Peace.

Ahah, I was sure you were going to talk about our attacking midfielders, though was too lazy to talk bout that On a serious note. I do agree that we are very strong in this area of the pitch. Nonetheless, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they are totaly akin to United strike force ! Our attacking midfielders are very good, though I do believe that they are one tone below United strike force ; the main difference being that their strikers are finished products while our players are more or less still potentials. By saying this, I mean that Hazard and Oscar need to gain that maturity to step up in order be in the same league as Rooney and Van Persie (and Berbatov when he wasn't Berbaflop). No doubt they will be soon there — probably next season, or eventually at the twilight of this one — though, they still lack that little thing to be a major force as were/are United's strikers. But if we can be strong with our attacking midfielders and strikers, that would be even better Moreover, I don't believe that we can count upon our attacking midfielders to carry us goal-wise as we could count upon a striker. Within the four season that I mentioned in my previous comment, their "star" striker scored on average 25 goals ; Hazard, Oscar and Mata scored 25 at them three... I find myself in a struggle to put words upon this concept, but this is a very different thing when one player can give you what would require three players to do the same thing. Finally, to count upon attacking midfielders to score goals because your attackers are inapt, it's kinda like to count upon your defensive midfielders to prevent goals because your defenders are inapt ; it can perfectly work, but there is a thin margin between the perfect and the disastrous — Barça is the perfect example, whenever the smallest grain of sand was troubling their midfield engine, their defense was sinking faster than the Titanic. Absolutly, we've made a significant progress this season, even as it stands. With Schürrle and de Bruyne, we'll be able to rest more Hazard, Oscar and Mata ; they will therefore be able to burst more energy when playing and it will obviously improve their performances... I guess I'm hard to please (I am a perfectionist). It's still refreshing to see that we're in for a quality striker (as our interest in Cavani and Rooney shows) — it shows that the board (I include Mourinho in it) is aware of our deficiencies in key areas. And then again, I guess that my frustration comes from the fear caused by what José said regarding our midfield... I definitely hope it's either untrue or that it means will be back to a 4-3-3 with Oscar (or de Bruyne) as the third midfielders (if that's the case, then we're kinda "okay" in midfielded). I also do agree with your expectations... Even without new additions, we will right there to push for the title and probably for some Cups. Manchester United has suffered what's probably its biggest loss in its history and City won't set the world alight right away. It won't be a walk in the park, but we would still have significant chances to win the title.... I won't hide the fact I would rather put all chance on our side to win the title in a flashy way — the King is dead and the throne is vacant, I do believe that winning the title will give to the winners a cutting edge to reign upon England for the upcoming seasons. That's why I absolutly want us to win the League.

True, though we gotta put things into their context. Ferguson has had 25 years to master a system built around the squad and not around individualities. Through the years he had the time to polish and mature his systeme. Furthermore, it's safe to say that all the players that have played for United during these 10 last years have been introduced in the team by Ferguson himself (it may be an exageration, but you do get my point I presume). And, another difference is that Manchester always has had brilliant strikers to nullify the deficiencies of the rest of the team. Let's take a look to the four past seasons (seasons where their starting XI was not impressive - before that, when they had Ronaldo, it was another story). Last season, they won the title ; their strike force (Van Persie, Rooney, Hernandez and Welbeck) was doing the job perfectly, especially the dutchman who has carried them to the title. The penultimate time they won the League, it was the same story all over, except that you replace Van Persie by Berbatov. The two times they finished second, it's because their striking force was a tad less prolific, but was still prolific (Rooney, Hernandez). All in all, they always had had a great strike force with one player carriyng them (Rooney, Berbatov, Rooney, Van Persie). Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to us. There is no comparison between Van Persie-Rooney-Hernandez-Welbeck (or Berbatov-Rooney-Hernandez) and Ba-Lukaku-ladyboy ; there are two levels separating these two sets of strikers. Of course I am agree with the point you made — squad depth is very important. Having improved our squad depth will definitely improve our performances. Though we shouldn't sit back and expect this squad depth to nullify all of our dysfunctional areas (the midfield and the strike force). It worked perfectly for United, though we shouldn't exêct the same result because we don't gather the same variables as United did. And I reckon that's why Mourinho wants Rooney (or at least one of the reasons) ; it will significantly improve our strike force and thus we will be more or less in the same environment than United, i.e. having a sharp striking force that can nullify our problems at the back (especially the midfield).

The more it goes, the more I get the feeling that Ferguson left the ship before it sinks..

