Something that annoyed me...

[Canary_Ben 0]

....Is why did Sky Sports say on their website use the terms, "Chelsea brushed Norwich aside" and "Chelsea had a comfortable victory". When the BBC actually said the scoreline flattered Chelsea which was correct. I know Chelsea deserved the victory but by 4 goals? I think not.

So thanks to the BBC for actually having a heart for the smaller clubs and giving them credit where it is due, and I''m dissapointed with Sky Sports for obvious reasons.

[Quantum 0]

Agreed. And on the Sky Sports News match report this morning, they gave a lot of attention to Boulahrouz''s injury, bemoaning Chelsea''s luck, and yet no mention at all of Marshall''s injury - which I thought was very unfair.

[Kathy 733]

The Sunday Telegraph report was the same today.

[whoareyou? 0]

And credit Mourinho too as he admitted that we were the better side in the first half and 4-0 was not a fair reflection on the game as a whole.

[Snakepit Boy 0]

[quote user="Quantum"]Agreed. And on the Sky Sports News match report this morning, they gave a lot of attention to Boulahrouz''s injury, bemoaning Chelsea''s luck, and yet no mention at all of Marshall''s injury - which I thought was very unfair.
[/quote]

A lot of things about how the national media kiss-arses Chelsea annoys me, but to be fair the point you mention here doesn''t particularly bother me.

Although Marshall''s injury was bad news for him and for us, it isn''t really that important for non-Norwich fans. Like it not, there are a lot of people interested in Chelsea''s European match this week, and their injury situation is probably of more interest to the wider public.

(Doesn''t mean that I don''t still hate Chelsea, though.)

[Cluck 0]

Yes but did you check out the Chelsea body language on show....including that of the bench?  The neutral would have seen a very casual Chelsea performance overpowering an ordinary (but plucky) Championship set up. It was an entertaining encounter right enough....but there was only going to be one winner and the two late goals showed how easy it all was when they tried. 4-0 is a very convincing scoreline I''m afraid.

Water under the bridge for me and what really matters is how they perform in the more competitive league games coming up.

 

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="-.-. .-.. ..- -.-. -.-"]

Yes but did you check out the Chelsea body language on show....including that of the bench?  The neutral would have seen a very casual Chelsea performance overpowering an ordinary (but plucky) Championship set up. It was an entertaining encounter right enough....but there was only going to be one winner and the two late goals showed how easy it all was when they tried. 4-0 is a very convincing scoreline I''m afraid.

Water under the bridge for me and what really matters is how they perform in the more competitive league games coming up.

 

 

[/quote]

Am glad that both Cluck and Sky Sports can look at the game with a more realistic bias...

Beacause while I do think that we put up a brave fight I also agree that it was extremely comfortable for Chelsea...  the two goals in a few minutes at the end of the first half/start of the second and during the last few minutes of the match seemed to suggest that they could of put their foot on the gas at any time...

I think that if we had of converted one of our chances then Chelsea would of just stepped it up a gear or two for more sustained periods of the match!!!

[Buncey 1]

Up until the first goal they were hardly in control at all and taking long shots at goal whenever they could, a sign of a team under pressure. Bit unfair to say they were very confortable after the second aswell considering Chelsea are like that against every team....

[Evil Monkey 52]

No shock that the only people on the boards who simply cannot give Norwich praise for their performance are the usual suspects, who''ll simply pat each other on the back and give each other a biscuit for their "realistic" comments.Mourinho stated in his interview that Norwich were the better team first half, and that we were extremely lucky not to bag a few goals.  Are you calling "The Special One" a liar? [;)]

[Regime Change 0]

Unfortunately, Sky does seem to respent the section of the media the really believes the Premier League is wonderful and knows next to nothing about the Championship/League One/Two.  The BBC reports appear to bear much closer relation to the match.

We should quite rightly take a lot of positives from the game.  Its the best game of football we have given Chelsea in the last couple of years, and, it looks as thought Grant has started to assemble a really decent squad.

[Stevie Wonder 0]

[quote user="Canary_Ben"]

....Is why did Sky Sports say on their website use the terms, "Chelsea brushed Norwich aside" and "Chelsea had a comfortable victory". When the BBC actually said the scoreline flattered Chelsea which was correct. I know Chelsea deserved the victory but by 4 goals? I think not.

So thanks to the BBC for actually having a heart for the smaller clubs and giving them credit where it is due, and I''m dissapointed with Sky Sports for obvious reasons.

[/quote]

In fairness Charlie Nicholas who covered the game on Sky''s Soccer Saturday said that 4-0 was a completely unfair reflection of the game and that we had played very well. The last 2 goals only came after we had pushed DD up front and the first 2 had large slices of luck about them. It is very easy to say that had we gone 1-0 up then Chelsea would have gone through the gears (incidentally this is disrespectful to the Chelsea players) but nothing is certain. The pressure would have increased and the crowd may have started to get on their backs. It is all conjecture now!