Ibime:

Justin Bieber shows his true colours. . .

Na lie. . .
The other day he was playing footy with a Barca jersey on

coogar:

so how has this proven the number 8 sits behind number 9?

you have only rehashed the things i have mentioned earlier in a 4-4-2.

and this is no hard and fast rule. as you can see, the writer said it is common. it is not absolute.
i have seen 4-4-2s where the 2 strikers worked together in tandem. there's no big target man or small target man.
the all conquering united team of 1999 had no big man, man in the hole. andy cole and dwight yorke were both target men. same as rooney/tevez in 2008 moscow.

And what did the artice tel you the number 10 plays?

Ibime:

Hey Nateevs!!!

Welcome back! 
But why are you repeating statements I made 2 months ago? Am I two months ahead of the curve?
I thought Lamps was the one who was supposed to be dropped, but now it seems it was the same guys I f1ngered who turned out to be the true deadweights in the team.
I thought you told me to forget everything I know about Mikel?
Meanwhile should we refer NDLEA to examine your entrails for vital evidence against Baba Suwe?

I love when you try to act like you invented stuff. What you are saying you said has been echoed by all and sundry.
There's nothing you suggested that's genius. It's straight common sense to replace JT and Mikel in a high defence line.
Every Chelsea fan has called for the retirement of Malouda and Kalou. Bosingwa has never been fans' favourite.
Ramires is not a top four player. So what is you feeling like?

Meanwhile in that same time you made ridiculous statements like Meireles is the DM we need.
AVB is a bleeping eeediot we are not winning anything with him.
Lamps should not be dropped even though he clearly should have.

You are not exactly as positively predictive as you think you are.

Bieber is g.ay. Shouldn't wear that sacred attire.

maybe the international break will rejuvenate them boys.

meanwhile who is gonna keep the shape now?

What is all this shape megedefegede i keep hearing? Are we talking about a woman or a football team?

nateevs:


I love when you try to act like you invented stuff. What you are saying you said has been echoed by all and sundry.
There's nothing you suggested that's genius. It's straight common sense to replace JT and Mikel in a high defence line.
Every Chelsea fan has called for the retirement of Malouda and Kalou. Bosingwa has never been fans' favourite.
Ramires is not a top four player. So what is you feeling like?

Meanwhile in that same time you made ridiculous statements like Meireles is the DM we need.
AVB is a bleeping eeediot we are not winning anything with him.
Lamps should not be dropped even though he clearly should have.

You are not exactly as positively predictive as you think you are.

I had let you off lightly but you seem determined to put yaself back on the hook again.

Can you show me where I said Meireles is the DM we need?

I said Meireles is a player we need and cited his proficiency at CM, DM and AM.

Anyway, enough about me. Please lecture us more about the art of shekpe keeping. I cant believe your keyboard did not taser you for continuing to type megedefegede about shekpe keeper being the most productive striker we currently have. If Anelka, Sturridge and probably Lukaku cannot outperform shekpe keeper in the no 9 role on any given Sunday, I will help you to finish your Baba Suwe dish.

You knew all you had stated above and were still overoptimistic, even telling me to forget everything I know about Mikel?

Mr Man, dont make me declare you persona non grata on this thread o! Some people are still struggling to stomach your presence after backing all the wrong horses and filling em with false confidence. Where is yur mate El Guapo?  

dayokanu:

And what did the artice tel you the number 10 plays?

the article said it's common for the number 10 to play off the main striker but this isn't always the case. i can list some strike partnerships where there's no clear number 10. they take positions as the play dictates it. just like roy keane/scholes. which of them is defensive or attacking?

see this list and tell me who is 10 or 9.

dwight yorke/andy cole.
shevchenko/rebrov
stoichkov/romario
rooney/tevez
romario/fat ronaldo
van basten/papin
yekini/siasia
yekini/amokachie.

^^ Those people you listed there are number 8/9.

Number 10 are midfielders, Number 8 is a support striker

dayokanu:

^^ Those people you listed there are number 8.

Number 10 are midfielders, Number 8 is a support striker

you keep making the same mistake even after showing you a diagram.
number 8 and number 4 are central midfielders. 4 = anchor(makelele), 8 is the offensive midfielder(lampard).
9 is the centre forward, 10 = supporting striker.

so you are saying one of andy cole and dwight yorke is 8?
cheiiiii, dayokanu? in 2011?
this is a disgrace!

