Peace.

Nah. The only thing impressive about his tackling ability is his rashness. How many times did I read in match threads "he should have been sent off" or "he is too rash" ? A lot — too much. If he is played as a defensive midfielder, then he will have to make more defensive interventions (i.e. tackles) and thus this bad side of his game will be further more stressed. Moreover, to my mind he does not possess enough discipline to play as a defensive midfielder (neither in a midfield-two, nor in a midfield-three). Ramires is great when he has to chase down opponents all over the pitch like a pitbull. But in all honestly, if we ask him to stay in front of the defense and cover his team mates, I can clearly see him being all over the pitch. And for my taste, he is way too much attracted to do his long runs toward the foe's box to be a DM ; in a midfield-two, his partner will be more focussed on knowing where's Ramires than on the game.

Yeah, Lukaku has done a good job while out on loan, and thus deserves a chance at Chelsea. But giving him a chance doesn't equate to not look for strengthen our striking force just so we are forced to play him. We gotta put things into their context. Lukaku didn't kill the Lernaean Hydra. Certainly his goal tally his impressive, yet that was for a club that achieved nothing that season. 11 players have started more games than him, while 43% of his games are off the bench. At these lights, having a good season at West Brom and having a good season at Chelsea are two diffrent things ; not the same pressure, not the same challenge, not the same level. In his first season here, he was not trusted. The second, he's been sent out on loan. Giving him the opportunity to take a role in our squad and to prove his value under our colours is the chance he deserves. After, if he wants to be our starting striker, then he'll have to prove that in the upcoming years. A young player of 20 years-old cannot be given a straight pass to the starting XI just because he scored 17 goals at West Brom. Out of 60 competitive games, Cavani will never start all of them — only Messi does. Between the Premier League, the Champions League (especially the groupe stage), the FA Cup and the League Cup, Lukaku could easily have his fair share of games where he'd start. If Cavani comes, I can fashion Ba leaving, and the ladyboy benched if we cannot sell him (unless he improves). Having a great striker and a promising young one is an ideal situation for us, in my opinion ; for Lukaku, too. Eventually, all the pressure would be upon Cavani's shoulders and thus Lukaku could focus upon his football. Lukaku is a clever guy and he knows what he has to do in order to succeed at Chelsea. If he proves his worth, then he'll play and eventually be our first choice striker. I don't think Mourinho will not give him his chance (if he stays) ; nor do I think that Mourinho will not play Lukaku because of Cavani price (such a thing seems to not matter to José's eyes). If he stays at Chelsea next season, he will have his chance — Cavani or not.

^ August or December, a night in Stoke City is always a rainy cold night. And, August or December, if you cannot make it under the rain in a cold night away at Stoke, then you shall not be deemed as an elite player.

I'd like to add that, in my opinion, keeping Terry and Lampard around doesn't necessarily do any good to that aspect (i.e. the charactere of our others players). Oscar, Mata etc... seem to be kind of shy players — or at least, not "natural born leader". Now, when you're such a player and enter a squad where there's players regarded as legends, true leaders etc... just as Terry and Lampard, what do you do ? You sit back and relax, and enjoy life without worrying about responsabilities. That's kinda like when you do a group work at school. When you're with school mates who are the best of your class, hard workers and al, you'll do nothing apart scrutinize the blue sky. Though, when you're in group with dumb people and wankers, since nothing's gonna happen and that you don't want to get a bad grade, you take your responsabilities and become the leader of the group. So yeah, I don't believe that hanging upon this past relic (i.e. the presumed leadership provided by our old players) is a good thing. Maybe in the short-term it can be good, but in the long, definitely not. You can swim all your life with life-belt, you'll remain safe this way, though won't improve as a self. But in the end, once you drop them because you just cannot swim with a life-belt in before the eyes of your children, you'll sink like a rock.

Instead of searching who's gonna be our captain, we should first focus on searching players having balls, leadership and with a real character (kinda like Drogba, Ballack, etc...). That's what we have been missing this year. Armband or not, a leader will a leader will remain a leader.

