Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and log in to join the CFC discussion! ×

A Case Against Signing Radamel Falcao

CHOULO19

By CHOULO19,
in Articles

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Korea

Korea 734

Posted
Posted

Why can't they play as lone fowards? Thierry Henry was a winger for years, look what he became.

your right bout Henry... However, the main point was that Lukaku would not fit the main forward for Chelsea formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coolhead23

coolhead23 1,146

Posted
Posted

A Case Against Signing Radamel Falcao

Rumours of Radamel Falcao joining Chelsea have been tediously pouring down on our heads for the best part of two years since the appointment of AVB at Stamford Bridge. In fact, if you believe the papers, we’ve already signed him on 5 or 6 different occasions since the summer of 2011. But realistically, Chelsea have probably not even been close to signing the Colombian for reasons that were much more obvious than the media would have us believe. But in the upcoming summer window, a marque striker signing does seem to be on the cards for Chelsea if we chose to part ways with Fernando Torres. So, should we be looking to sign the highest profile and most expensive striker in the world at the moment?

I wholeheartedly disapprove. Here is why:

Is Falcao suited for Chelsea?

We, here at Chelsea, have knack for buying very good, very expensive strikers and turning them into useless garbage, so I think, if we want to get another expensive striker, we should first ask ourselves: Is he likely to fit at Chelsea?

Now Falcao is an excellent finisher, one of the best in the world atm; no one can deny that. But he likes to play on the shoulders of defenders, facing the goal. He needs spaces to be at his best. Athletico are a very solid and organized team; they have the best defense in La Liga. They use this asset in most games to defend first then play on the counter. Even Porto played a counter attacking game under AVB that is very similar to Mourinho's Chelsea. At Chelsea, however, the system will be completely different since most teams will be happy to sit back and give us possession while they park 10 players behind the ball which leaves little room for Radamel to utilize his explosive pace.

Moreover, while his 40-50 goals a season are impressive to say the least, they have required the teams he plays in, be it Madrid or Porto, to play a system that is centred around the striker. They employ direct traditional wingers who are constantly putting crosses into the box for Falcao to finish off. We, on the other hand, have spent quite the fortune on some of the best young attacking midfielders who like to drift centrally and combine together near the opposition's penalty area. And for them to do so effectively, they need a striker who either runs away from the danger area, like Torres does, and creates space behind him or someone like Ba who is excellent at his hold-up play and can get involved in the link-up with his back to goal to great effect. This role is completely strange to Radamel who almost never does that.

Now I don’t claim that Falcao will turn into another Torres or Sheva, but based on the above, I would say that Radamel is not the most likely striker to fit well at Chelsea.

Should we spend all that money on Falcao?

Bringing Falcao to the bridge will cost quite a lot of money. I will attempt to figure out how much approximately that is in the next paragraph, but let us first ask ourselves if we should be spending big on a striker in the summer.

I believe our biggest priority, right now, should be to invest in our midfield. This is because, firstly, the strength of Chelsea has always been in the middle of the park. And secondly, we currently have a very thin squad that we’ve had to play a defender at central midfield at times, while some of our attackers (Mata in particular) have been run to the ground by our hectic schedule and lack of rotation options. And with some of our senior players like Lampard, JT, and Cole likely leaving in the next couple of seasons, we do seem to have more pressing priorities in the transfer market.

To keep it short, I would much rather see us sign a good central midfielder to partner Mikel in the pivot along with 2-3 squad players than spend that kind of money on one striker.

Can we even afford to buy Falcao?

We’ve all been told scary tales about the FFP rules that are going to be implemented, and while I don’t believe they are the horror movie some are making them out to be, FFP rules are very much a reality, as our friends at Malaga will no doubt tell you. So gone are the days where we could spend 50m on a player and not give it another thought. Hence, here is a quick glance at the financial feasibility of signing Falcao:

Now Athletico have been rumoured to price Radamel at a staggering 50m. And recently, British newspapers claimed that Radamel is demanding a ridiculous wage of 250k/wk. Over 5 years, that amounts to 65m! Now those numbers are probably exaggerated, but even if they are so, can we afford to make something like a 90m investment over five years or 18m per year?

To put that into perspective, last year, despite winning the CL and receiving a reported 47m as reward, we just about broke even and made a profit less than 1 million pounds. This year, however, our exit from the CL means that we will only be getting around 9m at best (I made a detailed post back in December about this which I can’t find right now). We’ve also invested heavily in the past summer in quite a lot of players, the most expensive of whom are Hazard (32m) and Oscar (25m), and whose fees we are likely to still be paying in the next couple of years since fees this big are usually divided along the contract period. Meaning, despite us adding some sponsorship deals last season like Gazprom and Subaru, our balance books are probably not very balanced atm.

