Peace.

The way the two bolded parts are articulated is pretty fun, since it actually puts them into opposition. When those teams sit back against us and let the center backs hold the ball ; what does it imply ? If the opposite team's defensive block is deep, then it means, when we are in the ball possession, that we have little space to maneuver and little space to pass the ball in — in other words, in these situations, long passes inexorably mean hoofing the ball into the air. Who exactly is going to win aerial duels up front, and get the ball on the ground ? Is this going to be 1,70m Hazard ? Is this going to be the rest of the dwarf band, i.e. Oscar-Willian-Mata ? Is that going to be our set of inept-in-the-air strikers ? Resorting to long aerial passes in those situations is just a waste of time — or simply a waste of ball possession. It is precisely a big problems of ours ; too many times in the past seasons, we have been resorting to aimlessly kick the ball in the air towards the attacking players because we had no clue how into build the game in midfield. Such long passes are not the solution because our attacking players cannot make anything out of them ; stressing the importance of Luiz because of his long balls is by consequence a misapprehension since not only such long passes are not useful, but also because the brazilian is actually wasteful at it as TorontoChelsea has rightfully pointed out numerous of times.

Of course the lack of technical ability we suffer from is an underlying issue — or the excess of it, funnily enough. And that issue, in my book is listed as one of our major issues, because the shape it takes in our squad / on the pitch is really problematic : the squad is suffering from a dichotomy. It is true — as you say we have changed our players and now we have what we can label as "technical players". Though, at the end of the day, those technical players are only paper over the cracks. Indeed — these players are basically Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Willan, de Bruyn and Luiz. It's six players and it happens that five of them are fighting for three spots ; so technically we are fielding a maximum of four technical players. And the most important thing there is that, in a nutshell, they are covering only a specific area of the pitch (~ advanced midfield) !! If Barcelona could develop their style of play, that is not merely because they had Messi, Xavi and Iniesta — that is because all of their players matched their philosphy, i.e. knowing what to do with a ball at their feet. In defense they had/have Piqué, Puyol, Alvès and Alba which are better technically than our central midfielders ! They also had/have Mascherano and Éric Abidal, who despite not being that good with a ball at feet before joining Catalonia, improved their passing abilities in order to be good enough to be in symbiosis with the rest of the team. Jésus, even their defensive midfielder has the best short-pass game and one-touch passing game in the whole world. Such a symbiosis cannot be found within our squad. There is a gap too important between the so-called technical players and the majority of the squad to implement a technical style of play. You can buy as many advanced midfielders as you want, it still will not work because they only can fill three spots out of 11 ; and if the other players are not up to it, it will be a failure and your playing style will not be cohesive. ******** That is also because of that dichotomy that we struggle to build our play and which we are clueless against the inferior teams that happily play for the draw and park the bus (in other words, the majority of the teams we encounter throughout the season). Look at our defense — lately, if I am not wrong, our defense has been Ivanovic, Cahill, Terry and Azpilicueta ... Ivanovic cannot make a pass to save his life ; he neither can take the ball out of the defense with the ball at his feet since he has no pace/drive nor dribbling ability. Cahill is no better than Ivanovic when it comes to passing. While Terry has a great accuracy in his passing game, he is now old and lacks mobility and quickness in everything he does ; therefore his passing game is more or less blunt. And Azpilicueta is a decent passer, though he is played on his wrong feet. And then you have Cole who is nowadays in the same situation than Ivanovic — plus he would rather get shot than to use his right foot —, and Luiz who, despite all his good technical abilities, loses the ball too much because he tries to do X+1 dribbles and tends to totaly fuck up his long passes. As a matter of fact, getting the ball out of the defense is a laborious and slow-made task. The building of the game is slowed down from the start. That's the reason why so many small teams are happy to seat deep and let our defenders having the ball : they will pass the ball between them all day long. The central midfield is not there to improve things : Lampard, Mikel, Essien, and Ramires. That is a toothless and slow passing game between them. And they cannot make up for it since they do not have pace/drive or trickery. Only Ramires stand out — he is able to speed the game and bring the ball forward thanks to his pace and good dribbles. He also has a good passing game — though his decision-making does often fail him in this aspect of the game. In his case, it's ok — he does what is expected from him. So, once the ball finally reaches the attacking midfielders, the opposition's defense is well organised and compacted ; giving to our attacking players no space to pass or go into. ****** To sum-up my comment, our defensive-minded players are set to play like Stoke City while our attacking players are set to play like Barça. Our defensive players or forced to play a game that does not fit their abilities ; they cannot throw randomly the ball forward because there is no Drogba to get it. It is like trying to put a square inside a round hole... We will have to take a clear decision in the upcoming mercatos — either to buy big, strong and powerful attackers or buy defensive players who can pass the ball. Of course it is okay to not have great passers at each and every spot — though, we cannot have a squad split in two dinstinctively different parts.

