What's new

Chelsea vs Crystal Palace (PL) Sunday 17th August 14:00 GMT

To be fair, how often do you see opposition players get into the home wall. Usually they stand in front.
Click to expand...
They do. The ref draws a magic spray line a metre in front of the wall. Guéhi was in the wall to shove aside a defender to create a gap for the ball to pass through. Clearly a rehearsed move.

 
Never thought we looked in any serious trouble at the back, ok Josh played a couple of loose passes and maybe bullied by Mateta once or twice but thought he did well under the circumstances, learning curve for him still but impressed with him all the same, one wonderful sliding tackle and follow up to win the ball. Though Trev was really good back there as well.

Just seemed to be no real connection between midfield and forwards for me. The game totally passed Enzo by it seemed just totally ineffective, Palmer struggling (hate him dropping deeper to pick up the ball) and Gittens just looking very one dimensional with visually zero success on the left, and Pedro just seemingly getting very little actual service.

Thought Maresca could have changed things at half time the way things had gone, probably controversial opinion but so much prefer seeing Cole on the right personally. Would have been happy even to swap Gittens for Santos at HT and push Enzo into the 10, CP to right and Neto left.

If still no improvement then why not try both Pedro and Delap together v low block, switch Pedro to left (Neto off) and Delap through the middle, Enzo off for Estavao using either Estavao or Cole in the 10 and the other right.

Just all smacked a little of Deja vu and last seasons set up and associated problems and a reluctance to change things when obviously not working

 
What is the solution vs team who blocked the middle. Simple, play better, go long or play with wider build up.

Some team use fb, some use winger, some use am, some use their CB.
Click to expand...
Yup - just need to look at how The Dippers do it.

The first problem, probably the biggest problem, is Maresca only has a plan A - So the opposition know what's coming each week!

The second problem we have, is Maresca's plan A doesn't have any wing backs on the overlap so it often ends up 2 on 1... and that's why we're often trying to put it through a packed middle.

Third problem is we need a midfield that can "quickly" ping it up there and cut open the space - ours don't do it often enough.

Fourth problem, caused by the first problem, we're often dawdling about at the back not knowing what to do and that just hands the advantage back to the opposition...

All problems our coach could be working on during training (lol) but he believes upping the tempo should solve the problems.

PS. didn't we use to have a couple of really good wing backs - think one is now an rb and midfielder and the other is up for sale!

 
This looked pretty clear cut to me. What is Caicedo supposed to do there when Guehi manhandles him from the wall position?

The rule itself is a bit strange but there you go.

 
This looked pretty clear cut to me. What is Caicedo supposed to do there when Guehi manhandles him from the wall position?

The rule itself is a bit strange but there you go.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Palace fans are complaining (and probably rightly so) that you'll see something similar in a game next week and the goal will stand. As always, it's all about consistency. Same with corners and all the jostling and shirt pulling. Sometimes it gets picked up and penalised, other times it's let go. Ditto with handball.

 
Thing is, Palace fans are complaining (and probably rightly so) that you'll see something similar in a game next week and the goal will stand. As always, it's all about consistency. Same with corners and all the jostling and shirt pulling. Sometimes it gets picked up and penalised, other times it's let go. Ditto with handball.
Click to expand...
You are probably right. Handballs have zero consistency. Nothing. Natural position my arse. Who decides what is natural?

 
I could see this rule being one that's overlooked in general, unless the pushing directly results in a goal, as it did yesterday. Hopefully the decision will raise awareness enough to put players off from even trying that kind of trick in future.

 
I could see this rule being one that's overlooked in general, unless the pushing directly results in a goal, as it did yesterday. Hopefully the decision will raise awareness enough to put players off from even trying that kind of trick in future.
Click to expand...
The same rule was applied this weekend in La Liga to disallow an At. Madrid goal (Julian Alvarez).

 
The same rule was applied this weekend in La Liga to disallow an At. Madrid goal (Julian Alvarez).
Click to expand...
That's what I mean. They scored and the rule was enforced, which is a good thing. If the attacking team tries it and fail to score (or gain another advantage, like a corner), then I could see the refs just not bothering to blow up.

 
That's what I mean. They scored and the rule was enforced, which is a good thing. If the attacking team tries it and fail to score (or gain another advantage, like a corner), then I could see the refs just not bothering to blow up.
Click to expand...
You're probably right, as they were saying that a free kick should have been given to Espanyol (and we should also have got a free kick).

 
I sometimes think that. If playing out from the back every time doesn't work why not just mix it up a bit and send a long ball forward?
Click to expand...
Especially now we have a centre-forward in Delap who can actually win a percentage of those flick-on headers and hold the ball up.

Maresca might, hopefully, at some point, be brave enough to maybe play Delap and Pedro up front together. But with how cautious he usually is, it will probably only be as a last roll of the dice when we are a goal or two down and desperately trying to rescue something in the last 15 or 20 minutes of a game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We arrived at SB at 12-40.

