Hansen's view of Carling Cup final

"The Carling Cup final was a fascinating, intense game of football until it boiled over into a brawl which started over nothing.

Kolo Toure reacted badly to being pulled back by Mikel Jon Obi and before you knew it there were 12 or 14 players involved and the two managers.

Frank Lampard came in to try to calm it down but then ended up getting involved with Cesc Fabregas, who only seemed to exacerbate the situation.

Under normal circumstances, you wouldn't advocate managers entering the field of play but I actually thought they did quite well and the situation seemed to calm down after they came on.

I thought Mikel was very unlucky to be sent off. He did tug Toure's shirt and he could have expected a booking for that but he didn't seem to do much wrong apart from that.

I don't know what Emmanuel Adebayor did and he may have been extremely unlucky too, but that does not excuse his reaction.

He refused to leave the pitch and that is completely unacceptable in a major final.

Arsenal had a young side out there and what happens with young players is they get tired more quickly - both physically and mentally.

And their frustration was understandable: they dominated the game for a long time, they had taken the lead and they could have gone two up.

And it was down to Arsenal's inexperience that Chelsea scored their winner as the Gunners gave the ball away as they tried to play their way out of defence.

Drogba got in front of Philippe Senderos to head in Arjen Robben's cross - and the Swiss defender has come in for some criticism after his performance.

It was the 22-year-old who played Drogba onside for Chelsea's equaliser but I wouldn't be too hard on him.

Drogba has got the better of Senderos every time they have met and as a defender myself, I know how difficult a situation that is.

He was unlucky for the first goal because you couldn't fault his positioning and for the second, I think you have to give an enormous amount of credit to Drogba for a brilliant piece of movement and a wonderful header.

I don't think Senderos played nearly as badly as Andriy Shevchenko and Michael Ballack did but because Chelsea won, those two performances have been ignored.

Wenger has already shown a lot of faith in Senderos and given his record with young players, who are we to argue with his judgement?

I don't think it's great for the competition when clubs don't select their strongest side but it is difficult to have any complaints about Wenger's policy when you see how close they came to winning the cup.

They beat Everton, Liverpool and Tottenham and then more than matched the double league champions, who were almost at their strongest.

If Arsenal had won, it would have been one of the greatest managerial achievements we have seen in the English game.

Even in defeat, it still goes down as a remarkable feat by Wenger and his young players."
Source: www.bbc.co.uk

We all know Hansen isn't a fan of Arsenal as a team, but that last bit is just

Must have been half-drowned in whisky when he wrote this.

I thought Ballack was our best player in the first half by some distance

Of the starters, Lampard, Essien, Makelele, Shevchenko, Terry certainly all had worse games than he did

How does passing the ball around in pretty circles but being unable to create chances constitute 'dominating' the game?

Apart from the goal, did Arsenal create any chances of note in the game?

It seems to me that because we're so starved of technically decent players in England that a team capable of passing the ball is lauded to an extreme. A bit sad, really. Wenger's 'kids' aren't particularly good (though some may become very good), but because they can control and pass a ball (Walcott excluded), they are being hyped up as world beaters before they've even won a single trophy.

@ someone missed a sitter in the second half saints. think it was aliadiere.

they were excellent in the first half. even you have to admit that. completely ran out of steam in the second though and the chelsea win was inevitable. they obviously played the better football but chelsea as ever played the more efficient or as mourinho stated 'winning' football.

Id challenge any fans of any club to not get excited by a performance like that from so many young players. (they were mostly youngsters incase you try to say otherwise )

I agree with most of your post but I do feel some of the hype is justified

Hardrada wrote:I thought Ballack was our best player in the first half by some distance

Of the starters, Lampard, Essien, Makelele, Shevchenko, Terry certainly all had worse games than he did

Really?

I thought he was pretty poor to be honest, but then again, most of your players were poor in the first half.

