Rousseau

Good move.

Why must every piece include the '140 year old' in it? Trying far too hard.

I just watched it for the 1st time there in its entirety.

 

Costa is a scumbag. No two ways about it. Dishing it out and then when he deliberately stops to allow Paulista to walk into him backwards starts his bitching and complaining to the ref and 4th official.

 

Tough guy ? Tough guy my arse. Would love to have seen him try that nonsense with someone like Adams or Keown.

 

Paulista was naïve for sure.

 

Rousseau, how you can say that the initial chest bump was Koscielny "falling" is beyond me. Costa clearly throws his chest into him. The tussling for the ball previously I could see as being difficult for the ref to see, likewise even the flailing left arm (even though it was clearly a sending off offence), but he was clearly "at it" because, even as Paulista approaches the referee Costa slaps him on his back, not in that "lets get over this and play the game" type of slap but more of a "take this you prick" type of way. He then gets all biscuit arsed when Paulista slaps him on the chest..... and then he continues the nonsense after that too.

 

You may call it crafty, sneaky or even a "job well done" - but I for one would love to see that type of behavior removed from the game - Diego Costa, almost single-handedly, ruined what could have been an excellent game of football - the fans were cheated. Chelsea, Mourinho, and his team mates may thank Costa for making it an easier 3 points yesterday but in a terrible fashion, by deliberately going out to get a player sent off.

 

Shame on him.

All true...except the chest bump. They both come together there, and there is no way it's enough to cause Koscielny to fall; he's embarrassingly collapsed like a rag doll, trying to get Costa sent off.

Costa won the game. Very sneaky indeed; I'd even call it cheating. Diving is 'cheating', but there is a difference between a blatant dive and drawing the foul. A player would get roundly criticised by his team-mates and fans if he doesn't go down. I remember Gary Neville doing a piece on it for MNF, where is suggests it's OK for a player to 'dive' if there is sufficient cause. Neville blames the defenders for rash, naive challenges in that situation. Costa has possibly crossed the line at the weekend, but in general, I do not have a problem with players doing all they can to get their team an advantage to win the game.

I have tempered my opinion somewhat after seeing it again. I was just a little too quick in trying to defend him. I still feel he is an easy target.

Ferguson was only defensive by nature in his later years. I would say we could do with more a Gattuso type, someone with decent distribution but who can also read the game well and break up play.

I'd agree with that. We don't really have a destroyer-type player. A destroyer with good distribution would be a great combination for us as a Pivot.

Zelalem is a metronome, won't burst a gut, but is very important for keeping the ball in rotation; Law is more of a runner, arriving late into the box, taking shots at goal. Different players, both give something to the cause IMO. Shiels is a metronome also IMO. Not sure what Holt is -- all-rounder? Halliday plays a regista type role. I think my point is comparing these midfielders is difficult because they have different game-styles and roles, with each contributing something different. We don't really have a destroyer a al Gattuso...

But if Ferguson is a more offensive type (and I agree) then that is similar to Halliday, which means you don't get the pivot you want, right ? The pivot you want someone to be providing cover for the CB's, not being attracted to getting forward.

 

without comparing their qualities, definitely more of a Pirlo than a Ferguson, or even a Gattuso.....

Your right, but I see Ferguson as a DM; Halliday is an AM playing deeper. Ferguson never bombed forward IIRC and was defensive by nature, whereas Halliday is offensive by nature.

Pirlo is a strange case because he was deep-lying playmaker (Regista), so was offensive without bombing forward. I suppose Halliday could perform that role, but would need to sit deep all the time. It's paradoxical, but I think one can be an offensive player while also being a defensive midfielder.

Rousseau, comparing Barry to Pirlo? Not sure he was quite that good!

No way was I comparing them! Leagues apart.

If the away strip clashes with the home strip of the host team then BOTH should wear their home strip.

 

Nothing more than a money-grabbing exercise by Clubs these days. The fans pay plenty through ST's and regular merchandise without having a 3rd strip to buy at exorbitant prices !

I agree with you. However, we don't really see both teams wearing Home kits. Is there some rule in place?

Another good read Rousseau!

 

It's interesting that someone mentioned Barry Ferguson because when I think of this 'pivot' role you're talking about I think of a player like Tymoschuk who did a brilliant job against us in the UEFA Cup final in Manchester.

The Pivot can incorporate different skill-sets. Pirlo played that role for Juventus when they played 4-4-2 (diamond), coming deep to make a 3-man defense, pick up the ball and play those long pin-point passes; he was a attacking pivot in that sense. Or, like you suggest, Tymoschuk, who was more defensive. Ferguson would be a more offensive type.