Ouaip, I know there's a lot of "if" and "maybe" into my comment. Though, that's not because I am building castles into the air ; but that's because I am not adopting a "I am right and you are wrong" stance. Actually, my understanding about de Bruyne is not good enough, just as my knowledge of your National team. Therefore, I cannot really profess whether he'll do this or that (and as a matter of fact, whether he'll go to Brazil and under which terms — as you mention in your first paragraph). But in my honest opinion, there's been a "mouvement populaire" (Don't know how to say it in english... I believe you used, in the past, the expression "group thinking", to describe that) going in this forum. And once again to my honest opinion, this "mouvement populaire" wants the club to play de Bruyne, because these people rate him as a brillant player (for some reasons that I don't understand — but that's another debate) and mainly because, into my eyes, they love him. To each his opinion — you can rate him as the next Jésus, it doesn't bother me. I have my own preferences, you have you own preferences, they have their own preferences. But what bothers me, it's the modus operandi which consist to spark mass dramas other this issue, and to consistently bash the board. I am not saying that the board are faultless and shouldn't be criticized, that's not that. It's just that from my neutral point of view, there's way too much drama about it ; it sounds as if we were changing our name to "we're a bunch of pussy FC". I am just trying to think outside the box without any pretentiousness to say that my opinion is the only one valid. I'm just trying to give arguments to make understand that this deal is not as easy as "de Bruyne is good enough => the Club has to play him". There is many, many, many things to take into consideration to assess whether the Club's decision is right or wrong. And I am deeply convinced that the board has taken (or will take) the decision with the help of datas whom we are probably not even aware of their existence. Blowing things out of proportion like this won't get us anywhere ; actually, the bigger this bubble is, the bigger the blast will hit us hard. Regarding your third paragraph. I am actually agree with you that he won't stay here after next summer if he is loaned again. But there's other points that raise my disagreement. For instance, when you say "That way he is regarded not as a goal 'an sich', but as a means to get to another goal (Schurrle)". From what we know (ro at least from what I know...), saying that de Bruyne is a way to get Schürll is as stupid to say that Schürll is a way to get de Bruyne. I refuse to adhere to the concept according which a club of our standards would do anything to solely get a two millions pounds discount on a £22m player. I mean, we spend millions and millions... And if we were desperate to raise fund, then we would probably sell de Bruyne right now (as the money won on him would nearly be enough to buy Schürll). Though, I am agree with you, this deal give us the impression that de Bruyne is a tool. Moreover, the Club doesn't give me the impression to be that inclined to loan him to Leverkusen... As for de Bruyne, he is entitled to be frustrated if he were to go on loan yet again. Who wouldn't ? But personally, if he cannot handle one more year one loan and wants to leave because of it... Then, I say screw him and let's 'waste' (not really the good word) our time on players like Lukaku, Courtois and Kalas who, despite having to endure more frustrating journeys than de Bruyne, are seemingly taking these possible new loans as opportunities to raise their game and be even more competent to integrate our team. I rest my case here since I am probably losing the plot and not making any sense, lol.

The argument "Messi is good because of Xavi and Iniesta" is a relic from the area pre-2010. Actually, from the past two seasons, it's the contrary as you stated. Indeed, this Barcelona team has major flaws (within their players and as a consquence within their tactics). For this two past seasons Messi had been carrying Barça all by himself. Without his impressive tally of 73 goals last season, Barcelona would have never reached the 91 points and we probably wouldn't had the chance to beat them in the semi-final of the Champions League. This year, he has gifted them La Liga and they would not have beat Milan without him (nor Paname). Barcelona without Messi is still a top team, but an average top team, nothing special (a team which is easily beatable). With Messi, Barça is arguably the best team in the world. Just as you said, that's the kind of differece that Messi brings to his team (takes them to a whole 'nother level).