^^ Does Chelsea play 4-4-2? And who is the 10 in that Chelsea scenario?

So what was Paul Scholes? 8 or 10?

What was Kanu and what was Okocha?

a 10 is a midfielder not a striker

dayokanu:

^^ Does Chelsea play 4-4-2? And who is the 10 in that Chelsea scenario?
So what was Paul Scholes? 8 or 10?

paul scholes was a classic 8.

What was Kanu and what was Okocha?

kanu and okocha played together in a 4-4-2 formation?

a 10 is a midfielder not a striker

a 10 is a supporting striker in a 4-4-2 formation.
stop mixing apple and oranges jare.



so the position number 10 occupies in that image is a midfield position?

In England, in a now traditional 4-4-2 formation, the standard numbering is usually: 2 (right fullback), 5, 6, 3 (left fullback); 4 (defensive midfielder), 7 (right midfielder), 8 (central/attacking midfielder), 11 (left midfielder); 10 (second/support striker), 9 (striker). This came about based on the traditional 2-3-5 system. Where the 2 fullbacks retained the numbers 2, 3. Then of the halves, 4 was kept as the central defensive midfielder, while 5 and 6 were moved backward to be in the central of defence. 7 and 11 stayed as the wide attacking players, whilst 8 dropped back a little from inside forward to a central (sometimes attacking) midfield role, and 10 stayed in support of the striker.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_number_(association_football)

So what is Kanu and what is Okocha?

WHo is the 8 who is the 10?

dayokanu:

So what is Kanu and what is Okocha?

WHo is the 8 who is the 10?

i am not even sure nigeria played the traditional 4-4-2 then.
so it's a bit tedious to be asking me what kanu and okocha were if we are not sure the formation deployed was 4-4-2.

the examples i have given you were teams who played 4-4-2 for sure.

Nigeria has largely played 4-4-2

It was only under Trousierre that we attempted 3-5-2

dayokanu:

Nigeria has largely played 4-4-2

It was only under Trousierre that we attempted 3-5-2

hehehehe
there are variants of 4-4-2, mr dayokanu.
so tread carefully.

there's 4-1-2-1-2(diamond formation) and 4-2-2-2
sometimes, people still refer to these formations as 4-4-2.

tell me the games okocha and kanu played together and i will tell you who played as 8 and who played as 10.

Nigeria vs Denmark France 1998 with Ikpeba as striker

Nations Cup 2000 with Victor Ikpeba as top striker, Nations cup 2002 with Julius Aghahowa as top striker, Nations cup 2004 with Osaze as top striker, Nations cup 2006 with Martins as striker,

dayokanu:

Nigeria vs Denmark France 1998 with Ikpeba as striker

4-5-1.

Nations Cup 2000 with Victor Ikpeba as top striker,

under bonfrere jo? no pattern!

Nations cup 2002 with Julius Aghahowa as top striker,

no pattern! definitely not 4-4-2

Nations cup 2004 with Osaze as top striker,

osaze that came as a sub is the top striker?

Nations cup 2006 with Martins as striker,

no pattern!

This place don turn Dk and coogars playground abi?

The tag 8 and 10 are used differently according to location. A 10 in south America/Africa is an attacking midfielder -442. While 8 is a co or support striker. Itz different in some European countries where 10 is regarded as the support (or co) striker and 8 as a midfielder. Yu guys should search bbc website, this was discussed a while ago. Not arsed to search for links now

Ibime:

I had let you off lightly but you seem determined to put yaself back on the hook again.
Can you show me where I said Meireles is the DM we need?
I said Meireles is a player we need and cited his proficiency at CM, DM and AM.
Anyway, enough about me. Please lecture us more about the art of shekpe keeping. I cant believe your keyboard did not taser you for continuing to type megedefegede about shekpe keeper being the most productive striker we currently have. If Anelka, Sturridge and probably Lukaku cannot outperform shekpe keeper in the no 9 role on any given Sunday, I will help you to finish your Baba Suwe dish.
You knew all you had stated above and were still overoptimistic, even telling me to forget everything I know about Mikel?
Mr Man, dont make me declare you persona non grata on this thread o! Some people are still struggling to stomach your presence after backing all the wrong horses and filling em with false confidence. Where is yur mate El Guapo?  

