OhForAGreavsie

Andreas talks about a future at Stamford Bridge because, in his position, he more or less has to. To say anything else would be to invite bad PR for no good reason. Saying he prefers Bayern's league, or that he would rather play elsewhere than sit on the bench Chelsea, is probably about as far as he can go. Gladbach would not waste their time pursuing Andreas so vigorously however unless they knew that he was keen to join them.

Yep, that's all fair enough except that you were the one that started to talk about from above. Remember, I replied to comment on your assumption that the club was putting pressure on the managers, i.e. from above. 🙂

I'd be pretty surprised if a man, who reportedly watches every minute of every Chelsea game, needed to be told that the squad isn't good enough. I have no idea of course, but my guess is that the owner knew it well enough even before Antonio arrived and that their conversations have been a lot more nuanced than is being reported.

Four points again. What is it with you on the number four? 😊 Firstly, your point about information. I don't think it has anything to do with the conversation we've been having but you're right of course. I think I've written more posts making this point in the last few months than I have about anything else. It bemuses me when people ask the question, "Why can't the managers see what we can see?". Of course the managers can see everything we do, plus they have the opportunity to see, and to know, a great deal more. No matter how strange a manager's decision may seem, none of us can be certain that, given the same information he has, we would not do exactly the same. The reason I say this has nothing to do with the conversation we have been having is because it's not a pressure from above. It's just the manager using knowledge and information to inform the decisions he makes. His own decisions. On the case of money. Unless we're talking about bribery of the manager, money isn't going to come into it. These financial concerns wouldn't affect the manager. They might of course be a motivation for the club to put pressure on the manager but that just brings us back to where we started. Financial concerns might make the club want to have a player selected but there is no evidence that they have put any manager under pressure to do it. On Roman. Being the owner does give him the authority, if not actually the entitlement, to issue directives to his staff. Once again this gets us nowhere other than back to where we started. Even if he might like to do it, there is no evidence that Roman has told managers to pick a certain player. On availability. I've made that point a number of times myself but in connection with young players. I've argued that perhaps the club is starving the squad of senior players in a bid to force the selection of youngsters. I don't seriously think this is what is going on. I've just put it forward previously as a potential explanation for what we have seen. That is still not direct pressure of the, "pick this player, not that player", type.

Agreed you're always going to be limited by your tools. If there is an urgent job that has to be done then you have to get on with it using whatever tools you have at your disposal. If those tools aren't up to the task however then the best you can do is a bodge job. Antonio's tools are bad so people blaming him for what's happening is ridiculous. Individual results against selected teams has got nothing to do with it by the way. I might as well compare Jose's results against Arsenal with Antonio's. It means nothing in the context of this conversation.

You have written four paragraphs and I agree with every word in three of them. The one I see differently is your suggestion that we can assume there has been club pressure on team selections. What evidence is there to support that assumption? I know only one case in the last 13 and a bit years, Daniel Sturridge, where the club has issued an instruction to the manager. The fact that it was a negative instruction, rather than a positive one to put him in the team, suggests that this was for disciplinary, or other non-football, reasons. Apart from that, none of Roman's managers has ever said that he faced pressure from above and several have said exactly the opposite. Not only have Cloudio, Jose, Avram, Guus and the temp praised the club for non-interference but they were very clear about it. While it is possible to believe that these men were under contractual obligation not to speak about any interference, it is not possible to believe that their contracts would have compelled them to praise the club's behaviour if that praise wasn't deserved. Someone did tell me in a reply recently about a claim in Carlo's book that there had been interference. I'm surprised it wasn't a far bigger story in the media at the time. Unless I completely missed it, and being a Chelsea obsessive I don't miss much, there was no media storm about it. Not even a tiny little puff. Not that I remember anyway.

Show me someone who didn't. 😊 The weaknesses which are apparent now were also clear to see during the title winning campaign. The difference is that we had a genius in charge and the players actually listened to him. I don't mean by this to disparage Antonio. He is absolutely right to try to do things as he wants them done. It infuriates me that posts have already appeared raising doubts about him or saying that he must produce a miracle in a matter of weeks to retain his job. His record shows he is an excellent coach and his public persona suggests that he is an excellent man. I'm delighted that we have him. Antonio has learned, or is learning, what a number of others have seen before. Any collection of eleven footballers can play any system their manager wishes, but our collection can only win if they play in a particular way. When, rightly or wrongly, the players stopped believing in Jose, they stopped believing in his message too and the wheels came off. All of us here would like the same thing. We want the club to put together a squad which will allow the manager to move away from the former method of play. Trying to change the play first and then moving the squad around afterwards is, however, like putting the cart before the horse.