First of all, I'd like to say that I believe it's a misconception to say that de Bruyne is used as a tool to lure Schürll. I actually think that this is two different cases who are treated together because of some reasons. To my understanding, Chelsea is considering to loan de Bruyne ; Chelsea is interested to buy Schürll ; Leverkusen is looking for a replacement for the player they will lose ; Leverkusen is keen to take de Bryune on loan. It's of mutual interest. Leverkusen finds a player to replace Schürll and Chelsea finds a club which meets his criterias (CL football) to loan de Bruyne. It's not like Chelsea was desperate to loan the belgian because of an overwhelming will to get the german. Actually, I think that's the german club that threw de Bruyne into the discussion, not Chelsea — their president seems to really want him. And regarding another issue, that you did not mention about this deal, but which has caused a lot of ink spill here — the 'softened' price we get because we loan them de Bruyne. A lot of people seems to be shocked that the discount is of two millions pounds. What are we expecting ? It's only a one season long loan. Last year, Atletico gave us £1m to loan Courtois, and apparently are offering us £2m this year for the same reason. So it seems to be the range of prices to loan a player — why should it be different for de Bruyne ? In the end, we should considere this as two deals. Schürll at 22m from Leverkusen to Chelsea + de Bruyne at 2m from Chelsea to Leverkusen = Schürll from Leverkusen to Chelsea at a price of 22 millions plus de Bruyne on a one-year loan. It's not like Chelsea were throwing de Bruyne into the deal solely because we're desperate to have Schürll (and this with a softened deal). Regarding my comment "he will count clouds while being on the bench". I never said that it will happen, nor did I say that it was my own belief. Some members here seem to be dead certain that he will have an important role and impact at Chelsea this year. Into my eyes, that is the best outcome if everything goes "to plan". The worst outcome possible is that he will only get five or ten games. The two can happen, and these outcomes' occurrence is independent of de Bruyne quality. So, the aforementioned comment of mine was only made in order counter-balance what a lot of people seems to think will occur. I merely believe that for every chance of de Bruyne displacing Oscar to be a starting XI player, there's a chance of him rotting on the bench. We are saying that the board is doing a bad deal because to us, de Bruyne is bound to be deeply involved in the first team. But, what will we be saying next summer if de Bruyne has been overlooked throughout the season ? My comment was written in order to raise that kind of reasoning. Once again, I am not saying it will happen, but a quick look at our past record in regards of the youth integration is enough to take this unwanted outcome as more than a fantasy. The Club is depicted as if he was not rating the belgian. But maybe, only maybe, could not it be quite the contrary ? Maybe the don't want to take the risk to obstruct his development by being not able to give him enough minutes of football, because they rate him highly ? Maybe they have great plans regarding him (either him being an important feature in our starting XI or by getting an huge profit on him) ? Now, what are the odds of that happening if he were to play for us next season ? what are the odds of that happening if he were to play for Leverkusen ? The safest bet is Leverkusen, isn't it — at least, in my opinion (and in the board's opinion it seems). It can be made out as if the Club doesn't have faith in the player, yes. But to me, the club is only trying to act in a prudent and wise way. De Bruyne is better than Schürll. ... and ? Maybe the belgian is better than the german — I don't know. But maybe the board is looking to add to the squad some qualities/abilities that Schürll can offer and that de Bruyne cannot ? The club might be regarding de Bruyne as the better player while Schürll as the better option. I think that it is a lot more complicated than we made it out to be. One scenario will offer us some things in the upcoming season and in the following years while the other scenario will offer us different things in the up-coming season and in the following ones. The club is merely choosing one and not the other because it's the better option, in the board's opinion, for the present and future — I believe we discuss this matter from a short sighted view. Finally, in this discussion, we seem to neglect de Bruyne's will. He has been a regular feature in the Belgian National team recently, and as things stand he looks more than likely to go to Brazil next summer. But for this to happens, he needs regular football. So maybe he himself wants to be loaned out if the Club cannot guarantee him regular playing time ? I believe the decision will be tri-parties ; the board, the manager and the player will all have their say on the question. The decision will be of mutual consent, in my honest opinion.

To meet the homegrown's criteria, you need to have been registered for at least 36 months in an english or welsh club, and thus between the ages of 16 and 21. Your nationality is irrelevant.

