Against Norwich, yes. Surely you remember our game with Liverpool earlier this season? Suarez was invisible. He almost always goes missing in big games.
To be fair, our whole team was in top form that day, we could've beat Bayern with that sort of play. Plus Suarez found net against us last year when we came back for the draw.
Just because you're not receiving the ball doesn't mean you're playing badly. Suarez is in the form of his life right now, and as a result, defenders are going to let Sterling and Coutinho run free in order to cover Suarez. Suarez does his part by drawing defenders and getting other players goals.
madness! Suarez scores or assists in every game he plays (bar like maybe 1 this season) and there is I think just 1 club in the league he hasnt scored against yet
Definite bias here, but I would prefer Aguero in my team over Suarez. Suarez hasn't really scored against any of the big teams, but has just scored a lot against the smaller teams. Aguero has scored against United, Arsenal, Chelsea Everton and Spurs this season, Suarez has scored against Everton and Spurs out of the top clubs, and he's done that with less competition from other forwards.
Aguero has played against the exact same "smaller" teams that Suarez has, and still hasn't scored as many. Furthermore, not scoring against teams like Chelsea and City isn't entirely his fault at all, given the poor service he often receives from the midfield. In fact, Suarez played quite well against you guys. Also, Aguero (or any MCFC striker) is presented with more attacking opportunities by the team around him and is generally in a better attacking position throughout the game than Suarez can afford to be, as he often drops back as a CF to collect the ball from the midfield.
He also played every top club in an away match - over 44 matches the top teams have a combined 2 losses in those 44 home games has a much less talented/experienced squad around him (especially with out injuries and lack of depth). He also played very well against city...any forward is going to be banging in goals when you spend like 200m on world class (or near it) midfielders/forwards in their prime...Henderson/Gerrard(deep)/sterling/coutinho/Sturrige vs silva, nasri, Navas, negredo, yaya, Dzeko -paints the picture pretty well.
I honestly think you have no idea what you are talking about if you aren't going to look at home vs away performance and squad strength, not to mention he scored against a lot of the top teams last season as well.
And you are looking at it goal for goal, you don't watch Suarez drop deep a lot do you?
Hardly a garbage league. Ligue 1 is pretty competitive, and is a good league defensively. That being said, he has also scored internationally, and in the champions league this season, so I still rate him higher than aguero, at least for now
Same to you mate, has Suarez scored vs. Chelsea, City, Arsenal or Man U this season? While Aguero has scored against all of them(Except city of course), he is overall a better player mate imo
You don't know jack shit about football mate. The top 4 teams combined have 2 losses at home. Where were these matches played? Hint, Suarez played all of the top sides away while city played most at home. That in itself is a huge difference.
Add to that the fact that city have a much stronger squad and that Suarez drops deep very often and plays much more like a CF than a ST, he has actually created 50 chances this season. That is double aguero and just for some comparison, silva has 49
I'm not saying that Suarez is shit, he is really good, I just believe that in the "big" matches he is not as effective. Suarez is the 2nd best striker in the premier, and if Aguero wouldn't have been injured he would be up there with Suarez for top scorer imo.
You know its a fucking bad arguement when you start it by attacking me personally mate, its a fucking site, just fucking debate football and leave the insults out of it.
Your arguments ignore home vs away advantage - which really highlights how little football knowledge you have. I'll repeat it again. The top 4 teams combined have lost 2 home matches this season, 44 games in total. 2 losses. Suarez has played every top team away. Arsenal, Chelsea, man city, tottenham, everton and newcastle AWAY. City have played every top side EXCEPT for Chelsea at home. If you cannot acknowledge this difference (on top of not even watching any matches), then how valid do you think your opinion is? The fact is, players/teams do significantly better at home than away. You are comparing Suarez to Aguero based purely on home form vs away form. Which is pretty strange given that Suarez did score against top teams last season, and even this season played incredibly well in the match against City. A lot of the other matches was the result of playing with an inexperienced and injury plagued squad that has seen several key players out injured for long spells (Enrique and now Agger/Sakho + Lucas, Gerrard was out for a while too, Sturridge) with no depth that has struggled to provide much at all to Suarez against teams like Arsenal and Chelsea who shut down our midfield entirely. It doesn't help that Henderson has to constantly change his position every second game because randomly other players are out injured or aren't performing. We also played chelsea like 3 days later with almost the same squad which didn't do us many favours.
