The most controversial tactic in football at the moment. Chelsea have done it twice. It may have been boring to watch, or frustrating for the opposition, but it has worked.

Below is a new Foosball table (Chelsea vs Liverpool) I believe.

So what are your thoughts on this tactic?

All opinions welcome.

lolllllzzz I bet Marcelo is really funny in the changing room lollllzz, Luca Modric can you hear me??? then Modric still looked confused hahahah, his hair covered his ears =)))))

@Dynast:

I will let someone else respond for me, or at the least let someone else's words make my point for me, in response to you:

You're right. We DO all have opinions.

But opinions are not equal.

Some people know what they are talking about, and can demonstrate it. Others merely claim to know what they are talking about, and get pissy every time you question them.

I think Diego Simeone has a better opinion than most, and since my opinion happens to be the same, as born out by my arguments (with which you've been disagreeing), I feel like I don't need to state anything more.

If you have a rebuttal to Simeone, then I'd be glad to hear it.

Well its time to let Chelsea alone, they can play the style they want as long as their fans are happy with it.
But its funny to taste some of your medecines since Barça was treated worse than that for years due to their sucess and controversy, if your tactics make you trash every English opposition than i see no reason why you would change things....
At least, i think most of Chelsea fans tasted what they have been doing for years, i can clearly see the change in behaviour and i respect all ways of playing Football that are working for modern Football.

I dont think the hate will stop now in highlight section, but in the forum im sure things would be in order.
Very dificult to prove Simeone wrong, his team is perfectly balanced and the best of controlling space in Europe.
#Coach of the year.

Nobody is insulting Barça when they loose, so if Chelsea were losing nobody would give a damn about how you are loosing. Thats the price for your success in EPL.

@Lodatz

In fact, I do. But I feel @TheGame puts it into better words than I do, so here you go.

But first, I'll give you some quotes.

Eden Hazard: Claimed after the match that his side were "not meant to play football"

Ex-Liverpool player Dietmar Hamann: "I agree with Hazard, to a certain extent, they don't play football - but they have the players to play football. For some reason they don't have the structure. At the moment they lack fluidity to their game, either by design or by other factors. They don't concede goals, but if you don't have the capabilities or the quantities to change a game when you do concede then you become one-dimensional, and that's what they are."

Mourinho realises that we have a great defence and he wants to use it, but he should by confident about our defenders which will let the attackers attack freely. A bit like how we play against minor teams.

Hazard aint a fan but Schurlle thinks 3 points is the main goal.

Since a week ago, almost every post is related to Chelsea or their tactics. So we can we stop discussing days and days about it please?

Yeah

How do you close a discussion?

@Eden

You don't. A discussion is only closed by a moderator, and that is only done when multiple members break rules within the discussion.

@Dynast: I think there's another thread in which a more accurate translation of Hazard's words is available.

I also don't give two cents for what Didi Hamann thinks, just by the way. ;)

Now, in response to what you've quoted, Dynast: (because I can't be bothered to look up what thread that came from, and post this here -- I haven't looked at it since I last posted there. It seemed a boring discussion going nowhere)

Actually, Chelsea DID attempt to counter-attack; they just were not amazingly good at it.

And, if you must know, neither were Atletico.

See, Atletico may have bossed the stats in the first leg, but at the Bridge it was Blues territory. More shots, more possession and more tackles is a formula which tells you what Chelsea were doing, though I can appreciate how it's not always readily apparent unless you're watching the defenders, and their shape, more than you're watching the movement of the ball in possession.

And that's really at the heart of this: everyone simply expects that if a team (or at least if a Spanish team) has the ball, then it can only be bad luck or a flaw of their own that they do not make something of it, in any given play. Why do I say this? Because that's all the anti-PL (and now in particular anti-Chelsea) voices ever talk about.

Oooh, let's fawn over some neat little skill done against a substandard defender. Because you can only find that in Spain, apparently, and don't get to see it in England week-in, week-out. Except, you do, if you're watching it. You'll watch Barkely, Wilshire, Silva, RVP, Hazard, Willian, Aguero, Nasri doing that sort of thing all the time.

It's easy to comment on what is done WITH the ball, because that's what the shiny style of Barcelona has been built upon. But, it takes a better student of The Game (see what I did there? ^_^) to spot what is being done WITHOUT the ball.

And that's where you start finding the defensive excellence which limits teams (teams such as City, Liverpool and Arsenal, who have been inflicting heavy, heavy losses upon teams in the Premier League this year, as well as Atletico Madrid in their own stadium), and prevents them from maximizing their talents. It's the beautiful discipline and strength of character to hold your nerve and not slip up, and hand your opponent the chance he's waiting for.

Kind of like what Atletico, themselves, have been doing to La Liga, this season. Limiting their opposition (their free-scoring position, remember, in the form of Barcelona and Real Madrid).

You know what? Against Chelsea they almost ran out of ideas too. They had 68% possession in the Vincente Calderon, and yet had only 4 shots. Even with a bus in front of you, when you have 2/3rds of the possession you should be able to muster up at least more than 4 shots, right?

But they didn't. Because Chelsea didn't let them. And also because every time they pressed forward, Chelsea were busy shutting them down from deep. Not just defending last-ditch, but all the way up the piuch, to the strikers, who were constantly hassling the Atletico back line and forcing them to be conservative in their possession.

Barcelona would not have run out of ideas. They also might not have been so patient, and slipped up themselves against Chelsea, but either way they would have kept coming and coming and coming in search of a goal. Atletico did not. They played it safe, as a good counter-attacking side should do, and as Chelsea themselves have made into an art form (see: 2012, beating both Barcelona and Bayern with this tactic that some people think has suddenly been invented by Simeone).

