OhForAGreavsie

I really believe that when the glorious day comes that we find a youngster who the manager really believes in, that kid will be trusted and selected. In terms of technical ability, I believe that RLC is indeed better equipped than Dele Ali. In terms of what the two lads do with their tools however, there is no comparison. Sadly. I think that is a trait which is prevalent in Italian managers; they value experience. Our Italians, Capello with England, and various Italian national team managers have exhibited it.

I nearly clicked the like button but can only agree with half of the last sentence. I think the utility of loans has come to an end for Nat. For me, his options are to convince Antonio that he is ready for a bigger role, accept his current role, or find a new permanent home. I wholeheartedly support everything else you say in the post above.

For what it's worth, I posted, elsewhere, to say that I didn't rate Nemanja after watching clips of him before we signed him first time around. My appraisal then was that he needed far too long on the ball and that he was over fond of flighted passes. Passes which took too long to reach their targets, and which were more difficult for the receiver to control, than if they had been played along the floor. I'd like to claim that at least this makes me consistent about his contribution but, in fact, I was very enthusiastic about his performances in the first six months after his return. In my opinion, he represented a step forward from the players who were the alternatives at the time. Now however, I feel it is time to take another step. Two things to be fair to Nemanja: - 1. He is more selective with the flighted passes now, and does a better job with choosing that route only when it is the best option. In his youth he seemed to do it for style. (Or at least he did in the clips I saw.) 2. In my opinion he is much better suited to the position he switched to at Benfica, than he was to the AM role he was slated for when we first signed him.

Exactly.

Never mind the quality, feel the width eh? There are assists, and then there are assists. They are certainly not created equal. When judging the contribution of any player, it's not a simple matter of measuring his output. Questions have to be asked, and answered. How often does the player do as well as he can have done in a given situation? Can we reasonably expect our starter in that position to do better? Your answers to those questions in Nemanja's case may find in his favour, mine find decisively against him. As for the assists; I've frequently posted the opinion that, when things are in his favour, Nemanja can pick a pass as well as the next professional. It it when things are not in his favour that he frustrates me. When we need someone with the surety of touch, quickness of feet and quality body control to turn a less than perfect situation into an attacking opportunity for our team, Nemanja is not our man. On the majority of occasions that Nemanja comes into possession, a standard, simple, action is exactly what is required and he serves us well in those situations. There are numerous times in each game however where we would benefit from a player with superior attributes and it is those times which make the difference. We hope to qualify for, and be competitive in, the Champions League next season. We will find it harder to succeed in that ambition if we are not able to select a player to partner Ngolo who is able to help us make the most of those difference making opportunities. Last, but not least, Nemanja is utterly unable to do anything the least bit challenging with his right leg. He avoids that limb in the same way novice tennis players avoid their backhand. For me, an upgrade in his position remains priority number one this summer.

I think the plan remains the same. Academy graduates will be selected when, and only when, the current manager decides to do so. When circumstances permit the manager might, as Antonio and others have done, select players for development purposes. Other than that selection has to be earned and the manager is the person to decide when it has been. If this implies that the whole academy structure needs re-examination, then so be it. Ultimately, if you or I were running the team we'd make our own choices over selection. Antonio must be allowed to do the same. As for your assessment of Nat, or mine come to that, it's just opinion. Maybe Antonio agrees, maybe he does not, but if he says 'best in decades' does not equal good enough then that's his call to make. Again, if this implies that the whole academy structure needs re-examination, then, again, so be it.

Exactly so. Like many, I'd be glad to see more minutes for both Nat & Michy but Antonio already sees more of the pair than we do. Who knows, if we saw what he does everyday, we might very well be making the same decisions. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that if the boss felt the pair could help the team, he would pick them. Since he does not pick them, he clearly he does not think that Nat & Michy offer what he wants. Even if anyone has a different view about this, it is still only a matter of opinion and, in the end, someone has to choose. That person has be the manager.

Nemanja is not a Chelsea youth product.

Leaving David aside, which of our other Brazilians did we, or do we, think is good enough for the Selacoa? It doesn't take an anti-Chelsea conspiracy to leave those names out of the National team. Returning to DL, perhaps he's just not fancied. There are an awful lot of people in the football world who could not select him either. Chelsea's gain.

Get used to that frustration; if you haven't already. I've been having this discussion with people for decades but there's always someone new coming along who needs convincing all over again. Players are often said to have improved, and indeed they do but only in a specific, narrow way. Players improve in their understanding of how to make the best use of their attributes. They get better at using the tools they have and, crucially, they get to know what they can't do so they do not waste possession by trying things they can't manage. Romelu has done that well but, players like him and Diego never turn into Lionel Messi. Basic talent level is innate and can't be fixed by training. Proof? 1. There is only one Messi, as there was just one Pele and one Maradonna. If reaching their levels of ability was a simple matter of extra hours on the training ground, there would have been countless thousands of them over the years. 2. There is a transfer market. If clubs could simply train up their own Messis, Bouffons or Bonuccis, why on Earth would they bother spending hundreds of millions in the market? Improvements are possible but only in a limited way. Kurt will never have quality skills in possession of the football and, in this system, that is a serious issue. N'golo's FA Cup goal against ManU is one of my favourites of the season. Why? Watch it again and notice where our LCB & RCB are as the goal is created and scored. That's a part of our system when circumstances are right, and it's a thing of beauty, but there ain't no point putting Kurt there.