Be fair Saints, Arsenal created some good opportunities, just as many as Chelsea in my opinion. Diaby was clean through on goal but couldn’t beat Cech. Fabregas had a shot that went inches wide, and Toure miscued a great chance from a corner which was a much easier opportunity than Drogba’s header.

That bit at the end is completely over the top though. Our young players did extremely well to get to the final but it isn’t one of the greatest managerial achievements of all time, and it wouldn’t rank quite that highly even if we had won. I think Hansen is too accustomed to hyperbole and excessively praising what is little more than decent as being great.

On the subject of the final, shouldn't Lewin get an award or a commendation of some sort for his reaction to the Terry incident.

Excellent stuff.

OBE?

I meant from the FA.

Parks lives wrote:On the subject of the final, shouldn't Lewin get an award or a commendation of some sort for his reaction to the Terry incident.

Excellent stuff.

Certainly.

John Terry is indebted to him for sure, a very good possibility that he saved his life on the pitch.

Cesc wrote:

Parks lives wrote:On the subject of the final, shouldn't Lewin get an award or a commendation of some sort for his reaction to the Terry incident.

Excellent stuff.

Certainly.

John Terry is indebted to him for sure, a very good possibility that he saved his life on the pitch.

I don't think it was quite that bad

L r d wrote: I don't think it was quite that bad

He could have saved him from potential brain damage, which could have ended his life.

You're underestimating how serious this injury was. People on nights out that get a kicking to the head sometimes don't live to tell the tale.

COTR wrote:@ someone missed a sitter in the second half saints. think it was aliadiere.

I don't remember any sitter being missed. I remember a couple of situations that were almost very good chances, but didn't turn out that way. Almost creating good chances doesn't particularly impress me.

they were excellent in the first half. even you have to admit that.

Honestly, this is the sort of thing than genuinely pisses me off. I don't have to admit anything. I have my view of the game, you have yours. Why tell me what I 'have to' say? That just makes you look like you can't argue for your position?

completely ran out of steam in the second though and the chelsea win was inevitable. they obviously played the better football but chelsea as ever played the more efficient or as mourinho stated 'winning' football.

Arsenal had more possession, and probably completed considerably more passes during the game. But I didn't see them playing better football, I saw them passing it round and round and round and round. All foreplay and no fuck, as Kimbo once put it.

Id challenge any fans of any club to not get excited by a performance like that from so many young players. (they were mostly youngsters incase you try to say otherwise )

Depends on what you count as a 'youngster'. Players who've been at Arsenal for a while and only just started to break through (Aliadiere) and players who've been in the Arsenal first team for a couple of seasons (Fabregas and Senderos) aren't youngsters in my eyes, they are young members of the first team.

And I wouldn't get excited by a performance like that from our youngsters. I'd point out that for all the possession there was little end product, that they went ahead and threw it away pretty quickly. To me, that suggests that the team as a whole is some way short of truly challenging for honours.

But all we hear is 'in a few years they'll be an excellent side' and 'give them time and they'll win the league'. This assumes that they'll all develop properly, which is a massive assumption. Fabregas and Walcott might never learn to score goals regularly, which will seriously hamper this group of players' ability to win things. How many players just at Arsenal have looked promising in their early days but then been lost by the way and/or sold? How many players across the whole country look good for a while but turn out to be little better than average?

I agree with most of your post but I do feel some of the hype is justified

Hype is never justified if it is based on an unproveable assumption.

Cesc wrote:

L r d wrote: I don't think it was quite that bad

He could have saved him from potential brain damage, which could have ended his life.

You're underestimating how serious this injury was. People on nights out that get a kicking to the head sometimes don't live to tell the tale.

So you're saying that Diaby should be charged with reckless endangerment, or whatever it's called when your reckless actions seriously endanger the life of another person?

Can't have it both ways...

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

COTR wrote:@ someone missed a sitter in the second half saints. think it was aliadiere.

