[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by lokken

Oh no, but you certainly are advocating that the only valid style is one where teams are set up to attack and pass it around when in possession. If you prefer certain players in your team, or just don't have good enough ones, this just isn't feasible. In fact no manager will think the same and I think variety of play makes the game interesting.

To be honest I reckon chelsea easily could adapt to that style. The fact they haven't even bothered trying and have actively gone out and pursued a dull and grinding side makes the game uninteresting. There's a reason all the neutrals wanted to see Utd play roma ahead of chelsea play valencia tonight.

See I don't just watch a game looking for great passages of play. I look to see if there is anything else of interest. How are a team setup? Why are they playing that way? What are they looking to achieve? Is it effective? If a team plays to a well thought out scheme and does it very well, then good for them I say.

I don't either and I do as well. However without both you might as well be playing curling or some god forsaken sport.

By pretty much treating my defence of Chelsea as sacrilege and going on about how if everyone played that way football die i think I'm within my rights to infer it.

How did you interpret that? You're obviously saying "do whatever including foul the opposition relentlessly and deliberately is fine".

Chelsea are merciless. They know the merits of hitting the ball first time, especially when there is a crowd of players and they are playing a wager which with the strikers of the ball they have, they know they are likely to succeed. It happens so often, it's fair to assume that it must be intentional, regardless of how scrappy it might look, I suspect luck has little to do with it. As for random events deciding games, that's football, it always had been.

Sure, but you said if they lost 1-0 they wouldn't deserve a bean. I'm pointing out how silly a statement that is.

Chelsea defend, grind, probe then attack effectively and grind some more. They play with intensity and determination and play the percentages well. They play to a plan under a manager who has been observant. Their football is of absolute equal merit to United's, they just apply themselves differently.

I'd agree with your first three lines but I don't think football boils down to everything you said there. Above all else you have to be there to play football. I think this reflects itself in the fact that teams who play the most exciting football, as well as battle with the best of them, get the most respect.

Well if there's no competition, it's not interesting. The gap in finances is why the premier league has become rubbish and why the top teams in europe are pretty much using european competition to finance themselves as incumbents of their domestic league by using the cash to bleed sides out of any talent that's available.

From 78 to 91 four sides won the league. From 93 to 06 four sides won the league. While I would agree this doesn't tell the whole story any side can still beat any side really and there is excitement in every aspect of the league, champions, champions league spots, uefa cup spots, relegation battle.

I want football teams to play however they want to play and how they feel comfortable playing. If they play that particular way well, then it's of equal merit to anyone playing another why. Anything beyond that is just personal preference.

Well zonk, I was expressing a personal opinion. What on earth else would we be talking about? How having more than three negros in your team means you should be docked five points in the league? I'd rather see sides strive to play better football and achieve better results to be honest.