Liverpool FC Forum

by **davo_LFC** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:23 pm

i think we should do well against chelski,rafa seems to have their tactics sussed...so am confident that we will get results in both games...hopefully 2 wins

by **76-1115222408** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:06 pm

drummerphil wrote:To be honest though i,m quite shocked how we get people on here from countries where Cricket is the main sport there such as Pakistan,Jamaica and India then claim they know more about our national game than we do and how we should play it.

By your reasoning, England should be the best at Football and Cricket, and funny enough they are best at neither.

Just because we invented Football, doesnt mean we necessarily know more than someone from ANY other nation, be it Europe or worldwide. As I say, if that was the case, England would win the World Cup etc; all the time wouldnt they

Alas, they struggle to beat Australia,Denmark and N.Ireland!!! :laugh:

If the English knew so much about the game they created, why was it that it was after playing SCOTLAND in a match, they THEN began to use a cohesive 'formation', instead of just running around everywhere!!

by **A.B.** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:53 pm

stmichael wrote:
BarryBelfast wrote:The team that has done best against Chelsea and should have beaten them was wigan this season!
They played with a high tempo and got right at them from the whistle and chelsea didnt like it one bit!
Being too cautious and showing them too much respect is playing into their hands! I say go for the jugular from the word go

Exactly right Barry.

I cant help but think about John Terry's 'trauma' from last season's CL semi at Anfield.

This is an area of us to exploit. No doubt, they were stung by the atmosphere, the crowd and the pace in which we started the game.

Think back to the league game on New Year's Day and it was the same. We went straight at them like a freight train and they struggled to cope. We only failed due to a dodgy decision and lack of finishing.

I'd approach both games in exactly the same way.

Go at them straight from the off. Give them no time on the ball whatsoever, chase, harry, nudge them, push them. A real 'bites yer legs' kind of attitude. 100% commitment and passion from players and fans.

That's how you beat Chelsea.

Think back to the CL final, the second half. We came out quicker and hungry. It reached its peak after the 2nd goal went in. As Andy Gray put it, 'even the best get nervy, even the best players get rattled'.

Milan couldnt cope with it. Neither will Chelsea IMO.

They're only human. They CAN be rattled and the seed of doubt will already be in their heads.

I'd use Sissoko in there to hustle and bustle them, Lampard certainly wont like being bullied off the ball.

It poses a mouth watering prospect, Lampard Essien and Makalele vs Gerrard, Sissoko and Alonso.

I think if we start in that manner, we'll rattle them out of their stride and be able to take advantage.

The slow, cautious sit-back style will play right into their hands and is tantamount to football suicide, against the Chavs.

If we go all out to WIN this game and play with a fast direct tempo, we can win without doubt.

They are only human, they have quality in abundance. But we have quality too and if we have the passion and desire as well, the win is there for the taking in both games.

I agree. We should be a bit more physical with Chelsea, and by physical I mean pulling a "Blackburn". Give them no space when they have ball, give them no time on the ball and when they do have the ball make it difficult for them.

by **66-1120597113** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:01 pm

A.B. wrote:
stmichael wrote:
BarryBelfast wrote:The team that has done best against Chelsea and should have beaten them was wigan this season!
They played with a high tempo and got right at them from the whistle and chelsea didnt like it one bit!
Being too cautious and showing them too much respect is playing into their hands! I say go for the jugular from the word go

Exactly right Barry.

I cant help but think about John Terry's 'trauma' from last season's CL semi at Anfield.

This is an area of us to exploit. No doubt, they were stung by the atmosphere, the crowd and the pace in which we started the game.

Think back to the league game on New Year's Day and it was the same. We went straight at them like a freight train and they struggled to cope. We only failed due to a dodgy decision and lack of finishing.

I'd approach both games in exactly the same way.

Go at them straight from the off. Give them no time on the ball whatsoever, chase, harry, nudge them, push them. A real 'bites yer legs' kind of attitude. 100% commitment and passion from players and fans.

That's how you beat Chelsea.