Admittedly, most of those numbers are mere speculations and no one knows the exact numbers except for the club, itself. But considering the money we will need to be spending in the market on other players, I think it is fair to assume that we probably can’t sign Falcao and still be in EUFA and Platini’s good books in regards to FFP.

More logical options available:

Finally, and most importantly, there are plenty of other options on the market who have much better value for money and could do the required job at Chelsea.

Cavani is an option who is likely to work well at Chelsea. His price, however, is not much cheaper than Radamel. Leandowiski offers great value for money, and seems to be a favourite among the Chelsea fans. Other options include Wilfried Bony, Dzeko, Aspas..etc We should also remember that we have a 20yo striker on loan who’s found the net on thirteen occasions this season already.

So, to sum up, while Radamel Falcao maybe the most prized striker in the world right now, bringing him to Stamford Bridge, seem to me as one of the worst decisions we could make on many levels.

Great article, someone making complete sense with good analysis.

The problem is we DON'T NEED A STRIKER - our striker is used as a diversion for the midfielders to score...

Lukaku will be more than fine to lead CFC line with BA and Torres as nobody is buying him lol.

With Lukakus pace and power he will open up Soooooo much space for our midfielders to exploit and score.

This is why big name Strikers never work for us - we don't play that way, we channel as a team, not through a target man...

Edotard said it best - Lukaku is the answer!

Give this guy a chance with the trio behind him and he will be a beast! He can score but also create soooo much room! He's scored shit loads for WBA and they have 1/2 the players we do!

Cannot believe people are writing him off so quickly - just look at him this season, getting better and better. In 2 years we will be like Falcao who? Cavanni what? ;)

Had to add this quote to the main one because this is bang on!

Enough said!

Mail this to the board/owner/or whoever is in charge of transfers stating that big name strikers would prosper the way they are suppose to with our current system. Invest in the right place and look at the resources we have on hand before jumping into the transfer pool

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stingray

Stingray 9,441

Posted
Posted

The problem is we DON'T NEED A STRIKER - our striker is used as a diversion for the midfielders to score...

Lukaku will be more than fine to lead CFC line with BA and Torres as nobody is buying him lol.

With Lukakus pace and power he will open up Soooooo much space for our midfielders to exploit and score.

This is why big name Strikers never work for us - we don't play that way, we channel as a team, not through a target man...

Edotard said it best - Lukaku is the answer!

Give this guy a chance with the trio behind him and he will be a beast! He can score but also create soooo much room! He's scored shit loads for WBA and they have 1/2 the players we do!

Cannot believe people are writing him off so quickly - just look at him this season, getting better and better. In 2 years we will be like Falcao who? Cavanni what? ;)

Agree!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TrippingStep

TrippingStep 336

Posted
Posted

Very down to Earth mate! Great Article! :)

Some points I disagree though:

I think we have been close to sign him, it just didnt happen.

I think we CAN afford him, but only if we let go of some players. Torres, Lampard and JT's clause. Which is absurd, but we can!

Buying Cavani doesnt mean Lukaku wont have space here, they have an 8 year gap. We have plenty games to rotate.

I also dont believe Lewandoski is any better than having Lukaku + Ba.

And Lukaku could be the forward we use when we are happy to sit back and let him run on the spaces the other team would leave.

But for me Lukaku does not fit like Cavani would. Cavani is used to the latin european and south american style of playing football that would fit our attacking midfielders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CHOULO19

CHOULO19 24,332

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'm sorry I can't reply to every one, but here a few extra notes about the points mentioned in this topic:

- If we are going to stick with 4-2-3-1 which seems very likely, I think the board are intent on only having two strikers. I can actually see their point, 3 players with one position will result in someone being unhappy with the playing time he will get.

- We do not need a world class striker. We have never relied only on our striker to score. We have goals everywhere in the team. I think someone like Ba can easily get 25-30 goals in all competitions per season with the likes of Mata and Hazard behind him.

- We don't need a poacher. First, most teams that play against us sit deep and overload their box with defenders. Second, our attacking midfielders, which our team should be built around, are at their best when the striker gets involved in build-up play and attracts defenders and creates space behind him for them to exploit. Asking them to hug the line to put in crosses would be a complete waste of their abilities.

