Peace.

March 2, 2013 : April 29, 2013 :

He is yet to show that he can consistently deliver 20+ goals per season ; though, whenever he has been given a fair chance in a team, he has scored a lot (and was very good as well). At Bolton, where he was loaned six months, he has scored 8 gaols in 12 games in the League. I have watched four or five of their games in full (and also catched some minutes here and there) and I can tell you he was pretty good. Not only goal-scoring-wise ; his all-over game was good. In the season 2011-12, he missed the three first games because of the red card he picked up in his last game with Bolton (he scored a goal for his first game). After that and until di Mateo was appointed has care-tacker, Danni played 21 games and scored 9 times in the League. If my memory serves me right, he has scored about 8 goals in 13 games, before we severely fell apart. Moreover, he was pretty important for us in the first part of our season (one of our three best players), and it was in a position which was not his (the right wing). For the debat sake, in a full "season" (one half with Bolton, a sedonc one with Chelsea), he has scored 17 goals in 33 games. Which is not really bad, isn't it ? Furthermore he was quite important for both team. Now he is at Loserpool, he has scored 7 goals and made 3 assists in 11 League games. So you see, whenever he was given a real chance, he has turned out to be good. Scored 24 goals in 44 games (0,55 goals per game) — which is not bad — and was important for the three teams he played for. As for his defending game that you appear to criticize, as the Skipper said, you have got remember that he is a striker ; strikers are not exactly famous for their defending game, are they ? Adding to that the fact that for Chelsea, he played as a right winger, and, wingers have to do significantly more work than strikers. Therefore, his lack of defending was hightlighted. His lack of defensive game is one of the reasons for which di Matteo didn't play him — though that's not the only one. Indeed, di Matteo didn't seem to like Danni that much, which is nothing extraordinary, since pretty much all managers have their chouchou and one guy they don't like. And, during Roberto's spell as a care-tacker, was not suited to play (unless if it was at striker, but that was not possible) since we adopted a defensive tactic. He also seemed to be off-form, though, which 21 years-old player does not show inconsistency ? The bottom line is that I believe that you're holding a judgment too much harsh regarding his quality, and into my eyes he is way better than what you seem to credit him for.

Like some people have already stated, your size does not define your strength. There are many more factors ! For instance, how your body his built, and how muscular you are. But there is also your balance, and how do you use that balance ; even a tall and big man can be throw to the ground by a smallish man if he is off balance, for instance. Alexis might be small (1,69 m), but as you can see on the picture posted by Spike, he has a lot of muscles, is robust/tough and is stocky as Spike said. To compare with our own players, Oscar is 1,80 m and McEachran is 1,78 ; Alexis is significantly much more stronger than them — hell, Josh could be throw into the sky by a gust of wind ! The Chilean is stronger than Hazard, Mata and Oscar, believe me, and he would not be jealous of Moses' strength. So writing him off because he is 1,69 is not a valid reason. And I do not understand people who say that our team would be weak because our three AMs would be small... As Rmpr stated, you can have physical strength elsewhere ! If we buy Falcao, we won't have a physical weak striker ! And sooner or later Lukaku will come back, and in the meantime we will have Ba ! We will most likely have strength and physicality within our defense and defensive midfield, too. So that's not exactly as if our team will be full of 1,69m-players, huh ?! And people like to throw in the recent decline of Barça as argument against having small players in the team. Barça problems are much more complex than this question of size. I can guarantee you that even if Iniesta, Xavi, Pedro and Alexis were all 1,85 m, they still would have lost to Bayern... Probably not in such a fashion, but they would have lost. I won't develop much further because it isn't a discussion about Barça, though I can tell you that Barça problems have wayyyyy more to do with their Messi-addiction (and other flaws as well) than with their small size. Finally, as I have already stated, I believe it is a good option for our squad. First off, we do not have any right winger. Even though Alexis is not exactly a right winger (he is more of a second striker), he would be perfectly fine on our right wing — significantly better than any of our options at the moment. And he will add to our squad abilities we do lack at the moment. He likes to provoke and to take on defenders (something we do cruelly lack) and he is much more direct than Mata and Oscar, and I believe a tad more than Hazard. That addition would add variety to our squad which is something nice. Moreover, he is also a player with a good ethic when it comes to work-rate and to accomplish his defensive duties ; we all know that Mata and Hazard aren't the best in this aspect.... As a matter of fact, we won't have anymore to play Oscar out of position in order to have defensive abilities within our three Ams. The only downside is his finish product, which tends to be a bit off. Regarding his not so good form at Barça, I am not too bothered. I have already explain why on the last page, so I will be brief. I do believe that he can re-catch the spark which made him so special at Udinese if he plays in a team which suits him. For something around £20m, I do believe he is worth the gamble and I would gladly welcome him here ! By the way, he was bought for 26 millions euros, which makes today £21m ; if Barça wants him out (or if he wants to leave), they will likely not be looking to make profit (for the reasons I explained in my last comment on the previous page), thus his price tag might be less than £20m...

