What's new

Chelsea v Brighton (CL) Sat 15th Apr 2023 15:00 GMT

I just hope Beohly and co. are not looking to run us like the Baseball outfit in the Moneyball film starring Brad Pitt and based on truth.

They bought players on stats even if the coach did not want them and if the coach refused to play them they sold the players playing in their positions. It came off.

Yet for me football and baseball are very different games.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball_(film)

 
Stats are good, but not the be all and end all. The best player in the world is a waste of money if he doesn't fit your team profile, a lesser player that fits is a far better proposition.

No American sports are really team sports. A mix of players working together to become better than their sum of parts, sums up football. All American sports, rely on maybe 2 or 3 players gelling, or 1 outstanding player at his position. The best pitcher, with the best batters, makes a great baseball team.

American football is even worse. there you have 2 separate teams, Defense and Offense. Each player in reality has 1 opponent to work against, 1 job to do. Quarter back and 1 or 2 wide receivers on each play need to understand each other, but at the end if day, it is the play chosen rather than personnel that really dictate things.

The stats way of acquiring players doesn't work well with football, it can help guide, but should not be the overriding factor.

 
coombsie said:
Nice words and it is hard to disagree with Frank, but he has had three games now, yet we still perform like that ??? What the hell is going on at the training ground, if despite the eloquent words, we still perform that badly ??
Click to expand...
I think it seems like Frank was annoyed and frustrated at the collective lack of effort put in yesterday.

 
Ajbod said:
Brighton are a MUCH better team than us BECAUSE of Graham Potter. When Boehly bought him in it was a very sensible decision because they looked at what he had done at Brighton, not just results on the pitch.

The problem with that was that Potters approach took a lot of time, everything was data based. It is reckoned that football is getting much more data driven, and due to Potter, Brighton are 2 – 3 years ahead of everyone else, It shows on the pitch now. His approach was working very well, and season on season improving. However, we will never know how far he could have gone with them, because we stepped in. De Zerbi is reaping the reward of Potters work, he is much more on field tactically astute than Potter ever was, hence the massive improvement this season. He’s improved the bits Potter never noticed.

You have to have a long-term goal, and a short-term goal. Brightons when Potter went in was, long term, European football, Premiership titles (perhaps). Short term Premiership survival. As long as you are showing progression towards the long term, and covering the short term, then great carry on.

At Chelsea he was starting further along the pathway, than at Brighton without the experience of building up to it. What are our long term goals, I suspect to stay at elite levels. European football at the very least. And build a sustainable root and branch rebuild of the club.  Short term actually probably the same, for financial reasons, stay at Elite level.

Compound his problems of building his data driven team, by throwing a squad, twice the size of any he’d previously worked with. Result total confusion. He’d always worked with younger more compliant players, more open to new approaches Not our overpaid prime donnas. He identified players to buy, to fit in with his plans, and the Brighton board backed him fully. At Chelsea he gets thrown the supposed best young talent around, (because we’re all mighty, and we will have the best yank approach), regardless of whether they actually will fit in any way, and expected him to work it out, despite totally bugg&^*$g up his data plans.

Unfortunately, his on pitch tactics, were very confusing, and all the time he was here, he never settled on his starting 11. Due to constant team and formation changes. No rhythm could be built up, occasionally we had very good spells of play, and I thought great he’s finally learnt something. Only to have the next game completely altered again, disregarding what had worked well. Too much tinkering. Had the short term goal been the same as Brightons was, things could have progressed, but with European football NEEDED, it couldn’t go on. He had to go. But since relegation was almost certainly not on the horizon, it should have been at the end of season. But that causes all sorts of problems with a dead man walking.

Pull the trigger too quick, (another common American problem). Fans up in arms, so to appease them bring in Frank.

When he started his managerial career, he was given a lot of leeway, due to the transfer embargo, forced to use younger more impressionable players. We played with a freedom, that resulted in lots of goals. Defensively we were poor, but as long as we outscored our opponents then it wasn’t really a problem. We were going on very nicely. Then someone figured out how to stop us in our tracks. That meant a change of tactics were needed, and that was always Franks Achilles heel. It was always plan A is failing, switch players and continue on with Plan A. Tactically he was and still is naïve, he cannot see the whole and figure out how to change it.

None of the players will play for him as an interim, because to them he is meaningless. The only incentive is, IF they want a future at Chelsea, they NEED to show they deserve it. But without the next manager overseeing things, this is very difficult. Perhaps the new manager as some sort of consultant sporting director, to the end of the season, to see what he needs to change etc when he takes over.