Typically evasive, lazy and empty. Absolute bullsh.it unworthy of any sort of long reply.
When you want to type sense, come back.

Nateevs how far with Baba Suwe's shyte?

I love it when you eat humble pie, but this shyte is off the hook?

Be a man and admit you were wrong - the number of reversals you make on this thread is shocking. . . .only someone suffering from terrible amnesia would miss them:

nateevs:

So you think it's ok for United to lose 1-6 and still be in contention for the title, yet Chelsea who are just 1 pt behind cannot?
How do you justify that?

nateevs:

Any reason we can't?

(in response to someone saying Chelski won't win the title)

And Nateevs now said this recently:

nateevs:

Meanwhile is there any Chelsea who was thinking we were going to win the league? I thought we all concluded we are in transition.

Like chamo always says I still won't give up on you.

Admit I was wrong about what exactly?
It also amazes that you cannot spot the simple difference "we won't" and "we can't".

Wrong about what?

Let's try this for starters. . . .

I love how you include Arsenal on the list. Biggest win of the season, mark my words. They don't know how to defend.

Arsenal don't know how to defend but have more clean sheets than Chelski. . . .go figure.

nateevs:

I even saw you make suggestions about intelligent coaching. Do you think Wenger was excused of applying intelligence when he went to OT without being conservative knowing fully well his team could not match United and conceded 8 goals?

You are complaining about a manager who is very early in his career - almost half the age of Wenger by the way - and in his first game against United in the PL. BS at best. Even Fergie with all his years of experience came to SB with an inferior team and decided not to go conservative and got spanked 3-0. . . Is that to say Fergie is not intelligent?

You are a disgrace. Bolton, Tottenham, Sunderland, Stoke and Chelsea next up. Let's see how much intelligent coaching you have in the next five games.

When I told you about the daftness of Boavista in going gung-ho at OT against an in-form side, you were yarning megedefegede. . . . .now that L'Arse don knack you akpako what do you have to say?

Once again Boavista ignored the ominous signs of a rejuvenating Arsenal and the dangers of RVP (despite previous damage he's done at SB) and went gung-ho, only to be annihilated at home. Does Chelski have to be thrashed by Citeh too before he will realise the folly of his ways?

I repeat - it is unintelligent to make such basic errors repeatedly, failing to recognise the strengths of your opponent. So much for the much hyped but clearly useless scouting skills of Boavista.

Just watching the tape from last year's defeat at the Emirates would've shown a reasonable coach the flaws that Arsenal would exploit.

PS - the 5 games you mentioned, won 4 lost 1, scored 16 goals. . . . have you seen enough evidence of intelligent coaching now?

Waiting for December. . . .

nateevs:

It also amazes that you cannot spot the simple difference "we won't" and "we can't".

If I was talking about someone who made a meaningful distinction when using both terms then it would matter - for you to argue about being in contention is a clear indication that you are using both terms interchangeably.

If you so clearly believe you won't win, of what value is an argument about being in contention?

For example - mathematically, Fulham can still win the title, so in theory they 'can', but you won't hear any Fulham fan claiming to be 'in contention' for the title.

This is just plain daft. You cannot call AVB's style of coaching daft because you "Debo" think it is.
AVB is working on a new style with Chelsea. He clearly has not perfected anything.

Some managers will reverse after a humiliating defeat, others stick to it and perfect it.
To say they are daft is just plain s.illy.

AVB is not going gung ho! . . It's tactical play. There's nothing wrong with his tactics expect it is heavily dependent on other parts being right. For starters, the high defensive line requires relentless pressing from the forward players and midfielders. It evidently has not happened like anticipated.

Like a pundit said, if you need pacy defenders in a high defensive line, it means something crucial is not working in the first place. Read into that what you may but there are people who see this cup as half full. AVB will probably lose all games to the big four but he will come out with something.

No Debo, I was not wrong about that. It's just a difference in philosophy of football.

debosky:

If I was talking about someone who made a meaningful distinction when using both terms then it would matter - for you to argue about being in contention is a clear indication that you are using both terms interchangeably.