Well, for a long time now I was against this signing, and this for several reasons. Now I am not as sure about my stance (regarding this deal) as before. So I'll try and look at the bright side of this deal : * To my mind, we need to make a marquee signing this summer, whatever the position (CB, CM, ST...). I think it is very important, because it will send a strong message to our opponents in the Premier League. It will show our intents : put an end to our run of three pathetic seasons in the league. Kinda like what United did last summer ; they lost the league to City, so they bought van Persie even if they seemingly had enough strikers (and it turned out to be the right decision). Buying the player regarded as one of the best striker in the world, if not the best, will clearly be a statement to both Manchester clubs that they will have to count upon us. * The game against Basel yesterday night stressed one of our flaws which has been damaging us all the season long. It's our finishing (or lack of). I'll mention again the example of United and van Persie. This United team is not by any means an exceptional team. They have many flaws : their defense and midfield are fairly average. Though, their striking force, especially the Dutchman, have papered over those flaws. Barcelona and Messi is another example : the little agrentinian has carried his team on his shoulders for the past two years. This season we have been very wasteful ; had we had a proper finisher, we would have most certainly been ahead of City and have won the World Cup. So Falcao could resolve our finishing problems, and thus make our other problems looking less troublesome. * He will give us another dimension in our game. At the moment, we lack penetration, because our midfielders have no one in front of them to pass the ball to. As a matter of fact, our game is pretty flat, and all we do is to pass the ball sideway around the box. Furthermore, many members say we lack width and our crossing-game is not good enough. But why would we have width and a good crossing-game when there's no one in the box to cross to ? With Falcao, we are bound to have more penatration, because our AMs will look to give him the ball. Also, with him as the focal point in the box, having width will make sense, because we will have someone to cross to. * He will give us a mental edge. At the moment, we are pretty easy to defend. Indeed, we do not really have a striker ; all happens through our AMs. Therefore, in order to nullify our attacks, all the opponents have to do is to leave our striker alone and to close down space for our AMs — which makes us toothless. Moreover, we lack the fear factor. Our players don't really cause fear and havoc. With Falcao, our opponents will be on their back feet. Because of his reputation, defenders will loosen their marking upon Mata, Hazard, etc... Because they will have to handle him. As a matter of fact we will be harder to defend. Voilà voilà.

Three things : * Do you really believe that booing the ladyboy will affect negatively his game ? Against Loserpool this week-end, he was a lost soul wandering on the pitch for about 98 minutes. Though, there wasn't anyone around booing him, right ? Tonight, he fucked-up three clear opportunities to score. Then again, nobody was booing him. And it's just the two most recent examples out of more than 100 games. Over the past two and a half years, Chelsea fans have showed a great support to him, nonetheless, he still has proved to be the biggest flop of football history. So I ask you, what will happen if he sees banners telling him to fuck off ? Will he miss a siter on purpose ? Too bad, he is already doing this, even when fans are singing "T*rres T*rres T*rres". Then maybe he will suck and show no passion ? Then again, that's mainly what he has achieved in his time here. * What do you think that his firends will do, if we do jeer him ? Will they start an hunger-strike ? Footballers are not renowned to have the most performant brains, though they are not that dumb. He might be their friend, but they most certainly know that he is awful and frustrating, so they will understand our stance. Plus, they know that they are bound to be applauded and cheered when they have a good game/season, just as they are bound to be booed when they are poor. * And lol, sending out a wrong message. During Rijkaard's last year at Barça, fans were booing him/the team. Though, that didn't prevent Barcelona to buy great players and to be admired all over the world. This is not the sole example ; Madrid fans have booed Ronaldo and Mourinho, yet it won't prevent Madrid to attract great players and have a good image — I could mention many other examples. That's how it works in football : when fans are happy, they applause, sing, cheer, etc... when they are not, they boo. Furthermore, put aside his fangirls, everybody knows that this poor excuse of a player is a supreme flop, I am pretty sure that other teams' players and fans would understand our feelings.