I stayed away from this topic as long as I could — and hopped to do so for the upcoming months — but I am too bothered by what's going on in this topic. And, Choulo, if I'm quoting you on this, it's not to single you out, but because the sentence of yours that I bolded is the illustration of what I am annoyed about. There's two ways to analyse the situation regarding some of our youngsters, namely KdB and Lukaku (these being the more talked about). There's two ways to interprete the fact that, a priori, the club wants to loan them out, again, for the next season. One way being to see that as a lack of concern from the board about the players themselves, about their future. The other being to see this as the club's will to offer them the best for their development and thus their future. It appears that the trend on this forum is that to see the situation from the first point of view that I mentioned. Indeed, a lot of people seems to think that the club overlooks these young players, that the club disregards them, because they do not reward them for their good season. These people see this as a mean behavior toward them ; these people blast the board. However, despite being very criticizing toward the board by the past, I stand by their side regarding these cases ; I choose to see from the bright side. Firstly, I believe that a lot of people has forgotten all the good the Club did to them by loaning them last season. Instead of letting them rotting on the bench or in the stands, the board found a way to offer them the possibility to play week in, week out. Had Lukaku stayed here, he would have had all the time he wished to learn to speak portuguese with Ferreira and go to the barbershop with Malouda, simply because he would not have been good enough, and because he would not have had playing time because of the ladyboy. Had de Bryune stayed here, he might have ended up to play "who's gonna play the less" with Marin. But no, being loaned out allow them to develop properly and to get exposure as well. In this regard, they flourished (or started) and made a name for themselves. Thanks to that, the both of them are playing in their National team. Lukaku has well enough developed to be considered by a lot competent enough to be our striker next season ; while de Bryune has attracted the interest of Dortmund, the emerging top club, who's allegedly ready to splash 17 millions d'euro to aquire his service. So, to start of, the way the club has handled these two players isn't that bad, is it ? And now, what if they are loaned out again ? Is this a bad message send by the board ? Mind yourselves, would it be a good message send by the board if we were to keep them and let them counting the clouds on the bench ? I don't think the club is acting badly. Into my eyes, the Club just want to cuddle them ; he wants to brings out the best out of them, could it be on a sportive or commercial level. If de Bryune is once again loaned out the up-coming season, he will be able to play an important role in a Champions League team which will be competing for the top four in its league. Lukaku will play on a regular basis for a team playing in the Europa League aiming for a good spot in the Premier League. As a matter of fact, they will develop even further and they will gain experience. Thanks to it, they will be legit candidates for their National team ; they will play the World Cup in Brazil next summer. They will also be serious candidates to have an important role in our team in two seasons. Up to now, is this a bad thing ? And, even if next summer they are sold for a X or Y reason, retrospectively, would the year on loan be a bad thing ? Not really, they will have a good rep and be able to join top a team, thus playing top football and having big fat wages. The bottom line is that while some people believe sending 'em on loan would send 'em a bad message, I believe it send 'em a good message. While some see that the board disregards their achievement ; I see the board "rewarding" them by sending them in better teams. While some choose to believe the club let them on the side of the road ; I see the board respecting them, because they give them the opportunity to have a bright future even if it's not at Chelsea — I bet that a lot of our young players of the past would have loved such a treatment. Finally, don't we forget the fact the your loaned players seems to be in harmony with the Club's philosophy ? I mean... I thought that Lukaku himselfs came out and said that he felt like he needed another loan before coming in our team — because it was better for him, or something ? If my memory serves my right, Kalas also said that he needed to make another step before joining our ranks. I believe that Courtois said that he was aware that he would not take over Cech before two years or something along those lines. To me, these players that what the club is doing to 'em is a good thing. The board doesn't exactly let them sleep outside at night on the pavement ; he follows them throughout their development and research what's the best for both parties. Handling yougsters is a bit like growing your own sess crops. You have to be patient. It takes them time to flourish and to be able to offer you what you are looking for. And, strangely enough, to your own eyes it seems that because of a godly injustice your friends' crops grow faster than yours, and thus you're too tempted to "roll that shit, light that shit, smoke it" sooner than you're supposed to be. But you have to wait, even if it means that you have to visit umpteen times your dealer in the meantime — it does not mean you don't want your sess crops anymore, nor that you want to let 'em die, it means that you want them to reach their pinnacle and to blossom as vegetal beings. If you decide to consume your own production too early, you will end up disappointed because it would be neither smokable, nor salable. Et voilà. P.S. Pardon me if my comment does not have any coherence or sense, I've been doing my homework until this late hour, which has throughoutly messed me up.

