This needs bumping with last night's match.

Chelsea were heavily criticised for their approach, however it might very well be the style that gets them to the CL final or even win it.

Where does everyone stand in this?

chelseas way of getting results is too extreme and is the wrong way to do it.

defensive approaches are still not a bad thing and is a neccesity for a team that stands no chance. however, when used when you can play a normal game, is unnecesarry and kills the sport.

Se7en wrote:chelseas way of getting results is too extreme and is the wrong way to do it.

defensive approaches are still not a bad thing and is a neccesity for a team that stands no chance. however, when used when you can play a normal game, is unnecesarry and kills the sport.

Exactly. This is a CL semi-final and CL is the highest level of football. Here in Canada football is way too boring to watch (not to play tho ) for non-football fan. Just imagine inviting those people to watch that CL semi-final  

NHL , NBA, last stage games are way more fun.  

Well as long as Chelsea is playing like that in a Champions League semi-final I can easily talk up the quality of MLS

Results undoubtedly come first. But, you do need to get a degree of balance imo

If it gets to the point where the fans feel the team has become a chore to watch, then it's extremely off-putting. As long as the football is reasonable then I see no problem with grinding out some ugly results.

Results are what matter, but playing for the 0 - 0, I'm not sure if you can call it clever even results wise.

The plan is to do whatever we can to get to the CL final. Not host a charity event to entertain neutrals.

Style doesn't matter if they are getting the results, Its just surprising that a club with those resources has to resort to such measures to win games. Nothing more.

Se7en wrote:chelseas way of getting results is too extreme and is the wrong way to do it.

There is no such thing as a 'wrong way' to get a result. That's almost laughable.

Nishank wrote:Style doesn't matter if they are getting the results, Its just surprising that a club with those resources has to resort to such measures to win games. Nothing more.

Except if you actually compare the players, Atletico looks much better.

If a small team with limited resources is playing for results, its acceptable but a team of the stature and financial backing of chelsea when resort to that its a shame.

first result to get players the confidence they need to believe themselves and be able to give the extra effort to progress to the level you could work on style.

Style is criticised when you don't get results. This is the heirarchy

Results
Results with an 'attractive' style
Results with a less appealing style
No results playing an attractive style
No results playing utter drab football.

Se7en wrote:chelseas way of getting results is too extreme and is the wrong way to do it.

defensive approaches are still not a bad thing and is a neccesity for a team that stands no chance. however, when used when you can play a normal game, is unnecesarry and kills the sport.

While I wouldn't want the club I support to play that type of football, I'm inclined to disagree with this statement. There is no wrong way to do something in football (so long as the tactic doesn't involve hurting/injuring the other team. While I (and others) might disapprove, I'm not willing to call it the wrong way - it's just a way I don't find enjoyable. But it the club is succeeding and getting results, I don't see why they would change their approach. Defending for most of the game is not piece of cake and if you're able to implement the tactic and succeed, more power to you. Teams should not be more concerned with how they might be making their respective sport look if they are giving the fans trophies and titles. Just my opinion on the matter.

jibers wrote:Style is criticised when you don't get results. This is the heirarchy

Results
Results with an 'attractive' style
Results with a less appealing style
No results playing an attractive style
No results playing utter drab football.

This

Personally I want my teams to play well AND win, I don't get any joy out of winning with 10 men behind the ball tbh.. I can't be happy when my team plays like a bunch of pussies

Results are most important. You play to win. I'd rather win playing crappy football than lose playing beautifully.

That being said, combining the two has to be the ideal. If you're stalling out at the winning ugly phase, then you're stagnating. If my team chose to play that way without showing any sort of intention to get better, I'd get frustrated eventually.

I'd play to win and have a clear win if possible. That's my style.

For me having a clear victory is win not stained by any sort of luck or help. Parking the Bus or playing Tiki Taka, it doesn't matter to me.

this what i call "desperation"

"too desperate" to achieve result

guest_07 wrote:this what i call "desperation"

"too desperate" to achieve result

i'm ok if small club have this kind of desperation

but with club having stature like chelsea ...................  

Possession without penetration is easily the worst type of football. Barca 2-3 seasons ago were amazing to watch cause their attacks actually led to something, players like Iniesta that can take on a man or 2 and create openings are essential otherwise you'll never break through. Playing deep is fine but only if you actually counter, our game yesterday was not counter attacking it just wasn't playing.

Basically whatever style you play if you take risks then it's enjoyable.

lszanto wrote:Possession without penetration is easily the worst type of football. Barca 2-3 seasons ago were amazing to watch cause their attacks actually led to something, players like Iniesta that can take on a man or 2 and create openings are essential otherwise you'll never break through. Playing deep is fine but only if you actually counter, our game yesterday was not counter attacking it just wasn't playing.

Basically whatever style you play if you take risks then it's enjoyable.

same goes to ptb

ptb without attack at all is the worse kind of football

for me, possession without penetration > ptb without attack at all

at least they have an effort to do something but coming short cause of not enough intelligence to do something mindblowing that can unlock the ptb

guest_07 wrote:

lszanto wrote:Possession without penetration is easily the worst type of football. Barca 2-3 seasons ago were amazing to watch cause their attacks actually led to something, players like Iniesta that can take on a man or 2 and create openings are essential otherwise you'll never break through. Playing deep is fine but only if you actually counter, our game yesterday was not counter attacking it just wasn't playing.

Basically whatever style you play if you take risks then it's enjoyable.

same goes to ptb

ptb without attack at all is the worse kind of football

for me, possession without penetration > ptb without attack at all

at least they have an effort to do something but coming short cause of not enough intelligence to do something mindblowing that can unlock the ptb

They're essentially the same, both unwilling to take risks. I just hate that "pointless possession" is praised when it's disgusting, and then people come out and claim that they should have won because they had 80% possession. Neither style is appealing but I enjoy solid defense so i'm more inclined to a defensive setup. I still enjoy possession football when it is played properly though but direct fast moving football played on the counter is my favourite.

If I must be reminded as Brazil 82 , biggest flop NT ever for expectations , well I prefer to be forgotten as wining .

its up to you

whether to be superb champion like real madrid 1955-1960 or just a ordinary champion like chelsea 2012

whether to be superb champion like brazil 1970 or just a ordinary champion like greece 2004

LMAO @ "ordinary champion"

No one gives a shit what Madrid played like in the 50s and 60s. I'm 100% sure you didn't watch them play, so I'm not sure where this wankfest is coming from. Probably the fact that you're forming your opinion of that team based off someone else's opinion.

If I were to make an educated guess, no one on this forum is older than 37. Which means most people on this forum didn't even watch Brazil 70. Not to mention the rules have changed MASSIVELY between then and now. FFS the offside rule didn't even exist when both of those two teams you mentioned played

"Ordinary champion". You say it like what you've posted is going to give either Chelsea or Greece a smaller trophy or a black trophy or something.

Go on somewhere else with that bullshit worthless elitist theory.

calm down

ordinary means not so special

what is so special about chelsea or greece compare to other champions?