Mauricio Pochettino's Post-Match Reaction - Chelsea

[Saint-Armstrong]

• We went out on the attack first half
  
• I thought we did well first half
  
• The early goal was advantageous
  
• We were carrying the weight of the game well at that point
  
• The overall deciding factor was that the decisions were not going our way
  
• But, I will say that the person making the decisions was wearing neither red nor blue
  
• We corrected many things before conceding the first goal
  
• It all went a bit pear-shaped after the first goal
  
• We lose Artur and Morgan, and it all went wrong
  
• It was out of our control
  
• Boruc is having some analysis done
  
• Boruc is in a clinic, he has a hand/wrist problem
  
• Schneiderlin is being analysed here to see what the issue is
  
• Hopefully we can still make this a good month
  
• We lost at Arsenal and Chelsea, they were always going to be hard games
  
• But overall we competed well, this is the overriding positive
  
• I made a technical decision to choose Dani over Rickie
  
• It is my decision and I am the manager
  
• I am responsible
  

[sandwichsaint]

Blue line, win on Wednesday and we can all move on.

[doggface]

He needs to take a bit more responsibility for that poor 2nd half and toothless forward play in the last 2 games IMO. Blaming the ref for the 2nd half is passing the buck. I thought the ref was pretty good today in the main.

[SuperMikey]

He needs to take a bit more responsibility for that poor 2nd half and toothless forward play in the last 2 games IMO. Blaming the ref for the 2nd half is passing the buck. I thought the ref was pretty good today in the main.

 

Ref was very quick to book people, and booked Osvaldo for an excellent tackle. Seemed to give a free-kick every time a Chelski player fell over as well, and missed some dreadful shirt-tugging and climbing by Cahill on Lambert when he came on. Not the worst we've had this season, but close.

[Red]

He needs to take a bit more responsibility for that poor 2nd half and toothless forward play in the last 2 games IMO. Blaming the ref for the 2nd half is passing the buck. I thought the ref was pretty good today in the main.

 

"It is my decision and I am the manager

I am responsible" - prey which part of this did you fail to understand?

[Saint Garrett]

Ref was very quick to book people, and booked Osvaldo for an excellent tackle. Seemed to give a free-kick every time a Chelski player fell over as well, and missed some dreadful shirt-tugging and climbing by Cahill on Lambert when he came on. Not the worst we've had this season, but close.

 

This. Ref wasn't great by any means but we've had worse. Just have to accept every week that games (and I don't just mean us) will be influenced by very poor reffing.

[John Boy Saint]

This. Ref wasn't great by any means but we've had worse. Just have to accept every week that games (and I don't just mean us) will be influenced by very poor reffing.

At least he didn't book Wanyama as now big Vic has to survive Wednesday night to give us Wanyama v Toure next weekend!!

[corky morris]

The point he is making is that Ramires could have been booked for one of a number of challenges. Cahill took Jay Rod out when he was about to get through. If they are booked they have to change their game. It allowed them to continue with their tactics.

That said, we deserved to lose. We did not maintain posession well enough.

[Turkish]

Rather than blaming the ref maybe he should look a bit closer to home. Chelsea second half was a classic case of how to play against us, two up top, put pressure on us, get the ball forward quickly and move it quickly. We didnt respond to this until Chelsea had equalised and the momentum had switched to them. Of course once Boruc went off then the defeat was inevitable unfortunately. We were good value for our lead at half time despite not really creating much else but when Chelsea upped their tempo and changed tactics we didn't know who to react. There is no disgrace in losing at Chelsea and a team who will be in the to 3 at the end of the season but it perhaps showed that we need to find a plan B when teams play us at our own game.

[NickG]

Rather than blaming the ref maybe he should look a bit closer to home. Chelsea second half was a classic case of how to play against us, two up top, put pressure on us, get the ball forward quickly and move it quickly. We didnt respond to this until Chelsea had equalised and the momentum had switched to them. Of course once Boruc went off then the defeat was inevitable unfortunately. We were good value for our lead at half time despite not really creating much else but when Chelsea upped their tempo and changed tactics we didn't know who to react. There is no disgrace in losing at Chelsea and a team who will be in the to 3 at the end of the season but it perhaps showed that we need to find a plan B when teams play us at our own game.

 

 

The fact that we had two of the hardest games in a row makes it hard to judge where we are..if the Hull game had fallen between I would have been more relaxed about these results.

 

Everything you hear about MP (attention to detail, hours he puts in, increased time team have training / being briefed) makes me think he is unlikely to be arrogantly sat back thinking we were perfect and all refs fault.