Player of the season : Messi Young player of the season : Courtois Best transfer of the season : van Persie (won them the League) Worst transfer of the season : Us keeping the ladyboy. Best managerial appointment of the season : ??? Worst managerial appointment of the season : Di Matteo (what happened was bound to happen, so misjudgment by the board) Goal of the season : Oscar Vs Juventus (the second) Overachieving team of the season : Bayern Munich Underachieving club of the season : Chelsea (competing for eight trophies, winning only one) Best match of the season : Chelsea 2-3 MU ; Tottenham 2-4 Chelsea ; Milan 2-0 Barça ; Southampton 2-1 Chelsea Best moment of the season : Euh... The end of it and the day we released the waiter. Complaint of the season : A complain ? That it has been a pretty poor season into my eyes. Or at least, I've been disapoited. A lot of top teams have struggled, especially in the league (ManCity, Chelsea, Dortmund, Madrid). ManUnited was not a beautiful winner. Despite a near perfect start of the season, Barcelona have been disapoiting in the second part of it. I'm not sold by Munich. No real suspense in the major leagues (Bundesliga, the Premier League and La Liga being won early). We wen through a difficult season, on a sportive level, and emotional level. A lack of stand-out performers (who are consistent). Etc... Overall, it's a "meh" season for me.

Yes, his defensive inefficiency can be explained by the fact he is "too small and weak". However, that's not all. I believe that his problems in this matter are not only down to physical issues. To illustrate what Mata lacks to be good defensivly, I'll take an example : Pedro Rodriguez. He is roughly the same size as Mata, and seems to have more or less the same body (I mean in term of muscles, shoulders, etc... See the picture below). They seem to have the same body bulk. Yet, when it comes to defensive abilities, it's kinda like comparing the night and the day. Indeed, Mata is known to be poor at the defensive job while Pedro, in my honest opinion, is one of, if not the best, forwards in the game when it comes to defensive efficiency. Yeah, it's easy to hate this guy but his work rate is splendid and efficient (and underrated as well). Despite the fact that Pedro is significantly faster (and has more pace) than Mata, I deeply believe that the differences between them are at a psychological/mental level. I believe that Mata lacks mental features that make Pedro so good in this matter : the aggressiveness and the will. Pedro isn't afraid to go and battle for the ball against someone who's 1,90 m and 85 kg (just an example huh), and even if he fails to dispossess his opponent the first time, he will right away try again. On the other hand, Mata is way too soft and kind — and passive as well. When he goes and challenges an opponent, you can see that his heart isn't 100% in it. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that he doesn't give a fuck and is thinking to something else ; no, it's in the sens that he's too shy, he's on his back foot. Though, maybe if he were to have more muscles, he would be more confident and more incisive... And finaly, into my eyes, he isn't made for the defense ; he doesn't understand Defense — just like some people don't understand Mathematics (you certainly had in your class someone who always had poor grades in Math, no matter what they were doing) or like some people cannot draw in 3D, etc... I spend a lot of time being focused on players' defensive contribution, especially forwards/midfielders. That is these observations that makes me think that Mata and Defense cannot get along (just like me and Finances lol). When he does try, his contribution is always 'off' ; he is always a few seconds/inches late. He is not in the flow, not in the rythme — just like Kyle Broflovski when he tries to dance ! That's why I say he doesn't "understand" Defense (not in the sens "he's dumb"). And also, his positionning is off, too. That's imo wherein lies the difference between him, and players like Pedro, Iniesta and Xavi.

