"Spending over £1 billion and putting out a team with Matic and Luiz in front of the back four is a crime against football."
To pressue us, steal the ball, tear us apart and score 6-0. Still yet to explain whats anti-football about it.
Because it was too easy, because it was tactically smart?
"The shame is that Mourinho knows that Wenger's ego is such that he will try and play his way through the packed Chelsea defence."
We didn't get near the Chelsea defence, they stole it from us in our own half, they were pressuring high up the field, it was aggressive defending.
"If you want to think that it is good football - feel free."
It is, it's smart, it's exciting and it's devastating.
in the mid 2000's Arsenal were the best counter attacking team in England, I don't remember people complaing anti football then.
In no world can a 6-0 be anti football.
The reason he hasn't won since '05 is he had a teams of players who plainly weren't good enough and had shown that.
=====
Couldn't agree more Cygan (what a dreadful player)...
"It's called ego!"
Fergie has been beaton once like that in 20 something years. We've been done 3 times this year.
It's called being naive.
"Couldn't agree more Cygan (what a dreadful player)..."
He was but he left in 2006.
My worst nightmare was Johan Djourou.
Did we ever not concede a goal with him in the team?
EVERYONE knew Denilson wasn't a PL player but he got 150 games, EVERYONE knew Almunia wasn't good enough but he played for 5 seasons.
---------------
It's impossible to argue against this. I'd would quite like Wenger to justify this and 'because we had no money' isn't an acceptable answer. What I would say though, is that I don't recall a team with Denilson and Almunia in it getting done 6-0 by Chelsea whilst still in a title race.
If Shurrle scores against you then you know you've had a bad day.
comment by YouAreYourTeam (U19405)
posted 8 minutes ago
They won 6-0, and cut Arsenal to pieces tell me how it's anti football?
=========
Spending over £1 billion and putting out a team with Matic and Luiz in front of the back four is a crime against football.
The shame is that Mourinho knows that Wenger's ego is such that he will try and play his way through the packed Chelsea defence.
If you want to think that it is good football - feel free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, I hate Mourinho - he's a man of poor character and little class. But he set up perfectly to play against us and his tactics worked exactly as I'm sure he hoped they would.
Playing Matic and Luis in central midfield was nothing to do with 'anti-football', it was about putting as much pressure as possible on our midfield, something we've shown time and time again that we haven't coped with this season, and in the past. Wenger played in Mourinho hands even more by playing a suicidally high line, and pretty much all of Chelsea's chances came from either winning the ball of the midfield when our back line had pushed up, or playing balls over the top to beat the offside trap.
I wouldn't call it a tactical masterclass from Mourinho, simply because it didn't need to be. Not only did Wenger set up poorly, but he did not react, adapt, or even adjust his tactics in response, something he regularly fails to do when our set up is not fit for purpose in a match. For Mourinho it was easy as he didn't have to change anything.
You didn't loose because you played a high line.
You lost because your midfielders were substandard on the ball and kept passing it away or being robbed in possession.
When a Mourinho press is too much for your team, you know you have real problems in midfield.
Simple, Flamini and Arteta start, only one of them in the opposing teams half at a time for the first 30 minutes. Defensive line start deeper. Gibbs and Sagna don't go into the opposite teams half for the first 30 minutes. Play Oxlade-Chamberlain out wide where he can get his touch in, in not such a dangerous place if he loses the ball. Keep things very tight until everyone is comfortably in the game and got their touch in as we already knew "we're not quite up for 12.45 kick offs".
Play for the draw unless a chance presents itself as an away draw to Chelsea keeps us in the race. A loss means we're out of it and is psychologically damaging for the team to know they have failed to win the league with still a month and half to play. Getting destroyed damages them even more and now perhaps jeopordising the FA Cup as its importance is now amplified.
Probably would have started Sanogo just to rough up the back four and because Giroud has looked hungry coming off the bench. Sanogo off the bench feels like a waste as he's not got the quality yet to immediately anticipate the pace of a game and the importance of taking limited chances. But I won't blame Wenger for starting Olivier.
These were all lessons that we've learnt from the City and Liverpool amongst other games, this is not hindsight from the Chelsea game.
Sign in if you want to comment
What would YOU have done differently?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 25/3/14
"Spending over £1 billion and putting out a team with Matic and Luiz in front of the back four is a crime against football."