 

Not heard interview but..

 

[*]I made a technical decision to choose Dani over Rickie

[*]It is my decision and I am the manager

[*]I am responsible

 

 

Sound like he does look at himself and take responsibility

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[spyinthesky]

I was in the corporates at Chelsea (very interesting experience) and those regular Chelsea fans around me were all predicting a Saints win at the half way stage

 

We looked very comfortable at that stage

 

To be fair to the Chelsea manager he changed the teams formation and immediately this paid dividends

 

Losing at Chelsea and Arsenal is no disgrace but it shows how far away from the top 4 we are in terms of squad strength

[lordswoodsaints]

I thought the ref had a good game

osvaldo doesn't look good enough to start against a good Chelsea side

Losing Morgan and artur just shows how weak our squad is

 

But we had a good first half and it looked too easy at times,their 'plan A' wasn't working but their 'plan B' certainly did.....looks like we didn't have a 'plan b' which is a bit surprising.

[Turkish]

The fact that we had two of the hardest games in a row makes it hard to judge where we are..if the Hull game had fallen between I would have been more relaxed about these results.

 

Everything you hear about MP (attention to detail, hours he puts in, increased time team have training / being briefed) makes me think he is unlikely to be arrogantly sat back thinking we were perfect and all refs fault.

 

Not heard interview but..

 

[*]I made a technical decision to choose Dani over Rickie

[*]It is my decision and I am the manager

[*]I am responsible

 

 

Sound like he does look at himself and take responsibility

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

I disagree. It makes it easy to judge where we are and it's exactly where a few of us said we were. No where near top 4 level but top half side who will likely finish somewhere between 7-9th. We're better than most but still a fair way behind the top top 5-6 clubs, depsite something thinking we were almost at that level with last seasons squad.

[shurlock]

I was in the corporates at Chelsea (very interesting experience) and those regular Chelsea fans around me were all predicting a Saints win at the half way stage

 

We looked very comfortable at that stage

 

To be fair to the Chelsea manager he changed the teams formation and immediately this paid dividends

 

Losing at Chelsea and Arsenal is no disgrace but it shows how far away from the top 4 we are in terms of squad strength

 

Chelsea basically played hoofball second half and we were unable to clear our lines or take the pace out of the game - pretty primitive stuff and galling when we've shown we can withstand similar barrages.

[Turkish]

Chelsea basically played hoofball second half and we were unable to clear our lines or take the pace out of the game - pretty primitive stuff and galling when we've shown we can withstand similar barrages.

 

Utter nonsense. Big difference between playing hoofball and lumping it forward to the big man up top. They got the ball forward quickly, moved it a lot quicker than they did in the first half and we were unable to cope with it. They were very good second half and played with power and energy. Making out they were just lumping it forward is horsesh*t.

[shurlock]

Utter nonsense. Big difference between playing hoofball and lumping it forward to the big man up top. They got the ball forward quickly, moved it a lot quicker than they did in the first half and we were unable to cope with it. They were very good second half and played with power and energy. Making out they were just lumping it forward is horsesh*t.

 

So they were lumping it forward then?

[Turkish]

So they were lumping it forward then?

 

No, they weren't playing it out from the back, they were getting it forward quickly, using the flanks effectively and pressing us up the pitch by playing two strikers. There is a world of difference to playing that way and neutralising us than there is to simply lumping it forward to the target man like you're making out. If this was the case who was the guy they were hoofing it to? Because Torres and Ba are amazing in the air arent they.

[Mikey88]

Huge difference between playing direct, i.e. trying to find the forward men as quickly as possible and just hoofing the ball up field with the hope the big man up top might be able to get somewhere near it.

[shurlock]

No, they weren't playing it out from the back, they were getting it forward quickly, using the flanks effectively and pressing us up the pitch by playing two strikers. There is a world of difference to playing that way and neutralising us than there is to simply lumping it forward to the target man like you're making out. If this was the case who was the guy they were hoofing it to? Because Torres and Ba are amazing in the air arent they.

 

Ba - who played for West Ham, Newcastle and was on a verge of joining Stoke - spot a theme

 

Nobody plays crazy gang football anymore but in this day and age, they played as direct football as I've seen in a while. Roughly 70% passing accuracy says it all - roughly what Stoke achieved under Pullis.

 

Of course they have craft and quality in the final third but let's not forget how they got there.

[Turkish]

Ba - played for West Ham, Newcastle and was on a verge of joining Stoke - spot a theme

 

Nobody plays crazy gang football anymore but in this day and age, they played as direct football as I've seen in a while. Roughly 70% passing accuracy says it all - roughly what Stoke achieved under Pullis.