What Munich is doing is shocking. Though, I am even more shocked regarding to what Götze and Lewandowski themselves have done. At the end of the day, they weren't forced to accept, were they ? I fail to understand how can they have the wish to go there. Götze is said to have signed for Munich because he wanted to work with Guardiola. Isn't it disrespectful toward Klopp and Dortmund ? BVB and Klopp are those who made him into the player he is nowadays. But as soon as Guardiola shoewed-up, he signs for their rival because he wants to work for this coach (and get more money surely). It's not even as if Dortmund couldn't give him trophies. In the past three years, he's won two Bundesliga, one German Cup and has reached the final of the Champions League. And regarding the Klopp's project, it's pretty safe to say that Dortmund will be competitive club for the upcoming seasons. But now Munich does appear to be a bigger force, he jumps out of the ship... Wouldn't it be better in many ways to help the team which built you, instead of choosing the facility and helping to 'destroy' your ex-club's project ? The same does apply for Lewandowski. They would have been nobodies without Klopp and Dortmund. If I was Klopp, I would be furious and feel pretty much hurt.

£25m is a lot for a 29 years-old player ; £25m is a lot for a defender ; £25m is a lot for a player who didn't have a good season ; £25m is a lot for a player who's starting to regress.... In other words, that's a lot of money for Ivanovic. On the one hand, he didn't have a good season at all, and considering his age, we can assume that's the "beginning of the end". On the other hand, as TOP2B said, the serbian is only the third choice ; and we really need a first choice CB to partner Luiz for the forthcoming years. So, if this rumor is true (which I doubt, because the source is the Daily Mail, and because the only French sources reporting that are unreliable (those are website in the mould of goal.com) and are quoting DM), then we should bit their hand off. This is a golden deal for us. We will probably never be proposed something like this for one of players, let alone for Ivanovic. Therefore, considering all the aforementioned facts, we should sell him, and with the money we can reinvest this money on someone of the likes of Varane or Subotic (which would been great additions to our squad).

It's going to be a pain in the ass, isn't it ? It'll be long and boring. And I can already fashion how it will be : the medias will do a u-turn and will "root" for Terry just so they can criticize us while Terry and his agent will play the "victim card" just like Lampard and his agent have done. Unnecessary dramas are lying ahead, I'm afraid.

I mean, seriously. He should stop to wear the kit when the team lifts the trophy, while he isn't in the squad for the final. That's ridiculous and cringeworthy.

I am agree. I don't know, but I find this deal odd. For some reason, I don't believe that's for sportive reasons... In my opinion, it's either for marketing matters or it's a panic buy. But I could be wrong. Anyway, as you say, I too ain't sure that he would fit with their playing style. Neymar doesn't come across as a player who loves to make one-touch passes. At Barça, there's only one player who stays on the ball, Messi — and that's not going to change anytime soon. How is he gonna develop while doing an unflashy job ? Does his play will remain as efficient and as good when being a part of the team, while he was the star player of his team for the last two/three years ? I can fashion this deal ending like Alexis'. In a way, they are similar players — the antithesis of Barça. On another hand, when Messi cannot play or isn't in a good day, Barça are nothing, they don't offer any threat. So, maybe they want him for this kind of situation, i.e. having an alternative to Messi when he's not "there"... Neymar as false nine does, hypothetically, look better than Fabregas as false nine. So who knows ?

As long as that these rashness and recklessness in is defensive interventions don't disappear from his game, and as long as he will have problems with his decision making, he should not feature in our hypothetical futur starting XI — I say. That's not the first time that he flirts with the red card, and today it could have cost us the game and maybe the Champions League qualification as well.

