Peace.

Unfortunately, that something too "mainstream" on this forum, at times. Whenever you are saying that this or that player is not that good, people jump at you and label you as a hater. During the first month that I was on this forum, I had been labeled as a "hater" (me and some other people), because I dared to say that Kalou was not good enough, or something along the lines. To be honest with you, I was left stunned by this... I really did wonder what was going on, since it was a mere observation from me — an observation naked of all hatred. And that was nearly three years ago, now. Too many times, when you criticize a player for X or Y reason, someone pop at you and tell you "you are a hater", "ffs support our players and get behid the team !", "that's a knee-jerk reaction", "only after one bad game ", "how dare you criticize this legend", or just make fun of you, and I could go on. Yes, from time to time, someone really criticize a player because he doesn't like him very much, or because he is hot blooded after a defeat. That's a fact and that's normal — that's just human nature. I am pretty sure I have already did this once, just as everybody here ! But this kind of excuse (to defend players) has become way too much used... It has become to be thrown around so lightly. I find it kinda disrespectful and it leads the debate to a dead-end. I am not saying this to single out X or Y. No. I am only saying this, because into my eyes that has gone to far. This really piss me off when I read such things. I felt it had to be said...

Regarding Brown and O'Shea, to be perfectly honest, I do not remember enough to know whether they were starters week in week out. That's sure they were not playing the first role, though. Actually, I was going by the number of games that they played in. John Obi Mikel, in his last six years at the club, has played respectively : 42 ; 39 ; 49 ; 35 ; 37 ; 37 games (he is currenlty at something about 33), which does approximately 40 games per season. In ten seasons at Manchester United, O'Shea has played approximately 39 games per season (and that's with two seasons at 13 and 18 games). As for Brown, during the period of six years where he played the most, he averagely had 36 games per season. I compared them because they had more or less the same amount of games... Of course that my comment doesn't prove that Mikel is average ! I even said, in the post that I made not so long before the one you quoted, that I thought he was a good player ! And of course, he has his share of abilities ! As you said, he has a good passing game, especially with his accuracy. Even though he has the ability, he doesn't try enough to make sharp/long passes. And that's a shame, really. Though I believe that the manager should insist more on this part of his game... He should smack him in the head and tell him to do that more often. Yep, he has also a very good retention skill when a player try to get the ball from him. On the other hand, when the opposition's midfield put pressure, he has the tendency to be sloppy, mistake-prone. And finally, he has also a good positional awareness, and he knows how to close down spaces. Though, he also has a lack of mobility and hunger, and sometimes he has the tendency to stand still. So all in all, he has his qualities and his flaws, just as each and every players ; it seems that we both share the same view on this matter ! On the "helping the big boys" matter, I think that you have misunderstood me — or that I have misspoken myself. I am not saying this in a pejorative way. I am not saying that all he did was to bring water when Lampard and cie were thirsty. I meant that in the follwong sense : when you have great-Lampard on the left, great-Ballack on the left and great-pairing-Terry-Carvalho in the back, it's easier to do your things in peace. In other words, he didn't have pressure on his shoulders - it was players around him. Don't get me wrong ! That doesn't change the fact that he was important. And now, as I've already said, things have changed and, considering the situation, it's now up to him to take the midfield wheel. And if he was shaky under Villas-Boas, and inconsistent this year, that's because he is not the kind of player who's a leader, not the kind of player to perform under the spot ligths. He is litterally a squad player (not in the pejorative sense huh... Don't know if you see what I mean) ! Finally, I deeply believe that — considering the state of our midfield (and squad, in general) — we should aspire to someone else as our starting player at his position. On the other hand, just as you, I don't think that this is our most pressing issue. We won't be doomed if we don't buy Busquets ! Therefore, in my mind, it's the perfect situation to keep him around while blooding slowly a player of the like of Nathaniel Chalobah in the starting team !

