Panic

Should also add that if Madrid don't have a replacement for Ronaldo by then, they will not be in as strong of a bargaining position as they are now. Their fans want a big name to come and the club may very well be desperate to sign a huge name. That means if Chelsea play hardball again next summer, Madrid could be forced to look somewhere else because I doubt that they will wait 2 years to replace Ronaldo. It's also worth considering how sought after Mbappe will be. The World Cup has only increased his star status and if he has a big year this upcoming season, Madrid may do everything they can to obtain Mbappe. I have a feeling that if Hazard doesn't leave this summer, he will stay because Madrid will go after Mbappe or even Neymar next summer.

I think you make some very good points, but there are several things to consider. First, the club are not in a position where they would even consider an offer. We just came off a disappointing(to say the least) season, and with only one month left for the transfer window, finding a replacement could prove difficult. Second, while Eden has openly stated his admiration for Madrid, he has also openly stated his willingness to continue with Chelsea. As of now, it doesn't seem as if Eden will make the moves necessary to force a transfer. Third, I don't think Hazard has the profile Madrid are looking for as a replacement for Ronaldo. Eden is nothing like Ronaldo, both on and off the pitch. Lastly, Eden has two years left on his contract. Madrid need a major signing now and they can't play the "we'll sign him on a free in a few months if you don't sell now" game, so unless a move had been in the works prior to Ronaldo's move to Juventus, I don't see Madrid making a major push for Hazard. In all likely-hood, Madrid have already secured Ronaldo's replacement as it would have not made much sense to sell him without a replacement lined up. We will find out very soon who that target is, but I think if it was Eden, we would have heard many stories about the transfer within the past two weeks or so, just as we did when Neymar left for PSG. At this point It's all guesswork, though.

The implication of your post is that Conte has had a major influence in our transfer dealings. The people you criticize do not believe that is the case. The entire point of the link was to show that Chelsea were interested in the player. The point was not to show that we made a bid. That is not necessary. Conte is cautious with injured players. The problem with applying that to Emerson is that he had made his return from injury in December at Roma, and if I recall correctly, he had been available for selection for quite some time at Roma, he just fell out of favor. The last bit could be inncorrect, but if you look at a player like Bakayoko who had surgery in the summer, there is a stark difference. Yes, Conte rushed him back for the Tottenham game, but Bakayoko continued to play game after the game, even when we had Fabregas fit. Your last point about Emerson is probably the most important. Emerson is a squad player, but Conte wasn't looking for a squad player at that position. He was looking for a top player, like Sandro. Conte may have given the ok, but he clearly didn't value him as a player. The reason to dismiss those targets is because we are a top team. Top teams need top players and don't discriminate based on the league that player is from. Sandro is arguably the second best left back in the world. Do you think that the Conte is responsible for our pursuit of him?Look at United, they are in pursuit of a top left back. Who are they after? Sandro. Top players aren't equally distributed across European leagues. Just look at the left back position. To get players of a similar quality you have to deal with the likes of Barca, Real Madrid, or Bayern. Juventus is a much easier club to deal with, they will sell their top players. You re correct that the links between Koulibaly and Nainggolan are much stronger. It's confirmed that the club made bids for them.Still, that doesn't change much. Especially given that they are players that fit the Chelsea mold. Koulibaly is one of the most physical defenders in the world. He's very strong and quick. He also happens to be quite comfortable on the ball. These are players that Chelsea would have pursued with a different manager. It's not 2v6. Rudiger, Koulibaly, and Nainggolan are not players that you can attribute Conte to. Yes they are from Serie A. But these are not players that you can say the club would not have pursued in absence of Conte. You have to be careful with the inference you're trying to make. Take a look at the state of Serie A. The overall quality of the league has been widely criticized over the years. But recently, the state of the league has improved. Juventus, Roma, and Napoli have all improved. Juventus have two appearances in the Champion's league final in the past 4 years, Roma have just made a semifinals appearance in the Champion's League, and Napoli are being talked about throughout Europe because of the high quality of football that they play. Is it any surprise that the club are after top players from these teams? It's not. Emerson, Alonso and Zappacosta are slightly different. But, as i have pointed out, the club made 2 Serie A signings in the 2 years prior to Conte. The 3 signings we have made since Conte's arrival don't stand out at that much. When you analyze our transfer dealings, it makes it quite difficult to make the inference you tried to make. In addition, you have failed to provide any compelling evidence that would suggest that Conte is responsible for the pursuit or signing of the players you listed. Add this, with a little bit of Context , i.e. the club have made 13 signings since Conte's arrival, and your argument falls apart. It's just not reasonable to make the inferences you're making. Diego Costa wanted to leave. What did the club do? We held on to him for two years. This club has, and can keep a player that wants to leave. Especially if that player is in their plans. Sure, the squad was built by the board and Conte. Just like how i get credit for cooking dinner when I turn on the oven. You see the problem? It's dishonest to include Conte when the role he plays is so trivial and when club make so many decisions without his approval. We are in agreement on your final point. Conte's behavior has been unacceptable this season. We need someone motivated, and more importantly, someone who is willing to work with what the club provide and not bitch about it.

