Chelski 2- Saints 0

[patred44]

I don't understand why some are calling our performance rubbish. Yes we parked the bus in the first half. But it worked, we kept it to 0-0 at half time as planned. I'm sure MH's plan was to try to hold them off for about 60-70 minutes and then bring on Tadic/Gabbi to try and nick it. Unfortunately Giroud did it to us again just after half time.

 

We had a legitimate goal disallowed, Austin hit the post, their GK somehow managed to keep that Redmond shot out, and Long messed up when clear on goal. Chelsea were of course the better team, but we weren't rubbish. With a bit of luck and better refereeing we could've got a result against a superior squad.

 

100% agree.. it was the only way we stood a chance. No way could we have coped playing 90 minutes of 'open football' against a team who had better players in every department than ours. We had to be in it for as long as we could manage, and I thought we done well to keep them at bay for such a long time.

It did't help that the ref was one of those 'big club' *****es. But face it, had he been anything other, the FA would not have appointed him.

[East Kent Saint]

Considering how well Hazard played and with a team that had better players on the bench than we could put out on the pitch Saints did well . It might have have been better if we had been given that goal or Gabbi had poked Austins shot that hit the post in but it wasn't to be . I thought that the players at least looked like they were trying but were just not good enough for this level.

[rooney]

Considering how well Hazard played and with a team that had better players on the bench than we could put out on the pitch Saints did well . It might have have been better if we had been given that goal or Gabbi had poked Austins shot that hit the post in but it wasn't to be . I thought that the players at least looked like they were trying but were just not good enough for this level.

 

I agree with most of this although there were a number of situations I witnessed when Lemina did not look as though he was trying.

[Hatch]

to top it off, even the badge on my flag was upside down.

[saintwbu]

I saw Hughes’s quote but he doesn’t know what went on between the referees.

 

There was quite a discussion about this incident on the BT Sport coverage with Graham Poll explaining that any touch on the keeper whilst he is in the air is a foul and the three ex-professionals saying that this was a stupid rule. They also said the the review referee saw nothing wrong with the decision either.

 

My beef is with Morata’s goal. There was an obvious push on Hoedt but this didn’t figure in any replay on any camera angle. Atkinson had a long discussion with the VAR about the goal but if there’s no evidence of the foul it won’t be given.

 

It’s been unanimously decided everywhere that Graham Poll was in fact chatting complete and utter ****e. It’s not a rule, he made it up completely, numerous people have pointed it out on Twitter and have checked the rule book and it absolutely does not exist. Which just sums up the refereeing situation in this country. There’s a former Premier League referee getting paid a lot of money to provide clarity on decisions and he just makes things up to back up another **** ref.

[Fabrice29]

I think we've learnt quite comprehensively not to start 2 up front and never to drop Tadic again.

[Sheaf Saint]

I agree with most of this although there were a number of situations I witnessed when Lemina did not look as though he was trying.

 

Yeah I have to concur with this. I found it amazing that we used all 3 subs but somehow he managed to stay on the pitch. He was a passenger for the whole game. We really needed him to put in a commanding performance at the tip of the midfield 3 and drive our attacks forward, but he was hopeless.

 

I like him as a player, but if he isn't even going to bother trying he can do one.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Graham Poll on BT Sport insisted that any contact with the keeper in the air is a foul. So it should have been dissallowed based on the rules of the game.

 

Charlie didn't do anything wrong though, just stood there. I simply cannot understand how it was a foul, unless football has suddenly become a non-contact sport.

 

I'd like to see where that is in the rules. Are goalkeepers now officially protected from contact in the air under the rules of the game? They already have the advantage of using their hands - are the scales now tipped - officially - even further in their favour? If not = could Poll be talking bo11ox.

[sandwichsaint]

Considering how well Hazard played and with a team that had better players on the bench than we could put out on the pitch Saints did well . It might have have been better if we had been given that goal or Gabbi had poked Austins shot that hit the post in but it wasn't to be . I thought that the players at least looked like they were trying but were just not good enough for this level.

 

Wouldn't have counted, Gabi was a yard off-side in the build-up.

