Peace.

That's time to walk away from that chimera that is the "we need them for experience". Your analogy with Arsenal is true. In my opinion, the fact that they are in such shambles has a lot to do with the fact they do not have leadership, they do not have experience. Even though, does having experience necessarily mean having 30+ years-old players ? No. Players younger than that can have the experience and the leadership. And having experience as a player does not mean a God damn thing, actually. You can have all the experience you want, if you are not able to put it into application, then this experience is as usefull as the ladyboy. Look. As I have explained in the Lampard thread, at the light of the performances that he made against Newcastle and Man.City, one could challenge that he "brings in" experience. Against Newcastle, a player of his experience should have know better that the game should have been slowed down so we could keep the lead. However he did the opposite and kept playing like we were chasing the score. Against Man.City, an important match, he failed to impose his stamp on the game — the game passed him by. And he fucked up on the penalty. That is just two examples. As for Terry, last year against Barcelona, he was sent-off because of a stupid foul on Alexis. Not only he put into jeopardy our chance to qualify for the final, but he also put into jeopardy our chance to win the final because Luiz and Cahill were injured. That was so reckless — you do not expect that from your captain and leader (and experienced player as well). Then, in the Community Shield — another important game, huh — he was at fault for the two first goals of our opponent. On the first goal, he made a bad clearance which ended-up in Toure's feet — and then had the luxury to have a golden occasion to score. On the second goal he let Tevez past round him. Againt Newcastle, he was at fault for their second goal. Just as a 10 years-old kid would do, he came out into the midfield and put in a stupid and reckless tackle — the back-line was exposed. Even David Luiz would have been proud of this "what the fuck" moment. He was also at fault for their first goal. He was beaten by Jonas in the air. Then again, that is just examples. So that's what experience brings you ? And for the sake of the debate, let's say that they actually brings in a more or less valuable experience. Until what point their experience can compensate their lack of mobility on the pitch ? Terry has the knee ruined. At this rate he will have to quit football in one year of time. And on the pitch he isn't the same anymore. He cannot run properly. It's easy nowadays to pass him by. The same is more or less valid for Frank Lampard. Of course, at a lesser extent. But he is slow and as a matter of fact he cannot track back properly. So the question is, could their experience compensate their handicap on the pitch ? Personally, I don't think so. No. I think that the argument "we should keep them because they have experience" is just an excuse because we cannot face the fact that we need to move on and turn a page of our History. And I stress this sentence.

In my honest opinion, I think that he should be loaned out again next season. I'll explain why. Let's be honest here. Even if we take him back in the summer, we will still have to buy another striker. Yes we play with only one striker so two should suffice and blablabla... Romelu seems to be doing more than alright at West Bromwich. Although, realistically speaking, it will be a whole another melody to perform well at a club which is aiming the title. I am not saying that he won't ; I am just saying that it won't happen overnight and it will probably take him more than one year to impose himself as the n°1 and as a very good striker. And, on a second hand, we have Ba. Let's not be afraid of saying this : he is good but not very good. I mean, it's not the striker you'd have in your starting team if you were aiming for the summits of European football. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, he has serious concerns with his knee(s) ; he cannot play more than once per week. In other words, that's not a striker on which you can count to drag you towards the top. I strongly believe that having only Ba and Lukaku as strikers next year will be one more step toward the mediocrity... So, after having said that, it appears clear — at least to my mind — that we need to buy another striker in the summer, regardless of the situation of Lukaku. But what kind of striker ? A stop-gap in order to make the transition between Ba and Lukaku ? Or a world-class striker who will be undoubtly our starter for the two/three next years ? I'd take the later, without the shadow of an hesitation. First off, we should rule out Ba for the mid-term / long-term. Considering his knee(s), it's the wisest thing to do — we have build in castles into the air for too long. No no no, we have to buy someone of Cavini caliber. Therefore, Lukaku might find his way to the first team restraint. Which could stale his development. That's not what we want, for his own sake — and for ours too. Cavani (for the sake of the debate) would be de facto be the n°1 striker ; and Ba could have the benefit of the age over Romelu. That's why I think he should be loaned out again next season. He should make slowly his way into West Bromwich starting eleven (granted he stays there) and then he will be apt to take a big part into Chelsea. It seems that even him wants to be loaned one more year. So if he feels that's the better for his development, why not grant him that ? On a long term perspective, that'll also be the best thing for Chelsea. It's better to let him blossom away from the poisonous atmosphere of this club. At least, that's how I fashion the upcoming year.