After what happen with the ladyboy, I cannot understand how some people want him here, even if we disregard the fact he's an horrible human being. If Suarez looks so good, that's because he's the big fish in the small pound. It's the same situation that the ladyboy : he is significantly better than any of his teamates, so he has became their all in attack, everything goes through to him — just like this fucking ladyboy. Suarez looks so good because he's in an environment where everything is build around him, to get the better out of him ; once it won't be the case anymore, the whole world will see that there's no way that he's the best striker in the League. Him alone had 187 shots this past season ; Oscar, Mata and Hazard had 193 to them three. Apparently he had 263 touches inside the opposition's box, which represents 140 more touches than anyone... He has made the double of touches than anyone in the League. That really shows that Loserpool is a one-man team and that this fact has swollen Suarez' stats. Some people argue that if he can be that good while playing for a shit team, then with Oscar, Mata and Hazard he could be exceptional. My answer is that, well, sure he will have better players, but he won't longer be the center off the team. He won't be able to get 187 shots, nor spend his life in the oppsition's box. What if he will have to take only 100 shots and 150 ball touches in the box ? Statistically, according to his (poor) goal-per-shot ratio, he would only score 13 goals if he were to take only 100 shots. I can tell you that the Suarez we will have won't be the one we bought, simply because the two contexts are different. Furthermore, is he really the kind of striker we need ? Last year, we had many problems with our finish. Do we really need to bother with another striker who's a bad finisher ? Because that's what Suarez is, a bad finisher. His goal-per-shot ration is there to attest that. It takes him 8,1 shots to score a goal. In comparison, van Persie's is of 5,4 ; Rooney's of 7,1 ; Hernandez's of 4,4 ; Cavani's of 5,3 ; Sturridge ; 6,1 ; etc... Hell, ladyboy's ration is of 8,5 ! Mata's is of 5,8 ; Hazard's of 5,7. What's the point having a striker who is worse than your midfilders when it comes to finishing ? If that's what we really want, we should as well keep the ladyboy. He's more or less as good in the finishing, but at least we won't have to give further money to that scum club. If your striker isn't good at finishing, he should be at least good at holding the ball or something like this to set up other players (to score goals). But nah, Suarez isn't this kind of player. We don't need a sort of inside forward that plays as striker. If we want to make that experiment, we should as well play Hazard up-front. We should stay as away as possible of him. It has "the ladyboy 2.0" marked all over it : an unnecessary amount of money spent on a massively overrated player (them both are/were overrated for precisely the same reason) who doesn't fit the bill of our need and that has the whole English medias on his back (for different reasons). I am not saying he will be a supreme flop, though we will overpay for a player we don't really need and that will attrac medias' scrutiny at each and every of his movements.

Hum, it will be an interesting situation to watch. Not that I am interested to know whether Rooney will leave or not ; the interesting thing is to see how Manchester and more precisely Moyes handles the situation. And it can be a good news for us, and for all the clubs wanting to compete for the title this season. Indeed, Moyes is quite new to the job. Until now, he has only coached Everton (and another random small club) ; it is a new experience to coach one of the biggest club in the world, star players and this under the high demand of results. It's quite another challenge that he has to face. Will he manage to overcome obstacles ? Or will he be overwhelmed by the situation, in the same fashion that André Villas-Boas was when he came here ? He has naturally a high amount of pressure on his shoulders, because he replaces one of the best manager in history, a Manchester Legend and after all, he doesn't have the C.V. to shut all the doubters. Moreover, after what, one month ? he has lost his first game (even if it's for nothing) and has to handle the will to leave of one of the most powerful players of their squad. At the lights of the evolvement of the situation, it looks like that Moyes is starting to lose the plot and to be overwhelmed by what's going on. At first, he was only saying that Rooney was not for sale — without telling us the player's wish, which somehow proves that Rooney isn't that much agree with that. Though, now the song has changed. It's no more about Rooney not being for sale, it's about Rooney not being bigger than the club. Moyes said this in that interview : "I won't allow Wayne Rooney to become more important than the football club and the football team, because that's the heart of it.". Into my eyes, this quote tells us a lot, because it confirms that Rooney takes the club into ransom either to get a pay-rise or to leave ; it also confirms that Rooney didn't gave his consent to stay at the club. Otherwise, Moyes wouldn't have said that, would he ? And then Moyes goes on and says "Overall, my thought on Wayne is, if for any reasons we had an injury to Robin van Persie, we'll need him," in a weak attempt to tell Rooney who's the boss. It's not wise to take a dig at one of your players throughout the medias. Especially when you're the "newbie" and that the player is more powerful than you. And when you start to drag your unsolved problems into the medias' lights like Moyes has done by doing this interview... I don't know, it just doesn't give you the feeling that Moyes has the situation under control. At this rate, the situation will get tougher for Moyes. Rooney will surely not be happy about these quotes. I can easily see a 'war' starting between them two ; and Moyes won't come out as the winner. And at the end of the day, should Rooney stay or leave, Moyes will be the loser, because either way he will lose some of his credibility ; if he leaves, they will lose one of their best players (even if he's off form) and if he stays they will have an unhappy players hanging around which will probably cause troubles. So yeah, as I aforementioned, this situation kinda reminds me of the one when Boas was at our club. To stamp his authority Moyes took a challenge to big for him, and he will probably lose his front teeth (that's what I believe). And because of it, United could be in a sad state at the start of the season.

Vidic stayed in Manchester because he's injured, and will join the team latter. As a spokeman told : "In the meantime, he'll continue his pre-season preparations in Manchester at the Aon Training Complex." Nani, Smalling and Young are also missing the pre-season-tour because of injuries. One can presume that just as Vidic, they are in Manchester for medical treatment and/or re-education and/or rehabilitation. And I don't know, I presume the players from the academy will start the training at some point during the preseason tour (if they hadn't started already). Some members of the medical staff must have stayed there. So yeah, they are not the first team doctors. Though they have the necessary equipment under hand. They won't have to go from one hospital to another, from one gym to another to treat him. And I guess that it would be more convenient to take care of him because he will be regrouped with other injured players. Had he stayed with them, he would have been a deadweight because he would have take away some doctors and fitness coach away for him alone ; while he will work with people who are already dealing with injured players. Finally, yes the flight-back to England may cause him harms, but is taking him on the road Bangkok-Sydney-Yokohama-Osaka-Hong-Kong-Stockholm a really better thing ? If he is injured for three weeks, that only makes sense to send him back to Manchester, in my view.