[simo]

I'd like to see where that is in the rules. Are goalkeepers now officially protected from contact in the air under the rules of the game? They already have the advantage of using their hands - are the scales now tipped - officially - even further in their favour? If not = could Poll be talking bo11ox.

 

Everywhere I have see people are saying he made that rule up !

[shurlock]

I thought Whitey Grandad was a ref and knew the rules?

[Batman]

Has Graham Poll really made a rule up on TV?

Obviously, BT will question him in it!!!

[cf saint]

1st half it was clear we were just trying to park the bus but even so the set up/ line up didn’t work. Lemina anonymous and no movement to link to the front two. I actually thought Hoedt did ok first half as only he and Hoj seemed to even want the ball. One thing I noticed is how often we got in each other’s way - especially to deal with routine headers. I think a midfield three of Hoj, Rom and Lemina plus three CBs is too much - can see the idea behind it but when we have 6 players in that area and Hazard still mom shows it didn’t come off.

Second half much better after the first goal and a step change once Tadic and Redmond came on. Not sure why Hoj off but after that at least Lemina showed some hints of talent.

Defeat expected and at least didn’t go out with a whimper.

[Whitey Grandad]

I thought Whitey Grandad was a ref and knew the rules?

 

I was and I did, but haven’t been active for a while.

 

After several tries I downloaded the latest version of Laws Of Association Football (LOAF) from the FIFA website last night, I’m that sad. Fook me, they get more complicated every year.

 

There’s nothing in there about goalkeepers in particular apart from challenging him/her once they have the ball under their control., and this can mean anything between having both hand tightly grasping the ball to having one outstretched finger pressing on top of it when it’s on the ground. In my day it was ‘two hands good, one hand bad’ but things change with time.

 

Clearly Caballero never had the ball under control because Austin backed into him ever so slightly causing him to mishandle it. A very soft decision but one that most top level referees would also have given. Somebody ought to explain all this to the players. We are left to wonder whether McCarthy would have received the same benefit.

 

A lot of these ‘interpretations’ come from a separate guidance of the International Board of Referees (can’t remember proper name) but most of those have now been written into the LOAF.

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/Document/FootballDevelopment/Refereeing/02/90/11/67/Lawsofthegame2017-2018-EN_Neutral.pdf

[Whitey Grandad]

1st half it was clear we were just trying to park the bus but even so the set up/ line up didn’t work. Lemina anonymous and no movement to link to the front two. I actually thought Hoedt did ok first half as only he and Hoj seemed to even want the ball. One thing I noticed is how often we got in each other’s way - especially to deal with routine headers. I think a midfield three of Hoj, Rom and Lemina plus three CBs is too much - can see the idea behind it but when we have 6 players in that area and Hazard still mom shows it didn’t come off.

Second half much better after the first goal and a step change once Tadic and Redmond came on. Not sure why Hoj off but after that at least Lemina showed some hints of talent.

Defeat expected and at least didn’t go out with a whimper.

 

A lot of that muddle comes from not having a settled team.

[mrfahaji]

Was nice being at Wembley, but it does feel odd as a semi final. Think that may have contributed to the flat atmosphere, although our current form and several thousand empty seats didn't help either.

 

Thoughts of the game:

 

- We might have lost by 3 or 4 in the end, but criminal that our 'goal' was disallowed and not reviewed. My biggest doubt with VAR is that the decision to review remains subjective, and therefore it was only a matter of time before we found it being used to review a decision FOR a big club, but not one against them.

 

- People are complaining about the formation and tactics first half. I felt we were too slow in possession, choosing to play it back/inside in true Pellegrino style when there was a chance to go forward, but ultimately we went in 0-0 at Half Time, and I don't think the formation per se can be blamed - we did have two up front after all! Second half, particularly after the subs, we looked a lot better. It also gave the fans something to get excited about. We might have been losing but mounting an attack now and again gives the supporters some belief which then (hopefully) feeds the players. This was something Pellegrino never grasped.