I felt that way about Brana since the Swansea semi finals in 2013 although I wouldn't put it so harshly as to say I want to see him sacked. As I've often said about Oscar, it's not the fact that Brana is poor which is Chelsea's problem. Chelsea's problem is that our managers have no one they consider to be better.

Those two words are not, and will never be, a problem for Chelsea. 😊

I see some of what you have said slightly differently to the way you do. Where I fully agree with you however is that the back four are a part of our attack just as much as our front six are a part of our defence. I didn't say the back four shouldn't get any of the blame; I only said they get too much of it. 😊

I think the defence gets too much of the blame. Clearly there are problems among the defenders but our front six don't take the pressure off their teammates as much as they should. In saying this, I don't mean just in terms of tracking back or pressing, but also in terms of their offensive contributions. The weakness of our team when in possession plays a major part in our lack of defensive organisation.

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you suggesting that I posted comments stating that the squad was fine and that we didn't need upgrades or changes? One of us is very confused and I seriously hope it isn't me. 😊

There is no one here who failed to recognise the weaknesses in the squad. No one who did not see the need for a major overhaul. Indeed many of us, most of us even, have been talking about it for years and that no doubt includes you. The disputes about the transfer window were not about whether we needed players, but about how we should go and get them.

Do any of us really know how much of a leader John is within this current group? It always seemed to be the case that while he was recognised as the top man, the leadership role through the trophy winning years was really a group effort which also involved Didier, Frank and Petr. They supported and reinforced each other. My guess is that, in the current squad, the strong characters are John, Diego, Cesc and David Luiz. Whether they are as tight a group as the previous quartet I somehow doubt. That would mean there is more than one power centre and maybe John's leadership is not unchallenged. Guesswork I know, but from the outside guesswork is pretty much all we've got.

It doesn't matter which way you try to cut it, United are the weaker team. If we manage to get past West Ham then it will clearly be better for Chelsea if we are joined in the quarter-finals by the red half of Manchester, not the blue. In any case, one motivated manager with something to prove to his former employers, is not going to outweigh the impact of several motivated players with something to prove to their former manager.

Thatcher did indeed hate football and I hated her politics. It's quite funny to associate me with the Daily Mail. Nothing could be further from the truth but I know you can't be trying to imply that Daily Mail readers are the only people who despise violence, vandalism, racism and other forms of antisocial behaviour. My away journeys with Chelsea were all within London. The lads with whom I went to games did travel however so I had regular first hand reports of what went on. Of course there was the fantastic Camraderie but there was also plenty of the behaviour I did not want to associate with then, and do not want to associate with now. The large-scale violence or vandalism did not erupt every week but it was seldom far from the surface. Low-level or small scale outbreaks were weekly events. When The Blues were out of town, I would go with various friends to games at White Hart Lane, Craven Cottage and most often, at non-league Plough Lane. As you rightly say, the ugly attitudes were widespread around the game but I promise you that I found the atmosphere at those grounds less highly charged than at Stamford Bridge. Our own club planned to introduce ID cards before Thatcher ever came to power. I remember sending in my application form, photo, and £1 fee but the scheme never got off the ground and the quid was never refunded. At least that suggested they wanted to do something however and that was welcome. Normally, after each major outbreak, we had the standard condemnation in the next home program and the usual expression that you yourself have used today. The one about it being a society problem not a football one. The people causing the trouble were created in wider society, but they manifested their behaviour at, around, or en-route to football grounds. Only when Football was forced to accept the costs of policing, increased stewarding, CCTV equipment, better ticketing arrangements and other measures, did the situation begin to improve. The responsibility for dealing with this scourge was always in the hands of football but it took the government to make them live up to that responsibility. Who gained most from the improvements? Football clubs and football players. Once more people, not just those with thick skins or high tolerance levels, were prepared to associate themselves with football again attendances rose, sponsors came into the game in force and the road to the riches of the Premier League was cleared. I too was 13 when I attended my first game. (Away to Arsenal 1973.)

I hope he wins two of the three. We've all read the posts where Chelsea fans are, wrongly, accused of caring more about Jose than they do about Chelsea. That is nonsense of course but sometimes it is even suggested that Chelsea fans would prefer United to beat us. I don't think anyone can seriously believe that, but I have read it in this forum. Now there is a post hoping that City smash United in the EFL cup. This despite the fact it clearly suits us for United, the weaker team, to win that game. I Think it's legitimate to ask if it is the pro-Jose majority, or the tiny anti-Mourinho minority, who are putting their feelings about The Special One ahead of Chelsea's interests?

