Spike

Step 1: Sign Beckenbauer, Maradona, Matthaus and Cruyff Step 2: Win? Step 3: ??? Step 4: Profit Class is as permanent as form.

You mean incubi.

Upgrade maybe, but he offers nothing different, nothing new.

Over hated and under rated by the Chelsea faithful. He isn't a bad manager he just has been given tough jobs by his bosses. He failed in the end at Chelsea but by all means he put down some pillars and groundwork for the changes happening now. Remember the breath of fresh air he was when he joined? Look past all the bad memories and remember some of the good ones. Anelkaouda was the most hated triumvirate ever at Chelsea and AVB had a very influential hand in their demise. Roman and the board are fickle if anything. Levy isn't much better. Tottenham aren't in a good situation. They have a lot of new players, that have never experienced football in England. On a side note the win% arguement is poorly thought out. You must appreicate the differences in squad, competitions and expectations of different managers. For instance: Martin Jol 45.27% (relegation candidates) - > Harry Redknapp 49.49% (challenging top 4) -> AVB 55% (transformation into a hopefull permanent top 4 team) AVB had the hardest job of all three. All Redknapp could do was get the team out of relegation. That was all that was expected, maybe get to midtable. And he did that and more. However AVB has to get to the top four and maybe even win trophies (depending on how insane Levy is). Different strokes, different people.

I said I didn't want to change it too much. What I pointed out is at SeB's discretion. Well, next time I won't offer advice to someone writing in their second (or even third) language. Besides, I never mentioned his grammar being bad. In fact his grammar is fantastic. I was giving creative writing tips. He doesn't have to follow them, I was just stating my opinion. For fucks sake, how about I never help anyone again. God fucking dammit, I've had enough for today.

Sorry I didn't edit it very well, I was rather drowsy when I did it. I didn't want to make too many changes to it, given that the main problems were just sentence structure. The tended to wind on with uncessary words that just make it an exhuasting read. Sometime more is less. For instance: "Despite a fairly decent 63 ball recoveries in that game..." would be better as "Despite a decent 63 ball recoveries in that game...". An incredibly minor change at first glance but I belive that it makes the statement more definitive and powerful. Or even "Despite 63 ball recoveries during that game.." which requires the readers opinion to fill in the gap: "Is 63 ball recoveries, good or bad?" I'm not that learned in French so I'm unsure is this applies, but when it comes to writing English; I usually look towards the rules of Orwell: 1) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. 2) Never use a long word where a short one will do. 3) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. 4) Never use the passive where you can use the active. 5) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. 6) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. A few sentences were absolutely nonsensical but they were all restricted to the first and second paragraphs.

Because there seems to be an idea that Steve Clarke is a really good manager because WBA punched above their weight for a few months in 2011?

Why because he is from Africa? And there seems to be an idea that all African footballers lie about their age?

19/20

The camp nou is fucking dead for atmosphere. And Cunt Fibreglass is starting as the 'false nine'. Gross.

Ever consider that Chelsea weren't sloppy and Crystal Palace just had a particularly good game?

Arsenal first tough match and it's showing the world what pretenders they are.

So it begins once more as it always will. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-news-wayne-rooney-sparks-manchester-united-exit-rumours-after-rejecting-new-contract-talks--reports-8997808.html

Well he doesn't bring anything special to the team really. Oscar has he long range shots, Hazard has dribbling, Terry has leadership, Ramires has stamina, Luiz has bravado. What does Mikel give to the team? Nothing out of the ordinary. Good at passing the ball around (sometimes), fantastic at slowing the game down and changing it's pace and he is strong at holding up the ball. He is by all means a decent player but nothing special. In a cantenaccio system where once that one crucial goal is scored, Mikel is probably a player you would want in your team. Strong, methodical and great at slowing down the game. Outside of a very defensive system I don't see his worth. A few seasons back however, I was convinced he was on the up and up. Improving everygame, becoming more dynamic on the ball but lately I think he has regressed greatly. I'd look for Mikel to shut down a game once it's won but he isn't a player that I necessarily want starting against a team that can leak in goals.

I agree with TOPTB. Throw Ruben and Nathan in the first team. If they perform, we get to watch to youth products make it good. If they screw up, well they screw up, too bad. They aren't magically going to get world class in the Championship, they only way to guage their ability is at Chelsea. A great season at Watford means nothing. What matters is how they could perform at Chelsea. Wouldn't complain about Pogba though...

Haha, suck it Juve.

Australian's are much less creative with nicknames. John because Johno. Johnathan becomes Johny. Dave becomes Dave-o. Jake becomes Jake-o.Trevor becomes Trev. Garry becomes Gaz. Guy becomes Guysy. And that's pretty much how we do it, save for last names, which is a different story. Indigenous Australians tend to be pretty creative though.

I thought this was a joke topic. It's Portuguese for lollipop...

Too much emotional baggage. Would you date that man/woman that carves her name into your arm after three dates? Jose couldn't do it at Inter...

Prove that. He could have also been upset at the tactics being used? or perhaps he didn't like his man management skills? Well, I didn't play...anyway I'm almost sure that the 4-3-3 was used the entire match...I can't quite remember though.

It's not irrelevent. The formation against West Ham was a 4-3-3. It does matter. If they manager can't get the players behind him, he isn't worth the time.

The pivot is a terrible term and an average tactic. The 4-3-3 with a disciplined holding midfielder would be better for everyone. It would accomodate Lampard's strenghts, Ramires' and even Oscar could play there. The only player heavily marginalised by the 4-3-3 is Juan Mata who loses his favoured position behind the striker. Villas-Boas is a bit of a twit. He always came off to me as the type of person that easily annoys and offends other people. It doesn't surprise me if he ever gets on the bad side of players.

He couldn't be on that much, could he? I don't think there are any sources concerning his wages either.

How is that ego? I'm sure every football worth his grain wants to play as much as possible and contribute as much to the cause. Lampard wants to play, Mourinho wants to play him. I see no issue of ego here. I'm sure they could start with Lampard, it's not an impossibility. Mangala is a centre half.

Where does his ego fit into this then? Seems like it was Mourinho's decision to make use of Lampard, not give in to his ego, from what your saying anyway.