OhForAGreavsie

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?

No he does not. Willian is producing from set pieces. Currently. History tells us this won't last, even Ronaldo has been in a dead-ball slump. When the purple patch fades, we'll be back to assessing Willian's contribution in open play. Maybe it will change and we can really celebrate but my guess is that it will be the same as it ever was; looking great but achieving little.

Exactly so. Take away what he is accomplishing from dead-ball situations and how different does this version of Willian look? Not very I'd say. If he's able to continue this level of output from free-kicks that would be something but let's see it happen before we get too bullish about what he's doing.

Actually I wouldn't put his lack of output (across his Chelsea career) down to an absence of vision. His problem has been that even when he does see the right option, he just doesn't execute it often enough. I'm still in the we need an upgrade camp but I'm obviously pleased that his dead ball productivity is high at the moment.

I was not one of the 3 who liked him but he played very well, no doubt about it. Pleased for him.

You're probably right, on both counts, but I'm very happy with Begovic. He didn't cover himself in Glory re their goal but, as we know, all keepers mess up sometimes. It's inevitable. Overall he's been good for us and I'm delighted we have him. I have no fears whatsoever about him starting games.

I don't think some people fully accept how bad we were, in terns of squad quality, last term. Jose dragged us over the line by having the guts to set the team up in the only way it could win. This season: - Fabregas has continued his post November 2014 form to demonstrate why Barca let him go. Matic has continued his post November 2014 form in attempting to justify the decision to sell him to Benfica in the first place. Costa's one trick is looking even thinner than it did after October 2014. Our difference maker on the left wing has been replaced by a replicant. (He did look a bit leaner last night mind. Maybe he's trying to see if too much bulk has been a part of the problem.)

Fair point, although in fact the deal is for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 games over a 3 year period, not 3 games a year. Still likely though that there would be a lot more resistance to Association football being played at rugby HQ than about gridiron or anything else. More games they have, the more chance that Washington will come over so this is good news as far as I'm concerned.

How is this news to anyone here? Even before last season ended, Jose was talking about the need to beef up the squad. He talked about wanting to get the business done early and at one point mentioned needing 3 or 4 players. This from the man that always gives a formulaic 'just one or maybe two" reply when asked about off season squad building. He was going as far as he possibly could to say this squad ain't good enough; which is the one thing all of us here agree on. The anti-Jose crew didn't listen when I and others pointed this out during the summer, preferring to imagine that Jose was complacent and then blaming him for it. They won't listen now either. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear And disregards the rest Even me sometimes I suppose.

It's very likely that this is what Chelsea asked them to say. They would certainly have liaised with CFC brfore making any comment.

Apart from the passing at crucial moments. Which has been generally poor.

Haven't really been able to concentrate on the game but he's looked OK to me. And compared to what i usually have to say about him OK is a big compliment. The one really good pass we've made in the first half came from him.

No I don't believe that. I believe that that is one of the great myths of the game. A good young player will become a good experienced one. A poor young player like, Islam Feruze for example, will be poor all his days.

I tend to disagree with that argument, or rather I only agree with a part of it. We do need proper full backs but just because Azpi isn't one, does not mean that Baba is. As I say, I'm a Baba non-believer. My take on his debut was that we might never see him again. He was that poor. Still, that's my just my opinion, other people were more impressed.

He's shown absolutely nothing, nothing whatsoever, to suggests that he deserves a run. Tonight then would be as good a place as any to start proving that he has something to offer. I confess I'm not a believer, to me Baba's looked hopeless, but opportunities are there to be taken. Good luck to the lad.

Can only imagine that those who believed in his chances were inspired by reports and stats rather than by what they actually saw. Hopeless player. Never had any chance whatsoever at any decent level.

Of course not. Hopeless. Semi-pro at best for him. Worse than just being a poor player, he displayed a poor on field attitude. Although I admit I haven't seen him play for a couple of seasons, and it may be possible that his attitude has changed, I doubt it. The way he scowled at team mates for not passing to him while being outstandingly greedy himself, seemed too much a part of his personality to hope for real change.

Sadly you are correct.

I was going to say that. Got to admit though that you tell it better than me.

I like Lucas but that much has been clear for a long time. I also like our loan policy but I do think we need to be more alert in making decisions. Once it's been established that a young man has no realistic Chelsea future, and that's probably been the case for at least two years with Lucas, we need to be honest with him about it. We must allow the player to move on if he can find a club which will pick up his CFC wages and we have to refresh the loan army with newer prospects. A case in point currently is Nate Chalobah. A permanent move is best for the lad I think. Of course, if no one wants to match their CFC contracts then, fair enough, we owe it to the lads to work hard on their continuing development. If a good move is available however, let's do the right thing for the young men and for ourselves.