Arsenal vs. Chelsea(scores when they happen)

PHB

I figure this deserves a thread of its own.
Any predictions?

I'm obviously hoping for a draw, means between the two of them they only get 2 points, instead of 3, which is good for United in the long run.
I wouldn't mind a Arsenal win but I just don't see it happening.
If arsenal win it might send Chelsea into a bit of a slump, hopefully letting United catch up.

Realistically though I think Chelsea are too strong to lose this game, espically with the total control over midfield they are gona have.
The youngsters will give away quite a few free kicks and we'll have to see if Campbell is back to his best.
Prediction, 1-0 to chelsea

A Dub in Glasgo

Draw

Lafortezza

2-1 to Chelsea (hopefully)

MrJoeSoap

Wayyyyyy to close to call. The only thing I can guess at is that Chelsea wont lose. Mourinho seems far too confident.

mr_angry

1-1. I know Sky used to describe Man U vs. Arsenal matches as "The Unstoppable Force meets The Immovable Object", but I think its actually more appropriate here. Rampant attack (Arsenal) against a defence which has conceded only a handful of goals this season. It'll be interesting anyway. Its hardly worth predicting these kinds of matches, since almost anything could happen.

thejollyrodger

a draw most likely or a win for chelsea

Gangsta

cant really see us winning it although chelsea did lose mid-week.mourinho's confidence seems like a bit of the good old mindgames.if arsenal win itl send their confidence sky high but the midfield will be very depleted without vieira.im really nervous about this one.

The Muppet

Arsenal to win. Arsenal will raise their game and I'd be surprised if Chelsea win.

Gangsta

The Muppet wrote:

Arsenal to win. Arsenal will raise their game and I'd be surprised if Chelsea win.

hope ur right!

The Muppet

Gangsta wrote:

hope ur right!

I hope I'm wrong as a draw would be the best result for me but I do thiink Arsenal are a better team than Chelsea and true Champions always raise their game on the big occasion.

jank

Heart says arsenal

Head says Chelsea

But its fair to say its would be better for the league if Arsenal won.

_blank_

Hoping for an Arsenal win.

I have a Chelsea Fan Friend whose head has become so big over the past two seasons, I hope Chelsea start to feck it up soon to get that tosser off his high horse.

Hoping for an Arsenal win tomorrow

bizmark

2 or 3-0 to chelsea

Gangsta

bizmark wrote:

2 or 3-0 to chelsea

really?


if chelsea win and go on and win everytin il say it again football is all about the money!

A Dub in Glasgo

Football today is all about money!!!

Those that have money will attract and buy the best players. It is then up to the manager to mould those players into a team that wins. Mourino obviously is the manager to mould a team that is capable of winning

LegacyUser

jank wrote:

Heart says arsenal

Head says Chelsea

But its fair to say its would be better for the league if Arsenal won.

No. No it wouldn't.

growler

wouldn't be better for the league if arse win, time to get them off their pedestal.

Suspect a draw, bit hoping for a chelsea win ( unlikely ot be more than a goal in it though).

Gangsta

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Football today is all about money!!!

Those that have money will attract and buy the best players. It is then up to the manager to mould those players into a team that wins. Mourino obviously is the manager to mould a team that is capable of winning

money will not necessarily attract players, success and potential succes will. look at arsenal, they were small wen Wenger took over but he bought bit-part players who are now superstarss

i think the whole Arsenal team wasnt bought with big money, xcept reyes but he was bought cheap compared to the money Utd and chelsea pay for big signings.

The Muppet

Gangsta wrote:

money will not necessarily attract players, success and potential succes will. look at arsenal, they were small wen Wenger took over but he bought bit-part players who are now superstarss

i think the whole Arsenal team wasnt bought with big money, xcept reyes but he was bought cheap compared to the money Utd and chelsea pay for big signings.

Reyes was purchased for anything from 17 to 22 million depending on which report you read/believe. In the deflated market of the time it was/is a lot of money , United paid 12 million for Ronaldo around the same time. Who have chelsea bought that cost more than 17 million ?

Anyone who thinks players will sign for medals ahead of money is deluding themselves. Money can not buy success but combine it with a good manager and facilities and a bit of luck and you have all the ingredients for a sucessful team.

PHB

United always had money, but of all the teams in the whole world are you really gona say that they don't make superstars from nothing?

Cough Beckham Neville Giggs Scholes cough
All those cost a total of nothing, infact gained him about 20 mill.

Also any transfer move that United made was always about 1.5 the price because of Man Utd being one of the richest.


Every top team has to spend money.
Henry cost 10.5 million in 99
Vieira cost 3.5 million in 96
Berkjamp for 7.5 mill in 95
Lauren was 7.2 mill in 00
Pires cost 6 mill in 00
Campbell on a free when he could have cost a ****load

Who in the world are you lying to?

Don't pretend that Wenger has done in any way a better job at Arsenal than Fergie has done at Utd, cause they've both equally preformed miracles and both spent lots of money

Horsefumbler

chelsea to win 1-0

A Dub in Glasgo

Gangsta wrote:

money will not necessarily attract players, success and potential succes will. look at arsenal, they were small wen Wenger took over but he bought bit-part players who are now superstarss

i think the whole Arsenal team wasnt bought with big money, xcept reyes but he was bought cheap compared to the money Utd and chelsea pay for big signings.