I believe that's more complicated than you make it sounds, mate. First off, Cavani is one of, if not the best striker in the world right now. Napoli is to small for him right now ; and I do believe that Cavani knows that. He has seen all that has to be seen at Napoli, and now has to move on to a bigger step. It's the right time for him ; he is at his peak and is still "young". If he waits one more year, it could be a case where nobody's longer interested in him, or at least willing to pay over the odds for him. Moreover, to me it appeared that de Laurentis was willing, very willing to sell. Despite what that fan from Napoli was saying again and again (that Napoli didn't want to sell), into my eyes de Laurentis has just acted like he was trying his best to sell Cavani. It's a lifetime chance to sell a player for 70 millions d'euros. So while Cavani has put one foot out of the club on his own ; the Club put his other foot out of the club. And because of this situation (all the stuff I aforementioned), Cavani had to find another club. Unfortunately for him — or not —, the only club willing to meet his buyout-clause is Paris. Like it or not, PSG is a bigger club than Napoli. A bigger club because they have higer ambitions and they have the money and the players to back-up these ambitions. On the one hand, they will offer him way more money. On the second hand, they will offer him a bigger challenge on the sportive aspect. PSG has way more chance to win La Ligue 1 than Napoli to win El Calico — even if La Serie has an higher reputation than the French league, if the arab money keeps pouring in, then the Ligue 1 could be more competitive and attractive than La Seria A in a few years of time. In the Champions League, PSG is also bound to have more success than Napoli ; they have better players and they don't have the fat waiter. Though I am absolutly not convinced by Blanc, but he isn't there to last anyway. So you see, Cavani has to leave, and the only option is PSG.

Because in this transfer saga, there is an issue bigger than money. Dortmund is the only german club which can fight against Munich's fraudulent hegemony. However, Bayern cynically stabbed them a few weeks ago by buying Gotze ; the player which kinda symbolised Dortmund. And the worst is that, because of the buyout-clause, Dortmund hadn't even their say in it. Now, Munich wants to strike again and "steal" them another of their best players. Dortmund cannot afford to lose their two best players in a sole mercato, especially losing them to their rivals. It would be a big blow on a sportive aspect — but it would be an even bigger blow regarding "Public Relation". If Dortmund surrender to Munich, they would look weak because they bowed once again to their rival. Thus, Bayern will set themselves as THE german club, while Dortmund will look like a very good team but who will always be second. That's the kind of message that will be send, if they sell Lewandowski to Munich. Moreover, Dortmund cannot sell Lewandowski to another team. Firstly, because the player doesn't want to go to another team except Bayen. Secondly, if Dortmund force him to go to another club, they will look like the bad guys. By saying no, Dortmund send the message that, no, Bayern cannot do whatever they want, and that they can stand up to Munich, on the field, and off the field. Of course, Borussia will lose 24 millions d'euros, though they will gain a lot on the psychological aspect. That's a laudable stance taken by Dortmund ; a very strong stance.

So many cons. * He bit one of our loyal servant. Had he bit someone from another team (which he did, by the way), I would not give a fuck. That's an assault toward one of our player ; toward us. * While at Loserpool, how many games did he get suspended ? 8 games for racism ; 1 game for raising the finger to fans ; 10 game for biting a player. He played 96 games for them, and has been suspended for 19 games... For every five games played, he has been suspended for one. Do we really want to risk to disturb our season because one of our players is suspended for 10 games ? Terry suspension wasn't enough to learn how much hurting it is for us ? * He's a supreme cunt. I don't mind having a cunt in our team, but when his cuntiness disrupts our season because medias decided to haunt him down because of it, then it's a no-no. We had too many troubles with Terry — I don't want a bis repetita. * He is by no means a World-Class player. This label is too easily used nowadays. He is a good, nay very good player. But at the end of the day, he has only carried a mid-table team to finish seventh — a mid-table spot. Do you remember the last player who carried Loserpool and has been labeled world-class ? * He is a poor finisher. This season, it took him 187 shots to score his 23 goals. Last season, it took him 128 shots to score 11 goals. His shot per goal ratio is respectively of 8,1 and 11,6. We had many goalscoring opportunities this season ; what let us down was our finishing — we need a proper finisher and he doesn't fit the bill. * Considering that we have Mata, Hazard and Oscar, I don't believe that we need a striker which doesn't play like one. They'll walk on each other. * etc...

His brilliance is not his simplicity — it's his intelligence. And that intelligence is being illustrated by that simplicity of his. In that aspect, he kinda reminds me of Zizou. 9 times out of 10, he will keep things simple ; but the tenth time, he will do that flashy play which is quite effective (while Zizou does his "roulette" (don't know if it's the right term in english), Oscar seems to do his backheel). And just as the great playmakers, he knows when to pass the ball, or when to wait and hold down the play, and not overdo things — that assist shows it perfectly. When you add to that intelligence, his volume of play (work rate, involvement in the game, and mobility both in attack and defense) and his defensive capabilities, you just know that this guy is graven to be a n°10 ; our n°10. That's why I strongly believe that we just have to play him as our n°10 (if we keep playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation).

