Chelsea vs. Sunderland: Score, Grades and Post-Match Reaction
If you like own goals, Chelsea's match against Sunderland was right up your alley.
The two teams would trade a pair of own goals before Chelsea took control in the second half, earning a vital 2-1 win that moved them up to third on the table after Tottenham's 2-2 draw against Everton on Sunday.
Chelsea would control much of the possession in the first half, but Sunderland's defense would hold strong, and the Black Cats would look dangerous on the counter-attack in the opening 45.
Despite controlling most of the possession, Chelsea would head into the locker room trailing 1-0. But it wouldn't take Chelsea long to strike.
The Blues weren't finished.
Chelsea would nearly make it three after a Juan Mata flick would set Oscar free in space, who would then cross toward Torres. The Spaniard's header would fly just over the bar, however.
After that, Chelsea settled back more defensively, and Sunderland wasn't able to break through for the equalizer. With the loss, Sunderland remains perilously close to the relegation zone, currently in 17th place with 31 points on the season.
Fernando Torres, Chelsea: A-
Stephane Sessegnon and Adam Johnson, Sunderland: B
Sessegnon and Johnson were Sunderland's two most dangerous players on the afternoon—namely in the first half, when Sunderland's counter-attacks looked truly threatening—but neither could quite find the last bit of skill needed to put the ball in the net.
Oscar, Chelsea: B+
Oscar wasn't terribly dangerous in the first half, but boy oh boy, did he seem to pop up everywhere in the second frame.
It was his shot that deflected into the goal off of Kilgallon, and Oscar teamed up with Mata and Torres on several occasions in the second half to prompt the Chelsea attack forward. Oscar has flashed moments of pure brilliance for Chelsea this season, and he continues to prove why he deserves to remain in the starting 11.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?