Don't feel too hard about it, I'd have negatively repped it too even though I didn't read it - except I don't know how and can't be in the least bit bothered to find out. I think it's good you are contributing and I wouldn't pay any attention to small minded people who are going to complain no matter what you do.Originally Posted by GB.
Für eure Sicherheit
Well no, its not about being no1 or no 20. Its a system all agreed to, therefore i don't see the need for moaning just because your not happy with getting a negative.
Not that I care, (about the system) but you have to question the reasoning of the poster who negatively repped the post Joker is referring to.
Last edited by Xhaka Can’t; 30-09-2012 at 08:55 PM.
Fair point.
Not that I care, but you have to question the reasoning of the poster who negatively repped the post Joker is referring to.
Some thoughts?
Mannone was at fault throughout for failing to organise his defence. This lack of communication was compounded by Mertesacker being dropped, as up until now, when Mannone's played he's done the job for the keeper.
The result could easily be seen as the difference between the two team's GK's. Cech kept them in the game with a great save. Mannone failed to do so for their second.
Kos and Verms don't sit right together, but even so haven't played either together, or with the keeper this season. Making 2 changes (Verms changing position as well), was not a great idea when playing the likely league champions at home. That said, I can understand why with the pace that the Chavs had AW wanted to use 2 quick CB's - but it backfired.
Diaby going off so early was a blow to our plans going forwards. If he had played, he would have drawn their MF's out of position and created more space for Santi to work in.
We are 2 points ahead of where we were last season when RVC was playing for us. We are still a work in progress, and the team is still finding its balance. Our most creative pairing to date has been Carzola and Podolski - and we have to give credit to Chelsea for keeping this very quiet. However, they have a very settled, experienced and effective defence, and we were always going to struggle to create openings. I still have faith that between Carzola; Podolski; Gervinho and Giroud we can share the goals that RVC scored for us last season.
Giroud is trying too hard. He has been restricted to bit parts this season, and needs to find understanding with our other players, and his scoring boots. Unlike Chamakh his scoring record in France was very good. Too soon to write him off, IMO. Torres missed almost as easy a chance.
Not a good day in the office, but no need to hit panic stations yet, IMO.
Putting the laughter back into manslaughter
It's not the defeat that rankles. It's the manner of it.
Careless and sloppy from manager to players.
It's slightly easier to take if you get fairly beaten, but if we are serious about winning shit, you have to be taking three points from City and three points from Chelsea. We were more than capable of both.
It's better to burn out, than to fade away.
Chelsea really surprised me, they were not great but were extremely efficient and very good on the ball, they looked technically superior to us...which kind of surprised me...but given they have invested a lot of money in highly technical players it should not be that surprising.
Onto the game, I felt we struggled from the word go, we never really got into our Rhythm and seemed to be chasing the game from the off. Chelsea pretty much dominated midfield. I thought both our CB's really struggled, they were getting pulled all over the place and Torres to an extent bullied both of them. Defensively we were really poor...it was like watching the Arsenal 'Defence' of last season. Kos, Tommy V & Mannone all put in horrible performances, the full backs came out of the game with credit, especially Jenkinson who put in another great performance.
As said above, we are "very much a work in progress" and to some extent Saturday highlighted how much work we really have to do to stay up there with the likes of Chelsea, Man U & City. Yes we played the other Sunday at City but I think Saturday was a bit of a reality check TBH...we still feel at least 1 or 2 top quality players light of being genuine contenders.
were not going to win the league and we all know that, so like you say losing to chavs would not have been bad if they has bossed the game etc. Problem is when our top players like Carzola like Poldi etc don't have good games, the team seemed not too.
TV 5 who is an expreinced defender should not have given away stupid Fk's that you expect Johan D to. As much as a scumbag terry is even he would not have been so stupid.
This squad is good enough to win a cup imo.
Vermaelen is reckless and when age starts to catch up with him, he's going to be a shit defender if he thinks he can keep charging into tackles and beating players to the ball. He reminds me of Toure in that sense.
A piece from Zonal Marking.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2012/09/...l-1-2-chelsea/
Arsenal 1-2 Chelsea: both sides vulnerable down their left
September 29, 2012
The line-ups after Oxlade-Chamberlain replaced Diaby through injury in the first half. Chelsea's attacking three switched position throughout
Chelsea stay at the top of the table after scoring two goals from free-kicks.
Arsene Wenger went with the pace of Gervinho rather than the physicality of Olivier Giroud upfront, and continued with Aaron Ramsey on the right – although he had to shuffle into the middle after Abou Diaby’s injury.
Roberto Di Matteo left out Frank Lampard and continued with the front four that failed to click against Stoke last weekend, with three versatile playmakers behind Fernando Torres.
This wasn’t an inspiring game – none of the playmakers were on top form, and neither side played good football.