 

- Cedric is our worst player. A shame as I thought he had potential when he first joined, but the hesitancy of our full backs is really costing us, especially with 3 at the back. Bertrand wasn't great either, but Cedric's reluctance to run or dribble forward is infuriating. Never crosses first time, never makes a run behind the opposing full back. He is blessed with a bit of pace too, so he could do it, making it all the more annoying.

 

- I groaned when Redmond was announced as coming on but I thought he did really well. Made such a difference for him playing centrally and occasionally on the right.

 

- The most disappointing thing about the game yesterday, and the reason I didn't wait around to applaud the players for their 'efforts' was how obviously they gave up in the last 10 minutes. Chelsea took their foot off the pedal and we had a few moments of hope, but it just looked like the players never believed they could get one, never mind two goals back. Absolutely appalling from Lemina when he couldn't even be bothered to rejoin play during our attack, and then stayed stood on the half way line while Chelsea broke forward. Yoshida probably MoM. Always has trouble with Giroud but stuck with him pretty well and made some heroic challenges. Romeu also had a decent game.

 

- Lack of effort/spirit is one reason we're going down, as well as the low confidence meaning that we just aren't very good. Every attack breaks down somewhere in the chain, whether it's defenders passing sideways and backwards until someone has to boot it, midfield players taking slightly too long to pick that forward pass, or simply Shane Long having to control a football.

 

Walking back to the station felt very different to last year. Last year I was proud of our performance, almost on a high from the atmosphere of the day, yet incredibly bitter that we had been denied a win by a combination of Ibrahimovic and the officials. This year there were no complaints about the scoreline, but also depressed about the whimpering nature of our defeat, what it means for this season - and our superb kit! - and beyond. Still should have been 1-1 though...

Edited 23 April, 2018 by mrfahaji

[the saint in winchester]

He's right. Why the **** didn't the ref consult VAR for the disallowed goal? If he'd consulted it and still disallowed it fair enough (although I think that would be the wrong decision), but to not even look is ****ing disgraceful.

 

VAR would have confirmed the ball was over the line, but that was never at issue. The issue was whether Austin backed into the keeper impeding him. We all feel 'no'; Austin took a position and the keeper made contact with Austin so dropping the ball behind the line. The ref knew it was over the line, but ruled it out for a foul by Austin.

[the saint in winchester]

Morata pushed Hoedt in the back, which gave him the space to score. It reminded me a little of Lukaku’s goal in the home loss against Man U.

 

So I wasn't the only one who saw that! All the re-runs of the goal don't show it as Morata nudged Hoedt in the back before the cross came in, knocking him off balance when the cross did come in. McCarthy saw it and assumed the 'goal' would be disallowed, but I wish he has tried to save it!

[OldNick]

Ihave mentioned before that Redmond would be best up alongside Austin or Long as a no.10 Yesterday I think it showed he could do that job,and he added a spark to our team. Hopefully he will get a chance to show the doubters that he is a very decent footballer and he will be like a new signing

[Highfield Saint]

Yeah I have to concur with this. I found it amazing that we used all 3 subs but somehow he managed to stay on the pitch. He was a passenger for the whole game. We really needed him to put in a commanding performance at the tip of the midfield 3 and drive our attacks forward, but he was hopeless.

 

I like him as a player, but if he isn't even going to bother trying he can do one.

 

For me Lemina wasn't in the game at all until the substitutions but after that and once we decided to open the game up his performance improved a lot

[vectraman]

Lemina yesterday was an absolute insult to the Saints fans. He walked around, didn’t make runs, didn’t run back, didn’t offer himself at throw ins, he did nothing. We were playing with ten with him on the pitch!

 

In a school report it would be:-

Potential - 8/10

Actual - 2/10

Effort - 0/10

 

All players have poor games, but to not actually bother putting any effort in, during an FA cup semi at Wembley?

Unforgivable. Hope he doesn’t play for us again.

 

As for the others - wtf was going on in the first half? No wing backs overlapping, we would get a throw and no one offered themselves, no movement, no anything!

It was a dreadful first half performance.

And people wonder why the fans were so, umm, quiet?

Give us something to cheer and we wil....

