₦airaland Forum

popizaino:
He really tightened Roma's defence and that's why they extended his contract till you will come for him.

Continue cherry picking.

He coached only Roma in his career.

Leyqute:
I’m getting him and selling Haaland tbh. Provide enough funds for Salah.

Sell Haaland at your peril.

popizaino:
We would still had talked about those misses if we had kept a clean sheet.

The same way we always talk about Werner and Pulisic when discussing UCL final.

Leyqute:
At this point, one would think it’s a skit

Ballzproblem2:
when I told some folks that even if we kept tuchel our situation would still been the same they called me a madman.


defenders were our highest goal scorers under him ,he made no use of attackers which is a huge red flag.

Oga move on.

Whether you like it or not, Tuchel is a Chelsea legend. Took us to multiple finals. Won us multiple trophies. Even got us a trophy we have never lifted before in our history.

You can never discuss Chelsea and trophy without mentioning Thomas Tuchel.

Move on already.

Aturitoroman:
Another loss for tuchel, 3 straight L

Dayo Upamecano

2 red cards in 2 matches back to back.

Griffon:
Toney have been flattering to deceive. Na to drop him after this GW. Holjund has found some degree of form.

It won't be hard now, his EO will blow over the roof.

Na early birds go enjoy am.

Toney have not been bad since his come back.

Griffon:
Men be sleeping on Holjund.

Confirm FPL asset.

E be like say afrodoc2 get am for him team sef.

I don already put am for watch list.

BlueMann:
It's unfair to put it like that. Considering the amount of pressure we faced, the defense did a great job conceding just one goal. And considering the amount of chances we had, the attack did poorly by scoring just once.

I'm a huge advocate of getting both departments sorted and strengthened, but yesterday's game had a much greater indictment on the attack, rather than the defense.

Probably.

But I had to use that plain stat to counter airmark and Popizaino who likes cherry picking. Calling me out in a match we were supposed to have won just because we didn't score 3 or more goals was absolutely unnecessary. This same guys watched us against Wolves but pretended my moniker doesn't exist.

And the bitter truth is that teams face more pressure than that and still come out unscathed. We have seen it happen before. Is it impossible for it to have happened yesterday?

airmark:
Which team had more clear cut chances in the match?

Weekly, we are always topping the big chances missed chart. But no, you must mislead Tim.bros.

You are mentioning me again in a convo that has nothing to do with me.

Next thing you wont have my time again.

airmark:
Was I the one that wished Sterling, death?

You wouldn't know how Sterling and Jackson had messed our season up, because you didn't even watch our matches.

There is a reason why unlimited called upon you to mention him when next the round of Sterling slander starts. Does it mean he didn't see all this other comments you posted?

patrickmuf:
A balanced team is the goal but if you were in a position to sign players for this current Chelsea team knowing too well FFP limitations, are you going to prioritize the defence over the attack?

The thing is, talking about improving a position is not necessarily signing new players. We are not lacking in any position. What we need is a coach that can bring the best out of everyone in the team.

Train the attackers to be more clinical in front of goal. And then train the defenders to defend well. Reduce the individual errors.

And the injuries are not helping matters too. Why is it that we can never get a fully fit squad? Could it have something to do with the training style and intensity? Could it be dieting? Etc...

It's not just about signing tons and tons of players.

popizaino:
We restricted man city to scoring a single goal among many chances they had but somehow this our defence is called porus. We scored just one goal among the many glaring chances we had but we need to reinforce our backline.


Some jokes write themselves.
Some jokes write themselves.

The attack did their job by scoring. Did the defence do their own job to not concede?

airmark:
Stop mentioning me in your foolish posts, as I have left you to your disgrace.

Was I the one that posted below or was I the one that wished Sterling, death?

I was on my own when you started the mentions. Be ready to finish what you started.

You are so good in attacking Sterling that Unlimited22 had to remind you to mention him when your next round of attack starts.

Caicedobets:
na this same Haaland egbon
Chelsea were lucky
On another day Haaland scores that header and boom we lose the game

Attack is more important bro

If Haaland didn't play yesterday, you would have made this same exact statement that Chelsea was lucky Haaland didn't play.

What makes you so sure that another day, Haaland would have scored that header and we would lose? Would you have agreed that Haaland will take 9 whole shots and not score?

Bro, I don't argue speculations.

Jodera:
Equally??

Lol... I doubt.

They've been more cries about Jackson and sterling here than there have been about Disasi and co

The criticism of defenders here have been evenly spread out. Nobody wey we never criticise here. But in attack, the main culprit have been Jackson. Airmark attacks Sterling at any given opportunity that's why it looks as if the attackers have been criticised more.

Trust me, the defenders have been so error prone this season, directly giving away cheap goals all season long.

Caicedobets:
Chelsea rode their luck in that UCL final
If Haaland was in that team only God knows the limits of that luck would be
You can't always keep clean sheets parking the bus

Are you sure of what you typed above?

