OhForAGreavsie

Gemma has had to switch wings to try to get involved. Shortly after she got he first real involvement of the game, cutting inside and firing a shot high and a little wide but it was our best moment of the match so far.

1 down 4 mins into the first leg of our Champions League last 16 tie with Wolsburg. OG following a corner. We haven't settled yet.

The post didn't say potential. I responded to what was written. Talent is no part of potential.It's the unchanging factor. Players will develop and learn to apply their talent in advantageous ways or they won't, but talent is talent, and it's fixed. Kennedy has strengths but it won't matter a jot how many hundreds of hours he spends practising, he is never going to be Lionel Messi. Achieving your potential is about polishing what you have and learning to apply it. We have some talented lads in the development squads and among the loan army, but, based on what I've seen, none of them is yet demanding first team minutes with their performances. For example, I love Kennedy's hustle but he lacks finesse, whereas Ruben's finesse is almost there but he lacks hustle. Combine the two and we have a player but as it stands that's not the case.

Because a critical mass of our squad members are not good enough and, unlike last season, our difference makers are not papering over the cracks.

Valid or invalid? Let me reply using the notion of correct or incorrect. Like everyone on the planet, whenever I have a firm opinion on a subject I belive that opinion to be correct for, if I didn't think it was correct, I'd stop thinking it and think something else instead. Whether you think my opinion is correct is another matter. I didn't say you can't see another way, I said I couldn't. And I can't.

I need that explained I'm afraid.

Try it again in the morning!

Interesting. That exposes the major problem with highlight vids. I really like his decision making as shown there. Definitely want to see more of this lad though.

Thanks Bethos. You've answered another question I had. Wenger remains an ardent watcher of French football and he needs a striker. If this lad was ready then it's not hard to imagine Arsenal would have made a move.

The comment to which I replied claimed that there is more talent in our U21 squad than in the majority of first teams everywhere. The players listed are not a part of our U21 squad. Everywhere is a big place, but if we limit it to high level football the statement still wouldn't be true even if those players were currently at Cobham. I say this as someone who is a big fan of our development squads, who watches more development games than most I suspect, and who is a long term defender of our Academy when it has come under attack.

Then why are the 21s doing so badly?

If Charlay were as good as some assess him to be he would be dominant at development level. He has had good games, and even 1 or 2 great ones, but all-in-all he seldom dominates. I'd like to see him get chances but neither he nor we should get carried away by what he offers. For what it's worth the two best performances I've seen from Charlay were both playing the Pirlo role. Those two games were 18 months apart mind you so it doesn't seem like anyone feels that's his position.

Batshuayi looks pretty interesting in those videos. Does anyone know how he stands viz the Belgian national squad? It proves nothing either way but you'd have thought that a player who is of the quality we'd like to have would be in the frame for international honours.

I'm sure no one really imagines that Willian's current rate of free kick conversion is going to continue. Of course it won't, no matter how much he practices. In the entire history of the game no one has ever sustained this rate of success over a prolonged period. There's a reason for that.

I'll give you that I can't offer an available name who might be brought in to replace Willian but I put that down entirely to my lack of knowledge not a lack of appropriately talented players. I'm busier work wise than I have been for a while and I'm watching a lot less football than I have done recently. I thought that yesterday was a great example of what we get from Willian. Some of his ball carrying was outstanding, turning defence into potentially dangerous attacking situations. I want to stress that I don't regard this as nothing, this is a great attribute. However what did he ever generate to make any of those more than an uplifting moment for the fans? Time after time he was in position to translate a good position into a great one but missed the boat. As for example when his pass to Ramires was just too far in front of his fellow Selacao resulting in a pressured shot and wasted opportunity. That, I'm afraid, is how it goes with William, just too far in front, a little behind the run instead of into it, little flicks than find touch or the defender and cross-field balls that look great but require headed control and so limit the receiver's options. I'm not trying to pretend that passes which require accuracy within a matter of inches are easy. Of course they are not but Willian misses and misses and misses again. To satisfy me that he's a Chelsea player he'd have to hit sometimes. In fact we should be looking for players who hit more often than an average player might. Willian does not. Eden Hazard has shown us what he can do. He has given us reason to believe and to be patient with him. (In fact I thought he wa very good yesterday.) I'm still waiting for Willian to do likewise. His lovely runs beating 2 or 3 opponents is for show, the simple pass perfectly executed at the right moment is for dough. Willian puts on a great show. There is a logic to what you say about Willian looking better if the side is playing well. My fear however is that as long as Willian is deserving of a starting place it will only serve to reinforce the fact that we are not playing well. When we get the side we need, the side we all want, Willian won't be in it.