[Whitey Grandad]

VAR would have confirmed the ball was over the line, but that was never at issue. The issue was whether Austin backed into the keeper impeding him. We all feel 'no'; Austin took a position and the keeper made contact with Austin so dropping the ball behind the line. The ref knew it was over the line, but ruled it out for a foul by Austin.

 

Ball over the line is not for VAR and has its own technology, which did indeed indicate 'GOAL' on Atkinson's wrist. The question is whether Atkinson would have blown for a foul if it hadn't been a goal.

 

Austin does back into Caballero but not excessively. The key here is whether Austin was gebnuinely trying to head the ball or was he more intent on disturbing Caballero?

[Charlie Wayman]

I think we've learnt quite comprehensively not to start 2 up front and never to drop Tadic again.

 

Totally agree. Tadic for all his frustrations is the only truly creative player we have.

 

Two up top might work if we had more to work with than those two useless lumps of lard that we have at the moment.

[Whitey Grandad]

Totally agree. Tadic for all his frustrations is the only truly creative player we have.

 

Two up top might work if we had more to work with than those two useless lumps of lard that we have at the moment.

 

You'll have to be more specific that that. They could be anybody

[WokingSaint]

Everywhere I have see people are saying he made that rule up !

 

I have always understood the law to say that a goalkeeper can not be touched in the air in the goal area. In the penalty area he is treated the same as the other players. And I am a former (very low level) referee.

[Whitey Grandad]

I have always understood the law to say that a goalkeeper can not be touched in the air in the goal area. In the penalty area he is treated the same as the other players. And I am a former (very low level) referee.

 

My dad played in the Isthmian League around wartime as a full back and his job was to protect the goalkeeper from being charged by acting as a screening bodyguard. Times have changed. There was originally a purpose to the goal area but now it only acts as a place to kick the ball from.

 

Tony Cascarino's take on this from The Times:

 

There is too much protection for goalkeepers

 

'Charlie Austin’s disallowed goal for Southampton against Chelsea just shows how goalkeepers have got far too much protection. For a foul to be given against Austin, because he nudged into Willy Caballero as the goalkeeper jumped to claim a high ball, is ridiculous. It was a perfectly legitimate goal. Austin was not looking to foul Caballero and it feels like we have gone so far the other way, from goalkeepers having too little protection to now having too much. If you are going to stop play and award a free kick when they get touched in mid-air then you may as well stop crossing and heading. If I were a goalkeeper I would just run and jump into people on purpose knowing that I would get free kicks.'

[Wes Tender]

I think we've learnt quite comprehensively not to start 2 up front and never to drop Tadic again.

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting two up front, providing that they are given some service. Nothing at all wrong with Hughes' formation on paper either, either five at the back when defending, or five in the middle when in possession going forward. Where it all fell down, is because Bertrand and Cedric never ventured far enough forward to stretch the midfield and provide any forward threat to put balls into the area for Long and Austin to attack. Also one or other of the midfield three should have been an attacking midfielder, but it was hard to identify whether any of them was, judging from their performances.

 

If the plan from the beginning was to sit back and stifle Chelski, then what was the point in starting with two up top? Long at least offered the opportunity of a ball over the top, but that then relied on him either having the ability to make some use of it, or to hold it up until Austin got into the box in support. I don't think that Long and Austin is the right combination anyway. Austin/Gabbiadini would provide more threat, but they have not had any time to work up a partnership and Gabbiadini doesn't seem to have the confidence, having had it knocked out of him. Rodgriguez has shown that he would have been better, but we will have the opportunity of seeing how Gallagher fares next season. Carillo presumably is deemed not to be good enough to even make the bench, but the second division bench might be his level.

[terraloon]

The 2017/18 rule ok defining when a goalkeeper has a ball under control has changed slightly. It now reads “A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is between the hand and any surface ( eg ground, own body) or touching it with any part of the hands or arms.

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand.

Under the current and yes very soft guidelines he probably did have the ball under his control so any contact would be defined as a challenge and yes as Poll said contact is all that’s required for it to be a foul.