Think back to the CL final, the second half. We came out quicker and hungry. It reached its peak after the 2nd goal went in. As Andy Gray put it, 'even the best get nervy, even the best players get rattled'.

Milan couldnt cope with it. Neither will Chelsea IMO.

They're only human. They CAN be rattled and the seed of doubt will already be in their heads.

I'd use Sissoko in there to hustle and bustle them, Lampard certainly wont like being bullied off the ball.

It poses a mouth watering prospect, Lampard Essien and Makalele vs Gerrard, Sissoko and Alonso.

I think if we start in that manner, we'll rattle them out of their stride and be able to take advantage.

The slow, cautious sit-back style will play right into their hands and is tantamount to football suicide, against the Chavs.

If we go all out to WIN this game and play with a fast direct tempo, we can win without doubt.

They are only human, they have quality in abundance. But we have quality too and if we have the passion and desire as well, the win is there for the taking in both games.

I agree. We should be a bit more physical with Chelsea, and by physical I mean pulling a "Blackburn". Give them no space when they have ball, give them no time on the ball and when they do have the ball make it difficult for them.

Its the only way to go!
Being at home with the atmosphere and that will also influence the ref so we may get away with a bit of rough if required!
People may judge this as dirty tactics but they can kiss my ar.se!
It aint as dirty as buying sucess and blowing others outta the water with unrivaled wealth!!

by **A.B.** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:03 pm

Dirty tactics are part of football. Is it good to be used all the time, no but you have to do it in certain games to get what you want. Whenever I play footie I make sure that whoever I'm marking has a hard time doing anything with the ball and if that means pushing him off the ball or stepping on his foot from time to time then so be it.

by **Mikz** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 11:30 pm

dont step on my blue suede shoes ab!! You sound like your a stuart pearce kinda player lol Thou shalt not pass!
Break his legs!!

by **Chelsea forever.** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 3:59 am

---

Blacburn tried the 'dirty' way against us and lost 1-0 (they did manage to break Robbens leg however!).

I dont think the 'dirty' way is the right approach as it will prove in effective against us. We have a Bison in MF (Essien) and he is no lightweight, neither are Terry, Gallas or even Maka. The boys are going to be playing with a vengence and a sense of revenge and if the tackles start flowing in from Liverpool you can bet our boys wont shy away from that approach either. Fight fire with fire.

If you are able to keep majority of the possession and use your chosen CF effectivly then thats the only way to beat us. Get a goal and then keep possession, if we dont get the ball we cant score - simple.

But considering we havent yet conceded a goal and have let in very few shots on goal its a tough task ahead and only tougher considering you havent scored form open play as yet.

Will be a facinating encounter!

by **Chelsea forever.** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 5:32 am

I agree. We should be a bit more physical with Chelsea, and by physical I mean pulling a "Blackburn". Give them no space when they have ball, give them no time on the ball and when they do have the ball make it difficult for them.

A.B -

I dont think thats pulling a 'Blackburn'. Ensuring the side puts in 234 tackles, gets 7 yellow cards, breaks one or two legs, gets into a verbal scrap and choses to either abuse the Ref or spit at the player and finally kicks the keeper in the stomach - thats pulling a 'Blaciburn'

Give them no space when they have ball, give them no time on the ball and when they do have the ball make it difficult for them.

Yes, that would be effective. But like I said before, it has its downside. Such a high workrate means players will lose their legs towards the end.

The best way to 'unsettle' us is to attack attack attack, and then attack some more. I use the world unsettle because thats what someone has to do to beat us. If our boat is rocked and we have a team of 11 players playing super football, keeping posession and cutting in and out, turning our players around and spitting attack after attack - we will be unsettled for sure and will concede a goal.

by **66-1112520797** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:14 am

LIVERPOOLANYTIME wrote:
drummerphil wrote:To be honest though i,m quite shocked how we get people on here from countries where Cricket is the main sport there such as Pakistan,Jamaica and India then claim they know more about our national game than we do and how we should play it.

By your reasoning, England should be the best at Football and Cricket, and funny enough they are best at neither.