Ahah, that's so true ! Hum, I don't know. Because, take a look at the chances I have mentioned, plus some others like those three (?) against Sunderland last year. It's more or less clear cut chances, though nothing dangerous came from it. And now take a look at some of the goals he has scored : the two against la Juve ; the goal against Shakhtar (when he lobed the goalkeeper from midfield) ; the third one he scored against Portugal in the U21 final... I don't know, to my eyes he seems to have a problems when it's "too" easy and seems more comfortable when it's a "difficult" chance, or when he has little time to think (for instance, against Loserpool and Tottenham last year, Hull this season). Is it due to a lack of confidence ? Or at the contrary he is over-confident and take nonchalantly the shot ? Or he tends to over-think the move and it fucks up ? I am not sure which one it is (I chose the lack of confidence because he doesn't strike as the most confident player out there )but which is sure is that he lacks of composure and he needs to work that out — even though, nothing to worry about at this stage, it's a problem that more or less al the players of his age have.

I believe it might be due to a lack of confidence. He seems to have a tendency to miss "easy" opportunities. Springs to my mind the opportunity he bottled against Mexico in the Olympics (the header at the end of the game) ; one against Spain in the Confederation Cup and one against Hull which were similar. He seems to shot with not enough conviction, belief, confidence — as if he was afraid to miss (which is the case in my opinion). Just take a look at the penalty he took yesterday, and especially his facial expression when he come back toward his team mates (after taking the penalty) ; for a few second I thought he was going to cry... He seemed nervous and his facial was crying out loud "thanks God it's over, I didn't fucked that up". I believe a psychological work will need to be done on him so he can have the same efficiency in attack as he does in defense (which he definitely can).

Jesus. Some people need to think outside the box. It was the right decision to play the ladyboy instead of him. To play the belgian over the spaniard would have made little difference. Our whole passing game was off and Manchester's defense was compact and organised. He would have been isolated and would have had struggled to make anything against Jones-Ferdinand-Vidic-Evra. Also he is not the kind of player who will grab the ball in his own half of pitch and then proceed to dribble the whole defense to finally score with a lob below the keeper. Finally it's not thirty odd minutes that will change the outcome of his development — especially when you take into account that it would have been thirty lacklustre and uninteresting minutes. Had he played, he was always going to get a bad game (only the defenders had a good game, bar Rooney.. the game's physiognomy was not set for the "attacking" players to perform). It might not have hurt him thanks to his solid confidence, but it certainly would have not benefited him. By not playing him, José preserved him from the possible nasty repercussions — an altered confidence, knee-jerk reactions from the press and the fans (just look at the state in whom the forum is), etc... At the contrary, the ladyboy is a lost cause — it's not a few more criticisms and a bad performance that will hurt him. That being said, it is too early to judge whether José disregards him or protects him. My mind tells me that José just protects him. We just need to be patient to draw conclusions, three games in a season are irrelevant.

