Liverpool vs Chelsea: the return of faux-moral analysis

Chelsea, despite winning at Anfield yesterday, have taken quite a beating; on Twitter, on various websites, and even within national newspapers, Jose Mourinho has been taken to task for his approach against Liverpool and a lot of people are saying whatever they can to diminish the victory.

“(I’m) Saddened by the fact a club with Chelsea’s resources felt the only way they could win such a high profile contest that showcased the English game throughout the world was by cheating.

And it was cheating, because the time-wasting antics they produced from the very first minute were against both the rules and the spirit of the game.”

That was from David Maddock’s article in The Mirror today, and it’s representative of a lot of other similar opinions that I’ve read within the last twenty-four hours. It’s a diversification of the ‘parking the bus’ grievance, and obviously it’s not the first time it’s been used.

I don’t know whether David Maddock is a Liverpool fan or whether he lost a lot of money on yesterday’s result, but his article is over-emotional and could have been boiled down to a single sentence about how terribly unfair yesterday was and how Jose Mourinho and his players should be banned from football for ever and ever and ever.

Really, it’s that childish - quoting the rulebook like a teenager? Come on, put the big boy trousers on and deal with it.

Liverpool fans aren’t responsible for this because they are by no means the first set of supporters to get bent out of shape after losing a game they expected to win, but it’s amazing how often this argument is used and how frequently an attempt is made to asterisk a result on moral grounds.

What Chelsea spend and how they choose to play are not related. The referee is responsible for curtailing the amount of time-wasting which occurs within a game. It is not ‘anti-football’ to adopt a cautious gameplan when facing a side with significant attacking power. Teams do not owe each other the opportunity to play expansive football, and neither are they conventionally obliged to cater to their opponent’s style.

Those are just facts which need to be accepted.

Given that Liverpool only really needed a point yesterday - and Chelsea spent most of the game playing for one - shouldn’t the focus really be on how Brendan Rodgers managed to take nothing against such an unambitious opponent? Liverpool lost because they made mistakes and because their shape deviated from its - successful - norm during the second-half. They lost their structure and they increasingly made Chelsea’s job easier as the afternoon progressed.

Nevertheless, this ‘it’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not fair’ response to these kind of results makes nobody look particularly good.

Follow @premleagueowl

Latest article for Squawka: Discussing Cesar Azpilicueta’s development this season at Chelsea.

4 Comments on "Liverpool vs Chelsea: the return of faux-moral analysis"

  1. Many Liverpool can learn that alll out attack doesn’t work in every situation. Their style is exactly the sort of team that Chelsea like to play, and Rodgers should have known they would be prepared for it and tried to play a more balanced side.

  2. Philtheiron | Apr 29, 2014 at 12:05 am |

    Not sure what all the fuss is about really! Everybody and his dog knew how Jose was going to set his team out to play. Everybody except Rodgers apparently! Liverpool have no plan b! They have been lucky this season and have increasingly being getting away with it. West ham and more recently man c have shown this. Against city only an awful mistake by Kompany papered over the fact that they had thrown away a 2 goal lead and had run out of ideas. Chelsea gave a text book defensive display and tactically were years ahead of Liverpool. Who having hit a defensive wall ran out of ideas of how to overcome it. If I were a Liverpool fan I wouldn’t be worried about Chelsea’s or anybody else’s tactics but my own teams failure when it mattered to have any idea now to overcome teams that con troll over for them.Finally, pot calling kettle black! As it’s not like Liverpool have ever set out to pack their defence to stop the opposition scoring! Time wasted! Or deployed acts of sportsmanship to win penalties or influence games! Rodgers would have been better to act with a bit of dignity and praise Jose for such a stunning performance! Instead of unbecoming whining and complaining! You were beaten by the better team on the day! Get over it! Stop believing your own hype! Nobody owes you a living! Titles have to be earned!

  3. Your absolutely right — liverpool fans and the media love-in complaints amount to BOOHOOHOO chelsea didn’t let us play our way — well folks that’s professional sport - teams work to nullify their opponents strengths — liverpool’s sense of entitlement is only matched in this country by bankers and doesn’t cut no ice with big teams like chelsea — if you want a spectacle go to the zoo — we play to win and we don’t give you nothing — and if you haven’t got a plan B too bad for you!

  4. cashiquecashique | Apr 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm |

    sorry mate but football is played as a spectacle for the millions of watching fans. its not played behind closed door to decide who becomes the champions based on the best possible way to get the most points. If every team decides to play anti-football, sit deep, defend and wait to pounce on a mistake, its going to kill the game. Just ask the Chelsea fans. Its one thing to defend deep after getting a goal, but its completely a mockery of the game to sit deep and defend from the first minute in a top of the table clash of what was until Sunday ‘the best league in Europe’.

Leave a Reply