I'm not sure that would have been the case. We came looking for a draw and at no point was we not in that position or better. Had we gone behind we would have come out and attacked more. We may have been caught out and lost by more or as was the case with the league game, we may have come back and won.
My main criticism of Sahko is that he is sometimes too eager to win the ball airily, and often leaves space in-behind for the flick on. Minor criticism though, he's looked immense since Rodgers brought him back in to the team, great on the ball, aggressive, and times his tackles fantastically, I think sometimes he's drawn out a bit too easily but that can be ironed out. Skrtel isn't as bad as people make out, clearly the back three suits him but his limited ability on the ball does somewhat hold him up. Also, it's worth noting but I think we're also seeing some improvements in defense because it's now settled. The back 6 of Moreno, Markovic (surprisingly), Lucas, Sahko, Can and Skrtel is easily our best defence.
I agree, your reaction to us scoring could make a difference, my point being that although Sterling played well a more clinical striker would have made more of the chances, but yes if we had scored you may have come out and scored more yourselves.
I'm convinced we'd have been a better team had we stuck with Borini rather than Gerrard. I know Sterling got the goal but he's a better AM than Gerrard and Borini is a better CF than Sterling. We may have lost something elsewhere though and Gerrard didn't exactly have a poor game either.
To go through to the final, we would need to have a high scoring draw (2-2 or above) or a win. Failing that, a 1-1 and a penalty shoot out win. Not an impossible task but we are hardly favourites.
I'm not sure - I don't think Borini would have caused the same problems as Sterling. Sterling's speed did ruffle Cahill and Terry at times. Maybe Lallana instead of Gerrard would have been better, but understand not starting Lallana due to match fitness. Gerrard's performance was mixed for me. Worked hard and pressed well. There were a few nice flicks and tricks at times but he was bullied off the ball too easily at times - was quite difficult considering how well Chelsea defend and surround players.
for me I think if gerrard had not played we would have had more closing down.. gerrard with repsect was said to have played well by some but for me he was trotting round in his slot. he did press abit but compared to the others he really jsut stopped in position whenever the ball went 10 yards away so coutinho must've covered far more ground. anyone got access to opta stats for that game? had borini played would sterling have got at those cbs? prob not.
Aside from not getting to the final, a worry with this tie was losing being damaging to the momentum we've started to build So far, if anything the performance has actually added to that momentum
true. nobody will prob think we are any good away but we won our last two league away gmaes and i thought we'd do neither... which makes it interesting to see who comes up with something to hurt us badly first.
That game is a perfect example of the current formation. We may well dominate possession, create chances and generally look like the better side but we give the opposition enough chances to rip us apart regardless. Its exactly what I was saying about facing quality attacking opposition with the current setup!
Chelsea were probably the first quality side we played recently. It is a bit disappointing we didn't win. Our performance probably deserved that win. But at least we didn't lose. I don't think the momentum has been affected. This could be controversial but I think bringing Gerrard back against Chelsea did not do us any favours. No doubt Rodgers will use him in the cups but he shouldnt start for any league games.
The Man Utd game was the first game we played 343 so it is a little harsh of me to keep pointing at it but equally I don't think last nights game was a try test either because although we did play well, they didn't come to play, they came to play out ninety minutes with the intention of winning the tie at the Bridge. The first of a two legged cup game is different to a league game, the latter is a one chance match whereas the former is more strategic encounter with consideration for the second leg. I don't think your Gerrard point was controversial at all tbh, you won't find too many disagreeing with you on here
