joseph1013:


I asked how you knew it was a defensive setup when you didnt watch the match, you didnt answer.

joseph1013:


You said they had a defensive setup. I asked how you knew it was a defensive setup when you didnt watch the match. Still waiting for your answer.

TheGoodJoe:


I asked you who watched the match whether it was a defensive set up and I am still waiting for your answer. I did not watch the match. You watched it. Was it a defensive set up?

TheGoodJoe:

How do the Hull fans expect a brilliant display from Aluko when he chose to park the bus. There is no way a striker can cope and do well against a pressing Man City who are more in numbers.

TheGoodJoe:

You can not criticise an attacking player for having a poor game in a parked bus formation.

So I wonder what the number of Aluko's games you have watched has to do with this. I am not disagreeing he was poor. In that kind of formation, he must perform poorly.

TheGoodJoe:

blasting Akpom and Aluko is wrong because the coach set them up to play poorly.

TheGoodJoe:

Did I say Aluko was fantastic. I said he was bound to have a poor game because the coach decided the team was to defend.

TheGoodJoe:

They bashed attackers for having poor games in a parked bus set up.

joseph1013:


You should have asked me before jumping to the conclusion that it was a defensive setup. These are your statements:

How did you know all these?

TheGoodJoe:


I hope you read my last comment.

TheGoodJoe:


If you go back on this thread, you will see that I was the first to report Nacho's goal. I followed it with a goal site report of the goal. After the game, I read reports of the match.

So there is no way I would not know how the teams set up to play. When I am tied down and I can not catch a game I want to watch, I follow live commentaries on goal and sportsmole. I then read reports on the game.

joseph1013:


Meaning you have no idea what Hull played and you did make a conclusion?

TheGoodJoe:


You are being funny here. How can someone read a full report of a match from almost Six websites and have no idea of how teams set up.

For once, Answer the question, did the team set up defensively or not.

Of they set up defensively, you will see there is no reason for your comment above. For about two days now, I have asked you one simple question. Did the team set up defensively? You watched the game. Answer.

joseph1013:


Tell me how they set up defensively? What was the formation?

joseph1013:
This debate has run its course. On to better things. Ask me, I prefer you watch a game you intend to have an opinion on. Highlights and commentaries do not always tell the full story.

Looking forward to Stoke vs City tomorrow. Let's see if Kelechi will play a part.

joseph1013:
See the image attached. Who reported first?

TheGoodJoe:


Let us take it you did, so you know I was following the match even on other forums.

Well your a sharp guy, you escaped my two days trap. I wish you answered yes or no. Let us leave it there but note, if a team sets up defensively, the attacking players must have a bad game. So the Hull fans criticising Aluko and Akpom in a game they set up defensively is ridiculous.

If anyone deserved criticising was the defence.

The Premier League outfit have taken down the Catalans in their own back yard after a performance borne out of grit, determination and a tiny slice of luck

Chelsea are through to the Champions League final after an incredible 2-2 draw against Barcelona at Camp Nou in their semi-final second-leg encounter was enough to hand them a 3-2 aggregate victory over the holders.

Roberto Di Matteo's team defended brilliantly throughout, and will now travel to Munich on May 19 despite playing the majority of the match with 10 men.

The Catalans appeared to be home and dry after goals by Sergio Busquets and Andres Iniesta either side of a John Terry red card appeared to put the Blues out of the competition before half-time.

However, Ramires put the tie back into Chelsea's hands with a fantastic effort just before the interval.

Lionel Messi missed a penalty early in the second-half, and the Blues combined superb defending with a bit of luck, before Fernando Torres put the icing on the cake by finishing off a counterattack at the death.
With a 1-0 deficit to overcome after the first encounter in London, Barca coach Pep Guardiola began with an attacking 3-4-3 formation.

It took them only three minutes to carve out the first chance of the match, with Lionel Messi blasting into the side netting after rapid interplay with Alexis Sanchez.

The game plan from Di Matteo was simple as Chelsea, much as they had done in the first leg, looked to defend deep in numbers and relieve pressure on the counter whenever they could.

However, they were forced into a change after only 12 minutes as Gary Cahill was hauled off through injury for Jose Bosingwa.

Barca continued to control the game, and opened Chelsea up once more with a delightful passing move, with only the legs of Petr Cech preventing Messi from opening the scoring.

Cesc Fabregas and Didier Drogba each found the side netting before Javier Mascherano sent an unlikely 25-yard piledriver just over the bar as the home side continued to search for a way through.

The hosts were forced to bring on Dani Alves after 26 minutes for Gerard Pique, who failed to recover sufficiently from an earlier clash of heads with Victor Valdes.

The Brazilian played a part in the opener 10 minutes after his arrival, releasing Isaac Cuenca down the left, whose cutback evaded multiple bodies before Busquets tapped in.

