OhForAGreavsie

Firstly, we should both be careful about giving too much weight to our own opinions. There is no test that can be applied, no judge to whom we can turn, to find the definitive, 18 man answer to the question. I believe in my opinions of course, but you naturally believe in yours just as strongly. So, bear that in mind when you read that... Of course Hazard should be on everyone's list. Carvalho vs. Gallas is a tough choice but Billy was quicker which compensated very well for JT's biggest shortcoming. I can't claim perfect, or even passable, recall of the stats for the period, but Billy Gallas played a lot of CB for us. The long, long spell during which we didn't concede a single league goal when Gallas & JT started as the CB pair, is among the most spectacular achievements of recent years.

The King is my all time favourite player but he doesn't make first choice striker. That is Greavsie, the greatest ever Chelsea player by a mile. Greavsie's inclusion dictates 4-4-2 and the other one of the two needs to be someone who plays well with Jimmy. Ossie was better in the air than Costa but, contrary to reputation, his foot to foot link up play was not outstanding. Gosta would, in my opinion, finish as many chances as Ossie but create more for Greaves. As a footballer, I do not rate Chopper at all. With modern refereeing he would not make it at a top division club in my opinion. As a defender I don't think he was even close to Billy Gallas's league. He's a legend, yes, but a great player? Not for me.

I've gone with as they were when playing for Chelsea.

Only if stats tell the whole story.

Fan Since 1966 but 'my lifetime' goes a few years further back still so Greaves gets in. My squad is dominated by modern players however, for obvious reasons. Players like Hoddle and Gullit don't get in because by the time they joined Chelsea they were no longer the world class footballers they had been in their pomp. -----------------Courtois------------------ --Ivanovic---Gallas---Terry-----Cole-- -----------Veron*-------Matic------------- --Robben-----------------------Hazard-- ----------Costa**--------Greaves-------- Subs: Nedweski, Azpillicueta, Carvalho, Ballack, Cooke, Zola & Osgood. *Selecting Veron is hugely controversial I know but the man was so sumptuously talented I'd take the risk that playing in this team would allow him to do his stuff. **Costa gets in ahead of other candidates because I think he'd play very well with Greaves, and since Jimmy is the first name on the team sheet that gives Costa a big advantage. P.S. A few of my players, including both keepers, are missing from the poll!

From Jose's Press Conference Today "Jose, can Talisca arrive in January?" "No." Unfortunately the questioner was Portuguese and was therefore not speaking in his native tongue*. Perhaps because of this the question wasn't worded in a way that might elicit a complete answer but Jose was asked what he was asked, and he said what he said. *CFC insist that all questions in the broadcast conference are asked, and answered, in English.

I'm not convinced that redeveloping SB achieves anything other than postponing the problem. Upgrading The Bridge will drag our stadium up to twentieth century standards for sure, but we can all see the deep, deep flaw in that situation. I believe that a stadium which is truly fit for the future can only be created away from SB. That said, you have asked the right question of course, and an acceptable answer to that question is now further away than it has ever been. Speaking purely personally, I would be prepared to widen the radius of the search for sites, but I accept that the greater the distance from home base we propose to move, the fewer and fewer Chelsea fans would go along with it.

I love ArsenalFanTV. They love their club which is OK, we can all empathise with that. They hate us, which is OK too, plenty of us hate them after all. They moan like hell which is exactly why I watch; Schadenfreude is fun. Every time they loose I open the popcorn and tune in. By the way, I think there was a lad who tried to get ChelseaFanTV going. The old clips must still be on YouTube.

You may be right but I'd like the club to act differently. Cech has been a brilliant player and a brilliant representative for our club. If he chooses to move then I believe he has done more than enough to earn the right to choose his own destination. As long as the buying club meets our valuation, I hope Chelsea will sanction whichever choice PC makes.

Followed up his debut last Wednesday with his second cap, and his first international goal, for Brazil in last night's game against Austria. Again I didn't watch it so only know what I've read.

