West Ham: Defensively-Brilliant Or Negative And Unattractive Against Chelsea?

After Chelsea huffed, puffed and failed to blow the West Ham down, Jose Mourinho was full of admiration for the Hammers' heart and desire to defend, but also looked a little frustrated with the way that they travelled to Stamford Bridge to snatch a point. It got me thinking, and I'm not sure if I agree. Let's take a look at some of the stats from the game and see if you agree.

Chelsea registered 39 shots during the game but still couldn't score, which is the biggest tally of shots without a goal in the Premier League in 10 years, according to Match of the Day.

For me, Sam Allardyce got his tactics spot on. The Hammers sat behind the ball and allowed Chelsea attack them, knowing that they would have the bodies to frustrate the Blues and break them down.

They threw themselves at every shot, they chased every loose ball and fought for every tackle, and in the end they were rewarded with a point.

If West Ham came to the Bridge to play an open game and attack Chelsea, they would've come unstuck against the stronger players of the hosts, so why would they?

For me, I think they deserve some praise and were defensively-brilliant. What about you?