OhForAGreavsie

I think you are doing what many cricket commentators do. A batsman steps forward to a goodish length ball outside the off stump and smacks it through cover to the boundary. Played, they say. What a stroke, they purr. Next ball he makes the same shot but plays a few millimetres inside the line, and the ball moves a few millimetres off the seam. Result, a splice to point and a brilliant catch. Now we get endless analysis about how the bat was away from his body, how we wasn't quite over the ball, how his front foot wasn't quite to the pitch, and how he has to cut out these mistakes. We drew at City last season thanks to Super Frank. In truth we were lucky to get a point because we were comprehensively outplayed. That was in contrast to our league win there the previous season which was widely hailed as a tactical master class and the performance of the season. I had a debate on here with someone who was blasting away at Jose for his defensive set up in the draw and laying into him for not being more aggressive as he had been the first time. My point, and the point of these two examples, is that the tactics were exactly the same in both games. Indeed City had more possession, and a greater territorial dominance in the game we won than in the one which was drawn. The only difference is that the players played well in the win and, barring the absolutely brilliant Andre Schurrle goal, they were utterly hopeless in the draw. In the win, when we did spring forward we passed crisply and accurately to retain possession and allow time for numbers to join the attack. That made it look like we were more offensively set up but, as I say, we were deployed the same way in the draw. We just passed like park players in that game and seldom retained good possession. Had we played gung-ho football on Wednesday, Paris would have murdered us but had we implemented Guus's tactics with just a little more quality, and a little more help from the officials, we might have run them closer. The tactics were fine, the talent level in our squad is the problem and it has been so, in your words, for some time now. Managers have to cut their cloth. Hiddink is a very good cloth cutter.

Imagine how that photo will look at the end of next season when the side finishing 20th in the Premier League will earn more than the €138m we earned as champions last season?

I did not see it this way. In an FA Cup game where you can gamble one goal you might score against one you might concede, maybe, but the away goal rule, a rule I love by the way, changes the odds dramatically. A second goal for Paris last night was effectively worth two-and-a-half goals. Those odds are always going to alter your outlook. Guus's set up was, as I saw it, more flexible than the way you describe it. When an attack in numbers broke down, i.e. when we had enough bodies forward to make it worthwhile, we pressed high and did it well. We recovered the ball numerous times and created danger from it, including the goal. However when we had fewer than two or three people high we dropped off when our attacks broke down. There is no point pressing with too few players because they will just be passed around and all the energy they expend chasing the ball is simply wasted. When good sides have the ball against you, of course you drop back. Nothing else makes sense. Watch Barca, they do it. The aim all night, well most of the night, was to break quickly with a three man front, DG, EH & PR with CA, RFK and one of CF or MJO bursting to join. Unfortunately we were let down by the referee. Like all clubs do when facing that tatic, PSG's method was to make a stopping foul, to make it quickly and to make it high. This is because the resulting free kick is not so dangerous and because a cynical foul near the opponents box and before the potential threat to your own goal is made clear, is seldom punished as severely by the officials as a cynical foul near your own box. Three Paris players should have been booked early for doing this and one, Rabiot, should have been sent off before half time for two such offences. Rabiot of course would not have been sent off, had he already been booked he would not have committed the second foul. The restriction an early booking would have placed on him, and and on Matuidi, would have made a difference to us. It would have allowed three or four more, potentially dangerous, attacks to develop rather than being illegally stopped. No professional manager, not one, is going to behave as you seem to be suggesting Guus should have done when facing a great opponent in the situation that conceding a single goal would eliminate his team.

Guus chose the set up that he thought would give us the best chance to win. If he'd thought your approach was the best option he'd have gone with it but clearly he did not. If he was not gung-ho enough for you it's because he didn't think that was the way to go. I felt he was right. I thought his tactics were excellent and for quite a while enabled us to live with a side that is clearly better than we are. Guus isn't affraid. He used his judgement and did what he judged best but we lost because Paris are better than we are. That's the long and the short of if.

The ball playing CB I want is Bonucci but I don't agree with you about Diego. He's on my upgrade if possible list. It won't be easy to do but if there's a player available who can do what Diego does plus is better with the ball at his feet then I'd make the change. Meanwhile, back on topic... I think the board may have made the same mistake the players seem to have done. Our squad was far from the best in the country last season but, for two reasons, board and players seem to have gotten it into their heads that they were. Those reasons were Jose and Mourhino. No Jose, no title last season yet the players, and some fans, seem to believe they had outgrown the man and his methods. We've seen the results and those results must have opened the eyes of the board. I think the people in charge will be an open book now and will listen hard to the advice Guus and the new manager will be pumping in. If Guus and the new boss are on the same page then together they will be the focal point for the changes that are needed.

I don't like to read the board being described in those disrespectful terms. I know however that it reflects not just your opinion, but those of a sizeable percentage of Chelsea fans so I'll have to get used to it I suppose. I'm not defending what has been done, I'm as critical as anyone else of the player recruitment. It's just that I prefer to express myself using a different tone. Guus will be sticking around in just such a role, That much can be divined from his statements spread over numerous press conferences. I get the feeling that he will be Roman's new Bobby Campbell.