Even though I am not agree with everything that Henrique said in this topic, he has a point... The managerial stability is overrated. I strongly believe that stability is a key factor to bring you success. Although, this whole affaire about having stability with your managers is over done. Mind you, stability doesn't lie solely in the manager ! For instance, it could also lie within your board or within your squad. In the last eight years, we have been quite successful, especially trophy wise. Is it because of the merry-go-round with managers ? No. That's because we had stability. Yes, we had — not where everybody are looking, though. In these eight seasons, where we won one Champions League, three Premier League, four FA Cup and went in three CL semis... What was the thing which has been here in all these years ? The core of our team : Drogba, Lampard, Terry and Cech. They weren't only world class players, but also our leaders. And around this core of players, you had other world-class players who have stayed a long time here and who also had a good sense of leadership. Namely : Ricardo Carvalho, Ashley Cole, Michael Essien (six years) ; Claude Makélélé (five years) Michael Ballack (four years). You even had "only" good players who were around there for a long time : Joe Cole, Paulo Ferreira (seven years) ; Salomon Kalou, John Obi Mikel (six years). Despite having axed Mourinho, we reach the CL final, not because of Grant, but because the players were perfectly oiled (and partly thanks to Clark, also). We have done well in Champions League under Hiddink because we reverted back to the Mourinho's tactics — park the bus. Ancelotti has built his team around the Mourinho's players. We won the CL last year because we also reverted back to Mou's tactics. Every times that something went wrong, players automatically were reverting back to Mourinho's tactics. We have had a merry-go-round with our managers, though our squad was a sole entity. Players knew well each other, they were natural born leader, they were well oiled. So yeah, we had stability — within our squad. In a way, that's kinda like if we had Mourinho all these years. That's the same thing with Bayern and Barcelona. They didn't have managerial stability in the years 2000's. Though, they had stability else were. The German side : in its board. Managers came and went, but the heads of this club remained the same. Which means that they kept moving toward the same direction, depiste not having the same coach. That's more or less the same with Barça. Why have they been so successful ? Because of the stability within their philosophy, regarding their playing style and their academy set-up. And then, we have Manchester United who have had stability through their manager Alex Ferguson. At the end of the day, the four most successful clubs of the last eight years had stability during that period of time. Though, the stability was in a different place for each of them. Having stability with your manager is not the only solution. Now, that core of player is gone. We need to fix our stability else where. To my eyes, we should not try to find stability with our next manager. No, we need to keep a stability regarding the team, regarding the players we buy, regarding our playing style. We also need to build a stability within our academy systeme (it looks we are going into that direction). That's how I believe we should do. Because managers easely come and go, though the squad and the academy structure remains (more time, at least..).

Bro, with this, you won't be friend with The Only Place ahah

Thank you You know, you still can send me money if you can't nominate my / rep me more

First off, mate, I didn't attempt to start a Kalou debate. I was just throwing in his name because he was the best example of a player staying a long time at a club without being a great player. Though, I am agree with you, he was a good squad player. And fair enough about Paulo Ferreira. But now, the examples regarding Wes Brown and John O'Shea are quite relevant, since the three players played more or less the same amount of games within a long period at one club. Are the two ex Manchester players are anything special ? Nah, they were just average. It's just that they were good squad-players and that they were surrounded by very good players. Hell, even Victor Valdes is another example : an average goalkeeper but has been the starter for Barcelona for many years. To reply to these questions of yours : 1) How come we have been so successful with him regularly in our lineup? 2) And why was he never replaced when we all know we had the financial power to go for almost any player in the world? I think I had partly answered it in my last post in this thread, but never mind. Mikel was surrounded by world-class players throughout nearly all of his career here. At first, in the back, he had what was arguably the best center-back pairing in the world : Terry-Carvalho. Then it was Terry-Alex. In the midfield, he played along side world-class players : Essien, Lampard, Ballack. You can also mention Ashley Cole who was the best left-back in the world. So, how comes we have been so successful despite having him in our line-up ? The answer is pretty simple : because Chelsea was full of world-class and great players. And, how comes he had never been replaced ? Simply because there were no points to !!! An elite team doesn't need to have world-class players at every position. We never replaced him because he was merely good enough for what we were asking him. In the midfield he was along side players such as Lampard, Ballack and Essien, while at the back there were players such as Carvalho, Terry, Alex and Cole. This fact means that he didn't have to boss the midfield. That's why all of our managers kept selected him. Because he was perfectly fine for what he were asked. Just as Wes Brown, John O'shea and Victor Valdes. Now things have changed. Our team is no longer filled-up with world-class players. Our defense is more than shaky, and our central midfield is more than average. That means that we are in need of someone who can boss the midfield ! Mikel has no longer the aforementioned players to make the midfield function. He is no longer the underling. He is no longer the guy there only to assist big guys in their jobs. He has no longer the second role. He needs to be the midfield chief. And this is precisely what, we people, don't think he has able to do.

