Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri
Manchester United probably got the better part of the deal there.
|
agreed, but that doesnt clear chelsea of skullduggery.
---
by 'dealing with four points' you basically put a one sentence reply. you are actually probably pretty lucky i even bother to reply to you again given your argument position can be summed up as 'no why?'.
'no evidence to suggest' chelsea will sign a replacement center half for their injured captain? oh please. they had an entire summer to find a 4th center half, given that robert huth leaving in the summer wasnt exactly 'unexpected'. my point is that the weaknesses in man utd's team will remain until the end of the season at least, you cant say the same for definite about chelseas. As much as i love larsson, youd have to say that a 2 month loan signing from the mighty helsingborgs is what you might call 'patchwork'.
Swp, Crespo, Kezman, Duff, Johnson. To a lesser extent look at the amount of players who havent been as successful as maybe would have been thought and have been usurped by more expensive signings - such as Bridge.
Last week when chelsea stole the 3-2 win away at wigan they went to basically a 3-2-3-2 formation with no shape or direction, and it worked, due to nothing more than the sheer quality of their players. Its not exactly chess when you have that attacking bench to play with - "o shit im a goal down lets put on kalou/sheva/swp/robben/jcole" or whoever. Man utd and arsenal's options are very much more limited, forcing them to be more tactical with their subsitutions. If rooney/ronaldo/saha/giggs are all on the field, solskjaer is pretty much their only real dangerous player they can throw on. Class act that he is, hes reasonably old, and stays about through legend status. Its not like chelsea still have zola waiting in the wings.
The best thing moronyo has done for chelski is install a siege mentality, usually without warrant.
A few final notes.
The reason so many neutral fans or arsenal/liverpool/whoever fans are supporting their traditional rivals man utd rather than chelsea is reasonably simple.
a/ Chelsea dont have a lot of class about how they act on or off the field. The cole, gallas, mikel sagas spring to mind - abramovich is a dislikeable human being far away from the triviality of football, and mourinho, of course. Gallas summed it up best after chelsea talked trash about him by saying simply 'all that money, and still, no class'.
b/ Man Utd (and Arsenal) still play immeasurably better football. Look at the goal differences.