[Whitey Grandad]

The 2017/18 rule ok defining when a goalkeeper has a ball under control has changed slightly. It now reads “A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when the ball is between the hand and any surface ( eg ground, own body) or touching it with any part of the hands or arms.

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand.

Under the current and yes very soft guidelines he probably did have the ball under his control so any contact would be defined as a challenge and yes as Poll said contact is all that’s required for it to be a foul.

 

You're right, it has changed. If a goalkeeper only had one hand preesed on the ball you could kick it away from underneath.

 

I watched the replays of yesterday a few times and Caballero doesn't have any hand on the ball when Austin first makes contact with him. However, Austin is backing slowly into him and this persuades him to mishandle the ball when it does arrive. Once Caballero has touched the ball then any further contact might be deemed a foul by an overly sensitive referee.

 

Let's be honest, Caballero would almost certainly have caught the ball cleanly without Austin's presence. If Austin doesn't move then it can't be a foul but Austin looks at the keeper before making his move. If Charlie had concentrated on looking at the ball instead of turning his back then we might have had a different result.

[Highfield Saint]

You're right, it has changed. If a goalkeeper only had one hand preesed on the ball you could kick it away from underneath.

 

I watched the replays of yesterday a few times and Caballero doesn't have any hand on the ball when Austin first makes contact with him. However, Austin is backing slowly into him and this persuades him to mishandle the ball when it does arrive. Once Caballero has touched the ball then any further contact might be deemed a foul by an overly sensitive referee.

 

Let's be honest, Caballero would almost certainly have caught the ball cleanly without Austin's presence. If Austin doesn't move then it can't be a foul but Austin looks at the keeper before making his move. If Charlie had concentrated on looking at the ball instead of turning his back then we might have had a different result.

 

Does this mean we will see the end of the routine jostling for position between forwards and defenders around goalkeepers at corners? I assume the forwards cant just stand in the way as that would be obstruction and they cant jump or make contact as that would be a foul?

[OldNick]

You're right, it has changed. If a goalkeeper only had one hand preesed on the ball you could kick it away from underneath.

 

I watched the replays of yesterday a few times and Caballero doesn't have any hand on the ball when Austin first makes contact with him. However, Austin is backing slowly into him and this persuades him to mishandle the ball when it does arrive. Once Caballero has touched the ball then any further contact might be deemed a foul by an overly sensitive referee.

 

Let's be honest, Caballero would almost certainly have caught the ball cleanly without Austin's presence. If Austin doesn't move then it can't be a foul but Austin looks at the keeper before making his move. If Charlie had concentrated on looking at the ball instead of turning his back then we might have had a different result.

oh behave, 'persuades him to mishandle the ball' The only wy the keeper is going to drop the ball in the net is under pressure, it was not a barge or charge.In theory a keeper only has to run out for every corner touch the ball and any forward who 'persuades him to mishandle ' the ref blows his whistle. It is pathetic and whilst I understand your referees union and so trying to protect the ref from a diabolical decision, it is plain wrong and football is lost to these borderline rules that allow Atkinson to hide behind. I am fully behind giving the refs some protection from criticism, but on this occasion it was wrong and if I was a Chelsea fan id be laughing up my sleeve.

[terraloon]

Interesting was you say because for me when Cabarello is able to play the ball by way of a catch or indeed a punch it is not playable at that point by Charlie meaning that any contact no matter how slight he makes with Cabrello who can play it by way of the extra heightgained by goalkeepers would probably be classified as impeding and that’s the offence I think Poll was talking about.

[terraloon]

oh behave, 'persuades him to mishandle the ball' The only wy the keeper is going to drop the ball in the net is under pressure, it was not a barge or charge.In theory a keeper only has to run out for every corner touch the ball and any forward who 'persuades him to mishandle ' the ref blows his whistle. It is pathetic and whilst I understand your referees union and so trying to protect the ref from a diabolical decision, it is plain wrong and football is lost to these borderline rules that allow Atkinson to hide behind. I am fully behind giving the refs some protection from criticism, but on this occasion it was wrong and if I was a Chelsea fan id be laughing up my sleeve.

