Decent performance and with a bit of luck might of got the win.
Much more solid.

A much better team display, and Zouma at right back did very well. Why, oh why did Mourhino stick with Ivanovic in that position?! Ramires was very good as well, and I can't understand the regular criticism he gets.

Overall, the team is looking good for a string of good results which is much needed.

Come on the Chels'!

Very true. Where the myth comes from that you have to play boring, defensive football to win things I have no idea. The most successful PL club by far is Man Utd - winning over a long period with attacking football mainly. Man City have won major trophies recently with attacking football on the whole, and the most successful clubs in world football, Barcelona, Bayern and Real similar. Chelsea also won that way under Ancelotti.

Mourhino has won trophies over 2 seasons at clubs playing his defensive mentality football, but that will never work over a longer period. The players, the fans, the board, the media, the public will all demand change, and as said before, that's something that Mourhino doesn't seem able to do. It's not sustainable for the long term.

To Mourinho yes and those with a win at any cost attitude but I like to think the majority think differently to that.

The classic sides people talk about and remember decades after they won or lost trophies tend to be those that made a lasting impression and entertained the masses.

Even if you look at it simplicity I'm pretty sure the side who scores the most goals has generally won the championship. .

Give me boring football and trophies over entertainment without success.

Newcastle played entertaining football when they were challenging for the premier league title in the 90's. Unfortunately their defending wasn't so great and Manchester United sealed the league trophy.

Similiar in fact to when Liverpool were good to watch but blew the league due to their shocking defending and City taking advantage.

The history books will remember their failure not the style in which they played .

Normally, maybe, but not the Liverpool 2nd - remember, that was the year that Suarez played out of his skin with a blinding season that was an incredible watch. I doubt anyone will forget how we played then with him leading the pack.

Indeed Ninn. Ultimately football is about winning trophies.
Glorious failure is massively over rated

Tbh I'll remember it for the slip above all else. A defining moment along with the capitulation against Palace.

Similar as to when we blew it against Everton in that 4-4 game that ultimately handed City the title.

Come on Missy. Most Liverpool fans would give their right arm to see the PL title for the first time in over a quarter of a century, however you played. Hell, anyone under 30 has never seen them win the league.
Don't give it all the pretentious "we only want to win it in style" crap. You would take a season of "parking the bus" if it meant the title.

Yet the 74 & 78 Dutch sides are still revered far more than the Argentina and Germany sides that beat them. The 1982 Brazilian side revered more so than the Italy side that beat them.

Who gives a damn about the Greek side that won the Euro's?

I'm not saying its ok to entertain and not win. I'm making the point that it doesnt have to be a choice between the two. You can have both as many sides have proved that to be the case.

The sides that win and entertain, even the sides that lose and entertain are for more remebered than the sides that do not.

Of course, every Liverpool fan would take the title if it meant parking the bus, however people do still remember the teams that entertained even if they didn't win the competition - The Dutch side of the 70's being the prime example.

With regards to Liverpool's 2nd place finish a few season's back, did you see how we defended when we took a lead? Take the Man City and Sunderland games, both games we were 2-0 up, we dropped off the opposition and almost ended up dropping points, there was no way we were going to win the title by parking the bus, we didn't have the players to do it.

Also, you have to look at what we needed to do win the title. I can't remember exactly, but we would have needed 40 out 42 points to win the title after Christmas. We got 37 out of 42, it was a monumental effort and could only have been done playing attacking football.

How sad, but still, some oppositions will only look at negatives.

Chelsea won the league last year, by playing good, attacking football in the first half of the season, and defending well in the second.

Balance is key. That's why Liverpool didn't win the league. That, and the fact that City were better than them.

Why is it 'sad'?

Only Liverpool fans, and the odd neutral, will reminisce about the 'wonderful attacking football', and how they 'nearly' won the league.

The rest of us will remember that they weren't good enough, despite the efforts of one player.

I see it as more Mourinho reverted to type as that's what he does. When push comes to shove he will do what his insticts tell him which is enough to win a game.

Each to there own and if that pleases the chelsea faithful so be it but personally I expect more from a team with so many talented players.

The PSG game was the perfect example. The opposition away from reduced to 10 men but Mourinho would not change anything to try and take advantage of that. He was content to try and nick the game when the tie was there for the taking.

We beat Arsenal 8-2 that season, although it was great to watch it was during a season where we had an 8 point lead over City with six games to go.

In the context of that season it became irrelevant.

That may be true, but Liverpool's defence was awful, We almost threw away points against Many City, Sunderland and Norwich by trying to defend a lead. Had we gone 1-0 up in those games and then tried to defend the lead for 60 odd minutes, we'd have had no chance. We couldn't do it under Benitez at times and he was tactically more astute than Rodgers.

They are remembered by neutrals who have no vested interest in the team winning. Its easy to say "That Dutch team was great and I don't mind that it didn't win cos I liked watching them" when you are English and don't really care who wins the WC if its not England. Ask the Dutch population if they would have swapped being a bit more pragmatic in exchange for a couple of World Cup wins and I'll bet you get a different answer.

Who gives a damn about the Greek side? Ask the Greeks who will probably never win a major tournament again and hadn't done so before if it means anything to them. Would they have preferred playing total football and the anonymity of going out in the quarter finals?

As much as Newcastle fans tell you they loved Keegan and the Entertainers (who were everyones second team which is always a bad sign) I have no doubt that shutting up shop and winning a title or two would have ben preferable to heroic failure. As a Chelsea or Liverpool or Man Utd fan its easy to say "ah they were great" when you have nothing riding on it.

Which is fair comment.

But Chelsea have had the players to do it, so to criticise them for using that tactic is churlish, in my opinion.

That stands to reason but that wasnt the point I was making. I'm pretty sure a supporter of Preston North End can roll of player names of there glory years. Generally speaking people prefer to watch a game which is easy on the the eye than say a side managed by Tony Pulis.

I wasn't criticising Chelsea, just sticking up for my team

I see your beloved manager is moaning about the refs again.

Even making reference to a different sport.

Tbf that Rugby ref did have a shocker.

Which has no relevance to a football match.