PDA

View Full Version : Chelseas Official Site



Bronco
11th January 2008, 01:23
From Chelseas official website:



Wed, 9th Jan 2008
A cup tie with a twist after 90 minutes and a controversial red card but a cup tie not yet over. It has columnist and supporter Giles Smith thinking hard.


I've often thought that benefits might follow from rethinking the rules surrounding two-leg cup ties. Let's face it, a completely needless game of football can be pretty irksome, and two-leg ties do often throw up a needless second leg - in cases where one side has opened up a massive lead after the first leg, for example, or where a team's chances of turning the tie around seem, for any of a number of plausible reasons, remote.

The matter wouldn't arise, though, if the second leg were declared optional. Obviously, if the score was level after the first match, both teams would want to go ahead with the second match and seek an outcome. But what could be valuable is if the team trailing after the first leg were given the choice - whether to proceed with the second leg or whether to call it a day instead and bow out after 90 minutes, leaving the other side to go through.

Bingo: no more tiresome second leg formalities.

It's a scenario that, one feels, could really have favoured Everton last night. As the whistle blew on the gutsiest and most enthralling Chelsea performance of the season so far, Everton's officials would have had the statutory two-minute grace period in which to discuss whether to exercise their option on a second leg or not.

And almost certainly, they would have emerged from their meeting and said, 'You know, we were played off the park for the best part of an hour tonight - made to look utterly League One by a side supposedly well below full strength. And then, of course, fate played into our hands when the referee sent off one of your players for committing a one-footed sliding tackle which made no contact with our player at all.

'But even then we didn't have the wherewithal to capitalise, and the sight of our players pressed back into their own half for the last quarter of an hour by a team reduced to 10 men, has left us, inevitably, thoroughly demoralised and uncertain about ourselves. So, all things considered, we'll leave it there, I think.'

And then they could have climbed on their bus and gone away for ever. Especially Phil Neville.

As it is, the tiresome, hidebound regulations dictate that we'll have to do it all again at Goodison in a fortnight - a prospect which Everton, in their fresh and stinging humiliation, will greet about as enthusiastically as an outbreak of corns. 'If we couldn't beat Chelsea then,' they'll be thinking, 'when fortune smiled on us so favourably, when will we ever beat them?'

What a great performance that was, though - worthy of being regarded as a self-contained event in itself, rather than merely as episode one in a two-parter. Half our players may be in the sick room or on a plane to Africa, but the side has rarely looked more sparky, with pace and strength all over the place and Michael Ballack utterly imperious. When the second half started, it seemed only a matter of time before we established the kind of lead that really would have made the second leg redundant.

But then came the extraordinary and pivotal Mikel incident. One was aware of the practice adopted by some teams (though not Chelsea) of fielding an under-strength side for Carling Cup ties. What one hadn't fully appreciated before last night was that the organisers occasionally use the Carling to field a weakened refereeing team. At any rate, last night saw Peter Walton get a rare run-out, with Mike Riley left on the bench.

Now, obviously it's nice to see some of the squad men given a chance to impress, but you would have to say that this time the experiment badly backfired, with the referee looking well out his depth a lot of the time. A straight red for a one-footed tackle? Clearly the clampdown on going in with both feet has moved on to an altogether new level in the mind of Mr Walton. Heaven knows what Mikel would have got if his boot had actually touched Neville in any way. Probation, probably, and a leg tag.

Neville's conduct in rolling about like he'd just been harpooned, incidentally, was all of a piece with his behaviour in the first half, when he limped away from his own foul challenge on Malouda in the hope of dissuading the referee from carding him, only to stop limping the moment the card was produced. Lovely little player and one who can always guarantee a fond welcome at the Bridge.

Still, the sight of Shaun Wright-Phillips in the final seconds, rising like Tore Andre Flo at the rear post, will live far longer in the memory than those sordid and misguided moments. Was ever a footballer more misunderstood? We thought he was there to bring mayhem down the wings with the ball at his feet. In fact, it turns out he's at his most deadly when getting on the end of a high ball into the box.

