OhForAGreavsie

I'd say that in fact he disappeared well before half time but even so I was satisfied with Oscar today.

I think Oscar started well and ended the half doing 'OK'. We seem to me to be playing much better than we did in the first half on Sunday and I think Oscar is contributing by pressing when called for and moving the ball quickly. I'd say this performance typifies my opinion of him, not good enough to be Chelsea's starting number ten but still the best ten we have in the current squad.

Indeed I'm glad you spelled out the way UEFA has adjusted the distribution of Champions' League TV money. Ever since the BT deal was announced I've been really unhappy about the way they are going to be handing a bigger share of the English contract to non-English clubs. Not because they don't have the right to do it but because it's English football fans that will be paying for it. For example, I'm pretty sure that, once their coverage begins, BT will announce that their sports channels are no longer free with my broadband. Anyway, the part of the Yokohama launch video that most caught my attention is where Bruce Buck talked about further sponsorship arrangements that were in the pipeline. The question will now become how the club should use the elbow room all this extra revenue will give them under FFP. The answer of course is simple. They should read the Transfer Talk section of this forum and sign every player recommended there. :)

Well said. I am strongly pro-Jose so you and I will probably find ourselves on opposite sides of a few discussions, but, everything you say about expressing your views, and your right to self-identify as a Chelsea fan, is entirely correct. I find it hard to believe that anyone would disagree with a word of it. I admit that I don't like the way you expressed your view and if you had any interest at all in my opinion I'd advise that you made your points in a different way. You are not subject to my veto on your style however, and nor should you be so keep posting please.

You know I've been so put out by the Bradford result that it's cast a cloud on all things Chelsea ever since. At no stage yesterday did I get excited, not even when I got back. It felt all day like I was going through the motions. This morning however the happiness has finally kicked in; we won a trophy and it feels every bit as good as it should. Better than good in fact because we beat that lot. COYB.

Thanks MrExcalibur100. The beauty of this is that it's a straight binary proposition. Either there is enough quality in the squad to play as I described, or there is not. Either you are right or I am, there can be no grey area on this question. The problem is, how do we decide which is which? We both watch the team so we've both seen exactly the same evidence. The fact that we assess this evidence differently sounds like an honest disagreement to me.

Not for all the others no. Only Spain (3), England (2) and Portugal (2), had more than one top seed in this season's Champions' League draw. Next season those countries will be allocated just one top seed by right. One country might be able to claim a second club in pot one but only if that club are the European Champions. Other countries will gain from the change. France and Italy, for example, had no top seeds this season but will be guaranteed at least one next time around. The situation for Russia will be even better. From my memory, Russia has never had a top seed in the Champions' League/European Cup draw but they will do in 2015/16.

By the way, it's perfectly clear what you're saying, which is what counts after all, but your post does contain a couple of typos which I thought I'd mention in case that's helpful. What should be the word unequivocal, has come out as, unequivalent, and what should be the word beat has appeared as beated.

The only thing, the only thing, that makes a person a professional footballer is that people are prepared to pay to watch the team they play for. I happen to agree with you that when I pay I'd like to see my team play on the front foot, dominate matches and win. I don't believe however that it's for me to tell other people what they want to watch or what it is they should choose to pay for. We'd both concede, wouldn't we, that it is up to individuals to decide these things for themselves. Neither of us therefore could, or should, presume to know why people do what they do. One thing we might claim to know however is that although some fans will accept defeat if the team plays well, they will not accept it for long. The attitude of almost all supporters is that if their team's results do not live up to expectations, then they do not consider themselves entertained, no matter what the quality of the football. No one who has ever read a fans' forum, or listened to a football phone-in, can be in any doubt about that. So what does a manager of Chelsea football club have to do to satisfy me and you? Simple, he has to win and he has to play attractive football. My point of view is that we do not yet have the squad to play beautifully all the time, and expect to be successful doing it. In my opinion, the squad does not contain enough depth of quality to make that possible. I therefore break Jose's task into two separate parts. In the summer he has to make more moves that improve the squad and we'll all judge him on how well he does. In the meantime however, he has to carry on winning. If this means that the boss must sometimes, or perhaps even often, compromise on style, then compromise away Jose; compromise away.

Great call. I confess I never saw it as an option. Kudos.

I watched the first half hour today before going for something to eat so I just missed his goal. He played as one of two strikers in a 4-4-2. In the 30 minutes I saw he mainly looked good. He was neat and quick and even when things went wrong you could see he was trying to do the right things. Towards to end of what I saw though there were one or two loose touches.

Guessing @lionking meant the Europa League Final.

Where did I say the speech was stupid?

