Peace.

We should establish a new rule. From now on, whoever mention this "he won the corner" thing should be banned on-the-spot. Seriously.

In all honesty Bro, you're just being ostracised, like you always have been (at least ever since I am here). Things went wild not because of you — more because people have blown things out of proportion and saw problems where there weren't any.

Mata : 107 games / 30 goals Ladyboy : 120 games / 31 goals They play in the same team, the same league and they play with the same "shit midfield"... Oh wait, Mata is actually playing in this "shit midfield" ! Is the comparison relevant now

You know what's really sad ? Messi, this season, in 29 games in the league, has scored more goals than the ladyboy has ever done under our colours... 43 goals / 29 games Vs 31 goals 120 games.

Come on, people, don't get outraged and startled like this. That's just the good ol' TX doing his stuffs. It's nice to see him back on track. It was something the forum has missed for some times, into my eyes.

Exactly. When it comes to Carvalho and Luiz they paint(ed) them as rash players making silly fouls. However, when it comes to Vidic, for example, they claim high and loud that he is the best defender yada yada yada. That's just hypocrisy as well. Yes, he is a great defender. Nonetheless, he is just as rash as Ricardo or Luiz — if not more. I mean, he tends to go for the player instead of the ball... Though, no critics at all from the medias. Double standard, they can make players look good ; other look bad.

That's not even that. That's because in that game in March 2011, he fouled Mr. I-shag-grannies, scored the equalizer gainst them, and was out-standing that night. That's why medias have blown out of proportion the whole thing "he is a 10 years-old playstation player". Just bitter puppets.

Good, now they can "only" have 98 points comes the end of the season. Now, we need to beat them, we really do, not only because we need each and every point possible, but also because they won't have more than 95 points. This not so good side cannot break the record we set in 2005... Seriously. Hopefuly they can also lose a point here and there..

You know what ? I fear he'll do a "malouda". Id est, playing decently, nay good, toward the end of the season, in order to tell the board "hey, I'm here, and I can be good for next year". Moreover, the ladyboy told that he wanted to stay here next season, to repay us fans, to shut critics and yada yada. That's exactly the same thing as Malouda was doing : playing "well" and put "pressure" on the board by giving interviews. These two facts concur together : that's manipulation — just like he did after the night in Munich, by crying like a baby that he wasn't happy and shit, in order to be given the keys of our attack. That will just work, unfortunatly...

Yeah. Furthermore, we do need to realize that league seasons in Brazil start in May, if I got it right. According to wikipedia, he has played 5 games in the league, 9 in the league cup (I don't know to which competition it refers) and 6 in the continental competition (Copa Libertadores or Sudamerica ?) — which amounts to 20 games before joining us. I don't really know how works the Copa, nor the league cup there, so I can't tell whether all these games started after May, though... Maybe a brazilian member can help to work out this matter ? Under our colours, he has played 53 games, the same amount as Mata...! He also has played 5 games during the Olympics this summer, and we can assume than since the start of his football season in Brazil to right now, he has played more or less 10 games (?). That's a long and tiresome season, especially when you consider the difference in pace between his home country and the football here. No wonders he has some games off every now and then, especially late in the season !

I don't buy it when people say he should stay for is leadership. What Leadership ? The one he showed against QPR, Southampton twice, Bucarest, Reading ? Or against City where he was a passenger and missed his penalty ? Against Newcastle, where he managed to make it 1-2, and needed to calm down the pace of the game and defend for our lives, even though he was playing like we were chasing the score ? Over all, in this seven fixtures, the game passed him by. He failed to put his mark on the game ; he failed to motivate his partners ; he even showed errors that an inexperienced player would do (the fact that he didn't calm down the play against Newcastle, for instance). The fact is that this season, especially in 2013 (the seven fixtures I have mentioned are from 2013), he has shown little to back-up the theory "keep him for the leadership". Every time the opposite midfield put pressure, every time we were in trouble, he failed to show a leadership, both in the play and in the heads of his partners. And neither the theory as he chooses his games is valid. I mean, the final in Japon was not a big games ? The game against Manchester at Old Trafford was not a big game ? Neither was the one against City ? Nor the games against QPR, Newcastle and Southampton (where the three points where very important) ?

