Is Chelsea likeable again?

Calidad wrote:Lampard is definitely a likeable player IMO. Generally comes across well, and is obviously a fairly intelligent guy. Think he is an excellent midfielder as well.

Intelligence is a tricky thing to define.

The general public will usually use examples like David Beckham and Jordan as examples of thick people but not Richard Maddeley or Rhona Cameron so its obviously still very class orientated for some people.

This is why you would get people from Bury St Edmunds writing into the Radio Times praising Graeme Le Saux's intelligent commentary when he just used to talk the same gash as all the others in a more refined accent.

I can't think of anything Lampard has ever said or done that would mark him out as intelligent.

As for being an excellent midifelder - it seems that "midfielder" is very difficult to define nowadays just like intelligent.

I know that Lampard can't play "midfield" unless he has 2 or more orthodox midfielders playing in the team with him.

Answer the question, which English club has been the world record transfer fee buying club twice?

I'll give you a clue, they used to be part of the top four, and played vs West Brom this weekend.

are chelsea likeable again?
with drogba and Jt in the team? unlikely.

is chelsea likeable again?
yes it is a lovely area but i can imagine poor folk feel a little intimidated when going there, given the obvious affluence that seeps from the area.

Stimulus Package wrote:Answer the question, which English club has been the world record transfer fee buying club twice?

I'll give you a clue, they used to be part of the top four, and played vs West Brom this weekend.

Which of the two clubs has spent the most money? When was the "top 4" created? Answer the questions.

newcastle have broke the world transfer fee twice? shearer and who? enlighten me please

Lordanger wrote:newcastle have broke the world transfer fee twice? shearer and who? enlighten me please

Over a hundred years ago, don't worry about it.

ahh, i thought it would be something like that.
what was it 30 shillings and 9 goats?
context is everything huh?

Mourinho made them unlikeable but apart from that they are better the other top 4 clubs. They still play machine football to an extent but they are not that defensive anymore. Even Terry doesn't really annoy me any more. In an overall look of the top clubs in Europe Chelsea is one of the more likeable as I see it.

They are defensive, just watch the community shield.
Their new coach isnt a renowned attacking coach, more patience and build up, which isnt too bad but they rely on brute force more than finesse.

I dont mind them though, I like Lampard, Ballack, Drogba etc.
Mikel I dont like, more a physical brute than a good player, and he rejected us to join them.

Super De La Red wrote:Mourinho made them unlikeable but apart from that they are better the other top 4 clubs. They still play machine football to an extent but they are not that defensive anymore. Even Terry doesn't really annoy me any more. In an overall look of the top clubs in Europe Chelsea is one of the more likeable as I see it.

Better in what sense?

I hated Chelsea even before Abramovich! so they've got no chance. Most of their players arent my type of players either, with the exception of Joe Cole and jerk off.

Ray Parlour wrote:

Super De La Red wrote:Mourinho made them unlikeable but apart from that they are better the other top 4 clubs. They still play machine football to an extent but they are not that defensive anymore. Even Terry doesn't really annoy me any more. In an overall look of the top clubs in Europe Chelsea is one of the more likeable as I see it.

Better in what sense?

we're better at footballl

Ray Parlour wrote:

Super De La Red wrote:Mourinho made them unlikeable but apart from that they are better the other top 4 clubs. They still play machine football to an extent but they are not that defensive anymore. Even Terry doesn't really annoy me any more. In an overall look of the top clubs in Europe Chelsea is one of the more likeable as I see it.

Better in what sense?

I didn't mean as a team but in terms of being likeable. Seems to me they are much more low profile after Mourinho went away.

No Super, you definitely meant at football. I'm pretty sure you did.

Super De La Red wrote:

Ray Parlour wrote:

Super De La Red wrote:Mourinho made them unlikeable but apart from that they are better the other top 4 clubs. They still play machine football to an extent but they are not that defensive anymore. Even Terry doesn't really annoy me any more. In an overall look of the top clubs in Europe Chelsea is one of the more likeable as I see it.

Better in what sense?

I didn't mean as a team but in terms of being likeable. Seems to me they are much more low profile after Mourinho went away.

No-one wants to go them. The players they have mean they can only play machine like football.

DS wrote:They are defensive, just watch the community shield.
Their new coach isnt a renowned attacking coach, more patience and build up, which isnt too bad but they rely on brute force more than finesse.

I dont mind them though, I like Lampard, Ballack, Drogba etc.
Mikel I dont like, more a physical brute than a good player, and he rejected us to join them.

Really ?

I thought the sort of football played by Milan after the 2003 final - eg Deportivo 4-1, Bayern 4-1, Liverpool 3-3, juve 3-1, Man U 3-0 had made him just that.

I'll admit fergie was an attack minded manager when he made his name but for the last few years Ancelotti has been a far more attack minded manager.

Results dont make a team attack minded Pierre.

