The Wheels on the Bus go round and round, round and round...

I didn't finish this one and then forgot to post it...

Sunday, 27th April, 2014, Anfield: Liverpool 0 - 2 Chelsea

The reaction to the above result has been the most grotesque, bitter and petty affair this Premier League (PL) season has seen so far. We have total fools like Shaka Hislop criticising Mourinho for being a hypocrite. We have nearly every journalist in the land calling Chelsea's victory 'anti-football' while labelling it a 'tactical masterclass'. We have vitriolic abuse from those of a Liverpool inclination, as well as the tacit outrage of apparently all the neutrals. Nearly everything I have read concerning the game has lambasted Chelsea for winning in the 'wrong' way. A true tragi-comedy. 

But the last straw was listening to the Guardian Football Weekly Podcast. Barry Glendenning, (a Sunderland fan) said the following:

'It's very difficult to play a football match when only one team wants to play; it's very difficult. A match is about two teams playing. But this match was only one team playing and another not, as a famous manager once said.'

I didn't know they stacked shit that wide you fat bastard.

Anyway I am here to challenge the pathetic opinions of all those too blinded by their hatred of CFC to draw reasonable conclusions.

Mourinho is a Hypocrite

Really? Does that count as news nowadays? If I wanted to be pedantic I would argue the difference between West Ham's and Chelsea's performance was that Chelsea actually wanted to score. (To think that Chelsea approached the game with a draw in mind is so preposterous it does not even bare discussion.) Everyone knows that Managers basically say anything whenever it suits them. They are either manipulating the media with worrying ease and/or sending a message to their players. Being consistent has absolutely nothing to do with it. Shut up Shaka you utter idiot - why does ESPN tolerate your inane utterances?

Chelsea's Approach was 'Anti-Football'

What does 'anti-football' even mean? Does it mean some kind of non-sport where you don't aim to put a ball in a net? Does it mean Rugby? Basketball? Wait I know what it means - it means any approach which stifles attacking football doesn't it. It's all part of that tired Catalonian narrative where if Guardiola, Wenger, and now Rodgers lose, they blame their opposition's defensiveness and not their own team's abject failure to score more than a team that doesn't 'attack' LMAO. 'Anti-football' is part of the terminology of losers and ideologues. 

    This is why Chelsea fans don't use this specious term. When Chelsea comes up against a 'parked bus', has all the possession, has loads of shots and loses the game (which has happened quite a few times this season btw), we don't complain about the perfectly logical approach of the opposition, we curse our lack of goals. If Chelsea had only got a measly three points from all the games lost against supposed 'lesser' teams then the story would be different right now. 

     Jamie Carragher recently said that he played exactly like Chelsea did, away at a big club in Europe, looking to do anything, including time-wasting, to keep a clean sheet. So let's just forget about time-wasting since every team does it whenever it is advantageous to them. Funny how time-wasting only now appears on the media's agenda.

    I have also read a lot opinion to the sum of: Chelsea have a responsibility to play attacking football because of all the talent they have. Wrong. The only responsibility Chelsea has is to its fans. If Chelsea has a responsibility to football due to its wealth of talented players it is this - to win every game.