You're being incredibly disingenuous in your presentation. Let's take a look at the 4 players we have purchased from Serie A. Rudiger, the first signing that you listed, was linked to usin 2015. Therefore, we can eliminate him as a pure Conte signing.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/11685454/Chelsea-transfer-news-and-rumours-Stuttgart-defender-Antonio-Rudiger-wants-Stamford-Bridge-move.html Emerson, the guy who has played 559 minutes all year. Do you really think it is fair to characterize him as a Conte signing? Marcos Alonso- He may very well have been a signing Conte approved of, but the club were desperate to replace him with Alex Sandro. Yes, Sandro is a Serie A player, but he also happens to be one of the best players in his position and a top player that we would be looking at regardless. Zappacosta- Bench player, but he's probably a signing that Conte approved of. As for the links to Koulibaly and Nainggolan, these are top players and they both fit the player profile that we sign,Koulibaly especially. In addition, these are mere links. we have been linked with Serie A players on numerous occasions throughout the years. Here are two examples: Higuain while at Napoli https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/gonzalo-higuain-to-chelsea-napoli-striker-linked-with-30m-move-to-stamford-bridge-10293584.html Berrardi https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/615255/Sussuolo-Domenico-Berardi-Transfer-News-Gossip In addition to that, we signed both Juan Cuadrado and Marco Amelia less than 2 years prior to Conte's arrival. So in your arbitrary 2 year period prior to Conte, we have signed 2 players from Italian Leagues compared to the 3 signings since Conte has arrived. Nothing noteworthy about that. The last thing to consider is how many signings we have made in the last 2 years. In total we have made 13 signings. That means that 3 out of 13 signings come from Serie A, but only 2 of those seem to be players that Conte likes. This paints an entirely different picture than what you have. Saying that Conte has no say in transfers is a hyperbolic statement, but that doesn't mean that Conte has much influence.The reality is that the club have made more signings that Conte disapproves of than he has approved of. Barkley, Emerson, Drinkwater, and Batshuayi have all had a terrible time getting games under Conte. In addition, we know that the club disregarded Conte's plans when they decided to sell Matic. This is indicative of a manager with little influence. Overall, the point that is trying to be made is that this; the current team is not a team built by Conte. Our current team was built by those at the top of the club hierarchy. This means that if the club is to move forward, we need to improve our decision making in the transfer market.

