Style vs Results

calm down

ordinary means not so special

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

For starters, the fact that they were underdogs and no one gave them a chance in most of the later ties?

Blue Barrett wrote:For starters, the fact that they were underdogs and no one gave them a chance in most of the later ties?

then, its ok

in what universe are chelsea underdogs to atletico madrid?

che wrote:in what universe are chelsea underdogs to atletico madrid?

i think he talk about 2012 chelsea been underdog

but there are always a group of fan that said their team doing ptb vs other formidable team cause of been underdog

but when they winning the whole tournament

they quickly change their team tag from underdog status to best team in the world

  

che wrote:in what universe are chelsea underdogs to atletico madrid?

You might want to read the actual posts and understand what I'm saying. Not sure Atletico Madrid has even been mentioned.

guest_07 wrote:

che wrote:in what universe are chelsea underdogs to atletico madrid?

i think he talk about 2012 chelsea been underdog

but there are always a group of fan that said their team doing ptb vs other formidable team cause of been underdog

but when they winning the whole tournament

they quickly change their team tag from underdog status to best team in the world

  

Not a single soul in the world called Chelsea the "best team in the world" even when we won in 2012. Even a blind man could see how many holes were in the team and how much we needed to let players go and bring in new players. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

chelsea this year and chelsea two years ago used the exact same "tactics"... if you're justifying them as being the underdog in one game then there's no reason it shouldn't apply in the other game

Blue Barrett wrote:

guest_07 wrote:

che wrote:in what universe are chelsea underdogs to atletico madrid?

i think he talk about 2012 chelsea been underdog

but there are always a group of fan that said their team doing ptb vs other formidable team cause of been underdog

but when they winning the whole tournament

they quickly change their team tag from underdog status to best team in the world

  

Not a single soul in the world called Chelsea the "best team in the world" even when we won in 2012. Even a blind man could see how many holes were in the team and how much we needed to let players go and bring in new players. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

try to see comments in youtube

then you can see what kind of group of fan you will find there

che wrote:chelsea this year and chelsea two years ago used the exact same "tactics"... if you're justifying them as being the underdog in one game then there's no reason it shouldn't apply in the other game

No offense meant, but there is absolutely no logic in this statement.


You're saying a Chelsea team with an spent Malouda, blunt Kalou, old players all round and under-performing massively in the league(6th position) were NOT underdogs against a prime Pep Guardiola Barca with a prime Messi who was the reigning Balon D'Or holder? A Barca team that many tagged as the greatest team in the history of football at the time? We were NOT underdogs? Or even against Juup Heynckes' Munich team?

I'm really just trying to know for sure if that's what you think. Were we underdogs or not?

guest_07 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

guest_07 wrote:

i think he talk about 2012 chelsea been underdog

but there are always a group of fan that said their team doing ptb vs other formidable team cause of been underdog

but when they winning the whole tournament

they quickly change their team tag from underdog status to best team in the world

  

Not a single soul in the world called Chelsea the "best team in the world" even when we won in 2012. Even a blind man could see how many holes were in the team and how much we needed to let players go and bring in new players. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

try to see comments in youtube

then you can see what kind of group of fan you will find there

That's what your basing your opinion on? Okay. Carry on.

Blue Barrett wrote:

guest_07 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:
Not a single soul in the world called Chelsea the "best team in the world" even when we won in 2012. Even a blind man could see how many holes were in the team and how much we needed to let players go and bring in new players. Not sure where you're getting that idea.

try to see comments in youtube

then you can see what kind of group of fan you will find there

That's what your basing your opinion on? Okay. Carry on.

the world is not about goal legacy only

guest_07 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

guest_07 wrote:

try to see comments in youtube

then you can see what kind of group of fan you will find there

That's what your basing your opinion on? Okay. Carry on.

the world is not about goal legacy only

That's funny, considering you're basing the world on youtube comments.

Blue Barrett wrote:

guest_07 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:
That's what your basing your opinion on? Okay. Carry on.

the world is not about goal legacy only

That's funny, considering you're basing the world on youtube comments.

youtube community is part of the world

i still considered their opinions

Fair enough. Forgive me if I prefer to use a much larger sample size than youtube comments.

Blue Barrett wrote:Fair enough. Forgive me if I prefer to use a much larger sample size than youtube comments.

its ok

i'm a sensitive type of people

even opinion of 1 years old kid i will considered if it make sense

For those of us who find beauty in football style is extremely important, as is conduct and respect. If the only reason you watch football is to vicariously be part of a winning group why don't you just read the sports columns and get a hardon?
On another note, how do chelsea have fans outside west london? Horrible football, detestable players and coach...what is there to like? serious question.

^Form another thread for that. Maybe it'll survive an hour before its locked. That's not what we're discussing here.

I like my team to get RESULTS in STYLE, especially because my team has the resources to do it. Doesn't have to be one or another.

Let's take Arsenal this season for example, Arsenal didn't play the sexiest footballl ever this season and had to dug in deep to get some results. Now I won't pretend that I didn't like the wins at Newcastle/Aston Villa but I didn't fully enjoy them either. After those games I say "well we showed great character to win in a bad day but I hope I don't have to see that shit next week again". And if it happens next week and then the other week again, then I will start asking questions as a fan. Guess that depends on how you view football in general.

Another example are West Ham fans who want Allardyce to go because they play some of the worst football in the league and they have to see that football every week. They want him gone despite getting results and keeping them up.

So for me as a supporter of one of the "bigger" clubs in Europe, who charge some of the highest prices for tickets I expect some nice football combined with nice results. I expect the same from all the other big european clubs.

You say that as if Chelsea have been playing that deep all season. I'm confused.....that's the most defensive football we've played since maybe Arsenal away or United away.