Do they really believe that ? Somebody needs to tell 'em that we won't sell them Mata and Hazard this summer, if you know what I mean

So, yesterday, I saw on the television that two "terrorists", who were planing a terrorist attack on the train going from Toronto to New-York (or the other way, I don't recall), were arrested. Surprise surprise, authorities claimed that it was two terrorists trained by Al-Qaïda in camps in Iran. In other words, they were trained by an organisation which doesn't exist in a country which USA would like to attack (it's an open secret, I guess). Do you remember the last time that US government threw the wild card "Al-Qaïda" ? Exactly. As time goes by, I guess we can start to picture what's the situation all about.

I don't know how he was at Udinese, but I watch him at Barça. Actually, I can understand where they come from. Indeed, his finishing this season has been quite frustrating ; he has bottled a lot of chances (I believe that the match au Parc des Princes embodies this fact). Also, his season has been mixed between hot and cold. He has made his way into the team just as quickly has he got benched, and thus it has provoqued a lack of consistency (alternating between the good and the poor). So yeah, it's not a very good season for his standard — and for Barça's standard as well. Though, we can find some kinds of explanations for this. As I aforementioned, he has been continuously in and out of the starting team, thus altering his consistency. Also, it's not like he is the first choice, for the two spots remaining in attack. They are shared between Villa, Pedro, Tello and him (and sometimes Fabregas) ; they have respectively played 35, 39, 30 and 39 games. And finally, one could say that the graft didn't take ; Alexis doesn't fit Barça, and vice versa (kinda like with Ibramovich). At the end of the day, it still has been an average season and frustrating as well, though I do not believe who should right him off. The question now is, would Alexis be a good addition to our squad ? Hum, into my eyes, it might. I believe he would add something different that what Oscar, Mata, Hazard and Moses can offer. Indeed, he is a lot more direct than these players. At the contrary of the players we already have, he is not really the type of guy wainting for the ball to come into his fit, he will lurk around defenders to try and make runs behind the opponent's back-line. In that sense, he would add another dimension to our squad. Furthermore, being a part of the Barça team, his ethic regarding the work-rate is pretty good. Not the best work-rate out there (less good than Pedro or Oscar, for instance), but he puts in a lot of work and is mobile — that's what we tend to lack from Hazard and Mata. Then again, one could argue that it would be another "midget" in the team... Though, he is pretty robust for size. The cons would be his finishing — which tends to be dubious (he will miss the easiest goals, though score the hardest) — and his tendancy to make things way more difficult than they actually are (he tries too many dribbles and has his eyes on the ball — which is part of the frustrating taste he gives to the Barça fans). It might be wort a try, considering we could have him at an interesting price. Barça is not renowed (in recent years at least) to try to make profits when a player want to leave, or when they want to get rid of a player. Chygrinsky, bought for £20m, sold for £10m one year later ; Hleb, bought for 15m euros, cancelled his contract by mutual consent with Barça after numerous loans ; Ibraimovich bough £40m + Eto'o, sold for £20m one year later. I could go on. My point being that we can assume that he will not be too expensive. All in all, to my belief, some of his abilities (like his directness, work-rate and will to take on opponents) would be welcomed into our squad's abilities range. And for a sensible price, I would be happy with him. As for his goal record this season, it's always a bit tricky when it implies Barcelona... It's kinda like when you say that Iniesta and Xavi have poor goal records. Indeed, when it comes to goals, there's Messi, and then there's the rest. Villa's scored 14 goals out of 35 games, Pedro 8 goals in 39 games, Tello 8 goals in 30 games, Fabregas 13 goals in 42 games, Iniesta 5 in 35 games, etc... so yeah, that's pretty homogeneous behind Messi, in term of goals. By the way, he has scored 7 goals this season, not 5 (he scored twice in El Copa Rey ; your stats didn't ake into account this later competition), in 39 games (and had 11 assists). It's true that doesn't change the world, though..

