DYC.

I need to get into American football then. What about the NHL season? Baseball is not an option. Still waiting for the NBA season to start.

This isn't good. I'll miss seeing Big Nose in goal. Begovic is more than capable but it would be nice if he didn't have too much to do while he's out. This leaky defence nonsense has to end.

Tbf, he said in the future. And he didn't say he'd walk into any of their first XI's. Any player that has a great first touch and can dribble, pass and shoot at a high level (coupled with pace and quick feet) has the tools to become a great player. It takes just one outstanding season and Coutinho becomes a wanted man. What is with this secrecy regarding Oscar's condition? Come out and say how long he'll be out for already. Might not be as fortunate with player fitness this season btw. Apart from the injuries, players have been looking sluggish.

Coutinho is Hazard and Neymar level in terms of natural ability but you look at his career so far, and his doesn't compare to those two players. But he could explode at any time. There's no denying Oscar has been favoured to Coutinho or whoever under three different NT managers though, all possessing different views and playing differing styles of football. As much as people criticise Oscar, that speaks very loudly.

Nostalgia is wonderful thing. Drogba was inconsistent, Raul went through ups and downs (not a real striker either), RvN scored lots of goals but was limited and never carried his teams to glory, Trez was a brilliant poacher but limited, Del Piero is not a striker (he also went through ups and downs), Ronaldo's career was marred by injuries, Villa was fantastic but a late bloomer and played just a few years for the elite, Kluivert enjoyed a few good years and went down hill quickly. Drogba and Villa were from a different era. The rest enjoyed their prime in the late 90s/early 00's but not one performed at the top of their abilities 5 years straight or anything. Just like today's strikers. It's extremely difficult to do. It requires oustanding fitness, ridiculous mental strength and the ability to constantly adapt to your opponents as football keeps changing. Strikers wouldn't still be breaking records if they weren't as good as before. Football has moved on from always looking to feed your strikers. Most teams played two strikers. That's why the #9 was the most coveted position. They were the ones the team looked for constantly to win games. Now the entire team scores goals so they are less important. And strikers are required to be complete nowadays. Goals, technique, strength, pace, work rate. You need it all or you will be criticised in the area(s) you are lacking. No matter how hard it is for people to accept, football improves as the years pass by. Football in 50 years will trump today's level. Changes will occur and not everyone will like those changes, longing for the good ol' days, but it will be better. Edit: That doesn't mean every individual of today will be a lesser player. A player like Messi is one for the ages. Only truly special players will be able to perform at a higher level than him. The level of the average footballer keeps improving though.

Who is talking about Messi and Ronaldo? And productivity goes further than goals and assists.

Must be hard to have a full grown daughter. Especially if she's attractive. Just the thought of it frightens me. She'd be wearing a sweater covered with pink rhinos if it was up to me.

That's not how football or life works though. If you work some office job and you find out someone less productive than you, doing the same job, makes a lot more money than you, you're not doing something right (if you care). It doesn't matter if your salary is more than enough to live comfortably. The job of a footballer is not that special to deserve such ludicrous amounts of money, but we, the football fans, are the reason they make so much money. There's a colossal pot of money in football and everyone should get what they deserve based on their contribution. Not that I care about matters like this though. And for all we know, Hazard might be earning more money in the form of bonuses and all kinds special and clever clauses. You can't just stare at wages. If Hazard truly doesn't care, he's a rarity. Not having a big shot agent plays a large role as well.

I remember that very well. I also remember treble/quadruple talk. How times have changed.

Let's not rewrite history. Hazard and Matic were just as crucial in the first half of last season. Oscar played a big role as well (even though he is quite unpopular). Cesc and Diego were more noticeable because one scored goals and the other assisted. Hazard's performances in the second half of the season stood out more because the form of others dropped (significantly).

I never liked this either Cesc or 0 playmaking and creativity in midfield situation in the squad and constantly mentioned/complained about the lack of a proper replacement with similar qualities on the bench. He doesn't have to be as good as (an in form) Cesc but at least of offer a similar skillset. It's easy to forget since it's been so long btw, but Cesc was truly playing magical football at first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y12a7ToUOuE

Agree with this. I find his off the ball movement disappointing. There was a time last season, I don't remember exactly when anymore, where he has really doing well in moving around, taking up good positions between the lines and getting in behind the defence. He was in constant motion and it was really encouraging to see. But it dropped off after a while. I guess he was in a good flow or felt some kind of inspiration or something. But that should be a constant factor in his game. It's too much stand still, receive the bal in your feet and start playing. Mourinho should tie him to a chair, set up hours of footage of David Silva (highlighting his movement), and lock him in a room. Drug him and do it every week if he has to. I'm not worried about his form though. He'll bounce back. Cesc, Matic and Diego worry me a lot more.

It's very unlikely now. Two games left. Turkey two points ahead in third place. Winning the final two games is hard enough without having to rely on Turkey to drop points. Don't think the people will be drinking, smoking and dressing like idiots next summer. Well, let's be honest, they will be drinking and smoking. 3-0 haha. This is so sad.

This is what I can't stand about Dutch football. You have a weak squad and you're in extremely poor form. Your defence has proven to be extremely vulnerable throughout the qualifiers. And you're best player is out too. What do you do? Attempt to play attacking total football. Even though you don't have the material to play that kind of football and win. You have an away game against Turkey. Turkey's one point behind you in the group. Again, extremely poor form and you just lost against Iceland at home (!). Yet you decide to go out and play a high line. This defence can't play a high line, and has been exposed countless times, but you do it anyway. Even worse, you don't press. How do you not press with a high line? Insanity. You can't afford to lose. Forget the Dutch philosophy, take a hint from Van Gaal at the World Cup and play defence. 5-3-2/3-5-2, whatever you want to call it, and hope for a few good moments up front and possibly steal a win. If not, you're odds on to get a draw because Turkey lack individual quality and have been struggling to score goals. And I haven't even mentioned player selection. Or the fact that a coach with 1 year experience as head coach was appointed. But no, Dutch philosophy comes first. Following the Dutch teachings is what they do best. Losing is what they do best as well. Now it's time to sit back and enjoy the hysterics and madness.