I was thinking we were going to miss Didier Drogba badly over the next month. After last night, I'm not sure. Actually, after last night, I'm not sure what I'm sure about.

How classless can one club be? Shocking to see that on an Official site.

Shakespeare
11th January 2008, 01:45
He offered something similar for the Fulham game at Christmas. Blatant disrespect for the FA highlighted at the bottom too. This sort of action seems accepted by the club and so, should face action.


It wouldn't be Christmas if you didn't have to pop in on some slightly annoying neighbours at some point, and, accordingly, yesterday's visit to Fulham had the feel of a traditional, festive duty about it.

As we all know, the best tactic on these occasions is to smile as cheerfully as possible, drink and eat whatever is offered to you, avoid contentious topics of conversation, and then leave exactly on the final whistle, clutching all three points if at all possible.

Neighbourly Christmas duty done, then, in the case of yesterday's outing. And now we can go back to simply waving at them from the other side of the street.

You'll remember that, at roughly this time last year, it was our turn to have Fulham round for mince pies and how, in the absence of Petr Cech and John Terry, the gathering abruptly and catastrophically devolved into a small comedy of social embarrassment, leading to the deeply unnecessary loss of two points.

This year, spookily enough, we were lacking Cech and Terry again, but also - just to make it even more fun - we were also lacking Cudicini, Carvalho, Lampard, Drogba, Shevchenko, Malouda, Makelele, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh. In other words, there was more talent in our sick-or-suspended room than has passed through Fulham in the last quarter of a century. And I'm including Michael 'the King of Pop' Jackson - a one-time visitor to the Cottage, but always looking out for their results, even to this day - in that assessment.

One suspected that Fulham would be thoroughly incentivised altogether. Not only was there the 'local rivalry' which it seems to amuse Fulham fans to imagine existing between us, there was also the arrival of Roy Hodgson, whose first game in charge this match was.

Bad enough to face a side playing to impress a new manager. Facing a side that is playing to impress a new manager exactly as the transfer window is opening? well, there should be a rule giving you a goal start in such circumstances because the playing field is, clearly, well and truly unlevelled.

Sure enough, Fulham seemed to possess what was, for them, an uncommon amount of enthusiasm in the first half, going at us exactly like a bunch of people who were playing as though as their ability to earn a comfortable living much beyond mid-January depended on it, which, in several cases, it obviously did.

And yet we prevailed. Impressive stuff, I think, and probably, in the circumstances, the best of our Christmas results, although the away win at Blackburn had its merits, and the home victory over Newcastle was promisingly fluid and deserved, even though Kalou, scoring in front of the Matthew Harding, must have looked offside even from the bathroom in Ken Bates' old apartment.

'Don't worry,' one would have liked to have said to Sam Allardyce after the match, 'these things even themselves out over the course of the season.' But then, of course, it dawned on one that he wasn't likely to be around for the course of the season in order to see this magical process work itself out. Ah, well.

The only one of the Christmas results which threatened to fuse the tree-lights was the contentious draw on Boxing Day against Aston Villa. Eight goals, three sendings off, two penalties and a last-minute equaliser? newspapers enjoyed describing this as 'the game that had everything', but they were wrong, because what it didn't have was three points for us at the end of it, without which, in my experience, no match can truly be said to have been any good, let alone to have had everything.

And really it ought to have yielded three points for us, television pictures revealing afterwards that Ashley Cole legitimately lowered his head and shoulder to clear that shot off the line, and didn't use his hand at all.

It is depressing enough, in a tight title race, to suffer the loss of two points to this error of judgement, but losing the player to an unmerited and perfectly avoidable suspension as well is almost comical in its unfairness. There really ought to be an FA-authorised panel that a club can appeal to on occasions such as this, to avoid the game being turned into a joke.

What's that? You're saying there is such a panel, but that it doesn't do anything? Blimey. Those clever people at the FA think of everything.