True but what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that Robbie would not have been sacked had he given the Guardiola speech? Of course you're not, and I understand that you're not. There are many factors which contribute to a manager retaining his job. Not making stupidly inappropriate speeches is only one of them.

Sorry but I have to express myself frankly here; what an absolute pile of nonsense. Had Guardiola given that speech while in charge of Chelsea in Munich on 19/05/2012, Bayern would still be celebrating now. You can say stuff like this when you are in charge of a team widely regarded as the best club side ever, but in other circumstances it would be suicidal stupidity. Pep played to his squad's strengths. He had every reason to believe that his men would beat anybody if they performed as they can. What he needed to do therefore was simply get them to do their stuff. Any idiot can give the speech, but what is the speech without a realistic hope of success? Pure vanity, that's what. I wouldn't dream of calling Pep vain. He'd assess his squad's strength's and react accordingly, I'm sure. Could Pep have led Chelsea to glory on that night in Munich? None of us know but we all do know that had he sent them out to just play football, Bayern Munich would have made him look foolish. One day I'd like a Chelsea manager to be able to prepare his team by giving such a speech, but that day is not today. It's not even tomorrow and it's certainly not the day after tomorrow.

The change to the seeding system from 2015-2016 on is, in most seasons, going to make things worse for all but one of our clubs.

QFT.

Ha-ha. (Original obviously better but it's necessary to avoid a Beatles overdose every once in a while.)

Has the alarm bell rung once too often now? Arsenal's Champions' League chances are hanging by a thread and City's are too. The Citizens might have picked up a slightly better result than Arsenal's but in truth they should have been at least 4 or 5 down at half time. We can't crow either. The pundits will probably spend the next week talking about Chelsea being the exception but none of us here will be fooled by that. Our draw masked a dreadful performance last week and we know it as is made quite clear by posts in the match threads. What the heck is up with our league? Do we have things too easy? Will the money roll in for the players no matter what and is the same true for the Chairmen? If they sign good players the TV cash floods in but what happens if they sign only adequate players? They still find themselves swimming in oceans of cash. These are only the same speculations we've all come up with after previous poor seasons in Europe but can we keep brushing this under the carpet? Now is the time to ask these questions before any potential miracle results come along to turn the ties around and lull us back to a false sense of security. Something is broken.

So he played CB not RB? All of this makes Kenneth pretty much a squad player currently. Any new information regarding how he feels about this?

Back more rigidly on topic: It's great to see Boga on the bench for tonight's 19s game with Zenit but I'm disappointed that RLC is not involved. In one way it's good news because it suggests that he'll be on the bench at Wembley and that Jose is not willing to risk him tonight. On the other hand, I'd have thought he could do with some game time since I don't believe he has played at any level for several weeks. Also, I really want to progress at least one more round in the EYL so I'd have been happier if we selected our top side available.

I think either I have not explained myself well enough or you have not quite grasped my point. Almost certainly the former I'm sure. I'm not arguing that Zouma is similar to other members except in one way way. I'm trying to describe my point of view that Kurt gets games for one reason, and one reason, only. This is simply that sometimes Jose feels the young man is the best player available to occupy one of the centre back roles. Kurt doesn't get the shirt because he is old, or young; because he's a record signing, or a free transfer. When he gets the nod it's because, in TSO's opinion, he is the best man available for that job, on that day. The same has been true for Nathan Ake on one occasion. That, I think you and I would agree, is Jose's modus operandi. Selection on merit only and, in judging that merit, his is the only opinion that counts. Calling for young players to get special treatment is always going to be a vain pursuit with our boss. Youngsters may get dead minutes at the end of a game, or the end of the season, but when it comes to getting live minutes they simply have to make Jose believe they are the best. Zouma has done that, Christiansen, for example, has not. Some people consider Jose's M.O. to be a fault but we've all seen Zouma and we've all seen Christiansen. Do any of us seriously doubt that one player looks ready and the other does not? I say again, with Jose, it's not about how old you are, it's about how convinced he is that you can help the team. If you want minutes don't just hold out your birth certificate and hope, make the boss believe.

Thanks Supporter. I have not seen enough of Koke so, while I feel justified to say that what I have seen has not particularly impressed me, I will bow to your greater knowledge.

It sounds like you've seen more of Koke than I have so I'm happy to accept that you are in a better position to judge him. Something I do feel qualified to hold an opinion about is that the Oscar fades idea is a myth. He's poor before Christmas too. It just seems to take till then for people to stop making excuses and face the truth. That truth is that he's a good player but good does not get it done for Chelsea's number ten.

As I said above, I don't believe that KDB will return. As for Koke, I've seen too little of him to be absolutely definitive but, from what I have seen, he looks no better than Oscar. Since I don't believe Oscar is good enough to serve as Chelsea's number 10, I am in no hurry to sign Koke.