test

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.

Peace.

Members
  • Content count

    3,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peace.

  • Rank
    Star Player
  • Birthday 05/02/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Paris
  • Fan Since 2004

Recent Profile Visitors

3,610 profile views
  1. 21. Nemanja Matic

    And in regards to the usefulness that Marshal Matic could be to us, I beg to differ. On the bench, you need a series of different kinds of player — kinds of player which the Serbian Gliding Machine is not. You need one or two experienced players that can add that little extra thanks to their years of experience at top flight level, but also because their are characters that other less experienced players can rally behind. This is something that can be said of Fabregas (and also explain why he should be on the bench and not in the first team — or Pedro for that matter). This is also why Danni Alves would have been a good player to have. You also need one or two jack-of-all-trades which can allow you to have flexibility during games and in-between them. And how God, the Serbian Magician is anything but that — actually, aside of maybe Courtois, he is the most unidimensional player we have at our disposal. On the contrary, Pedro, Willian and Alonso nay Moses are players that fit the bill. Additionally, it is important to have one or two "specialists", that is, a player that has some type of quality in abundance. The best thing would be to have an attacking player with a lot of speed and/or trickeries to add dynamics late in the games where we need to score. On the contrary, a big, tall and strong defensive minded player to close the game when we have to — and that who is a good header as well. The Serbian Control Tower may be tall but he is not strong, nor dynamic or good with his head (and not only to strike the ball !!). Finally, you need a Super Pipo to nick goals every now and then — and Super Pipo, Super Matic is not. The Serbian Superstar is none of that. He is a terrible player for the first team and an even more terrible player for the bench. He is a painfully average player with no significant and glaring quality aside of looking gauche ; a player that should play in a midtable team God knows where.
  2. 21. Nemanja Matic

    If we are talking about our best player, then yes it should be mandatory to not sell him to an English team. In any other case, if the offer is good, then we should sell him. The situation with de Bruyne has shown us that doing this kind of calculation is inefective and that if an English team realy wants one of our players, they will buy him anyway one year later from that foreign team. Had we sold him directly to Manchester City, the current situation would have been the same nonetheless — aside of us having 30 million pounds additional in our pockets. So let's keep Matic, and what will happen ? Manchester United will regardless buy another midfielder — a midfielder that might be better than the Serbian Marshal. And as for us, we will have on our hands a player who is, a fortiori, not desired ; and who thus will waste a place in the squad. So then let's sell him abroad for a lesser price ! Manchester United will nonetheless get their new midfielder — a midfielder that, once again, might be better than Matic. And if the Madlić of midfielders is truly desired by Manchester United, they will buy him one year later. End result : at best, they have their midfielder and we win a hefty amount of money ; at worst, they will have their midfielder nonetheless and we will have nothing but a non desired player on our hands. This kind of scheming amounts to pissing in the wind or to try to stop a brook with your bare hands. It is useless, it does not work and is probably a waste of incomes more than anything. As for the notion of "helping" them, it is highly debatable — if anything, it is more probably a disservice. On the contrary, a real "help" which we could provide them with would be to keep a crippling liability. So let them have their Serbian Marshal as it would not change a damn thing on the big picture and let us get rid of this average player and have good money — and most importantly, let us enjoy intricate interplays between Post-Afro Fellaini and Marshal Matic.
  3. 21. Nemanja Matic

    That is paranoia. The same was said for Mata — since then we won two PL while Manchester United finished respectively 7th, 5th, 4th and 6th... When de Bruyne signed for Manchester City, it was all doom and dark. They finished 3rd and 4th... The same goes for Sturridge and Gallas — and probably many others that I do forget. Basically, when was the time we let one of our player go to a direct rival and had to pay the price afterward ? Had we been talking about Hazard, such a paranoia could be justified, but come on... People on this forum love to freak out, my word. Let them have our Serbian Marshal. I am looking forward to see a midfield-three of Matic-Pogba-Fellaini — it will be a sight to behold.
  4. 21. Nemanja Matic

