No opinion but sounds like it’s been around forever. https://www.spurscommunity.co.uk/index.php?threads/lampard-loses-mother.30336/page-2
that’s interesting.... I think it really depends on personnel, like most formations might, but 4-3-3 to me is the ideal setup.
I don't think Spector made enough appearances to qualify for a winner's medal, which is the standard I'd probably use. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Premier_League_winning_players Edit: Based on that standard, I believe Howard at Man United and Friedel at Liverpool came the closest, with both teams finishing in 3rd during seasons in which those players made at least 10 appearances.
From what I was watching, they dropped into a 4-3-3(maybe 4-5-1) on defense and 4-2-3-1 on offense with Kante or Kovacic forging forward and Jorginho holding back. I believe this is the way to go with the same trio at midfield because they won the possession battle Against City...That may not mean much to some, but according to report, this was the first time in a while Man.City lost the possession battle to anyone. If CP was 100% fit, they probably win this math.
Weird. I think Weah got his medal with PSG despite only a few appearances in his one season with them.
City only had 46.74% of the ball, the lowest percentage by any Pep Guardiola team in any of his 381 top-flight matches in charge of Barcelona, Bayern Munich or City. But a lot of that possession was in areas that really don't matter that much. Chels needed a more clinical response from our strikers. They - Tammy, Willian, Batsman and Pulisic - had chances and they need to take them at this level. It is a learning curve for our youngsters. Our midfield was looking bloody good though.
Requirements are different for each league, and France may have the easiest of all of them. In France, you only need to make one appearance to qualify for a winner's medal. England has relaxed their requirements as well. You used to need 10 appearances to earn a medal, but about 6 years ago they changed that so now you only need 5 appearances. I'm also now noticing that Manchester United didn't win the title during the 2-3 years Spector was at the club (they won the season before he arrived and the season after he left), so he wouldn't qualify regardless.
I'm worried I'm going a little off topic now (especially since there's no way Chelsea are winning the league this season), but I could see an argument for either five or ten. One seems too low to me. Ten may be a good threshold for rewarding the players who meaningfully contributed to a title run, rather than those who filled in a few times during an injury crisis or those who got an extended runout to see if they could contribute and were ultimately found wanting. However, if you're okay with including players like that, then five seems to be a good threshold to account for the fact that club's often give a few appearances to young players to give them some high level experience or showcase their talent for other clubs, especially once they've already clinched first place. And, note that leagues appear to be willing to make exceptions on a case by case basis for individual players who deserve recognition for their contributions but don't meet those thresholds for one reason or another.
According to WhoScored, Tammy had 2 shots (0 on target), Willian (4,0), Batshuayi (0,0). Emerson was 1,1; Kante 2,1 and Mount 1,0. Someone is conspicuously absent from this list. He played 90 min, but had ZERO shots. That, IMHO, is not because he missed taking chances "at this level." It's because he had no decent opportunities. Good for Man City, but it speaks loudly to the fact that, as I mentioned in an above post, nobody made a concerted effort or showed sufficient ingenuity to play Pulisic into the attack. Dribble attacks resulting from reception of a ball while already moving forward or running into space to receive a through ball are his two greatest strengths. Chelsea F'd up, if you ask me. Also, in the first 25 min or so, CP was able to dribble 2 or 3 times across the top of the PA, but never got a shot off because the defenders did not allow openings to occur. At least part of that is on Chelsea because in many cases, openings are created by diagonal runs by other attackers who pull defenders out of position and Chelsea players did not do that.
I said our strikers had chances and failed to take them. Shots are an interesting statistic. Some shots are more realistic chances than others. Stats are only part of the picture. Failure to take shots is also part of not taking your chances. Failure to create opportunities to take a shot is also a creative players problem. At one point Batsman was through and he had a "chance" and he . . .he just fell over. At this level you gotta NOT fall over. It was an entertaining game. You should have watched it.
Your take may be the consensus, but I think Debruyne got the best of him. It was clear to me that City was not going to let Puli beat them. Nobody else really stepped up and Kante is still not up to game speed. It was a fun game to watch and it could really have gone either way. It was an epic battle in the midfield that was a stalemate for the most part. I felt that CFC should have played more early balls long to open up some space in the midfield. On a different day the scoreline could easily have gone the other way.
Esp some of the early chances. Would have changed the balance of the game. A few pretty decent chances went begging. But, if wishes was horses...
Joao Cancelo did some decent attacking work, and he also kept Pulisic relatively quiet. That happens sometimes. That is all part of the learning curve. This is a young Chelsea team, full of promise, but not quite there yet. We all know that Pulisic is destined for great things. Midweek we have Valencia. Pulisic is going to be up for that game. We move on.
Would anyone like to spend a moment or two on CL group analysis, with two games remaining? 7 +5 Ajax (@ Lille; v Valencia) 7 +1 Chelsea (@ Valencia, v Lille) 7 +1 Valencia (v Chelsea, @ Ajax) 1 -7 Lille (v Ajax, @ Chelsea) I think Ajax is clearly in the driver's seat, with a significant advantage in goal difference, and with the easiest remaining schedule. Ajax should be able to handle Lille, but even if they lose to Lille (Ajax will be missing key defenders), they'll come home knowing that a win v Valencia will (almost certainly) be enough to see Ajax through. Chelsea is in a trickier position. They must assume a home win v Lille in the final group game. Even counting that win, I think Chelsea have to assume they need a result @ Valencia this week. There's too great a danger that if Valencia and Ajax both win on Wednesday, those two teams could play to a gentleman's draw in their final game - freezing Chelsea out. Complicating matters is that - for some reason - Valencia v Chelsea will kick off 2 hours before the Lille v Ajax game. Hope CP starts Wednesday, as this should be a good test, and therefore for our purposes a good developmental exercise.
Good analysis. Chelsea was clearly not the same team earlier this season when they lost to Valencia at home... but when you consider that this is being played on the road I think it becomes a difficult match to pick. I think Chelsea will score... but the team needs help on D... so I could easily see Valencia put 2 or 3 in the back of the net. This is the 1st year in Lampard's tenure and I think this team is still a year away from hitting on all cylinders. That being said, I am eager to see if the team can over-achieve and make some noise in the next stage.
I have to correct myself, as CL tiebreakers focus more on head-to-head results than on (still relevant) goal difference. With a three-way tie at the top still very possible, Chelsea are in decent shape, with a head-to-head advantage over Ajax (in a two-way tie). 538 puts the percentages as follows: Chelsea is 52% to finish first, and 75% to advance. Ajax is just 36% to finish first, but 85% to advance. Valencia is 12% to finish first, 40% to advance.