While I find very interesting the stats that you brought up, TorontoChelsea, in your first post ; to my personal belief, (trying to find) a formula to analyse the impact of a player is kinda "irrelevant" and doesn't have its place in football. First off, I gotta admit that I am not a big fan of statistics. Numbers don't lie — but they say what you want them to say. Just ask your government, they know how to make stats speak. Into my opinion, stats should not be used to prove a point, but to back it up, to illustrate it. You will never find the right formula — unless you make up a calcul as complex as the ones used in meteorology (and in physic in general). Statistics are depraved from all sort of judgment of value ; Mathematics cannot grasp the notion of good and evil. I'll use a few examples to illustrate what I am trying to say : Some times ago, some people were using a (misleading) statistic to argument that, yes, contrary to expectation, Mikel was actually doing a lot of passes forward. I don't recall exactly the figures, but it was 60% of forward passes against 40% backward (or something along these lines). In truth, this stat means nothing (at least in the way it was used). Indeed, the computer which makes the stats / OPTA draws a circle around the player, and from 0° to 180° the pass is considered as pass forward ; from 180° to 360° the pass is considered as backward. Which means that despite having 60% of forward passes and 40% of backward passes, Mikel could as well have 100% of sideways passes.To continue upon what Manpe said : which player has the best positive impact and the less negative impact ? The players which makes 15 long balls but which fails to complete 10 of them ? Or the player who makes 10 long balls and fails to complete 5 of them ? Like this, it's impossible to say — and mathematics won't be able to give you an answer since they take these facts out of their context. Is an incomplete pass a negative impact ? Not necessarily. Because, you can fail to complete your pass, but in some case it can force the opponent's defensive line to go deeper in their half of the pitch ; it can allow you to drive away the pressure of your own half ; it can allow you to put pressure on their back-four ; et cetera... A contrario, a long pass which is completed can have a negative impact. For example, if the player you pass the ball to is in a bad position, then even if your pass is completed it can lead to a loss of the possession and/or kill an offesive. It also depends upon the style of football you play. If you play a possession football like Barcelona, or a counter-attacking team, 5 long passes failed out of 10 won't implies the sames meanings.I'll quote Choulo "For example, losing possession or missed pass in defense should have, let's say 5 times, the weight of losing the ball in the final third." It's not as simple. Some missed passes in the final third can be more deadly for you than some missed passes in defense. A missed pass in defense can lead to nothing because the ball went into a position where the other team could not make anything from it ; it's not a dangerous loss. A missed pass within the final third can lead to a deadly counter-attack because it was on a corner situation, and you were on of the last defenders. A missed pass in defense can be positive because it's a clearance and frees you from pressure (for a will, at least). A missed pass in the final third can kill your last chance to win the game. Et cetera...I won't go any further in my examples and won't detail each and every possible situation. I presume (and hope) that the few examples that I gave are enough to grasp my opinion. Stats are a good thing, but when used with parsimony. Stats have their limits ; and the more you add statistics to others, the more this limite will get tighter — and then you will debouch to absolute nonsenses. I take the rating from whoscored.com as the perfect illustration. In their overall rating, the ladyboy has a higer grade than Oscar, Petr Cech, Azpilicueta and Ashley Cole. The vast majority of Chelsea fan (in this forum..) are agreed to say that Ivanovic ; but whoscpred.com rate him more than Kompany and Nastasic. That's wherein lies the danger of adding one stat to another one. That because of these reasons that to my mind, judicious to use formula to analyse the impact of a player. If you want to analyse the effectiveness and impact of a player in regard of the goalscoring departmen (for example)t, then you'd better, in the first time, to analyse what your own judgment and perception say, and then analyse his stats (his goalscoring and assists statistics, his goal to shot ratio, etc...), one after the other — separately —, and then comparing them. We cannot rationalize football and its analysis, because it isn't something rational. There are too many special cases ; too many truths and ways to reach them.

This. That's what annoys me at times on this forum. Whenever a player has an ability which is not specific to his position, people want to play him outta position — just like Luiz. I mean, a lot of people wanted (and still want) to play him as our DM because he has a very good technique (for a defender). Now Oscar displays good defending aptitudes and a great work rate, so people want him to play him more deeper into the midfield where he will have more defending duties..... Ramires runs fast — should we drop him out of the team and register him into an athletics club ? To me, that's stupid. It's a chance to have a defender with good technical abilities ; it's a chance to have an advanced midfielder with very good defending abilities. Into my eyes, we have to look at these "extra abilities" as "plus" and built around it. I mean, Luiz has a very good passing game for a defender, but once you put him into midfield, this ability becomes irrelevant because it's nothing out of this world for a midfielder. The same will happen with Oscar, in my opinion. Moreover, putting Oscar in this fucking pivot will inhibit him and his qualities. "playmaker abilities" + "defending abilities" doesn't necessarily equates to "deep-lying playmaker". In the football era we're in, Oscar is what comes the nearest to the classic "n°10" ; he plays like one. He participates in the building of the game and in setting the tempo of the game by roaming all over the pitch. By default his place is in the center of the pitch (in an advanced position) though he drifts to the right wing, to the left wing, comes deep into the midfield and goes into goalscoring position. Building the game as a deep-lying playmaker or as an advanced midfielder are two different things. If you want to see the differences, go and watch a game of Barcelona. Xavi and Iniesta are the two Barça's playmaker (+ arguably Messi, but it isn't today's debate). Despite being two playmakers, they manœuvre into two differents positions, which implies different roles, different tasks, different playing areas. For example, some stats can illustrate those differences : in La Liga, Xavi has five goals and eight assists while Iniesta has three goals and 16 assists. Now, is Oscar a good fit for this pivot ? I don't think so. Firstly, I don't see him being exceptional at spreading the ball from deep. In the pivot, he will have the game/action in front of him — but to mine, he has to be in the heart of the action to express his qualities. When I compare him to deep-lying playmakers such as Xavi, Pirlo and Alonso, I don't see him having the same set of playmaker's abilities than them. Furthermore, we also have to take into account that the defensive tasks he will have to accomplish in the p*v*t won't be the same as what he does right now. At the moment, he has so good defensive stats because he has the liberty of movement (at some extent), he can (and has to) leave his position to chase down the foes and to get back the ball. He comes from a high position to a deep one in order to help out our defensive midfielders and defenders ; in some sense, he's not the defender but helps the defenders. In the p*v*t, he won't have the same defensives task, won't have the same responsabilities. From a position of "defenders' assitant" he will become a "defender". And, as playing in the p*v*t requires discipline, he won't be able to go all over the pitch to chase down the opposition — and thus, into my opinion, he will be found out of his depth because it's not the kind of defender he is. All in all, playing into this position will hinder both his attacking and defending abilities. It probably won't be a flop ; but it won't be a thundering success. We have the chance to have into our hands a very good "n°10" who has a more than valuable defending facet to his game — why try to be some wizard and play him out of position, just like we did with Mikel, Kalou, Anelka, etc...? For God's sake, we should try to build around these qualities, not putting him in this fucking p*v*t just because it looks trendy.

