Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peace.

  • Rank
    Star Player
  • Birthday 05/02/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Paris
  • Fan Since 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

2,716 profile views
  1. Riyad Mahrez

    I grab the opportunity to tell you that I am glad that you are back ! This forum really missed you and I hope you stay around !!
  2. Riyad Mahrez

    In a theoritical point of view I am agree with you : as long as we do not improve our defense and our central-midfield — both in terms of attack and defense —, buying quality attacking players will not change a lot of things. Yet on a practical point of view, things might be more complicated. First, as I have mentioned it yesterday on this thread, we are seemingly not interested in buying a central playmaker. All central defenders of quality are unattainable for us — either they are too expensive, their club are not selling, they signed a new contract or are not interested in us. As for the full-back, we seem to be happy with what we have. So indeed it would have been perfect if we could have bought Modric, Bonucci and Alaba (random names), but as of right now, it appears that it will be very, very difficult to dramatically improve our back line and our central midfield (at least for the short/med term). Thus we have to think in terms of opportunities. The advanced-midfield is not the priority yet it still has to be improved — actually, all our departments, bar the goalkeeping position, need to be improved. Therefore, if very good defenders are not available but we have the opportunity the sign a very good attacking player, we should do it even if it is not the priority. Furthermore, mediocrity all over the pitch — or "balance" if we want to be polite — should be avoided like the plague. Pep's Barcelona was that good because Xavi-Busquets-Iniesta was out of this world ; Enrique's Barcelona because Neymar-Suarez-Messi is out of this world. We have to take a clear stance a decide to overpower one of our departments, be it our defense, our midfield or our attack. Yet today all of them are mediocre. Finally, our attacking department is not good enough and there is only Hazard that can make things happen. So having someone else that can share Hazard's burden would not be a lust but a necessity (I am waiting to hold judgment in regards to Batshuyia, but the more the merrier). For all these reasons, if we have the opportunity to sign Mahrez — or any "very" good attacking player —, we should grab it. Of course if the choice is either Bonucci/Modric or Mahrez, we should take the former(s), but I doubt very much we will have this choice.
  3. Didier Drogba

    People will somehow always mention other players yet Drogba has always been our true Leader ; the real driving force behind this team.
  4. Riyad Mahrez

    Of course it would be fantastic if we had the opportunity to get someone like Modric. But we have many problems with that CM position. First, we do not have anybody in our ranks, neither our senior players nor our youngsters — at the exception of Fabregas —, that has the technical ability to play as he central-midfielder. Fabregas as too many weakness to be considered as our "undisputed" central-midfielder (in the sense of playmaker). I believe that he could still be useful, but as a squad player and not as a starting-eleven member. Secondly, it seems that we are not interested to get a central playmaker — now but also in the past. Apart of a few exceptions, we seem to only consider strong and powerful players — and not fine and technical — when it comes to compose our central-midfield. And I do not see it changing. Finally, these kind of players are expensive ; at the exception of the Lady Boy — and despite the rumored bids for Pogba and all —, we never spent more than £32-ish million upon a player. For all these reasons I believe we will not have a central playmaker at the end of August (once again, bar Fabregas but he causes huge problems). In consequence, we have to find an alternative. The solution could of course be from the Academy. However, I do not believe that there is anyone ready to be our undisputed starter — especially for this strategic position. Moreover, I am not even sure that we have anyone good enough at this position in the Academy ?(???) Maybe, just maybe, Mosunda could be that player, but he is on loan right now. And anyway, we do need someone right now, for the short-term, not for the futur (and as Willian is 28, he could be that stop-gap). _____ Additionally, I do not agree with you regarding the fact that it would be wasting Willian's best attributes. "Pace" and "endless energy" were exactly Ramires' best attributes ; yet Ramires was a very poor winger and he excelled as a central midfielder. It happens that Willian is a Ramires with hair and technic — and I am pretty sure that if Ramires had technical ability he would have been devastating midfielder. So why not Willian ?
  5. Riyad Mahrez