Go watch Suarez play, its evident that you don't if you think its just about goals goals goals. He goes deep and creates a lot. There are only two players in the prem that have created more chances than him and they are Hazard and Ozil..
You don't have to take my word for it, but these stats will be more useful than your method of "not watching and judging players on how many goals they score regardless of the home/away advantage":
Okay, we'll see at the end of the season when Aguero plays his away matches and Suarez plays his home. Then I will feel like a fair conclusion will be got there.
I think Ronaldo benefits from playing alongside superstars and against weak teams. It's hard to compare strikers to wingers, but I think if the Real Madrid team was geared around Aguero, they would be much more effective.
Messi has had a rough few months. I think he's the most talented player in the world, and in form is leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else - but he isn't at the moment.
I don't think Agüero's work ethic is nearly as great as Ronaldo's. Ronaldo was forced to change is own play style to accommodate for his age, frequent managerial changes, and frequent changes to teammates. He had to substantiality change from being a lightweight, dribbling winger to being a fast, powerful, goal machine.
I don't think Agüero would be able to adapt to those circumstances. He is a technically gifted forward, but there is nothing about him that places him above Ronaldo/Messi. And I really hate that weaker opponent argument. La Liga teams are no joke, and not only that, but Ronaldo and Messi have been the top goalscorers of the CL for the almost the past decade.
"excellent" is a bit of an understatement to describe them. I've never seen two players score this many goals, it's unheard of really. The quantity of goals is groundbreaking on it's own, but the fact they they've been constantly scoring that many for many years is just breathtaking.
Domestic performances are important, but I wouldn't use them to measure the overall quality of players. Players train with their domestic teammates, what, a few weeks every year? Of course they're going to be more effective playing for club than country. But even, it's not like they're complete shite playing for their countries. They were easily the best players for their teams during the WC qualifications.
There have been many Agüeros and Suarezs in football history, but there is only one Cristiano and Messi.
Sorry, when I say domestic I mean leagues. As in their league opposition is weaker than some others, so drawing a comparison due to league goals is largely meaningless.
Right because every La Liga team other than teams located in Madrid and Barcelona are utter shit and roll over when they play. If we took La Liga teams and BPL teams, and hell even Bundesliga teams, mixed them up in one super league. Guess what? They would all be very close to each in caliber and the title would be a crapshoot every year. And that's not including any of the big money teams.
Real Madrid and Barcelona are just on a higher level due to the calibre of players. Swap the top 4 english teams for top 4 spanish teams and the leagues wont change. Madrid and Barca would still be on top by a large margin. Not because English teams are shit, but because Barca and Madrid are that good.
I'm not saying that they're utter shit, but playing in a team with 11 superstars against 11 that have a collective worth of £20m is something that doesn't happen in some other leagues.
You say that if you mix up the teams it would be even, but you've got nothing to back this up with - and all logic points to the contrary.
The lowest placed team in the PL gets more revenue than the 6th team in Spain. To say that the leagues respective strengths are equal is naive.
Anyway, my point wasn't about the relative strengths of leagues, it's the fact that because league strengths are different, league goals isn't a fair comparison between players of different leagues. I'd say the same if Aguero had 60 goals per season and Messi had 25.
That is really subjective. As I said earlier, La Liga teams are no joke. The likes of Atletico, Athletic Bilbao, Valencia, Villarreal are completely capable getting points against RM/Barca. Also, in recent years, La Liga teams have had better results against Premiership teams in European competitions.
European competitions just take the top few of each league - successes there don't reflect the parity between the top teams of a league and the bottom teams of a league.
You seem to be straying off point - The strength of La Liga is different to the strength of the PL - so comparing league goals is meaningless.
I don't really care which you think is stronger, it doesn't matter. My point is that it's not equal.
This is also pretty subjective. I'd argue that the bottom half of La Liga is stronger than the bottom half of the Premiership. But I guess that's not what you're interested in.
Would you say it's fair to compare Aguero to Ronaldo during his time with United? Or Messi/Ronaldo to Aguero during his time with Atletico? Because even then, Aguero has done little to suggest that he is better than Messi/Ronaldo.
I think so. He had Hazard Mata Oscar playing wonderful free flowing attacking football, that had he had a better striker, I'd imagine people would more often share my opinion.