Being "just" a finisher was never good enough. I heard Clive Allen tell a story about the opening game of the 1987/88 season. He and Mickey Quinn had scored 77 goals between them the previous season but both were on the bench as their sides faced each other in that fixture. With the score still 0-0 there was a moment, Allen says, when the pair glanced at each other and raised their eyes to the sky as if to say how the heck can't we get into these teams. The answer of course was that neither of them were good enough, as all round players, to keep their manager's confidence. It's why they both had so many clubs. Teams would be attracted by their goal scoring, but would eventually be disappointed by their overall contribution and decide to move them on. The same was true of Michael Owen, an absolutely brilliant finisher in my opinion. He earned moves for that reason but his clubs lost interest in him because his all round game was not at the same standard. For all their rhetoric, Liverpool didn't fight to keep him, and no one else did either. It takes more than a good scoring record to make a top player. That is why no top club was prepared to pay the money for Lukaku last summer. Let's see what happens this time around.

The only difference of opinion between us here is that I would swap CB and LWB in your list.

Agreed that there is no room for complacency. That means that, while the 10 points are a tremendous cushion, I don't want to reject any possible further advantage which might be available to us. We are not celebrating being out of Europe. We desperately want to be in and being out is a sign failure. The only consolation for that failure comes from the lighter program we have enjoyed. That advantage ended last night. I don't care how much we have already gained from it; I wish it had continued all the way to May 27.

Clubs collect coefficient points based on their performances in Europe's two completions. More points are available to be gained in the CL than in the EL but a good run in the EL will earn more points than an early departure from the CL. These points are aggregated for each country and a table is produced based on points accumulated over the five most recent seasons. The top three nations in this table are awarded a fourth CL entrant. Before this round of matches Spain led, by a mile, Germany were second and we were third though only three points ahead of Italy. The points gained gained by United if they progress, and especially by Leicester, are vital. Previously the allocation of CL places was made annually. So if a nation fell out of the top three it could at least hope to recover its place during the following season. From now on however, the assessment will be made once every three seasons. This means if we lose our fourth Champions League place, it will be gone for at least three years. Worse, with only three clubs competing in the CL, that means only three lots of CL points which can be added to the total instead of four, and remember more points are gained per round in the CL than in the EL. Over the course of three years we will have nine chances to collect Champions League points while the top three nations will have 12. So to overtake them we would have to score more points than they do despite having 3 fewer CL attempts than they will. What is more, in another change, the fourth entrant from the top three countries will no longer need to qualify for the group stages. Instead they will automatically enter the tournament in the last 32. No chance of a team failing to qualify for the group stage, as Everton once did, and missing out on the group stage coefficient points. From now on, once you fall out of the top three it'll be harder to get back in. The scramble for the top four in the Premier League, will become the scramble of the top three. It's not only that however. Fewer games for city helps them be competitive in the league and The Cup. I would have loved to see them distracted by Europe, while we ran away with the two domestic trophies. Unfortunately that hope bit the dust tonight. Nor is it only those two things. Defeat for Monaco would have made it more likely that their players would be ready to move on this summer and that would increase our chances of getting some of the talented footballers we are all raving about. The further Monaco progress this season the more likely the stars are to consider it worth sticking with their current "project". This last bit isn't an exact science and the money offered by Europe's bigger clubs would obviously be a factor but whichever way you cut it, elimination in the last 16, gives players less reason to stay optimistic and continue in the south of France.

I do support what is best for British football but that is neither what I said on this occasion, nor what I meant.

Shame. Thank goodness for Leicester.

Aggression again. Laughable. I support the outcome which best suits Chelsea. You seem unable to control yourself. Enjoy it.

Oh well, Guardiola did say his side would need to score twice to avoid going out. Which is the same as saying he thought they'd concede 3.

Yes!! Come oh City.

Good observation. I was there. It was both pleasing and intensely frustrating. For anyone who missed it, the game finished 2-1; a ludicrous score line considering how utterly dominant we were for all but about 6 or 7 of the 90 minutes. We missed an injury time penalty, but even 3-1 to us would still have flattered Spurs. Edit: City's kids look really talented. They destroyed Stoke in the first leg of their semi and people on blue moon seem pretty confident they'll win. Personally I think they're going to get a hell of a game from our lads if we go through.

Glad to see some improvement from City. Suits Chelsea's interests for Monaco to go out tonight.

How do we know?

Thank you for posting some sense. There hasn't been enough of it in this thread since this game ended.

Only to those who were introduced to the game at the same time as you. The rivalry with ManU is situational; they were the best, a target. We became challengers to their dominance, new kids on the block. A classic script. The Liverpool confrontations created another situation and, in the eyes of many, an even bigger rivalry. Before either there was the Sheffield Wednesday rivalry of the 80s and before that the one with Leeds of the 60s & 70s. Situations change so situational rivalries come and go. Tottenham is the real thing. It's in this club's DNA. Other rivalries may burn more brightly from time to time but, irrespective of what's at stake when the clubs meet, Chelsea - Tottenham is more than a game, it's an event. I'm off to White Hart Lane tonight. It may only be a youth team fixture but who it's against elevates it to a different level. Against other clubs, mundane issues like wanting Chelsea to play good, attractive football, come into play. Against Spurs such thoughts go right out the window. Just win lads, and we don't care how.

It wasn't audible from where I was. Thankfully.