How come no one mentioned that RLC made some key passes?

Ibime:


Shots on goal and on target is a statistic you can use to measure defensive solidity. My argument is that this is due to Kante's influence.

Only within a proper context. It can also indicate an opponent's woeful attack.

Ibime:


A possible argument. . . . until you consider like for like comparison vs West Ham for example
Last season vs West Ham at Stamford Bridge we had 59% possession, yet conceded 13 shots on goal with 6 on target.
This season vs West Ham at Stamford Bridge we had 62% possession, and only conceded 7 shots on goal with 3 on target.
Possession is more or less the same, shots on goal and on target have halved. Their only goal was from a corner, and they didn't look threatening.
Just watch this space. The more matches we play, we would see more evidence, if ninjas did not know that already. We are yet to concede truly from open play this season which is very encouraging, although worrying that we keep falling asleep at set-plays.

At first glance, you would appear to be right, but when we consider what I will call 'effective possession' then my point becomes even more apparent.

Last season vs West Ham at the Bridge, we had 150 passes in their defensive third. This season we had 185. Quite clearly we pinned them down in their half.

And hence my point.

When you consider the increase in possession, increase in number of passes and the improved rate of pass completion, it becomes a bit more obvious that defensive actions were not responsible for our victory vs West ham.

So it's not yet possible to tell if Kante has improved us defensively.. At least not using Statistics.

Nihilist:

Only within a proper context. It can also indicate an opponent's woeful attack.



At first glance, you would appear to be right, but when we consider what I will call 'effective possession' then my point becomes even more apparent.

Last season vs West Ham at the Bridge, we had 150 passes in their defensive third. This season we had 185. Quite clearly we pinned them down in their half.

And hence my point.

When you consider the increase in possession, increase in number of passes and the improved rate of pass completion, it becomes a bit more obvious that defensive actions were not responsible for our victory vs West ham.

So it's not yet possible to tell if Kante has improved us defensively.. At least not using Statistics.

The presence of a fast solid midfielder like Kante also allows you to move up the pitch with confidence rather than fearing counterattacks, so either way you cut it, President Kante is involved.

When is cfc signing defenders? Not just experimental one but quality and tested defenders(a LB and CD). Transfer market about to close.

FBS:
How come no one mentioned that RLC made some key passes?

We don give up on that one
Nigga is too lazy

hensben:
When is cfc signing defenders? Not just experimental one but quality and tested defenders(a LB and CD). Transfer market about to close.

Hector-esque transfer incoming

Ibime:


The presence of a fast solid midfielder like Kante also allows you to move up the pitch with confidence rather than fearing counterattacks, so either way you cut it, President Kante is involved.

He's dropping into centre back during transition as seen here, so it's not really his pace that is giving the attackers confidence to move up.
Like I said this is a tactical improvement rather than an individual one.
[img]http://media./media/l2SqiEs3LIJvxQfgk/giphy.gif[/img]

Looking at the GIF above, It could be argued that a solid centreback with ball playing skills e.g say Vertoghen or Eric Dier could flit between CB and Midfield.

This would make the argument that we need(ed) a new midfielder obsolete, no?

Perhaps you are both wrong and right. I see no one of you had considered the fact that we set up for the last two games in a 4-3-3. This was never used last season.

This (4-3-3), tactically, pushes more players higher up the pitch. This fact supports and negates elements of both sides' arguments.

Ibime:


As per our argument, my priority last season was midfielder first, defender second.

You wanted new defenders and happy to carry on with the same midfield.

As at the time we had this debate, we had Felipe Luis, Azpi, Ivanovic, Terry, Cahill and Zouma, 6 defenders capable of winning any league with the right support in front of them. Midfield was the most pressing need last season and we were rape'd repeatedly in midfield conceding 13 shots per game which is not happening now.

Yes, we need new defenders as we only have four fit senior defenders. Luis has left, Zouma is injured and Terry is a year older, nobody would argue with that, but don't come here with stories. The fact is that we are a lot more solid than last year. Conversely, you can buy all the defenders in the world but without the midfield to support them, they would still concede bucketloads. You are forgetting we needed to deploy Zouma in midfield in 2015 from January just to see out the season.