I don't remember any sitter being missed. I remember a couple of situations that were almost very good chances, but didn't turn out that way. Almost creating good chances doesn't particularly impress me.

they were excellent in the first half. even you have to admit that.

Honestly, this is the sort of thing than genuinely pisses me off. I don't have to admit anything. I have my view of the game, you have yours. Why tell me what I 'have to' say? That just makes you look like you can't argue for your position?

completely ran out of steam in the second though and the chelsea win was inevitable. they obviously played the better football but chelsea as ever played the more efficient or as mourinho stated 'winning' football.

Arsenal had more possession, and probably completed considerably more passes during the game. But I didn't see them playing better football, I saw them passing it round and round and round and round. All foreplay and no fuck, as Kimbo once put it.

Id challenge any fans of any club to not get excited by a performance like that from so many young players. (they were mostly youngsters incase you try to say otherwise )

Depends on what you count as a 'youngster'. Players who've been at Arsenal for a while and only just started to break through (Aliadiere) and players who've been in the Arsenal first team for a couple of seasons (Fabregas and Senderos) aren't youngsters in my eyes, they are young members of the first team.

And I wouldn't get excited by a performance like that from our youngsters. I'd point out that for all the possession there was little end product, that they went ahead and threw it away pretty quickly. To me, that suggests that the team as a whole is some way short of truly challenging for honours.

But all we hear is 'in a few years they'll be an excellent side' and 'give them time and they'll win the league'. This assumes that they'll all develop properly, which is a massive assumption. Fabregas and Walcott might never learn to score goals regularly, which will seriously hamper this group of players' ability to win things. How many players just at Arsenal have looked promising in their early days but then been lost by the way and/or sold? How many players across the whole country look good for a while but turn out to be little better than average?

I agree with most of your post but I do feel some of the hype is justified

Hype is never justified if it is based on an unproveable assumption.

You wouldn't be excited if the Southampton reserve team outplayed a full-strength Chelsea for large sections of a cup final?

I think someones telling porkies.

Did anyone else start to fall asleep reading this...due to having Hansen's voice in your head while reading it?

Freddie Or Not wrote:
You wouldn't be excited if the Southampton reserve team outplayed a full-strength Chelsea for large sections of a cup final?

I think someones telling porkies.

I think someone didn't bother to read my post. Arsenal completed more passes. They did not 'outplay' Chelsea. They were contained for the vast majority of the game and just passed the ball around. Maybe watching your team pass the ball 20 times but get no closer to the opposition's goal than about 30 yards is outplaying the opposition in your mind, but it isn't in mine.

So no, if our reserves passed the ball about a lot, went ahead but quickly surrendered the lead and eventually lost by giving the ball away in a stupid manner, I wouldn't be raving and wanking over it.

Seems Arsenal fans are easily impressed by their own team.

Arsenal did outplay them

L r d wrote:Arsenal did outplay them

Ah well, you've convinced me with the sheer quality of that argument...

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

It seems to me that because we're so starved of technically decent players in England that a team capable of passing the ball is lauded to an extreme.

Hence the 2 "footballing sides" from the big 4 look very average in Europe.

Wenger is such a hypocrite - he goes on about negative football from the likes of PSV but didn't mind Arsenal sitting back and counter attacking Real Madrid, Juventus and Villarreal.

They've had nights in Europe when they've been devastating on the counter attack (Roma nd Inter away) but they've never played great football in that competition - nor do you United nowadays.

Milan play far more attractive/dominant football in Europe than Asrenal but they're Italian so they're "a stifling team"

Funny how Chelsea and Liverpool look so good in Europe compared with these "footballing sides".

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

Freddie Or Not wrote:
You wouldn't be excited if the Southampton reserve team outplayed a full-strength Chelsea for large sections of a cup final?

I think someones telling porkies.