It went from bad to worse for Chelsea, as they found themselves reduced to 10 men within two minutes. Terry appeared to knee Sanchez in the back off the ball, and was shown a straight red card by the referee.

Barca took advantage of their superior numbers, and struck again two minutes before half-time. Messi caused panic with a run at the defence before slipping in Iniesta, who slotted into the corner.

But rather than implode, as so many teams have done against the Catalans, Chelsea responded, out of nowhere, in some style.

A punt from defence by Frank Lampard was latched onto by Ramires, who guided a delightful lob over Valdes to send the Londoners into the break with the advantage on away goals.

Barca were handed a chance to regain the aggregate lead three minutes after the restart, with an apparent trip on Fabregas by Drogba in the box was spotted by the officials, leading to a penalty.

However, Chelsea’s advantage was left intact as Messi smacked the spot-kick off the crossbar.

Sanchez headed an Alves cross just wide and Cuenca was blocked at the last by Cech, as Barca set up camp in the opposition half for the remainder of the match.

But it was proving to be the same story as the first leg, as Chelsea’s doggedness at the back was just enough to keep Guardiola’s men at bay.

They were almost caught out 10 minutes before the end though, but Messi could only strike the post after being put clear with only the keeper to beat.

But the Catalans were out of ideas in attack, and were finished for good by substitute Torres in the final minute of injury time. With almost every Barca player committed in the opposition half, the Spaniard latched onto a pass from defence by Ashley Cole, rounded Valdes and fired home.

Chelsea continue their incredible renaissance under Di Matteo, and will await either Real Madrid or Bayern Munich in the final at the Allianz Arena on May 19.

joseph1013:


And that's the point I've been trying to make you let go off since this issue started. It's not true.

Consider the Classic Barcelona vs Chelsea UEFA Semi Final match in 2012. Second Leg. Chelsea had won 1-0 at the Stanford Bridge in the first leg.

Take a look at Goal's Match Report:



Who was Man of the Match? Cech with 3.5 Stars. But guess how many Stars Torres got? 3.5 Stars!

Did Chelsea play a defensive game? Yes! They had won 1-0 in the first leg. Was Torres an attacking player? You bet! Did he play poorly? No!

joseph1013:


And that's the point I've been trying to make you let go off since this issue started. It's not true.

Consider the Classic Barcelona vs Chelsea UEFA Semi Final match in 2012. Second Leg. Chelsea had won 1-0 at the Stanford Bridge in the first leg.

Take a look at Goal's Match Report:



Who was Man of the Match? Cech with 3.5 Stars. But guess how many Stars Torres got? 3.5 Stars!

Did Chelsea play a defensive game? Yes! They had won 1-0 in the first leg. Was Torres an attacking player? You bet! Did he play poorly? No!

TheGoodJoe:


But Torres did not have a prolific game. He lost the balls, he was dispossessed. An attacking player in a defensive formation can hardly win man of the match award.

Now that is Chelsea with top players.

Think about Hull against City.

It is standard. I am not saying a striker can not put up a good performance in a defensive formation. But most times, in a defensive formation, the attackers suffer. So there is no use criticising them when they are not set up to have a good game.

TheGoodJoe:


Let us leave it there but note, if a team sets up defensively, the attacking players must have a bad game. So the Hull fans criticising Aluko and Akpom in a game they set up defensively is ridiculous.

If anyone deserved criticising was the defence.

joseph1013:


And that's the point I've been trying to make you let go off since this issue started. It's not true.

Consider the Classic Barcelona vs Chelsea UEFA Semi Final match in 2012. Second Leg. Chelsea had won 1-0 at the Stanford Bridge in the first leg.

Take a look at Goal's Match Report:



Who was Man of the Match? Cech with 3.5 Stars. But guess how many Stars did Torres get? 3.5 Stars!

Did Chelsea play a defensive game? Yes! They had won 1-0 in the first leg. Was Torres an attacking player? You bet! Did he play poorly? No!

joseph1013:
Let me show you again what you wrote:



Do you still stand by this statement?

forgiveness:


Bros, You mean lucky Torres played very well in that match totally dominated by Barca?

Haha! Torrest came in for Drogba in the 80th minutes and scored in the 92 minutes extra time when all Barca players surged forward in search of the vital winning goal but where unfortunately caught up in the Chelsea counter attack trap that lead to the goal.

What did the almighty Mata played in that match before he was substituted for more effective Kaloue in the 58 Minutes? Because he was ineffective in that counter attack tactics.

Besides, Aluko is not a strike, he is an attacking midfielders.