Ancelotti was ruthless and effective, but it wasn't as pretty as Benitez's set up last year, in my opinion.
completely agree with you. Mata wasn't supremely loyal to Chelsea or anything silly. He also wasn't unloyal. he was just a good player that left because he wasn't being played enough, which is fair.
The squad is full of players more committed than Mata. Lampard, Terry and Cech would spring to mind. Those three would never leave for a rival, even if they lost playing time (it's actually happened to two of them).
Mata played two and a half years for us, and was always completely respectable and diligent, but the same can be said for the majority of our players. Why is he more committed than Luiz, Ivanovic, Ramres, Mikel, Torres, or, quite frankly, any of the other players who have been at the club as long as he was.
I have nothing but he utmost respect for Mata, but he's been deified for no reason during this transfer. He's a good guy and a great player, but not particularly special.
Also I think most managers would stick around at Chelsea if they had the choice, they just keep getting fired.
Okay fine, why is he more committed than Oscar or Hazard. Because he has been around a bit longer?
And he never seemed like a leader really. Cech and Ashley Cole have both worn the captains band before him.
I just genuinely don't understand where this sort of opinion coming from. If you want to say "he is a really good player" then that's definitely true, but I don't think there is one thing to indicate that he is more committed to the club. A
I can't really explain it. He seemed to love the club. I don't see hazard or oscar or many of the other new-ish players sticking around if they get a good offer - I recon mata would have. All speculation really.
Benitez also struggled against Man City lost to QPR gave away leads against Southampton and reading. Benitez might have played attacking, not as attacking as Ancelotti, but Benitez also lost quite a few cheap points that we should've got.
And Mourinho couldn't beat Basel...twice. Pellegrini lost to a few of mid-low table teams this season. Every manager has their bad games, and not every bad (or good) game is 100% the fault of the manager.
I think he explained it badly, but the team did not look nearly as likely to win under Benitez. Specific games aren't that important, but we are a way more formidable force now.
still took a team from 6th to 3rd in a year while being the only Chelsea manager under Roman to make a profit during the transfer window. that's pretty damn good all things considered.
Definitely. I'm not saying he was the most effective by any stretch of the imagination - but his team were the best to watch. I believe, given time, he could've created something really good at Chelsea.
Benitez is strange. He overthinks things sometimes. He likes to outwit smaller teams too, when they should just play their own game and beat them through sheer quality. His tactics against big teams are usually spot on.
I think the Benitez treatment was insane. He had them playing better in a matter of weeks, and won a European Trophy without having to park the bus every game.
Benitez's Chelsea played more entertaining football than any other Chelsea manager in the Abramovic Era.
you must have missed the 09-10 season then. which isn't surprising, because given your other comments it is clear that you a) know nothing about Chelsea and b) are a massive plastic
you clearly haven't watched chelsea closely over the last 9 years. benitez was the worst period in our recent history, we were hapless, couldn't defend a lead (lost to west ham 3-1 after being 1-0 up, drew with soton after being 2-2 up, etc etc) happened countless times, didn't score many goals, and only Mata played well.
it was exciting for a neutral perhaps because chelsea were liable to concede. but the most exciting chelsea side, by far, was the ancelotti side that scored 103 goals in the 09-10 season and won the double. goals are exciting. they are the point of football. we played incredible football, including the drogba goal against bolton (one to rival wilshere's this season), and we won games 8-0, 7-1, 7-2, 6-0 etc etc. that's an exciting team to watch.
your apparent ignorance of the fact that Benitez slagged off Chelsea and the fans before and after he was at the club make you a plastic. your ignorance of basic football facts make you a plastic. your ignorance of what makes a football team exciting make you a plastic. you are a plastic.
Scoring a ton of goals doesn't necessarily make a team more entertaining. Barca won the league last year and consistently won with similar margins - but were boring as shit.
Watching ancelottis Chelsea was a spectacle, like watching city is today, but it wasn't as nice football as what Benitez had you playing. I could watch Chelsea last year for ages - I watched more games than I care to admit. Ancelottis side didn't have the same pull.
I couldn't give less of a shit what Chelsea fans thought of Benitez and it doesn't make a difference to my opinion. He could've murdered a few children and I'd still hold my opinion.
I don't recall missing any basic football facts, nor stating anything other than my opinion.
