OhForAGreavsie

Well, let's see how Guus's opinion on Baba develops but why do you think he has, up to now, made the same decision Jose did?

That's exactly why they can. Baba has not convinced either of the Chelsea managers he's played for that he merits a place in the side. Baba can hope that Guus's mind is not already set against him but it's a mistake to see this a Mourinho issue. When, and only when, he convinces the manager to pick him. Barring your appointment to the hot seat that's his only route into the team. You are clearly unhappy about it but does it tell you nothing that both Guus & Jose have preferred Branna, even at his at his present level, over Baba?

Judge it at the end DF. I know you know this stuff already but just to be explicit:- Where there is no binding buy-out clause, selling clubs have little or no incentive to sell early. They know that the looming deadline is their friend. The only circumstance in which a club might sell early is when they need the money and no other club is competing for the player we want. If the player is of the quality both you and I would like to see recruited then there are bound to be other suitors and that always puts paid to a quick outcome. Even if there is no other potential buyer however, few selling clubs need the money so desperately that they can't wait a few weeks for the deal to be done. Lack of result is not a sign of lack of activity.

Thanks Tomo. I don't agree but, unless we get reliable confirmation either that there were offers from top English clubs, or that there were not, we won't be able to settle it.

Another Chelsea fan site held a poll in April last year asking which youth prospect was most likely to make it to Chelsea first team level. Jay got my vote. His talent is immense but there is no escaping the fact that his diminutive stature increases the challenge he faces in breaking through. My selection didn't change the fact that, between them, Jay and Charlie Colkett collected less than 1.5% of the nominations in that poll. This suggests to me that most of the votes were cast by people who don't actually watch our development squads play.

There's no such thing as consistent.

There was never going to be a second leg under any circumstance but I know what you mean. You'd be the first to point out, I know, that there is a lot more to playing full back than good crosses but we've seen little evidence of them from Baba in a Chelsea shirt anyway. He has made eight appearances; one was decent, one just about tolerable, and the rest ranged from poor to appallingly bad. So bad as to prompt speculation that if Baba trained as poorly as he played on those occasions, we might never see him in the first team again. Well we haven't seen much of him and there is clearly a reason for that. Hiddink's line up against Scunthorpe pleased me because it suggests that his priorities are where I want them to be. I want to win the FA Cup. I'd be delighted to win with kids, but defeat with kids is of no use to me. I've read the argument that the presence academy graduates would be some sort of consolation in the event of defeat but I don't agree with that line of thought. If we lose with what Guus sees as his best XI then that is a consolation. At least then there would be no doubt that he had tried to win. If, however, the coach put out a side he felt was not our best, then defeat would attract my fury. I don't want consolation, I want Chelsea to compete for the magnificent trophy which was on the line at the weekend. To those who ask how Hiddink can know if this player, or that player, is good enough unless they are played, I say that this is exactly what Hiddink is paid to decide. The only way for young players to get their names on the team sheet is to convince managers that they have the required abilities and attributes, and that all they lack is experience. They have to sell that idea to the coach with what they do in training, in development squad matches or out on loan. If they are unable to do that then they will not get minutes, and nor would they deserve to.

Whether Bertrand can carry our ambitions up top is far from certain but I definitely agree that he's the better talent of the two.

Huddersfield was not the only example either. How many times did rested starters have to come off the bench to rescue us in cup ties? Quite a few.

Let's not give up hope that it won't happen but, if it does, it would not be their first of the Roman era.

I don't believe that. He had a great game against Napoli, was important vs Barca then enjoyed spectacular moments at Wembley and in Munich, but, overall, he was really poor that season. I doubt that any of the top English sides would have had an interest in him.

Guus said, "There could be a surprise there", meaning in regard to a youngster being included. That's not to say that Ruben won't be involved, just that I wouldn't say he counts as a surprise. Who else might Guus be planing to include? Ola? Patrick? Bertrand? Even Charlie Colkett who posted a picture of a first team shirt on social media this week? Now that Guus has raised expectation, I hope there is something more to this comment than misdirection. If there is a surprise then Ola at RB or Bertrand up top are my guesses. Just checked and another member has pointed out that Charlie's instagram picture was a repost from the start of the season so maybe I should scratch him off the list. Shame, I'm a big Colkett fan.

He won't be loved by me if he starts those players and looses. I'd like to see youngsters of course but not at the cost of exiting the competition. First priority for me is win the game. I know many see this trophy as one which can be sacrificed but not me. For me this is a huge deal and I'm desperate to win it again. P.S. As for that particular line up. I think it'd be loved more in theory than it would be in practice if it was selected. Of course it won't be so I'll never know whether I'm right about that.