However things go, I suspect if we survive FFP problems, it will be MANY years until we are again an elite club, With the players available, and the right coach, we should be able to get back into European football pretty quickly, but true contenders, I can’t see for some time. Attracting the top players, and the FFP constraints, will make recruitment very difficult. As to shifting the deadwood, we might as well give them away, as selling at a reasonable price will be nearly impossible. Who will want to pay the inflated wages, let alone actually pay for the privilege.

The bottom line is the club has had problems for years, but managed to maintain things. Then came the Ukraine war. We were well f*&^ed by our government. Roman could have been frozen out, with the club allowed to continue trading as normal, pending a sale. Safe in the knowledge that Roman was nowhere near the money.

The squad would have been the same because contracts could have been renegotiated. Clearlake would still cause problems, but with the spine of the team still there, on field we would still have been able to perform better that we have.
Click to expand...
Most of this is spot on.

One thing Graham Potter must have been absolutely flabbergasted about is the physical level of the players.

Brighton were always playing for 90 minutes, pressuring, running, performing right until the end. Last season his Brighton scored most goals out of anyone (IIRC; could be that Liverpool or City ended up higher) in the final ten minutes. In 18 out of the 19 last games under Potter where they had the lead, they also won. Incredibly fit.

First thing he finds in Chelsea is a squad that only lasts for 50 minutes. After that, there was a shocking drop in quality.

In modern football, it is very important to make players recover quicker from sprints. Some ten years ago there was a study showing the decrease in quality in the 5 minutes after a player had made a sprit, and most coaches started to work with it, making their bodies adapt to only get some 30 seconds of recovery time after a sprint. This doesn't happen over night. With some exceptions, it usually takes years for the body to fully adapt to that.

Whatever Tuchel and the physio coaches did, it left the players in a shockingly poor state physically speaking. It might explain why every Tuchel gradually declines over time, which along with his impossible personality makes him very sackable regardless of initial success at his clubs.

Too bad for players like James, Mount and others who can't perform for 90 minutes or during tight game schedules. In the unlikely case someone is allowed to build these players up again, it will take years, if it happens at all. Players signed and coached by Thomas Tuchel in Dortmund & PSG yet to this day struggle with the physical aspects of the game. Icardi, Leandro Paredes, Idrissa Gueye, Dembele, Schürrle, Götze, Alexander Isak... the list of players who was signed by Tuchel, worked with him a few years and then spent too much time on the sidelines or just turned to sh*t, is extensive.

Its a real mess to sort out.

 
SwedishEntity said:
Most of this is spot on.

One thing Graham Potter must have been absolutely flabbergasted about is the physical level of the players.

Brighton were always playing for 90 minutes, pressuring, running, performing right until the end. Last season his Brighton scored most goals out of anyone (IIRC; could be that Liverpool or City ended up higher) in the final ten minutes. In 18 out of the 19 last games under Potter where they had the lead, they also won. Incredibly fit.

First thing he finds in Chelsea is a squad that only lasts for 50 minutes. After that, there was a shocking drop in quality.

In modern football, it is very important to make players recover quicker from sprints. Some ten years ago there was a study showing the decrease in quality in the 5 minutes after a player had made a sprit, and most coaches started to work with it, making their bodies adapt to only get some 30 seconds of recovery time after a sprint. This doesn't happen over night. With some exceptions, it usually takes years for the body to fully adapt to that.

Whatever Tuchel and the physio coaches did, it left the players in a shockingly poor state physically speaking. It might explain why every Tuchel gradually declines over time, which along with his impossible personality makes him very sackable regardless of initial success at his clubs.

Too bad for players like James, Mount and others who can't perform for 90 minutes or during tight game schedules. In the unlikely case someone is allowed to build these players up again, it will take years, if it happens at all. Players signed and coached by Thomas Tuchel in Dortmund & PSG yet to this day struggle with the physical aspects of the game. Icardi, Leandro Paredes, Idrissa Gueye, Dembele, Schürrle, Götze, Alexander Isak... the list of players who was signed by Tuchel, worked with him a few years and then spent too much time on the sidelines or just turned to sh*t, is extensive.

Its a real mess to sort out.
Click to expand...
I respect your input, but to be fair Chelsea is not Brighton, nor the players' ego the same. You can't have Chelsea or any other big club run for 90 minutes and play the Brighton tactics because that is not what big clubs do, nor big players want. They want to have the ball most of the time, not run w/o it. That's why managers like Mourinho and Simeone fall into the outdated category and big clubs don't approach them.

