OhForAGreavsie

Just wrote a longish reply to this which has been gobbled up by the system. I'm watching the 21s at the moment but I'll try to do it again later. By the way Charlie Colkett is once again enhancing my view that he is very much one to watch. Love the way he plays football. Mind you I remember saying the same about KDB while at Genk. We lead 3-0 at half time btw. More when I can.

I've had conversations with people who blamed him for the quality of football whereas I always argued that it was the lack of creative technique in our players that was to blame. I know that you, or others, will disagree but I think that view has been vindicated. We now have players who are capable of moving the ball better than was the case during JM I and the football has improved. Give him the players and he can give you the football you want. My current belief is that if we replace Willian & Oscar with more capable players, if we strengthen the back line so it does not require quite as much protection, and if we add depth in the CM positions so that we can rest our two starters without dropping many levels of quality, we will be able to go toe-to-toe with the big teams, wherever, whenever. Meanwhile I simply do not believe any other manager could have taken us as close to a title win last season as Jose did. We handicapped him last time with too many ordinary players then blamed him for the inevitable result and parted company. It would be criminal if we were to blow it again when we are on the verge of getting it right. All the above, is just my opinion of course. Other points of view are available.

It'll only confirm those suspicions for those who have them in the first place. I have to say that I don't. Next year will be my 50th anniversary as a Chelsea fan so I've seen a lot of managers. In all that time I have only had a personal commitment to one of them. I am an arch sceptic; some believe we have a squad full of high class players but I don't even think we can field one XI of such players. I am most definitely not easy to please. The Doc, Dave Sexton, Eddie Mac, The Italians, even Guus; none of them mean anything to me. So, when I say Jose does, it is not something I say lightly.

The point is I think that they have to earn that time by what they show Jose in training, in development games, in the few minutes they do get or while out on loan. I agree it's tough for them but I fear that's the way it is.

Varane was 18 when he moved to Real and Kurt was 19 when he finally came here after his St. Etienne loan back. Yes, Zouma has played less often than Varane did in his first season but that can be explained by the fact that Varane is already seen as one of the best in the world. While no one is making that claim for Kurt, I think he's played enough so that those people who are happy to quote Varane as a demonstration of Jose promoting youth, should be prepared to accept Zouma as another example of the same thing. Jose probably would. As far as academy products are concerned, I'm one of those who believe that none of our prospects were anywhere near the required standard during JM I and that, so far, none of our current crop is quite ready to make the grade for JM II. Zouma played because Jose felt he was the best player available in certain situations but, the others have really only been given minutes to encourage them along. I know that for some people Jose will never get this monkey off his back until one or two of our lads come through, but before that can happen, some development players will have to show Jose that they are ready to move up the pecking order.

The media sometimes forget, probably because it helps them to manufacture stories, that Jose's English, though great, is not perfect. Based on the televised portion of the his press conference, it seemed pretty clear that he meant selected for the match squad, not selected for the team. He did though go on to say, later in the conference, that Schurrle will 'probably' start.

I seriously hope that Jose will survive even if we fail to win a trophy. My view is that, although we are an improved side, any success we achieve this season will still be ahead of schedule. We could debate whether or not the problems we've solved were the big ones, but we'd probably agree that they definitely were not the only ones. We still have unresolved issues which are holding us back in my opinion.

I like WAGNH. Never read their twitter page, or even knew it existed before now, but I visit the site daily. I can't say that I agree with every opinion expressed there, but they do try to report as many Chelsea related stories as they can so I find it a useful way to catch up. What's more, they write well. It's a rare pleasure these days to read articles by people who know how to use the English language.

And of course winning the league this season is more important than ever. The new seeding system, starting next season, means that it will be virtually impossible for us to be one of the top seeds in the Champions League unless we are champions of England, or of Europe. Being in pot two isn't the end of the world but it would make life noticeably tougher.

Agreed. There were just too many weak links in the chain so we never had any hope of getting our game together on Tuesday night. Still, it's not all bad. Despite Liverpool fans clogging up the airways to tell us, in their oh so humble way, that their brilliant team put in its best performance of the season, and despite the fact that it was our worst 90 minutes of 2014/15, we still didn't lose. What's more, and this is a real bonus, there's a chance we won't have to go back to Anfield till 2016. Now that really is good news.

In the world of the imagination, the one where I can pick the team but don't actually have any responsibility for delivering the result, I could go even more off beat than that. Mind you I probably wouldn't try to pick Sheffield Wednesday or Swindon players! How about this for a slightly, but not altogether, scatty line up: - Cech or Courtois Azpi1, Cahill, Zouma, Luis2 Fabregas3, Ake Schurrle, Colkett4, Boga4 Remy Subs: Cech or Courtois, Drogba, Hazard, Ivanovic, Loftus-Cheek, Matic & Oscar. 1 Needs a game. 2 Hasn't played much so there should be enough miles in his legs to handle three games in eight days. 3 Just had a sun and sand break so hopefully is recharged 4 Well I did say a little bit scatty plus they are surrounded by experience on the pitch and backed up by starters on the bench.

Charlie has a beautiful left foot, excellent vision, his passing is more often effective than I remember was the case with Josh, and he doesn't shy away from a tackle*. I think Charlie is the better of the two, but time will tell. *Not that I'm saying Josh does. I'm just commenting that this part of Charlie's game is in place.

I'm guessing, and it's a pure guess, that FIFA regard U21 teams in England as equivalent to 'B' teams elsewhere and, since 'B' teams take part in more than one national championship, their games have to be regarded as official. Hopefully FIFA will clear up the confusion by removing the 'B' team designation from English U21 sides rather than by insisting that The FA must do it their way.

It would be really nice to see but, to be honest, I'm pinning my hopes for the next home grown first teamer on other lads, not on Nate. Don't believe Nate is going to make it here.

FIFA count U21 fixtures as 'official' games, whereas The FA do not. Nate's one appearance for the 21s and his outings for Burnley mean that, as far as the international body is concerned, he has used up his quota of two clubs during the current FIFA season. The FA however are not treating the game vs Man City U21 as an 'official' fixture so if Nate appears for Reading, The FA will see them as only the second club he's played for this term. I'm sure FIFA will act to standardise the ruling so that there will be only one interpretation in future. In fact I'm surprised they aren't already insisting that their ruling takes precedent. That's normally how it goes with anything concerning transfers.

The criticism of Oscar does not stem from his having a poor 45 minutes. In fact I specifically said, after his horrendous first half vs Newcastle, that it would be wrong to judge him on such a display. If people mentioned 45 minutes against this team, or that team, it was only as yet another example of his poor play and not as a sole reason to be unhappy with him. The criticism exists because the sloppiness has been going on for as long as Oscar has been here. At first it was not commented on because everyone, quite rightly, wanted to be supportive and give him time. He benefited from a honeymoon period during which people were determined to be pleased with everything he did well, and equally determined to forgive, ignore or excuse, everything he did not do well. Honeymoons don't last forever however, and eventually the situation could no longer be avoided. It was then that the negative observations became more frequent and then too that it became fashionable to blame Oscar's poor displays on tiredness. It seems unlikely that you and I will ever agree on the reason for Oscar's sloppiness, we perhaps won't even agree about precisely how long it's been going on, but we can agree, can't we, that it's been a good while now? As for the Mata comparison, I guess @yuvala is the best person to defend the point he was making.

yuvala will correct me if I'm wrong but his point seems to be that Oscar is playing for a better team and therefore it's reasonable to expect his numbers to be a little elevated by that fact. Or, to put it another way, it would be reasonable to expect Oscar's numbers to be a little less good if he were playing for Man Utd this season instead of for Chelsea. yuvala is therefore arguing that comparing Mata's numbers with Oscar's is not really judging the two players on a level playing field.

The quantity and longevity of what you call his mistakes are the heart of this discussion. There are plenty of them and they've been going on for a long time. First there were the silly he's tired excuses, now it's that there aren't really any failings in Oscar's game and those of us who are discontented with him just can't see straight. Oh well.

I'm not a big believer in stats and it's my guess that most people aren't either but they can't be dismissed altogether. Stats must be a part of the story but the reason people are so reluctant to put their full faith in numbers alone is that, without analysis, they can be misleading. 12 misplaced passes is a number but how to decide if that number is good or bad? It's tempting to think we might learn something by comparing the number of passes misplaced by several players. That could be right, perhaps we might indeed get some answers, but for me they would still be only raw numbers. The real answers can only be revealed by watching and asking yourself questions like; would I have expected that player to do better in that situation? Do I think other players would have made more of that situation? Did the player get it wrong because of something which is lacking in his technique or was he just unlucky? Those sort of questions are more likely to lead to the useful answers in my opinion. Thing is of course, those answers are subjective which is why the Oscar debate is so strongly argued on both sides. Speaking personally, my answers to those questions don't come out well for Oscar. The numbers themselves are not decisive for me but the impression I get from watching Oscar as he puts those numbers together is tougher to shake.