Well, regarding Aston Villa, it's a win against a team which fight to avoid the relgation. Granted it's a huge score line, at the end of the day that's three points against a team from which we merely had to take three points. Nothing special. As for Everton, it's a tricky team and they are the 3rd best home team, so well play — just as United (maybe if they weren't playing for 'nothing', it would have been different ?). But, taking into consideration what I said in my previous post : we took three points out of 21 from this seven games. Out of those six teams, two are going down, and the others are respectively 3, 4, 5, 5 and 8 points away from the relegation. That's 18 points lost out of 21 from games which we should have won. We should have, at the very least, had taken 15 points from those games. We would have 12 points in more, which means that we would have had now 81 points — 4 below United and 6 ahead of City (had we not beat Arsenal/Everton and United, we would be on par with them). Furthemore, gainst top-table opponents — namely United, City, Arsenal, Tottenham, Everton, Loserpool — we took 12 points out of 21 available (seven games) -> we took 'only' half of them. I do not believe that's an over-achievement. Finally, since that skinny dude is the manager, here's the League table : United -> 55 pts (23 games) Tottenham -> 49 (24) Arsenal -> 47 (23) City -> 47 (24) Chelsea -> 45 (24) We're not in the top four.

You're right. Had di Matteo still been our coach, we would have lost against West Ham, QPR, Newcastle, Southampton. We also would have drawn against Fulham, Southampton and Reading.

I didn't see the first half, so I will only give some of my thoughts about the second half. Take note that I haven't the thread yet, so pardon me if I am being redundant. * We did not win one point tonight — we lost two points. I am quite frustrated and annoyed in regards of the outcome. We had the game in our hands ; had some clear opportunities to put this match to the bed ; but in the end, we let them get a goal quite easily. And, even if we played (very) well throughout the majority of the game, I still find it hard to see positive things ! Our aim in this end of seaon, it's to qualify for the Champions League, not necessarily to play well or stuff. We needed to take these three points (from our direct opponents) in order to put ourselves in security. We failed — to mine, that's that. * That is not the first time, unfortunatly, that we failed to take a win from an important game. This games were either against weak oppositions that should have definitely been beated ; or where we were in lead but found ourselves giving away cheap goals ; or both ! From the corner of my mind, I can tell : QPR (0-1) ; Southampton (2-2) ; Newcastle (3-2) ; Southampton (2-1) ; Loserpool (2-2 — which was the copy/past game of today, i.e. we scored first, then let them score, for then take anew the lead to finally grant them another cheap goal) ; and tonight against Spurs (2-2). In my honest opinion, that fact stress a problem regarding the mental of our players. Is that we lack cojones ? Is that our players think they have the game won and thus have concentration slip ? Probably a bit of both. We need to learn that the game is won when the final whistle is blown. * As I said, I find myself in frustration toward the outcome of the game. Indeed, the way we let those two points get away... We had our chances to kill the game ! For instance, When Hazard sky-rocked a more or less golden opportunity to make it 3-1. That was a bad shot, he should have at least hit the target. Or he could (or should) have passed the ball to Mata who was — although being marked by a Spurs' defender — in a pretty good position to put the ball into the net. Another example is the occasion where Ramires lost his balance. Mata should have done a lot better, here. At the start of the action, it was clear that he would struggle to out-run that Tottenham defender, whoever he was. In the meantime, on his left side, Ramires was starting to make his run through the goal ; Mata should have passed him the ball at this moment ! Ramires would have been free to run alone, and would have had all the space to control the ball. Maybe that the spanish didn't see that possibility, in the "heat of the action". Nonetheless, he should have done better at the end of the action. The pass he made to Ramires was quite poor. I am also frustrated with Ramires falling donw ! Though, he was not the only one to lose his balance, so it could be more bad luck than anything — but still frustrating ! Finally, if my memory serves me right, there was a moment when Mata was alone on the left side while the ladyboy was in the box with only one Tottenham player... Mata's cross when out. He really should have done better here, that was a good opportunity ! We do need to take our chances — it has cost us a lot in the last three seasons. * We also can be angry toward the interim. Imo, he made poor decisions, and just as our players' failures, it has cost us the three points. First off all, the ladyboy... how the hell did he stay on the pitch ? He was a passenger ; he was invisible. Because of him, our players had no one to look for in the front and pass the ball to. Thus, when in possession, we lacked sharpness. We couldn't set the control of the ball because of it, in my opinion. And the only time he got the ball, he made nothing good from it. He really should have been sub earlier. I get that Ba a fitness problem, but 20 minutes would not have done him too much damage, would it ? If he couldn't, then put Moses on, play with a false n°9 and restructure the midfield. I won't comment Moses for Hazard ; it could have been because he was injured, I don't really know... Another bug mistake was to not change the midfield. Before the goal, that was clear that we were losing the midfield battle and that Rmires and Luiz were tired. Lampard could have been used to help the two Brazilians. If not, then Terry could have been used, thus pushing Ivanovic on the righ, and Azpilicueta on the right wing, with Oscar in the middle and Mata on the front. Or I don't know, but there were different kinds of solution to strengthen the midfield. In this regard, it was really a bdad coaching. * This game really reminds me the one against Loserpool. An important game — we lead, then let them to get back, then take anew the lead to let them come back once again. There were also the same "what the fuck" sibstitution in the same circumstances : the ladyboy, bena-fucking-you, ... * Aside from "why...?" passes, Oscar was immense. He was pretty sharp in attack and when in possession. And in defense, he was wonderful. A great work-rate, a great defensive game, a great work-rate. Plus, he scored. Very good game from him, I love him !