Potter had his trademark tactics and we all knew his style, fair play about that and in the end it did not fit Chelsea. But as I've said it before, the major mistake was to appoint him in the first place and that goes to the board. Yes, Potter would have been the perfect manager suited for a very long term project. Only his tactics were suited for a Spurs type of club, not ours.

And for all the "Brighton is Potter's creation", I would want to say it is probably better to say Potter built the squad, whereas the current style of play is a million years ahead of what Potter's tactics look like. Brighton under Potter never, but never has played like the way they play now, they were nowhere near the current version.

 
When Conte came into Chelsea he was appalled at the fitness levels of all playing staff. That is why he instituted double training sessions to build up their fitness in the preseason. You don't need to have the players run around full pelt for 90 min's, but they do need to be able to, if and when required. Our squad is patently less fit than every other team we play against. That is why they outrun us, and out work us. Talent and skill only takes you so far. When the chips are down you have to be able to compete at the highest level, then your talent and skill provides the advantage. Lampard was renowned for staying after training, and doing extra runs, and extra free kick practice. That is why he was the complete box to box player, because of his desire to be the best, he would drive himself harder than the others, to attain that. His fitness was far superior to the rest of the team.

When Lukaku returned he was lean and fit, at the start he was very good, fast and lethal, following an injury, he was obviously overweight, slower, beaten to the ball and even shrugged off it. Something has been wrong with our fitness training for quite some time, and needs addressing.

 
petre ispirescu said:
I respect your input, but to be fair Chelsea is not Brighton, nor the players' ego the same. You can't have Chelsea or any other big club run for 90 minutes and play the Brighton tactics because that is not what big clubs do, nor big players want.
Click to expand...
Sorry but have to strongly disagree, can you support this comment with facts or is it just your humble opinion? There is no reason a "big club" shouldn't run itself ragged for 90 minutes. The players might not like it because it asks a lot of them, but they get paid plenty and our current problems all are related to a lack of effort. Watch Felix for Brighton's second, he just watches and gives up, when a bit of running might hava prevented that goal. Hard work is the only way out of the current mess and players need to dig deep.

 
petre ispirescu said:
I respect your input, but to be fair Chelsea is not Brighton, nor the players' ego the same. You can't have Chelsea or any other big club run for 90 minutes and play the Brighton tactics because that is not what big clubs do, nor big players want. They want to have the ball most of the time, not run w/o it. That's why managers like Mourinho and Simeone fall into the outdated category and big clubs don't approach them.

Potter had his trademark tactics and we all knew his style, fair play about that and in the end it did not fit Chelsea. But as I've said it before, the major mistake was to appoint him in the first place and that goes to the board. Yes, Potter would have been the perfect manager suited for a very long term project. Only his tactics were suited for a Spurs type of club, not ours.

And for all the "Brighton is Potter's creation", I would want to say it is probably better to say Potter built the squad, whereas the current style of play is a million years ahead of what Potter's tactics look like. Brighton under Potter never, but never has played like the way they play now, they were nowhere near the current version.
Click to expand...
Running around without the ball brings you the ball because you win it back when you lose it. If you don't work hard to win the ball, you won't have the ball - such is the Premier League.

Top 5 Possession in 2021/22:
1. Manchester City 
2. Liverpool
3. Chelsea
4. Brighton & Hove Albion
5. Arsenal

One of these teams operated on the second lowest budget in the league, the others didn't.

De Zerbi's Brighton and Potter's Brighton are very similar stories in terms of tactics and approach - hence the smooth transition. Short passing through pressure which creates spaces on the opposing half where the team overloads in one area or another to create chances.

Manchester United a year ago had no more fun than you had this weekend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7m-Xi8pYIc

Also I don't understand why someone would "fit Spurs" but "not Chelsea" when you have been twins for about twenty years, (mainly) employing defensive, pragmatic coaches -in a lot of cases the same ones - like Scolari, Mourinho, Conte.

You're right that GP, who is known to have his clubs play brave and attacking football, doesn't fit into that. But he'd have the same problem in Spurs: incompetence in the board room, a club identity of playing powerful rather than fluid football, and a bunch of overpaid divas unwilling to put the amount of effort and work required to reach the top on a consistent basis.