I think someone didn't bother to read my post. Arsenal completed more passes. They did not 'outplay' Chelsea. They were contained for the vast majority of the game and just passed the ball around. Maybe watching your team pass the ball 20 times but get no closer to the opposition's goal than about 30 yards is outplaying the opposition in your mind, but it isn't in mine.

So no, if our reserves passed the ball about a lot, went ahead but quickly surrendered the lead and eventually lost by giving the ball away in a stupid manner, I wouldn't be raving and wanking over it.

Seems Arsenal fans are easily impressed by their own team.

What a load of tripe! Once again you're myopic 'appreciation' of Arsenal's football leads you to completely misinterpret the match. In a desperate attempt to bolster your tired, lazy and increasingly unstable demolition of everything Arsenal you are literally seeing only what you want to see. It's so classic it's not true!

I know that you have a high opinion of yourself Saints - and in some respects you are clearly a fairly bright chap - but you've met your match if you think you can watch football more 'appreciativley' or 'knowledgably' than my goodself.

In post after post you imply that Arsenal fans are deluded and living in 'dreamland' in regards to our 'supposed' superior play and in regards to our youngsters- but your short-sighted obsession with Arsenal is way less objective and far more personal than anything any Gooners write on here - yes even Agooner.

Your hatred reeks of envy - which is weird seeing as we don't win much recently. Do you even like football? Maybe you're so prosaic or unromantic - even repressed - that you find our passing game offensive?

Do you feel like Glenn's avatar when you write about Arsenal?

Stefan Kuntz wrote:

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

It seems to me that because we're so starved of technically decent players in England that a team capable of passing the ball is lauded to an extreme.

Hence the 2 "footballing sides" from the big 4 look very average in Europe.

Wenger is such a hypocrite - he goes on about negative football from the likes of PSV but didn't mind Arsenal sitting back and counter attacking Real Madrid, Juventus and Villarreal.

They've had nights in Europe when they've been devastating on the counter attack (Roma nd Inter away) but they've never played great football in that competition - nor do you United nowadays.

Milan play far more attractive/dominant football in Europe than Asrenal but they're Italian so they're "a stifling team"

Funny how Chelsea and Liverpool look so good in Europe compared with these "footballing sides".

i agree to a point. yes i do remember playing arsenal and thinking it was going to be a football fest and boy was i wrong. you can hate wenger for being a hypocrite but he has helped the game too by at least playing tec players and not players that rely on speed/physic/starmina.and in the prem his team tries to play with the ball.

saints
they outplayed them in the sence that they moved the ball past their midfield and defence. i dont even remember man utd outplaying them in this way.and you will say they just passed the ball around the area. first you must realies how diffucult that is. they broke through lines and with good play and notice next time you chelsea play a full strength side how many times the opposite side just "pass their way around chelsea".

Freddie Or Not wrote:
What a load of tripe! Once again you're myopic 'appreciation' of Arsenal's football leads you to completely misinterpret the match. In a desperate attempt to bolster your tired, lazy and increasingly unstable demolition of everything Arsenal you are literally seeing only what you want to see. It's so classic it's not true!

i.e. you can't take the fact I radically disagree with you, but I don't really care that much that you disagree with me. You're the one making this a personal battle and using cod psychology to try to insult me. You can't actually find a fault with what I said, so you attack me.

I know I've told you before, but you should look up 'ad hominem'. It's an argument fallacy.

I know that you have a high opinion of yourself Saints - and in some respects you are clearly a fairly bright chap - but you've met your match if you think you can watch football more 'appreciativley' or 'knowledgably' than my goodself.

In other words 'you're wrong and I'm right'.

If you think this is any better an argument that 'you just see what you want to see' then you are mistaken. They're both shite.

In post after post you imply that Arsenal fans are deluded and living in 'dreamland' in regards to our 'supposed' superior play and in regards to our youngsters- but your short-sighted obsession with Arsenal is way less objective and far more personal than anything any Gooners write on here - yes even Agooner.