The point is, if its needed or if you feel that's the best route tactically you can take, there's no problem taking that rout. Of course no one wants to watch that for an entire season. And we don't usually play that way, so I'm not sure what you're saying.

gnrfan wrote:For those of us who find beauty in football style is extremely important, as is conduct and respect. If the only reason you watch football is to vicariously be part of a winning group why don't you just read the sports columns and get a hardon?
On another note, how do chelsea have fans outside west london? Horrible football, detestable players and coach...what is there to like? serious question.

In Italy Silvio Berlusconi is the most hated man by far . so what's the sense of this question now?

I wasn't specifically talking about Chelsea Barrett, just my response to the question. As for Chelsea, of course you don't sit that deep every week, you play teams who can't keep the ball for more than 20 seconds in the league, YOU'RE FORCED to keep the ball and find another way to score other than counter attack. It's no coincidence you've struggled to beat teams who are organized defensively (West Ham, Crystal Palace etc..) because your team is used to score in counter attack and it comes as a surprise to the players when they face these teams.

Yes, our style is counter attacking. Which is a lot different. But in any case, I guess I'm just one of those who doesn't care how the result comes in crucial times. Would be frustrating to watch every week of course, as a fan, but if its what my team needs(Chelsea or not) to pull out a huge result, I absolutely do not mind.

Blue Barrett wrote:
No offense meant, but there is absolutely no logic in this statement.

You're saying a Chelsea team with an spent Malouda, blunt Kalou, old players all round and under-performing massively in the league(6th position) were NOT underdogs against a prime Pep Guardiola Barca with a prime Messi who was the reigning Balon D'Or holder? A Barca team that many tagged as the greatest team in the history of football at the time? We were NOT underdogs? Or even against Juup Heynckes' Munich team?

I'm really just trying to know for sure if that's what you think. Were we underdogs or not?

first of all, prime barca? i'm not talking about 2009... chelsea faced a team that lost a title to madrid, with players like drogba, mata and lampard in the lineup... now i'm sure you'd say they were world class back then (not to mention cech, terry, ivanovic and ramires) outside this argument but let's not get into that... plus if i remember correctly malouda and kalou combined for like 40 minutes of football in those two games lol, very convenient of you to mention them

the logic is that if "being an underdog" is a justification for parking the bus, and chelsea may or may not have been that two years ago, then there is zero justification for using this caveman bullshit against atletico madrid, against whom chelsea most certainly were not the underdog, and it most certainly doesn't deserve any appreciation

urbaNRoots wrote:I wasn't specifically talking about Chelsea Barrett, just my response to the question. As for Chelsea, of course you don't sit that deep every week, you play teams who can't keep the ball for more than 20 seconds in the league, YOU'RE FORCED to keep the ball and find another way to score other than counter attack. It's no coincidence you've struggled to beat teams who are organized defensively (West Ham, Crystal Palace etc..) because your team is used to score in counter attack and it comes as a surprise to the players when they face these teams.

So another counter-attacking team who has problem against a organized defence. So much for counter-attacking/direct football being the anwser to break down those kind of defence..  

che wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:
No offense meant, but there is absolutely no logic in this statement.

You're saying a Chelsea team with an spent Malouda, blunt Kalou, old players all round and under-performing massively in the league(6th position) were NOT underdogs against a prime Pep Guardiola Barca with a prime Messi who was the reigning Balon D'Or holder? A Barca team that many tagged as the greatest team in the history of football at the time? We were NOT underdogs? Or even against Juup Heynckes' Munich team?

I'm really just trying to know for sure if that's what you think. Were we underdogs or not?

first of all, prime barca? i'm not talking about 2009... chelsea faced a team that lost a title to madrid, with players like drogba, mata and lampard in the lineup... now i'm sure you'd say they were world class back then (not to mention cech, terry, ivanovic and ramires) outside this argument but let's not get into that... plus if i remember correctly malouda and kalou combined for like 40 minutes of football in those two games lol, very convenient of you to mention them

the logic is that if "being an underdog" is a justification for parking the bus, and chelsea may or may not have been that two years ago, then there is zero justification for using this caveman bullshit against atletico madrid, against whom chelsea most certainly were not the underdog, and it most certainly doesn't deserve any appreciation

So basically what you're saying is that the Chelsea team that finished below Newcastle at 6th in the league were on par with a Barca team that finished 2nd to Madrid. Right.

And I mentioned Malouda and Kalou because they actually played. Especially Kalou. Same Cech, Terry, Ivanovic, etc you mention are the same players that were in the team throughout the horrible spell we had so what are we saying?

Anyway, the "justification"(since that's the word you're choosing) was that we had neither the midfield nor the attack to go toe to toe with Barca in an attacking game. It would have been extremely foolish and arrogant to try any other tactic versus Barca OR Bayern and we would definitely had lost. But I guess we should have done something else and entertained the "neutrals" just for the sake of it.

Mentioning "justification" for playing that defensive just shows how elitist you think your point is. In other words, you're saying there is no reason whatsoever any team should even think of using those tactics under any circumstances.....because it bores you. Therefore, any team that uses those tactics is rubbish team etc etc.

You don't HAVE to be an underdog to use play defensively. Every coach has a right to play his team however he sees fit and with whatever tactics he thinks will make his team progress and as long as its not cheating and its fair, then there's no problem with it at all. Whether you think your team doesn't have the right players to play as you would want(2012) or its an away strategy to avoid a loss(do you actually realise that that was the first leg and it most likely wouldn't be that way at Stamford Bridge?), they're free to employ whatever tactics. As long as its completely fair and there's no cheating involved.

This is getting tiring, honestly. Carry on.