didierforever

RDM, no way... infact the only game he benched torres, he got fired. this was a board and roman decision thru and thru,

i dont think any1 is forcing you to log on and personally i d be happy to not read your "i am the only one who watches chelsea matches while others are just pieces of shit who dont care about chelsea" posts. its getting old and irritating to say the least. so as you said it "its the same fucking shit from the same fucking people". ps - the guy who called torres a blonde cunt has been called out by 3-4 people here, not every1 is insulting torres, some just want to praise sturridge.

http://videa.hu/vide...tC?start=228.44 watch mata play sturridge in twice (and there was another chance which is not shown in the clip). its on sturridge's movement and run. on the other hand not a single thru ball is to be seen played by us in this highlight because i remember torres playing as a ST while danny on the wing for about 60 minutes of the match after which he was taken out for mata and danny played as a CF. the difference is clearly visible.

We don't play the incisive ball through that Sturridge depends on. Why doesn't Torres have only one shot against Hull? Why did Ba not get a clear cut chance on goal? Simple reasons. Chelsea's transition from defense to attack involves strikers only linking up with the creative midfielders and creating space for others. Not going clean through on goal. Plus we can always talk about his selfishness with ball. That might be good for another team, but we'd like a striker that would pass. http://videa.hu/videok/zene/west-brom-2-1-chelsea-v-0ovjF4hpVe384itC?start=228.44 watch mata play sturridge in twice (and there was another chance which is not shown in the clip). its on sturridge's movement and run. on the other hand not a single thru ball is to be seen played by us in this highlight because i remember torres playing as a ST while danny on the wing for about 60 minutes of the match after which he was taken out for mata and danny played as a CF. the difference is clearly visible.

is that the reason we are buying ROONEY. just to drag defenders away. jose has already said what the problem is with our striker and sturridge is very very different from anything we have got. also how does 2 matches constitute what we play. what did DD/anelka thrive on. i remember so many instances of the ball being played behind the defences for our strikers, we dont do that anymore because our strikers dont play that way and that is what JOSE is lookig to change. mata was unfit, but to say MATA does not play the incisive ball is UNBELIEVABLE to me. mata thrives on it and i actually cant understand how anyone can say that. again we play the incisive ball to the midfielders because our midfielders are far more fluid in their movement than the strikers we have got. i dont actually think that our players look at the particular player who is taking the run, decide that its the striker that is doing so and then say wait , i should only put an incisive thru ball to one of the midfielders. the fact that u say that the thru ball WAS played is proof enough that we do play the thru ball and its our striker's run and movements which stop us from being direct. also we were playing the long balls because that is what BA wanted. he was playing on the defender's shoulders the whole match. it was definitely our plan to play that way otherwise i dont understand why we would have been hoofing the ball to him all thru the match. so why wont those offsides be counted. it was pretty obvious what BA was trying to do that match. newcaslte is a mid-table team which have 50% of the ball compared to our 70%. when teams play chelsea (home or away), they just try to park the bus at the 18 yard line where as against newcaslte it is far from the truth. result for chelsea BA would not get half the space and time that he would get at newcastle. u cant expect chelsea and newcastle to play the same game when the opposition is with a compltely different mindset.

if people dont wanna talk about sturridge then why cant the FUCK they just stay off the STURRIDGE THREAD, because surprisingly in the sturridge thread people are going to talk about sturridge, just like in the mata thread we talk about mata, or in the hazard thread we talk about hazard. also please should stop with the same old "why dont some members FUCK OFF to the RAWK" joke because its not funny and its got too old. my suggestion is if you dont wanna talk about sturridge then STAY THE FUCK OUT. no one mentioned you in their posts, and thus its not NECESSARY of you to post something and tell other members to FUCK OFF to liverpool forums.

torres does not have a shot on goal against hull because he lacks confidence to take a shot from even 10 yards out. on the other hand sturridge's first instinct is to get the ball on his left foot and take a ping if he sees a 10% chance. BA was awful/horrendous against villa. he could not hold the ball, could not make one decent run (which was evident by 4-5 offsides), sturridge on the other hand thrives on his movement and his runs. and when dont we play the inisive ball? what was kdb's ball to oscar against hull, or oscar's ball to hazard against villa. it depends on our striker. torres and ba have poor movement off the ball and hence the lack of incisive balls to them. also if you remember sturridge's performance against WBA, u would know that sturridge had 3 one on one chances and every one of them had majorly to do with his movement. i seriously cant understand how any1 can say we dont play the incisive ball through when we have a player like mata in our team who looks only to play THAT incisive ball. sturridge is a striker, he is supposed to be selfish. his "selfishness" was the only reason pool could win against stoke. sometimes his decision making is baffling (not selfishness but i would like to call it decision making), but i would take a striker who has the confidence to take on a player and take a shot on the goal from 25 yards rather than whatever torres and BA do (which is nothing).