It’s not a question of protecting or defending the ref they have to work within the laws set by the International Board. Your right it wasn’t a barge or a charge it doesn’t need to be the word used is contact.

There is no doubt that goalkeepers are afforded far more protection that other players the laws and there current interpretation is as they are but the point here was that Hughes amongst others were moaning about VAR but it couldn’t be used because there wasn’t any clear or obvious mistake by the ref.

[Fabrice29]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with starting two up front, providing that they are given some service. Nothing at all wrong with Hughes' formation on paper either, either five at the back when defending, or five in the middle when in possession going forward. Where it all fell down, is because Bertrand and Cedric never ventured far enough forward to stretch the midfield and provide any forward threat to put balls into the area for Long and Austin to attack. Also one or other of the midfield three should have been an attacking midfielder, but it was hard to identify whether any of them was, judging from their performances.

 

All 3 of those midfielders are the same safe player. Understand playing all 3 but there has to be a link to the attack and that Is Tadic. Therefore theres no room for 2 strikers. 2 strikers just get isolated otherwise. Bertrand and Cedric can only go forward when they feel the ball is going to go forward. Seeing as the midfield kept going back and the 2 strikers couldn't hold onto it they couldn't get forward. Hence why when Tadic comes on Bertrand especially knows it'll go forward and immediately bombs on and puts a cross in. (A **** one tbf). Thats the difference he makes and it's why 2 up front is terrible idea with this squad. The only conceivable way it can work is if Tadic is dropped in behind them and we play just 2 midfielders. Every time we've played just 2 central midfielders we've struggled though so it isn't ideal. This squad isn't cut out for 2 strikers. The only time we've played with it in recent years was for a bit under Koeman and Pelle was playing who had an ability to hold up the ball that no one else in our team does right now. It worked then because full backs had time to get up the pitch. This team isn't going to get that with our strikers now so we have to play Tadic so he can hold it up and link the midfield and attack in his own frustrating way but it's our best way sadly.

[Micky]

Fabulous day out, good game, really enjoyed it.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[ashnats]

mccarthy has come for crosses a couple of times in the last few games, and not quite made full contact / cleared the ball. Each time I felt it was because he was impeded, and now Graham Poll tells me they should all be free kicks, because players made contact with him and he was off the ground. so that's another 2-3 decisions gone against us recently, albeit with minor consequences...

[Whitey Grandad]

oh behave, 'persuades him to mishandle the ball' The only wy the keeper is going to drop the ball in the net is under pressure, it was not a barge or charge.In theory a keeper only has to run out for every corner touch the ball and any forward who 'persuades him to mishandle ' the ref blows his whistle. It is pathetic and whilst I understand your referees union and so trying to protect the ref from a diabolical decision, it is plain wrong and football is lost to these borderline rules that allow Atkinson to hide behind. I am fully behind giving the refs some protection from criticism, but on this occasion it was wrong and if I was a Chelsea fan id be laughing up my sleeve.

 

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just trying to explain but not excuse his decision which was very ‘soft’.

 

It’s strange that seemingly the whole football world thinks it should have stood yet the professional referees think it was a foul. It’s as though they’re operating to a different set of laws.

 

By the way, I used the word ‘persuade’ to indicate that I thought that Austin’s challenge was powderpuff.

[verlaine1979]

Not sure what the fuss is about. That goal would've been disallowed every day of the week. For a high ball like that, no player can reasonably hope to jump as high as a keeper can reach. Therefore, any player who backs up against the keeper when contesting such a ball can only be hoping to put the keeper off his catch. Whichever way you look at it, it isn't a genuine attemy to play the ball, and is thus a foul.

[OttawaSaint]

My main beef is exactly the sort of thing they will goal for if it was the other way around.

[verlaine1979]

My main beef is exactly the sort of thing they will goal for if it was the other way around.

 

I'm 99% certain it would've been disallowed if it was going against us too. As I said, if the goalie is jumping with his arms raised, there's no legitimate way you can actually be contested the ball other than by hoping to subtly foul the keeper. That's why they're disallowed 99% of the time.

