Peace.

Well, Oscar has to redouble his defensive efforts because the other attacking midfielders aren't good at defending — and that's an understatement. And as he isn't sur-human, the volume of work and energy he puts in defensive actions, he cannot put them into offensive actions. And because of the context, he was always going to be the third wheel of the cart regarding the offensive phases. That's just like if two people make 90% of the food for the diner ; the third one will only be able to cook the dessert and to wash-up the utensils. That third man won't have his place under the sun as the one who made the cooking, but that doesn't mean he didn't have a significant and necessary participation to the diner.

Thanks I'll only reply you in regards of the following quotes, if it doesn't bother you ! "What I personally see in Wayne is a very talented player that is frustrated at not being allowed to play in the best circumstances and we at Chelsea potentially have the right environment for him to excel. He's a player that when fit, motivated and under the right roof is easily a top 5 player in the world." While I definitely agree that if Rooney gains back his motivation and fitness, he would then be among the very best players in the world at the moment ; I am less optimistic than a lot of people regarding the probability of him regaining this fitness and this motivation. To my eyes, it is a big if. While reading throughout this thread, I saw a lot of comments implying that basically, the change of team and the Mourinho effect will be enough for him to regain his motivation. However, that's not as simple as saying "hello" ; the Mourinho effect is kinda overrated into my eyes — he is an excellent motivator, though he isn't the King Midas of the motivation. I do not believe that Rooney's loss of form (let's call it this way, so we don't enter the "on decline / not on decline" debate in this part) comes from the fact he is a big baby who's sulking because he's frustrated and jealous of not being Ferguson's darling number one anymore. I believe that the origins of this frustration, this loss of motivation and of fitness, root deeper than the sole bad temper of the player. We gotta take into consideration that despite his relatively young age, Rooney has already 11 seasons at the top level behind him ; nine at Manchester United and two at Everton. To that you can add World Cups and three European Cups. It does represent 479 matches for clubs, and 83 for his country. Moreover, if my memory serves my right, he has been involved heavily with the starting eleven right from the start, as suggests us his 77 appeareances in his two first footballing seasons at Everton, and this basically at the age of ~ 18. He's a player who peaked and fulfilled his development pretty early. When you are on top of your game for seven or eight years, there comes a time when your body is washed-out. That's a lot of strain put to your body. Furthermore, Rooney has never been know to be a big partisan of fitness and he seems to be initially "big boned", which put even more strain on your body. And I deeply believe that because of this, he will never be able to be as fit as he was. I just think that his physical capability has toned down of one level — which is something absolutely normal in my opinion (and in the light of what I just said). However, he might reach a level of fitness not far from his very best, though he will have to put in a lot of work — and for this he has to be motivated once again. As for the motivation, I don't know... When I look at him, he kinda reminds me of someone who's depressed — as if he was going through his midlife crisis ( laugh out loud ). The way we see him regularly sulking... The way he has taken United into hostage twice because of a supposedly lack of ambition from the club ; and now he is irritated because he isn't the number one anymore... To me it looks like he is searching his feet ; he understands that he isn't the same anymore, and he find it hard to accept this very fact. In other words, I don't think that giving him a new sportive challenge will have any significant effect upon his motivation. As a matter of fact, I deeply believe that giving him a fresh motivation won't be that easy, not at all. I might sound all doom and gloom regarding his future, but that's not the case. I am not saying he is good for ending up his career right now. I simply believe that to have a near-his-best Rooney will require more than a few pats on the head given by Mourinho and a "you're the best my sweet little Wayny". The bottom line is that I am not saying he won't nor he will regain his motivation (and fitness), but that it won't be an easy task. It's merely food for thoughts.