No no no. Saying "he is the scapegoat" as an excuse to defend players, is too much used around there. That becomes ridiculous — even more when you realise that nobody is making a scapegoat out of anyone. Who said that Marin should be, I quote, "being amazing" ? Nobody. Who's blaming Marin for our bad performance ? Then again, nobody. What people are saying is that he is not good enough to hang around there any longer. It's not a knee-jerk reaction because he was poor yesterday. It's not because of one game. It's not because we do need a scapegoat. It's only because of accumulation of factors, this guy has "not good enough" written all over his forehead. It's as simple as the sky is high. First off, I am certainly not the only one who, around 2009-10, heard good things about him, like he was the german Messi blabla, and then from this point never heard about him again ? The concensus, from people following the Bundesliga, is that ever since 2010 he has done jack fuck. It seems that Werder fans were actually happy to get rid of him. And, even before we officially signed him, they were articles questioning the sanity of ours behind that move. Both di Matteo and Benitez snubs/snubbed him. Both of them had rather Bertrand or Benayoun playing than Marin. And it's not like as these two players were fabulous on the wing... That speaks volumes, isn't it ? What do you need more to understand he's not good enough ? Yeah, he needs playing time and bla bla bla. Really ? This guy's already 24 years-old. When you show striclty nothing at this age, then you're more than likely to never make it. But yeah, he obviously needs more game. The guy has played something like 124 games in Bundesliga. He has nearly played 200 professional games. And since 2010 — to put it in other words, since he stopped to show good things — he has played 55 games in Bundesliga and 66 games overall. And finally... Yeah, the whole team was bad yesterday. But did you see him just one thing for which you could say "wow, he has talent" ? No. One could reply me that yeah he has an assist. But having an assist from a dead ball means nothing regarding the quality of a player. This guy has no stand-out quality. He just runs around like an headless chiken. I might be harsh but that's how the truth is. Everything points to the fact that he is not good enough. We have been ripped off by Breme on this move — certainly because of a lack of knowledge of the German football.

My view on Mikel. Reading his thread is truly interesting. Because you know, ever since I am on this forum, I've never seen a player who divides us fans as Mikel does. And it's not like the majority was for or against him, it seems that it's fifty-fifty. With him, it's either black or white : for people he shit or great ; either overrated or underrated. To my eyes, Mikel is neither the great player depicted by some ; nor the poor player described by others. He is a good player, in my mind, above average. He is good at what he does. The problem might be that we are currently not asking him the good things. He cannot perform while playing in the double-pivot — that's what I believe. He doesn't have the profile. He is neither the kind of player who will work his ass off to dispossess the opponent ; he doesn't have the mobility and the hunger required. Nor he is the kind of player to make the game. Therefore, no wonders if he doesn't seem that good. Nah, he is suited to a 4-3-3 formation, where he will sit deep alone in front of the defense the defense. And not all 4-3-3 — it's only when the team puts the emphasis on the defensive solidity. Indeed, he wasn't good under André Villas-Boas, the high pace and the fancy playing style didn't suit him. It comes with no surprise that when we saw the best out of him was when we were playing the "catenaccio" : under Ancelotti and Di Matteo (when he was the care-taker). I would even go as far as saying that the best Mikel we have seen was the one playing under Ancelotti. When the defense is well constructed and organised, when the back four sits deep — that's when he is at his best. I think he would be very good in Serie A. Now, it seems that when the whole team is good, he is good ; and when the whole team isn't, he is neither. He just seems to be that kind of player who performs according to his surroundings. He won't be the guy to take us to another level, to make the difference. All this years, he was pretty fine. And we never feel the need to buy someone else, because precisely he was fine. But that was when we had great players, more or less in their primes, around him (Lampard, Essien, Ballack, Terry, ...). Now the situation has changed. We don't have anymore world-class players in defense and midfield (and arguably in the team, but that's another debate). The defense is shaky and the central-midfield cannot keep the ball for their lives. As a matter of fact, Mikel has played more bad games this season than in the previous ones. That's why I believe that we should look for someone to compete with him in this position ; whether we buy someone or promote one of our youngsters. Because, as a team claiming to be a major force in Europe, we need players good enough to back up our claims. The central midfield is, at the moment, toothless both in defense and attack. We need someone to boss the midfield ; to make this area his own. We need a player who will grab the bull by the horns. Pretty much like Makélélé and Essien were doing. Unfortunately, this player isn't Mikel. It doesn't seem that he has the will, the passion, the hunger. Into my eyes, he is too passive to step up and prove he is that player. We also need to look for someone else, to provide us a diversity in our tactical options — because that's clear, Mikel cannot play into a 4-2-3-1 and it remains to be seen that he's the best option for an attacking 4-3-3. I am not saying that he is a poor footballer, nor that we lose because of him — don't get me wrong. He is above average, but a club like us — especially considering the state we're in — seeks more than that, more than a player who's "okay", more than a player who doesn't provide very good performances on a regular basis, more than a player who's good when others are good and bad when others are bad. The bottom line is that our midfield is lacklustre, passive and apathetic — we need someone who will instill temper and dynamism in it !