If you so clearly believe you won't win, of what value is an argument about being in contention?

For example - mathematically, Fulham can still win the title, so in theory they 'can', but you won't hear any Fulham fan claiming to be 'in contention' for the title.

No Debo. The difference here is that Fulham don't even have the personnel to win the title. Chelsea does.
Now whether Chelsea will harness the capabilities of the squad and mount a challenge for the title is another question. Especially under a new manager and new tactics. Hence my assertion of not "expecting to win the title" . . . .However, it is folly to argue that Chelsea "cannot" win the title.

There's a gulf of difference between my expectation of winning the title and Chelsea actually being in contention. I may have enough conviction based on what I see to suggest Chelsea will not win the title but at the same time, it is not to suggest Chelsea are not in contention. Why? Because they have what it takes.

nateevs:

This is just plain daft. You cannot call AVB's style of coaching daft because you "Debo" think it is.
AVB is working on a new style with Chelsea. He clearly has not perfected anything.

Utter nonsense - is the style of coaching an end in itself or intended to win games? When the tactics repeatedly fail stupendously on the big occasions, what conclusion is to be made other than the person applying them is daft? The results speak for themselves - 3-1 and 5-3 against your main opponents isn't Debo speaking.

If he hasn’t perfected the style, why force fit it in games where it is clearly NOT going to work and even fails worse than the previous trial? That is a clear lack of intelligence.

It’s like saying that someone learning how to drive and can barely manage on residential streets insisting on driving on the motorway during rush hour when his skills are not yet mature - suicidal behaviour.

Some managers will reverse after a humiliating defeat, others stick to it and perfect it.
To say they are daft is just plain s.illy.

It is daft if the exact same mistakes are revealed with no improvement - where is the evidence he is 'perfecting it'? He learned NOTHING from the Utd defeat and things were actually worse. From leading 2-1 to losing 5-3 AT HOME.

AVB is not going gung ho! . . It's tactical play.

Another empty statement showing a lack of awareness- it's tactical play.
Even Sunday league teams use tactics - being gung ho is an attribute of the way tactics are deployed by boavista.

There's nothing wrong with his tactics expect it is heavily dependent on other parts being right. For starters, the high defensive line requires relentless pressing from the forward players and midfielders. It evidently has not happened like anticipated.

So what do you do when something doesn’t happen as anticipated repeatedly? Do you keep doing the same thing? I have not criticised his tactics per se, but his inability to recognise obvious flaws, something even YOU have admitted to.

Like a pundit said, if you need pacy defenders in a high defensive line, it means something crucial is not working in the first place. Read into that what you may but there are people who see this as half full. AVB will probably lose all games to the big four but he will come out with something.

When you lack the personnel to implement a philosophy, the intelligent thing to do is to modify it until you get the players you need. Being overly rigid is what kills managers - failure to adapt to different situations.

No Debo, I was not wrong about that. It's just a difference in philosophy of football.

Again, I have no issues with philosophy of football - if anyone in English football has a philosophy and sticks to it religiously, it is Wenger. He is often criticised for being too rigid, but even he tweaks things to adjust to the quality/strengths of the opposition.

BlueDiva:

This place don turn Dk and coogars playground abi? 

and you had to wake up at 5.43am to write this?
bluediva, do you sleep at night?

Ifedisky:

The tag 8 and 10 are used differently according to location. A 10 in south America/Africa is an attacking midfielder -442. While 8 is a co or support striker. Itz different in some European countries where 10 is regarded as the support (or co) striker and 8 as a midfielder. Yu guys should search bbc website, this was discussed a while ago. Not arsed to search for links now

i have a coaching badge. in a traditional 4-4-2 system, the 10 is a supporting striker anywhere be it south america/africa or even hell fire.

nateevs:

Admit I was wrong about what exactly?
It also amazes that you cannot spot the simple difference "we won't" and "we can't".

don't mind debosky, nateevs.

villas-boas tactics worked but like all tactics, if the players don't take their chances, it will come back to bite them.
tactics don't win games, taking chances do! arsenal didn't win that match, chelsea lost it.
the last 3 goals arsenal scored would be conceded by any manager if his players were as shoddy as chelsea players.

walcott tripped himself, fell down and got up around 3 defenders and scored. john terry diving after receiving a dirty back pass from malouda.
bosingwa acting like a pri[i]c[/i]k not knowing where to show van persie - these things are not tactical faux pas, they are just idiotic decisions by experienced players.