To pressue us, steal the ball, tear us apart and score 6-0. Still yet to explain whats anti-football about it.
Because it was too easy, because it was tactically smart?
"The shame is that Mourinho knows that Wenger's ego is such that he will try and play his way through the packed Chelsea defence."
We didn't get near the Chelsea defence, they stole it from us in our own half, they were pressuring high up the field, it was aggressive defending.
"If you want to think that it is good football - feel free."
It is, it's smart, it's exciting and it's devastating.
in the mid 2000's Arsenal were the best counter attacking team in England, I don't remember people complaing anti football then.
In no world can a 6-0 be anti football.
posted on 25/3/14
The reason he hasn't won since '05 is he had a teams of players who plainly weren't good enough and had shown that.
=====
Couldn't agree more Cygan (what a dreadful player)...
posted on 25/3/14
"It's called ego!"
Fergie has been beaton once like that in 20 something years. We've been done 3 times this year.
It's called being naive.
posted on 25/3/14
"Couldn't agree more Cygan (what a dreadful player)..."
He was but he left in 2006.
posted on 25/3/14
My worst nightmare was Johan Djourou.
Did we ever not concede a goal with him in the team?
posted on 25/3/14
EVERYONE knew Denilson wasn't a PL player but he got 150 games, EVERYONE knew Almunia wasn't good enough but he played for 5 seasons.
---------------
It's impossible to argue against this. I'd would quite like Wenger to justify this and 'because we had no money' isn't an acceptable answer. What I would say though, is that I don't recall a team with Denilson and Almunia in it getting done 6-0 by Chelsea whilst still in a title race.
If Shurrle scores against you then you know you've had a bad day.
posted on 25/3/14
comment by YouAreYourTeam (U19405)
posted 8 minutes ago
They won 6-0, and cut Arsenal to pieces tell me how it's anti football?
=========
Spending over £1 billion and putting out a team with Matic and Luiz in front of the back four is a crime against football.
The shame is that Mourinho knows that Wenger's ego is such that he will try and play his way through the packed Chelsea defence.
If you want to think that it is good football - feel free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, I hate Mourinho - he's a man of poor character and little class. But he set up perfectly to play against us and his tactics worked exactly as I'm sure he hoped they would.
Playing Matic and Luis in central midfield was nothing to do with 'anti-football', it was about putting as much pressure as possible on our midfield, something we've shown time and time again that we haven't coped with this season, and in the past. Wenger played in Mourinho hands even more by playing a suicidally high line, and pretty much all of Chelsea's chances came from either winning the ball of the midfield when our back line had pushed up, or playing balls over the top to beat the offside trap.
I wouldn't call it a tactical masterclass from Mourinho, simply because it didn't need to be. Not only did Wenger set up poorly, but he did not react, adapt, or even adjust his tactics in response, something he regularly fails to do when our set up is not fit for purpose in a match. For Mourinho it was easy as he didn't have to change anything.
posted on 25/3/14
You didn't loose because you played a high line.
You lost because your midfielders were substandard on the ball and kept passing it away or being robbed in possession.
When a Mourinho press is too much for your team, you know you have real problems in midfield.
posted on 25/3/14
Simple, Flamini and Arteta start, only one of them in the opposing teams half at a time for the first 30 minutes. Defensive line start deeper. Gibbs and Sagna don't go into the opposite teams half for the first 30 minutes. Play Oxlade-Chamberlain out wide where he can get his touch in, in not such a dangerous place if he loses the ball. Keep things very tight until everyone is comfortably in the game and got their touch in as we already knew "we're not quite up for 12.45 kick offs".
Play for the draw unless a chance presents itself as an away draw to Chelsea keeps us in the race. A loss means we're out of it and is psychologically damaging for the team to know they have failed to win the league with still a month and half to play. Getting destroyed damages them even more and now perhaps jeopordising the FA Cup as its importance is now amplified.
Probably would have started Sanogo just to rough up the back four and because Giroud has looked hungry coming off the bench. Sanogo off the bench feels like a waste as he's not got the quality yet to immediately anticipate the pace of a game and the importance of taking limited chances. But I won't blame Wenger for starting Olivier.
These were all lessons that we've learnt from the City and Liverpool amongst other games, this is not hindsight from the Chelsea game.
Page 2 of 2