FootballFarrago

Who's the "new Kaka"?

No, but I'd write for extra payment

Yeah strange one, that. I've alwasy thought Kalou is fine against lesser teams but for games lke this best used as an impact sub when legs are weary, he can be lethal then. What's up with Anelka? Simply out of favour or injured?

The latest in my mini series of teams of the year comes from Alex Hess, who's done an 'Unsung EPL Team or the Year'. Leading the line is Chelsea's Salamon Kalou, who has the best goals to minutes ratio at the club. Does he deserve a mention? See the article and comment here: http://bit.ly/iS3tU0

And Kakuta, who's probably more suited to playing the trequarista role than anyone at Chelsea - he just needs experience and time. If you can get Kaka for less than I estimated (£40m), say £25m, it'd be a good signing.

You're right, who would spend stupid amounts of money on an out of form attacker? Agreed though there might be better options, I think Hamsik's a name that'll be banded around every big club this summer, as is Alexis Sanchez (but he's a winger/support striker, so not relevant here). Another one I had thought was Wesley Sneijder. A big name 'marquee signing', could provide the boost the club needs. He'd cost a lot, but I did hear he was unhappy at Inter. He's versatile, so could fit into a wide position if you did go for 4-3-3 in some games. Both articles I've done here have rather made out he wants to play a 4-4-2 diamond every game - all good clubs have a plan B, just look at United this season and how malleable they've been. It's what may have cost Arsenal, not having the option to go, say, 4-4-2. They only have one way of playing, and to my knowledge the only team good enough to pull that off are Barcelona. Pastore's a good shout, I've heard a lot about him but don't think I've actually seen him play.

Probably nothing, just speculation (so definitely nothing). An article on this site, Talk Chelsea. Whenever Alex is ready to upload it... *cough cough*, *prod*....

I heard there's a brilliant piece coming online on the main site presently.... some serious speculation including names like Sahin, Real Madrid, Kaka and Chelsea. Just a rumour though.

Hahahaha what is that 'dressing room source'? A locker? A flip-flop? In his defence she is being a little silly, he's not going to say even if he DID have real sources (as if....). But it's great TV, love how he's getting more and more stressed as it goes on, those bags under his eyes!

I think splitting a foul into separate parts - which contact is enough to fell a player - is pretty impossible. Especially when it's just one action, not a holding offence, which is why I think they made the differentiation. You've admitted yourself there was contact outside - I'm not saying it was the decisive contact that made Ramires fall, but it was the initial contact - So be sure to make the correct decision to award a direct free kick outside of the penalty area, and not a penalty (if the initial contact was made outside of the penalty area)." Them's the rules! Anyway, as I mentioned before, the example of Evra fouling Ramires was merely that - an example to discuss how video technology doesn't really solve much. United and Chelsea fans will STILL disagree whether it was a penalty, having seen exactly the same footage. If this was used to make such a decision, it's still a human making the call, at the end of the day. Could even make things MORE controversial, knowing the FA and their amazingly inconsistent rulings!

You call me what you want, I'll just copy and paste the RULES and you make what you want of them: Like most replays, slow motion often actually inhibits the viewer from being able to tell when, and how much, contact is made. Had the offence been of a holding nature (i.e. shirt pulling, bear hugging, tree hugging, wedgying) then it would have been a penalty, as stated on page 110 of the FA's Rules and Regulations document: "If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick."As it wasn't a holding offence, we must consult Julian Carosi ('Corsham Ref'), who clears things up nicely when explaining Law 12: Direct Free Kicks: "After an initial tackle by a defender just outside of the penalty area, the forward momentum of the players' involved can sometimes continue on into the penalty area. So be sure to make the correct decision to award a direct free kick outside of the penalty area, and not a penalty (if the initial contact was made outside of the penalty area)." Doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that out...

Sure, it would have been more accurate a decision - but it still wouldn't have cleared up whether it was a pen or a free kick!

Yes of course, it was a foul and a sending-off offence for sure. But (a) the referee probably couldn't tell it was a foul from where he was (so it was the 5th official's call) and ( it was PROBABLY outside the area. If people took time to read the article thoroughly they'd notice it's more of a critique of video technology than an argument about one specific incident. This particular foul was just one of many that obviously wouldn't be cleared up by using replays. Not sure why I'm being accused of being biased by others on here, I'd have thought these lines, taken from the piece, would show that I'm not: the referee basically made a massive boo boo in not seeing the challenge as a foul it's a foul. Pure and simple I'm still none the wiser on this specific incident (i.e. whether it was a pen)

Ah the classic 'stone wall' rears its ugly head again. Another bugbear of mine - it makes no sense! Luckily I've got an article on this too - read the part at the end. http://www.footballfarrago.com/2010/09/rant-softball-and-stone-walls.html Re. the frames - couldn't find a video of it - plus wouldn't you have just watched a video and stopped it at these points anyway? And how is this a blatant penalty anyway, surely you can see from the pictures that it's inches from being inside/outside the box? A blatant foul, maybe (depending on the position of the referee - although that's what the guys behind the goal are for) - but never a blatant penalty.

Thanks LDN Blue, glad someone actually read the article before commenting! I'm not saying it definitely WAS or WASN'T a penalty, I'm still not sure. Guys, the issue isn't whether it was a foul, but WHERE it occurred. What it does make me even more sure of is that video replays aren't the miracle cure they're made out to be.