an excessive amount of pressing as well. Both sides were attempting to create turnovers in the midfield. I actually wrote in the match thread that Liverpool was being caught out trying to press too high up the pitch and were being spread out. Gave Chelsea too much time of the ball in their front line because the trap was set in the wrong place, our forwards were not able to effectively direct the flow of the ball through Chelsea’s midfield and HOLY FUCK is Kante a tidy little player for them. Nobody talks about just how damned good he is, but I think he’s the best in the world. Without him, Chelsea aren’t challenging for the title. Without him, Leicester doesn’t win the title in 2016.
I couldn’t believe when I was watching Mane trying to press Rudiger inside the Chelsea 18 when there he had 3 different passing options available, it just pulls everyone else behind him out of position trying to press the receiver of the ball from Rudiger.
That strike was more of a conventional (but outrageously good) side volley from a looped clearance.
The one against us was more of a top spin volley but, here’s the important part, it was ever so slightly sliced/cut which made it not only conventionally get the dip, but also the added movement of taking it away from the keeper into the top corner.
It was an exceptional piece of technique with getting into position, and striking with Henderson coming in to close him, and of course he “generally” meant it.
Maybe those using fluke is just lazy vocab. I’d argue he meant to hit a clean dipped shot but ever so slightly imparted unintended lateral movement which turned the goal into an even better one.
Or maybe i’m just talking bollocks. Happy to be educated.
It’s like that Cantona 1996 FA Cup final volley. He hit is true. And of course there is no fluke.
But from our perspective, the “fluke” element was that it somehow found the only path to goal where there was no head, body, foot in the way. For each player standing in the box, the ball was in teasing distance of just getting something in the way, but somehow, no one could.
The fluke comments are not that he didn’t mean it - just that it comes off so rarely. If you pause the game just after Kells has punched it out and ask anyone - players, coaches and fans - are you alright with Kovacic attempting an outrageous volley from 25 yard, every single person is saying yes, please do have a swing at that.
Far better strike that one in my opinion, in that it was more difficult, easier to get wrong.
I think his goal against us was a little easier but still in the realms of extremely difficult etc.
It’s no fluke, he meant it and his technique was equal to it.
The key thing is that the one against us had a bit of a placed feel to it. It wasn’t blasted like the one in your clip. Some restraint was used to control the balls flight.
Both can be be true. Because your broadly happy with Kovacic taking that shot on, doesn’t mean you don’t make it difficult for him.
The point is that I think if you asked fans players and staff ‘What do you want Kovacic to do with that dropping ball?’ And the options are a) recycle possession at the edge of the box b) play the ball back into the area c) knock it wide for a cross or overlapping run d) take the volley on, I think the answer is d. Because it nestling in the top corner is so unlikely an outcome.
Put it this way, when our lads take those on, as the ball is dropping I’m screaming (at my TV! Bellend!) for them not to take it on. Inevitably, every now and then I’m wrong. The only one I can recall going in of late is the Naby one (Milan?). What a goal that was. And my commentary of it is Sensible, Naby. Naby? Don’t you dare. DON’T YOU FUCKING DARE. Fucks sake Nab…GERRIN!!!