    To be honest I do not even consider him as an attacking winger and he has nothing to do that high on the field ; he is a central-midfielder and I am bemused that no one has ever tried to use him as a CM. He is perfect for that role. He has a great engine, a great work-rate and a great pace and thus he could be physically everywhere in that midfield. Moreover, he has a very good and net technic, a very good passing game with a good range of passes, and he does see the passes. The problem is that when he is in the last third of the pitch, he does not have the spontaneity and the spark to make use of his technical ability. However, when he is sitting deep, he can be a very good passer of the ball as he proved many times. If we could use him in a similar fashion that Barça used Xavi or that Madrid is using Modric, I am confident that we would have a really good midfielder in our hands — and this would spare us to research a quality CM which we desperately need and which yet we are not researching for*. With his technic (first touch and passing game), his engine and his stamina, he could make the central midfield his own (he would most certainly not be as good as the aforementioned names, but could be very good good). I am thinking something along these lines : 4-4-2 : Kanté - Willian (central midfield) // Hazard - new winger (wings/attacking midfield) // Costa - Batshuayi 4-2-3-1 : Kanté - Willian // Hazard - new n°10 - new winger // striker 4-3-3 : Kanté - Willian - new CM // Hazard - Costa - Batshuayi etc.... Against the small teams that will sit deep, we could even play a 4-3-3 with Kanté-Fabregas-Willian — in other words, we could make use of Fabregas' passing game without losing too much of work-rate in the midfield and neither be forced to play a donkey to balance Fabregas' defensive deficiencies. Well of course it may fail, but there are many signs that tell us that it would be very well worth to experience it for some times. *It would also settle the dilemma that we have with Cesc.
  6. Paul Pogba

    Yep. And what is more particularly interesting is that Madrid does not seem to be willing to splash that obscene amount of money to get Pogba. If even Florentino Galacticos Pérez himself is not ready to spend big for a player, then it speaks volumes concerning the insane overpricing of Pogba.
  7. 36. Ruben Loftus-Cheek

    I never thought about it but it actually makes sense. RLC is not sufficiently proactive and his technic is not good enough for him to be an attacking-minded midfielders ; he is too passive and does not seem to possess defensive capabilities of interest (i.e. in terms of technic and his tactical nous). In other words, he does not have any future as a midfielder at the highest level and in consequence turning him into a striker seems to be a good opportunity for him — and more importantly for us — to make it at Chelsea.
  8. Romelu Lukaku

    I am afraid that I am as much in the dark as you on the subject... Though I will try to give you a "generic" answer (that should still have some relevance)... Nowadays, before being a sport, football is a profession, an economy. And in today's economy system, it is more easier to get a (high ranked) job if you are an incompetent individual having the right network, knowing the right persons, than to be a competent individual and having no network (that being said, it always have been the case, not solely in the modern society). The perfect example is Bébé from Manchester — he is/was a nobody but had the privilege to have Mendes as his agent. I presume that Lacazette does not have a "good" agent. Then, a player ought to be marketable if he wants to attract big clubs. The Pogba case illustrates very well the fact that you buy hype and not necessarily tangible football skill. Pogba is a good player, that's it ; but he has the appropriate sophisticated haircut and he makes, from time to time, the luxurious trick that is good looking on youtube. If you look at Lacazette, he looks like your average Joe that you could encounter everyday in any French town and he is not really a flashy player. As for France and the Euros, I do not really know... Giroud is playing for Arsenal — i.e. "big club" and the "French connection" — so he is de facto selected. As for Gignac......... To be honest with you, when I saw him on the field (I had not been bothered to look at the team selection for the Euro), I was left bemused....... I could not make out whether I was watching a game from 2010 or something of the sort. I guess he was selected because he had played two years with Marseille when Deschamps were their manager — national teams' managers do seem to prefer to select people they know than people they do not, even if the formers are better than the latters. This is the only rational explaination that I can offer. I guess that Lacazette is one of those talented players that will never make it on the big scene because he has not the right face or not the right name (it reminds me of Riquelme for instance). Well, I believe that I have stated the obvious and I hope that my answer is not that useless for you !
  9. Romelu Lukaku

    We have already a team full of players that are not good enough with the basics (pass, first touch, etc.). We do not need to buy more of those players — we need to get rid of them. Then you have his attitude ; his behavior is questionable both on and off the field. Not only he is a primadonna with a loud mouth and creates a toxic atmosphere (on and off the field), but he also does not invest himself well enough during games. We should stay clear of him.
  10. Politics & Stuff