With those defenders' forms last season except zouma later on, no team will win any league last season. I remember dayo mocking terry here against ayew inside the box. Kante would not always stop crosses from the flanks getting into opposing attackers inside our box . You can check that watford goal you will understand it. kante cant be everywhere. Mind you , it's too early to compare stats now. Last year I gave preference to defensive solidification having it in mind that matic would return to peak last season. My arguement started way back from last season's preseason and it still stands a year later, i also asked for midfield additions that time but it should be secondary. Kante addition as pointed by nihilist has improved our offensive play, though against watford he struggled most times with behrami. Fact is we would nt have suffered last season if matic came smoking with hazard and quality defenders.

Nihilist:


He's dropping into centre back during transition as seen here, so it's not really his pace that is giving the attackers confidence to move up.
Like I said this is a tactical improvement rather than an individual one.
[img]http://media./media/l2SqiEs3LIJvxQfgk/giphy.gif[/img]

Looking at the GIF above, It could be argued that a solid centreback with ball playing skills e.g say Vertoghen or Eric Dier could flit between CB and Midfield.

This would make the argument that we need(ed) a new midfielder obsolete, no?

This is not the first time we are having a DM drop into the back 3.

Anyway you too like unnecessary argument. Just bow to Lord Kante!

Ibime:


You ain't saying nothing gee.

Your argument was that Chelsea don't need midfield reinforcement, rather signing John Stones would shut out opponents. Infact you were impressing on us the merits of Mikel and Ramires and touting John Stones as the panacea to our problems.

Just the signing of Kante alone has made us a lot tighter. We have conceded the 2nd least shots on target this season with 6.5 shots conceded per game vs 12.7 last season. Only a blind man would deny that signing Kante has tightened us up no end.

John Stones who made the most defensive errors last season would not have stopped the deluge of chances Chelsea was conceding last season. No defender could turn us into a watertight unit whilst the midfield is being run through willy nilly.

Infact, if you look at goals conceded this season, they all come from dead ball situations which is an anomaly for Chelsea.

We do need defenders, no doubt, but the tactical argument has already been proven. Defending starts from the midfield. In order of priorities, tightening the midfield was the first priority, and that has been done to some extent. We do hope for defensive signings but don't be surprised that likes of Terry and Zouma can even sustain title challenge just by having the likes of Kante protecting them. Wes Morgan and Robert Huth did so last season.

Bro cfc main problem is LB so that Azpi can play his primary position. Azpi is very good in pull out but playing LB is hindering his attacking prowess.

Ibime:


This is not the first time we are having a DM drop into the back 3.

Anyway you too like unnecessary argument. Just bow to Lord Kante!

[img]http://yahwehssong.files./2012/01/bowing.jpg[/img]

hensben:
Bro cfc main problem is LB so that Azpi can play his primary position. Azpi is very good in pull out but playing LB is hindering his attacking prowess.

True. LB and CB are now the most pressing issues now that midfield has been alleviated somewhat.

bigkesh:

Hector-esque transfer incoming

it better not be so else...

airmark:


With those defenders' forms last season except zouma later on, no team will win any league last season. I remember dayo mocking terry here against ayew inside the box. Kante would not always stop crosses from the flanks getting into opposing attackers inside our box . You can check that watford goal you will understand it. kante cant be everywhere. Mind you , it's too early to compare stats now. Last year I gave preference to defensive solidification having it in mind that matic would return to peak last season. My arguement started way back from last season's preseason and it still stands a year later, i also asked for midfield additions that time but it should be secondary. Kante addition as pointed by nihilist has improved our offensive play, though against watford he struggled most times with behrami. Fact is we would nt have suffered last season if matic came smoking with hazard and quality defenders.

Even if Matic was on form, don't forget that Zouma covered midfield with him for half the season. Who would take Zoumas place?

A strong midfield can cover a weak defence (it has been seen countless times)

A strong defence however can never compensate for a weak midfield.