On the other hand, one could also say that the way he played against Bucarest and Southampton showed how not that good he is. So, which one example to choose, in order to show his true quality, yours or mine ? I mean, you, and few other people, seem to imply that he wasn't good today because the whole team wasn't — or at least that these two facts have a correlation. Though, against Manchester United, he was good, and the whole team was also very good. So, it works both ways... And to respond to Choulo : Mate, when you say that during 7-8 years, every manager picked him. Though I can also mention the fact that Kalou stayed here for six years, and that more or less all the managers selected him. I am not comparing them by any mean, huh ! I am just comparing the situations. There's also the Ferreira case : he is around since 2004 and played over 207 games here, even though he has never been a world beater. There's also the case of Wes Brown and O'Shea. And many other examples. That's not because you hang around a long time that it makes you automatically a very good player.

I won't talk about our best CB pairing, but I wanted to talk about our CB situation and I didn't know where to talk about it. Well, the situation of the central defense becomes worrisome. Terry isn't what he used to be. And considering the state in which his body is, next season he won't be able to play and performe that much. What's sure, it's that we will have to find a replacement in summer 2014. On the other hand, we have Ivanovic. True that's true that he has been consistent ever since the start of the season... But consistent in average-ness. At this rate, we're likely bound to also find a replacement for him in the summer 2014. There's only Luiz and Cahill who are ok. Though, they are both mistake-prone, and the englishman isn't that good, at the end of the day. Furthermore, the two just cannot play together. So the question is, should we look for a defender this summer ? Or wait the other season while wishing that Terry and Ivanovic will do it for one more year ? I don't really know whether we should call-back one of our loanees, or look in the transfert market. But there's one thing that I know, and that's we need a man ready to start right away — not another youngster who we will have to nurture for X months. Because our central defense is not healthy enough to allow that. Considering the current situation, we could sell money while he still has resale value, and get a quite good CB, I don't know, something along the line of Hummels (I am not saying that it has to be him, it's just to illustrate what caliber we need). Or, if Mourinho comes, maybe he could bring Varane in his luggage. All in all, we need to start looking at this area, sooner than later. P.S. Though I can say that our best pairing definitely does not include Ivanovic !

Well, here we go again. He looks good when the opposition's midfield is nonexistent (i.n. West Ham, West Brom), but as soon as the midfield is combative and puts pressure, he is nowhere to be seen. He was a passenger in all the games aforementioned by The Only Place. The interest, when you keep old players around, is that while they aren't as good as they were, they can give you leadership and experience. Though, the problem is, that Lampard seemingly doesn't give us that. He failed to have an impact in these games ; and you never saw him trying to put the team together, to grab the leadership and instruct other players when we were in a mess. Aside for the reminiscence of the old good days, I fail to see any reason for which we should give him another contract, even if it were for £80k per week. I just think that's the best if we part our ways in the summer.