That's why I hate Bayern. They buy every single good German players and every good players in the Bundesliga. Yeah, those snobs can go out and brag shit to death because they have no debts, but that's pretty easy when you kill your League like they do. That's quite boring. "Mia san mia", yeah right, you're just a bunch of arrogant twats. And Jesus, I am sooo glad we won "their" Champions League

I am serious. Fans who go to the Bridge, to away games and who can go to Cobham, you should do something. Because this parasite won't leave the club — why would he ? He has a king life over here : he earns 180 000 fucking pounds each and every week, and even if he sulks and doesn't give a fuck, he is still played. There is a fair amount of fans who give him a hard life, but compared to Bosingwa and Kalou, that's nothing, I feel. We should let him know that we don't want him here, that we want him to fuck off wherever he wants to. That's why I think that we should give him a hell of a life till the end of the season, and the better way is to have banners at stadiums which read "we don't want you here ladyboy", or this kinda slogan. I don't know whether it will help a lot, but if he doesn't feel a hostile crowd toward him (which is currently the case), he will keep sucking our blood. At the contrary, if he sees numerous banners reading "fuck off ladyboy", if he is booed whenever he sub-on/sub-off, if there are also fans at Cobham telling him to fuck off, then he might think twice before feeling at home here. It might look like I am leaving the dirty work to english fans, but I really do believe that we have to mobilise ourselves to show him the exit door

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_4jioyxn6k

His goal today reminds me the one that Drogba scored in Munich. The same assister (Mata), from the same side (right to left), the same jersey (n°11), the same kind of movement and header, etc... You're truly worthy to wear the n°11, Oscar !

I am agree with you. Today, during the game, I made the reflexion to myself that he was reminding me of Vidic. Strong/powerful defender with a dirty game who escapes a lot of referees' decisions.

Hum... I don't really know... First off, will we play, during the upcoming season, as many as we did this year ? We won't play in the Community Shield, the UEFA Super Cup, and the FIFA World Cup. That's four game less, and it won't provoc congestion early in our schedule. Furthermore, we have been in three semi-final this year : FA Cup, League Cup and Europa League. Will we repeat that next year ? Especially if we are in Champions League, that will be hard to get three semi-finals. Plus, we had to play two replay in the FA Cup. One of them was unnecessary, the other one was a bad timing (the four games in nine days). I think we are bound to have a season less fraught than this year. Finally, we won't be dealing with the negative effects caused by the CAN. Then, he might end up with Schürrle. We can picture that it will have a significant positive effect on the situation (regarding the AM) - unless if he's a flop, but oh well... We can assume without geting carried away that Schürrle is a 25/30-starts-a-season kind of player ; that's more starts than Marin and Benayoun combined. In addition, I'm pretty sure that Schürrle can replace either Mata, Hazard or Oscar in a big game without dramatically damage the quality of our front-three ; just as Moses. On the paper, it's a big step compared to this year. This way, I believe that we can perform an efficient turn-over — probably not the best, but much better than this season — and thus keep our AMs healthy. And there's another angle from which to see things. For instance, against Manchester United in the League Cup, we had to to play our big guns because our bench couldn't defeat United's. I believe that we were in this case more than once. I think it's safe to assume that our bench will be improved significantly. Thus, more rest for our starting players against weak teams. Moreover, we have been over-reliant to Mata and Hazard, and to a lesser extent Oscar. Why ? Because aside them, we don't really have players to drive the team, to make things happen (especially regarding our strikers and our double-pivot players). That means that if we find a very very good midfielder, or even find a performing midfield (I refuse to think that the Club won't fix our midfield problems), then this over reliance upon them will be lessened ; they will be able to get more rest against weak and mid-table sides... We also have Bertrand we can provide cover for the left-wing spot... Granted he does not set the world alight when he's playing there ; though, if as I said we will improve our squad quality, he shouldn't be too much of an weight if the others around him are good. From this perspective, the situation in regards of the players' fatigue does not look that bad, (even if you considere that, as you pointed-out, Oscar and Mata won't have a proper rest during holidays). That's sure that having de Bryune as the sixth AM wouldn't be a luxury at all, but I still presume that we can live without that sixth player. Nonetheless, as I aforementioned, I do not really know. That's just assumptions. I believe that whether de Bruyne will be needed or not depend on how much we do strengthen our other areas. If we do good enough in that regards, then it will be the best for him as he would be able to play week-in week-out (-> he will have a better environment to develop as a player) ; and for us as well, on the long-term (we wouldn't slow up his development). P.S. Well, I hope you understand me, because it's late here and I am kinda blazted.