I read here and there than Oscar might be picked-up ahead of Mata solely because of his defensive work-rate... This is such a narrow way to see things. And to my eyes it's pejorative towards Oscar's qualities and abilities. To my beliefs, there's much more to it. The primary reason is, as I explained on the previous page, that Oscar plays like a midfielder, or at least have more midfielder's abilities than the spaniard — and it might be what Mourinho is looking for. I can't stress enough how the midfield battle is important in today's game. And today, we only play with two "deep" midfielders — and whatever the paring is (Ramires/Lampard, Ramires/Mikel, etc...), it is far to be functional, let alone world class. As a matter of fact, we need another player who will play nearer the pivot in order to help them, both in offensive and defensive tasks. That's where Oscar intervenes. I'll start off with his defensive contribution, since it seems to be what strikes the more in people's eyes... Oscar not only drops deep to help in defense, but he also has a splendid work-rate and a has a great defensive capacity for an attacking-minded midfielder. Thus, he is a great asset for the midfield so we cannot sink. But there's also an offensive side to the debate. Indeed, the first thing I'd like to mention, it's that Oscar can keep hold on the ball under pressure — a thing that Mata can hardly do, which is highlighted against every game against Manchester City. Mata is not good at it, because he is very weak physically, and he has no dribbling side to his game ; with no dribbles and no physical power, it is very hard to keep hold of the ball. Which does result by an inevitable loss of possession (either directly or indirectly). Then, just as in defensive phases, Oscar drops deeper than Mata (how many times can we see the Brazilian near our back-line ?) and help to get the ball forward. The bottom line is that Oscar is a better asset than Mata for our midfield, both off the ball and on the ball. And it will the case as long as our pivot won't be good enough on its own. Into my eyes, that's the reasons why José could be favouring Oscar over Mata (could, because as Mata is unfit we still don't know the role he'll have into the team).

They're everywhere

There is little evidence to assume such a thing. In the two seasons that Mata has been here, the team was built around him for only one season, and that was last year. It happens that during this season, we had two short-term coaches ; di Matteo was most probably a stop-gap to wait for Pep Guardiola and the fat waiter was appointed to be the stop-gap till the end of the season. Neither one nor the other has been involved in the transfer policy (which kind of player to bring). All they had to do was to win with what they had at their disposal. So, they had to work with what we call in sociology "bounded rationality". They were there for a short time, thus they were searching for what will work today, not tomorrow. Furthermore, as they were here for a short time, they didn't have the luxury to spend too much time to search what would work. In other words, they weren't necessarily searching fot the best solution for the team, but they were searching for the first option that will "do it". And it happens that the first option that "will do it" was to build the team around Mata because it was the option that would get us the most goals (and all what it induces) in the short-term. Now we have a manager which is seemingly a part of the part. He is involved in the transfer policy (and has probably the dominant role), he has been given the possibility to build his team. We're starting a new project ; we will shape our team to be competitive in the foreseeable future, but we also have at the back of our mind the bigger picture. That big picture most probably being to build a dominant team in Europe for the years to come. Which is likely to redefine Mata's role within the team. Maybe Mourinho will also choose to build his team around Mata, maybe he won't. But Jesus, we have only played two competitive games and Mata has only took part in one of them. It's simply too early to say which players will be given which role, etc... Things will get more and more obvious as the season goes. To say that we will build our team around a player that has only played sixty minutes (or so) is to get carried away. And maybe that's the reason for which the purchase of William has caused so much commotion. We comment things through our vision of today's team, but actually today's team may be quite different from tomorrow's team since we're still a long way to figure out the Board's plans.