I've come to believe that he has already shown us everything he could. It doesn't seem that he has what it takes to get on the higher level. In my honest opinion, he is bound to be average at best. I am not advocating that we should sell him, because I guess he could be a usefull player, kinda in the same fashion as Brown and O'Shea were for United ; though I strongly believe that we should look out for a long-term replacement for Ashley Cole, as Ryan — aside of his game in Munich — did not show solide evidences of being that buy. I hope this summer we get a lock at Luke Shaw, whether it's a loan-back deal or not.

While players must share the blame, there's a lot to say regarding the skinny one. To start off, the chemistry. We were a mess today. There was no cohesion, no unity. As Terminator X said in another thread, the team chemistry is down to the coach. The level of some players who have played today is questionable, but then how comes that managers as Pochettino, Laudrup and Steve Clark manage to get average players working well together ? Southampton has average players, but they play as a team, and they were collectively pretty good both in defensive and offensive phases, today. Players are to be blamed for lack of individual performance — the coach is to blame for the lack of team cohesion. Today it was the case (as it has been too many time this season). Secondly, I blame him for the starting line-up. Clearly, he has proved with his starting line-up that he prioritizes the FA Cup game. Or he underestimated them. Or maybe both. There's only a few games remaining untill the end of the season. Our CL spot is yet to be secured. Every points are importants. And finally, getting into the top four is our top priority. We have a pretty tough schedule lying ahead : Liverpool and Manchester United away, Everton, Liverpool and Swansea at home. That means that at start of this run of eight games, securing points against the lesser sides was vital ; i.e. against Southampton, Aston Villa and Sunderland. Moreover, recently Soton has shown impressive performances against Liverpool and ManCity... The three points weren't granted at all. The team we played today had too many flaws : the ladyboy and Marin in the front-line, a double-pivot who was never going to work, average players in defense within Bertrand and Ivanovic... It should have been stronger, even if that meant that we would be tired on Monday. If anything, we could have run our players to the ground against Southampton and United, and then throw the reserve in the meaningless Europa League. That's why I believe that he must take his share of the blames for today defeat.

Seriously. Yeah yeah he needs playing time to adapt and to show his worth and bla bla bla. You do realise that he is already 24 years-old and that he has nearly played 200 professional games in his career ? How many more games do you think he needs to prove something ? And it seems to be the concensus that since 2010 he hasn't delivered in Germany. Werder fans seemed to be happy to offload him. Di Matteo didn't trust him neither Benitez. Damn, even Bertrand and Benayoun get picked-up before him ! Which additional evidence do you need to start saying he is not a good player ? You need him to stick around for six years, à la Kalou, to eventually realise that he should not be here ? And it's not even as if he was showing glimpses of genuine qualities. Does he have a good holding-up game ? A passing game ? A good crossing ability ? Vision ? Defensive abilities ? Nothing of that. Yeah, one could throw in the defense "oh, but when he is playing the team is poor". It can be true at some extent. But does it prevent him to show something ? No. The fact is that he has nothing special in him... He was just another "flavor of the month" among so many others, who couln't make it.

I do wonder how one can go from being pretty good to being fairly poor, in only two months. I'd like to know what he did during his holidays... He is so casual. I don't know, he gets easily effaced by the opponents, no sense of hurry. He provides poor clearances and passes. And at times, because of his reckless attitude when on the ball, he allows the opposition to put pressure on our back-four and Petr Cech. At the moment, he is a liability — yes he is. He has been average at best, since the start of the pre-season, and today is not the first time that he is to be blamed for a goal conceded. He really needs to improve, otherwise...

He needs to be sold in the summer. He's not good enough, simply. If anything, he is our new brand Kalou. Jésus, even Kalou was better than that. The fact that Bertrand and Benayoun were picked over him at some points speaks volumes. The fact that our two managers snubbed him is also relevant. He has no genuine quality — he's more a headless chiken than anything else. And to back-up what Leif said, here's an article that I found through a quick google search. Marko Marin is a ridiculous signing by Chelsea

Money Money Money, Always sunny, In the rich man's world .....