HOW??? how would our system not have suited sturridge? he makes brilliant runs off the ball, his movement is mind-blowing, creates space for the midfield by his runs, and one of his biggest asset, he likes to be direct. he would have been some1 who would take a shot from 20-25 yards out rather than trying to pass the ball inside the net. sturridge would actually have thulped in our system right now.

DAMN, so we can have a group of CHELSEA, PSG, BVB, NAPOLI. FUCK MY LIFE...

you can bet anything and everything u have on us either selling/loaning out BA/torres (i will do a naked dance if its the latter one) if we do buy another striker.

just one thing - IS THE DEAL DONE?

sturridge can hold the ball better than torres and ba. his movement off the ball is what makes the space for any midfield. i mean watch him and coutinho playing together. ultimate example of it. also NO, we dont ONLY need a striker who drops deep to recieve the ball in midfield (like rooney, rvp as you stated), we need some directness in our play which is what you get with sturridge. also his link up play is brilliant and any1 who has watched pool's last 7-10 matches will tell u that.

precisely my point. also u answered urself there. he did those "selfish" acts to show us that he was the real deal. i saw today's match and the match against stoke and pool's last 5 fixtures of the last season, and i would not say sturridge is "selfish". he would take a shot if he thought he had a 10% chance of scoring but thats what strikers are supposed to do. i honestly cant remember when ba or floppes last scored from outside the box. sturridge on the other hand has the confidence of taking the shots. also there is no point of him "turning crap"... he was always a good striker with a potential of something really special. he has the knack of getting on the score sheet which is exactly what you want in a striker.

"he would be frustrating the hell out of every1" - HOW??? by asking to be played and given a true chance as a striker instead of FLOPPES rather than starting 2 games in half a season.

mata CAN play on the wing but i think so can ramires, infact rambo's best moment of his career probably came as a right-back, but it does not mean we should play him there. mata is a CAM and MOST efficient in the center of the pitch. when we play him on the wings, we have absolutely no true width in our play. we simply cant stretch teams and everything is just too narrow and most of the time easy to defend.

hahahahahaha.... oh god...

what a blunder... and that too for the blondie... damn it..

i seriously have not been in the loop as had some work, so is the deal done or what?

very very very weird signing.

deserved a shot under jose. if we sign willian, i feel its over for him. would have been a good squad player. ps- people calling his signing :"stupid" should get themselves tested.

when is jose's next press conference? any idea?

i have seen some great blunders by this board like after 2009-10 season we let go off deco, ballack, joe cole, belleti and carvalho but signed only rambo. we bought FLOPPES for 50 million. we let go off DD so that FLOPPES could be our no.1 striker. we sold off sturridge. but if we ACTUALLY buy willian and sell off/swap mata, then it would be taking stupidity and blunders to a whole new different level.

precisely. even without going into the replays , i can easily remember so many mistakes that torres made that day. firstly he dint check alves' run which he later crossed into the box which messi finished but was ruled off side. even GARY NEVILLE, sighed on sky sports encouraging torres to do the needful. then was the ball he lost to mascherano (i think), which ultimately made meireles tackle him to the ground and take a yellow for the team. lastly the ball that he lost while trying to go thru half the barca players single handedly rather than just booting the ball upfield and giving our defence a much needed 5-10 second breather. worse would be that he dint even fall back to retrieve the ball and just continued on with this run and stood their. he simply got lucky by scoring that goal. also saying torres is the reason that we went to munich is slapping the likes of rambo, cech, DD, mikel-meireles-lampard (the midfield trio who were absolutely sensational), and the others on the field, who actually cared about the team rather than personal glory and put their bodies, souls and pretty much every thing they hand on the line for the team.

what are u gonna do next? correct my grammar? oh wait i should have wriitten to "going to" instead of daring to use "gonna". anyways nice try on diverting the topic, but i still dont get how any chelsea fan who has got match programmes older than me can think we were getting knocked out until torres scored.

for some1 who thought we were going out of the CL until torres scored the goal - i can guess EXACTLY what your knowledge of chelsea is. so ciao.