After watching the game, I really do think there was a tactics error. Despite the scoreline I don't think any specific players had bad games although there were some rather poor mistakes from Peltier and Byram. I think it was a tactics issue, after we scored we just decided that we would be able to hold it out which was never going to work. Did he seriously think we could sit back and have our defence that deep and not concede against a first class Chelsea side Warnock made his substitutions about 10 minutes late and the last two goals they scored to be fair was because we had a much more attacking formation on. Now obviously I didn't expect us to win but we were in a position where we could've and if it wasn't for poor managerial tactics I think we would have
Then your deluded. Warnock applied the right tactics. The only way to beat this Chelsea side is by counterattacking. Shaktar, Juventus, Corinthians, WBA etc beat us like that. If you had gone gung-ho it would have been double figures. The Mata goal was key, it shellshocked a young-ish side and from there on confidence went. You needed to see out 15 minutes, then the pressure really would be on. Top class PL sides like Arsenal, Spurs and even Man Utd have been made to look amateurish by this Chelsea side so it's no disgrace. It's quite clear that with one or two additions and a decent manager we'd be on par with Man City
I'm not talking about going gung-ho. We applied ourselves perfectly before our goal and got our goal in the exact right way. After that we dropped the defence to even deeper than we were and Tonge stopped passing the ball properly. Brown wasn't hassling your midfielders as much and you took control. We didn't continue our counter attacks enough and didn't try to keep possession when we had it I understand that its a good chelsea side and again would in no way expect to beat it but we can't let you have the ball. We need to charge you down quicker than we did in the second half and allow no time and no space. The game opened up entirely and I think that was because our defence went deeper. You know im right....
You dropped deep because Warnock probably told the players to keep it tight and not concede in the first 15 minutes of the half. What was he supposed to say?
We dropped too deep. We gave you guys space to play in and the players you have are way too good to allow space for them. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because Warnock does it all the time, we shouldn't have changed anything from how we were doing before we scored, it was working and we changed it because we were scared of being punished. I hate seing teams scared of their opposition
Josh, much as it pains me, I have to be honest and say that we were lucky in the 1st half. Luck that Chelsea hadn't woke up. It wasn't about us dictating, it was about them allowing us to dictate in the first half, and then playing like they can in the second. Perhaps the alarm clock went off at half time to rouse them from their slumbers. We were well beaten in the end, and their quality shone through. We have nothing to be ashamed of, however, and put up a valiant fight against the current European Champions.
Yea, that could be it. It still doesn't take away that Warnock's tactics were poor though Still, we got to the quarters and were leading Chelsea at half time, nothing to be ashamed of as you say
I still don't know what you mean by his tactics being wrong. If he'd tried anything else, you'd probably have moaned that he didn't adopt the tactics he actually used!! (Which were right IMO, but what the hell do I know). Insight from Lampard seems to bear out my previous post, btw.... http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....als-reason-for-second-half-revival-1-5240682?
I agree with this guy. That Chelsea didn't get 8 in that second half is an embarrassment to them. If Leeds had attacked all game like they did in the last quarter of the match they'd have been humiliated (if they weren't anyway)
Do you not see that warnock changed his tactics after we scored. It was clear to me and everyone I was watching with. I'm not moaning about any of the players at all either but sitting deep against a team of Chelsea's quality and allowing them space is the wrong tactic. Pressure them further up the pitch and allow them no space and it just wouldn't have happened, we may still have lost I understand but it was the better thing to do. And on the substitutions, I said to bring on Norris for Tonge when it was 1-1 and he didn't do it and I was calling for McCormack to come on for Diouf and he didn't do it until it was practically too late. Even when we were 3-1 down I called for Norris on for Brown and he hesitated and didn't do it early enough. White for Thomas as well was either him deciding that we had already lost the game and he wanted to keep Thomas fit for the weekend or just a bad substitution. Either way I know I'm being overly critical
Yip! Point I'm trying to make Josh is that I'm not so sure that we did actually change our tactics! I think, as stated earlier, that Chelsea simply woke up & started playing to their potential. The first goal took the wind out of our sails, and after the second, it was a rapid downhill, as we tried to keep competing, rather than sit back & keep the scoreline respectable (and I'm glad we kept trying!). TBH, I was a little disappointed with Thomas. He wasn't as good as I've seen him, and he was deffo tired when he was taken off. Then again, White replaced him & the drop in quality was there for all to see. IMO an off form Thomas is still 10 times better than White. Brown was tired too when he came off. Apparently he'd been up sick all night!
Well we control our line of defence though. And we have done better in the past against prem opposition with that. And your right about White/Thomas but I do think Warnock was just saving him for the weekend. And its a shame that Austin is injured as he woulda done the Brown role better I feel, Brown did well though if he was sick all night
We backed off after the goal. I noticed it too, our players relaxed and stopped harrying as much. Had our players been half a yard tighter or put a foot in half a second earlier, generally played like they did for the first half hour at the start of the second half, that goal would never have happened and we could have got through the first 15 minutes, after which the game is very different. We allowed chelsea a way back into the game, and after that it was a case of how many will they win by. I'm of the philosophy that if they didn't score that early goal, they wouldn't have been lifted and frustration would have set in.
Could not have worded it better myself, there was a massive class gap and we were luck Chelsea didn't turn up at the game for the first 45 minutes. Not taking anything away from our lads, they still played well.
I believe it was called getting tired, we were chasing shadows by the end, you cannot expect a team in those conditions (weather) to chase and continuing harrying for the entire game.
I think we should all agree that we could have been out of it the first half hour. We stood up to the pressure and then scored a great breakaway goal. We were full of running and confidence at this stage, and managed to keep Chelsea out. Their heads dropped a bit and if lees had have scored with his head we would have gone in two up at the halfway, meaning a different proposition for Chelsea. Second have they scored a fast lucky goal, which the keeper should have saved. Thats when the game changed and although tactically it looked like we had changed things, i dont think we did. Thomas was unfit still, which I don't understand. he was hardly moving when not in possession. When he took him off and brought White on I knew we were fooked. their class won out and we were made to look silly at times. The best team won and I say we didn't disgrace ourselves and the scoreline was flattering to them. There were periods when we scared them, competed against them and much of the time were outplayed, but well done.
I can expect them to do it for at least 70 minutes. We've done it for 70 minutes before getting tired in the past. 45 minutes isn't long enough for me.
Bad tactics? Balls. Tactics would have made no difference in this game. For us to win, Chelsea would have had to be very poor and all the luck go our way. We played as well as we could have. Tonge and Brown hassled in the centre, Lees and Pearce won most things in the air, neither fullback got beat particulary often and Thomas, Diouf and Becchio did well up front, held the ball up and got a goal on the counter. But in the end, Chelsea took their chances. Mata's goal changed the game, and had Ashdown saved it, which he should have, we may have been able to hold out for longer, but still they'd have had to be very poor for us to win. Look at the game at Old Trafford 2 years ago - Leeds played as well as they could have, but Man Utd didn't take their chances (Crowe's clearance off the line, Owen missing his shot etc.). That's the difference between that game and yesterday - Chelsea took their chances. They were always going to get chances, but it was whether they actually took them and if we had the luck that was going to dictate this game. We didn't and their great quality came through in the end. No blame can be attacted to the players or manager - we performed well and gave a good account of ourselves. We took the lead against the European champions, and battled well. No embarrassment here. Now lets concentrate on the league, and try and get ourselves promoted, so we can look forward to more games against Chelsea in the future, and ones where we might stand a better chance of winning.