If the midfield is weak, it forces defenders into one-on-one duels and no defender will win 100% of his one-on-ones. He will be lucky to win 70% of his one-on-one situations. I don't care if he is Jaap Stam.

If Chelsea had signed John Stones last season, how many goals would we have conceded? I would argue the same or more.

Ibime:
Even if Matic was on form, don't forget that Zouma covered midfield with him for half the season. Who would take Zoumas place?
A strong midfield can cover a weak defence (it has been seen countless times)
A strong defence however can never compensate for a weak midfield.
If the midfield is weak, it forces defenders into one-on-one duels and no defender will win 100% of his one-on-ones. He will be lucky to win 70% of his one-on-one situations. I don't care if he is Jaap Stam.
If Chelsea had signed John Stones last season, how many goals would we have conceded? I would argue the same or more.

The best teams are those that limit the number of shots they are exposed to which is the reason why the midfield is the most important part of any team.

If you have Maldini and Nesta at their peak and teams are averaging 10 shots per game against them, they would still concede in bucketloads.

Proactive midfielders and even defenders move up to break up potential attacks before they develop because at the edge of your box if opponents are settled and shooting, then your chance is less than 50-50.

A random deflection, a rebound, an outstanding shot, a genius move would always get a goal

Jaanmat goes to Watford. Chai...

raumdeuter:


The best teams are those that limit the number of shots they are exposed to which is the reason why the midfield is the most important part of any team.

If you have Maldini and Nesta at their peak and teams are averaging 10 shots per game against them, they would still concede in bucketloads.

Proactive midfielders and even defenders move up to break up potential attacks before they develop because at the edge of your box if opponents are settled and shooting, then your chance is less than 50-50.

A random deflection, a rebound, an outstanding shot, a genius move would always get a goal

City conceded the fewest shots per game, yet conceded 41 goals last season same as Southampton who incidentally were conceding over 10 shots per game.

I don't buy the idea that a good midfield is key to a solid defence. I think that good tactics AND solid defenders/keeper are the key. Defending is the easiest part of the game. Just stick players very close together and you're sorted. Kante has gone now but look at Leicester's defending against Arsenal even with their inferior midfield.

raumdeuter:


The best teams are those that limit the number of shots they are exposed to which is the reason why the midfield is the most important part of any team.

If you have Maldini and Nesta at their peak and teams are averaging 10 shots per game against them, they would still concede in bucketloads.

Proactive midfielders and even defenders move up to break up potential attacks before they develop because at the edge of your box if opponents are settled and shooting, then your chance is less than 50-50.

A random deflection, a rebound, an outstanding shot, a genius move would always get a goal

Not if you had Baresi and Bergomi lol. However i get your premise, back to wall defending rarely works over a long period of time. Great defending starts from midfield and in some cases attack sef.
Having said this Ivanovic was especially crappy last season at an individual level which went beyond lack of protection from the midfield.

Nihilist:
City conceded the fewest shots per game, yet conceded 41 goals last season same as Southampton who incidentally were conceding over 10 shots per game.

I don't buy the idea that a good midfield is key to a solid defence. I think that good tactics AND solid defenders/keeper are the key. Defending is the easiest part of the game. Just stick players very close together and you're sorted. Kante has gone now but look at Leicester's defending against Arsenal even with their inferior midfield.

If City conceded less shots on goal and still have more goals conceded that means either their Keeper is below average and leaks than the average keeper (Joke Hart has been dropped this season) or they are at the receiving end of higher quality shots

Nihilist:
Jaanmat goes to Watford. Chai...

He's a decent player. He could play for Chelsea

Ibime:


Even if Matic was on form, don't forget that Zouma covered midfield with him for half the season. Who would take Zoumas place?

A strong midfield can cover a weak defence (it has been seen countless times)

A strong defence however can never compensate for a weak midfield.

If the midfield is weak, it forces defenders into one-on-one duels and no defender will win 100% of his one-on-ones. He will be lucky to win 70% of his one-on-one situations. I don't care if he is Jaap Stam.

If Chelsea had signed John Stones last season, how many goals would we have conceded? I would argue the same or more.