I would certainly have been at that 1-0 game but I don't remember a thing about it. I would definitely not have been at the away fixture however. I never formed the habit of travelling out of London with Chelsea precisely because of the moronic behaviour of so many of the fans. What a curse those people were and what untold damage they did to our club. They drove countless thousands of decent Chelsea supporters away from the terraces and were directly responsible for our lost generation of match going support from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. That was a tough period for our club on and off the pitch. Crowd numbers were bound to fall as the quality of football and footballer dropped dramatically. There is no way however that Chelsea football club should ever have posted average attendances in the low teens, or individual match attendances well below five figures. Part of the problem of course was the complacent attitude of the board. An attitude that is well evidenced by that piece of 'it ain't our fault guv' nonsense from David Mears during the video. As crowds fell right around the country, football boards everywhere seemed focused on trying to avoid responsibility, and costs, rather than on dealing with the problem. Left to their own devices they may well have presided over the demise of the game in England. As it was, the government eventually forced them to act and, in so doing, rescued football from itself. Complacency is not confined to the past however. These ignorant and violent people are still out there. If given the slightest encouragement, they would bring their ugly, criminal behaviour back to our grounds. They must not be given that encouragement.

That is exactly what Jose did. Didn't stop those who were so inclined posting about how he should be playing 'better' with this squad of players. Antonio is going to have a harder time persuading the players to produce the kind of performance necessary because, for some reason that I just can't understand, they've convinced themselves that they are too good to play that way. It will therefore be hard to get them to go back to it.

There were some sober voices urging people not to get carried away too quickly.

And Gray has looked very good whenever I've seen him. In one way he's the perfect opponent to give Alonso a chance to show us what he's got defensively, but in another way Gray is not the man I would've wanted to see Marcos going against on debut. The big improvement I think Alonso can give us is in his ability as a continuity player. Many people on this site, and elsewhere, shout the virtues of fullbacks who can deliver good crosses into the area. Personally I believe that of all the attributes that contribute to a fullback being effective, his ability to cross the football is absolutely the last, and lowest priority of them. The plain fact is that, no matter who you are, the majority of your crosses into the penalty area will be ineffective and most of your effective ones will come to nothing anyway. In any case, show me a good cross into the box by fullback and nine times out of ten I will show you a good passing move which put him there. Obviously solid defensive qualities are a pre-requisite for a fullback but next on the list is that he should be a good continuity player. That is to say, be able to receive the ball well, if necessary manipulate it to give himself angles to make solid, and preferably progressive, passes. Almost every time that the team establishes possession, one, if not both, of their fullbacks will touch the ball. Therefore fullbacks who can be effective contributors to the passing movements of the team, will make a very big and very important contribution. Give me a fullback who is a great continuity player, but a poor crosser, over one who is an average continuity player but a great crosser, any day of the week. Alonso looks to me to be a great continuity player.

Is bin a terminology that, embarrassingly, I'm not up to speed with, or do you perhaps mean bib?

I'd say it's because a succession of managers, including the temp who was in charge when I first formed and posted the opinion that we shouldn't select Brana, believe that, as bad as he is, Brana is nevertheless the best option available. I know a lot of people have no faith in that decision but I don't think it's reasonable for them to sustain that doubt when not one, not two, not even three, but four different managers all reach the same conclusion. In short this is not the fault of the managers except in so far as they must share the responsibility for the weakness of a squad which forces them to continue to select an underperforming player.

As for the transfers the club has never really tried too hard to hide the fact that Roman does get involved. As long ago as when Peter Kenyon was asked about who initiates transfers, he responded that it was a group effort between the manager, the owner, and others. Since then we've all had our own ideas about which players might have been Roman signings. Personally, I go so far as to believe that Arkady has also begun to be involved. I say that because some of the signings seem to me to have been players who exhibit the kind of qualities which impress young people. This last point is obviously wild speculation on my part, for which I have not a scrap of evidence.

I've only read summaries of Carlo's book. The impression I formed was that Carlo said the opposite, that Ronan does not interfere with team selection. Either I'm misremembering the gist of the summaries, or I need to go straight to the horse's mouth and read the book itself. Is there any chance that you might be misremembering what Carlo said, or have you definitely got it right?