The Chels

I didn't say in my post that all my conclusions were coming from today's game like you seem to have inferred. I've actually been in favour of the Matic-Fabregas pivot in theory but I'm a little more concerned now basing it on what I have seen so far. Our FBs will go forward more often (I didn't say simultaneously like you've once again inferred) which means we need a more defensively secure pivot but a slow Fabregas (he IS slow) is an easy pressing target for counter-attacking teams. And teams always seem to have very high conversion rates countering us. Not sure why you're getting so defensive but 'I have a feeling...' was not clear enough? I'm not basing it solely on today's game and I didn't say it wouldn't work. I think a 4-3-3- would leave us less exposed defensively (even if it means Ramires has to play which isn't great).

I think we're underestimating the 'smaller' sides in the league tbh. They don't all camp in their own box like West Ham did. I have a feeling if we play a Matic-Fabregas pivot they will press us very hard in the middle of the park (where we'd have little pace) and then counter attack from there. With our FBs bombing forward too this could be a big problem.

Fabregas is a lot weaker defensively than I expected. If we play him in the no. 10 role then what was the point in selling Mata? If we play him in the pivot with the FBs bombing forward, we're screwed. A 4-3-3 is probably the best way to go but Jose will play 4-2-3-1.

He blamed the ref, said he didn't know why we performed so badly and that it might have been fatigue. Not promising at all.

Shots from outside the box (including free kicks) often go awry but can be effective particularly with rebounds and deflections. I think Guardiola's approach of no shots from outside the box is very limiting.

I think his stats are inflated by the fact that he very rarely takes shots from outside the box.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11668/9404800/transfer-news-former-chelsea-star-frank-lampard-joins-manchester-city-in-loan-move To be honest I wouldn't mind if he played against us because we'd be more likely to win

No mention of Ramires in his latest interview though. Even Mikel was mentioned!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2714262/Jose-Mourinho-missing-piece-Chelsea-team-signing-Cesc-Fabregas-writing-wall-Fernando-Torres.html#ixzz39HCHMf4f

Where did you find that pic? It's not on Storm's instagram I don't think.

You know it would be Ramires

The melodramatic responses are not the initial ones on Lampard's move to City but rather the responses to these responses . Frank to City is happening and we'll all have to get used to it.

So City Football Group would not have let him train anywhere else in England? I'm not convinced. Also the idea that he didn't sign with City is increasingly questionable. He most likely would have known that this was always in the pipeline. I still think he's a legend but I'm just disappointed. 'I've donated to the forum and you haven't, hence my argument is superior.' Give it a rest. You always use that line.

Oh sorry I forgot that Man City are going to play Frank every game.

the word you wanted was PUT ..although I wish you would BUT(T) out of this thread

what got your knickers in a twist?

He wasn't just 'dumped' though because he was offered a new contract according to Mourinho. And why would he lie? http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/02/chelsea-legends-frank-lampard-and-ashley-cole-were-offered-new-deals-reveals-jose-mourinho-4819210/

Just because people are discontent with the situation and disappointed in Frank doesn't mean they'd boo or sing songs against him...

'Frank killed my family but it's ok because he's a Chelsea legend 4ever.' Righty-ho mate. Oh you've asked everyone who attends matches what they think, have you?

The ex-girlfriend analogy is laughably bad.

And he will get that chance at City, will he?

...says the one dishing out indirects. This ain't Facebook mate.

You're definitely in the minority there then.

The whole 'we didn't offer him a contract so it's fine' is definitely an example of people trying to rationalise the move.

If we weren't willing to pay £55m (PSG won't want to make a loss) when we actually needed a striker then why would be willing to now having already bought Costa? Never mind the fact that Cavani would just have the same problems here as at PSG. Non-story.