Oh Jésus Chirst. Once again he opens his big mouth. "Yada yada yada".... How many times did he talked bollocks like this ? And will he, just like the other times, do nothing to back it up ? He should learn to keep quiet. "I will try my heart out for this club. There are too many things I have to give back to these people and I want to show my thanks to them. Ladyboy, if you really want to thank us, then just fuck off the furthest away from Chelsea. We don't like you, we don't want you. So, pack your things this summer and go, then he will be happy.

This deal makes sense, if you ask me. As things stands now, André Schürrle looks like a better option than Kévin de Bryun, regarding our next season. Into my eyes, de Bryune is still just a talent (which implies a concern regarding the consistency). Schürrle seems to have more weapons to take an important role here than de Bryune. Despite the little difference in age, the outre-Rhin player has a lot more experience than the Belgian. In that sense : the first one has played 125 games in a top league, 8 games in Champions League and 21 international games ; while the latter one has only played 27 games in a top league, none game in CL and 11 international games. I know that the "experience" topic is more complex than a couple of figures, although it shows that the German is more used to the pressure and the need to deliver on a regular basis. I mean, if I were to choose between them two, because of X reason, for being a starter for a few weeks, during a hard serie of fixtures, I would probably have more faith in Schürrle than de Bryune. Now I don't question de Bryune competence, that's just seems to be the wisest option for, once again, next season. And wouldn't it be more appropriate for de Bryune to go on loan than to be here, in order to improve as a player ? It's likely that Bayer can grant him significantly more playing time than us. Here he's bound to be second choice behind Mata, Hazard and Oscar, and maybe even Moses. And I quite don't buy the whole story about him coming here and play in the double-pivot. Has he any genuine experience of playing at this position, or is this another of our chimeras — in the fashion of "Oscar in the double-pivot" ? I am not saying he cannot play there, just that it seems to early to make such assumption for next season. Playing one season at Bayer seems better for de Bryune's sake. £20m remains a lot of money, but it's nice to see the club trying to work out clever deals and trying to soften this one. Considering today's standards in the market, that's not that expensive.And that's not like Schürrle was a penguin. He may not be the classic winger that some are seeking for, but anyway, is there a lot of so called "classic wingers" out there anymore ? Not a lot of names springs to mind... Having the possibility of picking this guy instead of Marin and Benayoun is a genuine improvement regarding our squad quality and depth. I saw that a few people were saying that we should hire a manager first and then buy player. Our manager choice will depend on our position in the league. The top four is yet to be granted. And the manager probably won't be appointed befor early June. I believe that's better to work out things early. Furthermore, considering our history with managers, the next one might as well be there for a season-long ride and then be out. It's a good thing that the club is trying to shape continuity within the squad and have a so said continuity within our transfert policy. Then again, I know little of these two. Though, from a rational point of view, this sounds as a good deal.

Félicitations the Skipper !

Yeah, di Matteo only managed to make Juve looking like world beaters... I mean seriously, that's only Juve, for Chirst sake. Our current manager has managed to make teams of the likes of Bucarest, Southampton, QPR, West Ham, Brentford, looking like the real deals...! That's some kind of achievement, why didn't have we thought of hiring him before ?! And if the season started on the 13th week (table) and stopped on the 30th week, then the table would be : 1st — Manchester United : 47 pts P17 2nd — Tottenham : 37 pts P18 3rd — Manchester City : 34 pts P18 4th — Arsenal : 33 pts P17 5th — Chelsea : 31 pts P18 6th — Everton : 30 pts P17 // Liverpool : 30 pts P18. Yep, true that's true, we are fortunate to have made the change before it was too late...!

It looks like the ladyboy's gonna grab Mata and Terry's dicks (with passion...). Voilà voilà.

Happy belated birthday Alex, didn't see it on times..!

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...

If you're thinking what I am thinking you're thinking, then no I am not saying what you're thinking I am saying P.S. To be sure, what are you thinking ?

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..).

Illuminatis are just a smoke screen to hide the real criminals : the banksters. Don't believe in such fairy tales. The reality is more plain than that. Yes, there's a few men controling all the world, but they ain't no wizards in black dress who worship some old babylonian deities. If they were to believe in some God, that would be Jehovah. And they ain't doing this for some mysterious and occult grand scheme.

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.