I don't agree with that at all. Just take a look at Dortmund. they make excellent signings year in year out. They're able to turn young talent into top players. But what do they do? They sell those players when top clubs come calling. Ambition and competence are related, but one does not guarantee the other. Remember Q.P.R.? They spent massive amounts of money, only to get relegated. Our net spend may be low, but we have paid large fees for many of our players. Does our squad look like it costs £565m to assemble? Look at Tottenham. Much better squad for half the price. Do you think Tottenham are more ambitious because they made better deals? Because if they were, I would have expected them to shell out the cash after their title challenges. In the end, Chelsea still want to win titles. We may not be as ambitious as before, but we haven't turned into Tottenham or Arsenal, yet. It's why we are probably going to sack Conte despite barely missing out on the top 4. Liverpool have stuck with Klopp for 3 years without a trophy, even when he failed to qualify for champion's league. United stuck with Mourinho despite finishing 6th, and Tottenham appear to be content just staying in the top 4. They aren't more ambitious, they are just smarter in their dealings, or in United's case a bigger wallet.

To a certain extent, but look at Liverpool's transfers over the least few years. In the last 3 years they have a net spend of just £18m(pre-Fabinho buy). They sold both Suarez and Coutinho when Barca came calling. Even if they go on a spending spree this summer, Chelsea will still have outspent them come the end of the summer. Their intelligent transfer dealings have allowed them to spend big on needed positions(Van Dijk for £75m and Keita for £58m) without requiring the club to spend money out of their own pockets. The reason Chelsea can't do the same is because we went out and spent £65m on 3 players who only played in cup games and emergencies.( Barkley, Emerson, Drinkwater) I don't think Liverpool have greater ambitions than we do, they just know what they're doing in the market.

Right there with you. Since I've joined this forum every summer this place has a meltdown and I've always thought people were overreacting, but I have a really bad feeling about this summer. Not a good start at all. Hopefully the board have some good deals in the works.

I don't think it's even about ambition. It's about competence. they paid 44 for Fabinho we paid 40 for Baka. Let that sink in.

Of the 13 first team players that have arrived since Conte has took over, only 4 of them are from Serie A. Of those 4, only 3 had no previous links to Chelsea. Zappacosta, Alonso and Emerson. Of those 3, only Alonso is a first team regular. Emerson has only played in 6 matches despite Alonso's struggles and despite the fact that Conte wanted to replace Alonso with Sandro. If that is the case, and it seems pretty reasonable to say that Conte wanted to replace Alonso, only two of those signings seem to have been met with approval.But approval should not be confused with power. As the Matic deal very clearly demonstrates, the club make decisions without Conte's approval. If they didn't, Matic would still be here as a backup player as Conte publicly stated that it was his wish to keep Matic here so he could ease Bakayoko into the first team. With regards to the pursuit of targetmen,the club may have pursued a targetman to help Conte out, but the club needed a back-up striker. Batshuayi just didn't cut it and Chelsea are no stranger to targetmen. Giroud is a quality backup striker, and Conte probably offered no resistance to the purchase, but that doesn't mean he was a Conte buy. You're right it's not a coincidence that we were linked to Serie A players. But that's because the press use transfer stories generate interest. It's no coincidence that media members who have no clue about what is going on would link Chelsea to Serie A players. It's why we have been linked to Jorginho. We all know that he is going to be a City player, but because it looks like Sarri is going to be our next manager, the press have linked us with Jorginho.

Conte may have approved of the Zappacosta deal, problem is almost every other deal seems to have Conte's disapproval. was Batshuayi a Conte buy? Because if he was it seems very strange that Conte would rather play Hazard as a false nine. Was Drinkwater a Conte buy? Seems strange because Conte preferred Fabregas to Drinkwater despite Fabregas hardly playing in Conte's first year. Was Emerson a Conte buy? Would be strange to say so when he only started 3 matches. Another huge problem is that we don't know what the alternatives were to Zappacosta. He may have been the best of the worst possible options. He may have been the only option.