Largely you can divide football managers into two categories: Cruijffians and Gaalians. The former are utopians who want their teams to play sexy football. In this category you'll find Cruijff, Pep, De Zerbi, Potter, Wenger, Roberto Martinez and of course dozens and dozens of others. The latter are "win at all costs"-managers like van Gaal, Mourinho, Ferguson, Benitez, Simeone, Scolari, Zidane, Capello, Conte and, again, dozens and dozens of others. Chelsea has been a Gaalian team since the Abramovich era began, with a couple of exceptions like Sarri (mainly a Cruijffian) and Guus Hiddink (one of few successful 'hybrid' managers).

These approaches doesn't generate different results really. There's advantages and disadvantages to it.

The Gaalian approach requires experience, muscle and grit, and the advantage with it is that if you have experienced, good players, you can get them to play that way within months. Another advantage is that results will always be at least 'ok'. The disadvantage is that since you're relying on experienced players, it is difficult to keep the level up for years, and it can be very difficult to introduce young players into it. 

The Cruijffian approach requires technique, a willingness to participate in all areas of the game, a desire to learn and full respect for your teammates. The advantage is that the end result is great to watch and can last for a very long time since the players learn to play according to the system rather than the system being adapted to get the most out of what already is. The disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time to make it work and when it isn't working, it looks... really bad, like in Frank Rijkaards first Barcelona season when he was laying the foundations to the team that would eventually dominate under Pep & Enrique.

Spurs have a reputation of being a Cruijffian club but they haven't been for (at least) twenty years. Chelsea wanted to be a Cruijffian club in the 90s and early 00s but has been Gaalian ever since. Todd Boehly wants - or wanted - to change it, apparently, and Graham is the right man for that. But you can't build a Cruijjfian style if you sack the manager after six months of poor results. Tony Bloom knows that, Todd Boehly doesn't. Too bad for you.

 
I don't think it's as simple as that. Brighton beat us physically as much as in any other way. And by the way Mitoma has made fools of more than Chalobah, one of the most exciting players I've seen in a while.

Personally I think we picked the wrong team for this game but what ever team we picked was going to get thrashed. What's the point of playing enzo when we really need him fresh for real? Sterling i could understand for match practice but not in the centre, it's completely f*** stupid to compound every other error by picking people out of position. Would have been far better to put him on the right wing and play Auba.

The owners should have stuck with Potter till the end of the season, I didn't like him as a manager, happy to see him gone,  but sacking him now with Lampard as the replacement was yet another grotesque error by the ownership team. Lampard is on a hiding to nothing, he doesn't have the managerial track record that say Hiddink had and the team won't listen to him. 

 
De Zerbi ball is just spectacular. Brighton could have easily scored 5/6 against us. The movement of the player, the way they press, the way they create space, it is just brilliant to watch. 

However there is big concern how he will translate his method to bigger team.

 
SwedishEntity said:
Running around without the ball brings you the ball because you win it back when you lose it. If you don't work hard to win the ball, you won't have the ball - such is the Premier League.

Top 5 Possession in 2021/22:
1. Manchester City 
2. Liverpool
3. Chelsea
4. Brighton & Hove Albion
5. Arsenal

One of these teams operated on the second lowest budget in the league, the others didn't.

De Zerbi's Brighton and Potter's Brighton are very similar stories in terms of tactics and approach - hence the smooth transition. Short passing through pressure which creates spaces on the opposing half where the team overloads in one area or another to create chances.

Manchester United a year ago had no more fun than you had this weekend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7m-Xi8pYIc

Also I don't understand why someone would "fit Spurs" but "not Chelsea" when you have been twins for about twenty years, (mainly) employing defensive, pragmatic coaches -in a lot of cases the same ones - like Scolari, Mourinho, Conte.

You're right that GP, who is known to have his clubs play brave and attacking football, doesn't fit into that. But he'd have the same problem in Spurs: incompetence in the board room, a club identity of playing powerful rather than fluid football, and a bunch of overpaid divas unwilling to put the amount of effort and work required to reach the top on a consistent basis.

Largely you can divide football managers into two categories: Cruijffians and Gaalians. The former are utopians who want their teams to play sexy football. In this category you'll find Cruijff, Pep, De Zerbi, Potter, Wenger, Roberto Martinez and of course dozens and dozens of others. The latter are "win at all costs"-managers like van Gaal, Mourinho, Ferguson, Benitez, Simeone, Scolari, Zidane, Capello, Conte and, again, dozens and dozens of others. Chelsea has been a Gaalian team since the Abramovich era began, with a couple of exceptions like Sarri (mainly a Cruijffian) and Guus Hiddink (one of few successful 'hybrid' managers).

These approaches doesn't generate different results really. There's advantages and disadvantages to it.

