• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Faramir

  • Rank
    CFCnet Member

Previous Fields

  • Team

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

756 profile views
  1. *smiles* Don't worry Dave. In my book Droy has his very own unique category which he has entirely earned.
  2. Dave, thanks for all the work you put in to describing our style of play... The quote below by Mourinho is the one I have an issue with. He was not being complimentary when he said it. And I just happen to totally disagree with his view. Mourinho: "The game [before the red card] was completely under control. They couldn't find what is their game; I keep saying their game is counter-attack. When a team closes the space in-between lines and the fullbacks, they have no qualities to be dangerous." The counter-attack is just one way we can hurt the opposition. In my opinion he is wrong especially with his judgement that we "have no qualities to be dangerous". With the third and fourth goals against United (in the 4-0 win) we certainly were dangerous even though they had closed "the space in-between the lines". And we finished off his team with some of the qualities which make us dangerous. You are right, I do take what Mourinho said personally. I think he does not like Conte because Conte is challenging him and at the moment coming out on top.
  3. No. My reply to you was on the posts I did read, not the post I did not. I was just reflecting before I read this post, that I will do you the courtesy of reading your 'long' post, due to my overall respect for you on this forum. I'm off to work now, but will respond later.
  4. No, I didn't read your long post, because for me (at least on this subject) you have placed yourself in the same category as Droy. And I gave up reading his long posts about 6 months ago. For the record, I never claimed we were an attacking side, under Conte in my opinion, we are a well balanced side with a strong, well disciplined defensive shape. But my argument with you is on your definition of the counter-attack, and I will from now on refer you to the top of page 51 for Pete's definition of what a counter-attack is, and what it isn't. I think you got yourself in to this mess in your loyal support of Mourinho and his labeling us as a counter-attack team. Which is a very simple and inaccurate description of the way we play.
  5. For any further debate I refer to this post by Pete. Dave, every time you want to talk counter-attack use the above definition to get your bearings. Then you will realize you have nothing to add to the conversation.
  6. No, you have changed the goal posts. I know what a quick transition is, and I know what a counter-attack is. Your claim was that we are a counter-attack team. And you used the 4-0 Chelsea/United game to illustrate this. None of those goals were from a counter-attack. On one thing I wholeheartedly agree, it is totally pointless to keep this up.
  7. Correcting myself. First goal was an Alonso long ball to Pedro.
  8. *sigh* 1. Luiz long ball. Pedro nips in to score. 2. Cahill from a corner. 3. Passing around United box. Hazard scores. 4. Kante dribbles through United defence. Not one counter-attack.
  9. I did not say I feel stupid. You like to think that I am stupid. If it makes you feel better about yourself because you think that after conversing with you I feel stupid then I'm glad to of been of help. I will stick with the 4-0 win over United. There is plenty of evidence in that game to support the fact that Chelsea are a well rounded team who can give good teams like United a challenging time. And that counter-attacking is just one weapon in their skill set to bring about a convincing victory.
  10. You have this gift of making the poster who disagrees with you seem stupid. But I just cannot bring myself to accept the narrow way you describe the qualities of our team.
  11. Remember, I'm the slow kid. Spell it out for me.
  12. Mourinho: "The game [before the red card] was completely under control. They couldn't find what is their game; I keep saying their game is counter-attack. When a team closes the space in-between lines and the fullbacks, they have no qualities to be dangerous." I deny it. There is much more to our game than just the counter-attack. I will be the first to say that we have an excellent counter-attack, but for Dave and Mourinho to simplify the "qualities" of our team in to that narrow definition, I just have to strongly disagree. And for Mourinho to claim that we "have no qualities to be dangerous" is just to deny the truth. A few of those qualities were on display in the 4-0 win against them earlier in the season.
  13. We don't get to use this "counter-attacking style" for long stretches of games against teams like Stoke. And their are a lot of teams who set themselves up to not get caught out by our counter-attack. Also, you now claim that a "counter-attacking style is no problem for me" but previously you were describing it as a negative, as Mourinho did when giving our team a back handed compliment. My view is that Conte has given our team a defensive style which is very hard to break down, and when teams press us and then make a mistake we are very quick to exploit the space provided. But many teams are learning to be cautious when they attack us because they know they will be punished if they are not careful.
  14. Blue Essien, thanks for this post. For me it highlights the contributions of those players that excelled in the game. Costa is different than the Costa of two years back. He rightly gets upset when he is continuously fouled and targeted by the Stoke hatchet men, but he manages to control himself and stay on the field to help our cause. I think Conte should be credited for excellent man management with Costa. Diego is an extremely hard worker and makes defenses work and tire themselves out in trying to keep him shackled. My only criticism of the team in a few of our games lately is failing to take our chances. A three goal margin would of more accurately represented our display against Stoke. Having said that, I'm kind of glad the game was close because the team were able to show their resilience and determination under pressure.
  15. Hi Dave. Yes it is me, the slow kid in the class. Help me, because I'm confused. When you claim that we are "predominantly a counter-attacking side" and that it is "our main attacking outlet", can you please explain how that fits when we play teams like Stoke? They defend deep and set themselves up to avoid being counter-attacked, forcing us in to other footballing strategies. And please do not cite the last few minutes of the game after Cahill's goal when they had to chase the game. Against many of the teams in the Premier League we have long stretches of the game when the counter-attack is unavailable to us. Because of this we are unable to be a "predominantly counter-attacking" team, and have to rely on other methods for "our main attacking outlet". And please don't use big words because I'm the slow kid in the class.