He wasn't good yesterday, that's an understatement. He was a passenger, a spectator — the game completely passed him by. The only few times he had done something noticable was when he took his few useless-long-range-shoots, a few long range passes and his missed penalty. That's not good enough. To put it in other words, he was totaly invisible. The thing is that's it's not the first time that the game passes him by. Actually, that is more or less the case whenever we encounter a decent opposition. And I'd like to point out something... We all know that he cannot "run" like some years ago, that's clear. It's the case for all the players aging. Therefore, we are expecting some other things from such players, no ? We expect them to compensate their lack of mobility (due to their age) by their experience that they can apply to the game. If I am not mistaken, that is the very reason for which some players, who are no longer at the top on a physical aspect, are still played by their coach — Am I right ? Actually, Lampard doesn't provide this. I'll take two examples to illustrate my point. The first example is our game against Newcastle. It was a relatively important game for us. Unfortunatly, it didn't start too well for us ; we were losing 1-0 at halftime. Then, we managed to make a come-back and lead the game 1-2. At this moment of time — considering the global context in which the club is, and considering the physiognomy of the game — what were we expected to do ? To close the game, no ? At least it's what we should have done, into my eyes. We did the opposite, i.e. we were still playing as if we were chasing the score — especially Lampard. I mean, he was staying up front not far away from the box and was not tracking back — just as if we were in desperate need of a goal. That's where my discontent lies. That man has played umpteen very important games. Into my eyes, he should have known better than any body else that the game should have been slowed down. I expected him to take his responsibilities, to show leadership and slow down the game ; and I strongly believe that it's what he should have done. The second example is the game against Man.City of yesterday. As I mentioned above, he was invisible during this game. True that's true that Man.City was out-playing us. Nonetheless, he failed to impose his presence, his stamp on the match. And finally, I do fault him for the penalty he missed. Yes, it was a well shot penalty. But not so well, actually. It was a typical Lampard's trademark penalty. Joe Hart and Lampard are playing together in the national team. They must have trained a lot together at shootout. Hence, Hart must have had a big idea of where the ball would go. That's what I fault Lampard for the miss. It was an important game ; it was an important time of the game ; it was one of the very few chances we have had to put the ball into their net. To my mind he should have done better. Voilà voilà. That's all I had to say. He is no longer good enough — sad but true —, and yesterday he was out of depth.

First off all, I do not think that anyone is challenging the fact that he is a good player to have in the squad. Actually I believe that we should keep him because he is valuable — and as I stated in my previous post which is on the previous page of this topic, he offers diversity in our options and allows us to make a turn-other. So basically, I pretty much think that nobody will be disagree with the few parts I've bolded in your text. But as you stress yourself : squad. The people — as me — who have criticized him in the last few pages don't argue over his spot in the squad, but his spot in the first team. And into my book, he doesn't have what it takes to be in the starting eleven of an elite team. Also, nobody is asking him to make Xavi-esque first touch. It would be quite impossible, since Xavi is one of a kind, to start with. And it's not even the point ! We aren't asking him to have the first touch of Iniesta, the short pass of Busquets and the long ball of Xavi. We are simply asking him to not fuck up with the basic — i.e. having a decent touch on the ball and a decent pass. That's all. However he doesn't get the basics right, at the moment. Regarding the part I highlighted in red. That is two different things ! There is no correlation between the fact that ideally he should not be in the starting eleven for the forth coming years and the fact that he is a great asset for the team right now. It's indeniable that we would be in much more trouble without him this year. Though, for instance, when you have a car and want to go somewhere, it's better to have 2L of gasoline than nothing, right ? But it's even more better to have 5L than 2L — ain't it ? Know what I am sayin' ? What I am trying to say here, is that it's not because he is important for the team right know that we shouldn't look out for better options. A club which has appetite for trophies should be always searching to improve his squad and his starting eleven. That's how you stay at the top. The bottom line is — unless if the board is happy to watch the Manchester teams competing for the title — that Ramires should not be in our starting eleven. Not right now, because he is obviously one of our best midfielders — and it's not like we had many other options. I mean, for the forthcoming year and afterward, once we will be in the position to compete for the biggest rewards.

What did happen to him, seriously ? His level has gone south, really. He turns out to be a liability within the defence. As BluesMaster points out, he is way too much passive in his marking. He gives too much space, time and freedom to his opponents. For instance, what the fuck was he doing on the second goal today ?! He was sleeping, thus leaving a very good opportunity for Tevez to shoot — and with a striker of its caliber, such a lax is punished. Too many times he is found out of position ; too many times he stays standing still while gazing at the foe passing him by ; too many times he recklessly pass the ball. And I'd like to point another thing out. At the very end of the first half, we had a throw-in near the box. What did you do ? Threw the ball directly in the box. That was a stupid thing to do. If my memories serve me right, there was only Ba there. And even if there were more players, that would be a stupid thing to do. Indeed, bar Ba, all of our players are more or less small and against Man.City's players they do not represents an aerial threat. I know that in itself it does not mean a lot — though, it is just another example which suggests us that his mind is not totally focussed on the game. And what's with his divings ? Once again today he did it (when he was "touched" by Zabaletta, I think, on the sideline). I've said it before and I'll say it again, his attitude has become too much casual. Ivanovic, you need to quit that behaviour, we're not thugs in the street.