Why do you think we were going after Serie A players? Because some newspapers reported it? For the past 5 summers Hazard has been linked to Real Madrid or PSG. He is still here. How many times have we been linked to Messi or other top players over the years? Most transfer stories are garbage and to rely on them seems silly. While it is really hard to determine how the club operates, it doesn't seem reasonable to say Drinkwater, Barkley, Zappacosta, Batshuayi, and Emerson are Conte buys when none of them play. It seems much more likely that because Conte is familiar with Serie A, newspapers ran with stories those stories because they aren't too ludicrous.There's also the Matic situation to take into consideration. Conte PUBLICLY stated that he wanted to keep Matic so that Bakayoko had time to adapt. Combine all of this with the fact that Conte has been very vocal with his criticism of the board failing to back him. and I would say there is no reason to believe Conte had much of a say in any of our transfer dealings.

While Conte has been disappointing this season, to say the least, I'm just not convinced that bringing in another manager will change much. It is quite evident that Conte did not have control over our transfer dealings, and our transfer dealings have played a huge role in our lack of success this season. The club brought in almost nothing but mediocre/limited players in the last 3 years. Players like Alonso, Moses, Bakayoko, Barkley, and Pedro are all highly limited players. In addition to that, the club has kept many other limited players from the the pre-Conte era.(Willian, Fabregas,and Cahill) With the exception of Bakayoko, I wouldn't say any of these players are terrible. The problem is that most of them are first team regulars. Top teams can have players like Willian and Moses in their squad, but they cannot have a squad full of these types of players. If the club doesn't want to get left behind by City and Utd, it has to stop making so many bad transfer deals, especially given the costs of players these days. There is no point in shelling out 75 million pounds on Zappacosta, Drinkwater, and Emerson if they're only going to play in cup games and emergencies. It would have been far better to splash the cash on Sandro and let our youth players cover the remaining two squad spots.Now the club is in a position where we are probably bringing in a new manager with a completely different play style that will require new players. The likes of Courtious,Rudiger, Christenson, Azpi, Kante, and Hazard are a solid core but the club still needs more quality. This summer transfer window will play a bigger role in determining our success next season than a new manager will.

Couldn't agree more. I don't know the inner workings of Chelsea, but it seems reasonable to suggest Conte doesn't have much power in our transfer dealings. This combined with the fact United and City easily outspend us these days, would leave any manager frustrated, if they want to win the league that is. Unless we luck out and find the next genius, someone like Sir Alex Ferguson, then the board needs to seriously address our issues on and off the pitch. This doesn't just mean finding a new manager and buying expensive players. This means creating a stable environment.One where managers don't leave the moment they fail to win the EPL. Our manager should also be on the same page with the board with regards to transfers, playing style, etc. In addition, we also need to make sure we have football people that have a significant influence on footballing decisions, so finding a good Sporting Director is key.

I am very much a fan of Conte, but the club should expect to be competing for the title every season with top 4 being the minimum. It is almost certain that he will fail to meet these expectations. Even then though,it wouldn't be unreasonable to keep him on for another season given that we won that title with him last year. One thing is certain though, if he is to stay, he and the board have to get on the same page regarding transfers. Either the board need to invest more, or Conte has to drop his expectations and make due with what we have and not complain about it.

To be fair, it's not hard to play better when you're playing relegation level football. I'm pretty sure both Tottenham and Leicester were both ahead of us during that period. In addition, counting points from Mourinho's sacking until April is arbitrary. If you evaluate Chelsea over any meaningful period of that season, you would conclude that we were shit. Here is the table from December 14th Until April. Chelsea played 14 games during that period so I only counted the point total that other clubs had over 14 games, even though some played 15 games and most of them won the fixture I excluded. 1.Tottenham 31 pts 2. Leicester 28 pts 3. Chelsea 26 pts gd 11 4. West Ham 26 pts gd 8 5. Southampton 23 pts 6. Arsenal 22 pts 7. Liverpool 21 pts 8. Man United 21 pts 9. Stoke 20 pts 10. Man City 19 pts This is the table from your arbitrary period. While better than where we finished, we're not far off of mid table football(not too far off first either). Only goal difference separated us from West Ham, and only 5 points ahead of 7th. This is not good football. If you consider how most of our rivals were having shit seasons too, you get a much different picture than what you would suggest. The average point total for the 4th place team in the last 10 seasons is ~72 points. If you take our point average from the 14 games and calculate how many would have gained from 38 games we would be at ~71 points. Personally, I don't believe this type of extrapolation is valid, but even if you do extrapolate, you still can not even say Chelsea played at a top 4 level. There is no way around it. Chelsea were shit if you try and evaluate them in any meaningful/useful way.