On the contrary, I said that watching a team pass the ball around 30 yards from the opposition goal doesn't constitute great football in my eyes. I'm perfectly willing to accept that others view it differently. I present my views, people do with them as they will.

Your hatred reeks of envy - which is weird seeing as we don't win much recently. Do you even like football? Maybe you're so prosaic or unromantic - even repressed - that you find our passing game offensive?

Again, this is all an attempt to attack me, not what I said. Your problem is clearly with me personally, not my opinions. If you wish to have a personal confrontation, find some other schmuck to have it with.

Do you feel like Glenn's avatar when you write about Arsenal?

Not at all. Arsenal don't anger me, I just think they are overrated in various ways and am willing to say so. There are thing I care far more about in this world than trashing Arsenal. Once more, you interpret my criticism of Arsenal as the product of some personal rage or repression or some other Freudian codswallop. It doesn't occur to you that maybe I just think like this, and that people can see the same match two quite different ways.

But fine, your response to criticism of your side is to delve into some woman's magazine and rip out a few pop-psychology cliches to try to insult someone. And you think I've got mental problems...

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
saints
they outplayed them in the sence that they moved the ball past their midfield and defence.

No, they passed it around in front of Chelsea's midfield and defence. I saw very little in the way of breaking through into the box or down the flanks.

i dont even remember man utd outplaying them in this way.

Different game.

and you will say they just passed the ball around the area. first you must realies how diffucult that is.

No, I realise that it takes a reasonable level of technical ability to control and pass a ball around the same 20 yard section of the pitch without leaving it. I never denied that Arsenal's team are technically proficient.

they broke through lines and with good play and notice next time you chelsea play a full strength side how many times the opposite side just "pass their way around chelsea".

Most sides are nowhere near Chelsea. Arsenal are a good team, so Chelsea sat a little deeper and let them have a bit more of the ball, while blocking off the route to goal in the final 30 yards. For the vast majority of the game, Chelsea did this very well, and Arsenal failed to test them significantly.

Once again, maybe this impresses you, but it doesn't impress me. Apparently this makes me a passive aggressive co-culprit whose nagging merely enables Arsenal's lifescript...

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

supermadrid(zizou legend) wrote:
saints
they outplayed them in the sence that they moved the ball past their midfield and defence.

No, they passed it around in front of Chelsea's midfield and defence. I saw very little in the way of breaking through into the box or down the flanks.

i dont even remember man utd outplaying them in this way.

Different game.

and you will say they just passed the ball around the area. first you must realies how diffucult that is.

No, I realise that it takes a reasonable level of technical ability to control and pass a ball around the same 20 yard section of the pitch without leaving it. I never denied that Arsenal's team are technically proficient.

they broke through lines and with good play and notice next time you chelsea play a full strength side how many times the opposite side just "pass their way around chelsea".

Most sides are nowhere near Chelsea. Arsenal are a good team, so Chelsea sat a little deeper and let them have a bit more of the ball, while blocking off the route to goal in the final 30 yards. For the vast majority of the game, Chelsea did this very well, and Arsenal failed to test them significantly.

Once again, maybe this impresses you, but it doesn't impress me. Apparently this makes me a passive aggressive co-culprit whose nagging merely enables Arsenal's lifescript...

That's because you only saw what suited your already decided opinions on Arsenal.

A long time ago you made up your mind that Arsenal pass the ball around without going anywhere. Now, sometimes - particularly in the first part of this season - that can be case...but on Saturday that was most certainly not the case and yet you are too blinkered or stubborn to concede that Arsenal played well.

If you truly don't think that a midfield comprised of a 17, 18, 19 and a 20 year old passing the ball around and through one of the most lauded and experienced midfields in the world is impressive then fair enough.

In my opinion that's your loss.

And don't dare talk to me about making posts peronsal - I see your behaviour in regards to Agooner and you can be violently offensive in your response to other posters as well. So don't suddenly play innocent.