Costa Charged with Violent Conduct

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Could say we defended well against him...

We got close, didn't give him space and Sakho/Skrtel competed with him well in the air.

Costa isn't a huge creator of chances for himself either and we restricted the chances created for him by players like Hazard/Fabregas/Willian etc.

Mate Hazard was different class to everyone on the pitch. Everytime he got the ball he opened up the defence. Costa just didnt make the right runs or was not strong enough. Matic also offered support going forward. I think starting Drogba up front instead would have been a better choice.
 
Mate Hazard was different class to everyone on the pitch. Everytime he got the ball he opened up the defence. Costa just didnt make the right runs or was not strong enough. Matic also offered support going forward. I think starting Drogba up front instead would have been a better choice.

Hazard might have been good but did he create much? He created one chance on his own with a great run where he bamboozled 4 defenders before firing wide, but other than that I don't think we defended badly against him. Didn't let him cut in on his right foot too much and he's far less dangerous down the wing on his left.
 
Hazard might have been good but did he create much? He created one chance on his own with a great run where he bamboozled 4 defenders before firing wide, but other than that I don't think we defended badly against him. Didn't let him cut in on his right foot too much and he's far less dangerous down the wing on his left.

It's not that your defending was good or bad, I wouldnt credit them or criticise them. But you were pinned back for large part of that game. Markovich and Sakho going off didnt help ofcourse. Hazard created plenty, time and time again but needed a runner and a finisher. He wasnt going to get that from Ramires, Willian, Matic....and a very average Costa. If that had been Drogba in his pomp, they would have won comfortably.
 
You know the thing that seems to have been lost in all this stamping bollix is just how terrible Costa was in both games. He did nothing of any note in either game and the stamping itself was an indicator of how frustrated he was. Even when chances fell to him he bottled them.

Flat track bully.

Emphasis on the bully.
 
Fair play Blue. Maybe I just cant help comparing him to Drogba. Costa looked isolated and I'm beginning to think in the big games needs to play in a two up front?

Yeah true. Drogba in his pomp was a different animal altogether.
 
don't worry lads you are all forgetting that oliver did see the stamp or at least the aftermath and knew full well something occur. He therefore waves away an absolute stonewall obvious pen for cheslea.

yeah costa might have been off... but then he would've got a pen so it even up! sure our advantage should've come first and all that thus the second would never have occurred but ffs... we should've taken our chances so.

man up and stop whining <ok>




:bandit:


oh shut up. Oliver opted out of any big decisions all game, stop pretending it has anything to do with him not seeing Costa's stamp. :bandit:
 
I think they should change the rules around retrospective bans.

I think the club that was offended against should get to chose whether the 3 game punishment is paid right away, or if they want to reduce the ban to 1 game but that 1 game is the game against them.

That way they don't lose out as much
 
I think they should change the rules around retrospective bans.

I think the club that was offended against should get to chose whether the 3 game punishment is paid right away, or if they want to reduce the ban to 1 game but that 1 game is the game against them.

That way they don't lose out as much

It would just create corruption, leave a door open to exploit the rules. Small clubs will be doing big clubs favours and could be rewarded with loan players or the like, as well as nepotism. Bruce would have been choosing 1 game bans for Fergie you betchya had that been the rule when slurgie was around.
 
I think they should change the rules around retrospective bans.

I think the club that was offended against should get to chose whether the 3 game punishment is paid right away, or if they want to reduce the ban to 1 game but that 1 game is the game against them.

That way they don't lose out as much

Interesting idea <ok> As it stands only our direct competitors can gain an advantage from this situation,Citeh and 2 others
 
It would just create corruption, leave a door open to exploit the rules. Small clubs will be doing big clubs favours and could be rewarded with loan players or the like, as well as nepotism. Bruce would have been choosing 1 game bans for Fergie you betchya had that been the rule when slurgie was around.

Plus more incentive to do that **** if you could only be banned for one game
 
I think they should change the rules around retrospective bans.

I think the club that was offended against should get to chose whether the 3 game punishment is paid right away, or if they want to reduce the ban to 1 game but that 1 game is the game against them.

That way they don't lose out as much

Like the idea.

But what happens when it's an 8 game ban? <whistle>
 
I think they should change the rules around retrospective bans.

I think the club that was offended against should get to chose whether the 3 game punishment is paid right away, or if they want to reduce the ban to 1 game but that 1 game is the game against them.

That way they don't lose out as much

Or for each red card, a point is deduction and given to the opposition. Obviously wouldn't work in knockout competitions though.