Rooney is a grumpy person who's acting sulky because things doen't go the way he'd like. And if I'm not mistaken, he is a player who has already held his club to ransom twice. Moreover, we tend to see this issue through the sportive aspect — I believe his unhappiness has deeper roots than just him not having enough playing time. As I aforementioned, Rooney has twice held Manchester to ransom. Both times Ferguson had to bow before him because he was their most important player and he couldn't afford to let him go. I firmly believe when Ferguson got the dutchman, it was pay-back time. Ferguson promptly gave the main Role to van Persie ; then Ferguson symbolically benched Rooney for their most important match of the season ; finally he gave the last blow by publicly stating that Rooney as handed a trasfer request, which eventually gave birth to that saga. On the second hand, van Persie, as well as becoming their main asset on the field, became their star. He replaced Rooney both at a sportive level and at a symbolic level. Rooney has been pushed on the side ; and, as the images of him being alone while his team mates were celebrating the goal(s) they scored against Swansea may suggest, he could be ostracised. It's a tricky and complex affair. We don't have such unrests happening in the backstage.

"I am not drawing comparisons between the two players and their abilities/capacities [...]" I solely point out some similarities in regard of one aspect of the deal(s). The comparisons end there. The sole parallel between both players is their role in both stories — not regarding their abilities or capacities.

As far as I can remember, last summer a lot of people (including me) were questioning Ferguson's will to buy van Persie, and were sceptical about this deal, because their striking force was already very good, while their midfield was grandly more in need for reinforcement than what their attack was. Ten months later, van Persie was the best goalscorer in the League, was the best player for Manchester, and he eventually won them the title. I am not drawing comparisons between the two players and their abilities/capacities — it's merely to put things into perspective.

"I definitely do but I also know that if I'd been Everton manager and Sir Alex had come asking for Leighton Baines and Marouane Fellaini, I'd have found it very difficult to keep them because I always felt the right thing to do was what was right for the players," Moyes. Well, mister Moyes, in that sentence you say everything that needs to be said. If it was Ferguson ; one of a best managers in Football History — You're just a nobody.

Well, I perfectly understand why so many people are being confused and angry regarding the fact we're about to splash £30m to strengthen our best area while we could (and should) strengthen other areas (center midfield) in priority. But, have you thought about the possibility that there is no suitable defensive/central midfielder available at the moment, into the board's opinion ? It's an eventuality which is more than likely. Or that we would have to pay over the odds to get one... the Board was unilaterally congratulated for not paying over the odds to get Cavani, wasn't it ? Or maybe we don't want to buy a short-term solution for that (CM/DM) position and prefer to wait next year ? In that regard, I don't see any problem in reinforcing our best department. It would be utterly ridiculous to not strengthen at all our team just because we cannot strengthen our weakest area. We don't have any information regarding who's available on the transfer market. We don't know which players have been considered as a possible purchase ; we don't know which players we have tried to sign. For Christ's sake, be happy that we can actually reinforce our squad, even if it is not for our most in-the-need area... Remind me, how many players have Manchester and Arsenal bought to reinforce their squad, huh ? So be happy with what's happening, yes there's better, but there's a lot worse.

For real ? He dares to go this far... What a rude-boy, take that Willian !

I want Oscar to be the player to be given the keys of our midfield (could it be as a n°10 or a central midfielder), and the game against Hull showed why. To my eyes, out of Mata, Hazard and him, he is the only one to act/play like a midfielder. Against all the quality clubs, winning the midfield battle will be important. That's why he should be the player to sit on top of two other central midfielders more defensive minded (Ramires-van Gikel for example). First off, he drops deep — on offensive phases he will drop deep in order to collect the ball and to conduct the play (to build the play, in other words) ; on defensive phases he will also track-back to help the other midfielders with the defensive work. If last year our pivot was defensively exposed and was a weak point in the building of the game, that's because the player in front of the pivot — Mata for most of the time, and a few time Hazard — didn't do that job. Secondly, Oscar is head and shoulder better than any of our other advanced midfielders when it comes to defensive works. He is very good at harassing and pressuring opponents, and for an attacking-minded player, he has great technique for intercept the ball and do tackles. His defensive abilities plus the fact he drops deep / track back will considerably strengthen defensively-wise our midfield — and eventually to our whole defensive unity —, something he cannot offer when playing on the wing. Finally, into my eyes, he is the more suited to be the playmaker, because he has the better understanding of the game. His movements and positional sense show this ; he knows when to leave spaces for other players (like he did for Brazil and Neymar), he knows when he gots to be involved in the play or when he has to fade away to not hinder others, etc... And he has also a better understanding of the tempo (i.e. he knows when to free the ball quickly, or at the contrary when he has to keep hold upon the ball). And, once again, the fact he drops deep is a strength, because as we dont have any deep-lying playmaker (or anyone able to decently build the game), it will help to ease the transition between the defenders and the attackers. Therefore playing the Brazilian there will grandly strenghten defensively our midfield — the back-line will have more cover and thus will be better, which as I said will strenghten the whole defensive unity of the team. Moreover, when on the ball, our midfield will be quicker execution-wise, sharper and more incisive in the tempo, more clever in the distribution of the ball. We have al lot to gain by doing this, at it seems that Mourinho knows this as well, which is a good thing !

