The failings of Chelsea

Ayman Zawahiri wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Parks lives wrote:

Tweedle wrote:No one wants to watch a bunch of supposedly world class player lump the ball around for 90 minutes only to scrape a 1-0 win in the last few minutes. The fans surely want to be entertained, that is, at the end of the day what makes football a spectacle and also its what attracts people to the gates.

Just a couple of weeks ago you said you were impressed by the fact we were now playing better football.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's Tweedle in a nutshell.

I never said you were playing better football. If anything you've been playing worse football this season parky.

Oh dear Tweeds. You really are having one of those days aren't you?

What are you on about? I never said Utd were playing better football this season

Tweedle wrote:@ swarpy

Good question. The team has taken a leaf out of Arsenal's book. All build up, loads of shots, too many wide (30+ shots last night, only 5-6 on target not including the 2 which hit the post). It was an abysmal result but it's the first game, we have 5 games to make up for it.

You started the season quite well and were playing some good attacking football but it seems to have regressed over the last 5 games. Last night you played some good football in places. this post isn't just about last noghts game though; its about the entire Mourinho legacy

Much like the Blair legacy - the public paying too much, inflated prices, massive debts and deficits, under performance, everyone involved feeling like it probably wasn't really worth it but no one wanting to admit it.

S4P wrote:

Tweedle wrote:Something has to change. Firstly, I think Mourinho must go. He's become bigger than the club

Hasn't Wenger at Arsenal too?

I wouldn't say Wenger has become bigger than the club, no. Mourinho seems to get more mentions in the paper than Chelsea does as a club nowadays[/quote]

That's always been the case though hasn't it? He's always had more media attention than the rest of the squad put together (even during his 1st season).

Tweedle wrote:

Ayman Zawahiri wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Parks lives wrote:

Tweedle wrote:No one wants to watch a bunch of supposedly world class player lump the ball around for 90 minutes only to scrape a 1-0 win in the last few minutes. The fans surely want to be entertained, that is, at the end of the day what makes football a spectacle and also its what attracts people to the gates.

Just a couple of weeks ago you said you were impressed by the fact we were now playing better football.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's Tweedle in a nutshell.

I never said you were playing better football. If anything you've been playing worse football this season parky.

Oh dear Tweeds. You really are having one of those days aren't you?

What are you on about? I never said Utd were playing better football this season

The line
"Just a couple of weeks ago you said you were impressed by the fact we were now playing better football"
wasn't Parky's, it was a reference to what Swarpy said. The big dotted line indicated this.

S4P wrote:

S4P wrote:

Tweedle wrote:Something has to change. Firstly, I think Mourinho must go. He's become bigger than the club

Hasn't Wenger at Arsenal too?

I wouldn't say Wenger has become bigger than the club, no. Mourinho seems to get more mentions in the paper than Chelsea does as a club nowadays

That's always been the case though hasn't it? He's always had more media attention than the rest of the squad put together (even during his 1st season).

[/quote]

It has always been the case yes. But its giving the club a bad name. Pre-Mourinho Chelsea were a club that were reasonably well admired, by Spurs and Leeds fans aside. Mourinho has given Chelsea a bit of a abd name though, both in style of football that is played as well as the siege mentality which he has created at the club. Its good for the players, but i'm not so sure it's as good foro attracting fans and creating this 'legacy' that Kenyon speaks of

Ayman Zawahiri wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Ayman Zawahiri wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Parks lives wrote:

Tweedle wrote:No one wants to watch a bunch of supposedly world class player lump the ball around for 90 minutes only to scrape a 1-0 win in the last few minutes. The fans surely want to be entertained, that is, at the end of the day what makes football a spectacle and also its what attracts people to the gates.

Just a couple of weeks ago you said you were impressed by the fact we were now playing better football.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

That's Tweedle in a nutshell.

I never said you were playing better football. If anything you've been playing worse football this season parky.

Oh dear Tweeds. You really are having one of those days aren't you?

What are you on about? I never said Utd were playing better football this season

The line
"Just a couple of weeks ago you said you were impressed by the fact we were now playing better football"
wasn't Parky's, it was a reference to what Swarpy said. The big dotted line indicated this.

Well if he'd used speech marks I'd have known. As it wass, I read and replied to parky's post first before reading Swarpy's response.

'tard.

Tweedle wrote:
Well if he'd used speech marks I'd have known. As it wass*, I read and replied to parky's post first before reading Swarpy's response.

*Was



'tard

Parks lives wrote:'tard.

fucktard

EDIT

And you saints. you're both fucktards

PS, if Utd don't win tonight, it'll be your turn tomorrow

Could have just pointed out that words in the middle of a sentence don't need capitals Tweeds.

Tweedle wrote:

Parks lives wrote:'tard.

fucktard

EDIT

And you saints. you're both fucktards

PS, if Utd don't win tonight, it'll be your turn tomorrow

What, to make statements that contradict what we said last week and then completely misinterpret someone taking the piss?

Doubt it. I don't have that much invested in Man U winning.

Ayman Zawahiri wrote:

Tweedle wrote:

Parks lives wrote:'tard.

fucktard

EDIT

And you saints. you're both fucktards

PS, if Utd don't win tonight, it'll be your turn tomorrow

What, to make statements that contradict what we said last week and then completely misinterpret someone taking the piss?

Doubt it. I don't have that much invested in Man U winning.

The latter section was aimed more at parky and his freescoring Utd side.

Tweedle wrote:
It has always been the case yes. But its giving the club a bad name. Pre-Mourinho Chelsea were a club that were reasonably well admired, by Spurs and Leeds fans aside. Mourinho has given Chelsea a bit of a abd name though, both in style of football that is played as well as the siege mentality which he has created at the club. Its good for the players, but i'm not so sure it's as good foro attracting fans and creating this 'legacy' that Kenyon speaks of

Well Mourinho certainly hasn't helped, but I honestly think we were always going to be hated as much as Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool are by neutrals if not more, simply because we rose to the top so quickly and suddenly became very wealthy.

S4P wrote:

Tweedle wrote:
It has always been the case yes. But its giving the club a bad name. Pre-Mourinho Chelsea were a club that were reasonably well admired, by Spurs and Leeds fans aside. Mourinho has given Chelsea a bit of a abd name though, both in style of football that is played as well as the siege mentality which he has created at the club. Its good for the players, but i'm not so sure it's as good foro attracting fans and creating this 'legacy' that Kenyon speaks of

Well Mourinho certainly hasn't helped, but I honestly think we were always going to be hated as much as Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool are by neutrals if not more, simply because we rose to the top so quickly and suddenly became very wealthy.

I wouldn't say that Liverpool or Arsenal are particularly hated by neutrals. Utd are generally hated because a lot of people are ABUs. Liverpool haven't done themselves any favours for the neutrals with the past two years of anti-football either.

Under Ranieri, even in the season you had money, you were liked