This is wrong. Mourinho was sacked on December17th, here is what the top 10 would look like from the 22 games played after Mourinho's sacking. 1.Leicester City 13-7-2=46 pts 2. Tottenham 13-5-4=44 pts 3. Southampton 13-3-6=42pts 4.Arsenal 10-8-4=38pts 5. West Ham10-8-4=38pts 6.Man United 11-4-7=37pts 7.Liverpool 10-6-6=36pts 8.Chelsea 8-11-4=35pts 9.Man City 9-7-6=34pts 10.Swansea 9-6-7=33 pts It seems as if there are quite a few people on this forum who believe that when Mourinho was sacked we started playing well.Chelsea were justshit that season. Not just when Mourinho was here, but well after. There is no way around it.

I only watched the second half, but City weren't that impressive and the game seemed to be up for the taking. Granted, Manchester United actually had to play football to do so.

I'm really impressed with how well Christensen handles the physical side of the game. He's not very big or strong, but it just doesn't affect. He coped well with the physical beast that is Lukaku. Conte's decision is a testament to how highly he rates this guy and performances like today's make me near certain that Christensen will be in the first 11 every week in a very short time.

All back three formations seem to have problems with width. Even with the 3-4-3 we still struggle defending the wide areas. The 3-4-3 also allows their central players too much freedom. They have both Silva and De Bruyne playing centrally, and both have the freedom to move around. The moment one of Kante or Baka presses, they leave a big gap for a roaming Silva or De Bruyne to move into. The 3-5-2 allows us to clog the center of the pitch making it harder for City to penetrate, and Azpi as RWB really helps our right flank. I disagree about our setup being too negative and showing no desire to attack. With Kante and Baka in the center we could win the ball back when they tried to force things and instantly launch our counter attack. The inclusion of Cesc should help us feed quality balls into our two forward players, who would be occupying two central defenders. With Hazard and Morata upfront, I'd give us a healthy chance of scoring a goal or two. Each approach has its own flaw. And as you have mentioned, the inclusion of Azpi and Cesc had its own flaws. City have developed a perfect way of dealing with our back three, and other teams, to a lesser extent, have found ways to deal with our formation. In the end, the formation plays a small role, it's about having the right players for whatever philosophy the manager has for the team. You can win the game while you're defending your ass off for 90 mins as clubs like Atl. Madrid have done. Or you can set out to dominate the ball for the whole match like Barca does. I don't think the tactics we had were responsible for our result. It was an inability to carry them out. Once Willian came on the hopes of a successful counter attack occurring died. We only played with two up front and were unable to effectively press them. Willian never exploited the space behind their defence, as someone with his pace should be able to, and he was unable to do anything by coming deep. As a result, we had no outlet and were unable to break out of City's containment. I'm sure Conte and his staff have analyzed this game several times by now, and taken away what we have and much more. Hopefully, Conte will find the right solutions going forward and lead us to a serious title challenge.