Nan, I don't think I said that speed and pace define the volume of play... I neither did say that you had to be fast in order to have a big volume of play. And I know that you have to have stamina ; I even have alluded in this sense (c.f. "the number of minutes you can do that"). But let's start from scratch as it seems to have a general misconception regarding what I intended to say. Your velocity is a physical tool that permits you to put into purpose your will of mobility. When you are at your physical peak, your physical capacities allow you to produce a certain volume of activity on the pitch. Though, once you physical ability is on the decline (because of your age, your lack of fitness, of injury(ies), etc...), with the same amount of energy given, you can no longer produce the same amount of activity because it will take you more time to go from a point A to a point B (for example) ; and when you repeat this move umpteen times, the difference will be even bigger. Of course, you can lessen the effect of your physical decrease by having a good positional sense and a tactical nous — still, on the long run, it won't matter because you will not manage to compensate all of your physical decline. And it doesn't matter if you're fast or not. Because your physical peak X will allow you to have a certain amount of activity Y. But when your phisycal capacities decrease and are X-1, the amount of activity you can have will also be, roughly, Y-1. And I repeat myself, not matter how fast you are, a loss of speed/mobility will induce a loss of activity/volume of play. As for your point on Pirlo, yes he was one of the players who ran the most during the last Euro ; italians were in general the players who ran the more during this competition. That's why we saw an absolutely knackered Pirlo (and italians) during the final of this tournament... When you're getting old, you have to give more energy to achieve the same things that you once did. And because of the thing called "causality", when you give more energy to move yourself around, it means that you have less energy to give in others areas : less energy to focus ; less energy to pass ; less energy to think ; etc... A player like Xavi has still a high activity on the pitch ; though, he has lost the edge and sharpness he had once, his passing game is not as incisive as before. It's because he's on his last leg and that his physical capacities aren't as good as before ; as a consequence, the techincal and "mental" aspect of his game suffer. Back on Rooney. Yes, it is enough to prove he's on the decline. His physical capacities aren't as good as before. As a consequence, his volume of play is not as good as it was ; his influnce on the game isn't as good as before ; he isn't as imperious as he was ; he needs more space to beat his man ; etc... He is simply no longer the player he was, and unless a shaman voodoo'ed him,

Because, as TorontoChelsea has already mentioned in his post.... Wilshere is NOT an attacking midfielder. He is a central midfielder. Arsene Wenger said himself "He's a box-to-box player, more than just an holding midfielder". Scoring goals is not his job — that why he is being rated highly despite not scoring goals...

Yes, into my opinion he's on the decline. And I'll try to explain you why. Regarding the stat you use as example, you could have a point, but not really. It neither does show he has not declined ; nor does show that he has progressed. So you can grasp my point, I will use a few exaples. For instance, Lampard has scored 15 goals (and only one assist) in 21 starts ; which is statistically good for a midfielder. Though, you will agree with me, he is declining (and this for many seasons) and he was fairly average the past season. Another example is David Villa. In 17 starts in La Liga, he has scored 10 goals and made five assists. That's roughly similar to Rooney (for the dabate sake !) — though once again, this player is on the decline and had a bad season. By stating this, I am not trying to prove that he is declining. I am just trying to stress out the fact that these kind of stats and a player's progression (or regression) are not necessarily correlated. Some players, despite being off-form (or in decline), will still score a fair amount of goals because they have it in them ; that's the case of all the aforementioned players. To extrapolate, Pirlo and Xavi are still among the best playmakers, even if they are far from the players they were, because they have the playmaking DNA. But let's drop statistics for the moment and let's concentrate ourselves upon perception, and perception only. I do agree with Ferguson on the matter — we already saw the best of Rooney. And in my honest opinion, ever since grosso modo 2010, Rooney is on the decline. That doesn't mean that he has become a poor player. He has still managed to stay a top player. That's because he has adapted his game ; he has compensated the loss of certain abilities he lost by adding other abilities to his game. Indeed, nowadays he is a lot more versatile than he was before, his passing game is better, he use more his brain, etc... Rooney has lost pace and speed. A few members have already stated this fact, though some others retorted that it didn't matter because it was never a part of Rooney's game... I'll claim it high and loud : Rooney has started to decline ever since he has started to lose his pace and speed — as "slow" as he may be. Losing your speed doesn't only mean that you'll be less fast...!!!! It also implies a loss of another thing which is more important, in my view, in football than speed — the mobility. And if you lose your mobility, you won't have the same, what we call in French, "volume of play". It's such a shame there's no equivalent in english, because it's a very important notion in football, into my eyes. It's hard to explain, but in short, the "volume of play" is : your work-rate + your participation in both defensive and offensive phases (i.e. participating in the defensive duties, participating to the building of attacks, moving to make you available for a pass, moving to out-number the opponent in one area, etc...) + the ground you cover + the runs you make + the number of minutes you can do that.... For instance, Ramires has a big "volume of play". This is a key notion, because this is what allows players, besides their technical abilities, to set their influence on the game. You can have a Messi in both of your feet, if you stay still, you will do nothing. Speed has never been a part of Terry's game, though now he doesn't have speed anymore -> he lost his mobility and thus he finds himselves pretty often in situations where he's all over the place (Against Liverpool two seasons ago and against Newcastle last season, for instance). Speed has never been a part of Xavi's and Pirlo's game ; they still have their technical abilities, though they can't have the influence on games like they had before because they have a lesser "volume of play". The same goes for Lampard. Speed has never been a part of his game. But now he's less mobil, he doesn't provide half of the influence on the game he had before. This is exactly why I claim that Rooney is on the decline. He has lost in mobility and velocity. He doesn't have the same "volume of play" any more. He doesn't have the same influence on the game that he had pre-2010. He still scores a lot of goals because his sheer quality is way above the one of your average footballer and he has adapted his game so to lessen the abilities he has lost. I am not implying that he will become as good as Heskey overnight, but he is on the downside part of his development — which is irrefutable. He will nonetheless stay a very good players for the years to come, because he has excellent technical abilities and has a great football IQ. Voilà voilà.