Utter nonsense - is the style of coaching an end in itself or intended to win games? When the tactics repeatedly fail stupendously on the big occasions, what conclusion is to be made other than the person applying them is daft? The results speak for themselves - 3-1 and 5-3 against your main opponents isn't Debo speaking.

If he hasn’t perfected the style, why force fit it in games where it is clearly NOT going to work and even fails worse than the previous trial? That is a clear lack of intelligence.

It’s like saying that someone learning how to drive and can barely manage on residential streets insisting on driving on the motorway during rush hour when his skills are not yet mature - suicidal behaviour.

Mr Debo, you dare liken losing to a rival in football to a scenario where a loss of life could occur? What sort of brain do you have?
You cannot call AVB lacking in intelligence. You do not know what sort of backing he has with Roman.

Secondly, you cannot teach a football club a philosophy when you choose when you want to attack. That's why it's called a philosophy not strategy.
It means you stick to what you do no matter what. . That's a philosophy.


You cannot tell me AVB does not know how to be strategic. He does but that's not the goal.
You cannot also call him daft for persisting with his ways because you don't know his goal.
You think his goal is to win a game of football and when he hasn't done so employing his tactics, then he is evidently daft for trying again. He may think his goal is to get the team playing in the way he wants even if it means we lose all big games. To call him daft for persistence in his ways even though his goals may be different from your desires is plain ignorant and insanely id.iotic.

nateevs:

Mr Debo, you dare liken losing to a rival in football to a scenario where a loss of life could occur? What sort of brain do you have?

Ask Escobar whether losing to a rival in football can cause loss of life, or the Kenyan Arsenal fan that committed suicide. You clearly don’t have any memory or understanding beyond AVB and Chelski.

You cannot call AVB lacking in intelligence. You do not know what sort of backing he has with Roman.

I don’t need to know what backing he has with Roman - intelligent folk learn from their mistakes. . . .those that don’t are lacking in intelligence. It’s really that simple. Unless Roman’s backing is for him to get worse against the top sides.

Secondly, you cannot teach a football club a philosophy when you choose when you want to attack. That's why it's called a philosophy not strategy.

Confusion reigns in nateevs’ head - I thought it was ‘tactical play’ i.e. a strategy that was responsible for the loss, now it has become a philosophy? AVB’s philosophy is to lose woefully to his big rivals?

It means you stick to what you do no matter what. . That's a philosophy.

Stop mixing up things again - you do have an issue distinguishing between subjects. I have no issues with his philosophy - I have issues with his failure to appropriately adapt his strategy to achieve that philosophy.

You cannot tell me AVB does not know how to be strategic. He does but that's not the goal.

His strategy clearly failed - he has shown (so far) that he is not astute enough to apply his strategies effectively against the big boys. He will have another chance against Liverpool.

You cannot also call him daft for persisting with his ways because you don't know his goal.

His goal is to win trophies and games for Chelski FC, stated by AVB himself - if he continues getting bashed like this, that won’t happen. I have no issues with persistence, but persistence with no improvement is idiocy.

You think his goal is to win a game of football and when he hasn't done so employing his tactics, then he is evidently daft for trying again.

Not at all - again you need to improve your reading comprehension. The daftness emanates from repeating the same mistakes and learning nothing from previous encounters, not from using the same strategy as such. You should re-use strategies with learnings from previous failings included - AVB is not doing that.

He may think his goal is to get the team playing in the way he wants even if it means we lose all big games. To call him daft for persistence in his ways even though his goals may be different from your desires is plain ignorant and insanely id.iotic.

His goals are to win games and trophies - he has stated so clearly. If we were talking about another club then this tosh about 'getting the team to play in a certain way' might fly. We know that coaches that fail to win games/trophies at Chelski get sacked, regardless of the ‘way they play’. Scolari’s sack came on the heels of a RVP double at SB, not because of the ‘way they play’.

Carlo was sacked despite producing the best attacking football ever from Chelski two seasons ago - 'way of play' didn't save him when trophies disappeared.