The new digital ticket system went “ down “ and hundreds/ thousands had to seek assistance. Thankfully it came back on line in time for all to get in.

The unveiling happened at 1-45pm and was a couple of banners . Yawn!

First off the Palace team were very well set up and save the free kick which was disallowed correctly, Palace offered very little going forward. They clearly were further advanced in their preparation and hugely benefited from having very close to their 24/25 team.

Defensively we were sound, Sanchez was fine, did you notice how many long ball clearances , so were the back four. Our midfield wasn’t firing at all which in effect made our “ forwards” look toothless. Things changed when the subs came on to a degree and our best chances were in the last 1/4

The referee rightly was sent to the screen. Where we were sat you could see the infringement it’s just amazing that it wasn’t seen on field. The Estaveo challenge was on the opposite side so couldn’t see it and don’t Intend to watch the highlights. Never do unless we win!

For me this was two teams one that was was happy with the point before kick off the other who had the clearer cut chances
Click to expand...
The Guehi infringement couldn't be t seem on the screen from our end in MHL. But when.i did first see it I assumed it was a foul because he pushed out players aside. BUT it wasn't for that at all. It was for infringing the law that says an opposition player has to be a leat a yard from the wall. So was was he allowed to stand in the wall in the first place ? Apparently it's been a rule since 2019, but I've never been aware of it, and I'm sure players have been standing in walls, alongside walls and goals have been allowed ??

Nethertheless, this game is familiar. 70% Chelsea possession and Palace had more shots on target .

 
The Guehi infringement couldn't be t seem on the screen from our end in MHL. But when.i did first see it I assumed it was a foul because he pushed out players aside. BUT it wasn't for that at all. It was for infringing the law that says an opposition player has to be a leat a yard from the wall. So was was he allowed to stand in the wall in the first place ? Apparently it's been a rule since 2019, but I've never been aware of it, and I'm sure players have been standing in walls, alongside walls and goals have been allowed ??

Nethertheless, this game is familiar. 70% Chelsea possession and Palace had more shots on target .
Click to expand...
I can remember when the rule was introduced and normally the ref will tell the players that the6 can’t be within 1 metre . In this instance the ref missed the potential so play just carried on.

The key also is that there in this instance was in effect two walls ( only called a wall if 3 players are together) .

Irrespective there was a foul as well so to be fair it being disallowed was correct

 
It was for infringing the law that says an opposition player has to be a leat a yard from the wall. So was was he allowed to stand in the wall in the first place ? Apparently it's been a rule since 2019, but I've never been aware of it, and I'm sure players have been standing in walls, alongside walls and goals have been allowed ??
Click to expand...
He wasn't in the wall. He was the other side of Caicedo, more than 1m from the wall.

image.png

Then he pushes Caicedo sideways and is now within 1m of the wall (and Eze still hasn't got to the ball yet)

image.png

Clear breach of this "1m" rule, even when the ref doesn't give a foul against Guehi for the shove on Caicedo, which he should give in my opinion, as the goal doesn't happen if Caicedo stays where he is (the ball would have hit him). The ball goes through the gap that Guehi creates with the push.

 
He wasn't in the wall. He was the other side of Caicedo, more than 1m from the wall.

View attachment 34932

Then he pushes Caicedo sideways and is now within 1m of the wall (and Eze still hasn't got to the ball yet)

View attachment 34933

Clear breach of this "1m" rule, even when the ref doesn't give a foul against Guehi for the shove on Caicedo, which he should give in my opinion, as the goal doesn't happen if Caicedo stays where he is (the ball would have hit him). The ball goes through the gap that Guehi creates with the push.
Click to expand...
Oh right, I've got it now, thanks for the explanation mate, 👍

 
He wasn't in the wall. He was the other side of Caicedo, more than 1m from the wall.

View attachment 34932

Then he pushes Caicedo sideways and is now within 1m of the wall (and Eze still hasn't got to the ball yet)

View attachment 34933

Clear breach of this "1m" rule, even when the ref doesn't give a foul against Guehi for the shove on Caicedo, which he should give in my opinion, as the goal doesn't happen if Caicedo stays where he is (the ball would have hit him). The ball goes through the gap that Guehi creates with the push.
Click to expand...
Oh right, I've got it now, thanks for the explanation mate, 👍

 
I can remember when the rule was introduced and normally the ref will tell the players that the6 can’t be within 1 metre . In this instance the ref missed the potential so play just carried on.

The key also is that there in this instance was in effect two walls ( only called a wall if 3 players are together) .

Irrespective there was a foul as well so to be fair it being disallowed was correct
Click to expand...
Our very own Sexyfootball has provided an excellent explanation of what happened. Yes, it was a foul anyway 👍

 
I'm sure they would have got away with it, if Caicedo hadn't resisted so strongly. If he'd gone over immediatley they would have scored, because Geihu wouldn't have ended up too close. And sanchez didn't muck it up, he had virtually no chance.

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