You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Soccer within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. Chelsea looked really bad. The Drogba injury looks quite serious as well. This would be a good time to have Ballack and Shevchenko healthy...
It doesn't take dynamic passers to build up on the ground with short passes, and players making good movements for "give and go's".
.
It's not just his dynamic passing, its his ability to dictate play. Much like the current Paul Scholes or Andrea Pirlo. Lampard's vision and ability is huge to Chelsea's attack. When they were winning titles, wing play was a huge part of that but who was getting the balls to those wings. Lampard, sure it's pretty outrageous to depend on one player especially after you spend a lot of money, but that's how important Lampard is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redxalonso
IMO they have regressed from the days when they had Robben, Duff, and Joe Cole available for rotation.
Perhaps, but there's really another side to that story. Duff was seemingly always injuried, and Robben the great player he was, mailed in a lot of games. Especially when there were Oranje games around the corner. One of the biggest mistakes Chelsea made was signing Shaun Wright-Phillips. Signing a winger wasn't a bad idea, they just signed absolutley the wrong one.
For me the real reason they won those championships were a stellar back 4 protected by at that time the best purely holding midfielder in the world(Makalele), a great goalie(perhaps the best in the world), some good wing play, and a ton of goals from Lampard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redxalonso
Eidur Gudjohnson is still missed as a link up striker
I still think Chelsea were at their best in their 4-3-3. Gudjohnson was actually more of an attacking midfielder. Mourhinho really turned him into a very versatile player.
Anyways, Drogba with 2 speedy wingers backed by a midfield trio of Lampard, Makalele, and Essien was superb.
Now Essien has taken on the Makalele role which is fine. Lampard is there(but hurt now) and your right they haven't really replaced Gudjohnsen but his role was more of an advanced midfielder. Sort of like the Paul Scholes of old.
__________________ "11:19 -- You're not gonna believe this, but J.D. Drew took a called third strike to end the inning.
(Note: Dodgers, Braves and Cardinals fans everywhere are nodding and saying, "Yup ... been there, done that.")
Last edited by ASUcruz; September 2nd, 2007 at 12:51 PM.
It's not just his dynamic passing, its his ability to dictate play. Much like the current Paul Scholes or Andrea Pirlo. Lampard's vision and ability is huge to Chelsea's attack. When they were winning titles, wing play was a huge part of that but who was getting the balls to those wings. Lampard, sure it's pretty outrageous to depend on one player especially after you spend a lot of money, but that's how important Lampard is.
5-10 yards short passes bouncing off each other looking like a pinball machine is what Chelsea has never been able to do, with or without Lampard.
ManUtd and Arsenal plays this brand of football, and now Liverpool have surpassed Chelsea in this department.
Take either one of Gerrard or Alonso, Scholes, Pirlo, and Fabregas away from their current team and their attacks won't be as predictable as Chelsea's that's for sure.
With or without Lampard, and most of Chelsea's best attacking players are at full strength, John Terry should never have to be sent up front as a striker in open play for 15 minutes to score desperation goals.
Not complaining though I hope they do keep it up. =)
__________________
Last edited by redxalonso; September 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 AM.
5-10 yards short passes bouncing off each other looking like a pinball machine is what Chelsea has never been able to do, with or without Lampard.
ManUtd and Arsenal plays this brand of football, and now Liverpool have surpassed Chelsea in this department.
United and Arsenal do it there way and Chelsea did it theirs. They won two titles playing that style. When they tried to be more attacking they lost the crown and still posed a serious challenge. I agree with most Chelsea fans that if Cech had been healthy the entire season it would have been a much much closer race.
You don't have to play pretty football to win, Chelsea have obviously proved it. Ditto the German National team. It's not easy on the eyes but Chelsea's brutal efficiency got them two titles. Hard to argue with that.
United and Arsenal do it there way and Chelsea did it theirs. They won two titles playing that style. When they tried to be more attacking they lost the crown and still posed a serious challenge. I agree with most Chelsea fans that if Cech had been healthy the entire season it would have been a much much closer race.
You don't have to play pretty football to win, Chelsea have obviously proved it. Ditto the German National team. It's not easy on the eyes but Chelsea's brutal efficiency got them two titles. Hard to argue with that.
Agreed. Winning is winning.
However, I think what happened against a well managed Villa side and how ordinary a full strength Chelsea looked against Liverpool is a sign that this Chelsea team needs more than brutal effeciency to win.
I think I already said this, Chelsea didn't look like a threat to score for long periods during the Villa match, brut effiency or not.
The Germans are efficient, but Juergan Klinnsman and Rudi Voller did not rely on brut strengths when they were helping Germany last win major tournaments.
In WC 2006, Klinsmann changed the German into a more attacking squad and exceeded all expectations.
I wonder if they would be allowed to buy any American sports franchises.
Somehow I don't think so... shady corporate dudes would be okay, heck even mafiosos would have a better chance to buy a sports team than some Russian dude.
The Germans are efficient, but Juergan Klinnsman and Rudi Voller did not rely on brut strengths when they were helping Germany last win major tournaments.
In WC 2006, Klinsmann changed the German into a more attacking squad and exceeded all expectations.
Klinnsman led a very different German squad but he also had a new generation of German players to work with(Podolski, Schweinsteiger, Lahm, etc.)
But Voller's 2002 team was very much a German throwback team. Klose up front as a traditional target man, but a very packed midfield. With pretty much 2 destroyers in Jeremies and Hamman leaving Ballack to roam. Anyways, remembering their games, the only won they really won with style was the Saudi game. Against the US they won from a header off a free kick. In the semi's they just put in about a billion crosses against South Korea(great strategy since the German team was on average probably 5 inches taller than the Koreans) and Ballack ended up heading one home.
It was a very efficient team, that didn't take many chances with the ball. Very traditional German squad.
Klinnsman led a very different German squad but he also had a new generation of German players to work with(Podolski, Schweinsteiger, Lahm, etc.)
But Voller's 2002 team was very much a German throwback team. Klose up front as a traditional target man, but a very packed midfield. With pretty much 2 destroyers in Jeremies and Hamman leaving Ballack to roam. Anyways, remembering their games, the only won they really won with style was the Saudi game. Against the US they won from a header off a free kick. In the semi's they just put in about a billion crosses against South Korea(great strategy since the German team was on average probably 5 inches taller than the Koreans) and Ballack ended up heading one home.
It was a very efficient team, that didn't take many chances with the ball. Very traditional German squad.
Had Klinnsman played the traditional German style, they wouldn't have gotten out of group stages. It's not like the squad was given to him. Both his team selection for the World Cup 2006 and his decision to be more attacking were heavily criticized by his countrymen.
As a player, Klinnsman took plenty of chances with the ball and Germany benefitted because of it.
Rudy Voller as a player had some creativity and skills to his game. I wasn't talking about his management for Germany.
Nobody ever criticizes the World Cup winning Brazilians or Argentinians, or their star players for taking too many chances with the ball. Ditto Zidane, Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp or George Best etc.
If you're confident about what you're doing, and are not afraid to TRY, then there's no such thing as taking chances. In other words, only a bunch of p*ssies and defeatists would stay away from "taking chances".
Nice rant, but I wasn't critisizing players for taking chances. Merely pointing out that the 02 German team was very much a traditional German team. I thought you had said that Voller led a very attacking thought.
Redxalonso loves to rant when he thinks someone disagrees with him. Take it easy, if you answer the points I make and don't go on these endless tangents your posts would make more sense.
For example what does any of the following have to do with what I posted. What was the point of bringing it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redxalonso
Nobody ever criticizes the World Cup winning Brazilians or Argentinians, or their star players for taking too many chances with the ball. Ditto Zidane, Thierry Henry, Dennis Bergkamp or George Best etc.
If you're confident about what you're doing, and are not afraid to TRY, then there's no such thing as taking chances. In other words, only a bunch of p*ssies and defeatists would stay away from "taking chances".
Redxalonso loves to rant when he thinks someone disagrees with him. Take it easy, if you answer the points I make and don't go on these endless tangents your posts would make more sense.
Coming from a guy who actually thinks Lampard is a box to box player and that Benitez is overrated, of course it doesn't make sense to you.
Mr. Irreverent