I like the bloke enormously but the long and the short of it is that he flatters to deceive. Lots of eye catching moments in open play but they pretty much all come to nothing. The killer touch, pass, finish or decision nearly always eludes him. We need an upgrade. Desperately. There's been a lot of debate about him recently. A strand of the debate being that Willian is the best we have for the role he plays. Well, I don't happen to think that he is but it doesn't matter either way. The important thing is neither he nor Oscar is good enough for that role so an upgrade is essential. I'm sure Willian's supporters will want to carry on the discussion but I can't see any way to assess his output other than as I've said above.

Deleted - I've already posted.

True unfortunately.

How strange. Do you mean that people like me, who were not impressed with what we had seen from Baba previously, should not acknowledge that he's played well when he very obviously has?

Well I had been wondering how he could possibly have survived in a Bundesliga team if he really was as bad as he looked in early outings for us. He was very good last night and decent in his previous game but prior to that he was shocking.

No! I am not saying that Willian has found form. I'm saying that things are going well for him from set pieces but that otherwise his level* is exactly as it ever was and that his level, though it flatters to deceive, is not good enough for what we need. Sanchez's output at Arsenal has been way better than I thought it would be I must say. A case could be made, and was made by Arsenal fans as well as by some others, that he, not Eden, should have been POTY. Had Arsenal won the league it is my guess that Sanchez would have won the vote. Jose Mourinho works for us however, not for Arsenal. *I prefer to talk about level rather than form because we all understand that form comes and goes.

This is the heart of the difference between us. You say Willian is better, I say he looks better. In every way Willian looks a better player than Oscar, and don't get me wrong I've been calling for Oscar to be replaced since January 2013, but what does Willian accomplish? Oscar's attacking stats vs Willian's is a no contest. There was a magnificently stylish Australian batsman called David Hookes. He was even better aesthetically than Greg Chapple and Mark Waugh (widely regarded as two of the most pleasing to watch batsmen in the history of the game) but, whereas those two backed up their style with a pile of runs, Hookes didn't so, nowadays, people rightly ask, "David who?". Looking good ain't being good.

Willian, fantastic passing? Can't agree with that at all. Poor would be my grade on his passing over the course of his Chelsea career. It is the main reason he flatters to deceive.; looks good but produces little.

1. Willian was certainly the man of the match last night. No question about it. He has always looked eye catching. Other than in-form Hazard, he is our best ball carrier and has always looked looked way better than Oscar for example. Oscar has however always, up to now, produced more. 2. Willian's work rate is, and always has been, fantastic. 3. He has definitely been our best player so far this season. 4. In terms of attacking production from open play, we are not currently getting any more from Willian than has ever been the case. We are still seeing the missed chances and the missed opportunities to create chances. I say again, Senhor Borges Da Silva is fluid, beats players and looks good but achieves too little. 5. Neither Oscar nor Willian is good enough for the team Chelsea want to be. We need upgrades for both.

It is not possible for a face to look disinterested. Stan Collymore loves the word but he has no clue what it means. Disinterest is a legal state of being, you cant demonstrate it with body language. It is something you are, or are not. It is possible to look uninterested however. Every time Collymore, and other football people, use the word disinterested, they think they are saying someone is, or looks, uninterested but they are not. That said, the enormous popularity of football suggests that if the word disinterest continues to be misused in discussing the game, its meaning will eventually morph so that it comes to mean what Stan and his mates think it means already. That would be a shame. We have two perfectly good words, disinterested and uninterested, to convey two entirely different concepts. Why confuse the issue?