• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Chelsea v Arsenal - EPL - Sun 7th Feb 2010 - 16:00

TakeChillPill

Established Member
Mbaki Mutahaba said:
TakeChillPill said:
of coruse he was ready to start (maybe not to played the full 90 mins) but could have easily played for 60 mins.

Well whats the point of crossing it then? might aswell pass the ball back to chelsea... the point that im trying to make is if your going to make your full backs overlap (since of midfielders don't provide natural width) and get crosses in at least play someone who can head the ball or is going to cause a problems for chelsea...Ancelltoi got his tactics spot on...Wenger didn't.

I dont think there is any team in the world (including barc; say what you want just my opinion) that can match our pass and move game...teams know that and dont come to play ball....Ancelloti tried it when he was at milan and his team got destroyed...Scolari tried it last season at the Bridge and we outplayed Chelsea and won.

Wenger and our players rely to much on natural talent and ability rather then proper tactics and a game plan; this has to change.

Look at a crap Grecce side winning the euros (beating france, Czechs, Portugal along the way)

An average Italian side winning the world Cup.

Both won due to good game plan than skill....both Ferguson and Ancelloti have shown us up in that respect.

Sad but true!

Bullsh*.. too much is made of tactics being the difference. Final score is usually a result of too many variables LUCK and breaks being a major factor.

But look back all the way to the 70s if you wish to. Look at teams that have been successful and the football they have played. You can apply this on clubs and international. Has Chelsea won the CL yet even with the "genius" or "special one" leading them?

Good teams usually win. If you keep possession of the ball, you are more likely to do more damage than if you dont. Stats dont lie on that..most teams that win usually had more possession.

We watch too much EPL football that we speak in that very language of our lazy ass pundits/commentators. So much was made of Barca's only shot on that day against Chelsea like just shooting is the only factor to determine a moment of danger.

You take a shot and it goes wide and thats to be considered a plus on your attacking power. You curve the team and your final pass to a open player is few cms short and goes off but that is not considered a dangerous moment even though the person was all clear to score had he received it. You will be accused of passing and passing with no final product by our beloved know it all english media.

you make you're own luck, saying that Chelsea beat us was due to luck is BS... we have lost the last 6 or so games against manure and chelsea and i know we had greater possession in all those games....so are all those games we lost due to bad luck?

I'm sure if we were in Spain we would have won the league in the last few seasons but we're not so its an irrelevant point.

If your saying too much is being made out of tactics then whats the point of having a manager lol...why did bolton always get a result against us???? were they flukes? or was it tactics?

Tactics are a vital part of football....to think otherwise just makes you look silly.
 

kofigunner

Established Member
Trusted ⭐
They have a lot of tricks of a very experienced team and they do that very well. They always had the guy who came back in the box and they didn't make silly mistakes.
Wenger of Chelsea. Reminds me of the invincibles :( .
 

Mbaki Mutahaba

Established Member
TakeChillPill said:
you make you're own luck, saying that Chelsea beat us was due to luck is BS... we have lost the last 6 or so games against manure and chelsea and i know we had greater possession in all those games....so are all those games we lost due to bad luck?

I'm sure if we were in Spain we would have won the league in the last few seasons but we're not so its an irrelevant point.

If your saying too much is being made out of tactics then whats the point of having a manager lol...why did bolton always get a result against us???? were they flukes? or was it tactics?

Tactics are a vital part of football....to think otherwise just makes you look silly.

Read properly, i didnt say Chelsea beat us by luck.i said breaks/luck are a major factor in in a result plus other variables including tactics. But tactics is not the only factor. I am sure you have seen enough games where a team gets the break and utilizes it and its a different ball game after that.

You talk like as if we are in a 3 team league and not a 20 team league. Since when was it that the head to head is the determining factor of what tactic a team has to play in a 20 league team. Has it occured to you that we had pretty descent records against Manure when they were winning the league?

So lets to back to the bolton days where our invincible generation struggled against them though they were more experienced, with greater physicality. What tactic did Wenger adjust to so we can consistnely beat them with a smaller and less experienced squad?

Dont read too much on the tactic bs* as most of those so called experts get to disect the tactic after the final result. Its just plain dumb. Remember the raw power tactic of Chelsea in Nov that won them the game according to the experts? Did our kids suddenly juiced themselves to get the same power yesterday? What about the so called counter attack tactic? Most teams will punish you on a counter if they have speedy guys and are going against an arsenal type of defense. We will do the same. Where is the managers's tactical creativity in designing a counter attack?

Remember's Wenger mutliple sub against WHam and the same against Stoke? Read the comments on it with regards to "tactics".

A team like chelsea is so full of experience and quality they can basically coach themselves..the manager is there to massage egos.
 

MDGoonah41

Established Member
Yeah, tactics are BS. Just throw 11 players out there and tell them to do their thing. That's how all the great teams operate.

Hilarious stuff.
 

Mbaki Mutahaba

Established Member
MDGoonah41 said:
Yeah, tactics are BS. Just throw 11 players out there and tell them to do their thing. That's how all the great teams operate.

Hilarious stuff.

Is it that difficult to stay within the arguments being put instead of running to the extremes. Pathetic.
 

brady-hero

Well-Known Member
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo</a>

thought i'd post this for all the downhearted gooners out there...
posted it in the lobby aswell hopefully it cheers someone up

it could always be worse, we could be spuds
 

MDGoonah41

Established Member
Mbaki Mutahaba said:
MDGoonah41 said:
Yeah, tactics are BS. Just throw 11 players out there and tell them to do their thing. That's how all the great teams operate.