My criticisms of him at Chelsea are absurd ? Humph, they are not. Regarding our 2009-2010 season. Yeah, it was maybe the best season we ever had... But maybe. Throphy-wise, it certainly was. In regards of the quality of football we played, if you listen to the general consensus, then yes it was also our best season. But I am in total disagreement over this issue. I am not denying that we played a very good football ; though, we cannot say it was the best — it was one of the best. From the general public's perspective, it was the best because it was flashy, class and fluid. But personally, I prefer the football we played under José — to mine, it's the best football (in term of quality) that we ever had produced. Tactically speaking, it was on point, and from the team was emitting a feeling of power and a feeling of total control over the opponent. But after all, it's down to personal appreciations and preferences. As for the achievement in the League that year, it wasn't that impressive. I believe most of judgments are clouded by the fact we scored 103 goals and by the few games towards the end of the season where we scored a lot of goals (i.e. 5-0 against Portsmouth, 7-1 against Aston Villa, 7-0 against Stoke City and 8-0 against Wigan). I'll repeat it : at the end of the day, we finished only 1 point ahead of a distinctly average team of Manchester United (and we had to wait for the last week to be sure to win the League) !! Yes, that team whom second best goalscorer was Mr Own Goal. And we cannot say that Arsenal, Tottenham and Loserpool were a frightening opposition. Then, you say "He took a third place team from the year before added basically no players of significance (Zhirkov was our big signing) and gave us arguably our best season ever." But you failed to mention that he took over a team which was in a very good dynamic after the spell of Guus Hiddink. Just as you say that "He led us to maybe our best ever year with what was certainly not close to our best overall squad" ; I can say that despite not having our best overall squad, Ancelotti had the best individualities. Indeed, with 29 goals and 13 assists, Drogba had probably his best season this year ; Malouda had an exceptional season ; Lampard, with 22 goals and 17 assists, has had his best season (if my facts are right) statically-wise. Back then, these three players were regarded, especially by us Chelsea fans, as ones of the best in the world. And you make it sound as if Ancelotti was the Chelsea's poor boy. Despite not adding players of significance, the manager had still a pretty good squad, hadn't he ? Drogba, Malouda and Lampard being on a great form ; Ballack and Carvalho, despite being on the twilight of their career were competent enough ; Cech, Cole, Mikel, Alex, Anelka, Ivanovic... José's squad was better ; Ancelotti's individualities were better. That's at least how I see it. I am not saying that what Ancelotti has achieved in his first season is ridiculous ; I am just arguing that, at the light of the facts that I have aforementioned, this achievement is not enough to put Ancelotti upon a pedestal and label him as a great manager. ---------- In regards of the second season, yeah I know we lacked depth and had many problems (Lampard and Essien being injured and being average (at best) after coming back from injury ; Drogba and Anelka not being good enough, etc...). Actually, I hate Gourlay ever since this season : he lied big time at the start of the season by saying, after having loosen Ballack, Cole, Carvalho and Beletti, that Bruma, PvA, Kakuta and McEachran were good enough to replace the players who have left. But going by your post, you misunderstand my point. I never said it was a a bad resulat — though that it was hardly a good one, considering that once again Manchester United were not that good (that's an understatement) and we finished nine points behind them ; we were on par with a Manchester City team which was nothing special ; we were three points ahead of the ever average Arsenal. Though, the result of this season is of little importance in the point I made, because I was talking solely about the qualities of his that Ancelotti displayed. As you say, we had many problems back then ; and my criticisms toward Ancelotti are exactly concerning how he handled these problems — without a fucking clue. Our front line of Drogba, Anelka, Malouda and Kalou was producing striclty nothing. To change that, what did he do ? He kept the same formation and the same players — brillant answer to that problem. He could have used Sturridge to try and change the bad dynamic our front-line was in ; but no, he only used him at the 85th minutes of games. Though I gotta admit that he was right... after all, Sturridge only scored 8 goals in 12 games in the second part of the season, while on loan. Another example : against Marseille au Stade Vélodrome, Cole was not available. Instead of trying something and playing van Aanholt, Ancelotti went conservative and played Paulo fucking Ferreira. I do not believe that the dutchman was good enough to have a role into our team. But come on, for my left-back spot, I'd rather a not good enough left-back that a not-good-enough-32-years-old-third-choice-right-back. But who I am kidding — we needed the magnificent Ferreira to play against the potential Ballon d'Or that Valbuena is. Finally, our team was overall lethargic ; we were playing with ten greek statues. And nothing changed over the season, not even a fucking small improvement. That's where lies my criticisms of Ancelotti. It's not about the outcome of the season — it's about how he dealt with our problems. The only thing he was able to do was to say, in press conference, that it was only a Bad Moment©. He proved that when everything is not going perfectly, he doesn't have a clue how to change it. He was as lethargic as our players — which says a lot. ------- The bottom line of my point is that, in the light of the arguments that I have exposed in this comment, the time that Ancelotti has spent at Chelsea proved that he was a good manager, but not a great one.

In eight seasons at Milan, and with an incredible squad, Ancelotti has won once the League. Just one Serie A. All in all, in Italie, after two and half seasons at Juventus Turin and eight at Milan, he has only won two domestic trophies : one Serie A and one Coppa Italia. In France, despite Paname being 3 points ahead of Montpellier, Ancelotti did not succeed in winning the League 1, with a squad arguably head and shoulder above the others team (in term of individual quality). At Chelsea, he might have accomplished the double PL/FA Cup and set the goal tally record in the league ; though, we had to wait for the last week to be crowned and at the end of the day we only ended one point ahead of a distinctly average Manchester United team. As for the second season here — don't get me started. He just proved back then that he hasn't got a single clue when something go wrong. That season was pathetic, management-wise. So yeah, he's won two Champions League ; that's quite impressive. But at the end of the day, in more or less 14 seasons, beside the CLs he's won one Seria A, one Premier league, one Ligue 1, one Coppa Italia and one FA Cup (I don't take into account the small trophies). That's just three leagues and two domestic cups. In regard of the squad he had in all of this teams (Juve, Milan, Chelsea and Paname), only three leagues in 14 fucking seasons is a massive underachievement — especially at Milan, where he managed to only win one League in eight seasons, with that squad. The League is the competition which shows the true worth of a coach and of a squad. And unfortunatly, at this regard, Ancelotti's C.V. doesn't plea in his favor. So, good manager, but not a great one by any means.