Wilshere and Shelvey in front of defence... I can't help but feel they can't properly protect the defence. They're not strong enough in a positional sense, neither truly effective ball winners and both are (a bit) too erratic in their passing. I'd always play Carrick, despite his age. He brings a calm to your team, he's very clever in his positioning and his strong distribution from the base is an asset to any team. With the support of two midfielders, his physical limitations wouldn't be exposed. Hart Clyne - Smalling - Cahill/Stones - Shaw Carrick Henderson/Milner - Wilshere/Shelvey Sturridge/Oxlade - Kane/Rooney - Sterling Selection depending on form. And against the lesser sides, I'd leave out the RCM and play with Kane up top and Rooney behind him. Any idea why Hodgson hasn't been playing Kane and Rooney? They compliment each other so well, and Rooney is much better right behind a real #9. Especially one that can play with back to goal and link up well like Harry can. England can create a good team, with the added bonus of possible game changers on the bench. I think they lack the skill and guile to break down deep and packed defences or a well organised defence. But they could go far if they manage to stay compact, soak up the pressure a bit and hit opponents on the break. A real counter-attacking team, with pace and dribbling ability on the flanks and energy and aggression in midfield. But there's that mental barriere England severly suffer from, always choking on the big stage.

Transfer expenditure in signing squad members (million €): 1. Real Madrid - 587 2. Man City - 560 3. Man Utd - 533 4. PSG - 525 5. Chelsea - 407 6. Barcelona - 394 7. Liverpool - 344 8. Bayern - 337 9. Arsenal - 305 10. Juventus - 301 http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/pdf/wp116_eng.pdf English sides sure can't complain about spending power. Chelsea in the top 5. Manchester clubs rivalling Real. Liverpool in 7th haha. The likes of Atletico, Valencia, Dortmund well behind. Sevilla have done extremely well to create that side with 77 mil, after losing a few players in the summer as well.

This is what I mean. Barca never face Real or Valencia or Atletico and do nothing because they don't need a win for example. But then people blame Hazard for 'doing nothing' or disappearing. I don't think any team hogs ball possession to just play it around their own half and in midfield. I'd say they lacked the creativity to break down the bus. We know what that's like, we've seen it countless times against the lesser teams. I don't agree with that last part. If you want the ball, go get it. If you don't want it, sit back. It all depends on your own intentions.

Chelsea don't need a manager to stay for 10 or 20 years. There's only one Ferguson. A manager for 4 or 5 years is more than enough. Chelsea need stability in the type of manager they appoint, and the type of players they sign.

Musonda actually says it's his own goal to play and break through at Chelsea, rather Chelsea planning on using him. Mourinho said he'll be part of the first team, though it's unclear what that means. Getting loaned out is plan B, rejecting the opportunity to go out on loan this summer, as he feels this is the year he'll make his debut and get a chance. He's a confident kid, that's for sure.

'Musonda tells' yet no quotes... We've become quite accustomed to these (false/empty) promises. I have the faintest bit of hope, and I mean faint, simply because he's so talented.

Tbf, PSG still have troubles of their own in Europe. That quote from Mourinho is classic though.

Fair enough. Like I've said before, if Ruben has the talent to be the next Pogba, he should have no problem showing it somewhere else if doesn't work out at Chelsea.

Chelsea didn't show any desire to win possession by pressing them and showing real urgency to win the ball, which means they didn't want the ball (coach's instructions). I don't see how that is misleading. How do you expect attacking players to excel, or even perform at a good level, in such conditions? I'm not 100% sure on this but I think we saw similar ball possession, around 30-35%, against Atletico and PSG. And it's not just possession, it's the failure to create a good amount of goal-scoring opportunities, rather relying on set-pieces. My point was that Chelsea's approach does not set a platform for attacking players to shine. The plan is not to assert themselves over the opposition or dominate, unlike Zidane's Real or Ronaldinho's Barca. Not to mention the difference in quality of their team mates. That leads to Hazard being labled as someone who can't perform on the big stage.

Zidane and Ronaldinho didn't play for a side concerning themselves with defending first, ensuring plenty of men behind the ball and conceding possession at will. To the extreme point of recording possession under 30%, 0 shots on target (2 shots in total) and actually being outperformed against an opposition team with a man less. The circumstances aren't the same. Play Hazard in a top team (that plays) like Barca or Real (a legendary side like 98-00 France or playing alongside Ronaldo and Rivaldo) and see how he fares. Mourinho could care less about individual performances. Not that I want to compare Hazard to Ronaldinho and Zidane. He has a very, very long way to go to achieve that kind of status.

Does that matter in the end? Classic American sports movie: star in high school, nobody in college or star in college, nobody in the pros. I remember Bojan scoring 1000+ goals at youth level, breaking records and all. Now he plays for Stoke. Eto'o was a Real reject and he became a Barca legend. Not exactly the same scenario but Pirlo joined Inter at 19 after one season at Serie A level, failed, became Milan and Juve legend. In the end it's about how you do in the pros. If the likes Solanke, RLC etc. don't make it at Chelsea, they should make it in another top team if they have the talent. It doesn't disappear. The fact that barely anyone gets a proper chance is sad though, can't disagree with that. You'd think this group of players would have a better chance, proving themselves on an international level and all.