BBC Blog Network

User Profile

southwestlondon

Listed below are comments made by southwestlondon between Tuesday, 2nd September 2008 and Monday, 5th October 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Drogba inflicts pain on Liverpool 3:55pm on 05 Oct 2009 @ meathboy6

"BY THE WAY CHELSEA FANS--YOURE A DISGRACE--WE PUT YOU LOT TO SHAME YESTERDAY, 2000 SCOUSERS WERE LOUDER THAN YOU LOT! YOU STILL HAVE NO HISTORY!"

Ha ha ha, you have to be kidding. The (3000) Liverpool fans in no way outsung the home crowd. It was a very weak performance by anyone's standards for a full allocation. The above is either delusion or some people still haven't realised that if you're in the middle of 3000 people, you sound louder than if you're at the other end. I was right next to the away fans so I could hear both.

Also, after the first goal went in there was utter silence from the away end for the rest of the game bar one or two half-hearted chants. We were commenting on it at the time. 'Pool fans usually go missing when they're most needed though. They have long had that reputation among Chelsea fans anyway. It was proven once again by the mass disappearing act during the CL semi 2nd leg the season before last. Credit and apologies to the few who stayed.
Drogba inflicts pain on Liverpool 1:11pm on 05 Oct 2009 @"drogbathecheat"

"Some of the comments on here are rather crazy and clearly a lot of people did not watch the game."

On the contrary, you might want to think about why you hold such a minority view. Liverpool were not the better team, they merely had decent spells of possession around the Chelsea area and created a handful of chances, with which Torres should have done better on a couple of occasions. You also may want to consider the possibility that Chelsea like playing on the counter-attack, were generally in control defensively, and the fact that you may not understand football tactics at this level as well as Ancelotti and Benitez do. I certainly don't, but I didn't hear Rafa saying that the best team lost. He talked about mistakes being the key factor in these games, but he seemed to accept defeat and acknowledge that Chelsea are a strong team whom there is no disgrace in losing to.

What I and everyone else could see, aside from yourself and one or two others, was that Chelsea's defence was better than Liverpool's, their midfield was more creative, and the more potent attacking threat was also Chelsea's. Given this, how can Liverpool have been the better team?
Drogba inflicts pain on Liverpool 12:20pm on 05 Oct 2009 I see that a lot of people are still predicting (or pinning their hopes on the idea?) that Chelsea will struggle in January when Essien and Drogba, and the rather more peripheral Mikel and Kalou will be away at the African Cup of Nations.

As has been pointed out before, the fixtures during this period (the maximum that would be missed) are Hull (a), Sunderland (h), Birmingham (h) and Burnley (a). All of these games are potentially difficult of course, but it's not as if Chelsea have to go to Old Trafford and Anfield during this period. A more significant factor may be any players who get to the latter stages adjusting to the climate/premier league in time for the Arsenal game on 6th February.
Ashley leaves Newcastle in chaos 5:20pm on 03 Sep 2008 "Why France? Uhm, I suppose because they've won two major international tournaments in the last decade.

Is it just me or was that a silly question on your part?"

Oh, so you mean the big players in international football of the last ten years? That's a bit arbitrary, I thought you were talking about all-time. I guess you should make it 6 and include Spain then, who are currently No.1 in the FIFA rankings and just won a major trophy?

Or is that silly too?
Ashley leaves Newcastle in chaos 5:13pm on 03 Sep 2008 Maybe dictionaries should have a definition of "big club" and a contrasting definition of "successful club" so people can stop feeling the need to tell Newcastle what size club they are. You'd think spending most of your history in the top flight and there only being 5 English teams with a higher all time average attendance (one of them is Chelsea by the way) would make a club "big" by some sort of measurement. If people mean "successful" they should say that.
Ashley leaves Newcastle in chaos 5:01pm on 03 Sep 2008 "France, Brazil, Italy, Germany, Argentina - these are the big five of international football. England aren't even knocking on the door."

Why France? There is no big five. I'd give you your big four, England would be in the second tier with France and Holland.
The right move for Robinho? 9:51pm on 02 Sep 2008 armchairblue, yeah my memory was wrong about which division Man City were in when, and of course you're right that City fans are as loyal as they come. It just gets my goat when people point to Chelsea attendances when, like Man City, they've been among the highest averages in history.

There are a lot of parallels between the clubs I think. A relative lack of success in relation to fanbase and average attendance, sharing a city with a more successful team in red, and of course, now, new found wealth that was necessary to allow them to compete at the very top, rather than just occasionally flirting with success.
The right move for Robinho? 8:18pm on 02 Sep 2008 armchairblue wrote:
City fans don't care what other fans think (especially the self-obsessed red half of Manchester). In 1997, a club with bigger gate receipts than Chelsea (average 25,000) at that time were in division 3 (old money, in fact REALLY old money)m now of course called League One. We've had the downs, much like Leeds United are suffering now, so we really don't care.
______________________________

That was a good post but why does everyone have to pick on Chelsea? Chelsea's average attendance was 27,617 in 96/97 and Stamford Bridge was being rebuilt I seem to remember, and didn't Man City win Division 1 and promotion to the PL in 1997? For the record, Chelsea's attendance went way down in the early 80s due to relegation and rampant hooliganism (electric fences anyone?) - I guess you could call the 80s our major "down". That was an anomaly in terms of the club's history as they had always been one of the best supported clubs in England, but it still took until the mid 90s for attendances to fully recover. That's why many Chelsea fans see the current success (since 97) as some sort of deliverance, and I hope this is the start of the same thing for City. Back to the point, I think Man City and Chelsea have similar size fanbases but if you're going to use stats to support your argument get them right rather than pluck them out of the air.
The right move for Robinho? 7:55pm on 02 Sep 2008 I get the impression that a lot of Man City fans are a bit taken aback by some of the negativity coming their way, though generally speaking it's a bit of a novelty for everyone at the moment so the reaction to this takeover and signing has been mixed. Speaking as a Chelsea fan I'm afraid you'll have to get used to a lot more negativity. Soon you'll get nonsensical jibes about not having any "history", a largely hostile press looking for the negatives in everything, people predicting impending doom, saying that any trophies won from now on don't count, and of course the classic "ruining football" accusation.

Revel in all of this. They're all a little bit scared (Liverpool, Man U), jealous (Liverpool again, Spurs, Everton, Newcastle etc.), think they have a divine right to win things and be in the Champions League (Liverpool, Arsenal) or hypocrites (any of my fellow Chelsea fans who moan about your money, and other big spenders: Liverpool, Man U, even Real Madrid).

Good luck for the season, to an extent. ;)
The right move for Robinho? 7:20pm on 02 Sep 2008 kotakinabalu wrote:

Uniquities: dead right mate, very similar to my point. I too would like to see Newcastle, Spurs, Villa and others join the battle with massive funding. It would be wonderful to see the Premier league finishing league positions 2010 as 1st Man City 2nd Villa 3rd Spurs 4th Newcastle - shuffle them around according to which of those you follow.
_____________________________

So presumably you weren't one of those moaning when Chelsea got the cash to go from perennial top six finishers to genuine title contenders and mix it up after years of Man U/Arsenal, Arsenal/Man U? For some reason people say that was bad for football, when it actually made it interesting again and raised the bar in terms of quality.

Football was about money long before Abramovich of course and, forgetting Chelsea for a seconfd, the only way any of the teams you mention (a bracket to which Chelsea used to belong) can challenge Man U is by huge financial investment, as you point out. Look at the amount of money they continue to spend on players.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

southwestlondon