In the Roman era, Chelsea has underachieved (in term of silverware).

As some members have already stated, Oscar has been bought for 25 millions euros, not 25 millions pounds. I read on some brazilians site that his price was slightly over 60 millions reals. $R65m = €25m. So that makes sense (and £25m = $R77m...). On the other hand, Hazard price tag is truly £32m. He cost €40m. Though, his wage is “only” £110k a week, while they say £150+k.

I am agree with you Alex. Mikel is by no means as poor as one could read in the last few pages. Into my eyes, he is a good player. As I've stated in this thread last week (I think), Mikel has his flaws and his strengths. In football, just as in the life, your environment has direct repercussions upon your flaws and strengths. Some envirnoments will get the best out of your abilities ; some others will expose your flaws. Just a random example : you run faster on the ground than in the water — get the idea ? When we played a deep defenisve style and had a strong midfield, Mikel's lack of mobility and power was muted, and thus he was pretty good (for instance, against Barça x2 and Munich last year, and against Barça at Camp Nou under Hiddink). On the other hand, we do not have anymore a strong midfield and our defenisve block is much higher than before, and as a matter of fact, Mikel is found out of his depth because his flaws (lack of mobility, his passiveness, etc..) are exposed by those situations. So yeah, in my opinion, he isn't that poor — he remains a good player (not very good, but neither average). This year, he has an environment (players surrounding him, style of play, etc..) which exposes him and makes him look poorer thn he actually is. That being said, we seem to take a path where his flaws are bound to be exposed many many times. That's why we need to find another player to play as our regular DM for the futur (i.e. mid-term / long-term).

Hum, that wasn't what I was meant to say. I don't think that one excludes the other. I am pretty pessimistic regarding the outcomes of that goal-line technology. To my eyes, the FA didn't do that out of virtue. I mean, they certainly know that the refereeing system is archaic compared to the modern football. They know it, though, because of a X or a Y reason, they're not willing to change that. But, on the other hand, they are also aware that football fans aren't happy at all with the refereeing. Thus, they face three possibilities : change things (but they will lose their own interests) ; don't move (but they risk to go at clash with fans) ; do what every governments or instances do, i.e. papering over the cracks. Ever since the World-Cup in South-Africa, the trend has been the "goal line technology". That's what fans want. They are not dumb — they give us what we want. This way, we will be happy and the FA will look like a progressive organisation. And, in the meanwhile, their system won't change in the slightest. Know what I'm sayin' ? That's why I'm saying they're papering over the cracks. They do this to keep our attention away from the real problems. And why am I pessimistic ? Because that is not their belief. It's bound to end up like the FFP and the 5th/6th referees in the box, like there is in Champions League and Europa league. Do these two things have changed the game, since they're on ? No, at least into my eyes. The referees in the boxes are pretty useless, for instance. They seldom intervene, and when they do, half of the time it's a wrong call. On the paper, the goal-line technology is a good thing. But I believe that's a luxury, for the moment. Even if it works at the perfection, will it change a lot of things ? We have played about 70 games, this season... How many times that technology would have been useful ? At the top of my head, I don't recall any such situation. 11 or 12 times, for 20 teams and 300+ matchs played. How many times this season in the league, have we suffered a game-changing error ? Certainly more than ten times. Multiply this figure by 20... That technology wouldn't have had any effect regarding the Agüero and Kompany cases ; nor regarding Cuntarito off-side. It won't have a significant change upon the refereeing quality... Football never had such a thing, it could survive and keep its quality without ! But it cannot keep its quality without a decent refereeing. In my opinion, the FA should rather fix the problem with the referees, and then they can implant that luxury. But then again, we're agree, one doesn't exclude the other.