The Gaalian approach requires experience, muscle and grit, and the advantage with it is that if you have experienced, good players, you can get them to play that way within months. Another advantage is that results will always be at least 'ok'. The disadvantage is that since you're relying on experienced players, it is difficult to keep the level up for years, and it can be very difficult to introduce young players into it. 

The Cruijffian approach requires technique, a willingness to participate in all areas of the game, a desire to learn and full respect for your teammates. The advantage is that the end result is great to watch and can last for a very long time since the players learn to play according to the system rather than the system being adapted to get the most out of what already is. The disadvantage is that it takes a lot of time to make it work and when it isn't working, it looks... really bad, like in Frank Rijkaards first Barcelona season when he was laying the foundations to the team that would eventually dominate under Pep & Enrique.

Spurs have a reputation of being a Cruijffian club but they haven't been for (at least) twenty years. Chelsea wanted to be a Cruijffian club in the 90s and early 00s but has been Gaalian ever since. Todd Boehly wants - or wanted - to change it, apparently, and Graham is the right man for that. But you can't build a Cruijjfian style if you sack the manager after six months of poor results. Tony Bloom knows that, Todd Boehly doesn't. Too bad for you.
Click to expand...
Listen mate are you a Swedish PL & Chelsea fan or just a Potter admirer from his days back in Sweden? Because I don't really get this analysis to be honest and makes me think you are not really up to date with the PL. How come Potter is similar to Guardiola, Cruijff, Wenger? In what world? Did you watch Brighton under Potter by any chance? They did not really set the world apart last season and only the relegated clubs and Wolves scored fewer goals than Brighton. The season before, they scored 40 and the season before that 39. For the record in that season Bournemouth relegated with 40 goals scored and Burnley, the rugby club under Dyche, outscored Brighton.

I mean his appointment was a total disaster, it would have been a great story, but as a manager you need the ability to back it up, too. As I said, Potter might have built the squad at Brighton, but De Zerbi totally changed the gameplay, the way Brighton play at the moment, they never played like that under Potter.

Graham Potter is a good guy and gets a free pass from the English media most of the times, he has all the chances to replace Southgate in the future, but as I said, his appointment here was a total mistake and took a lot by surprise. Potter was not really THAT up and coming manager that all the massive clubs were after because Brighton was not a giant killer week in, week out, they were just doing fine as a small club on a low budget. What made the Chelsea owners choose him? Only they know.

 
petre ispirescu said:
Listen mate are you a Swedish PL & Chelsea fan or just a Potter admirer from his days back in Sweden? Because I don't really get this analysis to be honest and makes me think you are not really up to date with the PL. How come Potter is similar to Guardiola, Cruijff, Wenger? In what world? Did you watch Brighton under Potter by any chance? They did not really set the world apart last season and only the relegated clubs and Wolves scored fewer goals than Brighton. The season before, they scored 40 and the season before that 39. For the record in that season Bournemouth relegated with 40 goals scored and Burnley, the rugby club under Dyche, outscored Brighton.

I mean his appointment was a total disaster, it would have been a great story, but as a manager you need the ability to back it up, too. As I said, Potter might have built the squad at Brighton, but De Zerbi totally changed the gameplay, the way Brighton play at the moment, they never played like that under Potter.

Graham Potter is a good guy and gets a free pass from the English media most of the times, he has all the chances to replace Southgate in the future, but as I said, his appointment here was a total mistake and took a lot by surprise. Potter was not really THAT up and coming manager that all the massive clubs were after because Brighton was not a giant killer week in, week out, they were just doing fine as a small club on a low budget. What made the Chelsea owners choose him? Only they know.
Click to expand...
A Potter admirer from Sweden.

Potter is similar to Guardiola, Cruijff, Wenger, Roberto Martinez and the others I mentioned due to the style of football he wants his teams to play.

I did watch Brighton under Potter. Every game. They struggled with goal scoring until Caicedo came in and change the dynamics of the team, which is when they started to score for fun. But the chances were always there, few teams created more chances, but when Neal Maupay, Aaron Connolly and Danny Welbeck (the latter is fine... when fit) lead the line up front, a team is going to struggle to convert chances into goals. When Caicedo (who is the best central midfielder in the world) came in and allowed other players to attack for fun, the lack of striker goals was no longer an issue. With the signing of Mitoma, this has improved further.

Brighton doesn't play exactly the same way with RDZ as with Potter, but very similar.