But, Simeone understands it, and puts it into simply fantastic use. Yes, his team won the game at Stamford Bridge, but even in that game you can't accuse Chelsea of cowardice, or one-dimentional thinking.

Why? Because they had more possession, and more shots, than Atletico Madrid did.

The problem was, they DID run out of ideas. And that's not surprising, given that they were (for the most part now, with regard to their first team) assembled only over the last two years, and have had 3 coaches in that time.

Mourinho is trying to instill a discipline, and his tactics reflected that. He knew his team were not ready to take the fight to the team which have been ripping up the tiki taka rulebook over in Spain, and so he sent them out to try a different approach, instead.

One which, until the penalty, was actually fairly reasonably. Yes, Atletico had struck back, but, both goals were the culmination of the team's efforts thus far. Only one goal would have been needed, so long as they didn't conceded. Only one goal, nicked at whatever minute, would be enough to reach the final.

Only one.

Unfortunately, they conceded, from the penalty. Even the penalty had been in a moment of relative comfort for Chelsea; Costa was in no control of the ball, and it was not trickling into any danger, not to mention it was a little weak anyhow. But, concede they did, and that's when the game-plan was defeated.

They knew it. Atletico knew it. Everyone knew it.

And, such is football. Sometimes you pay for mistakes, and sometimes the better team just wins. Simeone's team won, and I believe they did prove themselves the better team, because they DID switch up their style, and did get the job done in a manner they are not used to.

Good for them. I'll be rooting for them in the final (though a Bale goal would be lovely).

But that team has been a few years in the making, and only Costa's rise to form has really set them ahead of the usual two Big Dogs in Spain. Aside from taking the penalty, he had been pretty absent in both legs, against Chelsea, which is something to think about...

Chelsea's team is new, and will probably have Courtois in it to replace Cech next season, and we'll see how this goes. Mou's building something. We'll see what it is in the future, but taking this team to the CL semi-finals, after getting there 3 years in a row with Madrid's squad, is pretty fantastic.

They don't deserve any scorn, or condemnation, just because they played in a manner you didn't like. Simeone gets it. That's why he's disrupted the power balance so much.

Do you not think he's been watching Mou at Real, toppling the mighty Barcelona? What about Chelsea in previous years (like in 2009 when they counter-attacked beautifully but didn't get the right side of 4 penalty calls, or in 2012 where they scored the three best goals of the tie; each one a sublime counter-attack)?

Do you not think that he also learned it from his time in Italy, where Catenaccio is something to be praised?

Do you really think that Mourinho's Chelsea deserve to be condemned becaue Mounirnho tried to use these tactics again, with his fledgling squad?

Really?

^ Lol, couldnt finish but laughed hard at the begining...

@Lodatz you are better than the goal.com writers!

When you really think about it, there are not SO MANY ways to play football. After all, each club sets his préférences in the tactics considering who the oppenent is. Hence, Chelsea has a preference which is defense in this context. The tactics are done by the manager, but it can be only successful when the players approve this tactic, and/or want it. I think Chelsea this season has been juggling between a fast attack and intensive gameplay and defending. One cannot simply mix all of them, confusing the players and deliver poor results. Parking the bus was not enough probably becuase some players are not used to this, or feels unconfortable with it.

It is as simple as that. It is good to change the tactics and style of play to balance the team but you can't just do what you want because a sudden change of style of play can affect the players. Example: I'm not expecting Chelsea to park the bus against a team like Hull City, and is more likely to park the bus against bbig opponents such as Altético Madrid. Chelsea, which is a big club, has a very busy Schedule, playing CL, Home Cups, Barclays Premier league... A team like Chelsea is playing at least 2 times a week, sometimes 3. Let's say there is about 4 days break between all of these matches. It can be confusing to change the way you play all the time. Example: Would like to change your school/college every year? Of course not.

Sure the players and the coaching team are trained to deal with these situations but yet it can be difficult to get used to it, then we are surprised that Chelsea loses to Sunderland. Believe me, it's not a surprise.

Barcelona, for instance have adopted the same way of play (tiki_taka). I am not saying that it has always been effective to them, but this technique made them win many titles for the past 10 years.

You guys put great debate here, but it's tiresome to read, I want to read them all as you guys obviously put some thought, effort in it and you know what you are talking about... but can you try to keep it shorter! more concise and straight to the point.

As for the the discussion, I say it once again, defensive style has different ways, against other big teams, a "big team" like Chelsea has played in a pretty ugly way. It's understandable but when it doesnt work, it looks A LOT worse

@Dynastian

Loves Cherry picking quotes out of context to support his argument . You should become journalist .

@messi: Cheers.

@tiki: Your loss.

@Marcus

Hilarious. If you can't form an argument, then why don't you just stay quiet? You're stupid beyond belief.

@Lodatz

I see your point. Well said. Except Atletico had 24 shots that night at the Calderon, and 4 on target. And I still stand my ground on my opinion on Mourinho's lack-luster style, but your point is very valid.

@dynastina98

Haha Touche , calling someone stupid and accusing some one not being able to carry argument , when you , yourself could not comment back without insulting . I guess you are just too stupid to answer back with in the same manner :))

See smart person in your place would walk away from the comment or have a different comment , but STUPID people usually call other stupid thus choosing not to use their stupid brain .

I been on this forum since august , was invited by forum moderator because he told on forum there are smart and polite members ( compare to trolling highlight section ) . I could certainly disagree with him now especially about you . However, Hey Nothing personal , just proven my point who is the real stupid here ;)

I always believed , if we want this forum to be always pleasing place to visit , members should have healthy arguments without INSULTING each other . However, I often see kindergarden insults . And you are one of those fake *ss kindergarden kids acting as adults .

@wolfie was always right for seeing you as who you really are , double faced , hypocrite , unethical dumb a*s you are .