You cannot be more wrong, really. I hate to use this kind of argumentation, but... Have you ever played to football, or to another extend, have you practiced any sport at all ? If you had, then, you should know that fatigue has influence upon a lot of things, such as the accuracy of your passing and crossing game, your vision, and your decision taking. When you're tired, you lose your lucidity, concentration, calm and self-control, and, your speed of thought is slowed down. As a matter of facts, when tired, it takes you more time to take a decision, and to take the good one as well. Also, your movements become sloppy. Therefore, your finishing and accuracy, among other things, get worse. That's nature.

Instead of papering over the cracks with implanting the goal-line technology, the FA should higher up its standards regarding the refereeing and, ultimately, form better referees. That's not the first time we're fucked over by the referee during an important/big match in England, over the last two years. Last year against Manchester United at Old Trafford (on the second goal, Nani was off-side ; the first one was not valid as well (I don't recall if Smalling was off-side, or if it was the free-kick which was invalide). And this year, against United at home, and the game of today. And th it's not only against us. I've seen many, many refereeing error over the past two seasons — and I think you'll be agree with me on this. And, I mean, those are not "little" errors ; it's errors with consequence on the game. On the top of my head, I cannot recall many examples, but I can mention the game Coty-United, last year in the FA Cup, where Kompany had been sent-off. Also, this year, Chelsea Vs. Arsenal, where our first goal came from a Ramires foul which should have been whistled. The refereeing is getting worse, and the game suffers from that. At this level of competition, an "on point" refereeing is needed, we're not in a sunday league, for Chirst sake. Football is changing — these old armchair leaders must follow that evolution, or move on and retire.

I deeply believe that people should temper their expectations regarding our new players, especially regarding Oscar. I am convinced that we're kinda spoilt by the quick adaptation that Mata has shown last year, especially stats-wise (and to a lesser extent, by the form that Hazard has shown since the new year). Indeed, sometimes I get the feeling that anything sub-par Mata's first season is deemed as average. That's true, if you compare Mata and Oscar's first season here, stats-wise, the spaniard's is better : 12 goals and 28 assists Vs. 9 goals and 8 assists. But, we should not forget that Mata was older and had plenty experience in European football (many games in La Liga and in European competitions). Furthermore, their roles are pretty different. Mata came into a team which was desperatly in need of creativity and technic. To put it this way, he was the light into the darkness. This situation got the best out of him ; and it made him look better than he was. At the contrary, Oscar is not the cherry upon the cake, as Mata was. He is just the third choice, behind Juan and Hazard. As a matter of fact, his role is lessened — considering those facts, especially the latter one, his stats are rather good for a first season. And, moreover, he spend more time and energy on defensive duties than Mata and Hazard — which partly explain the difference in stats. I'm pretty sure that if we were to invert these three players' role, then Oscar's stats would be more flattering. Finally, before his season has exceeded 10 months (the length of a normal season), i.e. during the first part of our season, he was pretty good (and significantly better than Hazard, for instance). The bottom line is that he has a good first season here, maybe not excellent, but by no means average. Especially considering the facts I've aforementioned, plus the fact that he has played way more games than others players. He has been good, and been a valuable asset for the team and for our achievement thus far.