Are we talking of this Haaland below or another Haaland? If you don't know, Haaland had 9 shots yesterday and converted zero.

Why una go just dey confidently cap anyhow like this?

Jodera:
That one defence let you guys down.

I admitted it that day when I was being called out by kimbe.ast(I think).

But this season overall, you've been let down by your attack more compared to defence

Both have let us down equally. No balance in the team.

Jodera:
While I agree that a balanced team is what you need but my point is that Chelsea presently needs to upgrade attack over the defence.

Let's use ystdy match as example.

Individually in defence, petrovic was very good, Gusto played very well, disasi was a beast, colwill tried even though he's the least rated, Chilwell played very very well too.

Individually in attack, Jackson was clueless in front of goal, Sterling was clueless also. Out of 3 good chances, he converted only one. Only Palmer tried in creating chances in which Sterling and Jackson contrived to miss 98% of them.

It'll be difficult for Chelsea not to concede a goal with the barrage of attacks ystdy reason why I said you defence was very good ystdy. It would have been easier to win 3-1 than to win 1-0 ystdy.

The balance is in the attack. Get potent attackers and most goals conceded won't be and even if they concede, it won't matter because the game will still be won.

You win games by scoring more and not necessarily by not conceding . That doesn't negate the fact that good defence isn't needed.

At bolded... Okay having analysed yesterday's game, can you now use Wolves game as an example too?

I'm interested to hear your view on that game considering the fact we are at home, we scored first, we scored more than one goal, Wolves is not a traditional big 6.

What went wrong?

patrickmuf:
A good attack will mean the opposition commits fewer bodies in attack. This Chelsea defence would concede less if they had Haaland, KDB and Foden in front.

If you factor in the economics of scale, you'd first address the issue of attack as far as the current Chelsea team is concerned before talking about defence.

There is no way you will twist this talk that you can argue against a balanced team.

Mourinho will disagree with this your theory. And he has the trophies to show as evidence.

Tighten your defence first. The attack will get their opportunities. Counter attack, set piece etc.... But first make sure your defence is impenetrable.

As a United fan, I'm sure you watched your Europa league triumph against Ajax. The game ended 2-0 abi? On paper, on would say United is the attacking team, after all they won 2-0. But you watched the game. You know how it played out.

There are tons of examples where coaches priotise defence first, and was successful.

I don't know why you will say '...as far as the current Chelsea team is concerned...'

We score goals! We have scored more goals than United this season (haven't checked the table as at right now though) but United is far on top of us in the table. Why? Only one answer, our defence.

The same way Sterling and Jackson was missing goals yesterday was exactly the same way Werner, Pulisic and co was missing goals in UCL final.

Why are we not discussing those missed chances today? Because the defence was able to close shop and kept City attackers at bay, keeping a clean sheet.

If we had kept a clean sheet yesterday, only a few minority will be discussing Sterling and Jackson missed chances. The whole majority of discussion would have been defensive heroics, just as it was in UCL final.

Conversely, if City had equalised and won that UCL final, that's when everyone will focus on those missed chances by Werner, Pulisic and Co.

If you for a second think that a balanced team is not important in football, you need your head examined.

airmark:
I was smart enough to know that you didn't watch yesterday's match, just as I was sure you didn't watch 60% of Chelsea's matches this season. The reason you couldn't see our major problem.

What was our major problem against Wolves?

Since you want to cherry pick.

Jodera:
While this is true but it's also possible to win the game 3-1.
And judging by ystdy performance, it would have been easier to win the game 3-1 than to win it by 1-0

You just confirmed my stand on this issue. We need balance in the team. Whether we could have won 1-0 or 3-1, it's the combination of both attack and defence playing their role on the pitch.

If you notice, I intentionally avoid responding to you ever since this attack defence talk started. It's nothing personal, but I had to avoid you because of your analysis on our match against you guys. A match we were leading 2-0 but somehow, our defence decided to gift you guys 2 goals but you looked for a way to twist your analysis and absolved the defence of blame.

The bias is so much so glaring that no way I could have engaged you. Nothing I say will ever make sense to you.

airmark:

You are a disgrace.

You said we played the same City that we faced in that final. Did Haaland, Alvarez, Doku play that day? KDB was taken off injured too.

You always conclude on wrong premise and still argue blindly.

Come nearer let me spoonfeed you.

This same City under Pep. Same coach. Same mentality. Same drive. Same philosophy. Same tactics. Same domination.

You need any other feeding?

Leyqute:
To be fair to Timbros, he wasn't harping on defensive improvements alone. He advocated for a balanced team.

Good defense PLUS good attack wins games.

Yesterday, your attackers did you in. Against Wolves, the defense was crap because you scored 2 and conceded 4. If you called for defensive reinforcements after yesterday's game, you'd look like a fool. And if you harped on more attacking in the Wolves game or any other game where you scored more than 3 goals but still drew or lost, you'd be wrong too.