When the opponents press our split central pair, Halliday has been coming back and acting as pivot. This was very noticable at Dumbarton on Saturday. However when Dumbarton didnt press, Halliday stayed further forward as part of the midfield 5 as you put it. Halliday isn't a natural holding midfielder though, and therefore doesnt offer our centre halfs much protection against the counter attack. Perhaps Eustace will sit deeper both when we have possession as well as when we are defending.

 

A good analysis of the system being used here and elsewhere though. We have had protective players before although we didnt play this system before. Hemdani being the perfect defensive midfielder that we seen the best of in Europe when the quality of opponent was improved above SPL level.

 

That is my only downside to bringing Eustace into the side. While it certainly should offer more protection for the still shaky defence, do we really need this specialised role this season for league matches? We are winning comfortably and creating chances, with all of our midfielders contributing in a positive way with goals and assists and I would say these positive contributions outweigh the amount of times that our exposed defence have conceded due to not having a holding midfielder, or pivot.

 

It is all good for debate and a good problem for the manager to try to sort out. We shall watch with interest over coming weeks how our system develops.

I agree with you. Craig has said elsewhere that as long as the communication is good, we'll be OK with the 3 rotating midfielders this year. I was thinking more long-term, and in the games against better opponents.

The prevailing mood watching Rangers these days is invariably one of confidence and excitement. Ibrox has been packed to the rafters every other week, and a strong contingent eagerly travel to those far off places up and down the country. Rangers fans have been treated thus far to a brand of football often foreign to Scotland: fast, dynamic and relentless. But with the increase in positive play, there has been an increase in nerves and tension during one particular phase of play: when the centre-backs split and the 'keeper has the ball at his feet. Grimacing faces anticipate mistakes, followed by a collective gasp or relieved sighs when big Foderingham miss-places the ball, or safely manages to pass the ball on to a team-mate.

There is a preponderance of complaints in this country when 'keepers mess around with the ball in defence; when the ball goes astray, or leads to a chance for the opposition, one will find a section shaking their heads and pointing their fingers, railing against the very notion of 'keepers attempting anything other than lumping it long. It is an old-fashioned view that 'keepers -- and defenders -- should not be attempting anything complicated in defense. The old-guard go apoplectic when stray passes lead to chances.

Despite these old-fashioned views, it is surely not in doubt from modern audiences that this is the right way to play? Split centre-backs have been pioneered by those sides respected and applauded for playing football the ‘right way’ -- Guardiola's Barcelona and Bayern Munich; the Spanish National Side; and any side that Marcelo Bielsa has coached in recent years, like Chile and Athletic Bilbao. It involves an inherent trust of the ball playing abilities of your central pairing and 'keeper.

Making the shift from the long ball to passing is difficult. Not only does it require technical ability, but it takes bravery, confidence and unwavering faith from the management team. Mistakes will be made, but they need to be endured. The best example of a traditional long ball team making this change is Wales. It was the confidence and faith shown by Gary Speed, and then Chris Coleman, that forced Wales into a good passing side, enabling them to go from 116 in the world to 9 (with a little help from Gareth Bale).

Wales' Dutch number two for Speed's tenure, Raymond Verheijen, suggests that the methods used were not easy to implement in a side that was not used to passing the ball from the back:

“We started with the position of the players and we forced them to keep passing in training and competitive games. [...] As a head coach you have to be strong. Accept that you will lose, sometimes you lose two or three nil, then at some stage the players will improve.”

By splitting, the two centre-backs occupy positions vacated by the full-backs to the left and right of the penalty box providing the 'keeper with two passing points (LCB and RCB) by which to move into Phase 1. The full-backs also then have freedom to push forward from a position of possession. The two centre-backs have more space to pick a pass into Phase 2, with 5 potential passing points (RB, RCM, DM, LCM, LB). The primary benefit of splitting the centre-backs is to facilitate ball retention in a controlled way. A lumped ball up-field removes this aspect of control, leaving the team with a 50/50 chance of winning an aerial dual to retain possession.

The secondary benefit is what it can force the opposition to do. When the 2 centre-backs have possession it can force the opposition to press. Two centre-backs are relatively easy to press, if the opposition have two strikers or are well drilled. However, if worked quickly, it drags the opposition out leaving more space for passing into Phase 2, with 5 potential passing points against 4 opposition midfielders. Of course, if the opposition decide to sit back, then the team in possession have time and space on the ball to build slowly from the back; Phase 1 is easy to reach, but Phase 2 is a little trickier.

