OhForAGreavsie

I do not, repeat not, object to your opinion on Brana. In fact as long as 3 1/2 years ago, around the time of the Swansea semi-final, I was calling for him not to be selected any more. I'm glad we're on the same page about what the coaches can and can't see. it's just a statement of the obvious that they can see what we can. Where I think you and I differ is in your comment that the coaches think Brana is a top-class full-back. With respect, you don't know any such thing. You know that they select him, but all you are entitled to assume from that is that they think he is the best option they have. One after another very skilled, trained and experienced football people have made the same choice. I'm as convinced as you are that if they thought they had a better alternative they'd take it but none of them has. That suggests to me that no matter how bad we think Brana is, the coaches think everybody else is worse. Despite the fact that so many people wanted to see Dave moved to the right and Baba brought in on the left, successive managers have rejected that plan. This should tell us something and I suggest Baba's departure on loan merely confirms it. Where I think there is room for criticism is in the fact that the problem has gone unsolved for so long. Presumably someone thought the signing of baba would be the solution. Let's hope it won't go on much longer.

Thanks Iggy. My coments about the things I see being posted were not referencing you, but rather were examples of why I might be coming across a bit hostile. I agree with you about JT and said so at the time of the controversy. Indeed I was furious with him for the stunt he pulled in that post game interview. I made the point that loyaty goes both ways, that the club had stood by him through bad times and that although he stayed when City were sniffing around, he had been handsomely rewarded with a big new contract. I felt he owed the club better behaviour than he showed then. My objection to what you said is the suggestion that we, here & in the stadium, can see things that the coaches can't. The notion is just ridiculous. They see it and they choose the best solutions available to them. If they don't choose the same solution I might, or you might, that is in part different opinion and in part because they have more information than we do. We need better defenders but the coaches don't have the luxury to just moan about it or to just wish new world class players into the squad with no thought to the cost and other practicalities of their recruitment, Instead they have to put a side out. When they do, they have reasons for the choices they make and it is, I think, no coincidence that they all seem to choose the same ones.

To you my view seems nonsense. To me yours seems nonsense. I don't see how you and I are going to square that circle.

Jose would have found a way to shield that back four. Just as he did the year before when winning the league by such a comfortable margin. He wanted defensive recruits but didn't get them. Even so, had he not been abandoned by the squad, he'd have produced another competitive season. Jose left in part because of his stupid behaviour over the Eva incident but mainly because our squad believed their own hype. They felt they were too good to play the Jose way even though that 'way' was designed specifically to hide their shortcomings. Oh well, they behaved as they did. The upshot of which is that the whole world now knows how useless some of them are. Edit: Just noticed that I must have quoted the wrong post, since my comment has nothing to do with Skipper's.

You could not be more right. Especially your second paragraph.

Am I suffering a sense of humour failure here? I guess I must be since you can't possibly be serious about this. Maybe I'm just becoming increasingly wound up by the pile of nonsense I'm reading in post after post on this forum recently. I see people criticising the board for not replacing John Terry, when three months ago they were holding up home-made posters demanding his contract be renewed and filling this place up with essays about why JT was still a vital cog for our team. I see people saying, correctly, that we will find it almost impossible to win with this squad, while simultaneously pouring hatred on Jose because he did. Most laughably of all, I see people who believe the transfer market is a simple matter of snapping your fingers and buying all the players you want. Forgive me therefore if this buildup of bewilderment and amusement has caused me to take your post too literally. I'm sure that I will eventually be able to figure out what you really meant.

The maximum number of competitive games Chelsea can play this season is 54. Plus Belgian National games for Edenof course. Whether Eden would actually be selected for all Capital One and FA Cup games is another matter.

If Arsenal win the league this coming season it will be their first title in 13 years. (2004)

It's easy. Improve the midfiled. Don't pass yourselves into trouble, don't pass to the oponents and don't unerhit backpasses. That improves our defence immediately. Anyone blaming our defenders for the defensive woes we're seeing today is way off beam.

There are days when Eden just looks too good.

Defence yes, defenders no.. All of Bremen's threats are coming from the same old sloppy midfield play.

We should be so lucky! Show me a team that doesn't defend,and defend deep when required, and I'll show you a team.where the players pay subs and there's no running water in the changing room.

?

