Playing that way is in their Genes, remember how they won the Champions League? The difference was they were playing against Bayern, Spurs are hardly Bayern atm are we.
"Getting" being the key word there. We are not good enough to win cups by playing teams off the park. Heck, even Mourinho realised that trying to do that with a much more expensive and talented Chelsea squad was a risk. A risk not worth taking. You have to have more than one way of playing to win trophies
Get over yourself, your lot were just as bad defending the goal at PSG. That was far worse marking in truth. It was a closely fought game with not much in it other than 2 fortunate deflections. On another day, with the luck on our side, those goals don't go in and maybe Eriksen's freekick goes in and the shirt pull gets spotted. That wouldn't have been a good representation of the game either though. Anyway, you won, congratulations and enjoy it. You won't get so lucky next season when we play you
You do I agree, the point is how! Parking the bus during a game when you are under pressure is one thing, to set the team up from the start like that is quite another, especially when on paper you are the better team as Chelsea are.
A damn shame about the result, I don't think we done enough to say we should have won in the 90 minutes but also didn't think we deserved to leave that field 2-0 down, especially with both goals being deflections, which summed up our luck. We were the more pressing side with Chelsea braking well on counters but when they have 5 defenders on the pitch it was always going to be difficult to break them down. It was frustrating that we didn't challenge Cech, so many times we dillied and dallied on the ball around the box and just encouraged Chelsea to eventually tackle us and when we did have scoring opportunities Chelsea's defenders made last ditch tackles and blocks. Thought Rose, Dier and Bentaleb had good games, Rose never gave up down that left hand side right until the final whistle, where as Dier showed maturity far beyond his years and likewise for Nabil, the positives from this is that yet again we played with such a young squad and didn't look outclassed by a team that cost millions and millions with top class talent and a manager that knows how to win. Credit to Chelsea, they got the job done and no doubt their fans are delighted with the victory but I can't help but just see them as a rich man's Stoke, for such amazing talent they never play that brand of exciting football that the neutrals can admire. Trophies is all that matters and I appreciate that, they're on course for the double and in with a chance of the treble but I think 20 or 30 years from now, when people talk of the great teams of the past, they will have forgotten this side due to it's safe and rigid approach to games. Result aside it was a good day out overall, there were hundreds of us outside the torch pub singing and chanting before the match, with the highlight getting a photo with Gary Mabbutt who walked all the way through the crowd up to Wembley. After the game the Spurs fans were still singing along Wembley way and onto the trains, with the brilliant chant of: "You're welcome on our train, You're welcome on our train, Black, White or Yid, Even with a kid, You're welcome on our train" Being sung on the platforms which made everyone laugh, including some police officers and train stewards. Hopefully we'll put the defeat behind us and use it to spur us on for a good league finish, injuries aside now we can focus on playing our strongest XI in the remaining fixtures and should avoid any fatigue once the Swansea and QPR games are out of the way.
Spurm as I said earlier we are a very young team you cannot expect all atm give them time. They got to the final; well done for that. Park the bus against a player like Hazard at your own risk.
I don't get why people are saying you can't win finals playing good football, plenty do. You play to do what you do best. It's like watching Barca win and saying you have to have more of the ball to get trophies. Chelsea did what they do best, defend deep and narrow then use a big man up top to create problems. When you play that way you have to foul cynically and create tensions for the ref to deal with at the other end. We tried to do what we do best, which is to stretch the game and attack with numbers and quickly. It was a difficult thing to do under the circumstances but then again you only really need it to work once or twice in a game. For us it was close but no cigar on a few occasions. The ref didn't help and neither did the deflections but then again we don't set up to win penalties for shirt tugging and Chelsea don't set up to score from deflections. It was a bit of a stalemate decided by 2 pieces of fortune going one way.
I don't buy that it was fortune or the ref. I thought the ref had a pretty solid game. Kept his cards in his pocket early on and stopped it getting out of control. There were a few niggles with Costa and the Spurs defence but each was giving as good as he got and one of your guys could have seen a second yellow right at the end of the first half when he kicked Costa (Dier?). So it hardly all went our way. The first goal was woeful defending period. For all possession stats and application in the middle of the park, if the basics aren't done right then you lose matches. Instead of crediting Chelsea for a very solid and professional defensive display, nonsense like 'parking the bus' gets dragged out. It's also a little trickier to play exciting easy on the eye expansive football when almost every time our best player gets the ball he is fouled, cynically or otherwise (not just Spurs obviously). Yet that's par for the course but us defending well is not?!!?!? I saw a fairly even first half (Spurs probably edged it) with neither side having many chances and a second half where we were in complete control. Spurs had no plan B and made mistakes at crucial times. Ultimately therefore we deserved to win.
Agree and disagree. You did not park the bus. We should not be claiming you did when you had more shots, more on target and crucially more goals. However, the fouling bit was wide of the mark. Chelsea were far more fouly than Spurs yesterday.
More than one way to skin a cat and the fact Jose can change tactics game to game and get results is why he's one of the best in the world and his record shows it. Is moaning about how other teams play against you just a north London thing? Sounds a lot like the ****e Arsenal fans have been saying for years.
I am not moaning about the way you played, in fact I am not moaning at all, I am merely pointing out the differences and why I support Spurs and not Chelsea. There have always been mangers who play in a negative way just to win in the UK famously Arsenal & Leeds and now we have Chelsea. I have never liked this brand of football and never will. Spurs have a different philosophy. The Chelsea of Osgood & Bonneti that contested the famous FA Cup final against Leeds played lovely football that's why most neutrals wanted Chelsea to beat Leeds. Now Chelsea wear the Leeds hat and like Leeds and the pre Wenger Arsenal you have your trophies but nobody admires you, just like those teams of the past. They are all that we don't want in football.
Think it's says a lot that with Matic out, Zouma played in the midfield. Great from a tactical point of view but not great to watch. Thought the game was very boring and if the first goal never happened then it would of gone to penalties.
I think the reason most Spurs fans are reasonably pleased is that we have a team that did put five past Chelsea, and made Chelsea change tactics. This is a big improvement after the last few years. Credit to Chelsea, they did what they had to do to win. I thought they deserved to win because we lacked that bit of belief we needed, IMO, and Chelsea didn't. Another reason was the disparity in corners. For whatever reason, Eriksen can't take corners, and we keep letting him take them. Lamela and Townsend are good, but are both left-footed. I would have liked to see us get it wide and cross quickly more often. The two players that stood out for me were Bentaleb for us and Zouma for them. The ref helped Chelsea, but not decisively, I thought. The one laughable call was the yellow on Dier that was actually a foul committed by Costa.
I don't understand the point at all. Surely you've supported Spurs for more than 10 years? Prior to Jose, we had very entertaining sides for the preceding decade, particularly with the likes of Zola, Di Matteo, Poyet, Gullit etc. Yet you presumably still supported Spurs during this era when we had a more successful and more revered attacking side? Your comment seems to imply you support your team due to the way they play. Regardless of how Chelsea play, I will support them. I have no control over it. The Chelsea team of the 70s was one of the most entertaining English sides ever but won very little. Very very hard to have it both ways. If Spurs suddenly appointed a Jose type manager and played for results over entertainment, would you suddenly stop supporting them? I highly doubt it. Its trying to take some sort of moral high ground. Like I say, that and being a well run club is all Arsenal have been bleating on about for 10 years. I