Personally, I think the argument isn't really about logic, reality, sense or even Chelsea. It's mostly about bruised egos and the offended demanding their own pound of flesh.

No.

Advocating for an improved all round team is agenda. But someone focusing on just one issue and leaving a glaring deficiency in the team is a true fan...

airmark:
Timbros didn't watch the match, don't stress yourself.

Where were you when this same set of defenders was drinking 4 goals per match back to back few weeks ago?

Shebi you will remember my moniker exist when Disasi play well and win MOTM but you will melt away when the same defence concede 4 goals per match.

airmark:
Sorry to ask, are you blind in real life?

Did you mean Haaland and Debruyne played full 90 minutes against us in that Ucl final?

Stop embarrassing yourself Mr. Man. Rest.

I should be asking you if you are blind in real life too...

Did you mean Thiago Silva, our best defender, played full 90 minutes against Man City in that UCL final?

Continue embarrassing yourself.

AdisaOwala:
The bolded reeks of agenda because it appears you are deliberately ignoring all those golden opportunities your forwards missed yesterday...

It's an open secret that most sides would almost always be on the backdoor vs a typical Guardiola team playing at home - Possession, goal scoring opportunities etc would always be few and far in between. Bearing this in mind, profligacy in front of goal is literally an unforgivable offence - you simply cannot afford to be missing chances like we saw yesterday.

For the records, the Chelsea defence did well last night.

It is possible to have won the game 1-0?

Khayceeofficial:
Haaland roasted colwill yesterday
If he had his firing boots on, we probably would have been talking bout how trash of a defender colwill really is

Jackson needs to learn to hit a football still. If I was poch I would make this his primary learning since he joined.
Hit a ball well so even if trash goalkeeper manage save your 1v1's, make them carry wound for body at least

This guy really could have been at the top of the goal charts if he hadn't miscued so many chances.

With those misses yesterday, that draw really felt like a loss

This is how you analyse a game objectively, without bias.

There are issues both in attack and defence.

But some self acclaimed football experts here will tell you that attack is our only problem. The Ivorien, Popi, even claimed a top coach does NOT come into a match thinking of how to stop opponent scoring against him. Can you imagine that?!

Greatihex:
You used to be sensible with your posts before. What happened? Is it agenda?

Which agenda exactly?

Do you also agree that Chelsea's defence is very okay, that we shouldn't work on it and focus only on improving attack?

Airmark feels that Disasi winning MOTM is an indication that our defence did okay. Forgetting that MOTM award is a personal thing. Disasi had a great game and he was duly recognised for that. However Chelsea as a team failed to win the game because the defence conceded a late goal. Where is the agenda there?

It is this same Man City that we scored only one goal against and won UCL. Was our attack of Werner, Havertz and Mount the best attack in Europe then? Why did we win the match? Water tight defence. Simple.

Individual award is very different from team result. That is why I made reference to the 'keeper who conceded 10 goals but won MOTM award. If you are a fan of that club, will you be happy that your' keeper won MOTM award or will you be angry that your team lost 10-1?

I was on my own jejely when Airmark, with his scratching fingers, mentioned me. And now you are insinuating that I carry agenda.

If you guys think that attack is our only issue, then do well to advice Poch to field 11 attackers and bench all our defenders. Playing 11 attackers will increase our chances of scoring more goals.

popizaino:
The draw felt like a loss to me.

Although there have been improvements in our recent game play and among some players like Chilwell, Gallagher, and Gusto but i won't laud it till they are consistent with it.

Before i come back to our useless attack,Pochettino needs to tell me why Chalobah is game in? In my over decade years of watching football,going defensive by having 3CB doesn't work.

I have forgotten so many instances were having 3CB at the back cost us or any other team, but the one i can remember was the 2013 Super Cup vs. bayern. Mourinho removed Hazard who just scored and kept lahm busy to introduce Terry,David Luiz and Cahill,we still ended up conceding late to Javi matinez. No excuse with red card,the introduction of the third CB caused us that game.

Given the way city were all over our third half,the sensible thing Pochettino should have done with Chalobah sub was to put him the midfield and if in a case were you identify a threat,you ask him to man mark him.

You don't protect your house by opening your gate and locking your door. You lock your gate even if you open your door. Pochettino is a foolish coach,i hope he learns.

All this jargon you type would have made a tiny little bit of sense if Conte didn't use 3CB to win the league or if Tuchel didn't use 3CB to win UCL, conceding just 4 goals all campaign.

airmark:
The point is, nobody is ready to drag anything with you on today's match as it's obvious you only checked the result on LiveScore.

No sane football fan would drag anything with you on that match that you didn't watch. Rest.

The point is, MOTM is an individual award which is different from the entire team result. Disasi winning MOTM doesn't cancel the fact that Chelsea defence conceded the goal that denied us the 3 points.

A 'keeper conceded 10 goals and still won MOTM. What are you on about?

Why did you mention me?