Formations
The sides set up as expected, roughly 4-2-3-1 against 4-2-3-1. A clear issue was the lack of natural width high up the pitch – when Chelsea play Oscar, Juan Mata and Eden Hazard together (rather than using Ramires or Ryan Bertrand as a runner on one flank) their play becomes too congested.
Arsenal’s problem with width was different – Ramsey naturally played narrow on the right, although he did get the beating of Ashley Cole a couple of times early on. On the other flank, Lukas Podolski tended to attack directly towards goal rather than staying wide. Both sides also defended narrow without the ball too, which opened up space on the flanks for the full-backs to advance.
Midfield
The midfield battle was relatively uninteresting. Ramires played a disciplined role alongside Jon Obi Mikel, with those two forming a secure shield in front of the back four. Arsenal’s system was more fluid, with Mikel Arteta and Diaby taking it in turns to stay deep while the other pressed.
The key feature in this zone was the role of Oscar, who troubled Arteta with his high positioning – a couple of times Arteta became so deep that he ended up leaving the Brazilian to the centre-backs, and Oscar should also be praised for his defensive work. He got booked for a late tackle, but Arteta’s influence upon the game was considerably less than usual, and after a similarly fine performance against Andrea Pirlo, it’s clear that Oscar is a disciplined player as well as a creator.
Left-backs
The key feature was both sides’ vulnerability in their left-back zone.
Arsenal’s problem on that side is a long-standing issue – ZM has written on the impetuousness of Thomas Vermaelen many times before, but when paired on that side of the defence by Kieran Gibbs (or Andre Santos, for that matter), both left-sided defenders are very keen to come towards the ball. Gibbs, shares his predecessor Gael Clichy’s habit of trying to steam in front of opponents to win the ball cleanly.
Neither player’s style is an issue in isolation, but when combined it means Arsenal can be opened up too easily down that side, especially with Podolski offering little support. Oscar tended to drift that way too, and Chelsea created a couple of half-chances with neat but simple interplay to get in behind the defence – an early cross across the face of the goal showed this danger.
This was also a problem area for the goals, as both free-kicks were conceded by unnecessary Vermaelen challenges. It’s fair to blame others (particularly Laurent Koscielny, who defended poorly at both) but Chelsea’s interplay was rightly focused down their right against that part of the Arsenal back four.
At the other end, Ashley Cole received very little protection throughout the game – Hazard was generally on that side, although the rotating nature of that band of three means other players were often guilty of staying too high up the pitch.
Cole was beaten by both Ramsey and Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and space also opened up on the flank for Carl Jenkinson to cross. A lot of Arsenal’s early deliveries from that wing were low, cleared and greeted with groans from the home crowd – but it’s difficult to know what the crosser was supposed to do when regularly faced with Gervinho and Santi Cazorla up against John Terry, David Luiz and Branislav Ivanovic in the middle – aerial crosses are unlikely to be successful. In the end, the equaliser came from an Oxlade-Chamberlain low cross to Gervinho when Terry and Luiz both towards the six-yard box, leaving Gervinho free for a pull-back.
Subs
It was a surprise that Di Matteo waited so long before introducing Bertrand down the left to give Cole protection. For the second consecutive weekend, Victor Moses looked decent simply by offering natural width down the right.
Arsenal’s substitutions (Walcott for Ramsey with Oxlade-Chamberlain into the middle, and Giroud for Podolski with Gervinho wide) didn’t have a significant impact on the game. It was a shame to break up Podolski’s relationship with Gibbs going forward, which looked better in the second half, and Walcott had little influence after Bertrand’s arrival. Giroud should have scored late on after rounding Petr Cech.
More problematic was Arsenal’s lack of urgency without the ball when 2-1 down. After the substitutions, the front four stayed high up the pitch when the ball was played past them, but the other six players stayed deep – Arsenal were neither pressing as a unit, nor staying deep and compact. Chelsea often played past the first wave of pressure than had plenty of space to keep the ball in midfield, and slowed the tempo effectively for much of the second half.
Conclusion
Chelsea’s two goals were very similar – coming from free-kicks, conceded by Vermaelen, played to the far post where Koscielny defended poorly. The obvious conclusion is that Arsenal aren’t defending set-pieces effectively, especially having conceded from a corner against Manchester City last weekend.
Overall the main pattern was both sides being vulnerable in the left-back zones – neither Cole nor Gibbs received enough protection from ahead, while Vermaelen’s fouls furthered the problem for Arsenal down that side.
Spot feckin on.This was also a problem area for the goals, as both free-kicks were conceded by unnecessary Vermaelen challenges. It’s fair to blame others (particularly Laurent Koscielny, who defended poorly at both) but Chelsea’s interplay was rightly focused down their right against that part of the Arsenal back four.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote