Strikers miss those all the time though. I’m more encouraged he’s getting into those positions. Players, even great players, miss chances all the time. It’s like the criticism you often see of players like Cavani, who seems to score a ton of goals yet gets complaints that he misses too many chances. I prefer to take the view that if he keeps getting into good positions, the goals will keep coming, as they already have. Unless he’s benteke or something.
Among others: https://statsbomb.com/2019/09/is-frank-lampards-youthful-approach-to-chelsea-the-right-one/
Read? Read the actual story? !!! All the 214 words of the actual story???!??! Andy doesn't have that kind of time or intellectual capacity.
if you don't want to talk about pulisic...stop posting in the pulisic thread on the us men board about him too that will reduce the amount of time you spend talking about him a lot.
What exactly am I supposed to talk about on the 'Christian Pulisic' board then? This is NOT the 'Christian Pulisic' board though is it? This is supposed to be the Chelsea v Brighton board! Pulisic didn't even play in this one! If you want to moan about Pulisic not playing then take it to the right place - I will see you there!
Makes no sense u keep bringing him up to trash him....u then go to another board to trash him....but are annoyed that he keeps coming up. Let me give you a hint if you don't want to talk about him....don't if u reply ur continuing the conversation. It's pretty simple really the reverse psychology approach of talking about him nonstop isn't going to work.
Did you not understand my post? You can moan and complain all you like about Pulisic sitting on the subs bench and I will argue Lampards point of view - ALL DAY too if you want BUT not over and over on a game thread! I want to talk about the game on the game thread! If you want to keep moaning on and on about the Pulisic situation then lets do it in the right place!
Well, the report was slightly contradictory in that he specifically says Franks told him he needed to 'improve in training if he is to win back a place in the starting XI' but it then says... Asked if he had been given feedback from Lampard about winning back his place, Pulisic told Pro Soccer Talk: ‘Not so much. He said to keep working and I have to improve myself in training and try to get back in the line-up.’ Which appears to slightly contradict his first statement or, at least, muddy the waters. What seems obvious to me is that Frank's trying to integrate various new players into a different system from Sarri and is basing his decision partly on how they perform in training, rightly or wrongly. But, as I mentioned, the fact that some of the guy's he'd expected to be available and to base his team around, (Kante and Rudi in particular), have only made fleeting appearances, isn't helping. I can't help thinking that's confusing the issue. So there's a difference between a choice which new guy to introduce when you have a known situation, (so, whether to look at Mount or Puli, say), when they're coming into a settled side with experienced players and a choice which of them to play when the side is already trying to meld 2-3 new fellas into a side in flux, as we have now.
This is one of the right places to talk about pulisic, player selection and tactics when it comes to the matches.
Where do those figures come from? I ask because it seems to show him having 'won' what looks like almost zero 'fouls against' when we already know he won the penalty in the last match, he got clattered in the CL game, (when he was taken off), and I'm pretty certain can remember at least half a dozen other fouls on the guy getting free kicks, if not more. That would mean the 'fouls against' should be about 1.2-1.5
The last game isn’t included, nor was the CL match (which shouldn’t be, really). The other article is about his time in the championship which suggests the same thing, incidentally. The zero fouls against makes sense to me - he moves the ball very quickly. That’s not a knock on him, either.
Ok, but what does not having Kante or Rudi really have to do with starting forwards? Alternatively, if he only wants 2-3 new players, how about varying who those 2-3 new players are each game? Plus, look at the CL match - the arguments people made there were bizarre! He started Mount, so experience wasn’t the issue. But then to replace him brought on Pedro because suddenly experience is paramount? This despite us playing fine. People are bending over backwards for these explanations that don’t make much sense. If the argument is that Pulisic hasn’t been playing well, make it. If not, why not play him? He seems to be playing fine (not spectacular, fine) when on the pitch. Vague hand waving at Lampard knows best isn’t sufficient, sorry. When Sarri wasn’t playing CHO more this board was up in arms!
Ah, ok. Makes sense. Yeah, he does seem to be getting clattered quite a bit atm. Presumably the better and fitter players are able to get closer to him?
??? You mean apart from the fact they're playing in the same team at the same time? Well, that was my point about who those inexperienced guys are. IOW yes, there is an issue as to whether to start, say, Mount or Puli. Well, hang on... everything's an issue. It's not like the fact that we played one young player means that having a side made up entirely of guys under 21 would be a wise decision. Again, that makes the assumption that he's seeing them as being direct equivalents when we can't know that. It also ignores the fact that, having had to make a decision t change the side because of the injury, he would then ignore the relative experience of the players on offer. Until that point, yes. Not sure how that's an argument one way or the other. To be clear, I haven't said that 'Lampard knows best' or anything even approaching it. I HAVE said that there are various issues at play when choosing which players to play and, (as I suspected), there seems to be matters behind the scenes, (in training it seems), where Puli isn't doing what Frank wants him to. Now, whether that's true or not I have no way of knowing but then, strictly speaking, neither does anyone else on here. What I DO know is that Frank was legendarily a hard worker in training and would often arrive early and stay late to do extra work. So I'm thinking it's possible, (I wouldn't put it any stronger than that), that he wants to see his players work very hard as well and that Puli, coming from outside the club, is having to improve his workrate there... on the training pitch. I'm guessing we'll see more of the lad as the weeks go on and then we can put this issue to bed. Whether he'll start or make more appearances than players frank sees playing in a similar position, I don't know.
Andy, that entire post was a shrug emoji, and in some cases the logic was insane (you’re telling me it’s not clear Lampard sees Pulisic and Pedro as capable of playing the same position? Give me a ********ing break). If we’re having a “youth” movement, why is our manager not playing the young player we just spent 60mm on? Seems weird.
Yeah, I'm not sure how to do those The resultant page on the google search here shows Mount and Willian playing behind Tammy in a 2 so, yes, I can see Pedro being a more obvious option to come in instead of Puli if Mount's taken off if he's concerned about bringing in someone withe experience because of the forced change. Again, I'm not saying I disagree particularly. I'm just saying there's nothing obvious about the changes required in any specific situation. In the Valencia match, for example, all 4 of the guys shown as being midfielders were still on the pitch according to that google page and, according to the wiki squad listing AFAIK, Puli plays as a midfielder, doesn't he? IOW I'm not making any definitive statement one way or the other. I'm just saying it's arguable. Having said that I agree that having spent 60m on the guy it seems odd he hasn't played more. But, tbf, it's not like he hasn't played at all, is it. That was also why I think frank's trying to get a reaction him, in training and elsewhere, as I said.
Andy, this is not a serious argument! Of the two players, Pulisic is the one who plays centrally much more than Pedro, because he does it for the US. Pedro is far more of a wing player than Pulisic! You're just randomly throwing shit at the wall at the hope that it sticks because the explanations don't make sense. And again, if Lampard starts Mount, a player who has played zero Champions League minutes, you can't then turn around and seriously argue experience is suddenly the overriding concern when he goes off after 15 minutes! As far as "getting a reaction from him in training", who knows what that means. None of us do, especially since Pulisic also basically said he has no idea what Lampard wants from him. Seems bad!
Seems bad??!!! wtf. You have spent hundreds of words debating a 214 word piece of shit article in the fcucking Metro of all places. Give us ALL a fcucking break. Please. I am officially feeling embarrassed for you kid.
In truth I haven't seen as much of Puli as you have or as much as I have of Pedro so I'm relying on what little I have seen of the two of them and, yes... on that basis, I can see why, if Mount was going off, he'd replace him with Pedro and not Puli. You're also rather conveniently that, if he thought that Mount and Puli were up for the same position, maybe he was considering which one and just went for the guy he wanted but that's completely different to who he'd bring in if whomever he chose, (Mount as it was), went off... those aren't the same question. ... and you seem determined to pretend there's no issue in how Puli has played when, in truth, he's looked rather indecisive and timid and not the major upgrade you'd expect for, as you point out, 60m. In truth CHO looked more decisive and aggressive in his brief cameo than Puli has when he's played for however many games it is. You keep coming up with these definitions, (he plays centrally, he doesn't, he closes players down, he dribbles with the ball, this and that... whatever), when, in truth, I don't think most of us have noticed most of that stuff. What we have noticed is that Mount's play has been decisive and has generally affected play whereas, in all truth, Puli has been OK but not particularly influential. Also, if you're right and Puli plays more centrally, (and I've just missed it), the player he should be replacing is Ross Barkley when he's played but then, on that basis, I'd suggest Kova has been playing quite well so why does he miss out? He said, in terms, that he needs to work harder in training. Let's not over-complicate this.
“I have got four wingers now that they are all fit. It’s normal to have an adaptation. He has shown some good moments. We must give him a bit of time to adapt because of youth, change of league and living. They are all different, have different pathways. We know he has played in the Champions League.” -Frank Lampard On Pulisic in press conference at 13.14 GMT Monday source: Football.London Pulisic needs a bit of time to adapt, and a bit of patience to let him do so at his own pace. With Chelsea’s injury situation improving and the team already showing plenty of promise, Pulisic should get the required time to settle in properly. Sure, some players adapt immediately. Others may need a year or so.
Andy, wtf? Some of the above is literally word salad. You're starting to reduce my posts to small sentences that are stripped of context to make bizarre points that have no meaning. For what purpose? I mean, the bolded part is......what? 1. I have never said Pulisic plays centrally. I said between Pulisic and Pedro Pulisic pays centrally more than Pedro. 2. I have not claimed Pulisic has been spectacular. I have said he's been fine. However, he can't improve if he doesn't play. 3. I have not claimed on a general basis if the choice was between Mount and Pulisic for one game Pulisic should start. That's not the point and you know it! 4. CHO looks "decisive and more aggressive" because he's a different type of player - he's extremely direct. Pulisic isn't that, no. 5. Claiming a player needs to work harder in training is often meaningless cant from a manager. If that's where we are from Lampard already......boy, that's not a good sign. P.S. It's nice that you haven't noticed Mount hasn't been doing certain things while he has been doing others, only that he has been "influential". I apologize for trying to go beyond "X player good" and "Y player bad!" arguments. Nuance is clearly for all those assholes who, if they lived in the UK would probably be some kind of Remoaners.
we can discuss these things and be a little less aggressive. i think there are good points all in here but the tone is starting to really rub people the wrong way.