[mrfahaji]

All 3 of those midfielders are the same safe player. Understand playing all 3 but there has to be a link to the attack and that Is Tadic. Therefore theres no room for 2 strikers. 2 strikers just get isolated otherwise. Bertrand and Cedric can only go forward when they feel the ball is going to go forward. Seeing as the midfield kept going back and the 2 strikers couldn't hold onto it they couldn't get forward. Hence why when Tadic comes on Bertrand especially knows it'll go forward and immediately bombs on and puts a cross in. (A **** one tbf). Thats the difference he makes and it's why 2 up front is terrible idea with this squad. The only conceivable way it can work is if Tadic is dropped in behind them and we play just 2 midfielders. Every time we've played just 2 central midfielders we've struggled though so it isn't ideal. This squad isn't cut out for 2 strikers. The only time we've played with it in recent years was for a bit under Koeman and Pelle was playing who had an ability to hold up the ball that no one else in our team does right now. It worked then because full backs had time to get up the pitch. This team isn't going to get that with our strikers now so we have to play Tadic so he can hold it up and link the midfield and attack in his own frustrating way but it's our best way sadly.

 

Hmmmm. While I do agree that Tadic is our most creative player, and also that the full backs seem more inclined to get forward when he is on the ball, I disagree that they couldn't get forward on Sunday. There were plenty of times Cedric had the opportunity to take the ball forward himself, or play a one or two and run into space, but instead turned back and played a 10 yard pass to Bednarek.

 

The other problem is that Tadic is best as a left winger. I want him to be great in a 'number 10' role but he has had plenty of opportunities there and only occasionally will he play more than a 6/10. Redmond actually looked a lot better in there.

 

So, if you want to play Tadic, you have to play him wide (on the left!) If he replaces a striker, you now have 3 CMs and a winger. Maybe you can play that formation, but if the side is unbalanced you then need to move one of the CMs out to the right (JWP?) and that leaves you with 2 CMs. Understandable that we wanted to keep 3 players centrally against the Kante twins & Fabregas.

 

I agree with Wes Tender that our biggest problems were mainly the full backs (reminded me of Palace away in Dec 2015 when Koeman went 3 at the back, but it failed because we played more of a back 5 than back 3 with WBs), but also not helped by Lemina either not being given a bit more attacking freedom, or simply Lemina going through the motions.

[mrfahaji]

I'm 99% certain it would've been disallowed if it was going against us too. As I said, if the goalie is jumping with his arms raised, there's no legitimate way you can actually be contested the ball other than by hoping to subtly foul the keeper. That's why they're disallowed 99% of the time.

 

Isn't the issue that Caballero tried to clutch it to his chest and then spilled it? I haven't seen the replays yet so only going by what I remember on the day, but I recall wondering why the keeper didn't reach up for the ball, but instead waiting to catch the ball lower down.

[shurlock]

Hmmmm. While I do agree that Tadic is our most creative player, and also that the full backs seem more inclined to get forward when he is on the ball, I disagree that they couldn't get forward on Sunday. There were plenty of times Cedric had the opportunity to take the ball forward himself, or play a one or two and run into space, but instead turned back and played a 10 yard pass to Bednarek.

 

The other problem is that Tadic is best as a left winger. I want him to be great in a 'number 10' role but he has had plenty of opportunities there and only occasionally will he play more than a 6/10. Redmond actually looked a lot better in there.

 

So, if you want to play Tadic, you have to play him wide (on the left!) If he replaces a striker, you now have 3 CMs and a winger. Maybe you can play that formation, but if the side is unbalanced you then need to move one of the CMs out to the right (JWP?) and that leaves you with 2 CMs. Understandable that we wanted to keep 3 players centrally against the Kante twins & Fabregas.

 

I agree with Wes Tender that our biggest problems were mainly the full backs (reminded me of Palace away in Dec 2015 when Koeman went 3 at the back, but it failed because we played more of a back 5 than back 3 with WBs), but also not helped by Lemina either not being given a bit more attacking freedom, or simply Lemina going through the motions.