Just because we invented Football, doesnt mean we necessarily know more than someone from ANY other nation, be it Europe or worldwide. As I say, if that was the case, England would win the World Cup etc; all the time wouldnt they Alas, they struggle to beat Australia,Denmark and N.Ireland!!!

If the English knew so much about the game they created, why was it that it was after playing SCOTLAND in a match, they THEN began to use a cohesive 'formation', instead of just running around everywhere!!

One minute its we created football and cricket , the next, its if the English new so much about the game they invented.

You sound like your not to sure what nationality you are

by **Chelsea forever.** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:27 am

LIVERPOOLANYTIME wrote:
drummerphil wrote:To be honest though i,m quite shocked how we get people on here from countries where Cricket is the main sport there such as Pakistan,Jamaica and India then claim they know more about our national game than we do and how we should play it.

By your reasoning, England should be the best at Football and Cricket, and funny enough they are best at neither.

Just because we invented Football, doesnt mean we necessarily know more than someone from ANY other nation, be it Europe or worldwide. As I say, if that was the case, England would win the World Cup etc; all the time wouldnt they Alas, they struggle to beat Australia,Denmark and N.Ireland!!!

If the English knew so much about the game they created, why was it that it was after playing SCOTLAND in a match, they THEN began to use a cohesive 'formation', instead of just running around everywhere!!

On the contrary, apart from the absolute necessity to employ the legs and feet in such a tough bodily tussle for the ball, often without any laws for protection, it was no doubt recognised right at the outset that the art of controlling the ball with the feet was extremely difficult and, as such, it required special technique and talent. The very earliest form of the game for which there is scientific evidence was an exercise of precisely this skilful technique dating back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C. in China. A military manual dating from the period of the Han Dynasty includes among the physical education exercises, the "Tsu'Chu". This consisted of kicking a leather ball filled with feathers and hair through an opening, measuring only 30 - 40 cm in width, into a small net fixed onto long bamboo canes - a feat which obviously demanded great skill and excellent technique. A variation of this exercise also existed, whereby the player was not permitted to aim at his target unimpeded, but had to use his feet, chest, back and shoulders whilst trying to withstand the attacks of his opponents. Use of the hands was not permitted. The ball artistry of today's top players is therefore not quite as new as some people may assume.

Another form of the game, also originating from the Far East, was the Japanese Kemari, which dates from about 500 to 600 years later and is still played today. This is a type of circular football game, far less spectacular, but, for that reason, a 'more dignified and ceremonious experience, requiring certain skills, but not competitive ' in the way the Chinese game was, nor is there the slightest sign of struggle for possession of the ball. The players had to pass the ball to each other, in a relatively small space, trying not to let it touch the ground.

The Greek game "episkyros", relatively little of which has been handed down, was much livelier, as was the Roman game "Harpastum". The latter was played with a smaller ball with two teams contesting the game on a rectangular field marked by boundary lines and a centre-line. The object was to get the ball over the opponents' boundary lines. The ball was passed between players and trickery was the order of the day. Each team member had his own specific tactical assignment and the spectators took a vociferous interest in the proceedings and the score. The role of the feet in this game was so small as scarcely to be of consequence. This game remained popular for 700 or 800 years, but, although the Romans took it to England with them, it is doubtful whether it can be considered as a forerunner of contemporary football. The same applies for hurling, a popular game with the Celtic population, which is played to this very day in Cornwall and Ireland. lt is possible that influences were asserted, but it is certain that the decisive development of the game of football with which we are now familiar took place in England and Scotland.

The game that flourished in the British Isles from the 8th to the 19th centuries had a considerable variety of local and regional versions - which were subsequently smoothed down and smartened up to form the present day sports of association football and rugby football. - They were substantially different from all the previously known forms - more disorganised, more violent, more spontaneous and usually played by an indefinite number of players. Frequently, the games took the form of a heated contest between whole village communities or townships - through streets, village squares, across fields, hedges, fences and streams. Kicking was allowed, as in fact was almost everything else. However, in some of these games kicking was out of the question due to the size and weight of the ball being used. In such cases, kicking was instead employed to fell opponents. Incidentally, it was not until nine years after the football rules had been established for the first time in 1863 that the size and weight of the ball were finally standardised. Up to that time, agreement on this point had usually been reached by the parties concerned when they were arranging the match, as was the case for the game between London and Sheffield in 1866. This match was also the first where the duration of the game was prearranged for one and a half hours.