Yeah, how could a goal make you win the game while you are already winning the game ?

Sending him on loan in a Premier League club would be baffling, if I were to be honest. Atletico is a club that finished in the league 5th, last year, and is currently 3rd. Last year they won the Europa League, and this year the European Supercup ; while they have reached, this year, the final of the Copa del Rey. And they are set to play in the Champions League, next year. They ain't no major club in Europe ; they are a competitive club, though. I don't see how a mid-table team from the Premier League would be more relevant than a loan to Atletico. If he were to be loaned in England, only an upper-table side would make sens — but are we to strengthen a potential rival ? A down-step... That's how I would picture this move if it were to occur. Being in a competitive side which will be able to be in CL is more valuable, for him (in order to gain experience and improve his game), than being in a team which floats between the 15th and 6th position in the league. More challenge - more expectations - more pressure. And regarding the point be to place only the raised, that's kinda true. He is one of the reasons why Atletico is set to play in the Champions League, next year. He deserves to pursue this experience. It's not as if sending him to the Fulhams of this world would be a promotion. And it's not about him being unable to take missing out the CL, as you @Rekin implied. That's more like a reward. He's done very good over the past two years — it would only be rewarding his good work. Moreover, letting him stay at Atletico might instil confidence toward us in him, he would see that the club pays attention to him. And I don't see any reason for which he shall be loaned to an English team before being considered as ready to be the first GK for Chelsea, really. If the were fundamental differences between the two leagues, regarding the way of goalkeeping... But at they end of the day, the ball is round in both places.

It isn't question of fixing what's not broken, but rather fixing it before it's broken. I might be misunderstanding your comment, but there's not talk going on saying that he should be replaced right now. Will come a time where we will have to make a choice : either stick with Cech and sell Courtois ; or give the starting role to Courtois. The first option will give us at the maximum five more years of a world-class goal-keeper (and we would be to square one : find a replacement for Cech). The latter one will give us the opportunity of having 10+ years of great — nay world-class — goalkeeper. But that's not for today, nor tomorrow. Voilà.

He most certainly has done everything asked of him at Vitesse as you say, but, is the matter all about being ready ? I do not think so. We must do what is the best regarding our young players' development ; not throw them in the first team just because they are "ready", without doing an analyze of the context and assessing the cons and pros. If called back, there's two spot where he could be played. At righ-back and center-back. Regarding the right-back spot, he is bound to Azpilicueta ; Kalas would only get the odd games here and there. As for the center-back spot, he will have to compete with Luiz, Cahill, Terry, and even Ivanovic. It's a crowded area and, while he can impose himself as a starting center-back, the more likely to happen is that he will not play very much. Tomas Kalas will only be 20 years-old at the start of the next season. There's absolutely no needs to rush him into the first team. At this kind of age, players need playing time, it's necessary for them to develop. Here at Chelsea, theorically, we will be able to only offer him the odd appearances. A contrario, a mid-table Premier League club or a good german side, as Kalas himself said, will be able to ensure him a lot more playing time (it could even be a full season in a top league !). Now, let's ask ourselves. What would be the better for 20 years-old Kalas ? Playing a second string role here, or playing on a regular basis at a so called "lesser" club. I believe that having a loan spell, as Lukaku and de Bryune are currently enjoying, would do him wonders. In my opinion, for his development, it will be way better than habing him around here. Moreover, we also need to pay attention to what the players say. At the lights of what he said, he seems to feel that's too early for him to make the step to Chelsea. If he feels more comfortable by taking another step to join us, then it should be taken into consideration. Finally, it seems that he will be more needed not this summer, but the next one, when Terry will pack his things. Condering there's also some concerns over Ivanovic futur (if he keeps playing like he did ever since the start of the pre-season...). So yeah, all in all, I believe the better option conserning Kalas, is to loan him where he could have a full season in a major league.