In this day and age, TV has inflated the whole worth of transfer fees, money talks. Anybody that does not agree with this, is burying their head in the sand. Sure you can build a champion winning team but that is very rare (and AF done it at MU just before the whole sky money became entrenched)

Buying the 'best' or even 'good' players does not equate to champions, you need a damn good manager and Chelsea have one (even though he is a masturbater)

Gangsta

The Muppet wrote:

Reyes was purchased for anything from 17 to 22 million depending on which report you read/believe. In the deflated market of the time it was/is a lot of money , United paid 12 million for Ronaldo around the same time. Who have chelsea bought that cost more than 17 million ?

Anyone who thinks players will sign for medals ahead of money is deluding themselves. Money can not buy success but combine it with a good manager and facilities and a bit of luck and you have all the ingredients for a sucessful team.

chelsea have bought many: drogba, feirrera,duff....

so ur sayin a player will join a team winnin nuthin over a team that is just because of money?thats daft.

David19

Gangsta wrote:

chelsea have bought many: drogba, feirrera,duff....

so ur sayin a player will join a team winnin nuthin over a team that is just because of money?thats daft.

I don't think thats daft. Footballers often join teams cause of money. Big teams are big teams because they spend the most money. Big players go to big teams because they earn lots of money.

Gangsta

PHB wrote:

United always had money, but of all the teams in the whole world are you really gona say that they don't make superstars from nothing?

Cough Beckham Neville Giggs Scholes cough
All those cost a total of nothing, infact gained him about 20 mill.

Also any transfer move that United made was always about 1.5 the price because of Man Utd being one of the richest.


Every top team has to spend money.
Henry cost 10.5 million in 99
Vieira cost 3.5 million in 96
Berkjamp for 7.5 mill in 95
Lauren was 7.2 mill in 00
Pires cost 6 mill in 00
Campbell on a free when he could have cost a ****load

Who in the world are you lying to?

Don't pretend that Wenger has done in any way a better job at Arsenal than Fergie has done at Utd, cause they've both equally preformed miracles and both spent lots of money

Beckham and neville are nowhere near world class. of course every team has to spend money, but wen its 100's of millions of pounds its a little different.

thats 34.7million, isnt a whole lot tbh for some small players who wenger has made world class. campbell did cost loads as it was on his signing on fee.

im not pretending anything. of course if u compare the 2 fergie is the more successful but has spent far more money than wenger cud dream spending at Arsenal.

PHB wrote:

Who in the world are you lying to?

lying about what?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

you need a damn good manager and Chelsea have one (even though he is a masturbater)

which they bought.

Gangsta

true but, let me give u an example:

Billy bob is a superstar is playing bohemians and has been spotted by AC milan and inter.
now ac milan have one Serie A and the champions league while inter have won nuthin for the past few years. AC milan offer him 40,000 a week while Inter offer him 60,000 a week.

Based on your post, he'll go to INTER
Based on mine, he'll go to AC Milan.

you tell me which is daft.

A Dub in Glasgo

Gangsta wrote:

which they bought.

So? or do you actually mean, they pay top money for?

Gangsta

David19 wrote:

I don't think thats daft. Footballers often join teams cause of money. Big teams are big teams because they spend the most money. Big players go to big teams because they earn lots of money.

true but, let me give u an example:

Billy bob is a superstar is playing bohemians and has been spotted by AC milan and inter.
now ac milan have one Serie A and the champions league while inter have won nuthin for the past few years. AC milan offer him 40,000 a week while Inter offer him 60,000 a week.

Based on your post, he'll go to INTER
Based on mine, he'll go to AC Milan.

you tell me which is daft.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

So? or do you actually mean, they pay top money for?

i dont understand your question.

The Muppet

Gangsta wrote:

so ur sayin a player will join a team winnin nuthin over a team that is just because of money?thats daft.

No What I,m saying is that the vast majority of players will sign for the team offering them the best terms irrespective of how successful that team is. The notion that players are more interested in medals than money is daft in todays game.

A Dub in Glasgo

Gangsta wrote:

i dont understand your question.

Simple

You state Chelsea bought Mourino, I said so? I then asked do they pay one of the best wages (if not the best) for a manager? sounds as if you have a fairly naive view about how money in football talks. We take an example:

Player A is a fantastic player in a league of his own and has won quite a bit in his career even though he has a lot to go in his playing career. He wants to move to the English premiership

1. Club A is trying to assemble an all-conquering side with a proven manager. They offer him £100k per week

2. Club B are the current aristocrats in the English game and are a fantastic side, they offer him £80k per week

3. Club C are still a giant but they are on the wane but they are the most successful side in the history of the premiership. They have the prestige and they offer him £60k per week.

I would suggest thay most footballers would join Club A while you contend that most would join Club B. If Club B could offer £120k per week, most would go there!

smuckers

2-1 to Chelsea, the blues will suprise The Gooner with 2 breakways to go 0-2 up but they'll pull one goal back which will result in a nervous finish for the blues.