A°) Fair enough. I am agree with you, stats in themselves are of little meaning. To echo your example regarding United, the fact that they have the possibility, this year, to break our points record, shows perfectly that figures aren't enough. Though, I mentioned only stats on purpose. Indeed, to mine it appears that people praising our achievement in 2009-2010 are only basing their judgment upon our style (because, as I said, we trashed a few teams). Thus, I knowingly pointed out stats, in order to counterbalance subjective judgments. Do you get me ? B°) We might have a disagreement upon the notion "playing well". Does it mean playing a fancy football ? Does it mean mastering your football ? Does it mean to get the result regardless of the way ? ... ? It is also something very subjective. Some people will enjoy an expensive and fancy football, some other will enjoy a football more defensive and realistic. I myself prefer the football we were playing under Mourinho. To my eyes this kind of football is prettier — why ? Because, first of all, the way we controlled the opposition was fascinating. On a tactical point of view, it was top notch. A well oiled team, executing their play at the perfection. And it take a splendid devotion to execute this kind of iron defense. Et cetera... At the end of the day, to everyone his tastes !

Right now, I am wondering how can one question Oscar attitude and how can someone could say that the young Brazilian doesn't care about Chelsea ? I am very curious. As for myself, I find Oscar's attitude quite ethic. He is doing a relentless and reliable work-rate, and his application and will while doing his defensive duties are faultless. On this very aspect, he gives more of himself than what Mata and Hazard do — to put things in perspective. Finally, I find it rich to criticize Oscar upon his attitude and to say he does not care about Chelsea... I can name an handful of players who look less disinterested toward the Club and give less passion — and these players aren't really bench warmers, if you know what I mean.

I have always thought that our 2009-10 league season was overrated. Yes, we played a nice football, had a a good record against the late "big four" teams and we scored a lot of goals... But at the end of the day, we only beat an average United by one little point. In Mourinho first season, we managed to have 95 points (the record) while the second team — the Invincible — were at 83 points. And we might have scored a lot of goals and trashed a few teams under Ancelotti, but we also conceded 32 goals and we lost six games — while under Mourinho in 2004-05 we conceded only 15 goals (which is also the record) and we only lost once. So yeah, in my mind, this 2009-10 league season is overrated.

I don't understand what are the fuss all about. I mean, it seems that everybody wants our loanees called-back to player here next season... Sometimes, I got the feeling that it's just for the sake of having youth. Yeah, I know, having our youth playing in the first team is a nice story... But is this really the best option for these youngsters ? And ultimately, is this the best solution for Chelsea Football Club ? Moreover, people are criticizing the board for this... I have criticized thet board in many ways, but, for once, I think they are doing the good thing. They got it right regarding Courtois, for two years in a row. This season, they got it right for Lukaku, de Bruyne and Chalobah. So why not have faith in their judgment, concerning these very cases ? Undergoing a transition isn't as simple as throwing youngsters into the team — especially when you have to remain competitive, as us. Next year, our offensive department should be this one : Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Moses, Ba, ladyboy (at the light of what I said and his wages, don't think we'll be able to get rid of him) and maybe Marin. Now throw into the mixt Lukaku and de Bryune... Basically, nobody sees a problem with this ? Or am I the only one ? Whatever their potential, Hazard and Oscar are still inconsistent — just as Moses. That's normal, they are still young ; Messi and Ronaldo were also inconsistent at this age. Mata has also shown over the past two years that he was inconsistent, like it or not (even though, exhaustion has his part in it). The ladyboy is the ladyboy — we can't count upon him. And Ba cannot play every games. That's why I don't think it would be a good solution, for us, to have Lukaku and de Bryune in the team next season, and thus having this forward department : Ba, ladyboy, Lukaku, Mata, Hazard, Oscar, de Bryune, Moses. That's too young. And as I have aforementioned, it'll cost us a lack of consistency... And I am prety sure it'll penalize us in the league — let alone the Champions League. And the lack of consistency is not only con. Indeed, we might have serious concerns over their gullibility. So yeah, that's my opinion, having such an attacking department next season isn't the right thing to do, for Chelsea's sake. That's why, for our own sake (regardng next season, of course), it's better to have them on loan. To mine, when you're in transition, it means that you have young players along side old players and "mid-aged" players. That's how Ferguson does, that's how Barça does.. to mention a few. Wanting to implant a long-term vision into the club is a good thing. Though, we must not rush up and skip mid-way steps. We need to build a young team on a long-term perspective — but we also need to stay competitive and to fight for the biggest trophies. Therefore, we need to find a balance between inexperienced players and "less" inexperienced players. Thus, I am agree with the board, on this case.