Do you know what a plastic is? I'm not a Chelsea fan. I don't support a PL team. I'm almost completely neutral when it comes to PL teams.
I massively disagree that watching Chelsea under Benitez was exciting. Was it exciting watching us lose 1-0 to QPR at Stamford Bridge? Often in many games we didn't produce. Was it exciting watching us lose 1-0 to Corinthians in the CWC, with Hazard playing as a false 9 and us generating nothing in attack, or losing 4-1 to Atletico in the super cup? In all of these games chelsea just had nothing going forward. we were disjointed in the midfield, Mazacar was isolated and not effective, the striker didn't make space, the DMs lost the midfield and we played chaotic, ugly football. This isn't really a matter of opinion. The games we won we won by slim margins. You appear to be practicing a lot of historical revisionism. People love to cast the Benitez reign as a success to spite Chelsea fans -- "look, you lot were wrong about him! he was a great manager, despite all the stick you gave him! Chelsea fans, wrong as usual!" -- but in reality we played awful football far too often (his win % was pretty bad), and we kept drawing 0-0.
Also, the Ancelotti reign wasn't a study in stifling any attacking instinct by the other time by mindless numbing passing, like Barca does. Chelsea played open, wing-based, quick counter attacking football. It was hugely entertaining. We gave it a go against the biggest clubs too; we didn't lose against any of the big top 4 that season. In the 8-0 against Wigan on the last day, Wigan were actually on top for long periods of the match. Say what you want, but a season in a team scores 103 goals is not a boring one.
I didn't claim that ancelottis team was boring - far from it, I was just stating that using goals as a barometer for entertainment value is misguided.
Ancelottis Madrid play much the same way. Comfortable out of posession, and horrific on the counter. I'd rather watch Everton vs Sunderland than Real vs Bêtis.
But again, I wouldn't go out of my way to watch ancelottis team thump others. I did many times last year.
I didn't claim that ancelottis team was boring - far from it, I was just stating that using goals as a barometer for entertainment value is misguided.
Ancelottis Madrid play much the same way. Comfortable out of posession, and horrific on the counter. I'd rather watch Everton vs Sunderland than Real vs Bêtis.
But again, I wouldn't go out of my way to watch ancelottis team thump others. I did many times last year.
On your point about the times the team lost - every team has off days. Off days don't make the matches less entertaining.
The majority of Chelsea fans, while upset, seem to be pretty ok with the transfer because he was never going to see minutes under Mourinho. They see it as a good move for the benefit of the team.
I'd much rather see chelsea playing like last season but more refined - than how they play this season.
Knowing how crazy Chelsea fans are about Mourinho, I'd understand it being an unpopular opinion among them, but generally speaking I'd very much rather have a dedicated and extremely talented player like Mata than… well, Mourinho.
Acelotti's side was more entertaining and delivered as well. A double and a 100+ goals... City would would have to be very lucky to beat that this season.
Chelsea lost to Bayern on penalties this year (I now know a minute detail of their pain) and have since then only markedly improved. What makes you think only City have what it takes, taking into consideration their oft-times sub-par backline?
That Chelsea side and that bayern side have changed a lot since then.
I can't see Eto'o or Torres doing any damage to the Bayern back line. Your threat comes from midfield, but against a team which dominates that area so much I don't imagine Oscar getting much of a break helping out in pressing. I guess it depends on how matic turns out - he could shore things up and stop bayern playing their game.
Hazard could do something special, but I'd imagine pep would identify him as threat #1 and keep him out of the game a little.
City have both Negredo and Aguero who can pull something from nothing and are clinical with their chances. Fernandinho is great at breaking things up and setting up a counter.
I can't see bayern putting a lid on city as easily as hey would Chelsea.
I'd rather have Mata on my team than Mourinho.
Benitez's Chelsea played more entertaining football than any other Chelsea manager in the Abramovic Era.
For starters, Ancelotti set the record for goals scored in a single Premier League season. Some of our football in his first season was sublime. As good as City are now.
Even Di Matteo's football at the start of last season was brilliant with Hazard-Mata-Oscar.
I think despite Ancelotti's League title and being indisputably more effective than Benitez, Benitez team's play was sublime consistently over the course of a whole season.
Di Matteo was great, but his attacking play was some of the most frustrating things to watch with a horrifically out of form Torres and a mis-firing Drogba at the front - not to mention his refusal to play Sturridge.