Hilarious stuff.

Is it that difficult to stay within the arguments being put instead of running to the extremes. Pathetic.

Your argument doesn't make sense. We lost because we didn't execute, yes, but we also lost because our tactics were naive, just like our tactics against United. We didn't "dominate" Chelsea yesterday, we played right into their hands and they beat us handily. When it was 2-0, we were never a threat to get anything from the game.
 

RockyRocastle

Established Member
marco said:
xcdude24 said:
marco said:
same old arsenal really drogba is a different class and we have all the possesion with no real pentration and cant f****g defend..
not even that gutted to be honest.
whoever bought that flare in today deserves a lifelong season ticket.. talk about galvanising the atmosphere.
the 5-10 mins after that flare went off was absolutely eletric in the away end.. so much so that im not even that fussed we lost.. seeing those chelsea wankers faces to our right as the flare was lit was priceless they were so s**t scared it was laughable..

nice to see theo start a big game he defenitely desrevres his big chance

were you downstairs?

yeah but way to the right of where the flare went off..
has it been mentioned anywhere on news or anything?

It was brilliant. I couldnt quite believe it when it went off. The response it sparked off in our end for the next ten minutes was quite unbelievable, it was like going back 20 years.
 

JGooner

Well-Known Member
Mbaki Mutahaba said:
MDGoonah41 said:
Yeah, tactics are BS. Just throw 11 players out there and tell them to do their thing. That's how all the great teams operate.

Hilarious stuff.

Is it that difficult to stay within the arguments being put instead of running to the extremes. Pathetic.

Now you know what it's like to have any criticism of a player dismissed as "knee jerk". Frustrating, isn't it?
 

General

Established Member
TakeChillPill said:
Wenger should have started with Bendtner simple as that...both sagna and clichy crossed the ball amples of times in the box...but it was rather pointless because there is none who can header in the box. We were never going to play through Chelsea lessons from the first game should have told us that.


What's all this talk about Bendtner lately? I mean I can understand his size brings a different dimension but I'm struggling to grasp how his rep has suddenly risen ten fold on this forum. The guy is pure dogshit. Wins a header but can't spot where the ball bounced and spends half his time wrestling with his clumsiness. He is in no shape or form ready to lead the line (fit or not) and the ball probably stuck better with the oompa loompa upfront. We had our chances and didn't take them. End of story and Bendy is by no means a better finisher than Arshavin. In the absence of Robin, this is as good as it gets.
 

Captain

Established Member
The ball doesn't come flying back at 100MPH because he can't shield it like it does with Arshavin. That only happens when he tries to trap it.

But in all seriousness, Arshavin is better on the left not guarded by two central defenders and Bendtner is a passable centre forward so we are already stronger in two positions through his inclusion. He also works hard and puts some sort of pressure on the opposition defence without the ball which Arshavin simply doesn't seem interested in when he fills that position.
 

DC Gunner

Established Member
<a class="postlink" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/8505270.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/footbal ... 505270.stm</a>
Chelsea midfielder Michael Ballack has hit out at Arsène Wenger's criticism of the league leaders, labelling his Arsenal side as one-dimensional.
I don't like Ballack, never did even before he came to England, but he is correct in this :

The 33-year-old Ballack added: "Football is not possession of the ball and playing a nice pass - football is about winning games.
 

MDGoonah41

Established Member
Yeah, but Chelsea and United are limited in only winning the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup and Champions League. Its a limited way of playing football, one that will surely fade away as time goes on.
 

Captain

Established Member
Some stuff I noted upon second viewing:

- A good 75% of Sagna's crosses were actually good and he didn't cross an awful lot but played alot of ball in field.

- Diaby jogs back when he is caught behind play more than Denilson does.

- Nasri played well and spearheaded alot of good stuff. He looks much more dynamic in possession on the right but not off of the ball.

- Clichy played a huge part in us getting on top for the last 30mins. Anelka got nothing from him and he was good going forward.

- Arshavin was miles better from the left but was awful through the middle.

- Walcott would kill it if he played for Chelsea.
 

ricky1985

Established Member
I was thinking of Walcott during the second half of the United game. When Rooney had half the pitch to do as he pleased, I was thinking Walcott would be running riot in his position right now. Shame he never gets to stretch his legs when he's playing for us.

Clichy was similar in the United game, a couple of horror moments aside he was actually pretty good. Nani was absolutely woeful in the second half, and Clichy was a big reason for that.

And didn't Diaby jog back on their second goal? I've only seen it once so i could be wrong, but I seem to remember sreaming at him to run?
 

brady-hero

Well-Known Member
ricky1985 said:
I was thinking of Walcott during the second half of the United game. When Rooney had half the pitch to do as ahe pleased, I was thinking Walcott would be running riot in his position right now. Shame he never gets to stretch his legs when he's playing for us.

it's up to him to create space, no one should get a easy ride at the arsenal
 

AshburtonGhost

Well-Known Member
While I don't particularly rate him, Walcott would also have been more suited to our 97-05 teams where he could break and run into space. His strengths are made somewhat redundant by the way Wenger wants the team to play.
 

Captain

Established Member
brady-hero said:
ricky1985 said:
I was thinking of Walcott during the second half of the United game. When Rooney had half the pitch to do as ahe pleased, I was thinking Walcott would be running riot in his position right now. Shame he never gets to stretch his legs when he's playing for us.

it's up to him to create space, no one should get a easy ride at the arsenal

If you watch it, he takes up alot of the positions in which Lampard was feeding the ball for Drogba/Anelka. It's always into feet, in congestion with us and it makes it difficult for a player of his type.
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom