|Does exactly what it says on the tin - the forum for football-related discussion.
I dislike Chelsea as much as the next guy, maybe even a bit more due to a family member supporting them. But they are the 2nd highest scorers in the league so far this season and when they won it under Mourinho in 14/15 they were 2nd highest scorers also. And let us not forget that in 09/10 under Ancelotti they scored over 100 if I remember right, smashing quite a few teams for 6+ goals.
I think Leicester are the worst ever winners. The players especially.
Lots of goals scored does not necessarily equal good football, they scored 3 at City and were diabolically cynical, 3 counter attacks though. Under Ancelotti was the most entertaining they were though IMO of course.
I think they're pretty average and I find it jokes that the media is singling out any one of the back 7 individually since playing in a system like that as a defensive player is the easiest job in the world.
I always felt that Jose Mourinho's Chelsea sides were far worse in terms of "entertaining champions", and it may be down to his attitude and hypocrisy towards other teams. I often recall those Chelsea sides getting lucky more than once and held onto single digit leads and scraped through. I found it unforgivable a man could be so salty when results don't go their way and make claims like 'parking the bus' or 'the better side lost' when playing similar negative tactics to hold onto a lead.
While Conte's Chelsea aren't leaps and bounds above it on the pitch I don't find myself resenting their style of play as much. It's not as entertaining as the Ancelotti team that won a few years ago but they are easily the best team in England this season.
easiest job in the world? we were still ***** playing with three at the back.
this Chelsea side is class. Not the best, but certainly not the worst title winners.
They wouldn't be in my top three best, but they are a very good team. You can't play that disciplined counter attacking without being well coached and having good players. They are much better than a Mourinho team, they remind me of Clough's Forest, very solid back line, and lightning fast counter attacking.
Personally I find teams like City very boring to watch, they have so little character as players and as a team.
Man Utd style wise have been the best team coming to UP over the decades, far more exciting to watch than Liverpool were in the 70's and 80's.
I would not be bothered one iota if we won the Premier League title and people referred to us a the "worst ever winners" - as I am sure Chelsea dont give a **** either, and they are far from the worst ever winners. That title belongs to Leeds United. Their title-winning side of the 70's left a lasting impact on me, as they did on the shins of most of their opponents back then, dirty cheating bastards.
Agree with this.
Hazard and Pedro cause havoc, with a bit of creativity added from others.
Exactly true mate,they have been a very very boring side with what's at their disposal and in Kante they have someone who does a hell of a lot of work but to me is not a great player,in the whole which I have been saying for years clubs have athletes not footballers. We were lucky we saw some good players and some bad ones.
Not only would I agree that Conte's side are easier on the eye than Mourinho's team , but without Terry , Lampard , Cole and Jose himself they're marginally less detestable. Apart from Costa, Hazard and Fabregas of course.
In regards to your last point it's very clever and something I wish ours would take on board. As a team we are so wet behind the ears.
I think Romford said earlier in the thread that Leicester last year attacked more than Chelsea this year - I totally disagree. I think Chelsea are prepared to take the game to the opposition whereas Leicester sat back, soaked up the pressure and then when regaining possession kicked a long ball over the top to Vardy at virtually every opportunity. I am sure Chelsea's possession stats are far superior to Leicester's last year.
Pedro, Hazard, Costa, Willian and Fabregas are very good footballers, no matter what we think of them as people. I really would not put any of Leicester's current team in the same bracket as them. Kante knew - he made the right decision it would seem.
Nah, at least Leicester had the occasional flair player like Mahrez and, erm, Marc Albrighton.
The correct answer to this is Greece 2004 and possibly always will be. Basically a Pulis-esque pub side winning a tournament full of players like Zinedine Zidane and Cristiano Ronaldo.
James Buster Douglas made me fall in love with underdogs and that Greece side reaffirmed that love. A team that tackled, marked and tracked as if their lives depended on it and gave the ball to Theo Zagorakis to work some magic, which he often did in that tournament.
When they won the final I remember me and my mate laughing hard whilst his dad was just gobsmacked, he'd put money on Ronaldo scoring and Portugal winning!
doubt chelsea will care. all winners are despised apart from leicester last season.
Hate chelsea with a passion but would love us to play like them. strong fast free scoring good tactics.
Chelsea have always had players one could hate and this side is no different costa is a horrible player but he scores and unsettles teams. fabregas a snidey player but sets up goals and scores.
chelsea fullydeserve the title. They are the best team with the best player in the league, Kante.
They will cope fine as they are a more solid team than city,arsenal or spurs. I hope they dont win the champs league but they will do well.
They have the money to strengthen and will make 30-40m purchases. Different league to us I am afraid.
Users browsing this forum: ashbanki, bornhammer, chalks, cliff99claret, Google Adsense [Bot], HammerAl, HammermanDan, horsham_hammer, Ingwe, Iron George, ironilunga, JerseyHammer, Kendal Iron, Lil Joe 17, Mega Ron, mumbles87, Nesticles, Redkanpps dog, Ron_Greenwood, Scarhead, stevenmj, White Goodman and 75 guests