    He is not the only one — me too, I have seen the epiphany. It is like in Dragon Ball Z, where San Goku is so fast and so strong, that when he fights against opponents that are on par with him, all of his friends cannot see what is happening as it is too quick for their eyes. This is the same for Matic. What he does is so quick, so subtle and so refined that nearly nobody can appreciate what he is doing on the pitch, aside of a few connoisseurs. Actually you should search for that interview of Pep Guardiola, where he talks in depth about his team at Barcelonna. He explains that he was desperate to sign the Serbian genius, but unfortunatly, could not. As a consequence, he was left with no other choices than to allocate Matic's role between his three midfielders (Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets). And while everyone consider this midfield-three to be one of the best midfield in history, Guardiola stresses very intensively, in his interview, that he was still not satisfied as he had to use three players (Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets) to do the job which could have been done by only one (Matic). He even admitted that he and del Bosque had a secret plan to try and fashion Sergio Busquets into the same mold as Matic — needless to say, it did failed. Ancelotti too, has had a lot of nice words towards our Serbian Marshal. Just the other day, when he was discussing his failure here at Chelsea, he told the reporter that it was undoubtedly due to the critical mistake of having sold Matic to Benfica. To have lost Matic was what made the difference between a winning team scoring 103 goals and a team that painfully finished second ex-æquo. As for Mourinho, well, after we won the League he made the mistake to give the creative duty to Hazard — and it backfired greatly as we fell one point above the relegation zone. I hope Conte does not make the same mistake and that he is able to see the crucial importance — and no words strong enough do exist to emphasize enough the importance — that Matic represents for the team.
  5. 19. Diego Costa

    What were you expecting, guys ? The time to sell him was this past January month. Now it is too late. He is a player which is no longer desired at his club and who no longer desire to stay there ; and moreover he has been heavily inconsistent during his time here while not improving one iota. Throw in the fact that he is not a player with a big marketing value and that teams are not queuing to acquire him, and you have on your hands a player that will be sold at a low price and/or for a price lesser than his previous purchase price. Remember, he was bought for only 32 million pounds — a loss of 6 million pounds is not "derisory" in light of the situation, quite the contrary actually. All we can do now is to do "damage control" and hope we can lose only marginal money in regards to the amount we spent to get him. Actually his situation echoes that of Fabregas at Barcelona : a player who was no longer desired, who was inconsistent and who did not improve one inch. If I do recall correctly, the spaniard was sold for something between five and ten millions less than he was bought. In this regard, 26 million pounds for him appears to me as a fair deal. And to be honest, if the offer is true, we should let it go ; and instead of penny-pinching for a few bucks, we should be clever and negociate with Atletlico some kind of "first purchase option" for one of their players, or something along the lines.
  6. Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang

    If he receives that much hate, it is because : he is globally the only member of the "board" who makes public appearances, and thus the only face toward which to direct our frustation. I mean, who even know who is David Barnad ? And who is able to put a face or a function on the name Tenenbaum ? he is associated with negative events. He bursted onto the scene when Wilkins was fired — an event that did coincide with our "Bad Moment©" —, and he was the one who announced the departure of Mourinho. On the other hand, Martina appeared when we signed Luiz & Torres which gave her a lot of credit. his buddy Ron Gourlay — who used to received just as much hate as what Emenalo is receiving this days — is gone ; and with that departure he took his place as the guy to hate. Adding to that the fact we have absolutly no clue about what is going on in our administration, Emenalo is basically the only one person fans do have to express their frustration — only person other than Roman Abramovich himself, but bitting the hand that feed you is not something easy to be done. It has nothing to do with what you mention...
  7. The Conte Thread

    I do not think it is the case. Actually, the problem would not be that we have a "mandat" which would prevent us to exceed a certain amount of money — but would be in reality a problem of strategy/tactic, both in how we are conducting negotiotions and the players we aim. Evidences lead me to believe that this state of affair is due to a series of reasons such as : Trying to be smart arse — which leads the negotiations to be dragged on forever. We start with very low bids and only increase it by a few pounds each time. At the end, when we finally make a sensible bid, it is simply too late because : (i) the mercato has ended ; (ii) it is too late in the window for the "selling" club to find any replacement ; (iii) or because they have already sold too many "key" players ; (iv) the "selling" club, and more importantly, the aimed player, are getting bored and frustrated (when you do not know whether the club that wants to buy you will one day make a suitable bid for you, it is hard as a player to put pressure on your board to be sold). We have examples such as Modric and Coulibaly. Had we bid, in 2011 (?), £40m at the start of the window, Tottenham would have had time to find a good replacement for him and maybe Modric, seeing our heavy interest, would have been more vocal about his desire to leave (and thus "forcing" the hand of Levy). Instead, we waited the last days to make this offer while it was very clear it was not happening.... The same goes for Coulibaly. Had we bid £50m at the start of the transfert window and before they sold Higuain to the Juventus, we would have likely had more chance to sign him. Another consequence of this is that we can absolutely not participate to a bidding war... which make us unable to sign a great number of players. Aiming at the wrong player at the wrong time — for instance, Pogba. We made an offer to the Juve quite similar to the one made by United the following year, yet it did not work, simply because they would not sell him as they had already lost too many key players. Quite generally, we seem obstinate to aim at players who are not available, yet when they are, we are no longer interested. We have spent summer(s) — and more — to pursue players such as Modric, Coulibaly, Pogba, Aguero etc... when it was pretty clear they were unavailable — and when they were, we were nowhere to be seen. So yeah, I do not think the problem is the amount of money we can spend but how we inted to spend it. At the end of the day, we have to revisit radically our transfer policies. They have never been good, but back in the days, 25 million pounds could buy you great players — not today. We need coherence and continuity (i.e. not courting Aguero for five years only to buy Torres when he was finally available) ; and most importantly. we need to understand that buying three average players for £30m does not equal to buying a great player for £90m...
  8. Romelu Lukaku

