Chelseas deflected goals

[Emma Royd]

Over the last two or three seasons I've never known a team to score from so many deflected goals as Chelsea,not to mention quite a few iffy pens.

Last one was sat ,when they beat my lot with another deflected goal(and we were down to ten men at the time).

 

[griffo104]

Forget the deflections and dodgy penalties - the one of Tuesday was a joke - how about John Terry as the next England goalie after his wonderful saves against fulham and us last season. I assume he's a goalie as putting you arms out on purpose to stop the ball is a foul if not the goalie

Is it me or have Chelsea, in a very quick time, become more disliked and evil and even Man U at their peak ? Is is a surprise that Kenyon is behind a lot of this ?

 

[Emma Royd]

griffo104 wrote:

Forget the deflections and dodgy penalties - the one of Tuesday was a joke - how about John Terry as the next England goalie after his wonderful saves against fulham and us last season. I assume he's a goalie as putting you arms out on purpose to stop the ball is a foul if not the goalie

Is it me or have Chelsea, in a very quick time, become more disliked and evil and even Man U at their peak ? Is is a surprise that Kenyon is behind a lot of this ?

To be truthful Griffo,I've never had a problem with bigs clubs being successful(not suggesting you have)as they've ear'nt the rightto beso,with many years of success and being well run.

Not like that friggin lot from sw london and the fairy godmother who came down and waived a magic bloody wand.

Take your point onJ Terry,sometimes it appeared they had two keepers on the pitch.

 

[griffo104]

Emma - you have to define a big club. Liverpool are huge due to a dynasty built up from solid ground work from the Shankly era.

Man U - the same from the Busby era although they went off the rails a bit after it that. Arsenal have also been a big club throughout their history.

What annoys me is that in the this new 'premiership' world teams like Villa and Everton (4th and 5th most successful English teams) are no longer deemed to be a big club as they financially aren't big - their tradition in the English game is forgotten as people like Sky attempt to educate people that there was NO football pre-premiership.

Pre-Abromovich Chelsea plc was £90m in debt and had won one chamionship trophy in their history. Have gone out and with the odd exception bought all the players they could and forced the prices and salaries up so that most other teams in England, including Man u and Arsenal, can no longer compete.

It has nothing to do with football and leaves a nasty taste in the mouth - the possible msi takeover at West Ham also has a stink about it.

At least with Lerner you know he has spent his own money - but I still have wonder WHY he wants to own an English football club.

Football is changing and I'm not sure I like where it is going.

 

[Emma Royd]

griffo104 wrote:

At least with Lerner you know he has spent his own money - but I still have wonder WHY he wants to own an English football club.

Football is changing and I'm not sure I like where it is going.

Could'nt agree more,I feel the same,what with greedy bastard players and these takeovers its making the prem an uneven playing field and could -uck the whole thing up.

Before Abramovic there was three or four clubs that could win the title,now theres the more than likelyhood of only one for the foreseable future.

Some say its up to the other clubs to catch Chelsea up,how can they,are there another nineteen Abramovic's about,of course not.

Not too sure on the history thing,get a little tired of hearing that(spurs) and it gets tedius at times,its what happened in recent history/how good/bad the team is now that counts.Charlton had over 75,000 down there against Villa(some say a lot more,as apparantly thosands bunked in)and were in the forties one of the biggest clubs in the country,so they say,so how far do you go back.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Deflected goals - most of them from Lampard i should think. He hardly ever scores by a clean shot.

 

[griffo104]

Papa Lazarou wrote:

Deflected goals - most of them from Lampard i should think. He hardly ever scores by a clean shot.

Same for England as well

 

[Emma Royd]

griffo104 wrote:

Papa Lazarou wrote:

Deflected goals - most of them from Lampard i should think. He hardly ever scores by a clean shot.

Same for England as well

True.

 

[Anthony]

much as i dislike chelsea and the deflected goals thing is annoying, if you don't shoot you won't score. you make your own luck. lampard shoots probably more often than anyone else in the league, and so it's more likely that one of his shots will go in and more likely that some of his shots will get a deflection.

it's a right shitter though

just wish we'd shoot more often from outside the box

 

[Chumpy]

I agree entirely that usually a team/individual is more likely to score if they a make an attempt to score.