Well I don't suppose that we have to guess or presume. We could do other things but if you're like me I imagine you enjoy doing it. Everything remotely sensible said in this or any other form is something that will almost certainly have been thought of by everyone in the game. Of course we can discuss them. We, that's me you and everyone else here, just have to avoid giving the impression that we think we are cleverer than the people who actually do the job

If the story about Diego is true, would it be wise for we on this forum to imagine that a swap would not have occurred to Chelsea? To both clubs indeed? Of course it will have done, but whether or not it's viable or can be arranged on terms which suit the two clubs and the two players is another matter.

First of all of course, whether a player is actually for sale or not, "not for sale", is always the opening gambit by the selling club. Secondly any speculation you and I get into as to what might have happened in the course of this negotiation is just guesswork. Let's say however that it went as you suggest, and Chelsea picked up a vibe that Napoli actually were prepared to sell. I'd suggest that gives Chelsea two potential moves they might make, urge Napoli once again to name a price or put in a bid. In either case, nothing will come of it. To start with, Napoli will not weaken their negotiating position by naming a price. At least not one which is anything less than twice as much as they calculate Chelsea might actually be prepared to pay tops. This leaves the other option which is to put in a bid. Chelsea know full well however that any bid which is less than the think of a number and double it figure will automatically be rejected. That's the way the game is played. Dealing in the real world, the club must walk away or engage in the negotiating game. Either way, they face criticism from people who know the process is not as simple as they portray it, but who like to imagine that Chelsea can behave as if it was.

So Petre, you call Napoli, you ask them how much they want. They tell you the player is not for sale. Your move. What do you do?

I've never really been confident about Tammy's Chelsea future, believing that he's a bit short on technique but I felt he showed good progression last season. Although his goal count was down, his hold up play as he led the line for our development teams was pretty decent. He's deserved this move I think, great club to join, great start and, let's hope, great loan.

Not much you can do about it though Ryan. I watched a lot of Belgium in the run up to the last World Cup but very litle since. If the impresion I formed while watching them is still valid, assuming it ever was valid in the first place, then Belgium fans are about to loose a favoured excuse. Wilmots was, in my opinion, blamed for a lot more than was in fact his fault. Those things which were not the manager's fault won't automatically change because the man in the dugout has.

Tells you something when you can't get minutes in pre-season and I fear MH must have received the message loud and clear. I've only watched Michael in a competitive game once. He played as a DM in that match, I came away wondering why on Earth we had signed this bloke. I saw absolutely nothing that suggested he was of the level required. Mchael comes over as a really nice bloke in interviews. If he had the quality, it looks like he'd be a welcome presence in the squad, but sadly I just don't think he has it.

Our defenders unuestionably need upgrading but upgrading only those players will not, on its own, have the desired outcome. Antonio can't improve those defenders but he can improve our defence. Our defence consists of 11 players, not four or five. Improve the front six and the efectiveness of the back four is automatically lifted. Keep the ball better and not only is the average position in which opponents recover possession less dangerous but our defenders are afforded vital extra moments to recover shape. I believe that we have improved our defence because we have, with the additions of Michy & N'Golo, improved the front six. Antonio has simply not chosen as yet to put his first choice front six on to the pitch at the same time. Whether that's because he's felt unable to, or because he wants to keep his powder dry, I don't know. We need a great deal more progress, but there is a better side in this squad than we have yet seen in this preseason.

Have you considered the possibility that it's you who has failed to understand this process not the billionaire and his millionaire assistants?

You are right Petre. In one aspect. I, at least, have no idea about the amounts, or clauses in the transfer agreement which took Rom to The Toffees. I had previously read the 20% figure on this forum however. Was it you who posted it? Anyway, asuming it, and the other clauses you mention, are accurate then of course Everton would factor these into their thinking. That's par for the course. I wonder though how you come to know such details? Where I would argue that you are not right is in suggesting that the factors you talk about make the deal less expensive for Chelsea. All of those things; the balance of the original fee, the 20% sell on number, and the sundry bonuses, are all Chelsea assets. Giving them up is just the same as spending them. I still think the best thing for Chelsea to do is allow Rom to join someone else, collect the money we are owed by Everton and our share of the huge fee the other club pays. Of course no one else will pay such a huge fee. No one Rom wants to join anyway.

True (more or less) but that's not what you said first time. There is nothing I hate more in fotball than a Chelsea player taking a low percentage shot when a decent pass was on. Frank, especially in his younger days, used to do it all the time and it wound me up like crazy. Anyway, we ain't getting Bonucci.

Not true. Sometimes shooting when you should pass is the surest way to to make certain that you don't score but give possession away instead. In short, take a shot when you should but pass when you should pass. Meaning, don't bother chasing targets if there really is no chance. Try to identify an alternative instead. If there are none, then bide your time.