OhForAGreavsie

Silva is a fantastic player and a Pedro upgrade is number three on my priority list for the summer. That said, adding the Monaco man and keeping Matic will not improve us as much as keeping Pedro and replacing Matic. Matic being so limited is a problem from our team. Edit: Of course I omitted to mention the preferred solution; getting Silva and upgrading Matic.

I don't think Baba is good enough to offer any help.

Indeed, he is a terrific footballer. I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with you about that. He is very high on most people's wish list for the summer ahead.

For me, replacing Matic is priority number one so I've put the midfield as most urgent.

Great plan, thank you. Good news: In order to prepare myself so that I might be able make informed comment on any observations you'll have, I re watched the linked programme earlier and was reminded of something I had forgotten. The posted video repeats the same content, so in fact there is less than 90 minutes worth that you'll need to view.

Gladly, but be warned that for "detailed" you should read "long". The video lasts nearly 3 hours but you did ask. :-) I wonder if you would do something for me in return please? Do you know of any material which argues from your side of the case? Something which perhaps debunks the Titus storyline, or else any material which you would recommend me to view/read? It seems only fair that if you are going to put in three hours investigating the claims of those who take an opposite view to your own, that I should be prepared to take up a similar challenge. :-) The link:-

Poor old Nando. Doesn't even get his own flop labelling scheme.

Ah, OK. Thank you. An interesting reply. In fact the "Titus" argument takes full account of the old Testament. If you are fully conversant with it I won't waste your time, but, if you would find it useful, I will post a link to a YouTube video in which the argument is set out in detail. Let me know. I dispute your claim that there is historical proof for the existence of Jesus. There is not, but never mind my viewpoint. The claim would also be disputed by many academics. For example Josephus is not a good source. Some of his supposed writing concerning Jesus, and there isn't much of it, is almost universally accepted to have been forged. In any case he has no original sources to rely on and merely reports what he has been told by third parties. His writing contains no independent corroboration and no attempt at any. Tacitus is better in that he seems to be writing more independently and with an undeniable belief in the truth of what he relates particularly with reference to the crucifixion. He makes mistakes which lay him open to the question however and, given that he was writing about 70 years after the events and focusing his attention on period roughly 30 years after the events, he has that same problem with sources. No historical records exist, none, which can unquestionably be said to prove that Jesus is an historical figure. That said, I personally do believe that Jesus lived. Although, I repeat, this is not because I accept any so-called historical evidence. Rather I infer it from what has grown out of his life. The argument goes that there is not likely to have been all this fuss had there not been a real man to base it on. I therefore accept that a rabbi called Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) once taught in Palestine. That's about it however in regards to what I believe about Jesus. :-)

There is a widely held academic belief that the entire Christ story as portrayed in the Gospels was written at the behest of Rome's Flavian emperors. This, it is argued, was done partly to legitimise their usurpation of power from the Julio-Claudians, and partly to encourage pacifistic attitudes in the Judaean territory following the recent bloody uprising. In this line of thought the "god" who overturns the temple, and whose image is to be worshipped, is Vespasian's son, Titus. As you know, Titus led the Roman armies which put down the Jewish "rebellion" and, having done so, then destroyed the temple. The argument runs that many of these so-called prophecies were moulded specifically so that they would fit with the events of Titus's campaign. The intention clearly being that the population would see Titus as the fulfilment of the prophecies. It can't be appropriate for me to attempt to lay out the full argument here but if it is true then the events "foretold" in the Bible have already come to pass. In that case, any re-interpretation for the modern world would be based on nothing more than Roman propaganda and would be fanciful . Clearly people of faith will not accept this version of events. It is a reasonably cogent case however; one that benefits from a number of supporting facets which can be claimed to be verified historically. Those who find biblical matters interesting might enjoy informing themselves about this if they are not already familiar with it. Meanwhile, it would be a good start in the search for Middle Eastern peace if mankind were to give up it's contradictory and divisive superstitions. Superstitions which, though held deeply and fervently by billions, are no more than superstitions, and harmful ones to boot. Harmful in the sense that they continue to damage the prospects of understanding and harmony between human beings everywhere. Of course we all know the superstitions will not be given up easily, or quickly. Quite the opposite will be the case. People will fight, literally if need be, to hold onto them. In addition therefore to all the other things humans argue with one another about, we will still labour under the burden of this additional excuse for war and strife. I'm an optimist however. I believe that, if we can survive long enough, we will one day rid ourselves of these things. If the human race lives on into the far future I can't believe we will carry these relics of bronze age thinking with us. IMPORTANT: I have made significant changes to this post since it was "liked" by @Fernando. I think it is quite likely he would want to withdraw that like when he sees those additions. I have pm'd him to apologise for this and I'm sure his like will disappear in due course. In the meantime it's my fault not his but I made those changes before I was aware he had liked the post.

If they have to lose anyone to injury, I'd far rather it was Aguero. In my opinion this injury to Jesus will strengthen City's first XI, not weaken it.

I suppose you mean it's criminal that there aren't many questions in the TalkChelsea forums. Well, it has been mentioned by a number of people, but among the squad builders of Europe's top clubs, I guarantee you there are plenty of questions.

That team is too risky for me. Wolves will be the best side we've played in the cup so far and, of course, we're away from home. I'd therefore go stronger. That means no place for any of Aina, Kennedy or Musonda.

In fact it had been 44 years since City's previous title.

I wouldn't ever want to see anyone injured of course, but I was especially disappointed in this case. I've yet to see what all the fuss is about with Gabriel Jesús. To be fair I have only watched Jesus play twice, but, as far as I could see, he demonstrated no exceptional talents during those games. To me, substituting Aguero for Jesús is a major improvement for Manchester City. It may be that I just haven't spotted what it is that makes him special but, based on my current assessment of Jesús, I can only think that Guardiola is using him to make some sort of point to Aguero. Somewhere down the line I am expecting the Argentinian to be reinstated as City's first choice. In my opinion he remains the Citizens' best striker by far.

This doesn't sound harsh to me in the least. In fact, it sounds way, way too generous.

I can only believe that if we saw what Antonio sees in training, we would understand why he prefers Nemanja over Nat. Since we don't see training however, Nemanja's continued selection looks more and more strange with every passing game.

So boringly predictable. What exactly is it the board have done that you are blaming them for? Why make up just one thing to blame them for? Why not invent 100 things you don't like, and get stuck right in? Let yourself go. Let your imagination roam free then rant away and be as happy as a pig doing what a pig likes to do best.

It's so weird to read the expression "drew to".

😂

I think we are fortunate they adopted that attitude. Had they really gone for it we might have been in even deeper trouble.

In the circumstances this is a great result. That's the only sensible attitude to take when you gain a point from a performance that deserved none. Those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and imagine our side to be all conquering can get back to that way of thinking tomorrow. For now, our frailties and weaknesses have been on full display but, fortunately, they cost us just two points, not three. I'm pleased and I'm ready to think about Wolverhampton Wanderers. We knew we had urgent work to do this summer even before today's game kicked off and we also knew many tough games remained to be played before then. Nothing has changed.

Time to stop assessing this performance against what is required to win. Instead let's just get behind the lads and judge what we are seeing in terms of hanging on to a point. Anything else will be a bonus. There will be better days.

I'd say that your comment is five words too long.

Sadly you are right. Yet media know-nothing's everywhere continue to speak of him as one of our strengths and not our major weakness, which is the truth.

Being found guilty of motoring offences usually results in a fine and, more than ever now, these fines are related to the offenders earnings. Somewhere down the line we may get some more clues about the income level of Chelsea's development squad players.