Of course he is a puppet — he's Ferguson's puppet. The latter man has most certainly left his job because he couldn't go any further because of his health condition (and I believe because he knew that an area was about to end and wanted to leave United on a high). I genuinely reckon that he'd have stayed had he had the possibility — his new place within the board hints in this sense. Ferguson is all but idiot. He knows that Moyes isn't ready to take the United's job. So, in short, Ferguson will still be their for the grand scheme while Moyes will be the one on the bench and the end to train players every days. If you will, Moyes is to Ferguson what Jordi Roura was to Tito. Ferguson will fully disapear when Moyes will be "old" enough or when they will have a manager competent enough. For now, I reckon that United's place in the table will depend on the proportion of Ferguson's implication within the managerial role.

For Christ's sake, how many times will we have to go through this...?! Hazard earns 540 000 fucking EUROS per month, which does 135k euros per week = £116k at the current exchange rate. All French-speaking medias are reporting this figures. Oscar was bought for 60 000 000 R$ which does 20,4 millions d'EUROS which does 17,6 millions pound at the current exchange rate. We should put a banner, visible for everyone, that reads these figures at the top of this forum. Those journos are dumber than newborn babies. Sweet Jésus.

I don't know whether it is actually an unpopular opinion, but into my eyes, the 'World-Class' label has become a meaningless label nowadays. Indeed, I do believe it has lost his essence. I get the feeling that any players above average who can score goals and/or do some tricks is labeled as a World-class player. To my mind, this term is to distinguish the truly great players from the very good ones. Messi is a World-Class player. Cristiano Ronaldo is. Iniesta is. Drogba was a World-Class player. Zidane was. Lampard was. Xavi was. Henry was. I mean, a World-Class player is a player who will stay in collective memories simply because thanks to his sheer quality he is a level above from the vast majority, because he has delivered consistently and this during many years and because he has actually achieved things. Xavi will come down memory lane as probably the best spanish midfielders and a midfield master. Iniesta, beside being famous for his ghost-white skin, will also come down as one of the best playmaker / attacking midfield in the world. These two players where part of what is arguably the best midfield in Football History. Drogba will be remembered as a striker who was unplayable on his days ; as the epitome of what is playing with his back to goal ; as the guy who led an average Chelsea to CL glory. Et cetera et cetera... The list is long. When I do see players such as Suarez and Gareth Bale mentioned in the same breath as the aforementioned players, I cannot help myself but feel voiceless... To this day, they aren't even worth to lace these players' boots... I mean, what did they achieved ? The bottom line is that I believe that the term "World-Class" should be reserved to the cream of the crop. I know we cannot all have the same vocabulary... Though using the same term to label players such as Ronaldo and Messi and players such as Suarez and Bale is wrong.

He's back to London ? Oh my God, that means he's gonna be sold.

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).

This. An other one : Lampard has been average for the past three years.