OhForAGreavsie

The post I'm replying to should be pinned so that it appears at the top of every page in this topic. I have nothing against Patrick and I bet Tomo hasn't either but it is discouraging that things went wrong for him at the level which is closest to the one he wants to reach. As far as can be told from his interviews, on pitch demeanour, and reported comments, Patrick is a really good bloke who deserves much success at Chelsea. I do want to acknowledge something however. Having seen Patrick play in development games a few years back I wrote him off as not good enough for Chelsea level. Since then he has been doing better at each loan club, except Palace, than I really expected him to. I'm sure Patrick will keep fighting for a top level career and it must be said that his first goal vs QPR's 21s the other day was a magnificent strike. Very, very high class indeed. He knows, everyone reading this knows and I know, that there is more to making it than being capable of a finish like that but it can't do any harm. Although I remain a non-believer I wish Patrick well.

It only becomes an issue if the player on loan is not the better option for the team. When he is the better option, he gets selected. In fact clubs who find that a player on loan is good for them often then try to sign him on a permanent basis. Footballers who fail to get selected while on loan fail for the same reason they fail at their parent clubs; they have not convinced the manager that the are good enough. No more complicated explanation is necessary. P.S. I edited this post in an effort to make my point more clearly. I think @blues.bridge liked the post before that edit. It may be that in the updated form, he'd want to take it back. Apologies to b.b if that's so.

Hello Jay, Honest question; which other players spring to mind who are examples of this? I can't name any off the top of my head but then I'm not trying too hard since I take the opposite view to yours on this issue. My take is that Kane got chances to play at Spurs because he earned them. Eventually he took one of those chances and showed that he could contribute. He was able to do both of those things because he is good enough but how many of our lads have shown that they are good enough to earn, and then to take, their opportunity too? On the face of it the answer is none since, none of them have made significant progrees under any of our managers. I can guess that your explanation for this is very different to the one I'd give.

Could you please give a health warning on any posts that have nice things to say about that lot. It takes me days to recover from reading stuff like this.

Or me.

That first goal was a top class finish. Must have felt good for the lad.

No. It's simply that that grossly inaccurate claim is all I wanted to comment on.

!!! Our conversation is going around in circles now so I'll dip out here.

Exactly. Given Brana's form and the team's results it is obvious that both managers would choose the alternative if given the slightest encouragement and i do mean the slightest. Many are reluctant to accept this statement of the obvious but, it is a very sound guess to think that Baba has not offered even so small a level of encouragement.

A decision with which Guss clearly concurs. You don't agree with the decision but it is not based on bias. We must remember that Jose did, and Guss does, see Baba playing everyday.

Yes he has all the technical gifts but his decisions are still poor. When he's on it he's out of this world as vs Barca U20s a couple of seasons ago for example. He also had a brilliant, brilliant game* in the final stages of last season's UEFA Youth League, but in the main his displays are just a big disappointment. *Actually half a game is nearer the truth.

Jose has a bias in favour of the players he thinks are best able to contribute good performances for his team.

Oh dear I must look a bit like a stalker right now but... No he really isn't. Jed's talent is huge but he is not yet putting it all together. Currently his game adds up to less than the sum of its parts. Much less.

I don't know if this was caught by the cameras but that outburst was in part a reaction to the fact that Zouma was criticising Brana throughout the game. Kurt's annoyance pleased me immensely. Not so much because he was right, that much is obvious, but because it seems to me to be a sign of growing self confidence. I have a long standing suspicion about Brana which dates back to the Swansea semi-final three years back. If correct it would offer an explanation for his often bizarre performances. I've no evidence to support my guess however and it's the sort of thing one shouldn't say without evidence. Bringing it back to Baba; how bad would he have to be to slip below Brana in the pecking order? Probably about as bad as he's looked in most of his first team appearances. I simply don't agree that a footballer gets selected just because he's young. First he has somehow to convince the coach to give him a try. Two managers have now made it clear that baba has not yet done that to their satisfaction.

Well we'll know in a fortnight.

Having read the media tonight...I'm inclined to think the 'youngsters filling the gaps' was more to do with other positions apart from striker as he name dropped Christian atsu and traore. Who are both wingers. His Bamford comments make no sense otherwise and neither do his comments about us needing more options upfront to avoid being in danger should Costa or re my be injured . Weird one Weird indeed. He didn't mention Christian or Bertrand in the broadcast portion of the conference so that statement must have come in the print section. Might he have been extending the list to also include players who represent an alternative to signing Pato to play as a wide attacker? He repeat the stuff about needing more options up top? Again he did not say that during today's broadcast. In fact what he did say on camera, was pretty much the exact opposite of that. My translation of the Bamford comment is that Guss has not seen anything from Patrick which makes him feel inclined to select the young striker and, as I say, I agree with that.

From a about 9:54

Ah, interesting to read an alternative take. I still feel he was being genuine however and that the new line could reflect that we have been turned down by our striking targets. Certainly that would add some perspective to what Guss said about the there being a new reality in the transfer market for Chelsea. Not so new I'd guess. Meanwhile, I agree with you about Tammy and I agree with Guss about Patrick.

Oh come on man, now you've told me that you know what I'm gonna do!

Now you tell me!

Hello Kev, I haven't read this stuff from you before so apologies if I'm mistaken in taking this as reflecting your real thoughts on these things. You put great stress on the translation from 27th August 2020 CE to 21/12/2012 in the Ethiopian calendar. Could you tell me what the significance of that is? Is it linking back to the Mayan thing? I'm not suggesting that I give credence to the views expressed but I am curious.

Guus appeared to shut this down during today's media conference. When the subject of Pato was raised the coach talked about his existing striking options, mentioned the availability of some kids who can fill in the gaps and then said, "We don't need to do anything there. [recruiting strikers]" I know that some don't regard Pato as a striker but Guus seemed to. Leaving aside the possibility that Guss does not know what the club is planning, or is deliberately creating some misdirection, this comment seems to be a blow for the hopes of those who would like to see Pato join. Given his previous straight bat approach to questions about transfer speculation, the mere fact that the coach chose to engage with the question this time suggests the club are keen to distance themselves form Pato.

!

I doubt either one of us would like to live in a world where opinions about which manager picks which players is an issue over which the moral high ground could be fought. As for whether managers err less because they manage clubs you don't support, you've missed the point.

I think it's only fair to acknowledge, again, that it's not for me, or you, to dictate which club other people choose to follow and how they choose to give their support. Indeed, until I started using this place, I thought I was one of the more negative Chelsea fans around but there are people here who outclass me. The vitriol they pour over over our club and its staff is hard to distinguish from the behaviour of Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool fans. Disappointment, frustration, anger are all things people would notice in fans of all clubs from time to time. Underneath it all however the love they have for their football team burns unmistakably brightly. Some of the Chelsea fans who post here are hiding the light of that love under a very, very big bushel.