OhForAGreavsie

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.

It's a fair question and I think I'll wait to see if anyone produces an all touches video of his performance today. If so I'll use it to give examples but failing that I'll come back and attempt a definition we can use as a starting point. I will say however that your definition is far more narrow than the sense in which I mean the phrase.

Stunned to see Oscar leading the MOM voting at time of posting. Even the commentator, whose colleagues usually just blindly assume Oscar is playing at the same level as Eden & Cesc, felt forced to break cover and mention that there was a lot of sloppy passing from Oscar today. And he was right, there was. I saw @Barbara's post stating that Oscar's pass completion rate was 81% but I'd be interested to see his numbers for attempted key passes, that is his stats with the routine passes removed. My feeling is that his numbers would fall dramatically. I agree of course that no one is going to have high completion rates for such passes; they are challenging, space is limited, time is short, angles are tight and defenders are everywhere. Even so, a difference maker, a player ready to make a full contribution to his side's attacking play, should be succeeding with more of those passes than an average player might. Eden does, Cesc does, Oscar does not. Indeed my impression (not statistically verified I admit) is that Oscar almost always fails with such passes. I realise that, in writing so forthrightly about this, I'm going to get pegged as disliking Oscar. That really is not how I see myself at all, but I'm sad to say that I virtually never see performances from Oscar which convince me that he is is the right man for the Chelsea job or even any which give me hope that this situation will change.

A little more than Willian's price tag I believe but, speaking personally, I can't blame the club too much because if I'd been one of the decision makers I'd have made the same mistake. I did not want him here and I did not believe he would be a success at Arsenal. What can I say? Big fail.

What I'm about to say comes from memory and a far, far, less than expert understanding so someone with better knowledge, or better memory, may be able to correct me. In which case please do help me out. So, that said... As I think I understand it, there is a potential loophole to the CPO's ownership of the lease but it's not quite the one you've speculated about. The CPO borrowed the money from the club to pay the £10m cost of the lease but this was on an open ended and interest free basis. That's to say, there is neither a repayment schedule nor any due date by which the money must be repaid. This means that Chelsea can never go to a court and claim that CPO are behind with their payments so there's no opportunity for Chelsea to ask a court to grant them repossession of the lease. If this is right then, with the lease having about 185 years remaining, the CPO and the club could be locked in this marriage for a long time. The loophole I mentioned is, I believe, that the protection which the CPO has from Chelsea does not extend to any creditors of the club. If Chelsea should go bust owing money then its creditors could ask a court to order the club to realise all of its assets in order to meet its debts. Those assets would include the money owed to it by CPO so, in those circumstances, a court could order CPO to repay the money or give up the lease. Of course, barring something extraordinary, there is no way CPO could pay. You'd have to say however that, as things stand, this scenario is a remote possibility. Meanwhile, if anyone knows enough to contradict or amend what I've said, I'd be glad to read about it.

I'm not a Feruz fan but let's wish him well with The Seasiders and hope that he does himself full justice. Good luck Islam.

The move just couldn't happen without CPO agreement, full stop. Without that agreement the land at SB could not be sold/used for redevelopment. Without that income to fund the new development, the whole scheme would be an economic non starter. Mind you this might put The CPO under serious financial pressure. They already can't repay their debt, I don't see who they could reasonably expect to sell many more shares to if the club moved out. Although Chelsea Holdings wouldn't admit it, I don't doubt that the economics of the whole thing weigh heavy among the reasons the club would probably prefer to relocate rather than rebuild. Since the costs of a new stadium, on a new site, can be offset, or even covered entirely, by the profits from redeveloping The Bridge, moving is actually likely to be much cheaper. Perhaps to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. That, plus the possibility of creating a super new home which will serve the club for the next fifty years, at a super new site where we could be based into the distant future, sells me on the move. I know I'm in a minority on this however.

Well, let's not forget that 61% voted in favour of selling their shares to the club in 2011 and did so in full expectation that this would eventually lead to the club relocating. Granted we're now talking about moving further away from SB than was imagined at the time, but the size of that vote suggests people could be open to persuasion if a good case is made.

I'd be in favour of that too. I'd love the club to have the room, and the planning permission, to build a prestige stadium which excites fans and players alike. I get the feeling that whatever we do at The Bridge would be no better than a serious compromise. Out in the Kingston area transport is already good with rail links, many bus routes and the A3 & A24 linking with each other as well as with the M25. There might also be the opportunity for the club to build a dedicated branch extension of the tram service which currently runs between Wimbledon and Croydon. Lot's of political support for the Greens in that area and they'd probably love stuff like that. One question in my mind though, is there really the room out there for building? I thought the restrictions were quite tight there too.

Willian is, in my opinion, an automatic first choice selection whenever Jose picks our strongest XI. Even so, he simply is not as effective, or as efficient, in possession as is required if we are to become the team we want to be. He is currently our best option but we could, and should, do better. As for your earlier question asking, "...where's the justification for getting the check book out", I'd rephrase it a bit and answer that the justification for needing to strengthen the squad is right there on the pitch and that to see it, all we need do is watch. Just an opinion of course.

Not to mention that Real's turnover is pretty much half a billion a year. That's half a billion pounds not euros.

I'd much prefer the club to put its faith in Ruben Loftus-Cheek, and work to build his future, rather than chase Tielmans. I'm the first to admit that RLC needs a lot of polishing but it can be done. Talent wise, Ruben is, in my opinion, the better of the two. We've just got to help him learn to express that talent more effectively and more consistently. I want to see every ounce of effort put into developing RLC before we consider signing an alternative. If we were talking about a first team ready option then that might be a tougher choice but Tielmans is not first team ready in my opinion, he's a project and I'd rather stick with the project we already have.

I'm sure it'll be full. I imagine they'll bring 6,000.

Don't remember ever having seen this lad play so I've no idea of his quality. Whenever I read about a player saying stuff like this however, I think it's agent penned code for nobody good wants me/rates me highly enough to pay a decent fee/decent wage so I'm pretending that where I am is exactly where I want to be anyway.

T Hazard played competitively for the 21s right at the start of the 2012/13 season. I watched the game and remember commenting on being impressed by him. He was gone shortly afterward.

Or even Falcao for that matter.

That piece contains a passage which is potentially misleading: - "Basically, any investment in a youth academy can be excluded from the FFP break-even calculation, while profits made from player sales are included in the analysis. Furthermore, if the players are loaned, then most of the wages are covered by the loanee clubs." Read carefully, the passage is accurate, as we'd expect, but read casually, it might be possible to infer that money spent on signing youth players does not count against FFP when in fact it does. Any transfer fees, agents' fees and scouting costs involved in recruiting young players are included in the FFP calculation.