What will happen tomorrow :

I believe that your opinion and Styles' opinion on the matter, doesn't nulify eachother. Let me explain. I am agree with your previous post — one of our biggest problem is the fact that our starting XI lacks quality (no striker and no players suited to play in the pivot). Even tough, Styles is also right. It's not necessarily because of Marin, that's rather because we have players such as Marin on the bench. Just as our starting XI, our bench cruelly lacks quality ; sometimes it looks so poor that you want to cry. And it appears that Marin embodies this problem. As you say, Marin is the eighth option for the attacking midfielder spot ; behin Benayoun and Ramires, but also to a lesser extend behind Bertrand. Even though, on the paper, Marin should be (with Moses) the "squad player" for this spot. However, he is so poor that a RB, a B2B and a unwanted player are getting picked-up ahead of him. This is a genuine problem - it just shows how much our bench is weak. You are saying that it's our managers' fault if the likes of Hazard and Mata are not rested because they have pressure to win trophies. Though, is this fact the origin, or the outcome ? This season, with that poor squad, we reached the FA Cup semi, the Cup League semi, the Europa League and we will likely finish in the top four. In my honest opinion, it does mean that with a proper squad depth, we should not have such a problem regarding players playing time. In my view, it worked this way : the manager had pressure to win trophies ; but our squad is not good enough ; so the manager was forced to overuse our key players. Had Marin been as good as Moses, then Mata probably wouldn't have had to play 10 domestical cups games and to play against poor team. Had we had a Moses2.0 instead of Marin, then Mata and Hazard would have probably played 10 less games each one. Finally, I do not think that your example regarding ManU, Buttner and Wooten is a good one. You can play with one or two poor players in your team — as long as it's not at a key spot, then you won't suffer too much. For instance, Barcelona has an average defense, but against 90% of their opponents they don't don't suffer of it. Why ? Because they put the emphasis on their midfield and on the attacking side of the game. Therefore, because of the big possession, their defenders don't have to do that much, and even if they fail, the attacking players (I mean Messi) make up for it. That's why they can play Adriano as a CB and still win ! That's the same with United. For instance, against us they were able to play with Wooten, because they still had Giggs, Nani, Welbeck and Hernades as their forwards (= they had performing players at their key area, the attack). However, we cannot play Marin because the AMs is our key area — and playing Marin there would mean weakening this area too much. And that's also why we have been able to win with the ladyboy in the side : because the striker in our systeme is marginalized. The bottom line is that Marin is not at fault because for what he has done, but because of what he has not done. And yes, our bench (and thus the likes of Marin) is one of our biggest problem. It's just simply not good enough. United have Cuntarito and Welbeck to replace Rooney and RvP ; we have Moses, Marin and Bena-fucking-youn to replace Mata and Hazard — that's partly where lies the 17 points gap, in my honest opinion.

I co-sign. "And the RZA Styles, he is the sharpest motherfucker in the whole Clan forum, he always on point."

Yeah, from my understanding, at first stories were saying that we paid him £12m, but some months later it appeared that he only paid him his wage. I know it's the Sun, so not the most reliable source out there (I am too lazy to make more search right now).