Tomo

The fact people think he actually failed at Madrid is actually a compliment to just what high standards he has set himself (the ridiculously high expectation's their was probably a factor aswell). I bet if Carlo wins a La Liga, Copa Del Rey in the next 3 years while delivering consistent CL results, he will get showered with plaudits and he doesn't have to face Barca at their absolute peak of their powers under Pep either.

Between the 2-1 defeat to Arsenal under Big Phil and the 1-0 defeat to Everton in Carlo's last game it was , infact between those two i think we only lost one game in all comps without Drogba and that was in the Carling Cup against Newcastle when half our team were teenagers/early 20's. Yet despite that Drogba was by far our best player for a substantial part of that period.

Also in 2009/2010 we had a 100% record without Drogba (averaging 3 a game in the process). Infact we also went two and a half years without losing a league game he didn't play in.

That's true and there are wingers i would have probably preferred to Willian (Blaszcaykowski would have had me on a high for weeks) but i think he is going to be great for us and he is defiantly a step up from Moses.

If a member doesn't like (or gets wound up by) another one (or two have an heated argument to the extent they probably won't be able to be civil again for the foreseeable) click on setting's and stick them on your ignore list, if every one does that, we will suddenly have a more pleasant place where people are challenging opinions and not people.

Well the point im trying to make above it all is it's unfair to use winning and losing stats against a player. Azpilicueta was one of our best players for those first six months despite the stats. For the record im not convinced Mikel's anything more than a squad player, but it's very, very harsh to use winning/loosing stats against him. If Phil really wanted to tear him apart, maybe he should instead use stats to compare Mikel's individual game to that off his fellow midfielders in those games, instead of using the result's when he is one of eleven players.

Why have you put words into my mouth? (so to speak by quoting something i didn't even say).

Well who has come into English football and had stats that (on the face of it) look that bad? All im saying is their is more to it than just the mere results. But even taking that point into consideration here is another example, Werder Breman last year with De Bruyne in it didn't win any of their last 12, then without him they win two in a row and only just lose to Dortmund in their 3rd.

I think the Old Trafford game showed why we went after Willian. We went their with four 22 year old's playing as the front four, now while those players who started that night are very talented, to say they showed they were no where near finished article's that night was an understatement. Before Willian came in, we were a Mata injury away from having to rely on 22 year old's in our key position, which was just not practical, not even Wenger in his youth obsessed prime went that young all over his key position's. In big games a front four of Willian, Hazard, Oscar/Mata, Eto'o, offers a good balance of youth, prime and experience and i would feel a lot better going into the latter stages of the CL with that combination. Also if their's more experienced players playing further up, MVG can play more games aswell. Youth and experience balance is one of the underestimated thing's in football, imagine if (we didn't sign Willian) Mata got injured, we would have to play three 22 year old's in AM, so playing a 20 year old in the pivot would have been even harder to be able to do, we would have literally turned into Arsenal. Also we are lacking players in the 25-28 bracket, Willian falls into that category. The main thing im trying to say is Willian signing on the face of it didn't make sense, but thinking out side the box and for the experience/youth/prime balance of the team, it actually makes perfect sense.

@Phil Driver, I have got a nice little stat for you that proves this Mikel stat you keep rolling out is completely and utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Before the Club World Cup last season these were our stats with and without Azpilicueta. With Azpi: Won 3 Drew 4 Lost 4 May i note that in those 3 wins one of them in extra time, another to Wolves's B team and the other he came on when we were 4-1 up. Without Azpi: Won 10 Drew 1 Lost 2 Now despite those stats he was widely regarded as one of our best players in the first 6 months, which just proves those stats alone can't be used as damning evidence against Mikel.

Now i can understand the annoyance with the Sturridge situation because of our striking problems but Moses? i dont understand. Moses was a good squad player last season, inconsistent, frustrating, but capable of a very good game. But is he better than any of the six we currently have? no, Liverpool is his stepping stone to try and force his way back in.