Shrovetide football, as it was called, belonged in the "mob football" category, where the number of players was unlimited and the rules were fairly vague (for example, according to an ancient handbook from Workington in England, any means could be employed to get the ball to its target with the exception of murder and manslaughter). Shrovetide football is still played today on Shrove Tuesday in some areas, for example, Ashbourne in Derbyshire. Needless to say, it is no longer so riotous as it used to be, nor are such extensive casualties suffered as was probably the case centuries ago.

--

... and it goes on and on and on

by **Ciggy** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:40 am

I will be very happy if we beat them at Anfield, and possibly go for a draw at the Bridge, I wont be to upset if they beat us at their gaff, they are a very good team so if we could get a result at anfield its a major bonus.
As good as Betis are I can only see them beating Anderlecht, so it is possible(fingers crossed) that only us and Chelsea go through.

by **66-1120597113** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:42 am

Chelsea forever. wrote:---

Blacburn tried the 'dirty' way against us and lost 1-0 (they did manage to break Robbens leg however!).

I dont think the 'dirty' way is the right approach as it will prove in effective against us. We have a Bison in MF (Essien) and he is no lightweight, neither are Terry, Gallas or even Maka. The boys are going to be playing with a vengence and a sense of revenge and if the tackles start flowing in from Liverpool you can bet our boys wont shy away from that approach either. Fight fire with fire.

If you are able to keep majority of the possession and use your chosen CF effectivly then thats the only way to beat us. Get a goal and then keep possession, if we dont get the ball we cant score - simple.

But considering we havent yet conceded a goal and have let in very few shots on goal its a tough task ahead and only tougher considering you havent scored form open play as yet.

Will be a facinating encounter!

We dont really mean a kickfest mate just a good old fashiond english approach is what i mean!
As St mick said we cant give ur lot space,we need to get in there and attack from the off!
And another thing i would like to see is Raffa being a bit more ruthless with our subs!
For example in the Utd game Garcia should have been brought off at half time Gerrard pushed up to garcias role and Sissoko brought on to where gerrard had played in the 1st half,this might have won us the game!
Basically if someones having a bad day at the office get them off,we cant afford to have somone playing under par in games this big!!

by **Chelsea forever.** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:48 am

Yes, a good old fashioned English approach makes a good game - id like that.

Team selection by Rafa will be interesting for this one

by **Judge** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:00 am

bring it on

by **76-1115222408** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:57 pm

Bamaga man wrote:
LIVERPOOLANYTIME wrote:
drummerphil wrote:To be honest though i,m quite shocked how we get people on here from countries where Cricket is the main sport there such as Pakistan,Jamaica and India then claim they know more about our national game than we do and how we should play it.

By your reasoning, England should be the best at Football and Cricket, and funny enough they are best at neither.

Just because we invented Football, doesnt mean we necessarily know more than someone from ANY other nation, be it Europe or worldwide. As I say, if that was the case, England would win the World Cup etc; all the time wouldnt they Alas, they struggle to beat Australia,Denmark and N.Ireland!!!

If the English knew so much about the game they created, why was it that it was after playing SCOTLAND in a match, they THEN began to use a cohesive 'formation', instead of just running around everywhere!!

One minute its we created football and cricket , the next, its if the English new so much about the game they invented.

You sound like your not to sure what nationality you are

Yea having read it back, it does seem as though I am confused. :laugh:

The thing I initially qouted just threw me a bit, so I wrote what I did, in a bit of a rage, so wasnt thinking too clearly, just HAD to reply, you knwo what its like mate!

The 'we' was supposed to have qoutations in it Bamaga.

I support Scotland matey!! *sings - 'Flower Of Scotland......*

Liverpool FC Forum

Chelsea double header - How will we play?

Who is online