Ah. Lukaku did not earn the free pass to our starting XI. He earned the chance to prove himself in the Chelsea shirt. For the starting spot, he will earn his chance through hard work under our colours this year (and probably next year).

Nah. The only thing impressive about his tackling ability is his rashness. How many times did I read in match threads "he should have been sent off" or "he is too rash" ? A lot — too much. If he is played as a defensive midfielder, then he will have to make more defensive interventions (i.e. tackles) and thus this bad side of his game will be further more stressed. Moreover, to my mind he does not possess enough discipline to play as a defensive midfielder (neither in a midfield-two, nor in a midfield-three). Ramires is great when he has to chase down opponents all over the pitch like a pitbull. But in all honestly, if we ask him to stay in front of the defense and cover his team mates, I can clearly see him being all over the pitch. And for my taste, he is way too much attracted to do his long runs toward the foe's box to be a DM ; in a midfield-two, his partner will be more focussed on knowing where's Ramires than on the game.

Yeah, Lukaku has done a good job while out on loan, and thus deserves a chance at Chelsea. But giving him a chance doesn't equate to not look for strengthen our striking force just so we are forced to play him. We gotta put things into their context. Lukaku didn't kill the Lernaean Hydra. Certainly his goal tally his impressive, yet that was for a club that achieved nothing that season. 11 players have started more games than him, while 43% of his games are off the bench. At these lights, having a good season at West Brom and having a good season at Chelsea are two diffrent things ; not the same pressure, not the same challenge, not the same level. In his first season here, he was not trusted. The second, he's been sent out on loan. Giving him the opportunity to take a role in our squad and to prove his value under our colours is the chance he deserves. After, if he wants to be our starting striker, then he'll have to prove that in the upcoming years. A young player of 20 years-old cannot be given a straight pass to the starting XI just because he scored 17 goals at West Brom. Out of 60 competitive games, Cavani will never start all of them — only Messi does. Between the Premier League, the Champions League (especially the groupe stage), the FA Cup and the League Cup, Lukaku could easily have his fair share of games where he'd start. If Cavani comes, I can fashion Ba leaving, and the ladyboy benched if we cannot sell him (unless he improves). Having a great striker and a promising young one is an ideal situation for us, in my opinion ; for Lukaku, too. Eventually, all the pressure would be upon Cavani's shoulders and thus Lukaku could focus upon his football. Lukaku is a clever guy and he knows what he has to do in order to succeed at Chelsea. If he proves his worth, then he'll play and eventually be our first choice striker. I don't think Mourinho will not give him his chance (if he stays) ; nor do I think that Mourinho will not play Lukaku because of Cavani price (such a thing seems to not matter to José's eyes). If he stays at Chelsea next season, he will have his chance — Cavani or not.

^ August or December, a night in Stoke City is always a rainy cold night. And, August or December, if you cannot make it under the rain in a cold night away at Stoke, then you shall not be deemed as an elite player.

I'd like to add that, in my opinion, keeping Terry and Lampard around doesn't necessarily do any good to that aspect (i.e. the charactere of our others players). Oscar, Mata etc... seem to be kind of shy players — or at least, not "natural born leader". Now, when you're such a player and enter a squad where there's players regarded as legends, true leaders etc... just as Terry and Lampard, what do you do ? You sit back and relax, and enjoy life without worrying about responsabilities. That's kinda like when you do a group work at school. When you're with school mates who are the best of your class, hard workers and al, you'll do nothing apart scrutinize the blue sky. Though, when you're in group with dumb people and wankers, since nothing's gonna happen and that you don't want to get a bad grade, you take your responsabilities and become the leader of the group. So yeah, I don't believe that hanging upon this past relic (i.e. the presumed leadership provided by our old players) is a good thing. Maybe in the short-term it can be good, but in the long, definitely not. You can swim all your life with life-belt, you'll remain safe this way, though won't improve as a self. But in the end, once you drop them because you just cannot swim with a life-belt in before the eyes of your children, you'll sink like a rock.

Instead of searching who's gonna be our captain, we should first focus on searching players having balls, leadership and with a real character (kinda like Drogba, Ballack, etc...). That's what we have been missing this year. Armband or not, a leader will a leader will remain a leader.

