
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Chelsea 1 - 2 Sunderland
Sunderland? Who's Sunderland? "He" sure delivers




Moderator: maddog986






warspite1ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
Chelsea 1 - 2 Sunderland
Sunderland? Who's Sunderland? "He" sure delivers








ORIGINAL: warspite1
All the talk is that David Moyes will go today or tomorrow..... So much for giving him time.

ORIGINAL: Orm
Watched Chelsea park the bus in Madrid. And they got the 0-0 match they wanted.
While I agree that it might be boring to watch it, I think it takes skill from the manager to park that bus so well that it blocks all attempts from Madrid to score.
Soooo... if Atlético scores at Stamford Bridge...
Chelsea might be in deep trouble
Because a second goal might follow a first goal... And that's game over.Why do you care about this match?ORIGINAL: warspite1
Fulham Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
A two goal lead blown..... [:@][:-]
warspite1ORIGINAL: Orm
Why do you care about this match?ORIGINAL: warspite1
Fulham Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!
A two goal lead blown..... [:@][:-]
Not that I really care because football is a stupid game anyway.
Chelsea and Mourinho might have wanted to win this match by 10 to nothing for all I know. But judging by how they played I say they wanted a 0-0 match.ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: Orm
Watched Chelsea park the bus in Madrid. And they got the 0-0 match they wanted.
While I agree that it might be boring to watch it, I think it takes skill from the manager to park that bus so well that it blocks all attempts from Madrid to score.
I am pretty certain they wanted 0 - 1 [;)]
0 - 0 is dangerous for Chelsea now. Scoring away is a must in this competition. It's close to a knock out.Soooo... if Atlético scores at Stamford Bridge...
Chelsea might be in deep trouble
Because a second goal might follow a first goal... And that's game over.
As for these cheap tactics, my view is totally opposite. These are the tactics used by small teams. Period. Mourinho is more successful because he's got great players... whilst the small teams which use these tactics (to survive, never forget it) have much less skilled players. Ergo, that's why Mourinho (or any other coach doing this) can be more successful... than the small teams he is emulating.
There's no glory in here. Only a small man using small teams tactics. No one will ever convince me that this clown is a genius.
ORIGINAL: british exil
At the end of the day no one really asks how a title was won, only that it was won. Not only football.
Mat
That Barcelona supporters has that attitude just show that they have won a lot of titles recently. I find it more interesting to ask a rich team that has won no title for, say 20 years, if they prefer their team to win titles with a defensive play style or if they prefer them to play fun attacking football but without any titles won.ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: british exil
At the end of the day no one really asks how a title was won, only that it was won. Not only football.
Mat
Today at Old Trafford (new coach, Giggs) supporters chanted "attack attack attack". Barcelona supporters would never allow their rich team (players) to sit back like small teams. They would torch the stadium if they were served this cheap meal [;)]
In the 90s Real Madrid supporters booed their own team. YES, they were winning 1 - 0 or 0 - 1. The coach was sacked precisely because of this poor football display or anti-football. And YES, he was victorious. And yet they appointed Mourinho one decade later. Goes to show they were desperate. They were (Barcelona supremacy has to end).
These are historical heavy weights. The nouveaux riches (ie Chelsea) may accept these meals. It's what you have to expect from those who never tasted greatness before.
warspite1ORIGINAL: Orm
That Barcelona supporters has that attitude just show that they have won a lot of titles recently. I find it more interesting to ask a rich team that has won no title for, say 20 years, if they prefer their team to win titles with a defensive play style or if they prefer them to play fun attacking football but without any titles won.ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus
ORIGINAL: british exil
At the end of the day no one really asks how a title was won, only that it was won. Not only football.
Mat
Today at Old Trafford (new coach, Giggs) supporters chanted "attack attack attack". Barcelona supporters would never allow their rich team (players) to sit back like small teams. They would torch the stadium if they were served this cheap meal [;)]
In the 90s Real Madrid supporters booed their own team. YES, they were winning 1 - 0 or 0 - 1. The coach was sacked precisely because of this poor football display or anti-football. And YES, he was victorious. And yet they appointed Mourinho one decade later. Goes to show they were desperate. They were (Barcelona supremacy has to end).
These are historical heavy weights. The nouveaux riches (ie Chelsea) may accept these meals. It's what you have to expect from those who never tasted greatness before.
ORIGINAL: Orm
I find it more interesting to ask a rich team that has won no title for, say 20 years, if they prefer their team to win titles with a defensive play style or if they prefer them to play fun attacking football but without any titles won.
ORIGINAL: warspite1
I think you have a selective memory. Barcelona did not always win playing beautiful football did they? And why do you say Mourinho had the most expensive Real Madrid team ever? Really? I've not checked but I suspect other managers have spent just as lavishly, if not more so. Who bought Zidane, Figo, Ronaldo?