I didn't see the match, though, the feedbacks about him that I could read upon this forum don't surprise me in the slightest — it was to be expected. Actually, it confirms the opinion I had on him and his role within the team that I had after the Hull game and that I even had last season. He must be given a limited role within the team and his playing time must be restricted to a certain type of opponents — especially if we continue to play in a 4-2-3-1 formation. The biggest reproach I have toward him is the fact that he is still playing just as if he was still 25 years-old and playing at the top of a three-men midfield. He goes way too high on the pitch for a player who's supposed to play in the pivot. And this fact alone induces a lots of disruptions for the team. First of all, as nowadays he lacks of mobility, when we lose the ball possession, it takes him time to leave his high-up position and to go back into his central midfield position. It weakens our defensive unity, especially the few seconds after the loss of the ball (in other words, when the opponents start a counter attack), as it leaves spaces, and it allows our opponents to out-number us for a few moments. Secondly, as Choulo has hinted it, he disrupts the operating of our advanced midfielders by getting in their playing area, he provokes a congestion in this part of the pitch. When you have Oscar, Mata and Hazard on the pitch, this area will always tend to be naturally congested... This is a probleme. And furthermore, aside of goals-threat, he doesn't offer anything in this area of the field. He cannot penetrate the opponent's defensive line, because he is slow and not agile, and isn't a good dribbler. Plus, he isn't an asset in the game building in the last third of the pitch, because his passing game is slow and isn't that good anymore. Then, once again as Choulo has hinted, he makes difficult the work that his partner has to accomplish, because in the one hand his partner is forced to stay deep to cover Lampard ; which limits what this partner can bring to the table, especialy when it's Ramires, which is a shame because he is so good in that box-to-box role. And on the second hand, his partner has to accomplish an extra defensive work. However, that's not all. It's not a secret to anyone — we're extremely slow in the building of our attacks. The base of our attack, i.e. the pivot, has a major responsability in it. And unfortunatly, Lampard doesn't help to pump-up the speed of the build of the game. As I aforementioned, his passing game is too slow and isn't good enough anymore. When you add the fact that we don't have any playmaker next to him, then it's a big problem for our game-building. Moreover, he isn't good at shielding the ball and keeping the hold on the possession of the ball. He lacks mobility, he lacks dribbling technique, he takes time to deliver the ball — as a matter of fact, whenever the opposition put pressure upon our midfield, he tends to lose the ball easily. And, defensively, his contribution is limited. The bottom line is that in my opinion, when you analyze the pros and the cons of his impact on our play, the cons considerably outweigh the pros. Therefore, he must be used as squad player to give a rest to the players who are in the starting eleven, when we're facing the smallest of our opponents. He definitely shouldn't be a starter against the big teams (i.e. ManU, ManC, Tottenham, Arsenal, etc... and also the big european teams), nor against the smaller teams which won't park the bus, and which will either offer a real battle in the midfield or will counter-attack us to death. The Hulls of this world are about the level of oppsotions against whom Lampard should start (these teams that are more than happy to sit back for 90 minutes while hoping to get a lucky point). My words are no bashing. In life, all the good things eventually come to an end — it's hard, but we should not hang on the past.