 

Of course they have craft and quality in the final third but let's not forget how they got there.

 

 

Ahh right, so we're going to judge a teams tactics on the clubs one of their players used to play for are we!!! , that's a good one pal. Surely Ba with all of his experience of playing hoofball and the way you claim Chelsea were playing would have scored his goal from a header from a humped ball into the box? Oh that's right he didn't. It came from a decent bit of wing play and good movement.

 

Roughly 70% passing accuracy yet they scored 3 goals and dominated us in the second half. I'd much rather not score and have 95% accuracy We all know how stats give a skewed view of the game, the stats show we had 9 shots at goal and 49% poession, yet did we ever seriously test their keeper after the goal?

Edited 2 December, 2013 by Turkish

[shurlock]

Ahh right, so we're going to judge a teams tactics on the clubs one of their players used to play for are we!!! , that's a good one pal. Surely Ba with all of his experience of playing hoofball and the way you claim Chelsea were playing would have scored his goal from a header from a humped ball into the box? Oh that's right he didn't. It came from a decent bit of wing play and good movement.

 

Roughly 70% passing accuracy yet they scored 3 goals and dominated us in the second half. I'd much rather not score and have 95% accuracy We all know how stats give a skewed view of the game, the stats show we had 9 shots at goal and 49% poession, yet did we ever seriously test their keeper after the goal?

 

You mentioned that Ba and Torres aren't very good in the air, not me

 

Players fit certain styles and ways of playing, no?

[Turkish]

You mentioned that Ba and Torres aren't very good in the air, not me

 

do you think both of them are known for being great in the air?

[St_Tel49]

This. Ref wasn't great by any means but we've had worse. Just have to accept every week that games (and I don't just mean us) will be influenced by very poor reffing.

They will be influenced far more by poor decisions by the players.

[St_Tel49]

I thought the ref had a good game

osvaldo doesn't look good enough to start against a good Chelsea side

Losing Morgan and artur just shows how weak our squad is

 

But we had a good first half and it looked too easy at times,their 'plan A' wasn't working but their 'plan B' certainly did.....looks like we didn't have a 'plan b' which is a bit surprising.

I think that our plan B may have been stymied by enforced substitutions. What I will say is that midfield and forward line seemed to connect better when Rickie came on

[lordswoodsaints]

I think that our plan B may have been stymied by enforced substitutions. What I will say is that midfield and forward line seemed to connect better when Rickie came on

 

I'd certainly agree with the rickie lambert bit,osvaldo seems like a misfit.

[captainchris]

I think that our plan B may have been stymied by enforced substitutions. What I will say is that midfield and forward line seemed to connect better when Rickie came on

 

Two points: Ricky is far better receiving and retaining the ball than Osvaldo. Resorting to two up front against teams like Arsenal and Chelsea in particular does not work for us. We just can't get the ball to them so

It is dissapointing that MP continues to persist in trying it. Osvaldo is too selfish to work alongside a partner too. He doesn't make space, is poor at ball retention and is really very static.....

Our style is just not conducive to 442. There are probably several reasons but being one short in midfield cuts the options down for our passing game and we lose control of the game.

The answer is we need some more pace to inject into the wide midfield to give us a different dimension from midfield the answer is not to take one out there and leave two players isolated up front....

Our first 11 is by far our best 11 at the moment and that does not include Osvaldo who is just not having any significant impact on the game.......

Edited 2 December, 2013 by captainchris

[david in sweden]

Ref was very quick to book people, and booked Osvaldo for an excellent tackle.

Seemed to give a free-kick every time a Chelski player fell over as well, and missed some dreadful shirt-tugging and climbing by Cahill on Lambert when he came on. Not the worst we've had this season, but close.

 

 

CORRECTION: he was too quick to book Saints' players, some of that Chelsea mob got away with murder, and not even a free kick !

[Bearsy]

CORRECTION: he was too quick to book Saints' players, some of that Chelsea mob got away with murder, and not even a free kick !

 

It was pretty good when he booked Essien for doing a dive in his own half. You don't often see that.

[GAS]

The point he is making is that Ramires could have been booked for one of a number of challenges. Cahill took Jay Rod out when he was about to get through. If they are booked they have to change their game. It allowed them to continue with their tactics.

That said, we deserved to lose. We did not maintain posession well enough.

Spot on. If Ramires had been booked for his synical late challenges then he could not have played at full pelt for 90 minutes. Hence their game would have slowed down and the 4:4:2 less effective.