Memnoch

what time is the match starting? 16:05 according to BBC but paddypower seems to say 18:05 ???

kleefarr

Memnoch wrote:

what time is the match starting? 16:05 according to BBC but paddypower seems to say 18:05 ???

16:05 according to sky and the CFC website.

A Dub in Glasgo

Ss1 16:05

Memnoch

k thanks guys..

should be a good game, arsenal have played well in their last couple of games and gotten good results so their confidence should be restored somewhat and they will be looking to prove themselves.

Chelsea will be looking to win as well and put a further lead at the top of the table.

I think chelsea have more prolific players in terms of Duff and Robben, and I believe those will be the difference betwen the two sides today.

Jivin Turkey

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Simple
1. Club A is trying to assemble an all-conquering side with a proven manager. They offer him £100k per week

2. Club B are the current aristocrats in the English game and are a fantastic side, they offer him £80k per week

3. Club C are still a giant but they are on the wane but they are the most successful side in the history of the premiership. They have the prestige and they offer him £60k per week.

I would suggest thay most footballers would join Club A while you contend that most would join Club B. If Club B could offer £120k per week, most would go there!

I dont think that is a very good example. In the end it comes down to a mix of money and the status of the team trying to sign the player.

In the above example a younger player with a lot of ambition would probably sign for Club A, because of the potential there, and he has time on his side to see it through. While a player about 30 would probably sign for Club B because he might only have two years left and would just like the prestige of playing for "Club B".

A Dub in Glasgo

Which is why I said the following

Player A is a fantastic player in a league of his own and has won quite a bit in his career even though he has a lot to go in his playing career

Chong

I actually hope arsenal win because it'll stop chelsea's run and bring the top closer together. Believe me its tough for me to say this as I am a man united supporter.

kida

As a Utd fan - hope for a draw and a mass brawl resulting in loss of points to both teams.

Anyone know what odds you can get on any sending off. Reckon this will be fiery!

smemon

i'll enjoy this as usual with no pressure or edge of seat moments for me, not giving a toss really who wins, although i'd prefer to see arsenal win.

whatever happens, utd will be closer to at least one of them provided they win tomorrow night. hopefully we'll see another arse liverpool match with last minute drama.

a few red cards would be nice too. im worried about arsenal, this is were they usually are found wanting when the heat is on. thats why i'll go for 2-1 chelsea.

treefingers

can't see arsenal losing this one. they really can't afford to. 1 goal victory for arsenal or draw is my guess....

The Muppet

Wenger is sticking with Almunia in Goal . I'm surprised by that, this is a massive game for the Gunners and he has not performed well consistantly while under pressure to date. I think that is a plus for Chelsea.

PHB

**** ME! What a goal! terrible defending!

A Dub in Glasgo

2-1 to Arsenal now

_blank_

2-1 Half time.

I only got in to the house for the end of the second half, and pressed the red button for a look at the goals.

Henry's first one was pure class, great turn, great hit, great goal.

Terrible defending for the Terry goal, yet again Arsenal concede from a set piece, get it sorted Wenger, or today's result won't even matter.

The Free Kick, yeah, it should have stood. A Free Kick can be taken from the time the referee blows his whistle to award it. He does not need to signal again, unless he says he is going to. You will sometimes see a referee give a Free Kick, then point to his whistle, and tell the players to only restart play when he blows it again. The referee in this case did not do that.

BaZmO*

seansouth wrote:

The Free Kick, yeah, it should have stood. A Free Kick can be taken from the time the referee blows his whistle to award it. He does not need to signal again, unless he says he is going to. You will sometimes see a referee give a Free Kick, then point to his whistle, and tell the players to only restart play when he blows it again. The referee in this case did not do that.

That's the thing though, the ref indicated that they should wait for the whistle but then he didn't blow it. Although Gudjonhsen(sp?) should of stood in front of the ball and given his team mates enough time to get ready.

B.

A Dub in Glasgo

FT 2-2

smuckers

A fine game, chels were better in first half though. First of all it wasn't a free kick it was dive by Pires. Dissspointed with Duffer, thought he'd be more dangerous.

PHB

Lucky lucky escape for Arsenal.
I felt Chelsea really deserved the win and Arsenal got lucky getting two goals.
The first goal was absolutely atrocious defending, very shocking, but Henry took it well.
the secodn goal, besides not being a free kick in the frist place, was very very look, and Henry got lucky it even went in, if it hadn't got a deflection Cech would have gotten to it.

Ok preformance I guess, a draw best reslt for United, although I wouldn't have minded an Arsenal win.

bizmark

Good result for everton

LegacyUser

PHB wrote:

Lucky lucky escape for Arsenal.
I felt Chelsea really deserved the win and Arsenal got lucky getting two goals.

Ok preformance I guess, a draw best reslt for United, although I wouldn't have minded an Arsenal win.

Obviously watched a totally different game to the one I did. Arsenal should have won on the basis of second half performance.

Having said all that, Pires did dive. But draw best result for Utd.