- I can see a case for Lukaku staying at WBA for another season. We tend to harshly judge our players, especially if they are young. If he goes on a run of bad form, everyone will be on his back. He is learning a lot and getting game time at WBA. Would be better for his development to stay at WBA, imo. That said, I don't mind him returning since he can help the team next season.

- People are forgetting that Torres is not likely to leave in the summer. I mean, who on earth would pay his wages?!

- Based on all of the above, I don't think we will be signing a pure striker in the summer, especially if Lukaku returns. We could use, however, someone similar to Anelka who can play as a striker or in the three behind. Jovetic and Villa come to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Strike

Strike 6,961

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry I can't reply to every one, but here a few extra notes about the points mentioned in this topic:

- If we are going to stick with 4-2-3-1 which seems very likely, I think the board are intent on only having two strikers. I can actually see their point, 3 players with one position will result in someone being unhappy with the playing time he will get.

- We do not need a world class striker. We have never relied only on our striker to score. We have goals everywhere in the team. I think someone like Ba can easily get 25-30 goals in all competitions per season with the likes of Mata and Hazard behind him.

- We don't need a poacher. First, most teams that play against us sit deep and overload their box with defenders. Second, our attacking midfielders, which our team should be built around, are at their best when the striker gets involved in build-up play and attracts defenders and creates space behind him for them to exploit. Asking them to hug the line to put in crosses would be a complete waste of their abilities.

- I can see a case for Lukaku staying at WBA for another season. We tend to harshly judge our players, especially if they are young. If he goes on a run of bad form, everyone will be on his back. He is learning a lot and getting game time at WBA. Would be better for his development to stay at WBA, imo. That said, I don't mind him returning since he can help the team next season.

- People are forgetting that Torres is not likely to leave in the summer. I mean, who on earth would pay his wages?!

- Based on all of the above, I don't think we will be signing a pure striker in the summer, especially if Lukaku returns. We could use, however, someone similar to Anelka who can play as a striker or in the three behind. Jovetic and Villa come to mind.

i hope the 3rd striker can cover the right wing position as we have Hazard on the left and Mata at CAM as definite first choice.

also hope that we don't get depth in attack horribly wrong like Moses this season. He added no depth to attack despite people saying he can play as striker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NishC300

NishC300 1,865

Posted
Posted

A Case Against Signing Radamel Falcao

Rumours of Radamel Falcao joining Chelsea have been tediously pouring down on our heads for the best part of two years since the appointment of AVB at Stamford Bridge. In fact, if you believe the papers, we’ve already signed him on 5 or 6 different occasions since the summer of 2011. But realistically, Chelsea have probably not even been close to signing the Colombian for reasons that were much more obvious than the media would have us believe. But in the upcoming summer window, a marque striker signing does seem to be on the cards for Chelsea if we chose to part ways with Fernando Torres. So, should we be looking to sign the highest profile and most expensive striker in the world at the moment?

I wholeheartedly disapprove. Here is why:

Is Falcao suited for Chelsea?

We, here at Chelsea, have knack for buying very good, very expensive strikers and turning them into useless garbage, so I think, if we want to get another expensive striker, we should first ask ourselves: Is he likely to fit at Chelsea?

Now Falcao is an excellent finisher, one of the best in the world atm; no one can deny that. But he likes to play on the shoulders of defenders, facing the goal. He needs spaces to be at his best. Athletico are a very solid and organized team; they have the best defense in La Liga. They use this asset in most games to defend first then play on the counter. Even Porto played a counter attacking game under AVB that is very similar to Mourinho's Chelsea. At Chelsea, however, the system will be completely different since most teams will be happy to sit back and give us possession while they park 10 players behind the ball which leaves little room for Radamel to utilize his explosive pace.

Moreover, while his 40-50 goals a season are impressive to say the least, they have required the teams he plays in, be it Madrid or Porto, to play a system that is centred around the striker. They employ direct traditional wingers who are constantly putting crosses into the box for Falcao to finish off. We, on the other hand, have spent quite the fortune on some of the best young attacking midfielders who like to drift centrally and combine together near the opposition's penalty area. And for them to do so effectively, they need a striker who either runs away from the danger area, like Torres does, and creates space behind him or someone like Ba who is excellent at his hold-up play and can get involved in the link-up with his back to goal to great effect. This role is completely strange to Radamel who almost never does that.

Now I don’t claim that Falcao will turn into another Torres or Sheva, but based on the above, I would say that Radamel is not the most likely striker to fit well at Chelsea.

Should we spend all that money on Falcao?