McClennan
11th January 2008, 10:14
I thought it was pretty funny. They should ban sense of humour bypasses now.

DD
11th January 2008, 10:49
I thought it was pretty funny. They should ban sense of humour bypasses now.

To be fair, it would all be fair and reasonable on an independent website such as this but official websites should stick to facts not opinions.

The Greatest
11th January 2008, 11:10
If it is in jest then it is a good piece that will achieve its aim of making certain fans have a lip wobble over it.

If it is a serious article it has a staggering amount of arrogance in it.

THELAST3YARDS
11th January 2008, 11:10
I thought it was pretty funny. They should ban sense of humour bypasses now.

I agree, quite a funny piece. It's up to Everton to show the second leg is necessary :D

ploughman
11th January 2008, 19:06
so according to the report,they outclassed everton(true)made them look like a league one side (true) and should have won by a canter thus making the second leg redundant (true)
but they didn't.chelsea should have been 3 up when the player was sent off (rightly so in my mind) and it took a injury time own goal to win the match.journalism like that has no place on an official site.chelsea fc should be ashamed or is this how they really feel?
there are times when i wish arsenal,man utd,chelsea and liverpool would stop moaning about the domestic game, p*ss off and join a european league and leave the rest of the clubs alone to challenge for a fairer domestic competition.that piece reinforces my thoughts.

i write this as a totally nuetral football supporter,i support the game not a team

THELAST3YARDS
11th January 2008, 19:10
so according to the report,they outclassed everton(true)made them look like a league one side (true) and should have won by a canter thus making the second leg redundant (true)
but they didn't.chelsea should have been 3 up when the player was sent off (rightly so in my mind) and it took a injury time own goal to win the match.journalism like that has no place on an official site.chelsea fc should be ashamed or is this how they really feel?
there are times when i wish arsenal,man utd,chelsea and liverpool would stop moaning about the domestic game, p*ss off and join a european league and leave the rest of the clubs alone to challenge for a fairer domestic competition.that piece reinforces my thoughts.

i write this as a totally nuetral football supporter,i support the game not a team

What is the reason you mention these three in a Chelsea Website story?

ploughman
11th January 2008, 20:02
What is the reason you mention these three in a Chelsea Website story?
.
these 3 and chelsea claim to be the big 4.they show a disregard for domestic cup competitions.seem to find playing smaller clubs than themselves,even in the premier league,as beneath them.eg benitez calling everton a small club after last seasons derby.arsenal consistently put out a week side in the carling cup and man utd were beaten by a smaller club and couldnt care less.
all i was trying to say was that chelseas attitude to the everton game seems to be echoed by the other 3 clubs,at least they dont put it on their websites

THELAST3YARDS
12th January 2008, 10:29
.
these 3 and chelsea claim to be the big 4.they show a disregard for domestic cup competitions.seem to find playing smaller clubs than themselves,even in the premier league,as beneath them.eg benitez calling everton a small club after last seasons derby.arsenal consistently put out a week side in the carling cup and man utd were beaten by a smaller club and couldnt care less.
all i was trying to say was that chelseas attitude to the everton game seems to be echoed by the other 3 clubs,at least they dont put it on their websites

fair enough. everton are a relatively smaller club though ;) :D

McClennan
12th January 2008, 15:12
To be fair, it would all be fair and reasonable on an independent website such as this but official websites should stick to facts not opinions.

Why shouldn't club's have funny write-ups?

bozzy!
13th January 2008, 03:49
me, being a liverpool fan basically hate manchester united and everton more than the devil. unfortunatley to an extent i agree with bronco, chelsea are out for themselves and themselves only. the reason i make this point is that on the day of our (liverpool) carling cup match with chelsea, we travelled down only to be greeted by a massive traffice jam. we found out that somebody had died on our route to the ground, so we wasnt going to make the match. so we all rang up merseyside to let them know and tell them to inform chelsea to delay the kick off, did they? absolutely not, as ,long as they are okay they dont give a flying you know what. even radio city, gary mac and the fourth official was stuck in the traffic! absolutely disgraceful!