If we are happy to have him in our starting eleven, then we must be happy to leave trophies to other teams. At times, he reminds me of Kalou. Indeed, a friendly guy, playing with a good-will, passion and heart – and running around like a headless chicken. It might sound harsh, probably, but sometimes it appears to my eyes that at the exception of his running and work-rate, he doesn't set the world on fire, so to speak. Because, let's be honest here : he has a bad passing game ; his crossing ability isn't much better ; he cannot shoot (yes, he can score marvellous goals [c.f. against Man.City and Barça] but for every shot on target he kills 10 birds and hurts two spectators) ; has not the ability to control the tempo/game ; has an aweful decision making. He is a nice player to have in the squad in order to give us diversity in our options and to rotate the squad. But that's that. If we do truly aim for the summits, then he should be a squad player, not more. P.S. Oh, and I forgot to mention that he is a dirty tackler. He is way too reckless, and he hits more often the player than the ball. Too many times he is borderline and is not far away from being sent-off (today again).

Happy birthday frère.

His passion and good-will cannot be challenged, that's certain. He is really a hard worker and give his heart out. Sometimes, he is even able of flash of brilliance (his goal against ManCity at the Bridge in his first season, and his goal against Barça). Although, his decision making and technique (especially his first touch and his shooting) are very questionnable. That's really not good enough. Ideally, he really hasn't got his spot in the starting eleven.

Benayoun went on to suggest Torres is still "one of the best strikers in the world" That is precisely wherein lies the problem. Yes, because in all honestly, the problem isn't his knees, the system, the players surrounding him, etc... The real problem is that he has been taken for someone he wasn't. To believe that this bag of shit was World-Class / one of the best striker at some point is as deluded as believing that Bin Laden was the big bad bearded guy behind the "Axis of Evil" (© Bush). That guy-wannabe-girl (or the other way round, I truly don't know) was massively overrated. He has been a two seasons wonder and that's about that. And even then, he wasn't at his true level ; he was overachieving. All the Loserpool team was built to take 200% out of him. He was nothing special ; he was only finishing all the hard work done by Gerard, Alonso and Mascherano. Plus you gotta keep in mind that he was playing for the media darling... How not be overrated in this kind of situation ? And as Semia pointed out, a big part of the hype surrounding him are due to his looking. With his blond hair and his juvenile face, it's easy to sympathise for him. This ladyboy is just the epitome of how media can overhype someone.

No, I didn't make that up. It's a French idiom. Though I don't know whether it is commonly used. I neither know whether I give it its real mean ! For me, saying "Pierre, Paul et Jacques" is equivalent to saying "X, Y and Z". Like naming unspecified people. From what I get about "Tom, Dick and Harry", that's : "Fig. everyone, without discrimination; ordinary people.". So no, that is not exactly the same idiom, into my mind. However, as I told you, I do not know whether I give to "Pierre Paul Jacques" its right meaning ! It could actually means the same as "Tom, Dick and Harry".. P.S. After some research, it could be the equivalent.

Already having Pierre Paul and Jacques isn't a valid argument. Expecting that every youths we have at our disposal will turn out to be good enough to play for an elite club is to build castles into the air. How many of them will turn out to be good enough to be a starter in a above average team (by that I mean a team contending for the Europa League, as in Tottenham, etc.) ? Not a plethora, definitely. And how many of them will blossom into a player good enough to be a starter into an elite team ? Even less. We shouldn't not buy that kid because this kid is deemed to be a future superstar. That is why I do not see any problems in us getting a lot of them. It's more or less a win-win situation... If they all turn to be good (which won't happen by any means), then we will be able to pick some of our choice to play in the first team, and make profit on some others. If they do not all turn out te be good (which will be the case), then we will have more chance to have in our hand two or three good players (yes, the more we have talents in our academy, the more the chance are that one of them will be a great player). P.S. If there's a problem somewhere, that's more about the way we handle them than how many of them we do buy.

I do not want this deal to go through ; and thus for three reasons : * First off, I do not believe that Falcao is the type of striker we need. He is undoubtly the best striker when it comes to score goals ; but that's that. Yes, we do need someone who scores a lot of goals, but we do need more : someone able to have a notable workrate, having good capacities for link-up play and able to be an anchor up-front. A player as Cavani would be the perfect fit (I really do want him). He certainly will score less goals than what Falcao could do - However, he is himself a very goal-scorer and would bring more to our side, in my opinion. Also, I do not like the kind of player that Falcao is and I deeply believe that this kind of players is not the fit for a club aiming to be a powerhouse. In order to fulfil the potentiel of that sort of players, you do need to build the team around him - yes. That is exactly what a big club should not do. I do not like the way we're dependant to Mata, by the way. * Secondly, trading Courtois in order to have the deal done is not a wise thing to do, definitely not. Petr Cech has been injured quite a lot of times this season (it's not like he was out for six months, but he was a lot more injured than other seasons). I read here and there that he has concerns with his body and might not be able to play eternally (even though I do not know whether there's some true in it !). Furthermore, with his head being hurt seriously in the past, he is more weak than any other player - one more knock to his head and it might be the end of his career. Finally, next year Cech will enter his tenth season at the club. That is a lot. He has won everything here : once the Champions League, three times the EPL, four FA Cup, two League Cup. He has been a great servant for the club, and might be tempted to go and see whether grass is greener elsewhere ; and that would be understandable ! From his point of view, adding a Liga or Serie A to his CV would be tempting. We do not know what tomorrow is made up of. I do not know whether what I said will occur or not ; that is just hypothetical. But if the board expects Cech to be forever here - given what I have aformentioned - and/or reckons that someone of the like of Turnball is good enough to take over ; then there're retarded, plain and simple. The wisest thing to do, into my eyes, is to get Courtois with us this summer, keep him over here for one or two seasons, try him out, and assess the situation at the end of that period. And if he is not needed, then sell him. * Finally, I do not want Falcoa here because I deeply believe that the board want him for the wrong reasons. Into my eyes, there aren't after him because he is the best, but because of what he does represents. It seems that this club is running after a chimera. And that chimera is an expensive-high-profil-superstar-striker. It was the case with Shevchenko and the ladyboy, and I do think it is the same with Falcao. Voilà voilà.

I do not know what happened this summer, although ever since the pre-season he decidedly has not been the same. He has adopted a very casual attitude on the pitch - he even has a thug-ish attitude at time - just too much lax (add to that dives). He does regularly make mistakes that should not be made : misplaced passes, being caught out of position, letting players getting past by him easily, etc... Someone has to give him a slap in the face - he is nothing short of a liability, at the moment.

From a certain point of view, tonight, the line-up selected by the coach is as "what the fuck" as the one selected in Torino. May the same outcome occur to the coach ? ... If only.

The bold part is an interesting point. As I stated some times ago, the Stopgap wasn't the right man to hire, and this for serveral reasons. André Villas-Boas was sacked because he lost the dress-room. Lampard, Cole and Essien - to name a few - were more or less openly against him. Players didn't adhere to his project. Therefore, the portuguese was sacked. Though, the man who succeeded him was not some random man dropped from nowhere. It was Roberto di Matteo ; a guy who worked during six previous months with the team - a former player of the club and more importantly a club Legend. Furthermore, he knew some players (Terry) and got along very well with the vast majority of the squad. Hence he was a man respected by his players - and the players acknowledged him as their leader. Plus, the context was special. The club was tearing apart. There was a bad atmosphere. The players got the manager sacked. There was a hunger to prove to the world that they were right to sack Villas-Boas. The players and the coach were welded together ; players rallied under di Matteo's project. There were hunger, passion, motivation and spirit. Now, look at the situation. In a sportif aspect, we were not really better than what we were under the portuguese. Even though, the problem was not coming from a cleavage between the players and the coach. It was because we were simply not good enough ; and because peculiar event - the game against Manure (we weren't perfect before, but it was the turning point of the season, it broke something in our momentum). The board sacked a Legend ; the man which lead us to our first Champions League. Even with his achievement, he was not granted a single chance. He was respected among the players - and was esteemed as well. Therefore, players took that as an injustice. They must have felt frustrated, disappointed and angry. All that to hire someone who said nasty things about Chelsea ; Terry, Lampard and Cech did not forget who was that man. Furthermore, his four last years were a big failure. He got Loserpool seventh. Then, despite being in charge the team which just won the Champions League, his few months at Inter were an epic failure. And finaly he spent two years jobless. What kind of message does that send to the players ? How can players respect a guy which has painted himself as a clown ? For the reasons aforementioned, he cannot be credible and legitimate into our players eyes. That's where the board failed - they failed to recognize this problem before appoint him. It was a given that the graft would not succeed.

So, I saw some comments suggesting that Persona-Non-Grata-N°1 (or number two ?) isn't to blame since it isn't his fault if the bench is thin, because he has no control over transfers (thanks God for that, giving that kind of control to a stopgap would be stupid) and because some millionaires are way below the level they're supposed to play to. Well... Isn't that a hypocrite thing to say ? Yes, that is. Let's make a little analogy. Mr. X buys the brand new car which is meant to be the fastest around, in order to take part in a car race. Mr. X has splashed out an aweful lot of money to purchase this car ; a car way more expensive than any others. Yet, does that mean that Mr. X will win the race hands down, because he does has the best car around ? NO ! If that man does appear to not be able to fully master the car or/and isn't good enough to drive it, then, the car's potential will be wasted and that car will look like a wack one. Know what I mean ? The same thing does apply to our current situation. We have a squad compound of expensive players - a squad short in number, but an expensive squad nonetheless. A footballer isn't an “aim” but a “ means” . It's a “tool” to attain an “aim“. Just as military chiefs use soldiers to win some war, coaches use players to win a football game. Since football players are tools, they need someone to use them, to lead them. In some way, just as soldiers won't win the war in which they're involved into if there's not someone to determine some strategy, players will not get anywhere if there is not someone to tell them which tactics to adopt ; and just as the car will not move if there isn't any driver in it, the players will not put in great performances if there is not someone to show them the way. Especially young players, like we do have (Hazard, Oscar, Moses, Marin, Bertrand, Azpilicueta). Furthermore, there's a big difference between 11 players and a team. The eleven players are eleven individualities (obviously...) and a team is eleven individualities playing as a whole. It needs something to turn eleven players into a sole unity - a link. And in most of cases, that link is - a priori - the coach. There's not many teams that would be able to fully perform without someone to tell 'em how. And these aberration are due to specific circumstances : a coach has perfectly shapped 'em into a sole entity, and/or they've played a long time together and thus are on the same page, and/or they've been inculcated the same philosphy... Chelsea post-Mourinho springs to mind. We were - at that time - able to play without any coaching intervention because Mourinho build a great team, because players were all shapped into a team by the same person and all played together for a long time. And I'd like to add that the level of the coach (as for the driver or the military chief...) doesn't really matter. What the matter is all about, it's the feeling - the feeling between the coach and the set of players at his disposal. You can have the best coach around, and the best players as well, if they aren't on the same wavelength (the coach towards the players ; the players toward the coach), it will not work. If the manager does not know how to use his “tools”, he will not make the team performe, no matter how good he is. Finally, in order things work out, the coach has to be legitimate into his players' eyes. Indeed, he must be able to rally them under the same credo. He must inspire them. He has to show them that he is the right man. If they does not have confidence into him and his abilities, then it'll be a failure. The bottom line is that you cannot close your eyes on what Persona-Non-Grata-N°1 is producing, while putting the fault onto the players and/or the board. Yes, the players aren't performing at the level they should ; yes the board does have a major part in our failure. Although, yes, the spaniard is actually also at fault for our underachievement. Because yes, he hasn't managed to federate its players, he has failed to get the best out of 'em. It's just as when you transplant an organ into someone : sometimes, the body does reject the foreign organ. The connection does not click between the iterim manager and the players, the connection does not click between the interim manager and the fan base - the connection does not click between the interim manager and the club. The transplantation has failed.

Absolutely agree with you. I neither did like the boos - they weren't loud enough.

You cannot understand ? Actually that's pretty simple. As DYC pointed out somewhere, our board is not run by men of football, but by men of business. And as business men, they do think in term of $$$$$. For them, there are no such things as transition. They want results at the height of what the club spends. For instance, even a blind man could see that the most expensive laydyboy in history isn't a footballer anymore. However, our club spent 50 fucking millions pound in order to bring him here, spend £180k each and every week to pay his wage. As they are business men, they don't see a player, but an amount of money. Hence, to their mind, a 50 fucking millions pound has to be prolific - and if he isn't, it cannot be his fault, since he is only an item, but it's the manager fault. The same goes for our attacking midfielders. The club spent almost £80m on three CAM, that represents a huge investment. The whole world knows that these three players are for the future, but the board splashed big money to get them, so it has to pay off right now. That is also the true for the whole team. Our squad cost a lot, both in term of transfer fee and in term of wages. Though our board only sees a heap of dollar bills - a bloody huge heap of dollar bills. Therefore, they consider that our team has to be successful and brilliant. And if it doesn't work this way, that must be the manufacturer's fault (I mean the manager). All in all, they do not see the team as a set of players, but as an addition of money/investment. They do not see the players as individuality which involves (which improves or decreases), but they see them as items (should I say as end products ?). For example, when you buy, let's say, a car. Do you expect it to work perfectly ten months after you bought it ? Or do you want it to work right away ? Now replace "car" by "player" and "you" by "board", and you pictured the situation at our club. While 20 millions dollar plus 20 millions dollar will always make 40 millions dollar, under any circumstance - a $20m player plus another $20m will seldom make a $40m set of players on the field. Sometimes, it will turn out to be pretty successful and virtualy worth more than $40m, but some other times, it will appear to be the other way around. Unfortunatly, the board doesn't think this way. That is the problem. And, if we keep following that path, it will turn out to be a major issue. Yeah okay, it's fine to have men which are good to organize pre-seasons in Asia and stuff, or men good at selling shirt. Nonetheless, we desperatly need men of football within the board - men who understand how this sport works.

The three last games show how much wrong was the decision to sack our manager, how much wrong was the choice of personel, and especially how much the timing was wrong. Roberto Di Matteo was sacked when we was entering the busiest period of the season. A run of 11 games in 35 days was coming, which makes roughly a game every three days. And we had to play three games in only one week. Even though, the board decided to appoint some block who had never worked with our players before, excepted for the ladyboy. In this kind of situation, what was the best thing to do ? Sticking with the man who has worked with the players for the last year and a half, the man who knew our players, knew their strengths and weakness ? Or a guy who did not fuck all of them ? Roman might have been misled by the fact that all the past mid-season sackings didn't hit us back, and at the contrary, they allowed us to bounce back. The question is, why did these sacking were "successful" ? First off, Avram Grant situation. This season, we reached the Champions League final and we weren't far away of winning this competition. One might think that the sacking was beneficial (in the short-term). However, as I said in one of my previous post, at that time, we had true leaderS on the pitch. Furthermore, Steve Clarck remained the coach assistant, a job he had done for the three previous seasons. Therefore, all in all, we didn't fail back then, because some guys in the managerial staff were used to the team ; and players were carrying the team (at a mental level, and at a result level). Now, Hiddink case. Once again, the managerial merry-go round turned out to be beneficial, since we were one decent ref away of the Champions League final, we won the FA Cup and had a good end of season. And once again, we had our core of players to carry the team. And in addition, the manager appointed was a great manager and a great man as well. A man who imposes respect by his aura and his C.V. A man who inspires his teams. Furthermore, he was (and still is) a close friend of our owner, and he was more or less one of Roman advisor ; thus had some knowledge about the squad. Then, Di Matteo case. I get the feeling I am repeating myself, though sacking André Villas-Boas appeared to be the right choice at a short term level : we won the CL and the FA Cup. Once again, we had the team core to carry the team (they were a fewer than in the past, but still we had Didier, Petr, Frank and Terry). And once again, the manager appointed knew the team since he was André's assistant. He was also a respectful and inspiring man, since he was a club legend, and had some good relationship with players (especially with our captain). I'd like to add that in the two previous cases, it was the players who get their managers out. They had at these moments something to redeem for. They had to prove they were right. This fact adds even more motivation and hunger to do well. Finaly, the current situation. Where is the core of the team to carry us when things are tough ? The core isn't what it was. Some of these players are gone, some other are too old to carry the team week in week out, and some other are struggling with injuries. Also, players seemed to be quite affected by Di Matteo dismissal. We only have a few players with a winning mentality - the most of them are young and unexperienced boys. Therefore it isn't surprising to do not see this "fighting-back" spirit. And where's the inspiring and respectful manager to lead the team ? Nowhere to bee seen. The guy appointed didn't know the team nor the players. This guy represents, for some of them (Terry, Cech, Lampard, Cole, Mikel, Ivanovic), someone who was their rival, someone who said bad things about the club, about us. For some other players, this guy represents a laughing stock, a guy who couldn't even make Inter - the european champion back then - a half decent team, a guy who was unemployed for two years. Finally, the fat spaniard waiter was appointed as an interim coach. I am puting the emphasis on "interim". Players know he is a passenger, they know that he won't be here after the summer, while them, they will still be here long after. What kind of credibility this fatty has towards players ? And don't come with your "oh but they should fight for the team / for their huge wages". This is a fact, it is pretty hard to find motivation when you are are sad about losing a manager you liked/loved and then having a man who means nothing to your eyes, a man who has less "power" than you. And was this spaniard waiter the good choice ? Not in my opinion. For the last four months, our players were shaped on purpose to play an fanciful football, an attacking football and then you throw in someone who makes them playing a negative, defensive football - this guy asks them to radically change their style of football. Such things don't happen overnight. Considering their inexperience, they must be lost, they must not know what to do. Beside, our squad isn't really suited to play to play that kind of football. Which one of our fowards has good defensive ability ? Mata ? Hazard ? Marin ? Laydyboy ? Sturridge ? Oscar ? Moses ? The only one of them with decent defensive abilities is Moses. Considering the block appointed as our new manager, the squad at our disposal and our games schedul, it was a given, into my eyes, to have an awful run of games. I am even suprised we have two points right now, if I want to be honest. From now on we might be stuck in a vicious circle : no win, therefore there is a drop of motivation which makes us not winning, et cetera... Sacking Roberto Di Matteo for this guy at that moment was an ill-advised decision. I hope Roman sees the big fail he has provoked, so he can think twice next time before taking such a decision.

This is mind blowing, really. "The Plan was accepted by the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, through the Jewish Agency.[3][4] The Plan was rejected by leaders of the Arab community, including the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee,[3][5] who were supported in their rejection by the states of the Arab League." The plan was accepted by the ONU, by Israel, but surprise surprise, it wasn't accepted by the main concerned people, the owners of this land, the arabes. Some foreigner came and took the land where they were living for many many years. What did you expect from them ? To welcome the "intruders" with open arms, smiles and flowers ? That's insane.

*facepalm* Look at what was the israeli land in 1947, after the UN assigned a state to jew people. Then look at what it does look like nowadays. Will you tell me that it is the British and the UN that stole palestinian's land between 1947 and 2012 ? Or maybe palestinians gave up on their land and gifted it to the jews, because they felt like this ? Who is building settlements in palestinian's land ? The UN ? Or Israel ? And what jewish holy land ? It was jewish land in a distant time. When they took it, it wasn't anymore. And into my book, Israel isn't only the holy land for jews.

In all honesty, without Israel taking their land, palestinians were much better, in the first place...

First of all, you tell that “hundreds of those "good people" came here” [sic] and then you talk about them being asked over something. Did your televisions or/and newspeaper asked all of them ? And does this mean that French people and muslims cannot know nothing about this conflit, and are brainwashed, because some people going there to help aren't well aware of the conflit ? And did your medias show all the answer to the asked question ? Couldn't your medias cut off the answers which were saying "yes, I am well aware of this blabla" ? Or maybe brainwashing is only happening in France and in muslim countries, and isreali medias are firmly unbiased and objective ? Finaly, I assume that "those good people" you're talking about are people who went there in order to help people in need, to help people suffering from the war, am I right ? Then, in all honestly, they don't really need to know what is happening. They are helping innocent people. They are helping civilian victims of the conflit. These "good people" don't have to be geopolitical experts to do what they are doing. And don't mix up these people with the majority of people thinking that what Isreal is doing is wrong.

So this is your opinion about muslims / french people ? Then, that must means that you know better France and muslims than what he knows about the situation in the middle-East... Or you're not, and this is hypocrisy.

Good analyse Laura, you pretty summed up what I wanted to say for some times now (didn't have time). ----------------------------- First of all, I'd like to say that the thread title is not true. The world isn't all black or all white. Nowadays, the managerial instability might be trendy, altough managerial stability still exists. Now, the questions are : Does the fact that managerial instability is the new flavor mean we should also act this way ? Does the fact managerial instability didn't affect our team in a negative way, mean we should continue in this path ? Does the fact it worked till now mean that firing managers whenever something goes wrong will work forever ? Untill now, we enjoyed a successful decade and lifted many trophies, while going through a genuine instability. Ever since Mourinho was appointed at the club, we had hired seven managers in eight seasons (I am not counting this one). Though it didn't keep us away of winning the Champions League, three Premier League and a handful of FA Cup / League Cup. So... Hooray ! From now on, we should not be hesitating a second to sack managers, it doesn't affect us, doesn't it ? Nah. We might seem to be above all this nonsense of managerial longevity, but actually we aren't, and the fact we have managed to survive to this managerial musical chairs is way more complexe to explain than to solely say "Roman knows what he does - and managerial longevity doesn't exist anymore". Indeed. We might have not experienced managerial stability, nonetheless we experienced a longevity : the longevity and stability of our squad. I ask you, what is the similarity between all these eight seasons ? Four players who were the core of Chelsea, who made the success of our beloved team. They were Petr Cech, John Terry, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba. They were all world-class players, and arguably ones of the best players at their position. But they weren't only about that. They had this never-die mentality, they were the kind of players to give their heart on the field, to stand-up when things were going wrong, they were natural leaders. In short they were embodying our club during all those years. And around this core of players, we had players of the likes of Ricardo Carvalho (six seasons), Michael Ballack (four seasons), Michael Essien (seven seasons) and Ashley Cole. They were also world-class players, and had a winning mentality. At the exception of Ballack and Cole, all of the players I mentioned above were shaped by Mourinho. José considerably influenced the way we played, the way we acted and reacted during all these eight seasons, even if he wasn't there. Each and everytime something went wrong, our team was switching of in the "Mourinho mode". We went in the Champions League final in 2008 because the team played this way. We should have made it to the final the next year, more or less thanks to that (Hiddink did a fantastic job, but he was helped by the fact the players were already adapted to the defensive football). We won the Champions by playing this old good park-the-bus tactict implanted in by the portugesh. During all those years José Mourinho's face was lurking upon the Bridge. Ad to the mix some players of the like of Paulo Feirerra (eight seasons), Salomon Kalou (six seasons), John Obi Mikel (six seasons) and Branislav Ivanovic (five seasons). Even though they weren't as important as he aforementioned players, they were still part of the club for a long time. Mourinho built a well-oiled engin. This team could play by itself, play without manager (i.e. Grant area...). The managerial merry-go round didn't affect them because they were an unity, they knew what they had to do. They didn't need the manager at all to move their ass. During this eight seasons, our team didn't really change its face ; its heart remained the same during all those years. Mou set the foundation for his successors ! They all more or less used the pattern set by the portuguese : solid in defense, get the ball to Didier and let him to his job, with Lampard orchestrating the midfield (to different extends, Grant, Hiddink, Ancelotti and Di Matteo based their tacticts on this pattern). By the way, the two managers who tried to get away from the Mou legacy couldn't even finish the year. Therefore, we can say we had have stability at some level. We could even say that in some way, we had have the same manager during eight seasons throught Mourinho ghost. Will we still get away from the bad effects caused by managerial instability in the futur ? No, I do not think so. We were able to get away till now, but that was in a particular context. I believe we should quite this, because I am affraid of us putting one knee on the ground and never be able to raise again. Just take a look at the difference between the current team and the former one. Ima analyse two similar events : Chelsea 1 - 1 Barça in 2008-09 and Chelsea 2 - 3 ManU this year. In both games we were fucked badly by the ref. What happened back then ? Ballack was yelling like a vicking warrior at Overbro's ears and was running everywhere as if there wasn't any tomorrow. Drogba was insane and said the legendary "this is a fucking disgrace". Did we see something like this from our players ? Do not get me wrong, I am not saying we should act like insane men each and every time the ref makes a mistake, no. But did we see this explosion of passion mixed with rage after being robbed by the ref ? I don't think so. That might be a detail, but in my honest opinion that tells a lot. And now, what is the situation ? Drogba has left. Ballack and Carvalho as well. Lampard isn't a starter anymore and we don't even know when he will have first team action again. Terry is also in decline, and because of injuries and off-football concerns, he cannot play regulary at the moment. While Ashley can still be world-class, he cannot maintain this level for all games. Essien is on loan, we don't know whether he'll play for Chelsea next year, and even if, he is only the shadow of what he was. Throughout last year and this summer, we also lost quite a few experienced players (Alex, Anelka, Kalou, Bosingwa - before everyone starts with the "Kalou and Bisingwa were shit", they were what they were, but they had experience and bring us some things young players cannot, c.f. Barça and Benfica games last year). And Florent Malouda and Paulo Feirerra migh be on a road trip now, with all the spare time they have. We're left with a bunch of U23 players. We cannot rely all season long upon our experienced players. And a have only a few players at the age of their peak (let's say approximatively from 26 to 30 year-old, so Cahill, Ivanovic, Ladyboy) - out of three of them, one is helpless... So, basically, who is gonna drag our team like Lampard, Terry and Drogba were doing ? Oscar ? Mata ? Hazard ? Azpilicueta ? Cech would be nice, though he cannot do a lot of things considering he has to stay between the posts... The players the nearest of what we can actually call "leaders" are Ivanovic and Luiz - though it leaves a lot to be desired. Furthermore, our manager merry-go round truly started when Mourinho got fired. At that moment, José had three years to build a team with solid basis. He didn't only do that, he built an extraordinary team. So, when the merry-go round started, that team had a great mentality, a great mental strength. Does our current team is like this ? No, that's quite the contrary. That team had a well identified play pattern. Does our current team possess this well identified pattern ? No !!! We do not have pattern, we do not have a style of play, we do not have an identity. Who is gonna implant a play pattern ? Roberto Di Matteo ? No way, in four months he didn't have time. This spanish waiter ? In six month he won't have any time to forge a team. So who ? The random guy we'll hire this summer ? He will have a hell of a job : to take over a team, which in one year played during six months attacking football, and then for the six following months an atrocious negative football, and then implant his own game style ? Good luck with this, players may be lost... And what if he cannot escape to the Tsar judgment ? A bad vicious circle is lurking around. To conclude, this isn't because untill now sacking manager didn't hit us that we should blindly carry on the musical chairs. This isn't because each sacking arguably turned out to be a good decision, that Roman will be always right in his choices. Mourinho legacy is vanishing in thin air and isn't there anymore. We have to build a team. And in order to fulfil this purpose, we have to have a managerial stability. Even Pep couldn't build our team in six months - this is a process which takes time. This is why I deeply believe we should take a break for a while and stick by a manager so we can build a solid foundation to our team. Precariousness isn't the right path to follow. P.S. Apologies for the laborious english.