    Indeed. He most certainly was a person with a weak mentality and personality. A weak man that was brainwashed by the media which are incessantly saying that all the problems of the black community are down to white racism and more specifically down to white cop violence — something which is evidently a lie but that has became a reality because people have repeated it over and over again and because it is what is aired on the news (by the way, this is basic social engineering)1. And because of that, that poor lost soul found a cause to his (mental) problems — the white cops — and found a solution to end those problems — to kill the said white cops. Or maybe... He was a weak man that was used by a shady organisation(s)2 in order to heat up the situation and to widen the rift between people. On the one hand, it encourages "BLM" activists to be more violent against the policemen and on the other hand, it leads the cops (and more generally those who sympathise with the police) to be more resentful towards young black men (especially those who carry guns and those who instinctively confront the police when they are stop by them). Any way... Whether the manipulation was passive or active — direct or indirect — the end result is the same. That individual was led to pour oil upon the fire. This can only lead to more tension and more grudge between two parts of the population. Meanwhile, the monopolistic class drinks its champagne and increases its wealth and its power over the non-monopolistic class. The latter, in the end, only deserves its living conditions — the "oppressed", in their holy ignorance, are only able to bark to themselves. What a pathetic mass. 1 The Alton Sterling case is the perfect example of how the media can spin reality. They can create a tragic situation from what is actually a banal situation ; throughout history, soldiers/policemen have always killed weak people, not because they are this or that, but because this is easy and because there is no repercussion (and I mean that in the case where we assume that those police officers killed Sterling for personal reasons, which is not necessarily the case) — I mean, you could not find a more trivial story. They can create a harmless and lovely Innocent from what is basically a small time criminal. 2 For instance, Soros and the C.I.A. (to name the most renown) have proven many times in the past their sheer talent to manipulate and arm dangerous people in order to destabilize countries and populations.
  11. Riyad Mahrez

    He solely played 11 games this season as right-back and he was obviously uncomfortable there since he was used as a left-back left defender for so long. This is in consequence not the best counter argument. I was obviously refering to the long-term situation.
  12. Riyad Mahrez

    Our right-wing issue will be fixed when we will field a competent right-back.
  13. Politics & Stuff

    If such issues interest you, then you should and go watch a South Park episode of the season 18, the third I believe (called "the Cissy") !
  14. Politics & Stuff

    So nobody is talking about Clinton ? She has basically been found guilty of treason against the State, but she is not prosecuted. The FBI has found 110 emails that contained secret informations and seven of them were "top secret" informations. Moreover she poorly handled her emails and because of that she found herself in positions where enemies of the US could have easily hacked her mail box and stole the top secret informations. She should be charged for trahison. And if you chose to believe her defence, i.e. "I did not know it was secret informations", then at the very least she should be charged for extreme incompetence and should be deemed ineligible for a high public position, especially the presidency of the country. She was the Secretary of State back then, she should have know better than anyone else that it was secret informations, even if there were no big red stamp that read "top secret". Thus if she did not do it on purpose, then this old woman should be deemed as unfit for the presidency. As a Fox News reporter has pointed out, if you let your children inside your car on the parking lot, with all window closed, and that he is harmed by the effects of the sun, you will be prosecuted even if you intended to leave him for one minute and you somehow got lock in the elevator. But of course, you have the US president that starts to attend to Clinton campaign at the very same moment — what a lucky coincidence. You also have James Comey, the FBI director, that sweats like a fat American in the desert, when declaring that Clinton should not be prosecuted. He is not only sweating, but he is also looking on the edge, ready to implode in anger and scream "arrest this fucking traitor of old witch". Yet, despite a ten minutes long "testimony" that incriminates Clinton, Comey concludes by saying she should not be prosecuted... Poor man, he know he is doing wrong, but what could he do ? The most powerful US politician is sitting symbolically and physically next to Clinton — the US Establishment is clearly saving its candidate.
  15. 10. Eden Hazard

    I am starting to believe that a Belgian with a microphone is more dangerous than a muslim with a bomb.