F**K OFF CHELSEA FC, YOU AINT GOT NO HISTORY, 5 EUROPEAN CUPS AND 18 LEAGUES, THATS WHAT WE CALL HISTORY!!!

The Greatest
13th January 2008, 10:21
F**K OFF CHELSEA FC, YOU AINT GOT NO HISTORY, 5 EUROPEAN CUPS AND 18 LEAGUES, THATS WHAT WE CALL HISTORY!!!

But no premierships.

BTW, you sound like a Wiganer there.

Greengrass
13th January 2008, 11:57
Nottingham Forest, Tottenham Hotspur, Preston North End, Wolverhampton Wanderers to name a few with great History but it aint doing them much good now.

THELAST3YARDS
13th January 2008, 12:07
me, being a liverpool fan basically hate manchester united and everton more than the devil. unfortunatley to an extent i agree with bronco, chelsea are out for themselves and themselves only. the reason i make this point is that on the day of our (liverpool) carling cup match with chelsea, we travelled down only to be greeted by a massive traffice jam. we found out that somebody had died on our route to the ground, so we wasnt going to make the match. so we all rang up merseyside to let them know and tell them to inform chelsea to delay the kick off, did they? absolutely not, as ,long as they are okay they dont give a flying you know what. even radio city, gary mac and the fourth official was stuck in the traffic! absolutely disgraceful!

F**K OFF CHELSEA FC, YOU AINT GOT NO HISTORY, 5 EUROPEAN CUPS AND 18 LEAGUES, THATS WHAT WE CALL HISTORY!!!

I would imagine, and if I am incorrect I apologise, that it would not be the decision of Chelsea FC to delay the kick off of any of their fixtures, rather it would be the local constabulary.

If safety was compromised by any accident or incident then I am sure the police would have taken the relevant decision. The fact that a local radio station or Gary Mac would not have made the scheduled kick off time is, I think, irrelevant.

DD
13th January 2008, 13:34
Why shouldn't club's have funny write-ups?

Official websites are supposed to report facts not opinions. They are the mouthpiece of the club.

alf wayliner
13th January 2008, 14:59
Official websites are supposed to report facts not opinions. They are the mouthpiece of the club.
Surely if you're going to be a mouthpiece then, by definition, you are expressing the opinion of whomever you're a mouthpiece for?

McClennan
13th January 2008, 16:06
Official websites are supposed to report facts not opinions. They are the mouthpiece of the club.

Why? Why do they have to be so sterile? If the club wants to inject a bit of humour then what's to stop them?

alf wayliner
13th January 2008, 22:03
Why? Why do they have to be so sterile? If the club wants to inject a bit of humour then what's to stop them?

Regardless of whether it's humorous or not, it's always going to be subjective. If they were to just be factual they would merely concentrate on stats. Can you imagine Sven just being factual and not giving his opinion ok bad example;) .

Personally I agree with you, it's a p!ss take and intended for Chelsea fans, anyone who isn't a Chelsea fan and goes looking on their official website for a match report really can't expect an objective deconstruction of the finer points of their own teams game or can they?

Reacher
13th January 2008, 22:29
Regardless of whether it's humorous or not, it's always going to be subjective. If they were to just be factual they would merely concentrate on stats. Can you imagine Sven just being factual and not giving his opinion ok bad example;) .

Personally I agree with you, it's a p!ss take and intended for Chelsea fans, anyone who isn't a Chelsea fan and goes looking on their official website for a match report really can't expect an objective deconstruction of the finer points of their own teams game or can they?

Exactly! Bozzy or whatever his name is who is the bitter Liverpool fan needs to realise this. After Utd beat Liverpool (again) at Anfield in December, I went on their website just to see what they would say about their inept performance. The author must have watched a different game as I could not believe the crap that was qouted. It made me laugh when they took the p*** out of Ronaldo who is possibly the best player in the world on current form and for who they would break the bank if they thought they had a chance of getting him.

