Discussion in 'Soccer' started by Savant, Mar 15, 2019.
So typical of Sarri this season? I have seen nothing from him this year that indicates he's a manager capable of winning much of anything with this club, regardless of which players are brought in.
Every game I've seen of CHO, I don't come away impressed or wow'd.
I mean, it's hard to truly impress or wow when you're consistently coming on in the 85th minute. He's been great in the Europa League when he's been getting starts.
Just finished watching Everton/Chelsea. Everton won but had Chelsea won they would have been tied for 4th overall and a place in the Champions League group stage heading into Week 32.
Nice to see the actual stats to verify things that have been blatantly obvious while watching this team.
Why isn't there obnoxious chatter of Eden Hazard FC like it was for Arsenal and Alexis Sanchez FC? He statistically is carrying them harder than any season Sanchez had for Arsenal.
I think everyone knows that when Hazard leaves, Chelsea are utterly screwed.
Do any Chelsea fans deny that Hazard is carrying our offense right now? Maybe the chatter you refer to came from Aresenal fans trying to claim that they had an actual good team.
Love ya, Babel
No it was from all other fanbases saying Arsenal had no one besides Alexis.
That was my point, that Arsenal fans were disputing that accurate assessment which drove the narrative. I don't think there are many Chelsea fans denying the lack of attacking talent outside Hazard.
It was not accurate, we are better without him.
It was absolutely accurate. Just because Arsenal have gone and bought more attacking talent, doesn't change the fact that they seriously lacked it when they were relying heavily on Alexis Sanchez. This is exactly why there was tons of chatter about it and little about Hazard with Chelsea, because Chelsea supporters aren't denying that it's true so the conversation dies.
In 16-17 Sanchez scored 33% of Arsenal's league goals and 26% of their total goals, with 18.5% of assists given in the league and 18% overall. They brought in other good players in 17-18 while also selling him that season. Hazard has 30% of Chelsea's league goals and 22% of their overall goals this season, with 27.5% of assists given in the league and 16% overall this season. Seems to be that Sanchez was as vital to Arsenal's attack as Hazard is now, the big difference being that Arsenal has since brought in some quality while selling Sanchez.
I mean they really didn't for most of the time he was at Arsenal? He carried your club for years. Look at 2014-2017. Giroud and Alexis, with ****ing Theo Walcott 3rd in scoring each year.
He was only there for a few months once PEA and Lacazette arrived, which brought some real attacking talent. Prior to that for the most part, Alexis carried Arsenal.
Arsenal had a better win percentage without Sanchez.
Well, the offense was running through Alexis for better or worse. We didn't play a cohesive style at all, especially in the last 2 seasons. We went 15-2-4 without him, which in general is good enough to win titles most seasons. People underrated plenty of the other players that were held back due to his playstyle (Iwobi/Ox being the primary examples).
Do you think Chelsea can go 15-2-4 without Hazard?
If we make a lot off of his sale and invest it in 2-3 starting quality players when he's leaving? Maybe. If we just let him walk and do nothing to address our black hole of attacking options? Absolutely not.
It's okay. Pulisic is coming
Thank you Everton, I appreciate you
Good thing that the stats there also cover quality of competition and their designated role in the team.
I mean, RLC and Hudson-Odoi got most of their minutes in Cup competitions vs inferior teams, but why would that come into the equation.
I'm far from a Sarri fan - but those stats lack context.
I actually think his football is boring, it's tiki-taka without purpose, and I don't think he's done as great with Napoli as he could have.
Distant second in Serie A and bowing out early in CL/EL every year... I mean, Napoli cemented themselves as the 2nd best in Italy for the time being, but whether he or his brand of football is good enough to win titles and go deep in Eurpe...
Well, at best, it's up for debate.
You mean Chelsea , right?
Distant?.... 4 points is distant? You do realize how much of an achievement that is right? Take a look at the financial disparity. It's a ridiculous gap. I mean, Juve's 15 points ahead right now post-Sarri.
And yeah, they purposely threw European comps his last season there in order to focus on the league. Disagree with it if you like , but that's what he did.
He just lost a final against arguably the best team in Europe via penalties , after his keeper acted like a clown , and is in latter stages of the Europa league.
The brand of football isn't the issue.
Wrong. It's far more direct than aimless tiki-taka , Chelsea just don't operate it consistently.
This sums up most Sarri arguments right now :
Just the same uninformed nonsense over and over. One side is far more rational than the other.
No. I mean Napoli. It's not like Napoli was a scrub club when Sarri got there, they already establishing themselves a top team in Italy.
In Mazzari's last 2 seasons they finished 2nd and 3rd and won the Cup as well.
Benitez didn't work out, but this wasn't a squad of peasants that Sarri magically turned into a decent team by himself.
I don't think Juve were threatened at all. And in that case, yes, it's a distant 2nd (or 3rd, like in 16-17).
For a long time last season Napoli held pace, even led, but when push same to shove, first Juve won in Naples and then Napoli just started throwing points away. Napoli did win in Turin, but it was too little too late.
I'm not saying Sarri was expected to win vs Juve, but him finishing 2nd/3rd/2nd isn't really exceeding expectations either.
In the end, Mazzari did the same AND won the Coppa.
They threw the Champions League by bowing out in the group stages, on purpose?
Well, there you go, just goes to show how next level Napoli are, they're the one club in the world apparently willing to throw in the CL.
I guess you can blame the whole team instead of the one manager.
To me, Chelsea is boring. They're predictable, they're slow, safe, bland and unexciting. They lack ideas and are snail-paced in transition.
Chance at a counter? "Wait, wait, Jorginho didn't touch the ball, turn it back, turn it back."
Sarri either wants to play better football in the same style but doesn't have the players for it - or simply wants this type of football.
But one thing he does not do is adapt.
Conte's Chelsea was a defensive team that was genuinely exciting to watch as they transition so fast going forward, with largely the same players (Costa instead of Morata/Higuain is the one major difference). At least in his first season, before he lost the plot.
Pep had his problems in his first year at City, but they were mostly defensive. Offensively, the team started catching on relatively quickly, it was possession-based and they were creating loads...
Sarri's Chelsea looks more like Lopetegui's Madrid than Pep's City in that regard.
Look, I'm not looking for an argument here, maybe Sarri turns it around and gets Chelsea back to being a top contender.
Good on him if he does.
I think Sarri can do a lot with Chelsea so hopefully they jettison him this season before he has a chance to establish the team.
Separate names with a comma.