 

The problem was that neither Bednarek nor Hoedt as the right and left CBs was confident in bringing the ball forward or playing the ball quickly to Cedric and Bertrand. The result is that Chelsea were able to get back in shape and close off the flanks. The two CBs reminded me of Gardos a few years ago at WBA, though he was worse that day and Koeman hauled him after 30 mins, reverting to a back four.

[verlaine1979]

Isn't the issue that Caballero tried to clutch it to his chest and then spilled it? I haven't seen the replays yet so only going by what I remember on the day, but I recall wondering why the keeper didn't reach up for the ball, but instead waiting to catch the ball lower down.

 

He goes up with his arms outstretched, Austin is backing into him and his head is pushed against Caballero's left arm, which seems to cause the keeper to lose the flight of the ball, meaning that he starts clutching it a bit lower down. It would've been lovely if it had been given, but I'm not seeing a huge injustice there. Once you make contact with the keeper as he's going up for a routine high catch, you get called for a foul. I'm sure there are a handful of times when this rule hasn't been consistently applied, which is frustrating, but the overwhelming majority of times the foul gets called regardless of who is playing, precisely because it's such an easy decision to make.

[mrfahaji]

The problem was that neither Bednarek nor Hoedt as the right and left CBs was confident in bringing the ball forward or playing the ball quickly to Cedric and Bertrand. The result is that Chelsea were able to get back in shape and close off the flanks. The two CBs reminded me of Gardos a few years ago at WBA, though he was worse that day and Koeman hauled him after 30 mins, reverting to a back four.

 

I agree that we were slow to get it out to the flanks. It often took three passes to move the ball across instead of one, by which point Chelsea were back in position. But there were still plenty of opportunities for Cedric (and Bertrand, but I didn't notice it as much on that side) to show a bit more forward impetus, whether it was making a run off the ball or with the ball.

 

Cedric is blessed with pace too, so it is feasible he could get round the back, that's what makes it all the more frustrating.

[OldNick]

I agree that we were slow to get it out to the flanks. It often took three passes to move the ball across instead of one, by which point Chelsea were back in position. But there were still plenty of opportunities for Cedric (and Bertrand, but I didn't notice it as much on that side) to show a bit more forward impetus, whether it was making a run off the ball or with the ball.

 

Cedric is blessed with pace too, so it is feasible he could get round the back, that's what makes it all the more frustrating.

Cedric couldn't cross his legs most of the time. So its not pertinent if he gets to the byline lol

[OldNick]

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m just trying to explain but not excuse his decision which was very ‘soft’.

 

It’s strange that seemingly the whole football world thinks it should have stood yet the professional referees think it was a foul. It’s as though they’re operating to a different set of laws.

 

By the way, I used the word ‘persuade’ to indicate that I thought that Austin’s challenge was powderpuff.

Whitey,I get what you are saying, but why don't the refs tell us that the rule is touch the goalie and its a foul? Seems to me that any ball near the keeper now is futile as the keeper only has to be off the ground and its a foul.

[Whitey Grandad]

Whitey,I get what you are saying, but why don't the refs tell us that the rule is touch the goalie and its a foul? Seems to me that any ball near the keeper now is futile as the keeper only has to be off the ground and its a foul.

 

I don't think it's quite that straightforward. If a keeper comes for a cross and misses it then tough luck. If he collides with his own player then likewise. If he's about to claim the ball and an opponent clatters into him just as he's about to catch it then that's an obvious foul. What we had with Austin was somewhere in the middle.

 

 

Without getting all lawyered up about it, this is what the relevant Law says about goalkeepers and their 'control of the ball'.

 

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when (my italics):

 

The ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

 

Holding the ball in the outstretched open hand

 

Bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

 

A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands.

 

 

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

(These are not the FIFA Laws of Association Football)

[Norm]

I don't have the facility to message on here but if someone would do me a kindness and message OldNick for me, I would be grateful. Message, 'Nick, item received and that was such a kind gesture! Thank you, Norm'

[Whitey Grandad]

I don't have the facility to message on here but if someone would do me a kindness and message OldNick for me, I would be grateful. Message, 'Nick, item received and that was such a kind gesture! Thank you, Norm'

 

Done