Bringing Falcao to the bridge will cost quite a lot of money. I will attempt to figure out how much approximately that is in the next paragraph, but let us first ask ourselves if we should be spending big on a striker in the summer.

I believe our biggest priority, right now, should be to invest in our midfield. This is because, firstly, the strength of Chelsea has always been in the middle of the park. And secondly, we currently have a very thin squad that we’ve had to play a defender at central midfield at times, while some of our attackers (Mata in particular) have been run to the ground by our hectic schedule and lack of rotation options. And with some of our senior players like Lampard, JT, and Cole likely leaving in the next couple of seasons, we do seem to have more pressing priorities in the transfer market.

To keep it short, I would much rather see us sign a good central midfielder to partner Mikel in the pivot along with 2-3 squad players than spend that kind of money on one striker.

Can we even afford to buy Falcao?

We’ve all been told scary tales about the FFP rules that are going to be implemented, and while I don’t believe they are the horror movie some are making them out to be, FFP rules are very much a reality, as our friends at Malaga will no doubt tell you. So gone are the days where we could spend 50m on a player and not give it another thought. Hence, here is a quick glance at the financial feasibility of signing Falcao:

Now Athletico have been rumoured to price Radamel at a staggering 50m. And recently, British newspapers claimed that Radamel is demanding a ridiculous wage of 250k/wk. Over 5 years, that amounts to 65m! Now those numbers are probably exaggerated, but even if they are so, can we afford to make something like a 90m investment over five years or 18m per year?

To put that into perspective, last year, despite winning the CL and receiving a reported 47m as reward, we just about broke even and made a profit less than 1 million pounds. This year, however, our exit from the CL means that we will only be getting around 9m at best (I made a detailed post back in December about this which I can’t find right now). We’ve also invested heavily in the past summer in quite a lot of players, the most expensive of whom are Hazard (32m) and Oscar (25m), and whose fees we are likely to still be paying in the next couple of years since fees this big are usually divided along the contract period. Meaning, despite us adding some sponsorship deals last season like Gazprom and Subaru, our balance books are probably not very balanced atm.

Admittedly, most of those numbers are mere speculations and no one knows the exact numbers except for the club, itself. But considering the money we will need to be spending in the market on other players, I think it is fair to assume that we probably can’t sign Falcao and still be in EUFA and Platini’s good books in regards to FFP.

More logical options available:

Finally, and most importantly, there are plenty of other options on the market who have much better value for money and could do the required job at Chelsea.

Cavani is an option who is likely to work well at Chelsea. His price, however, is not much cheaper than Radamel. Leandowiski offers great value for money, and seems to be a favourite among the Chelsea fans. Other options include Wilfried Bony, Dzeko, Aspas..etc We should also remember that we have a 20yo striker on loan who’s found the net on thirteen occasions this season already.

So, to sum up, while Radamel Falcao maybe the most prized striker in the world right now, bringing him to Stamford Bridge, seem to me as one of the worst decisions we could make on many levels.

Gr8 article

Were we ever in his good books?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NishC300

NishC300 1,865

Posted
Posted

I'm sorry I can't reply to every one, but here a few extra notes about the points mentioned in this topic:

- If we are going to stick with 4-2-3-1 which seems very likely, I think the board are intent on only having two strikers. I can actually see their point, 3 players with one position will result in someone being unhappy with the playing time he will get.

- We do not need a world class striker. We have never relied only on our striker to score. We have goals everywhere in the team. I think someone like Ba can easily get 25-30 goals in all competitions per season with the likes of Mata and Hazard behind him.

- We don't need a poacher. First, most teams that play against us sit deep and overload their box with defenders. Second, our attacking midfielders, which our team should be built around, are at their best when the striker gets involved in build-up play and attracts defenders and creates space behind him for them to exploit. Asking them to hug the line to put in crosses would be a complete waste of their abilities.

- I can see a case for Lukaku staying at WBA for another season. We tend to harshly judge our players, especially if they are young. If he goes on a run of bad form, everyone will be on his back. He is learning a lot and getting game time at WBA. Would be better for his development to stay at WBA, imo. That said, I don't mind him returning since he can help the team next season.

- People are forgetting that Torres is not likely to leave in the summer. I mean, who on earth would pay his wages?!

- Based on all of the above, I don't think we will be signing a pure striker in the summer, especially if Lukaku returns. We could use, however, someone similar to Anelka who can play as a striker or in the three behind. Jovetic and Villa come to mind.

How's someone like Callejon? or even trying our even trying Hazard in that position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You

Sure, let me in!
Enter