Everton aren't really hyped tbh, despite finishing above Liverpool the past two season's, i haven't seen one person predict they will do it again. They will defiantly finish atleast 7th, their still considerably better than anyone off the 8th and below teams last season, so Martinez will have to be a real, real dope to have them finishing lower than top 7 atleast.

Fair point, although having said i think they actually are more balanced without Suarez, Sturridge is the main man for a start, it will be interesting to see what happens when the Uraguayian returns.

Long term maybe, but i don't see the big fuss off this current Liverpool squad, their just been over-hyped like they were under Kenny control. They imo will finish 6th or 7th depending how long it takes for Everton to get fully intergrated to Martinez's philosophy.

There is more chance of Everton challenging for the title than Liverpool.

When it looked like De Bruyne could have been used as part of the deal to bring Schurrle here, lets just say there was pretty strong opposition to the idea.

Agree, but he was always likely to exceed them with (Chelsea fans in general) because of this weird Schurrle/KDB conspiracy that was going on.

These reaction's are unbelievable, all off a sudden Benitez is the better option ? Now Rafa had a reputation at Liverpool for being a cautious manager, his Liverpool team's came to Stamford Bridge more often than not with a defensive gameplan which made our approach at Old Trafford look like all out attack. Mourinho is quite clearly doing the same as last time, in the fact that he is sorting out the defense first and finding out our best formation, to say these aren't Mourinho players is mind-boggling. Deco, Sneijder, Tiago, Robben, Ozil, Modric are hardly the typical "Mourinho players" and they didn't do to bad under the Portuguese, did they? Infact i would say Mourinho would have loved to have had the likes Hazard, Schurrle, Ramires and Ivanovic in his last spell, especially towards to the end.

I see the media are already lapping onto the "worst start in the Roman era" line, they conveniently forget that this is the first time in the Roman era our first two away games have both been against top six sides. Before in the Roman era we have only had two top six away clashes in the first two away games, both of them being trips to Anfield in 2003 and 2007.

Don't panic just yet, Jose is not exactly known for fast starts to the season performance wise.

The start of this season supports what i have been saying about City all summer. A good team who will be there or there abouts, but not a chance will they run away with it and they are not clear favorites.

Did he? he scored against Shaktar because of a terrible error by the keeper but was absolutely anonymous against both the Ukraine side and Juve. He was decent against Nord, but that just sums him up.

There are many myth's that go around about Chelsea but one that really grates me is the one that Carvalho made Terry look better than what he is. I mean how uneducated can opposition fans be about us? In 04/05 when we broke the record for the best defense in PL history, Terry played 36 out of 38 games while Carvalho played 25. In 05/06 when we only conceded 22, Terry played 36 again while Ricky played 24. infact it was 06/07 when JT got injured, that our defense which included Carvalho started to leak goals left, right and centre. John Terry was criminally under-rated at his peak, between 2004-2010 he had very, very few bad games, he was at the very least as good as the likes of Nesta and Cannavaro were at their peaks, he really was that good, between 04-08 he was the best defender in the world, by a mile. We could have got £40m for him of City back when paying that type of money was unheard off in England, never mind for a defender. Im not saying Carvalho wasn't good for us, he was very good, but there was a reason Jose picked Terry as his untouchable and rotated Ricky with Gallas for the other CB role and not just because he was captain. I can't help but cringe every time someone says Carvalho made him look a better player, because it simply was not true, even with Ben Haim as his partner he was incredible.

Sorry for the uber late response but to be in our squad next season with the AM option's he is probably going to have to be the best player in La Liga outside of Barca and Madrid.

He weren't too bad, he had his moments. Even so, he wasn't bad enough to warrant being dropped for Giggs, who is finished as a footballer in near enough every aspect and is risking doing serious damage to his legend status at Old Trafford if he doesn't retire very soon.