    To be frank there is nothing impressive in that video and his "ultimate" skills are quite banal, to say the least. Not only that, but there are dozens of "skills" and moves that have genuinely nothing to do in a "skills compilation" video — and the fact that they are nonetheless included speaks volume about the technical abilities of the said player. He may be a good goalscorer but he is also an average football player. Here, he will most likely get the goals yet will not improve whatsoever the team as a whole, which is kind of problematic isn't it. This is not the profil of player that top teams should target to lead their front line — or to play anywhere within the starting eleven, for that matter —, but alas we seem to be unable to shot above that height...
  9. Aymeric Laporte

    To be frank, the reasons for which Dechamps does not selection Benzema are not due to footbalistic aspects but it is due to the fact that his personality is toxic ; and in that he only does what should have been done a long time ago. I know you rate him and would "like" to have him in the team, but we should not even touch him with sticks, and thus for the very same reasons.
  10. Politics & Stuff

    Is he comparing Mexicans to mindless titans ? Or to those that want to "destroy humanity" ? Oh my God, some people just do not realize...
  11. 10. Eden Hazard

    This is the internet's fault. Ten years ago, most people would watch a dozen of games at best per season while only the few fortunates were able to see all the games (i.e. those who were going to game). And most importantly, those people who could watch only a few games per seasons were watching the best games : the Champions League, el Clasico, the Milan derby, etc... (or th internaitonal games that were still quality back then). On the other hand, nowadays there are literally millions of people and their dogs that can see all the games of their team via streaming and that can rewatch them via download. So while before you were only recalling the good things as it was a joy to watch games, now it has become a routine and "annoying" things are harder to dismiss...
  12. Politics & Stuff

    People are (over) mentioning notions such as « Fascism » and « Nazism » without fully understanding what they are talking about (that is if they understand anything at all). These are big words that sound nice and that have the advantage to confer their users the upper moral ground and which are very cool to bring up. However, using them outside their historical context make these notions irrelevant and trying forcibly to use them in order to describe present political systems is meaningless. By the way, if we do really insist to use these terms to describe today's reality, people would be very surprised with the results (i.e. who would be the "nazi" and who would be the "fascist"). P.S. oops, sorry for the triple comment, I did not realize..
  13. Politics & Stuff

    It is not surprising in the slightest. Actually it seems that a lot of Arabs in the past considered themselves as white people. And now you are saying it, I believe that I have also encountered in some book a 13th century or so muslim saying the same thing (regarding their Prophet)... Unfortunately I have not my book at proximity to give you the reference. And by the way, a lot of them are just as white as Europeans, if not more for some of them (especially those who live around the Mediterranean sea) !!
  14. Politics & Stuff