It isn't as easy as you seem to think it is. The problem is not Dortmund... I actually reckon they would be willing to sell him even for way less than £50m (let's say around £30/35 millions) to a foreign club if that means he won't go to Munich next year. The problem is the player himself — he wants to go to Munich, plain and simple. His agent said that the player wanted to go to Munich and only Munich. If my memory serves me right, the player himself said that he wanted to play for Bayern. And finaly, Jürgen Klopp has publicly stated that the deal "Lewandowski to Munich" was set and done. It isn't fifty million pounds which will change that ; nor José. We just need to forget this transfert and put into our head once and for all that the polish striker wants to go to Bayern ; not to Chelsea, not to Manchester, not to Madrid, but to Munich. The only way Lewandowski doesn't end up playing for Bayern, it's if Pep doesn't want him — which wouldn't surprise me as he doesn't seem to be sold on this player. However, if that was the case, we will have to wait one year to know because all camps will wait next summer to take a decision. The bottom line is — at the moment, going for Lewandowski would be a bigger waste of time than going for Rooney.

Today Manchester United and van Persie has shown us — and this for the umpteen times — how much it's crucial to have a great striker in your ranks, when you're battling for the title. A striker who will deliver you the goods over and over again, when it does matter. ManU today was distinctly average ; until the 34th minutes, it looked it was going to be one of those boring scoreless games. The next thing you know, van Persie changed the physiognomy of the game by scoring a goal from an half-opportunity. An instant afterward, the mancunian players, with their confidence being inflated by this event, scored their second goal of the game to put the match to bed. Without showcasing a quality display ; without sweating ; without playing an impressive starting eleven... Manchester came out of this tricky fixture without any scratch. That's how they won the title last year. That's why the champion is them and not us or City. And that's why they'll remain a dangerous oponent for the ongoing battle for the title. Right now, we do not possess any game-changer of the van Persie caliber. Actually, as I see it, we only have one player who fits the description of "game-changer" ; it's Hazard, but unfortunatly for us, he is yet to be that player. I expect him to reach that level very soon, but not this year. Considering this fact plus the fact he plays on the wing, we will have to wait a bit longer before he can carry us like van Persie did for Arsenal two years ago, for Manchester last year and like he will do this year again. Our strikeforce just cannot give us that goals-assurance. Ba is a good footballer, but that's that. Lukaku cannot go from being an excellent super-sub at a mid-table club to being an imperious starting striker at a club of our pedigree. We just cannot ask him that. And the ladyboy is a poor excuse of a footballer. Finally, as much as people love to bring up the "we can score from all over the pitch", this concept reaches his limits when you don't have a striker on which you can count upon. To conclude, if the aim of our Board is truly to win the Premier League this season, then we will have to make this transfert happen, or at the very least find a suitable plan-B... Because, Mourinho or not, if we don't dramatically improve our strikeforce or our central midfield, we will find out — at our expense — that life isn't a quiet river.

Exactly, I've been preaching this for months. And you did forget to mention the most important thing — he won us the corner. The Corner.

Of course this 4-3-3 is a better fit for us. First of all, to echo what TorontoChelsea said two posts ago, your 4-2-3-1 is too weak defensively ; there's a lack of genuine defensive quality in the lot (especially within the front four). Hazard has improved his work-rate during the season though his defending is still not good ; de Bryune too isn't a very good defender ; Mata just cannot defend to save his life. And whoever the striker is, it won't improve the situation because, neither the ladyboy, Lukaku and Ba are good at defensive tasks. Moreover, when it's coupled with your unorthodox midfield-two, it's a recipe for disaster. The both of them are not genuine defensive midfielders ; there are more of the type "box-to-box" players. And because of this fact, one can imagine that this duo will lack of a defensive discipline and of a defensive rigor (especially for Ramires, in my opinion) which can lead to even more defensive shakiness. We cannot afford to play with four front-men who are average at best when it comes to defensive duties and a midfield-two without a natural defensive midfielder. That's way too much holes in the defensive unit of our team. Firstly, against the big clubs, this 4-2-3-1 is a no-go. And secondly ; I am not even convinced that we could afford to play such a team against the lesser teams in the League. For a team which aims the title, all games are important (at different degrees of course, but all have an importance). With such a team, we could be vulnerable to any decent team attacking-wise, and to my eyes we would be so especially vulnerable on the cunter-attacks. Of course, we could play that line-up for the casual games, though we shouldn't play too much around... Secondly, your 4-3-2-1 induces having a problem which has already hindered us the whole past season. Indeed, one of our major problems last season was the fact that our double-pivot was isolated ; and this could it be on defensive phases or attacking phases. Upon attacking phases, we lacked cohesion between the back-line and the frontline ; the transition between the two lines wasn't good. And, upon defensive phases, the pivot was permeable and vulnerable. The players playing in this pivot were at fault, but only partly, unfortunately (yeah, it would have been too easy). That's obvious that we didn't have good enough players to play in there, but the way how the team was set-out didn't help them in the slightest. Indeed, if they were isolated upon attacking phases, that's also because there was no player before them to drop deep, to collect balls and to help the transition from back to front. And, if upon defensive phases the pivot was left exposed and thus vulnerable, that's because there was nobody before them to provide 'em a protection (or at least give them a hand in defensive duties). It's neither Oscar nor Hazard that could have provided this help to the pivot, due to the fact they were on the wings and already busy with tasks upon these wings. The problem is the way the midfield-three was set. The player occupying the role of the n°10 was not truly playing like one. Indeed, Mata was playing more as a second-striker than an advanced midfielder (this also applies to the seldome times Hazard has played there). As a matter of fact, it resulted in a big hole in the center of the pitch..... Which is one of the major reason, in my opinion, that we were so easily losing the midfield-battle throughout the season. That hole in midfield meant no defensive cover for the two "defensive" midfielders ; and as well, no possibility to have a smooth transition between the defensive line and the attacking line. So playing this formation will perpetuate this issue. At the contrary, with Oscar in front of the two "defensive" midfielders, such as in your 4-3-3 line-up, we should be significantly better in the midfield (defensive and attacking-wise). Not only the brazilian will provide that extra defensive cover, but he will also help a lot more in the building of the game (read : bringing the ball to the front). That's why we should favourite such a formation... Actually, it doesn't really matter whether it's a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1 — the important thing is that there's a third player in front of the two center-midfielders to help them. P.S. Agree with your view regarding Lukaku.

No, Hazard is not as good as Iniesta regarding dribbles. The belgian is a very good dribbler, he's most certainly among the best in this aspect of the game, though he isn't on Iniesta level ; not yet. Of course, the difference between them isn't wide, even though, from what I have seen, there is a slightly margin between them two — slight but significant margin. In my opinion, Iniesta has a better dribbling technique, and, most importantly, his dribbles are more effective than Hazard's. That being said, there's nothing shameful in the fact of being less good than Iniesta when it comes to dribbles. He is one of the best player of the world, one of the few genuine World-Class players, etc... And beside Messi, I fail to see anyone who's superior to him in that department (or at least significantly better than him). If he keeps developing, then he has the tools to reach the same level of dribbling that Iniesta has. For now, while being among the best dribblers at the moment, he has still a little step to overcome before being of that caliber. As for your definition of their style of dribbling, you're right. Iniesta is more about finess and technique (he's a Magician) while Hazard use more his athletism (agility and dynamism/pace).