A strong midfield can cover a weak defence for how long ? Against which teams? Dont forget big teams have tacticians handling them. There are many ways to cut out a stubborn midfield especially when you have a leaking full back. A long thrust is even enough to cut out kante and get at our jaded defence. Mane , even benteke showed us this last season. Willian and co had to do extra works falling deep to minize damage at the expense of offensive play. Do you think when essien and co were at their peaks if we were having these tired defenders then, we would have achieved those things we achieved? Meanwhile zouma playing in the midfield was just for 4 games in 2014/2015 league triumph. How you came about him covering the midfield for half a season was shocking. Matic was massive that season and i know you know this.

airmark:


A strong midfield can cover a weak defence for how long ? Against which teams?

If your midfield is weak and defence is weak, you better fix the midfield first if you have sense.

Chelsea defence was at least functional. The John Stones they claimed was the saviour had to sit behind Cahill in England team because England don't trust him.

If Cahill, Terry, Zouma and Felipe Luis are weak, what is the definition of strong? These are all 7/10 defenders at worst, the type that bench John Stones for England. Ivanovic I have had a problem with as right-back for years.

raumdeuter:


If City conceded less shots on goal and still have more goals conceded that means either their Keeper is below average and leaks than the average keeper (Joke Hart has been dropped this season) or they are at the receiving end of higher quality shots

Exactly the point I'm trying to make. Strong Defenders/Keepers are the keys to a solid defence not the midfield IMO.

Long balls will bypass the midfield as leicester will tell you.

Look at the number of blocks the likes of Westbrom and Crystal Palace were making last season...it explains why they conceded less and only 7 less than City.

United were holding possesion, conceding few shots,and making few blocks, yet their keeper made PFA team of the year for the third consecutive season.

That suggests to me that great defence(defenders +keepers) are more important than great midfielders when it comes to keeping cleansheets.

Ibime:


He's a decent player. He could play for Chelsea

I swear. Could have easily solved the IVA conundrum there...and for so cheap too.

Ibime:


He's a decent player. He could play for Chelsea

jaanmat that can't defend,I'd rather stick with Aina instead of that useless defender.

Nihilist:


I swear. Could have easily solved the IVA conundrum there...and for so cheap too.

Cfc don't need a right back they need a quality LB so that azpi can move to his natural position(RB).

Ibime:


He's a decent player. He could play for Chelsea

Nihilist:

I swear. Could have easily solved the IVA conundrum there...and for so cheap too.

Hurray...They finally agree on something

Thank you Janmaat

Ibime:


If your midfield is weak and defence is weak, you better fix the midfield first if you have sense.

Chelsea defence was at least functional. The John Stones they claimed was the saviour had to sit behind Cahill in England team because England don't trust him.

If Cahill, Terry, Zouma and Felipe Luis are weak, what is the definition of strong? These are all 7/10 defenders at worst, the type that bench John Stones for England. Ivanovic I have had a problem with as right-back for years.

Terry is tired and no more at his best unless we are deceiving ourselves. Cahill was not playing like a trojan he was before. felipe luis was a shadow of himself, he could not play like top class defender we expected of him for us unless you want to be economical with the truth. A team with solid midfield but weak defence will eat it raw against big clubs even some small clubs with experienced attackers will expose the defence. Luis has to be shipped back as he lost confidence when in london. If not that we did nt get it right with rahman and djiloboji you would nt be here proving nothing. I admired stones and because of some matches i saw him in last season, he is still growing and would have learnt a lot under terry and becomes good for us. His athleticism would be useful. I will still prefer him to iva as CB who is too stiff now to stop strikers with sharp reflexes. well, we will see how things pan out.

bigkesh:




Hurray...They finally agree on something

Thank you Janmaat

bigkesh, you don madt. Walahi.

Jaanmat is crap though

dopeJemi:
Jaanmat is crap though

He has done what Oscar,Sterling,Matic,Emenalo and even Kante can't do......
I can bet my life he is not crap even though I have hardly seen him

If they both agreed he is good,I swear he is good