I don't believe that the cash will be a problem to find, I think our difficulties lie elsewhere and I doubt they can be solved in one, or even two, transfer windows. I see throughout the web that many still expect Roman to be funding the new stadium outright but the clear impression from the first presentation of the rebuild plans is that Roman will input a loan. Yes, this means we will have repayments to make but remember Mr. A. won't be putting £600m on the table in one go. His spending will be staged so he'll be paying the bills as and when they come up and, more importantly, he will, if he wishes, be able to manipulate the repayment schedule to suit the needs of the club. If a scheduled annual repayment is going to hamper the club's spending plans he can be flexible about it. I think, and hope, Roman will get his money back in the end but, if it takes 30 years instead of 25 he probably isn't going to see it as a drama. Our real problem will be the one we've struggled with for years. It's not finding the money, it's how to spend it. We seem not to have been able to tell the difference between a decent player and a good one, a player with qualities, and one of quality. Diego scored a great goal last night be he isn't in Ibra's league. When our centre forward has the ball at his feat on the dribble, he looks like he has no clue how to do what he wants to achieve. We have to up our game in player recruitment. If we don't then it matters not whether we spend £100m or £100. The state of our club means we have no chance of attracting the player who is at the top of my own transfer wish list, Ousmane Dembele, or most of the one's at the top of anyone else's. Even if by some miracle we identify the right targets it's hard to imagine that we can bring in the depth of quality we need in one summer.

Ah, I've also read it again and I see that now.

I find it hard to believe that an official account would say something like that unless it was done in a way that clearly marked it out as good natured banter.

No they aren't. Some people are bastards and some of those bastards support Arsenal. There are still plenty left over to support other clubs though. Including our own of course.

So you are saying that Nathan is the best LB in the world? Even Nathan would probably think that's going a bit too far.

Dembele is an absolute cert on my wish list for the summer. Great talent. We probably will not succeed but we absolutely have to bid for this lad.

I'd say the reason, or one of the reasons, Kennedy is not starting more often and not in his preferred position was in evidence in the lead up to the goal. It began with a poor touch. This time, perhaps because he was coming from deep, he had a lot of room and caught up with the ball. Had he been in a tighter situation that touch would have resulted in lost possession. Obviously that's the kind of thing that happens to all players once or twice every game but I believe this is a trait of his and is something I've been commenting on since watching his highlight videos before he joined. I believe this is one of the things keeping Kennedy out of the side.

We'd all share that hope I'm sure but I fear it's a very, very big if for Izzy. I wish him all the very best but I think he lacks the quality for a Chelsea career.

Yep you may be right and, importantly, it seems that Charly, Chelsea and Betis all agree with you.

As I've posted previously, the two best performances I saw Charly put in for us were both in the Modric role. Thing is those two games were the only occasions he played there and they were18 months apart so no one at the club seems to have any interest in seeing Charly used in that way. I don't know if you would call that a DM position however.

Really well said. I wanted to say something about judging a keeper on clean sheets but you said it in a much better way than I could.

My biggest gripe with the coverage of football is pundits and commentators who don't do their homework. They have such a fun job, just put a little bit of effort in lads. Shortly after kick-off in today's game the co-commentator was having a moan up about Betis, listing a couple of players who might help them but saying that apart from those two Betis had no creativity in their side. The two names did not include Charly which shows that he can't even have watched Betisi's last game and that is surely the least he should do. Anyway, by the 35th minute he was able to say, "If Betis can get the ball to Musonda as often as possible they'll do a lot better in this game." Obviously Charlie has shown enough to open the commentator's eyes but actually Betis have not been able to set him up with good possession all that often. Consequently, despite being the most effective player so far, both he and his team have been fairly quiet in the game. That said, they enjoyed their best spell in the last 7 or 8 minutes of the half so maybe we'll see more in the second period.

Over Easter in the old days there used to be 3 games in four days. One on Good Friday, one on the Saturday and another on the Monday. It was just a brilliant weekend to be a football fan. Can't speak for the players mind; it must have seriously disrupted their birds, booze and fags lifestyle. In the even older days they used to play matches on Christmas Day as well as on Boxing Day.

Matic had already been suffering 'poor form' for a year before Imbula joined Stoke.

I think what happened is that we were without any width at all due to both our wingers and both of our fullbacks being injured. (Robbie made the bench but did not feel he was ready and was very reluctant to play you'll remember.) Throw in the fact that each of our ties with Liverpool has been won by the side playing the second leg at home as well as that there was a ghost on the pitch and you have the real reasons for our exit that night. P.S. Is down the boil the American English version of the UK English expression off the boil? Have to confess I'd never heard it before.

I confess that I'd have been tempted to go weak tomorrow but I'm so proud of the stance that Chelsea football club adopt. We don't shrink from any challenge. I love Guus for embracing that attitude. I'm sure there will be some flexibility but I'm also sure there will be a selection designed to give the game a real good go. If Diego gets hurt so be it. Oh and I certainly wouldn't want to suffer a long, boring procession in Ligue 1 just so we could rest players for the Champions League. One day we will, at long last, build a squad the quality of which truly reflects the amount of money we spend on it. When that happens the manager will have more room for manoeuvre with his selections. For now however, when faced with the opportunity to prioritise a later fixture at the risk of compromising our chances in the game at hand, we always say stuff that and go out to win the next game. Love it, love Chelsea.

No I don't agree that it's the same thing at all. He just knew then that the next boss wasn't going to be him so answered as he did. Even today when asked if he wanted the job he ducked the question. Of course the media bods have forgotten, or are pretending to have forgotten, that Guus ruled himself out of the job last week, the week before and the week before that. They are therefore presenting it this evening as if it is news. The bit about the young people is perhaps a clue as to the reason especially when linked with what he had to say about the club needing to move away from short term managerial appointments. That is much closer to the truth I would say than that Guss did not want the gig. What's more I feel sure that Roman and Guus would have agreed mutually that a younger man is the way to go.

There are only twelve words which are a quote from the Betis manager. The rest is journalistic flourish.

A quote from the Daily Mail article linked above: