Peace.

I cannot believe that he has the audacity to say such a thing — him from all people... Seriously, him who made us park the bus against a team playing with ten men for 70 minutes while we were at home ; him who made us play one of the most defensive, conservative and uninspiring — in a word, the shitiest — football that I have ever seen. At times, I wish genuinely that his name were to be erased from our history, even if that means losing our titles, I cannot stand being "grateful" to such a little man and I cannot stand the fact our club is associated with him. He is really a pathetic sad man — he is of the worst kind.

Of course the polls were rigged. Actually saying a poll is rigged is a totaulogy, plain and simple. While most people believe that polls are tools that allow one to get an idea of the tendencies of opinions regarding a subject, polls are actually a device designed to manufacturate opinions.

I am still wondering how did Obama managed to build his political career, and espcially is presidential career, around the notion that he "represents" the Black American community. Come on, the dude has nothing to do with the Black community in the US, truly nothing !! I mean, first of all, the Black community is the product of US' slaveship history and they are Americans — either 'officialy' or de facto — for many generations. On the other hand, Obama 'is' black from his father who is an African — so Obma does not share the Black Americans' history. And quite cynically and solely to emphase the difference in their history, one could even say that there are chances that is black ancestries where the black slavers that sold black slaves to the Europeans or the Arabs (since he is from Kenya that is probably to the Arabs).* Then, the majority of the black community lives in poverty or lives within urban areas which sufer from poverty — and most of them are also victim (either physically or in their way of life) of the huge violence within their community. As for Obama, he was born in Hawai then spent four years in Indonesia and then came back to Hawai. He then wen to study in good universities on the main land. Oh and by the way, he was raised by his white family... So, aside from is pale black skin, in which way does he share something in common with the Black American community ? He has not the same history, he did not experience their life nor was he raised by the black community... How could he represent them ?!?! He has wayyyy more in common with the white people than the black people (the Americans I mean...). This is all there is to say. He is a HUGE fraud that has built himself upon lies. Had he not managed to make people believe that he was "another black man from the criminally ridden Chicago' — and if he was not a joker — then he would not have been able to even contemplate to run for the presidential election. The dude is probably one of the worst American president ever, yet, since he tells jokes and he has the 'nice story' of being a minority, people will remember him as a formidable president... This is a sad statement of the what politic represents to the people... Gossip, jokes and nice stories... Actually, "poilitic" is a concept that did not make it to the 21th century and was dead somewhere after the Second World war... And by the way (again..), Spike, the importance of the abortion debate into politic come from the very fact that we are not doing politic anymore. The abortion debate is a societal problem and not a political problem. In other words, the Western governments (especially the US) have become nannies that have to handle big children... *I am not saying his family had practiced slave trading. I do not know and actually it is not that important. What is important though is to understand that his "black history" could be very well at the extreme opposite of the Black Americans... And to be honest, it would not surprise me if they were slave traders. Obama's father seemed to have a high education and a high professional situation. And as the country was controlled by the British back then, it certainly means that he was from an elite tribe (as British were using the elite groups to control their colonies). And if his tribe is an elite one, it means that the tribe was the predator and not the prey — that is, it was the slaver and not the enslaved.

I am not even sure that half of our first team would be selected for Barça's, Madrid's, Bayern's B team... That is how horrendous our players are.

This, this and this. To be honest, I am baffled that none of our managers has ever tried it. Ever since Willian is here, we have had managers that played a CB in the midfield (Luiz) ; a RB at LB (Azpi) ; a CB at RB (Ivanovic) ; a B2B on the right-wing (Ramires) ; a B2B as n°10 (Oscar) ; a winger at LB (Kennedy). Yet none have tried Willian in midfield, which is, quite frankly, a much more obvious choice than all of those aforementioned !!! Willian is a midfielder that happened to play as a forward solely because he runs fast. He is not a winger nor a forward ; he is useless when playing high on the pitch. His velocity and passing game (which is quite goodish when he has space) are "perfect" for the position of the B2B. Of course we have no concret proof that it would work... But why nobody tried it ? This choice looks way more logical than, for instance, playing Azpilicueta as a left-back ! It is worth a try... And to be frank, I doubt very much he could be any worse than Oscar and Matic. At least, he would add a lot of athleticism and energy (and somehow "passing ability") into this midfield — it would be a nice change from this slow-and-clueless-as-fuck duo !!!

Well said. The "worker" team and the "utility" players have be avoided like the black plague. The worker team, aside from the few odd years or games, does not win you anything. Of course there is Italy this summer, Chelsea in 2014-15, chelsea in 2012, Greece in 2004, Leceister last year, etc... but they are in the minority. And if you look more closely at those teams, you can notice that, although they are full of utility players, they still have a major strength upon which they can work. For instance, Conte had the best defense in the world during the last Euro and Chelsea had a magnificant Drogba in 2012. We do not have this possibility as our utility players are too numerous and also because our good players have too much flaws (clear example : Hazard goalscoring ability). Furthermore, look where ended up worker teams after they won (or made a good performance) !? Greece came back to nothingness after the Euro 2004 ; Chelsea was the first (?) CL winner to be eliminated in the group stage in 2013 ; last year Chelsea was the worst (?) defending champion in the Premier League ; this year Leceister seems to take the same route as us last year ; etc.. In other words, worker team do not win regularly and most importantly are "disastrous" for the medium to long term. And for Christ's sake, I thought that we were a football team — that is, a team of players that are supposed to play with a ball with their feet. Yet the overwhelming majority of them cannot do the basic with a ball at their feet. And the most pathetic thing out here is that they are paid at least 80k a week... I mean come on, this is grossly what a general practitioner win a year for fixing people's health problems while those so called "footballer" cannot even kick properly in a fucking ball. I do not even want to enter the debate of players' salary — my point is that, before you remunerate someone with millions pounds per year, at least make sure that he can do the basics for what he is paid for !!! I cannot believe that Abramovich is okay with the shitty mentality and football "philosophy" (or lack of) that we have had for years ; I cannot believe he is okay with all those players that cannot even do the basics... I just cannot. As you said, it is not the way forward and as long there is not a shift of philosophy within the administration, we are doomed to the mediocrity both on the pitch and in the table rank.

All this forum is plagued with tropes that are discriminatory toward the Board Members. It is our duty to educate the world in regards to this kind of sexist, racist and genderphobic behaviours which are the products of the football patriarchy. Board Members too are humans beings with feelings and we need to understand that. For the time being, we ought to create a safe-space for the Board Members so they can reunite while not being victim of any prejudice. We also ought to change the reality of games such as Fifa or PES where you can play as a player or as a coach but not as a Board Member — this state of affairs validates the hate held against Board Members. Anyone that sexually identifies himself as a Board Member should be able to play as a Board Member ; and for those who are gender fluid should been granted the ability to experience the game while being able to play every jobs at a football club — from the gardner to the owner. This forum really needs Board Members acceptance ! #IamMichael #IamMartina

Pff, you are a bitter hater. Don't you know that Terry can "do a Giggs" ?

Tomo, in normal times I would be agreed with you — yet we are not in normal times. In our back four, out of four players, three have to be benched and one needs to be changed of position. Then we have Zouma but we do not even know what will happen when he comes back ; he suffered a serious injury. We are well placed to understand the implication of the injury he suffered : Essien had the same and it has ruined him. Moreover Zouma's playing style is based upon athleticism and he is not very good technically... Thus his future is a big question mark. Outside of these five players (for four positions !!!), we have an army of youngsters that will probably see little playing time. The problem with our current back-four is that it is anti-modern and cannot cope with current football. All of them are not good with the ball at their feet, and the trio Terry-Cahill-Ivanovic are slow, unagile and immobile and they cannot defend on one on one situation nor exercise a pressing game. For these reasons they hinder both our defence and our attack. And for me, the most alarming observation is that Terry-Cahill-Ivanovic are not average — they are bad. Not only they are bad and are anti-modern, but their dynamism is very bad as they are on the decline (and the three of them have had a very, very bad season last year). We are in a situation where even an average defender — as long as he is mobile, can pass the ball and defend on one on one — would be more valuable for our team as he would improve, even marginally, our defence and our attack. If were in 2012 and we were thinking of renewing our defence, okay we could be nitpicking as we still would have a "few years" in front of us. But we are not in a situation where we can allow ourselves to be demanding like a Sissi. We have three position to renew for Christ's sake ; so while we are trying to get a great defender, we should buy one who is average/good and that can be expandable when we will get better defenders. You gave us example where we waited till the end of the transfer window to get good players — but do you remember Modric ? There too we were nitpicking and we eventually ended buying in panic, on the deadline day, Meireles... Thus, should we eventually buy an average player, at least we should buy him in the right time so he can be introduced in the team before the season starts, and more importantly, before the possibilities are narrowed down to panic purchases.

The question is, does the Board has even identified our weakness ? Sometimes I doubt of that. For instance, they waited the ninth defeat in the League and to be at one point of the relegation zone to dismiss Mourinho, while it was pretty clear in the first few games that we were going right into the wall, especially when taking into consideration that we were in a free fall since the start of 2015. Then they renewed both Ivanovic and Terry, who played both a big part in our collapse and that were shadow of themselves for the last three years (at least). On top of that, we only bought two players for the first team, players which are not even in positions of our most pressing needs. It would be okay if like some other teams we had decided to overpower one of our departments — but it is not even the case ! All these clues lead me to believe that our administration does not fully understand the alarming situation we are in.

*2 out of 4 play out of position. *2 out of 4 lack cruelly of agility, pace and mobility (and Cahill is soon to join them). *3 out of 4 cannot play the high-line and the pressing game. *4 out of 4 are not ball player. In other words, our defense is anti-modern. And the most alarming observation is that it is not even a problem of individual, but a problem of our whole defensive line. Our back-four should have been overhauled a long time ago and it is overdue for at least three years. Benitez, for as much as I do not appreciate him, started to reshuffle our defence (Terry on the bench and Azpilicueta introduced as right-back) yet the Individual-One came and, with his exceptional long-term vision, undid this reshuffling. He kept and affirmed as indisputable starting players the defenders that should have been benched ; the only change he made was to waste our should-have-been right-back at the left-back position. The outcome is that have have now in defence three players that should have been phased out three years ago. Most worryingly, the Board is making the same mistake it has made during the pre-Emenalo era. Back then they were happy to basically keep the team of 2006 until 2010 without altering it — the outcome was that horrendous Ancelotti's "Bad Moment©". On the one hand, we are fortunate that right now the mistake is only regarding the back-line and not the whole team (it is already an improvement), but on the second hand we have a far worst situation in world football that we had in 2010. For a starter, Terry should not have seen his contract renewed this summer as it would have forced us to buy a defender. Sometimes you need to untie your rope, leave your comfort zone and make the big jump. We already made the mistake with Lampard (i.e. holding on him till the end) and right now we still are in search for a central playmaker (Fabregas is a stop gap)... And we are making the same mistake with Terry and to a lesser extend Ivanovic. Anyway, we are in a dire situation and the defence overhaul should have started weeks ago (in regards to this mercato) — such a dire situation that we are not even in need of a world-class defenders ; no, just above average defenders that can do the basics correctly (i.e. pass the ball, run, defend one on one). Because as of right now, not only our back-line jeopardises our defensive solidity, but it also jeopardises our whole team functioning. Look at Barcelona : they have individually average defenders (some of them are not even defenders), yet they complement very well their attacking players. As for us, our defenders are heavy concrete bricks that drag us to the bottom of the Thames. Thus, if nitpicking with the best defenders is not working, we should aim lesser targets and buy modern and competent defenders in stead of holding on our decadent defensive line.

Next season : Terry and Cahill (and Ivanovic) out. That leaves us with Zouma, Christensen and the new competent CB — that is, three players competing for two spots ; two out of three (maybe even 100%, depending on the new CB) as (very) young players ; and we do not even know yet what to expect from Zouma after his serious injury. Thus with the limited insight on the situation we have right now, having next year Zouma-Christensen-newCB is far from being a luxurious fantasy (it does seem a bit short in terms of quantity). So yeah, buying a very good center back this season seems to be the minimum we should do. And if it happens that the three of them turn to be very-good, then we would have a lovely problem on our hands.

There is an even bigger mistake, which is to have made him the indisputable starting center-back after that Benitez had benched him. Even if it was for the "wrong" reasons — which is what everybody seemed to believe back then, even though the turn of events suggests that Benitez did not bench Terry out of dislike toward him —, we should have taken the opportunity to start to phase him out and to introduce our new defensive spine. For a reminder, it was a period when transfer prices were still reasonable ; our club was not a joke and still had the aureola of the European Champion ; our defence was decent and was not yet the dramatic shambles that it is today. But no, instead of renewing our back line gradually, we kept hold onto the old furnitures — relics of the past — and we now see ourself facing an uncertain future and an uncertain back-line. The worst thing being that it has hindered the progress of our team for the last three years (and I am being generous and polite).....

We are seemingly locked up in time — that time being 2005. And we seemingly cannot look past the cliché representation of the Chelsea of that time and what appeared to have brought us our success, that is big powerful and athletic players. Unfortunatly, this belief is outdated and it is a frustrating pastiche : we have the form (the physic) yet it is void of all content (the technic). Indeed behind that athletic aspect of their game, players such as Ballack, Drogba, Essien, etc... had all at the very least a decent technic, and for some a very good. It is even more frustrating when you realize that big European teams have defenders that have a better technic than most of our squad and that would be amongst the three best technical players of our team. It is so wrong and we do not seem like heading in the right direction (as I have already pointed out recently, we are apparently not in search of a central playmaker, for instance). As long as the Club does not understand that spending millions and millions on donkeys will not solve the problem, and that technique is the basic requirement, we will stay behind the other big teams.

I grab the opportunity to tell you that I am glad that you are back ! This forum really missed you and I hope you stay around !!

In a theoritical point of view I am agree with you : as long as we do not improve our defense and our central-midfield — both in terms of attack and defense —, buying quality attacking players will not change a lot of things. Yet on a practical point of view, things might be more complicated. First, as I have mentioned it yesterday on this thread, we are seemingly not interested in buying a central playmaker. All central defenders of quality are unattainable for us — either they are too expensive, their club are not selling, they signed a new contract or are not interested in us. As for the full-back, we seem to be happy with what we have. So indeed it would have been perfect if we could have bought Modric, Bonucci and Alaba (random names), but as of right now, it appears that it will be very, very difficult to dramatically improve our back line and our central midfield (at least for the short/med term). Thus we have to think in terms of opportunities. The advanced-midfield is not the priority yet it still has to be improved — actually, all our departments, bar the goalkeeping position, need to be improved. Therefore, if very good defenders are not available but we have the opportunity the sign a very good attacking player, we should do it even if it is not the priority. Furthermore, mediocrity all over the pitch — or "balance" if we want to be polite — should be avoided like the plague. Pep's Barcelona was that good because Xavi-Busquets-Iniesta was out of this world ; Enrique's Barcelona because Neymar-Suarez-Messi is out of this world. We have to take a clear stance a decide to overpower one of our departments, be it our defense, our midfield or our attack. Yet today all of them are mediocre. Finally, our attacking department is not good enough and there is only Hazard that can make things happen. So having someone else that can share Hazard's burden would not be a lust but a necessity (I am waiting to hold judgment in regards to Batshuyia, but the more the merrier). For all these reasons, if we have the opportunity to sign Mahrez — or any "very" good attacking player —, we should grab it. Of course if the choice is either Bonucci/Modric or Mahrez, we should take the former(s), but I doubt very much we will have this choice.

People will somehow always mention other players yet Drogba has always been our true Leader ; the real driving force behind this team.

Of course it would be fantastic if we had the opportunity to get someone like Modric. But we have many problems with that CM position. First, we do not have anybody in our ranks, neither our senior players nor our youngsters — at the exception of Fabregas —, that has the technical ability to play as he central-midfielder. Fabregas as too many weakness to be considered as our "undisputed" central-midfielder (in the sense of playmaker). I believe that he could still be useful, but as a squad player and not as a starting-eleven member. Secondly, it seems that we are not interested to get a central playmaker — now but also in the past. Apart of a few exceptions, we seem to only consider strong and powerful players — and not fine and technical — when it comes to compose our central-midfield. And I do not see it changing. Finally, these kind of players are expensive ; at the exception of the Lady Boy — and despite the rumored bids for Pogba and all —, we never spent more than £32-ish million upon a player. For all these reasons I believe we will not have a central playmaker at the end of August (once again, bar Fabregas but he causes huge problems). In consequence, we have to find an alternative. The solution could of course be from the Academy. However, I do not believe that there is anyone ready to be our undisputed starter — especially for this strategic position. Moreover, I am not even sure that we have anyone good enough at this position in the Academy ?(???) Maybe, just maybe, Mosunda could be that player, but he is on loan right now. And anyway, we do need someone right now, for the short-term, not for the futur (and as Willian is 28, he could be that stop-gap). _____ Additionally, I do not agree with you regarding the fact that it would be wasting Willian's best attributes. "Pace" and "endless energy" were exactly Ramires' best attributes ; yet Ramires was a very poor winger and he excelled as a central midfielder. It happens that Willian is a Ramires with hair and technic — and I am pretty sure that if Ramires had technical ability he would have been devastating midfielder. So why not Willian ?

To be honest I do not even consider him as an attacking winger and he has nothing to do that high on the field ; he is a central-midfielder and I am bemused that no one has ever tried to use him as a CM. He is perfect for that role. He has a great engine, a great work-rate and a great pace and thus he could be physically everywhere in that midfield. Moreover, he has a very good and net technic, a very good passing game with a good range of passes, and he does see the passes. The problem is that when he is in the last third of the pitch, he does not have the spontaneity and the spark to make use of his technical ability. However, when he is sitting deep, he can be a very good passer of the ball as he proved many times. If we could use him in a similar fashion that Barça used Xavi or that Madrid is using Modric, I am confident that we would have a really good midfielder in our hands — and this would spare us to research a quality CM which we desperately need and which yet we are not researching for*. With his technic (first touch and passing game), his engine and his stamina, he could make the central midfield his own (he would most certainly not be as good as the aforementioned names, but could be very good good). I am thinking something along these lines : 4-4-2 : Kanté - Willian (central midfield) // Hazard - new winger (wings/attacking midfield) // Costa - Batshuayi 4-2-3-1 : Kanté - Willian // Hazard - new n°10 - new winger // striker 4-3-3 : Kanté - Willian - new CM // Hazard - Costa - Batshuayi etc.... Against the small teams that will sit deep, we could even play a 4-3-3 with Kanté-Fabregas-Willian — in other words, we could make use of Fabregas' passing game without losing too much of work-rate in the midfield and neither be forced to play a donkey to balance Fabregas' defensive deficiencies. Well of course it may fail, but there are many signs that tell us that it would be very well worth to experience it for some times. *It would also settle the dilemma that we have with Cesc.

Yep. And what is more particularly interesting is that Madrid does not seem to be willing to splash that obscene amount of money to get Pogba. If even Florentino Galacticos Pérez himself is not ready to spend big for a player, then it speaks volumes concerning the insane overpricing of Pogba.

I never thought about it but it actually makes sense. RLC is not sufficiently proactive and his technic is not good enough for him to be an attacking-minded midfielders ; he is too passive and does not seem to possess defensive capabilities of interest (i.e. in terms of technic and his tactical nous). In other words, he does not have any future as a midfielder at the highest level and in consequence turning him into a striker seems to be a good opportunity for him — and more importantly for us — to make it at Chelsea.

I am afraid that I am as much in the dark as you on the subject... Though I will try to give you a "generic" answer (that should still have some relevance)... Nowadays, before being a sport, football is a profession, an economy. And in today's economy system, it is more easier to get a (high ranked) job if you are an incompetent individual having the right network, knowing the right persons, than to be a competent individual and having no network (that being said, it always have been the case, not solely in the modern society). The perfect example is Bébé from Manchester — he is/was a nobody but had the privilege to have Mendes as his agent. I presume that Lacazette does not have a "good" agent. Then, a player ought to be marketable if he wants to attract big clubs. The Pogba case illustrates very well the fact that you buy hype and not necessarily tangible football skill. Pogba is a good player, that's it ; but he has the appropriate sophisticated haircut and he makes, from time to time, the luxurious trick that is good looking on youtube. If you look at Lacazette, he looks like your average Joe that you could encounter everyday in any French town and he is not really a flashy player. As for France and the Euros, I do not really know... Giroud is playing for Arsenal — i.e. "big club" and the "French connection" — so he is de facto selected. As for Gignac......... To be honest with you, when I saw him on the field (I had not been bothered to look at the team selection for the Euro), I was left bemused....... I could not make out whether I was watching a game from 2010 or something of the sort. I guess he was selected because he had played two years with Marseille when Deschamps were their manager — national teams' managers do seem to prefer to select people they know than people they do not, even if the formers are better than the latters. This is the only rational explaination that I can offer. I guess that Lacazette is one of those talented players that will never make it on the big scene because he has not the right face or not the right name (it reminds me of Riquelme for instance). Well, I believe that I have stated the obvious and I hope that my answer is not that useless for you !

We have already a team full of players that are not good enough with the basics (pass, first touch, etc.). We do not need to buy more of those players — we need to get rid of them. Then you have his attitude ; his behavior is questionable both on and off the field. Not only he is a primadonna with a loud mouth and creates a toxic atmosphere (on and off the field), but he also does not invest himself well enough during games. We should stay clear of him.

Indeed. He most certainly was a person with a weak mentality and personality. A weak man that was brainwashed by the media which are incessantly saying that all the problems of the black community are down to white racism and more specifically down to white cop violence — something which is evidently a lie but that has became a reality because people have repeated it over and over again and because it is what is aired on the news (by the way, this is basic social engineering)1. And because of that, that poor lost soul found a cause to his (mental) problems — the white cops — and found a solution to end those problems — to kill the said white cops. Or maybe... He was a weak man that was used by a shady organisation(s)2 in order to heat up the situation and to widen the rift between people. On the one hand, it encourages "BLM" activists to be more violent against the policemen and on the other hand, it leads the cops (and more generally those who sympathise with the police) to be more resentful towards young black men (especially those who carry guns and those who instinctively confront the police when they are stop by them). Any way... Whether the manipulation was passive or active — direct or indirect — the end result is the same. That individual was led to pour oil upon the fire. This can only lead to more tension and more grudge between two parts of the population. Meanwhile, the monopolistic class drinks its champagne and increases its wealth and its power over the non-monopolistic class. The latter, in the end, only deserves its living conditions — the "oppressed", in their holy ignorance, are only able to bark to themselves. What a pathetic mass. 1 The Alton Sterling case is the perfect example of how the media can spin reality. They can create a tragic situation from what is actually a banal situation ; throughout history, soldiers/policemen have always killed weak people, not because they are this or that, but because this is easy and because there is no repercussion (and I mean that in the case where we assume that those police officers killed Sterling for personal reasons, which is not necessarily the case) — I mean, you could not find a more trivial story. They can create a harmless and lovely Innocent from what is basically a small time criminal. 2 For instance, Soros and the C.I.A. (to name the most renown) have proven many times in the past their sheer talent to manipulate and arm dangerous people in order to destabilize countries and populations.

He solely played 11 games this season as right-back and he was obviously uncomfortable there since he was used as a left-back left defender for so long. This is in consequence not the best counter argument. I was obviously refering to the long-term situation.