Ouaip, I know there's a lot of "if" and "maybe" into my comment. Though, that's not because I am building castles into the air ; but that's because I am not adopting a "I am right and you are wrong" stance. Actually, my understanding about de Bruyne is not good enough, just as my knowledge of your National team. Therefore, I cannot really profess whether he'll do this or that (and as a matter of fact, whether he'll go to Brazil and under which terms — as you mention in your first paragraph). But in my honest opinion, there's been a "mouvement populaire" (Don't know how to say it in english... I believe you used, in the past, the expression "group thinking", to describe that) going in this forum. And once again to my honest opinion, this "mouvement populaire" wants the club to play de Bruyne, because these people rate him as a brillant player (for some reasons that I don't understand — but that's another debate) and mainly because, into my eyes, they love him. To each his opinion — you can rate him as the next Jésus, it doesn't bother me. I have my own preferences, you have you own preferences, they have their own preferences. But what bothers me, it's the modus operandi which consist to spark mass dramas other this issue, and to consistently bash the board. I am not saying that the board are faultless and shouldn't be criticized, that's not that. It's just that from my neutral point of view, there's way too much drama about it ; it sounds as if we were changing our name to "we're a bunch of pussy FC". I am just trying to think outside the box without any pretentiousness to say that my opinion is the only one valid. I'm just trying to give arguments to make understand that this deal is not as easy as "de Bruyne is good enough => the Club has to play him". There is many, many, many things to take into consideration to assess whether the Club's decision is right or wrong. And I am deeply convinced that the board has taken (or will take) the decision with the help of datas whom we are probably not even aware of their existence. Blowing things out of proportion like this won't get us anywhere ; actually, the bigger this bubble is, the bigger the blast will hit us hard. Regarding your third paragraph. I am actually agree with you that he won't stay here after next summer if he is loaned again. But there's other points that raise my disagreement. For instance, when you say "That way he is regarded not as a goal 'an sich', but as a means to get to another goal (Schurrle)". From what we know (ro at least from what I know...), saying that de Bruyne is a way to get Schürll is as stupid to say that Schürll is a way to get de Bruyne. I refuse to adhere to the concept according which a club of our standards would do anything to solely get a two millions pounds discount on a £22m player. I mean, we spend millions and millions... And if we were desperate to raise fund, then we would probably sell de Bruyne right now (as the money won on him would nearly be enough to buy Schürll). Though, I am agree with you, this deal give us the impression that de Bruyne is a tool. Moreover, the Club doesn't give me the impression to be that inclined to loan him to Leverkusen... As for de Bruyne, he is entitled to be frustrated if he were to go on loan yet again. Who wouldn't ? But personally, if he cannot handle one more year one loan and wants to leave because of it... Then, I say screw him and let's 'waste' (not really the good word) our time on players like Lukaku, Courtois and Kalas who, despite having to endure more frustrating journeys than de Bruyne, are seemingly taking these possible new loans as opportunities to raise their game and be even more competent to integrate our team. I rest my case here since I am probably losing the plot and not making any sense, lol.

The argument "Messi is good because of Xavi and Iniesta" is a relic from the area pre-2010. Actually, from the past two seasons, it's the contrary as you stated. Indeed, this Barcelona team has major flaws (within their players and as a consquence within their tactics). For this two past seasons Messi had been carrying Barça all by himself. Without his impressive tally of 73 goals last season, Barcelona would have never reached the 91 points and we probably wouldn't had the chance to beat them in the semi-final of the Champions League. This year, he has gifted them La Liga and they would not have beat Milan without him (nor Paname). Barcelona without Messi is still a top team, but an average top team, nothing special (a team which is easily beatable). With Messi, Barça is arguably the best team in the world. Just as you said, that's the kind of differece that Messi brings to his team (takes them to a whole 'nother level).

First of all, I'd like to say that I believe it's a misconception to say that de Bruyne is used as a tool to lure Schürll. I actually think that this is two different cases who are treated together because of some reasons. To my understanding, Chelsea is considering to loan de Bruyne ; Chelsea is interested to buy Schürll ; Leverkusen is looking for a replacement for the player they will lose ; Leverkusen is keen to take de Bryune on loan. It's of mutual interest. Leverkusen finds a player to replace Schürll and Chelsea finds a club which meets his criterias (CL football) to loan de Bruyne. It's not like Chelsea was desperate to loan the belgian because of an overwhelming will to get the german. Actually, I think that's the german club that threw de Bruyne into the discussion, not Chelsea — their president seems to really want him. And regarding another issue, that you did not mention about this deal, but which has caused a lot of ink spill here — the 'softened' price we get because we loan them de Bruyne. A lot of people seems to be shocked that the discount is of two millions pounds. What are we expecting ? It's only a one season long loan. Last year, Atletico gave us £1m to loan Courtois, and apparently are offering us £2m this year for the same reason. So it seems to be the range of prices to loan a player — why should it be different for de Bruyne ? In the end, we should considere this as two deals. Schürll at 22m from Leverkusen to Chelsea + de Bruyne at 2m from Chelsea to Leverkusen = Schürll from Leverkusen to Chelsea at a price of 22 millions plus de Bruyne on a one-year loan. It's not like Chelsea were throwing de Bruyne into the deal solely because we're desperate to have Schürll (and this with a softened deal). Regarding my comment "he will count clouds while being on the bench". I never said that it will happen, nor did I say that it was my own belief. Some members here seem to be dead certain that he will have an important role and impact at Chelsea this year. Into my eyes, that is the best outcome if everything goes "to plan". The worst outcome possible is that he will only get five or ten games. The two can happen, and these outcomes' occurrence is independent of de Bruyne quality. So, the aforementioned comment of mine was only made in order counter-balance what a lot of people seems to think will occur. I merely believe that for every chance of de Bruyne displacing Oscar to be a starting XI player, there's a chance of him rotting on the bench. We are saying that the board is doing a bad deal because to us, de Bruyne is bound to be deeply involved in the first team. But, what will we be saying next summer if de Bruyne has been overlooked throughout the season ? My comment was written in order to raise that kind of reasoning. Once again, I am not saying it will happen, but a quick look at our past record in regards of the youth integration is enough to take this unwanted outcome as more than a fantasy. The Club is depicted as if he was not rating the belgian. But maybe, only maybe, could not it be quite the contrary ? Maybe the don't want to take the risk to obstruct his development by being not able to give him enough minutes of football, because they rate him highly ? Maybe they have great plans regarding him (either him being an important feature in our starting XI or by getting an huge profit on him) ? Now, what are the odds of that happening if he were to play for us next season ? what are the odds of that happening if he were to play for Leverkusen ? The safest bet is Leverkusen, isn't it — at least, in my opinion (and in the board's opinion it seems). It can be made out as if the Club doesn't have faith in the player, yes. But to me, the club is only trying to act in a prudent and wise way. De Bruyne is better than Schürll. ... and ? Maybe the belgian is better than the german — I don't know. But maybe the board is looking to add to the squad some qualities/abilities that Schürll can offer and that de Bruyne cannot ? The club might be regarding de Bruyne as the better player while Schürll as the better option. I think that it is a lot more complicated than we made it out to be. One scenario will offer us some things in the upcoming season and in the following years while the other scenario will offer us different things in the up-coming season and in the following ones. The club is merely choosing one and not the other because it's the better option, in the board's opinion, for the present and future — I believe we discuss this matter from a short sighted view. Finally, in this discussion, we seem to neglect de Bruyne's will. He has been a regular feature in the Belgian National team recently, and as things stand he looks more than likely to go to Brazil next summer. But for this to happens, he needs regular football. So maybe he himself wants to be loaned out if the Club cannot guarantee him regular playing time ? I believe the decision will be tri-parties ; the board, the manager and the player will all have their say on the question. The decision will be of mutual consent, in my honest opinion.