DS wrote:Results dont make a team attack minded Pierre.

No but those results were secured by playing these teams off the park - in stark contrast to United's cat and mouse approach to European games.

In fact your theory is perfect;y demonstrated by United 7-1 Roma.

Roma pushing the fullbacks high up and United counter attacking.

Milan have been very attacking in the last few years - united could never put on a performance like the one Milan did in the 2005 final.

And what about the 2006 final ?

They did nothing with the ball, Liverpool attacked them all game and lost.
Playing control game is very different from an attacking game, and if community shield was any indication, be prepare to see the same Chelsea as that of last years, with even less attacking intent.
But you will still love it.

Pierre Littbarski wrote:

DS wrote:Results dont make a team attack minded Pierre.

No but those results were secured by playing these teams off the park - in stark contrast to United's cat and mouse approach to European games.

In fact your theory is perfect;y demonstrated by United 7-1 Roma.

Roma pushing the fullbacks high up and United counter attacking.

Milan have been very attacking in the last few years - united could never put on a performance like the one Milan did in the 2005 final.

What about the 1st leg semi final against Arsenal at OT ?
Not even going back 5 years, I dont know how many games of Milan you watched, but they were hardly an attacking team with Carlos.

Well it doesnt matter, whatever example I will put, you will dismiss it, you didnt believe Ballack blocked Evra which he admitted himself, so what is the point.

DS wrote:

Pierre Littbarski wrote:

DS wrote:Results dont make a team attack minded Pierre.

No but those results were secured by playing these teams off the park - in stark contrast to United's cat and mouse approach to European games.

In fact your theory is perfect;y demonstrated by United 7-1 Roma.

Roma pushing the fullbacks high up and United counter attacking.

Milan have been very attacking in the last few years - united could never put on a performance like the one Milan did in the 2005 final.

What about the 1st leg semi final against Arsenal at OT ?
Not even going back 5 years, I dont know how many games of Milan you watched, but they were hardly an attacking team with Carlos.

I disagree.

We have different attacking expectations in EPL.

DS wrote:And what about the 2006 final ?

They did nothing with the ball, Liverpool attacked them all game and lost.
Playing control game is very different from an attacking game, and if community shield was any indication, be prepare to see the same Chelsea as that of last years, with even less attacking intent.
But you will still love it.

You mean 2007?

Wouldn't say Liverpool attacked them all game. They pressed hard from the front which forced Milan into errors.

One off game can't prove what you're trying to prove though.

DS wrote:We have different attacking expectations in EPL.

hoofball?

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:

DS wrote:And what about the 2006 final ?

They did nothing with the ball, Liverpool attacked them all game and lost.
Playing control game is very different from an attacking game, and if community shield was any indication, be prepare to see the same Chelsea as that of last years, with even less attacking intent.
But you will still love it.

You mean 2007?

Wouldn't say Liverpool attacked them all game. They pressed hard from the front which forced Milan into errors.

One off game can't prove what you're trying to prove though.

It was 07 ?
No they attacked, if Pennant could cross, Liverpool would have won.
Atleast its more recent than Pierre 05.

Liverpool against Milan wasn't about Liverpool playing offensive football. It was about two things which are linked.

A) Milan were unable to even pass it around the back but always tried to be the play creating team. However they played quite poorly from the back and the ball rarely arrived in good positions to the attacking midfielders.

B) Liverpool helped force mistakes from Milan by pressuring quite well.

However Liverpool weren't that good apart from Milan making mistakes which is why it didn't bother me that Milan won in the end because Milan were always trying to play a way that few teams are able to play and they actually won it in the end with slow,old players that tried to play in a technical way.

DS - you know full well Ballack blocking evra wasn't the issue.

There were United fans talking of an elbow to the face.

DS wrote:

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:

DS wrote:And what about the 2006 final ?

They did nothing with the ball, Liverpool attacked them all game and lost.
Playing control game is very different from an attacking game, and if community shield was any indication, be prepare to see the same Chelsea as that of last years, with even less attacking intent.
But you will still love it.

You mean 2007?

Wouldn't say Liverpool attacked them all game. They pressed hard from the front which forced Milan into errors.

One off game can't prove what you're trying to prove though.

It was 07 ?
No they attacked, if Pennant could cross, Liverpool would have won.
Atleast its more recent than Pierre 05.

Yes it was 07.

Rafa put Pennant in because he knew he would press the opposing fullback (Jankulovski) and force him into making an error. He suceeded in doing this, but of course Pennant is useless when he's on the ball.

To be honest until about 3-4 years ago I was very pleased with the football we were playing under Ancelotti and I wouldn't call him boring/defensive at all.

Over the past few years Milan gradually became less exciting but this wasn't really Carlo's fault but the management's; when he had a top-class squad he was playing very good football & getting results however the management left the team to decline and we had glaring weaknesses that prevented us from playing as well as we did in the past.