    I do perfectly understand very well the trouble you — or that any American — can have regarding Trump’s rhetoric. Since you are yourself an American I am not sure whether you have the insight to realize that, but as a person extern to your society I can tell you that American's — just as the whole Anglo-Saxon world's — discours is wrapped into heavy layers of political correctness. In this regard, it is only « normal » that Trump’s bluntness is unsettling for U.S. citizens. Of course white people don’t want to be compared with Dylan Roof — just as they do not want to be compared with Hitler or the so fantasied « nazis ». This is the problem in our occidentals societies : you cannot express freely your opinions as anytime you deviate from the religiously imposed official discours — a discours that benefit the monopolistic class, i.e. very few of us —, you are associated to the darkest hours of our history. This is social control at its utmost ! This is by the way the very for which modern « democracies » have outlived most dictatures out there : civilians are policing civilians themselves (what happened at Berkeley is the perfect illustration) ; at the contrary, to control civilians through military forces might gives you a better direct power, yet it also gives you less room for manœuvre (for instance, it is very difficult for China to attack even the weakest of its neighbors because it cannot afford any « faux pas » since it cannot put the blame on Bush, or Obama, or Trump and then change its leader). This is why you and the overwhelming majority of people just cannot take the plunge and point to the root of the problem : islam. And the more the situation goes on, the more people have even trouble to identify them as « radical » muslims and would rather use poorly thought excuses such as « he was oppressed » or that they are « manics » — and even that they are not muslims. Do we really believe that wars are won by downgrading our enemies, by considering them just as some nutcases in the wild and by disregarding their motivations and what they have to say ? Do you picture your country in 1941, after seeing the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, to say « oh, they are not real Japanese — real Japanese do not kill. They are just lunatics. Let's stay cozily at home ». I know that this issue (that is the our problems with islam) is a very sensible one. So to illustrate it, I will take a few examples coming from our very societies. I am pretty sure you are aware of the situation in Congo where occidentals big companies are exploiting Africans (a lot of times they are only kids) in order to have a cheap access to cobalt and do a lot of profit by selling us smartphones. Well, if I ask you who are the culprit, you will most certainly answer that it is those big companies — and you would be right. Yet would those firms exploit young Africans if us Occidentals would not need cobalt — or even better, if we refused to buy it ? Of course not. In that sense I am also culprit because I have a computer and a smartphone ; you are also culprit because you have a computer and a smartphone. The only difference between those companies and us is that they are the minority and they are active and we "the people" are the majority and are passive. At the end of the day, it stems from our societies and from our way of life. Another example are the numerous wars and political destabilizations that Western countries have perpetrated over the world. Once again if we quickly look at it, there are what, a few thousands of people at best that have an active role in those (I mean those who takes the decision, not the militaries on the ground) ? Yet as the previous case, it also stem from our societies. I mean, look — had Obama run for the presidential for a third time, he would have been elected despite having bombed seven countries (the very same on which Trump declared a ban). It is the case for you Americans but it is also the case for us French : who voted for someone that destroyed Libya to then vote for someone who destabilized Syria. All in all, despite our relative « innocence », what our governments are doing is just a product of our societies. Well, I am aware that my analogies have their own limitations and that they are not the sharpest — I am very far away from having the same fluency in English that I do in French. What I am trying to show you is that we cannot understand what our governments and companies are doing by dissociating them context — this is us and our societies. And this is the same thing with islamic violence throughout the muslim world but also in our western societies. With have to understand — and most special to accept — that everything come in a bundle, the good things just as the bad things. Well in truth we know it, at least when it comes to us. The two issues I raised above are known by a lot of people amongst us ; we are a lot to condemn this actions and there are even people that take proud in indulging self-blaming. And even though our protests are inefficient as the system we ourselves built is very hard to escape, we are aware of it and we are saying it (it is a first step although clearly not sufficient). Now it is time for us to come out of our bubble — which is in fact not very different from our « we will civilize the world » 19th century bubble — and accept that other people are like us. We do not have the monopoly over the Original Sin and they are not some kind of poor and innocent creatures unable to do any wrongs. Yes the problem of the muslim terrorists stems from islam and therefore islam is the root of the problem — those countless terrorists are not shooting « God save the Queen » but « Allah Akbar ». That is true. We cannot act as if both of disconnected or as if it was a lunatic minority. There is Al-Qā’Idah, Al-Qā’Idah in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qā’Idah in the Maghreb, the Islamic State, Jabhat al-Sham (AQ in Syria), Boko Haram, Jemaah Islamiyah, Al-Shabbaab, those in the Caucase/Russia (I do not remember their name), etc, etc… In terms of numbers and geography, the problem is real and huge. Moreover, the Muslim Brotherhood was democratically elected in Egypt, in Tunisia they have a lot of support, etc… We can no longer close our eyes and act as if everything was fine — and have to start to call a cat a cat. Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people. Does holding such a discours mean to demonize all of the muslims ? Does it equates to believe that all of them have a knife between the teeth and are only awaiting to slice our throat ? No, absolutely no. This is a ridiculous idea and in fact we come back to the problem I was referring to in the start of my comment. We cannot hold any discussion without our opinion being dramatically radicalized by people. The majority of muslim are normal people like you and me — the problem is that there is a strong minority who are very bad people. But you know, I am not even advocating to impose them to change their culture. If islam is an ideology that suits them, good for them — and this is okay for me. This is their culture, their civilization, their community and their countries, they do want they want. However this is hugely problematic when you have millions of muslims in Europe ! And especially when you have an increasingly number of jihadists that come from these muslims community settled in Europe that kills European citizens in the name of Islam (plus the foreigners). This is a huge problem, we cannot allow that. And in that respect, they have to do something to dramatically reform their islam if they want our hospitality. In addition, 700 « french » jihadists went to Syria, 700 ! And for each one of them theta wen there, how many could not and how many did not have the courage ? It only goes on to show the extent of the problem ; and what will we do when those war veteran come back from their jihad ? We have to understand that Islam is an ideology which is utterly intolerant towards pagans, jews, christians, etc… — basically any kind of religion which is not islam. Bad news, we westerners are fitting this description. And even within itself their is high intolerance towards those who are not practicing it the right way (shi’a muslims). This is without even mentioning it does not held women in high estime. And even though most of muslims are not adhering into those intolerant views, a lot of them are too happy to put them into execution — those latter being legitimized by their book (and it is sometimes very hard to not say they are right if we take their book as postulat). Regarding the intolerance contained within the koran and the inherent dangerousness of this ideology, I do not ask you to believe me. Read that book for yourself. You should also download some magazines published by Al-Qā’Idah (in the Arabian Peninsula) and the IS and compare those with what is written in the koran. You will see that their « radical » ideology does not come from nowhere. But yet again, I encourage to do it by yourself. Moreover, trivial things such as eating only halal meat comes or putting an islamic blanket over women comes hand in hand with going into jihād against those « infidels swine » — it is in the very same book. If you are still perplex, here is an example. Before the years 2000s, in France there were next to no women wearing the islamic veil, and for the few of them who did, it was only covering the head (with nice colors and textiles !), it was discreet — and guess what was also very scarce ? Islamic terrorist attacks !!!! Today, there is a fucking lot of women that wear the islamic veil, but not the discreet and colored one — the integral and black one. Sometimes when I walk in some neighborhoods (I am not even talking about the « banlieue », but intramuros Parisian neighborhoods), I do wonder if I did not have mistakenly ended up in Al-Raqqa… Once again, guess what has become more common in France ? Islamic terrorist attacks. To conclude my long comment, I wish to stress the fact that the debate is not about saying we are the good and they are the bad nor about demonizing all muslims. However and it is undeniable — you just have to look what happens in the out there — we have a problem with islam and islam has a problem with us. Moreover this is not something new as it has been the case ever since islam came into existence centuries ago. And from this situation we have to learn a few things : (i) destabilizing muslims countries is not a very clever things to do as every time bad things happen (the IS is the perfect illustration) ; (ii) proximity between islam and western societies usually means a lot of tensions between the two civilizations ; (iii) islam is not compatible with western societies ; (iv) the contrary is also true so we should stop to try to impose them our way of life ; … … (v) if we want to tackle efficiently the terrorism problem, we should start to call a cat a cat and talk about the root of the « radical » islam, that is the « moderate » islam — until then, we should not be surprised if an Occidental president has an « anti-muslim » rhetoric and takes, he too, « radical » politic and military actions. P.S. Once again, as I know that my comment will be undoublty be misinterpreted, I want to stress that I am not saying they are bad people while us are the supreme good. Islam is a dangerous ideology for us westerners because it is inherently intolerant against us (we will go to hell, we are sinners, blabla, « Allah is surely an enemy to the infidels [i.e. us] », blablabla) — that is, for *us*. If muslims are muslims since ten centuries ago, this is probably because this is what is suitting them the most — and this is perfectly fine to me as I do understand that having different civilizations/people implies having different ideologies and different way of life. Yet we have to understand that a forced and "imposed" cohabitation in close proximity as it is the case today does not work neither for them nor for us. Not everyone is meant to co-exist, we just have to accept it. P.S.2. diversity + proximity usually means conflicts (to not say wars). P.S.3. There is probably a lot of typo mistakes, but this comment box is the pain in a ass when it comes to write long comments and especially to check them !
  15. Politics & Stuff

    Well, you probably know more than me as you are in the U.S., yet from what I see on the internet and in France, I would rather say that those teacher are not faking it. Actually, they are loving it — they love the mental power they have over their students. Imagine just an instant the feeling that one can feel when hordes of young people are buying everything you can talk about ; or when a light sparks up in their eyes when you tell them who is behind all atrocities in this world and they are feeling so gratefull to you ; or when you can indoctrinate them to further your own personal agenda, which give you a nice little army of zealots ; etc... — this "empowerment" must be thrilling ! And how could you not care for those you give you the impression to be important ? (this last remark is at a lesser extent true for every one of us).