

QPR's >>>>>>

Wheelchair >>>>>>>>>> QPR on his own.

Add the Spanish duo and they've got the best...

Quite great to watch these guys especially Oscar and Mata, Hazard is a different ball than these two, he is more individualistic.
Anyways whatever midfield they have they will park tempo when they meet Barca...

Not been consistent enough for me yet. I'm not convinced. But they certainly have potential.

Do well against Man City? Fantastic, then why don't you dominate Norwich?

But let's not derail this thread and talk about Arsenal, it is about Chelsea's midfield.

CBarca wrote:They didn't even dominate a weak, injury plagued Tottenham midfield...

They were better than the Tottenham midfield sure (most teams would have been on that day), but they didn't dominate. Almost all of their goals came through bad bad defensive errors unrelated to the effect of the Chelsea midfield, not by a domination of the midfield.

They have a lot more work to do before they're dominating a good midfield. They can dominate the weak ones sure, but they still need work.

I think they'll be a big force to be reckoned with in the future though.

They didn't dominate Spudz midfield? Could have sworn Mata had his best game of the season against spudz

Mata was playing very high up the pitch though.

Was he really playing in midfield?

None of Mata's work was done against the Spurs midfield though. It was entirely in the final 3rd. He was only good in the second half too (where he was immense). First half he was so invisible I asked my dad if he was even playing.

Chelsea's goals: 1-Gallas knockdown for Cahill, 2: Gallas weak clearance straight to Mata @18 yards, 3- bad positioning by Gallas and non-existent marking from Walker allows a stray pass from Chelsea to Torres to slip through to Mata, 4- Walker slips and falls like an idiot, easy goal for (sturridge?).

Can you tell me which of those had to do with the Chelsea midfield being dominant? And which of those were due to Mata's influence in the midfield?

Chelsea weren't even dominant in the midfield against an awful Spurs midfield. Chelsea were simply more clinical than Spurs in the final third. Spurs and Chelsea actually created about the same amount of chances, as I said though, Chelsea were more clinical. Spurs defense was absolute shite that day too, bar Vertonghen.

So your point is, as far as none of the goals came from direct midfield play it means Chelsea did not dominate the midfield? Is that some kind of evidence of midfield dominance? Goals?

Barrettinator wrote:So your point is, as far as none of the goals came from direct midfield play it means Chelsea did not dominate the midfield? Is that some kind of evidence of midfield dominance? Goals?

I'm saying that while the scoreline and # of goals might indicate that the midfield of Chelsea's was dominating, that wasn't really the case at all.

Well, my point is also to disprove this

.

They didn't dominate Spudz midfield? Could have sworn Mata had his best game of the season against spudz

Chelsea were more clinical in the final 3rd and I can give you that, but they didn't dominate a weak Spurs midfield. Also, Mata didn't do hardly any good work in the midfield, that game he was much more involved in the final 3rd. But I'm repeating myself, this is just a brief of what I said before, which seemed to not really register with you.

Well that's just your opinion then, isn't it