That's pretty unfair, considering I remember basically every incident Suarez was part of during his time at Liverpool. I was always well aware of his faults. If you wanna try to discredit me as a fan due to me not remembering one incident, I don't see the point in even talking to you. Grow up.
Of course he did it on purpose. If it were Suarez you wouldn't even consider he didn't. Costa didn't just trample Can, he did the same with Skrtel. Go look up a youtube video or two to see how Costa behaves on the pitch. He's disgusting, and I don't see why you should plead ignorance on his behalf just because of the colour of his shirt. Try to be objective. And for the record, I reacted upon it immediately, I'm not the kind of person who needs pundits to tell me what to think. I regard pundits as either agreeing or disagreeing with me - not the other way around. Oh and by the way, I remember that Sterling incident. He could easily have gotten booked for that, even sent off, and I'm fully aware of it.
You're still not getting my point, it seems. I'm not saying there's an objectively 'right' way to play football, I'm saying there are subjectively right ways to play football. I prefer attacking football, much closer to the Ajax you're describing than the, say, Norwegian national team under Drillo. Then again, I don't consider national teams responsible for innovation in the tactical department, especially not weak teams like Norway. Therefore I've defended their style of play, because they didn't have any amazing players. They were result-oriented. And exactly that is my biggest gripe with Chelsea under Mourinho. They have all the resources in the world, all the blood-money they could wish. Yet they're playing - in my opinion - boring football. How does that not frustrate their fans? Like you say below here, "with the players we have". Wouldn't you like Chelsea to dominate games, or at least TRY to dominate games? Like yesterday against City, Mourinho obviously played the result - again. Like he always does. It was at Stamford Bridge, wouldn't you have liked to see Chelsea try to dominate? They certainly have the resources to do so.
His name was Tom Henning Øvrebø, and I remember that game very well, he's Norwegian after all. Apparently you remember it as well, which means I don't have to point out other examples. One is enough, as it proves my point: The team that wins is not always the deserved winner.
Sure it is, I'm well aware of that. But at the same time, I hope - though it doesn't seem like it - you're aware that luck actually IS a factor in football. The ball can deflect, it can hit the inside of the post, you can even have a **** beach ball disrupt the game! If you honestly believe luck is not a factor, then we fundamentally disagree and there's no point in us even discussing football. If, however, you DO concede that luck is a factor, your whole argument of "the winner always deserves to win" collapses on itself.
How can you possibly accuse Costa of doing it on purpose? The incident with Can - he is looking in the complete opposite direction!! You're assuming he is deliberately hurting him. In which case, every time someone accidentally collides with another player (e.g a clash of heads) i'm going to assume it was an intent to do harm. You cannot just second guess what a players' true intent is, only they truly know that and it is unfair by you, and everyone else, to accuse him of that.
Have a quick read of this article to get a perspective of Costa's style on the pitch. Hoepfully you'll gain an insight into why he behaves like he does.
Diego Costa has gone from the backstreets of Brazil to the heart and soul of Chelsea | Daily Mail Online
He is not a racist, nor does he bite players. He simply wants to win - its a very good interview.
I do get what you're saying, you have your favorite style of football as does everyone, and I respect that. All i'm trying to say is there is no one style that is better than another, as history has shown us. It's just an opinion.
As for Chelsea's 'blood money' we have a rich owner just as any other top club does so i dont see why ours is deemed as 'blood money'. We're trying to go about our business the right way, abide by FFP and its a shame people like you cannot see that and only assume we're buying success. Its either jealousy, bitterness or just naivity but thats your problem not mine.
Mourinho's style does frustrate me at times, but it works. He is a tactical genius when it comes to getting the right results. Look at what he's won. Setting Chelsea up to dominate against City without our key playmaker... without our key striker... With players still tired from midweek? Against the reigning Champions...? We're not Arsenal. We respect our opponents and the situation at hand and if that means making sure we do not lose and keep a 5 point lead at the top, then so be it. And we delivered. We could've took them on, had a go, got beat and its all tight at the top again but we're smarter than that.
Just like in the cup against Liverpool. They're a very good side at home, Mourinho respects that, so he defends, gets a draw and we go onto win the home leg and go through. Its just good tactics and game management. Remember, there is no style better than the other at playing football. The sport can be tackled in many different ways. There is no right and wrong answer.
As I said last time, the referees can impact matches. But only in VERY EXTREME cases do they actually determine a result. They can maybe give an advantage to a team, but if they make the most of that advantage and the other team cannot respond , then you have to credit that team, not just blame the referee (although some decisions lately have been shocking!). Take that Chelsea Barca game in 2009 for example. I was gutted and furious at the referee, football fans in general should be, but you still have to credit Barca. They held on, and Iniesta scored a screamer to win it.
Yes, luck is a factor in football but it counts for nothing if the team can't make it work to their advantage. Take that 'beach ball' incident. It was unfortunate for Liverpool to concede like that, but they didn't necessarily deserve to win. If they did, then they would've scored two goals (or whatever as I cannot remember the final score). It was unfortunate for them to concede that penalty to Chelsea midweek, but they didn't deserve to win. They didn't take their chances.
I know the mods are getting annoyed so if you want to take this further then reply in a relevant thread. I look forward to hearing your perspective of the game.