To meet the homegrown's criteria, you need to have been registered for at least 36 months in an english or welsh club, and thus between the ages of 16 and 21. Your nationality is irrelevant.

I stayed away from this topic as long as I could — and hopped to do so for the upcoming months — but I am too bothered by what's going on in this topic. And, Choulo, if I'm quoting you on this, it's not to single you out, but because the sentence of yours that I bolded is the illustration of what I am annoyed about. There's two ways to analyse the situation regarding some of our youngsters, namely KdB and Lukaku (these being the more talked about). There's two ways to interprete the fact that, a priori, the club wants to loan them out, again, for the next season. One way being to see that as a lack of concern from the board about the players themselves, about their future. The other being to see this as the club's will to offer them the best for their development and thus their future. It appears that the trend on this forum is that to see the situation from the first point of view that I mentioned. Indeed, a lot of people seems to think that the club overlooks these young players, that the club disregards them, because they do not reward them for their good season. These people see this as a mean behavior toward them ; these people blast the board. However, despite being very criticizing toward the board by the past, I stand by their side regarding these cases ; I choose to see from the bright side. Firstly, I believe that a lot of people has forgotten all the good the Club did to them by loaning them last season. Instead of letting them rotting on the bench or in the stands, the board found a way to offer them the possibility to play week in, week out. Had Lukaku stayed here, he would have had all the time he wished to learn to speak portuguese with Ferreira and go to the barbershop with Malouda, simply because he would not have been good enough, and because he would not have had playing time because of the ladyboy. Had de Bryune stayed here, he might have ended up to play "who's gonna play the less" with Marin. But no, being loaned out allow them to develop properly and to get exposure as well. In this regard, they flourished (or started) and made a name for themselves. Thanks to that, the both of them are playing in their National team. Lukaku has well enough developed to be considered by a lot competent enough to be our striker next season ; while de Bryune has attracted the interest of Dortmund, the emerging top club, who's allegedly ready to splash 17 millions d'euro to aquire his service. So, to start of, the way the club has handled these two players isn't that bad, is it ? And now, what if they are loaned out again ? Is this a bad message send by the board ? Mind yourselves, would it be a good message send by the board if we were to keep them and let them counting the clouds on the bench ? I don't think the club is acting badly. Into my eyes, the Club just want to cuddle them ; he wants to brings out the best out of them, could it be on a sportive or commercial level. If de Bryune is once again loaned out the up-coming season, he will be able to play an important role in a Champions League team which will be competing for the top four in its league. Lukaku will play on a regular basis for a team playing in the Europa League aiming for a good spot in the Premier League. As a matter of fact, they will develop even further and they will gain experience. Thanks to it, they will be legit candidates for their National team ; they will play the World Cup in Brazil next summer. They will also be serious candidates to have an important role in our team in two seasons. Up to now, is this a bad thing ? And, even if next summer they are sold for a X or Y reason, retrospectively, would the year on loan be a bad thing ? Not really, they will have a good rep and be able to join top a team, thus playing top football and having big fat wages. The bottom line is that while some people believe sending 'em on loan would send 'em a bad message, I believe it send 'em a good message. While some see that the board disregards their achievement ; I see the board "rewarding" them by sending them in better teams. While some choose to believe the club let them on the side of the road ; I see the board respecting them, because they give them the opportunity to have a bright future even if it's not at Chelsea — I bet that a lot of our young players of the past would have loved such a treatment. Finally, don't we forget the fact the your loaned players seems to be in harmony with the Club's philosophy ? I mean... I thought that Lukaku himselfs came out and said that he felt like he needed another loan before coming in our team — because it was better for him, or something ? If my memory serves my right, Kalas also said that he needed to make another step before joining our ranks. I believe that Courtois said that he was aware that he would not take over Cech before two years or something along those lines. To me, these players that what the club is doing to 'em is a good thing. The board doesn't exactly let them sleep outside at night on the pavement ; he follows them throughout their development and research what's the best for both parties. Handling yougsters is a bit like growing your own sess crops. You have to be patient. It takes them time to flourish and to be able to offer you what you are looking for. And, strangely enough, to your own eyes it seems that because of a godly injustice your friends' crops grow faster than yours, and thus you're too tempted to "roll that shit, light that shit, smoke it" sooner than you're supposed to be. But you have to wait, even if it means that you have to visit umpteen times your dealer in the meantime — it does not mean you don't want your sess crops anymore, nor that you want to let 'em die, it means that you want them to reach their pinnacle and to blossom as vegetal beings. If you decide to consume your own production too early, you will end up disappointed because it would be neither smokable, nor salable. Et voilà. P.S. Pardon me if my comment does not have any coherence or sense, I've been doing my homework until this late hour, which has throughoutly messed me up.