To be fair to Hudds, he has probably three of the best midfielders in the EPL swarming round him in Hazard, Mata and Ramires. He isn't the quickest and his close control in some what off, but he did do well and against teams like Stoke (especially if they do not pressurise) he would do well.
Some people get disgruntled with some of our performances aka Fulham, but no team play consistently well and there are times when we lose due to bad performances, but thats part and parcel of football. To expect us to win every game is naive and disrespectful to team we play against.
I feel that game would have be totally different if Kaboul and Sandro were playing. Kaboul would have smashed Ramires to the ball where Dawson was beat, and would have done better against Cahill which led to their first goal.
Overall I think we can be happy with the fight and determination of the players to get back into the game and get what could be a vital point (not too sure if Arsenal will get six points out of their last two games).
It will most likely go down to the last game where both the top 4 and relegation could be decided two games.
Some people get disgruntled with some of our performances aka Fulham, but no team play consistently well and there are times when we lose due to bad performances, but thats part and parcel of football. To expect us to win every game is naive and disrespectful to team we play against.
I feel that game would have be totally different if Kaboul and Sandro were playing. Kaboul would have smashed Ramires to the ball where Dawson was beat, and would have done better against Cahill which led to their first goal.
Overall I think we can be happy with the fight and determination of the players to get back into the game and get what could be a vital point (not too sure if Arsenal will get six points out of their last two games).
It will most likely go down to the last game where both the top 4 and relegation could be decided two games.
. Why did we get dominated for the majority of the game and struggle to open them up? Not enough movement and drive. Why was that? Parker was stuck in no mans land all game slowing attacks down and not being able to influence the game with his tackling because he was continuously bypassed. It was pointless having him in that role. We could have played Siggurdson instead of Parker who would have provided running, movement, passing, a goal threat and would have pressed better than the slower Parker. Holtby and Hudd would then have had more movement to pass to, relieve pressure and open up Chelsea. Sig would have been able to get closer to Ade and run past him offering more pressure on the Chelsea back line. With that extra playing running on to the back line Chelsea would have had to give Bale, Lennon and Ade more room occassionaly. Instead by playing Parker and Hudd we had very static obvious movement that encouraged Chelsea to press us high up the pitch and isolated our forwards who could be man marked out of the game. Neither really cleaned up in front of the defence properly and neither was going to get involved in attacking the box.
