They played with the tactics which had the best equity , they are not as strong in offense so they put more into defense and counters with good midfielders


You cant really try to overpower stronger teams , it will just fail

And how it's good tacticS, if they only use one?

Are you saying chelsea parked the bus vs Liverpool at Stamford Bridge? Chelsea were by far the better team. Suarez did nothing against Luiz. At Etihad, they were the better team as well. Should have won by more than they did. And if they often play counter attacks and it works, why should you critisice that?

:DDD that's all what I wanted to hear, seriously :DD

How the hell Chelsea was better then City in Etihad? They scored the goal in the middle of first half and remaining match was like "mhm... 10-11 players in the box to defend? Yep, sounds good".

About LFC and Chelsea match. Suarez did nothing not against Luiz, but against all the Chelsea defenders and midfielders who just didn't let him touch the ball. There was no Gerrard and Sturridge in that match and despite that, the match was pretty close and Chelsea won 2:1 at home.

I want to ask, if you really watched those matches? Because your statements like "Chelsea were by far the better team" in LFC game, were match was really close and vs City, when the only thing Chelsea did was counter attacking makes me doubt.

Unless in your mind, the team which won is always better?

"This was no smash-and-grab tactical raid by Mourinho either, as his side hit the woodwork three times through Samuel Eto'o, Nemanja Matic and Gary Cahill. They could, and should, have won by a greater margin."


http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25908324


sorry mate, search for highlights if you dont believe me. you know nothing about football....


i was watching this game in pub, and all city fans were leaving early, because they were outplayed.

and with lpool game, dont bring injured players as an excuse, everybody have injuries.

Yeah, and your football inteligent just shines when you read match analyses in bbc instead of watching them or cheking specialized sites.

Ofc they had lots of opportunities in that match, but that was because City desperetly tried to score a goal and were very vulnerable to counter attacks. Saying Chelsea had to win by more goals is the same as saying City had scored at least 2 goals either.

EDIT: I see you edited your post, so I just wanted to add that those are fans are shit if they're leaving the game before it's end when their team only behind by 1 goal. Still, there was no out playing.

About injured players, it's easy for chelsea fan to say, when you have the longest bench in world I guess. Other teams don't have such advantage, so injured players are really important to notice.

the sky sports one. what more do you want :)

anybody else watched that game?

http://www1.skysports.com/football/live/match/287521/report

You realise that my point wasn't there, don't you?

But ok, if you want to argue about that, we can. First of all, read whole article before posting it here. Chelsea had lots of opportunities, as I said, but it was because city desperetly tried to score the goal and left their backs vulnerable. It was also mentioned in the article, but you didn't bother to post it here :) Also the City assault was also mentioned, but once again, it doesn't attracted your attention.

To the main point, I said that after goal was scored, Chelsea only defended and counter attacked, and it is true. Argue about that, not about woodwork hits.

yea, but it is mourinho´s style of play. he did that even with real madrid, but he still got the better of barcelona after every other manager couldn´t. so what is the problem with that? if they can limit opponent´s goal chances and create plenty for themselves with counter attacks, what is wrong with that?


edit: its not like they have had any less clear-cut chances when they have won against teams. back to that supercup when they lost bayern over penalties. bayern obviously had more posession, but chelsea had much better chances on counter.....

At last, something I can agree with. Chelsea with Maurinho plays even at least a little bit attractive football then before. Ofc Maurinho suits this playstyle, but no one treats Chelsea as a main threat when it was time with barcelona. Teams learned how to counter barca and it's not as deadly as it was before. Even bayern now when plays only on possesion is more vulnerable.

Chelsea wasn't favorite to win epl. City was. Chelsea wasn't favorite to win CL. Bayern was. It helps chelsea a lot, because they're not threated as a main problem. It even helped them to win CL in 2012. But even after that, their win was escaleted more as luck then good strategy or smth like that, so once again, they didn't became the main threat and can continue to play with this playstyle. And they could use it until they'll prove themselves a biggest problem in opponents eyes. This season is a good opportunity, win CL or EPL and the opponents will begin to adapt way more and it would be a hard day for Chelsea, because the same was with Barca, they don't know how to play different football then what they are used to :)

Who cares abt how beautiful a team plays or the amount of goal scoring a team creates. . .what matters most is the final scoreline!!!!

Its better to park the bus with all 11 payers on the goal line and win the match rather than attack gung-ho and lose the game!!

Arsenal for anyone.. .sublime and beautiful football but still running after their 1st trophy since 2006!!

You clearly didn't understood what we're talking about.

Guess i couldn't be bothered to read all your long proses above!

So why are you posting, if you even didn't read the posts above you...

This thread belongs to you as much as it belongs to me!!!

My post was not for you ok, stop putting your nose in things tht does not mind you!!