Brighton  beat Arsenal (2-1), Tottenham (1-0), Manchester United (4-0) last season, played two draws against Chelsea and one draw against Liverpool. Twelve points against the "Big Six", which is decent.

Not sure why Boehly picked Potter. Probably read a couple of headlines.

Doesn't really matter. Brighton broke into the top 10 with a bottom 2 budget (only Burnley paid less wages), fifth most possession out of all teams, creating the 7th most chances while being the only Premier League team with a net transfer profit over three years. It is unprecedented for club operating on a bottom two-budget to reach 9th place in the league while playing attacking football.

One thing Boehly might have looked into was not only the results and the fantastic and fluid football the team played (and still play with RDZ), but also how profitable Graham Potter has been at all his clubs. The Östersund side that reached the Europa League was built with less than £500k and made player sales profits of more than £10m. In Swansea he spent £5m on players, and the players he brought into the team (primarly from the academy) went on to make a £60m profit for the club. Naturally, any successful businessman (like Tony Bloom who poached him from Swansea) are interested in managers who develop players to the extent that they bring in 10x what was spent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SwedishEntity said:
If you're question me being Swedish, feel free to notice how I'm capable of getting things like "they're/their" and "would have, should have" right, which pretty much eliminates any chance of me originating from your island.
Click to expand...
Haha excellent

 
SwedishEntity said:
If you're questioning my admiration for Graham Potter, you can read my previous posts here at The Shed End.
If you're question me being Swedish, feel free to notice how I'm capable of getting things like "they're/their" and "would have, should have" right, which pretty much eliminates any chance of me originating from your island.
Click to expand...
Please mate Swedes are well known for using words like feck, fecker and sh*te aren't they. I looked at the Brighton forum Northstand after @Sexyfootball said you were banned and there's a whole thread about you and how you drove the whole forum mental with your posts. You are a pisstaker who likes to wind people up simple as that.

https://www.northstandchat.com/threads/we-need-to-talk-about-swansman.398682/

 
bluehaze said:
Please mate Swedes are well known for using words like feck, fecker and sh*te aren't they.
Click to expand...
Indeed we are. We watch a lot of American culture, so we often swear a lot when speaking English. If you haven't noticed is, encountering American culture makes you slowly rot inside. There's no Victorian heritage that holds us back. I don't know the number of times your broadcasters has told Pontus Jansson to watch his language when he has said "sh*t" or "f**king" in a post-game interview.

Whatever you think Swedes are, you seem to be wrong. We're not like Björn and Benny and whatever the ABBA ladies names are; nah, we're a bunch of overpaid, savage, foul-mouthed, rabid c**ts.
These misunderstandings happens easily... A few years ago I thought English people were either like Mr Bean or James Bond, but after a few years of daily interactions with the British, I know its a country of Harry Redknapps and Neil Warnocks.

 
SwedishEntity said:
Indeed we are. We watch a lot of American culture, so we often swear a lot when speaking English. If you haven't noticed is, encountering American culture makes you slowly rot inside. There's no Victorian heritage that holds us back. I don't know the number of times your broadcasters has told Pontus Jansson to watch his language when he has said "sh*t" or "f**king" in a post-game interview.

Whatever you think Swedes are, you seem to be wrong. We're not like Björn and Benny and whatever the ABBA ladies names are; nah, we're a bunch of overpaid, savage, foul-mouthed, rabid c**ts.
These misunderstandings happens easily... A few years ago I thought English people were either like Mr Bean or James Bond, but after a few years of daily interactions with the British, I know its a country of Harry Redknapps and Neil Warnocks.
Click to expand...
I have not mentioned the Swedish people at all just that I know you're not one yet you start slagging British people off. If you have such a low opinion of us why are you so interested in English football getting banned from one site of a team you don't support to being on here with the pretence of being an admirer of Graham Potter who has now left so why are you still posting on here you don't support Chelsea mate as I said you here to take the piss that's all.

Well done though for getting a whole thread on people thinking what a berk you are (berk slang for Berkshire Hunt but you knew that didn't you ). Anyway I'm not spending anymore time on you non entity good luck with whatever team Potter goes to next my guess would be QPR or someone like that.

 
No one can argue that citeh are the complete team, they are streets ahead of most others. Watch what happens when they lose the ball. They switch into turbo mode, effort jumps on the part of every player, That way they regain the ball usually within 15 seconds, then they drop back to normal levels.

When a lesser team show signs of truly competing with the elite teams, that injection of effort is so disheartening to the lesser team, That it almost stamps out their ambition. The realisation that the elite team has so much more on offer than they do.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top