This has worked well for us thus far. Teams have tended not to press as high, allowing us to retain possession relatively easily. However, when we eventually come up against better opposition we can be sure they will look to press a little higher, trying to disrupt our possession. We've seen teams press sometimes, forcing the centre-backs to pass back to Foderingham, forcing a few grimacing faces from fans. This will only become more common -- the next game against St Johnstone could show the difference.

Ostensibly, we play 4-3-3, but with our possession and pressing game, we really end up more like a 2-5-3, with both full-backs acting as wingers. This creates an obvious risk. Time and time again we have seen teams defend deep and break with pace and purpose, exposing our centre-backs. We have lost a few goals already this season and could/should have lost more. Again, a better calibre of opposition will cause more problems. It is with this in mind that a Pivot is needed.

The player that most encapsulates the role of the Pivot is Sergio Busquets. Dropping deep, Busquets vacates the default defensive midfield position to create a temporary back 3, which increases the horizontal space across the back line, providing Valdes with 3 potential passing points (LCB, Pivot, RCB). Moreover, by dropping back, Busquets creates massive amounts of space for Xavi and Iniesta in midfield. With Busquets between the centre-backs, the 3-man defence are able to spread play effectively, while also covering that central point which is a key space for opposition counter attacks.

Rangers unfortunately do not have a natural Pivot. Our three-man midfield are naturally more attacking-type players. They rotate position so one drops deeper than the others but, as we have seen time and time again this year, we are very vulnerable on the counter, suggesting that the defensive midfielder is not coming deep enough.

However, somewhat more optimistically, Eustace could be the answer. Eustace is a natural defensive midfielder: a good passer of the ball, strong in defense, and doesn't roam about. It would be easy for him to drop deep to create a 3-man defense while in possession, providing Foderingham with 3 potential passing points, while also allowing more space for our midfield and full-backs. He would also provide cover in the central area to block a counter-attack.

There is little doubt that splitting our centre-backs is the right way to play. It has worked well thus far, whether opponents press or sit back. However, it will only get more difficult when we come up against better opposition, and our vulnerability on the counter will only get more exposed. We need a Pivot; one that can create a 3-man defense to increase our ball retention, negating any pressing tactic by the opposition; one that can drag opponents out of position, creating more space for our midfielders, full-backs and attackers; and, crucially, one that can cover our defensive line when teams counter.

http://www.gersnet.co.uk/index.php/news-category/current-affairs/441-split-centre-backs-and-the-need-for-a-pivot

It sounds like marketing. However, I'd suggest that teams nowadays need third kit which is slightly out there. A team should wear a Home shirt at Home matches and Away kits at Away matches. When a team reaches Europe then if an Away strip clashes with the Home Kit of the opposition -- or vice versa -- then I think one needs a slightly different third kit.

Although, I like the tradition in what BH said: "...Rangers should always play in some combination of red, white and blue." I suppose red (Third kit) and White (Away kit) would be sufficiently different to negate any clashes?

Haha. His flailing left arm was a clear attempt at connecting with Koscielny. His arm swing behind his back in an unnatural fashion, the intent was abundantly clear and, if you check still shots this morning, he connected. Clear red card.

 

And please don't use the "red tinted specs" argument... The only person with tinted specs here is you... Even SBS, who rarely admits to Chelsea issues, admits Costa could have been sent off more than once yesterday.

 

your use of "flailing arms" is normally for players contesting a ball. His flailing arm was a deliberate attempt to connect with a player. He raised his hands, he connected, there was intent...... What more is needed for a Chelsea player to be sent off ?? An awful lot according to you and Mike Dean

Aye, fair enough. My point is I've seen these situations before where players flail their arms about connecting with an opponent and haven't seen a red card drawn. You see it for anyone else and it's 'he's a lucky boy', with Costa it's 'he's a disgrace'. No one's talking about Gabriel's behaviour. I see double standards. However, I am willing to admit, perhaps, maybe, that I'm seeing it through blue-tinted specs. Maybe.

I agree Costa could/should have been sent off, but not for the incident with Koscielny. Do we not see the 'deliberate' failing arms from others quite often? I don't think it's necessarily a red card offense. I feel Costa gets unfairly picked on. He's not innocent, far from it, but others do similar things and they're not picked out at as much. Perhaps it's just my blue-tinted specs?