Back in the 60s the first time Chelsea beat Barcelona all of their goals were scored by Reino - own goal & Gallego - own goal, and I remember probably another game against Wolves when 3 of the lupines put through their own net.

I entirely agree that all this money for footie etc/hifi is bollox, but from what I have seen this season it looks as if the brief era of Chels as Barclays winner is past, and we can soon return to hating MUt for winning.

Ideally a team would win because it is good/has a coupla great individual stars.

I blame Newspeak Labour for all of the bad things in the world as they could/should have got us to put them right, the spivvie tossers.

I enjoyed WHAM yesterday on ITV4 although they were a bit unlucky against a good Palermo, and saw 3 halves of Newc and Tott coasting it at atmosphereless venues.

Phil Daniel (maybe that's not his proper name, but he was happy-maybe a bit pissified) came on the ITV half-time yap and correctly said that he does not need buy-out at Upton Park as proper community support is what counts.

I am convinced that when all of the non-footie-money buggers get out after massive losses we can return to days when it cost me 4 shillings to get into Stamford Bridge.

Chels/Abra have wasted even more money on over-age formerly great players whilst I prefer to watch Duff etc elsewhere.

IMO it is daft to persecute good English lads Terry and Lampard when Port Ron is about.

 

[russ abbott - royds broth]

As a chelsea supporter am chuffed were getting abuse off other fans...means we are doing well.

We've waited a long time to have any glory...

It would have been nice if we could have done it without all the money,but we couldn't,we still would have been 3rd or 4th club.

I despise all the money players get paid.I've never seen a player worth 10 grand a week let alone a 100...I would have all prem players on 2 grand a week and 50 supporters marking them each week so there on a sliding scale on performance.

ie play excellent 10 grand play crap 2 grand.

Also i hear there talking about having play offs for the top 6...how can a team 30 points away be called champs.

I would give teams 4 points if they win by 3 clear goals...I think it would make for some top games.

RANT OVER.

 

[Chumpy]

I have always liked a draw to be worth half of a win, and would always have had 10 points a win, 5 points a draw and/or one point a goal.

Possibly an extra point for every genuine press-story approved by e.g. as is suggested real people rather than FA-FIFA-EUFA-BBC from our licenceetc might deter the fibs.

One of thetwo games I have seen Chels lose at Stamford Bridge is 1979 vs Fulham, and they lost there last season earlier this year. I suspect that by next May those who are left/fit will be playing very well.

No offence to car dare-devils - I hope that they all recover/take more sensible care, and that all those injured through no fault of theirs/in other accidents get better.

I am not happy to pay over £130 annually for many BBC twats.

Thank goodness I don't pay £30 million a player.

 

[Chumpy]

When I went off to Osterreich recently somehow Chels had got top of the league that counts (despite pen. from over-advertising Lamp) and whilst I was awayI saw them gotop of the mank one also.

Now I am back in UK I am glad someone else (unfortunately not Pomp) is no. 1 in real league.

I have deliberately avoided watching yet another flukey Drogba goal in game against unbeaten O'Neill Vile'uns which Chels should have won 7-1.

I am convinced that there are competent English scorers better than once great elderly overpriced gentleman/men.

I am concerned about naughty Port Ron.

 

[Chumpy]

Another multi-deflected goal - looks as if MUT followed by Arse will win Barclays thing.

 

[Chumpy]

No-one's commented on Schevchenko's deflected goal, thank goodness.

 

[Chumpy]

Thank goodness there were no deflected Chels goals apart from the one off Makalele's instepso Tot - MUt - everyone can be happy.

It is great that the world can return to MUt winning as they have no money (despite apparently unsurprisingly being the most popular UK entity).

At last I MUST be pedantic, and point out that it should be 'Chelsea's ....'

 

[notaclue]

I predicted that Ballack would be a flop and, so far, he hasn't exactly looked great. Shevchenko looks like another potential flop.

But it's all relative and a poor season for Chelsea will probably mean winning the league by only one or two points.

 

[Chumpy]

I agree that Ball and Schev were great players (IMO Ball was on course to be player of 2006 WC till ...) and that it is nice for English to see them more often, but they expensively do not contribute to any Chels success.

IMO it is about time that all of the referees/umpires wearing the sponsor of Chels wins 2 years ago show their support for Chels.

 

[Chumpy]

Another deflection via Carvalho off 2 MUt players to confirm MUt as 2006-7 Prem. Champs.