Yes and isn't that an interesting change of tune? While it was made clear that his appointment was temporary, Guus's previous response to the question about staying beyond the end of 2015/16 was to say let's get to the end of the season and then see. Reasonable to guess that, between Guus's first media conference after returning and now, CFC have reached an agreement with the next coach. Not much chance of finding out who any time soon I suppose.

Deleted. Looking back at my earlier posts I see that everything I said here was just a repeat of what I'd said before.

Yes, we know that Jose said he was against the move. The point is he only started saying that after he had said several times that he believed Big Pete deserved to be allowed to make his own choice. He even said he was proud of Chelsea for being the kind of club that would make such a decision. He said it in more than one press conference which I watched and I'm convinced he was being genuine. Only later did he start saying that he didn't want Petr to join a rival and I've explained why I think his public statements changed. I don't believe for a nano second that Roman wants to make any negative gestures towards Jose. The decision to allow Petr to choose was made by decent people who did the right thing. I'm proud of them.

There's a difference between not keeping a player and letting a great player make a despised team into a title contender against the coach's wishes. Roman fucked Jose and this club with that move but he doesn't work with Arsenal fans or know what that rivalry is because he's not one of us. I don't see this the same way as you do for at least three reasons. First, I'm proud of my club for doing what I think is the right thing. Petr did his job here for many years but all he deserves for that is his salary. Beyond earning his pay however, he also won a place in the hearts of Chelsea fans and that gets him more than mere cash. I'd rather Arsenal win the league than we say to a club legend, a man we love, that he can no longer start here and that if he wants to start elsewhere he has to uproot his family and move abroad, or else he must join a team which is not competitive. Our owner may be a child of the Soviet era, but he isn't running a Gulag. Second, I do not believe this move was against Jose's wishes at all. If you remember Jose's initial comments on Petr's situation he talked about Petr being a special case, of being proud that this club recognises the right of a legend to choose. He said that a number of times in a number of press conferences and only much later did he start to contradict that position. I have not a single shred of evidence to support what I'm about to write but nevertheless I believe that TSO's change of tune was fake and that he was put up to it by Maria Granovskaia to help her negotiating position with Arsenal. Third, Arsenal are not a zillion points ahead of us because they signed a good player. They are are ahead of us because we signed too many bad ones. The only way I would ever want to see Arsenal win the league is if the alternative was that Liverpool or Spurs would win it instead. Other than that, I'd hate to see Wenger's lot claim the title but if they do, so be it. I'm still proud that Chelsea showed class.

About Oscar, I can give you the link of my post in 2013. ============ First about that Elastico, when there is space why not use it? Even Ronaldinho (who is king of Elastico) is chasing the ball in this scene: Technique is not just keeping the ball tied to your boots. When you say "His style is more to power past and out sprint defenders" you mean like this: Right? Bale showed his Technique in that scene and the ball was not tied to his boots. Or this scene: The way a player shoots the ball is also called technique. Bale has scored many times like this: Now the question is can Kenedy do this? I believe he can. And as I said, let's see what happens in future. ============ If technique was just about "having the ball tied to one's boots", then Blanco had the best technique: Ok then I congratulate you for arriving at the party not long after I did. There is a difference between intentionally pushing the ball into space then getting after it, and having to chase it because your touch was loose. In your gif the ball simply does not go where Kennedy expected it to. That is the point about Robert's control. On your he's better at it than Eden contention, let's agree to disagree. For now.

Re Oscar, I said three years ago that he wasn't up to it, that the he's tired nonsense was just a silly excuse and that we needed an upgrade. I won't blame you for being so late to the party. I'm sure you are prepared to change your mind when presented with evidence which you find convincing. I'd like to think that I am too. Indeed I've already changed my mind about Kennedy to an extent as a result of better evidence. I think you will too but let me confirm what I am, and am not, saying about Kennedy. I am not saying that he isn't a decent player, I am saying that his technique is not better than Eden's, which was your contention that I replied to in the first place. My impression about Robert's technique was formed when watching his youtube videos and confirmed by watching him play since. His touch is often loose and particularly so on the dribble. He simply does not have that ball tied to his boots level of control with which Eden bamboozles opponents. His style is more to power past and out sprint defenders. Where I have changed my mind is in regard to my expectations for Kennedy. Based on those youtube videos I was not encouraged about his chances but, when I saw the tremendous energy and desire he displayed against Barca (and since) I began to hope that he might find a role in the squad. I like the bloke enormously and really want it to happen for him here but his weaknesses, and not just his strengths, were there for all to see in that first appearance as well as in others since. P.S. Just look at what happens to the ball in your signature video. Look at the way Robert ends up having to chase after it. Obviously one example, good or bad, proves nothing but I'm afraid that gif reveals one more piece of evidence of what I'm saying.