Clubs own websites are naturally biased. Its not rocket science to understand that lol

DD
14th January 2008, 13:41
Exactly! Bozzy or whatever his name is who is the bitter Liverpool fan needs to realise this. After Utd beat Liverpool (again) at Anfield in December, I went on their website just to see what they would say about their inept performance. The author must have watched a different game as I could not believe the crap that was qouted. It made me laugh when they took the p*** out of Ronaldo who is possibly the best player in the world on current form and for who they would break the bank if they thought they had a chance of getting him.

Clubs own websites are naturally biased. Its not rocket science to understand that lol

There's a difference between bias and provocation.

Websites are official therefore they are supposed to reflect the official stance of the club. It's one thing reporting what people have said but such comedy journalism is what independent sites are for.

If official websites are allowed to write stuff like that, why did anyone feel the need to set up independent ones in the first place?

Reacher
14th January 2008, 17:29
There's a difference between bias and provocation.

Websites are official therefore they are supposed to reflect the official stance of the club. It's one thing reporting what people have said but such comedy journalism is what independent sites are for.

If official websites are allowed to write stuff like that, why did anyone feel the need to set up independent ones in the first place?

Maybe it was a bit borderline, but the point I was making is that it is designed to be read by Chelsea fans. It was only as provocative as the Liverpool one after the United game in December. Have to say that the Utd one is pretty tame, and just reports on the game without having a dig at the opposition.

There is a place for both, official and independent and personally I read both whether in football or RL. I think some people need to appreciate the banter a liitle more. Its not like the article was promoting hooliganism or random vandalism.

Billinge Lump
15th January 2008, 15:05
Exactly! Bozzy or whatever his name is who is the bitter Liverpool fan needs to realise this. After Utd beat Liverpool (again) at Anfield in December, I went on their website just to see what they would say about their inept performance. The author must have watched a different game as I could not believe the crap that was qouted. It made me laugh when they took the p*** out of Ronaldo who is possibly the best player in the world on current form and for who they would break the bank if they thought they had a chance of getting him.

Clubs own websites are naturally biased. Its not rocket science to understand that lol

Why are you wittering on about Liverpool fans and the Liverpool website? It was an Evertonian that started this thread complaining about the club website, not a Liverpudlian, that complaint was about a completely different (and bizarre IMO) matter

What's that term now? Obsessed?

Reacher
15th January 2008, 15:11
Why are you wittering on about Liverpool fans and the Liverpool website? It was an Evertonian that started this thread complaining about the club website, not a Liverpudlian, that complaint was about a completely different (and bizarre IMO) matter

What's that term now? Obsessed?

To prove the point that official club websites are naturally biased and that they can be a bit near the knuckle when it comes to describing games. Would not have mentioned it had Bozzy not moaned about Chelsea's site. Hardly obsessed, it was my first post on the thread and just saying that fans need to take a bit of banter.

Pretty simple really.

Reacher
15th January 2008, 15:11
Why are you wittering on about Liverpool fans and the Liverpool website? It was an Evertonian that started this thread complaining about the club website, not a Liverpudlian, that complaint was about a completely different (and bizarre IMO) matter

What's that term now? Obsessed?

To prove the point that official club websites are naturally biased and that they can be a bit near the knuckle when it comes to describing games. Would not have mentioned it had Bozzy not moaned about Chelsea's site. Hardly obsessed, it was my first post on the thread and just saying that fans need to take a bit of banter.

Pretty simple really.

McClennan
30th January 2008, 20:16
Websites are official therefore they are supposed to reflect the official stance of the club. It's one thing reporting what people have said but such comedy journalism is what independent sites are for.

I know what you're saying but there's no reason why they can't. It's just a bit of fun so perhaps that's why you're against it :???: :D


If official websites are allowed to write stuff like that, why did anyone feel the need to set up independent ones in the first place?

To do their own stuff like on here.