EPL | Chelsea v Arsenal | Sun October 3rd 2010 16:00 | SS2

[kamikaze80]

i always say that teams intentionally concede us possession in harmless areas so they can hit us on the break. it was very apparent in this match, where chelsea actually had more possession than us in the wide open first half (55-45), which, tbf, is nothing to be ashamed of at stamford bridge. then we saw a change in tactics in the 2nd half, when they knew we would send bodies up to try to attack, and there would be space in behind to exploit, so were happy to soak up pressure and sucker punch us.

if not for straying marginally offside a couple times and anelka missing an open goal from a fairly acute angle, it could easily have been 4 or 5 nil, and we would've played right into chelsea's hands.

wenger's weakness is that he ignores defending and thinks possession is a substitute for defence. he didnt always think this way - it's no coincidence that his change in philosophy corresponds with our lack of trophies. now with man city on the scene, the opportunities for silverware will be even harder to come by.

there's no shame in losing at stamford bridge, especially with the injuries we had, but the manner of the defeat felt like deja vu all over again. wenger's refusal to adapt is going to prevent him from ever winning anything again.

 

[Gunner_JT]

I'm yet to pass judgement on our CB's and call them duds. It's not easy coming from foreign leagues to come to SB in a baptism of fire against Malouda, Drogba and Anelka. Our defence was poor at times but they were a bit overawed by the occasion imo. In time they will come good and will learn from this game.

Also would be nice to Vermaelen come back soon. We've missed his grit and determination.

 

[Arshavinslittlelegs]

Anyone see the sub heading for the Suns report on the game??!

THE Drog and his Rottweilers 2 North London Pussies 0.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3163112/Chelsea-2-Arsenal-0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... nal-0.html</a>

What a disgrace! I really fuc.king hope the club bar them. Not even a pretense of objectivity.

 

[arsenallegends]

Think I may have seen him on the sunday supplement. Utter **** if not mistaken.

 

[Y va marquer]

Objectivity doesn't really come into that article though does it?
It's just meant to wind us up and it succeeds!

 

[hujja]

We don't have any response to trash like this. We're a joke, have been for a while and will continue to be a joke as long as Arsène fails to teach our defenders how to defend.

As much as the term is offensive, it is appropriate- we are pussies.

Mentally and physically.

 

[qs]

Anyone see the sub heading for the Suns report on the game??!

THE Drog and his Rottweilers 2 North London Pussies 0.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3163112/Chelsea-2-Arsenal-0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... nal-0.html</a>" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What a disgrace! I really fuc.king hope the club bar them. Not even a pretense of objectivity.

Shaun ****is.

 

[kamikaze80]

I'm yet to pass judgement on our CB's and call them duds.

you totally don't get it. our defensive frailties are mostly in midfield and behind the fullbacks.

 

[Gunner_JT]

I was more referring to the posters calling Kos and Squill duds from their display.

I know the mids didn't help out enough but the defence still struggled with errors which is down to lack of anticipation and focus. They will learn from these experiences though.

 

[Y va marquer]

I thought Squillaci was the poorer of the 2 CB's on Sunday.

I would have expected more composure from a player with his experience.

 

[Captain]

Squillaci had an absolute shocker; there's no way to dress it up. It was almost at Stepanovs level of rubbish.

 

[Biggus]

i always say that teams intentionally concede us possession in harmless areas so they can hit us on the break. it was very apparent in this match, where chelsea actually had more possession than us in the wide open first half (55-45), which, tbf, is nothing to be ashamed of at stamford bridge. then we saw a change in tactics in the 2nd half, when they knew we would send bodies up to try to attack, and there would be space in behind to exploit, so were happy to soak up pressure and sucker punch us.

if not for straying marginally offside a couple times and anelka missing an open goal from a fairly acute angle, it could easily have been 4 or 5 nil, and we would've played right into chelsea's hands.

wenger's weakness is that he ignores defending and thinks possession is a substitute for defence. he didnt always think this way - it's no coincidence that his change in philosophy corresponds with our lack of trophies. now with man city on the scene, the opportunities for silverware will be even harder to come by.

there's no shame in losing at stamford bridge, especially with the injuries we had, but the manner of the defeat felt like deja vu all over again. wenger's refusal to adapt is going to prevent him from ever winning anything again.

Spot on Kami excellent post, especially the bit about possession being a substitution for proper defending.

 

[Freagle]

i always say that teams intentionally concede us possession in harmless areas so they can hit us on the break. it was very apparent in this match, where chelsea actually had more possession than us in the wide open first half (55-45), which, tbf, is nothing to be ashamed of at stamford bridge. then we saw a change in tactics in the 2nd half, when they knew we would send bodies up to try to attack, and there would be space in behind to exploit, so were happy to soak up pressure and sucker punch us.

if not for straying marginally offside a couple times and anelka missing an open goal from a fairly acute angle, it could easily have been 4 or 5 nil, and we would've played right into chelsea's hands.

wenger's weakness is that he ignores defending and thinks possession is a substitute for defence. he didnt always think this way - it's no coincidence that his change in philosophy corresponds with our lack of trophies. now with man city on the scene, the opportunities for silverware will be even harder to come by.

there's no shame in losing at stamford bridge, especially with the injuries we had, but the manner of the defeat felt like deja vu all over again. wenger's refusal to adapt is going to prevent him from ever winning anything again.

Spot on Kami excellent post, especially the bit about possession being a substitution for proper defending.

Agreed, fantastic post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[HollandGooner]

One more thing, Chelsea, like Barcelona of 2008/2009, and Man Utd 2006/2009 are setup in the most cohesive and balanced manner. They have 3 midfielders whose job is to control possession, whilst also protecting the defence. Any aspirations of goals usually come from long shots from outside the 16 yard box, or from positions that are generally behind the front three. This ensures that all three midfielders are by and large in their designated positions, allowing them to sufficiently protect the backline as a trio can cover a great breadth of the pitch. As opposed to two players which is the case with us. Whilst, also enabling them to create better passing actions, as they are in close vicinity of each other.

The front three is then given the freedom to do whatever they want. They don't need to track back, because the midfielders undertake that job. They can solely focus on scoring goals and by having three out-and-out attackers, your ability to score is greatly increased.

Many have mentioned that Nasri failed to track Cole, or Arshavin doesn't support Clichy, enough. But the resonsibility shouldn't fall on the forwards, but rather the midfieders. We've been trying to compensate for our weak front three, by giving one midfielder some goal scoring responsibility. As a consequence, our midfield isn't as capable of defending as a unit, as it would be if we didn't have an AM. If we had a better front three, the midfielders wouldn't need to score goals, so they can concentrate on their job, which would consequently improve our defence, as they would be better placed to protecting them.

Quality

 

[kamikaze80]

yea, except there's no team in football that actually plays 433, meaning 3 forwards who do not track back. it's either a 451 or a lopsided hybrid where you have a wide forward on one side and a wide mid on the other.

but yes, i agree we need more of a goal threat up front/wide, so that we can have 1-2 CMs holding their position like they're supposed to.

 

[patrick42uk]

Thats Walcott though isnt it? Arshavin? Think we'v moved away from the midfield scorer model. Even Cesc, when he has played has played deeper this season. Thats not to say that midfielders shouldnt get ahead of the ball in certain phases nor that wingers shouldnt track back. Its the very fact that our wingers are poor at tracking back that Chelsea have exploited in the last few games.

Basically, for me, if dont have our first 11 fit for these games, we have no chance. We never do it seems and thats what needs to be addressed.