Regardless of the personnel, City were always going to pin back our wingbacks. This is due to us playing with 3 at the back. Moses would not have been able afford roaming forward because loss of possession leaves the team far too exposed. This isn't even taking into consideration that outside of the occasional dribble, Moses does not have the skills necessary to break out of a relentless City high press.He just doesn't have the passing ability and good enough ball control to punish a high pressing team.You would be right if the team set up to contest possession, but that would turn out far worse than it did yesterday. Outside of Hazard and Morata, none of the attacking or midfield players in our squad have shown the necessary skills required to control a game against a side as skilled as City, hell I don't think we have the players to play against Arsenal in an attacking manner. Conte's initial approach to the game was correct, especially given the circumstances. Although it was not an ambitious set-up, we did try to go forward in the right moments. Morata was holding up the ball well and we could have very easily nicked a goal had he stayed on the field for the whole game. His presence also would have provided relief for the defence, but that did not come to pass and we have yesterday's result to cope with. I will say it again, Conte is not blameless. He should face criticism for his response to the Morata injury, and he should face criticism for the lack of organization that our midfield three showed. I'm not satisfied with how he and the team dealt with yesterday's match, but any suggestion(not necessarily yours but others) that we should try anything more than a solid counter-attack approach against an in-form City side are nonsense. We're not good enough. Outside of buying/developing the necessary talent, you'll never see this group of players play at a similar level to City. You're right though, fans don't like counter-attack tactics when they aren't working. But ask Arsenal fans how enjoyable it is to see a team play beautiful football and win fuck all. If we wanted an attacking side, the board and Conte would have had to make massive investments during his first summer here.

I disagree that by playing Azpi meant we had no intention of winning. As we have seen in past matches against City, they targeted the wide areas, in particular the space behind the wingbacks, and this yielded many chances for them. In fact, they had much better scoring opportunities in last year's matches than they did yesterday. Playing Azpi provided security on the flanks and could force them to attack through central areas, which is good as we had 3 central midfielders and 3 cbs. Playing Moses would leave our right flank exposed. I'm not convinced that Moses has enough in his game to be worth the trade offs in a game like this. As for the "hope we score a fluke and defend lead tactic" that you ascribe us to playing, I can only partially agree. When Morata was on the pitch, we had a clear counter attack strategy. Morata was successfully holding up the ball and we were able to craft a few chances, not great, but nothing that can be described as you have. It was only when he was subbed off that City started the domination. As I have previously stated, I was both surprised and disappointed by the decision, but I can see why Conte went that route. He still takes the blame for yesterday's result, but I won't say he made a blunder. There are issues within the team as you and others have pointed out, but if we evaluate the skills this squad has, and compare them to elite attacking sides, you will find this squad is quite lacking. This doesn't excuse our performances, but it adds perspective. This is a good squad and we can still compete for silverware, especially if Conte can find another solution as he did last year.

Had Moses played, City would have had a much easier time finding space in behind the defence. Although Moses is not a bad player, he just isn't the type of player to change a game like this, even if he is better going forward. (Moses is a bad decision maker, mediocre passer, and he possesses no end product.) Playing Zappacosta would have been a monumental risk as he has had very little time to adapt and was not a real option for a game like this. As for the scoreline, yes we were dominated by City for most of the match, but to say City deserved anything more than a goal or two is unfair. They may have dominated the ball, but they did not generate many real scoring chances, although they did generate far more than us which is why they're deserving winners.

Whether you love him or hate him Cahill is an established player in this squad. He's going to have to have some real stinkers to get replaced anytime soon. Fortunately, we have plenty of games to play this season so there will be many opportunities for Christensen to continue impressing,

Hope it's nothing serious, we're going to need very good play from our strikers to keep up with the Manchester clubs.

I agree. I was both disappointed and confused by the switch, but my post was more about addressing the fact that decision making isn't as clear cut as people make it out. Batshuayi may be more of an outlet than Willian, but for a CF his hold up play is atrocious. You can play Bats and hope for the best, or you can try a different plan. The manager takes most of the responsibility for today's result, but this isn't the end and I hope people don't express some of the nasty sentiments as they have done in previous losses under Conte. Today was a poor result, but this club can turn it around.