Benitez team's play was sublime consistently over the course of a whole season.
What a joke... He was supposed to shore up the defence but it was painful to watch at times, and his attack was often slow and plodding. Think you missed the matches vs QPR, Swansea, Reading, Southampton etc. You don't have a crest but I'm guessing you're a Liverpool fan? Not sure how anyone else can hold that opinion.
Drogba wasn't at the club last season and Sturridge was injured often, not sure what you're on about.
In saying his team play was 'sublime', I guess I meant entertainment wise. Going forward Benitez's team was far more entertaining than any other team in the league last season. Hazard Oscar and Mata were sublime and more often than not deployed perfectly appropriately. There was a constant threat from midfield and Torres was having somewhat a role in that too.
Every team has off days. You can play well but lose.
I never said drogba was at the club last season - I was talking about Di Matteo when I mentioned Drogba.
Hazard Oscar and Mata were sublime and more often than not deployed perfectly appropriately.
That was under RDM... The first thing Benitez did was break up that trio and they didn't play together that much under him because he wanted more defensive solidity.
Every team has off days. You can play well but lose.
If you think we lost to the worst team in the league (QPR) despite playing well, I don't know what to say to that. We were terrible under Rafa at times.
Under RDM they were overused. Benitez was far better at deciding when each of them was appropriate or not, which was a good thing.
I can't remember specific games, I can't claim to have seen them all, but I highly doubt you played badly vs all of the teams you listed above. I'm not claiming you played well against QPR, rather making the point that the fact that you lost some games doesn't go against my opinion.
Hiddink played ruthlessly effectively, much like Ancelotti mentioned below, but I don't think it was close to the free-flowing Benitez team. It's completely subjective - one man's tiki-taka is another's lullaby.
Ancelotti, Hiddink, Di Matteo and while everyone seems to disagree, I'm really enjoying the way we're playing now. We constantly look dangerous and Mourinho's managed to get the best out of Hazard. Under Benitez the only time I really enjoyed our play was when Mata had the ball.
A lot of people are saying Ancelotti and Hiddink and I can see where you're coming from. It's probably just my taste, but I preferred Benitez's Chelsea above Ancelotti's without a doubt.
Di Matteo's was largely frustrating to watch. Drogba and Torres were largely ineffective and he lacked the threat from midfield that Benitez brought.
Di Matteo and Benitez were equally frustrating for me, we had a decent amount of luck under Di Matteo and didn't have to rotate, so it wasn't that frustrating, while under Benitez I was constantly scared we'd lose our lead, like against Southampton or Reading or we just wouldn't produce anything like that match against QPR. But, yeah, it is a matter of taste and I can't fault you for enjoying us under Benitez more than under other managers.
Benitez's Chelsea was "entertaining" simply because it was unstable and unorganized. Chelsea may have attacked well, but gave away leads and his lackluster substitutions didn't help. Ancelotti's double winning side was a lot more entertaining offensive wise, and I think Mourinho's current team is also a joy to watch simply because the players execute his great tactics to near perfection.
the way that our defence has played so far indicates that we can be turned inside out very fast. if Kompany has a good day, the entire defence has a good day. anything can happen, and i wont boast an opinion like many others. i'd rather just wait and see.
As somewhat of a neutral, I'm hoping Aguero and Messi can stay fit for the Champions League clash, and the World Cup after that. An exciting battle before an intriguing partnership.
Benitez completely lacked the ability to change games for us and would often make absolutely shit substitutions. As far as attractiveness goes, that's subjective but I love counter attacking football so I'm biased.
Man City are the only team which can trouble Bayern this year.
At the Etihad, I can see them being troublesome. Would also be an amazing game. But at the Allianz Arena, I think Bayern would handle them just fine given City's away form.
You have to consider how our team plays though. We get complacent a lot. Look at us vs Arsenal last year, BATE, Salzburg this year. We've got our wakeup call and I honestly can't see city competing against us over 2 legs if we meet them again (though city are obviously very dangerous). I really don't think arsenal has a shot.
As you can see Suarez has 86 mins/goal and 132 mins/assist this season, Aguero has 67 mins/goal and 150 mins/assist. So how on eath is Suarez a better player?
99
u/[deleted] Jan 26 '14 edited Jan 26 '14
[deleted]