TheGoodJoe:
[b]Oliver Torres: Unable to provide the energy in midfield Porto benefited from in the first leg. Drifted in and out of the game and was caught out of position on too many occasions. (5/10)

Yacine Brahimi: Played a key role in Porto's improvement in the second half, but he was nowhere to be found when Bayern were running riot in the opening 45 minutes. Replaced midway through the second half. (5/10)

Ricardo Quaresma: Unrecognisable from the player who caused Bayern so many problems in a two-goal display in the first leg. Lucky to avoid a red card after raising his hand to Bernat's face and he was removed at the break. (3/10)

Attack

Jackson Martinez: The biggest victim of Bayern's dominance in midfield. Left isolated despite battling impressively against Bayern's central defenders. Scored his side's goal and almost added a second with a fine effort from the edge of the box. (6/10)



This is from the From Bayern's 6-1 thrashing of Porto. You do not need to watch the game to know from the possession and score line that the attackers did not have a nice day on the field.

What I am pointing out is that in games like these, the dominating team has large possessions because they win the ball back quickly.

Most times, they win the ball from the attacking players. So the attacking players must have a bad game.

Hence Man City had a large share of the possession in the Hull games, they won the ball back a lot. So the attackers most times have bad games. I do not need to watch the game to know this.

When a coach sets his team defensively, it simplay means the opposition will have a large share of the possession. Which means the opposition will win the ball back a lot from the attacking players. So the attacking players, most times have bad games. So blasting them is not fair.[/b]

joseph1013:


Changing the goal post now, right? Chai! I am the one telling you that an attacker can have a good game in a defensive formation, Nna.

You said, "if a team sets up defensively, the attacking players MUST have a bad game."

Did Chelsea set up a defensive formation?

Was Torres an attacking player in that game?

Did Torres have a bad game?

Or you don't know what MUST means?

TheGoodJoe:


One hundred percent. I guess you are not reading well. Read again. The attacking players. Collectively. The attacking players must have a bad game in a defensively set up team. Some might do well but collectively. They must have a bad game.

Do you agree or not?

joseph1013:


This is not my business. You gave me a match the attackers played badly, I gave you the one the they didnt play badly.

You are the one on the defensive. I should be the one giving you defensive games whose attackers played well. You said that in all defensive formations, the attackers MUST play badly.

TheGoodJoe:


This is not about giving attackers playing well or not. It is about the philosophy of the game. You can not set up a team to defend and expect the attackers to perform like Neymar, Messi and Suarez.

Is it Possible to set up a defensive formation and have the attacking players perform the way Neymar, Messi and Suarez?

Your answer will stop prolonging a simple debate. If you dance around a yes or no answer, you are evading the truth.

Is it Possible to set up a defensive formation and have the attacking players perform the way Neymar, Messi and Suarez?

joseph1013:


You have a problem with English as a language. There is no place you said collectively in your opening statements. Attacking players signifies the players that are attacking. You should have said the attacking department. But I think that's just to save face.

In football, we have three departments: The Defensive, Midfield and Attacking.

joseph1013:


Again, shifting the goal post, MSN do not play good football. They play IMPRESSIVE football. It is unfair to compare them with even the best attacking formation in the world. We are referring to arguably the greatest attacking trio the world has ever seen.

You said attackers in a defensive formation MUST have a BAD game, you didn't say they cannot play like MSN. You didn't even use GOOD, AVERAGE or MODEST. You used BAD.

I think you really do not understand the words you use.

TheGoodJoe:



Let us leave it there but note, if a team sets up defensively, the attacking players must have a bad game. So the Hull fans criticising Aluko and Akpom in a game they set up defensively is ridiculous.

If anyone deserved criticising was the defence.


This is what you quoted above. Look at what you bolded.

The attacking players. Is that the same as every attacking players.

When you set a team defensively, the attacking players must have a bad game.

Let me explain. If Pellegrini say Man City must go all out attack, the defensive players must have a bad game because most of the attacking pressure will come with limited players in defensive regions.

That is why you see Mangala and Deimeichelis making lots f errors. When I see people blasting them, I shake my head because in that position, they are meant to play poorly.

That does not mean that Deimeichelis can not have a good game, like in the Hull City match he won man of the match, or Otamendi in some recent games.

But, the set up puts them under a lot of pressure. You see Kompany defending harshly.

So criticising them is not ideal when you look at the set up.

TheGoodJoe:


If you set them up to defend. I am talking of the greatest attacking trio, they will not perform prolifically. That is why Tata received the sack letter. There was a game against Atletico Madrid Messi was the worst player on the pitch.

Note Tata is an attacking coach but his set up did not bring out the best in them. Under Enrique's massive attacking set up, they are looking like the deadliest trio in the history of football.

joseph1013:


Wait...before you jump into the discussion, I need to know your position. Do you support him with the notion that attackers MUST have a BAD game in a defensive formation?

NB: We are done with Aluko now.