West Ham have been exceptional. However, they are more of a counter-attacking side; It's worked well, but they need to find a way to win at home, when the onus is on them. Great result yesterday. Bilic is a very good coach. I do have a soft spot for West Ham -- great historic, traditional club -- and I'm looking forward to seeing what the new stadium does for them.

Glad to get the win but Costa badly needs to calm down. A red card waiting to happen, quite a bizarre situation actually because he does not conduct himself like a world class footballer a lot of the time. You would expect to see this kind of petulance in the lower leagues. A great player but he needs to sort his temperament/wind-up style.

I think if you take away the aggression you take away a big part of the player.

Gribz is a West Ham fan.......

Really?! Argument dismantled in 6 words...

(They certainly weren't blue tinted glasses.)

What game you watching? He Swang at Koscielny after grabbing him in the face the his body weight knocked him to the ground - it wasn't a fall at all. Ant at half time they clearly showed Costa turning away and stopping on purpose right behind Gabriel looking for further agro. Plus he kicked out at Oxlade Chamberlain - he should have been sent off twice.

 

The Gabriel v Costa thing goes back to a Villareal v A Madrid game a few years ago. Both were silly but both should have walked.

There's no point in debating the points: we're both looking at it through blue and red tinted glasses. (There's no way his body weight knocks him down there; clear fall.)

The second-half was dull, but I thought the first-half was good. There was a good 30 mins where it looked like the Chelsea of last season. Red card(s) spoiled it.

Seriously, everyone's biased when it comes to Chelsea and Mourinho. Marmite. Any fan can find excuses for anything 'dirty' Chelsea/Mourinho do, likewise any that dislike Chelsea/Mourinho can find something 'immoral' in the most innocuous incidents. There's a clear divide on this forum.

Ummm, because he IS the aggressor.... I haven't seen it yet but plenty of people have said that he hit Koscielny in the face with an elbow - was that not what started it ? Would that not make him the aggressor ?

Yes, he was booked for that though, wasn't he? Koscielny was also booked for grappling with him immediately before the flailing arms, or was it Gabriel? I can't remember now! Koscielny was definitely grappling with Costa though. Is Costa or Koscielny the aggressor in that situation then?

I actually thought it was quite an entertaining game: end-to-end, counter-attack after counter-attack. The Red has somewhat spoiled that now though (depending on one's colours!).

0-0, not a great game until it kicked off with Gabriel and Costa. Cheating tink Costa got Gabriel sent off when he was equally to blame plus he hacked Koscienly (sp) twice.

 

Ref didn't even see the kick but sends him off. Ruining a potentially good second half.

Why is Costa always deemed the aggressor? They were both booked for the tussle in the box -- fairly in my eyes. Then the "cheating tink" Gabriel back-heels Costa 2 mins later, getting another yellow and sent off. What about Koscielny falling to the ground after bumping chests? Cheating? Costa is an aggressive player, perhaps too aggressive at times. Opposition players look to play on it. On many occasions he is in the wrong, but he is also unfairly targeted.

The irony is the Costa of last season would make Arsenal title contenders IMO. One would rather have him than not, surely?

(Chelsea are a Marmite club -- even Mourinho is a Marmite manager. One is biased either way regarding any incidents/judgements involving them.)

The 'perfect' hat-trick they call it...only the sixth player in EPL history to achieve it (1993 on)

Is he also not only one of very few that have come off the bench and scored a hat-trick?

Can you provide a link to where it confirms she is still on 1st team duties ? Because when I looked the other day the article I read said she was relieved of 1st team duties along with the physio.

Apparently She and the Physio have not returned to work, but as far as I was aware, they were just dropped from the bench, not from 1st team duties.

"I would argue that a Football Doctor and a GP are two distinct branches, with separate roles and scope."

 

Tell that to the GMC. Both are physicians with professional obligations.

A Sports Medicine Expert couldn't become a GP, could they?

If you think he was right to a) chastise his doctor for doing her job and b) have her demoted from 1st team duties for doing her job then we will have to agree to disagree.

I would argue that a Football Doctor and a GP are two distinct branches, with separate roles and scope. Eva Carneiro is a Sports Medicine Specialist, a branch of medicine that deals with physical fitness and the treatment and prevention of injuries related to sports and exercise. In the case of Football, it is a branch solely concerned with making sure the players are in peak condition to win football games. In that sense surely the role demands a level of game awareness? So, was she doing her job fully? I don't think so. Therefore I think Mourinho was right to chastise her.

On checking, she's not actually been demoted, but merely removed from the bench; She still carries out 1st team duties.

(Again, I think the player is equally, if not more, to blame; he shouldn't be going down at a crucial stage in the game.)