Well I thought, and said, that Douglas Costa, who was linked at the same time, looked more talented than Cuadrodo did on youtube. Something to bear in mind however is that Costa moved into a better, more confident team than the one Cuadrado joined. To me the skill set of Teixeira looks a zillion times better than JC did on the highlight vids. I promise that I'm not trying to be argumentative but I also don't agree that Willian took his game to a different level. I think he simply wasn't as bad as the other options.

Did Cuadrado look brilliant? Don't watch Serie A so I don't know. I do know that his technique did not look too impressive on YouTube. While it proves nothing, at least we know, again from youtube, that Teixeira has a better skill set than our Columbian. Need to watch him actually play to decide if the Shakhtar man uses these skills well enough to make himself a better footballer but he's got them, and that's a start.

There is so much to agree with it this post. Three things I'd like to comment on: - We definitely need the midfielder you describe. I don't know enough about Kante to have an opinion about if he can fit the bill but, if he has the qualities you describe, he is better than Essien. Ess could power past markers but not dribble past them (his close control was ordinary) and he was a less than ordinary passer. I suppose being better than Ess is enough of a recommendation for a lot of Chelsea fans though I must admit I rated ME less highly than most did. The point you make about adding mobility without losing technical quality is such an important one for our club. We have sold ourselves so short in the transfer market it's criminal. To live with elite clubs requires elite players and to be an elite player requires technique first and foremost but it also needs physical attributes. We have a history of getting players with one or the other. In other words, we have signed players who are below elite level but we have paid elite fees and wages to get them. The last thing I want to say is regarding the only part of your post I disagree with. I think it's just wishful thinking on our part to imagine that any strikers would get better service playing for Chelsea currently than they would playing for Watford or many other premier League sides. It just ain't so I'm afraid though I suppose you mean how it might be with an improved squad. We can only hope.

We need upgrades on both. If we succeed in becoming the side we'd like to be, neither of them will be starters.

Thanks Barbara. Hope you are well. I don't agree with you on this. It is true of course that we have failed to produce any first teamers through the academy for more than a decade but I do not believe this is because we're not trying. I'm convinced that we are trying hard but, for one reason or another, we are not very good at it. If any Cobham graduates had gone on to have top level careers elsewhere then maybe the claim could be made that we are ignoring young talent that deserves to be picked. The only possible example, Bertrand, is a debatable one in my opinion and, in any case, was not fully schooled at Cobham. I have been a long term defender of the academy and feel that we have only just reached the time when we can begin to judge their work. It takes a long time to set up a facility, its systems and its staff. Then it takes much, much longer to take 8 year old lads through the programme to first team age. It is still early days for Cobham. Having said that my early judgement on Cobham is must do better. I approved of the dismissal of Dermot Drummy. It was spun differently of course but he was moved sideways and rightly so. I am concerned however that we still don't have the coaching staff right. Our coaches have not, in my opinion, made RLC into the best player he can be and, equally worrying, Jeremie Boga is no better a footballer today than he was 3 years ago. In both cases the flaws in their games are things which can be coached yet the flaws remain. This is the real problem in my opinion. It's not that we are ignoring the talent, it's that we're not producing it to the required standard. The law of averages says a club isn't going to get many recruits of the right calibre in the first place so we can't afford to waste the ones we do find. Apologies for the length of this but there is one more point I'd like to make. All that an academy can honestly promise a young recruit is that they will help him become the best player he can possibly be. If that turns out to be up to the level which matches Chelsea's ambition then great, but if not then help the young man find another club and collect a transfer fee for him if appropriate. In other words, there is no distinction between what the academy needs to do to produce Chelsea players and what it must do to make a profit. In either case, just turn out the best footballers possible. The profit or player debate is therefore a non issue as far as I'm concerned. P.S. The manager does not want Patrick because, as I said when I saw him play for our development squads a few years ago, he isn't good enough. At least that's my opinion anyway.

I had a similar conversation with another member shortly after rumours of our interest in Kennedy began to surface. The other member initially saw things the way you do currently but he changed his mind when he saw more of Kennedy. You will too because Eden's technique is definitely the better of the two.