I know Mikel divides opinion so I tread lightly when I say that, for me, Mikel's regular inclusion in the starting line up would only be a backward step. Having realised that we needed an upgrade in Mikel's position, I really doubt that Jose will reverse his thinking now. Even if Jose wanted to switch to a new base shape, and even if he felt Mikel had a place in that shape, it wouldn't last. Jose would soon decide that we needed to upgrade from Mikel once again. A sizeable percentage of Chelsea fans believe that Mikel is not good enough to start for Chelsea and it seems clear that Jose agrees with them.

Agreed. On both points.

Controversial I accept but, yes, I do.

Well you did say that Essien had technique and I simply do not agree with that. He is, and was, technically very limited in my view. I do however agree that Yaya would have been a better option than Lamps but few around here would share our opinion. They would argue, among other things, that Toure would not have matched SFL's goal output but my response would be to ask, so what. Yaya, despite probably scoring fewer goals, would have made us a better team in the same way Jose recognises that Oscar makes us better than Juan Mata did, even with a much lower return in personal goals and assists. On the point of Yaya playing alongside Essien; I doubt it. Paired with a proper version of the player he was supposed to be, Essien's limitations would have been horribly exposed and no Chelsea manager could have tolerated it.

Can't agree with this. Ess's technique was never great in my opinion. People talk about him as if he used to be Yaya Toure but, and again this is only my opinion of course, ME was behind Yaya in every aspect of the game. For me, once injury had robbed Essien of his physicality he had nothing left to offer. People might point to the trophies won with Ess in the squad, but I'd bet a hell of a lot of money that we'd have won more if we had signed Yaya instead during the summer of 2005.

Not sure that the amortisation is calculated on a monthly basis rather than a simple annual one. I'm not sure of any of it really.

Interestingly, wasn't the Fabregas deal also arranged in June? If it was then perhaps that too could have been included in these figures.

Although statistics can be used to support the argument one way or the other, in the end the judgement that a player is one of the best in the world is a matter of opinion. With some players opinions are pretty much unanimous, but with others there's more room for debate. For me that is the situation with Drogba. Obviously he did some great things but this, in my view, is not the same as being great. Like Torres, Drogba had a couple of exceptional seasons but the rest of the time, when he wasn't poor, he did indeed verge on the average.

Did you put them straight or did you leave them to marinade in their own bile?

I'm afraid I can't tell you, I've given up watching international football as a protest against the disruptive breaks. All I know is that he came off the bench to play the last 15 minutes.

Firmino made his international debut last night. About time too, what on Earth have Brazil been waiting for?

Charly says he likes to play the ten (don't they all) but I'd like to see him get some time in the Fabregas position. I like this kid a lot. (Don't we all.)

Yes this is a valid concern. As I said, Schurrle is valuable but I still think the swap, if it happened in January, would make sense. Loosing Hazard, even with Schurrle in our squad, would be a hammer blow to our chances but having to replace any of our other AMs with Salah, Rami or Fabregas (someone else slots next to Matic) is more manageable in my opinion. When we bear in mind that Jose would quite probably select Rami ahead of other players for a few of the possible knock-out ties anyway, I still believe that weakening our group of AMs for the CL squad is a risk worth taking. To get Marco Reus, I'd take that risk all day. I know that not everyone shares my priorities but, if I'm offered a trade where we improve our chance of winning the PL in exchange for giving up on the CL, I would do it. Without hesitation. The honour of claiming the domestic title dwarfs that of regaining the European prize in my eyes. I can't convince myself to believe that BVB might part with Reus in January but if they would then I say yes please. Even if it meant losing Andre Schurrle.

Only if we think that Andre Schurrle's role in the CL squad can't be covered by a combination of our existing players. I think Andre is valuable but I'm not sure that his loss would deal a death blow to our CL chances. I'd say that with Andre we are in the second tier of CL teams behind the mega sides of Munich, and Madrid. Without him, I'd guess that we'd be in pretty much the same tier.