I have never said something of that sort. Don't have a narrowed vision of my words. Of course, not all of his last-ditch challenges are due to him. In some cases, it's because his team mates put him into these situations ; in some other cases, he gets into these situations all by himself. That's nothing exceptional to state, it does apply for every defenders, at different degrees. It just happens that Gary Cahill finds hismelf in this kind of situations more than your average Joe ; and it's not because our team is unbalanced as you suggested, or at least, it is far from being the primary reason. "You can't honeslty sit there and tell me that the team wasn't unbalanced" Did I even made an allusion regarding the fact that our team may have not been unbalanced ? No. I have merely stated that the correlation between the fact we were an unbalanced team and the fact that Gary Cahill was making so many last-ditch challenges (isn't there a fucking synonym ?!) was not a strong correlation. I am aware of the outcomes of an unbalanced team and all those things ; I have acknowledged that had we had a better defensive unit, then he would have to make less of these challenges. But our weak defensive unit does not justify Cahill's habit to resort to the so called last-ditch challenges in such an inflated way. The primary explanation for this resort to these challenges is — as I said and I'll repeat myself — that Cahill is a passive defender who backs off his direct opponents. Instead of being proactive and opposing to the opponent's action, he waits until the opponent is about to finish his move in order to block his pass/shot. Making last-ditch challenges is probably his best ability — he plays to his strength, just as some other defenders would rely upon their athleticism. That's the way he plays, that's that... it's not my fault. And if it's not Cahill's own fault, then whose fault is it ? And I don't know whether the last paragraph is aimed at me, but if it is, then you got it wrong. I believe that Cahill is a more than decent defender and that we should keep him, he is a valuable back-up option for our center-backs (i.e. third or fourth position)(and probably better than a lot of 3rd/4th choice CB at other top clubs).

The fact that Cahill makes so many last-ditch challenges has nothing to do with the fact that we're an unbalanced team. Actually, it has some connection because if we were better in defense then he would obviously have to make less of these challenges... Though that correlation isn't strong. ... That's because it is the way whom Cahill plays — plain and simple. He isn't an aggressive defender, he's rather (quite) passive. He doesn't jet out in order to dispossess the oppoenent or to make an interception. He neither does stay on his ground to block the opponent's path. He relies heavily upon his sharp ability to make last-ditch challenges. He constantly give up ground to the opposition's players, and drops deeper and deeper until the opponent decides to finish his action (shot/pass/cross/...). That's the reason for which he has to resort to this kind of challenges so many times. The way he plays gives time and space to opponents to be dangerous. That's why he had a fairly good spell during his first six months stint here ; di Matteo set up the team with a deep defensive bloc/unit (especially against Barcelona and Munich), and as a matter of fact, it gave way less space and time to the opponents to work in — the flaws inherent to his game were partly nullified. But this past season, he has been found out ; the defensive bloc wasn't as deep as it was, and his style of play turned out to be quite risky — the flaws inherent to his game were stressed out.

Bale, a World-Class player ? What did he actually achieved ? What trophies did he won ? The Champions League ? The Premier League ? The sole trophy he has ever won is the mighty League Cup, and it's generous to say that he won it because he played one game in it. This player has had just one very good, nay great (for the debate sack) season in the Premier League — and he didn't even manage to carry his team in the top four (against an eternal average Arsenal and a Chelsea on his knees). Moreover, it isn't his goalscoring ability that sets him as a World-Class player... In the League, he has scored more than ten goals only once. He is not World-Class by any means, and it's a long way until he can be labeled as one ; the first step would be to actually win trophies, and then have more than one great season. And the greatest British-born player since Gascoigne ? What about Scholes, Lampard, Rooney, Ashley Cole, etc... ?? You know, players that have actually won trophies and that have had an handful of great seasons. For now, he is barely worth to lace their boots.

Yeah, mind you... He is so much ready to die for Chelsea that he didn't hesitate, back in 2009, to put his life on the line by taking a pay rise to stay away from Manchester City.