Sounds like an imaginative agent working overtime.

Thanks Barbara. You appear to have misunderstood the point I'm making. Not surprising given that I maybe didn't express it as well as I should have done. I was saying that, despite Mata being, in my opinion, the better passer of the ball, Oscar makes a better overall contribution to our team and that therefore Jose was quite right to make that switch. Meanwhile, I only introduced Mata to the discussion (a few posts back from the one to which you replied) as an example of the fact that passing is not the only contribution a player makes to his team. If Jose always preferred the better passer then I think he'd have kept Juan and sold Emboaba. If he did that however, he would not be the manager we all think he is. As it is Jose did what we would expect, he choose the better player, not the better passer. I am simply arguing that out there somewhere there is a better player than Oscar. A player whose overall package of passing, pressing, and everything else will add more to our side than Oscar does. I think we should be perusing that player as a matter of urgency.* That said, I know you disagree with my assessment of Oscar but these disagreements are the essence of good conversations on a chat forum, are they not? *As a matter of fact I think we have such a player coming through our development ranks but Charlie Colket is too young and, in any case, seems currently to be being groomed for the Cesc role not the 'ten'. Mind you development players are given chances in several roles so that a- they get the chance to find their true place and b- can gain an understanding of all the roles around them.

I was really hoping to watch the game last night but didn't manage to. I'll hunt around for it online when I can but, in the meantime, thanks for your review. I was a little surprised to read one report saying that Traore's finishing was weak because when I've watched him at Vitesse his finishing has appeared more reliable than some other parts of his game. Still, we can't make any valid judgements based on a one off performance. Meanwhile what are thoughts about the next stop for him? Germany, a Premier League loan (he'll get a work permit for sure) or Stamford Bridge?

I agree with you. All of the things you mention are, in my opinion correct however, I meant my comparison in a direct sense. Take today's squad, include Jose as manager, add Mata to the side at the expense of Oscar and there will be a new calculation to be made. We will gain something on the swings but lose somewhat on the roundabout. Will we gain more than we loose? I would not say so.

Thanks Gilvorak.I don't see evidence of Oscar being abused. My reading of it is that people are just commenting on what they see as his deficiencies. I don't agree with you that Oscar has improved in his vision. You and I see the games so if our assessment of what we see is different then that's a simple disagreement and we can agree to accept that difference. For what it's worth I have been calling for Willian to be replaced too. I've been saying since as long ago as last winter's transfer window that Oscar and Willian are the best players we have for their roles in the team but that we should be looking for upgrades in both cases.

Thanks RoTD. I understand the point you're making of course. For example, Mata is a better passer than Oscar, yet our team has been improved by replacing the Spaniard with the Brazilian. As you quite rightly say, there are other factors to be taken into account besides just passing. Even so, I don't agree with the idea we should stick with Oscar. I say that, just as we improved our team by trading Mata for a player able to make a more rounded contribution, we can upgrade the side again by trading Oscar for an even more rounded alternative. Yes, Oscar has made 13 direct contributions to goals and has aided quite a few more indirectly. I would not say however that those would all be lost if Oscar was replaced. Naturally enough, an alternative ten of the right calibre would also make such contributions. Maybe he'd contribute one or two fewer, or maybe one or two more, but by reducing the number of what we're calling sloppy passes, the overall impact of such a player would be more effective. I have never said that Oscar is a bad player but, in my opinion, there really are too many sloppy passes from him. Those missed passes are momentum changers. If they were completed we'd be in possession, perhaps on the front foot, and sometimes in threatening situations. Because they are missed however, all of those good things come to our opponents instead. It is a statement of the obvious that every player misses passes and that the more difficult the pass, the greater the likelihood that it will not be completed. There does come a point however when the accumulation of misses starts to weigh against a player. Someone made the point that we can't have eleven Eden Hazards in the side but I say why not? Clearly the poster wasn't being literal. I think he meant that we can't expect to have a team of players who are all as good at their jobs as Eden is at his but, again, I ask why not? A player who is great at only half of his job is a player that we should be looking to improve on. If, as was the case with Hazard and his commitment to tracking back, that player can make the necessary changes to his game then, fine, stick with him. If not, as was the case with Juan Mata, you have to bite the bullet and make the change. The question then is where do we stand with Oscar. Is his passing good enough for our requirements and, if not, is he capable of improving this aspect of his play. My answers to those questions are no and no. Others see it differently.