OhForAGreavsie

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?

It's not just that Burnley fixture. Liverpool were also very hot and very cold in the same game, against Arsenal.

I've pointed out hypocritical behaviour; he has thrown about childish insults, and you equate the two? Nonsense.

As I implied in my previous post, I have never called anyone an attention whore, not even you. I have however called you an hypocrite and I repeat the charge.

😊 Before I started posting on this site, and discovered a bunch of people who claim to love our club but who seem to me to behave like they hate it, I used to describe myself as the most negative Chelsea fan around. You're probably not so far wide of the mark therefore. Arsenal will finish top four for the same reason they always do. Of all the attributes which contribute to making a footballer effective, technical quality is the most reliable. Wenger believes above all else in technical quality. Whenever anything else is letting his side down they can always fall back on that and scrape through somehow. They've done it before and they'll do it again. I agree Liverpool have obviously been hot and cold but, at their best they have been better than we have been when at our best, and at their worst they have not been as bad as us when we have been cold. Liverpool's inconsistency prevents me being definitive about their top four chances but it is realistic, not pessimistic, to observe that they've done better than we have in the early weeks. In my opinion that is so even before you take into account who they've played and compare it with the fixtures we've completed. Before I can feel tempted to be more optimistic about our chances I want to see how Alonso affects the team, assuming he breaks in, and whether or not Antonio can draw out the kind of commitment which took this under resourced squad to the title a year and a half ago.

Very tough ask I think I believe city and Arsenal are certainties for the top four, while Spurs and Liverpool have both looked significantly better than we have so far. Obviously United and Leicester must count as candidates but, fortunately, West Ham have continued to look as appalling as they did at Stamford Bridge. Maybe thier status as outsiders will be taken by Everton. If there is a glimmer of hope for us, then it is no more than a glimmer.

I have to admit that in the, "Who do you want as the next Chelsea manager", poll Allegri got my vote. Nothing against Antonio, I like him a lot. I like the intelligence he shows in interviews and I even like the fact that his press conferences are the most boring things known to man. He is here now so he has my support and I'm sure he has yours too. it is more difficult every day for the club to afford, and to attract, the quality of player necessary to improve our prospects. Antonio has a very tough job on his hands. Let's wish him well.

I'm optimistic that Alonso can help us but I'm disillusioned about the re-signing of David Luiz. Your main point about the deficiencies of our squad is absolutely correct. There is a group of members who refuse to accept the limitations placed on our tactical options by those deficiencies. It doesn't matter how many managers come in and find themselves forced to adopt the same approach, this group continue to blame the managers. Over the weekend I read yet another post pleading for us to adopt a more attacking approach. Players hurtling up the pitch, waiting for a ball that's never going to arrive because your team can't string five positive passes together, isn't atacking. It is, as you say, suicide. Every team defends when they don't have possession. The difference between Chelsea and other sides that we admire is what they can do with the ball when they get it. Any squad of professional footballers can put together beautiful passages of play. Over the course of a season however the shortcomings of our squad are going to continue to restrict our ambitions until, and unless, we improve their general quality.

I have been posting on fan forums since 2003. I will give you £20 million for every post you find where I've called anyone an attention whore. You on the other hand, while freely commenting on another team's manager criticised him for commenting on another team's player. That is hypocrisy and your response to me is just silly.

Like you you mean?

Well said. People are commenting as if they don't realise the problems in the squad yet we all know that's just not true. Everyone here, and I mean everyone, knows only too well that there are many more questions than answers in this group. Those who yearn for, and call for, a more aggressive style of play have their hearts in the right place but this group of players are not able to deliver that dream. Instead of continuing to blame Jose, or starting to blame Antonio, I hope people will be more understanding about the tough place our club is in. The situation reminds me of that old joke where a motorist is lost on the way to the Irish capital and stops to ask directions. "If you want to get to Dublin", came the reply, "you really shouldn't start from here". Well, we are here and we have to get on with it. Off the pitch, we need to up our game in terms of identifying genuine quality. On the pitch we need to get Alonso into this side as soon as possible. He is not a perfect footballer but getting him into the lineup will, in my opinion, make more of an improvement then any other single change from within the current squad. That's my prescription anyway. He will certainly start on Tuesday night. After that, we shall see.

Good response. I'm about to get off the bus and try to make it in in time to collect my free beer. Wish me luck :-)

You do see though, don't you, how this may cast doubt on your assessment of Nathan's qualities?

I won't be blaming Klop too much for that. He obviously meant it as a compliment, and not as a slight.These people are required to produce an output of several million words a season in press conferences, interviews, program notes, in-house TV, radio, goodness knows what else. If they sometimes make a misstep, who can really blame them? In any case, Antonio clearly took it in the spirit it was meant and tried to come up with a reciprocal complement of his own. Fair enough I thought.

By whom? Everybody thinks he's brilliant. :-)