Wallace turns 19 years-old in less than 40 days. He has only something like 21 professional games under his belt, in two seasons, and respectively 13 and 2 games in U17 and U20 competitions. From this small sample, it's hard to say whether he will be good enough to take a part in the first team next season. As for Todd Kane, he is 19 and has only played 8 professional games (three of them being in the third division, five in the second division), and eight U19 games. Just as Wallace case, it's likely too early for him to be our right-back back-up. While Azpilicueta has made his way to the RB spot, Ivanovic seems to have been given another role this year. Indeed, he has been more involved in the center of the defence, starting about 18 games as center back (he has played 41 games this season). Moreover, with Terry decline, he might be even more invovled in this area, especially if we don't buy/call-back a center-back this summer. This means that we might need a cover for the right-back spot. It would be pretentious to think that either Kane or Wallace are ready to do that job, especially if Cesar were to pick up a serious injury, or hit a significant deep in form. We will probably need a decent backup for Azpilicueta. Someone just good enough to provide a proper cover — not someone to displace Azpilicueta. That's why Nathaniel Clyne does look like a fine option. If the £7,5m bid were to be high enough to land him, then he would be a relatively cheap signing (plus his wages will probably be not very high). Moreover, he would fit in an home-grown spot — something that we are currently not collapsing under. Finaly, he has played 122 second division games, and 26 Premier League games (starting 26 of them !). He should be good enough to provide cover when called upon. Furthermore, as it stands, he is a more serious option than both Wallace and Kane. On a side note, buying him would not mean writing-off Wallace/Kane. If they are bound to be very good players, Clyne will do a "stopgap" job (I believe that's what the board might be thinking, if the rumors saying we will go for him are true). P.S. I am not advocating for us to buy him, not at all, I am just stating why buying him would actually make sens.

I find it fun that whenever the matter is about our old-ish players, inevitably the examples of Giggs, Scholes and van der Sar are mentionned. These examples show that a player can still be good at a high age. But that doesn't mean that every players out there (especially ours..) have the divine right to last that long. These players are just exceptions... For every Giggs, Scholes, van der Sar and Maldini, how many players are past it are past-it in their early 30s ? A lot more. The fact that some players here and there can last till their late 30s does not mean that we have to reckon that it will be the same for ours. If we naively reckon so, then we will build castles into the air and be hurt when reality will catch us up... Back to Cech now. There are a lot of reasons for which we have to look for a new first choice goalkeeper, sooner than later (in the 2 or 3 next seasons). As Alex has mentioned, Cech is starting to be injury prone (as we could have seen this season, especially this winter). When a 30 years-old player — whatever his position — becomes injury prone, then it's generally not a good omen. Furthermore, we have witnessed in different situations how badly an injury can affect a player (i.e. Essien and Terry) : his level can drop in a blink of an eye. And bear in mind that Cech has another problem : his head. Since then, it's "healed", but the fact he wears an helmet means that it needs protection (and what it implies). One can assume that at the next violent knock he gets at the head, he might be forced to put an end at his career. Considering his position, it wouldn't be surprising. On an other hand, he is at Chelsea for the previous nine or ten years. He has been a great servant for us, and has won alsmost everything possible : 1 Champions League, 3 Premier League, 4 FA Cup, 2 League Cup and 2 Community Shield. Does anybody has already envisaged that he might want a new challenge at some point of his career ? I don't know, to win la Liga or el Calcio, for instance. There are signs showing that he might not keep is level coming 34+ years-old. We don't even know if he still want to be here. Fortunately, we find ourselves in a comfortable situation. We have the possibility to go from a world-class keeper to a bound-to-be-world-class one. I don't think that many teams have, and had, the same possibility. We should start blooding in Courtois into the starting eleven in the 2014-15 season. Even if Cech is still better — that's not as if the difference of level will be dramatically significant. Though we should not wait more than that ; we have a pretty good opportunity, we should not let it pass us by.

Mata is not a n°10, though.

I fail to understand the teachings behind that pic comparing Iniesta/Xavi with Mata/Hazard (goal/assist-wise). They do not play at the same position. Moreover, they do not have the same role in the formation and same role/job within the team. That's not really relevant to compare these two duets, especially with Xavi. And, them two duets have not played the same amount of games (72 games for Barça's players, 101 for ours). I don't know.....