CHOULO19

It's okay Rompy....the world is just a fucked up paradoxical place

Biggest country of what lot? The lot of countries that are rumored to be aiming to get nuclear weapons? That is the reason why you put it on the top of the list of nuclear threats to the world? Ahead of countries that actually own nuclear weapons and lots of them and have actually used nuclear weapons before? That is very much on topic, imo. In fact, that is the whole point I was trying to make in the first post you quoted. What's so different about the mindset? The opponents may have changed but we're still in a constant war except now major countries rarely use their own soldiers and prefer to arm and fund 3rd world groups to do their jobs. The US, and it's opponents for that matter, have committed many massacres that, may not have been done using nuclear weapons, but were just as criminal. They are also currently involved in countless wars all over the globe, from Mali to Sudan to Afghanistan to Iraq and Syria, that result in the death of hundreds each day. What world do you live in? I'd also like to remind you that less than 30 years ago, the whole world was on a verge of nuclear war. So it's not as distant as you make it out to be. Well, the world is a sad place. And how is it not true? Every country in the world naturally only seeks it's own best interest that is almost always at the cost of someone else. It's all about power and countries would do anything to get it like the US currently funding and arming extremist groups in Syria that ultimately aim to destroy the US along with every non-Muslim in the world just so the US would gain political power in the middle east. Like Asad is currently bombing and killing his own people so he can stay in power. Like the kings of the Arabian gulf give half of their oil and their political alliance to US companies so that they could stay in power...I can go on all day.

You conveniently left out most of the story. Like the fact that Iran threatens Israel because they belive that it continues to occupy other peoples lands and kill people (either directly or indirectly) and force them out of their homes on a daily basis. I don't believe that Israel is evil, but to talk about Iran's invisible nuclear weapons when Israel and the US have piles of them is extremely hypocritical. The same reports that stated that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? And even if it is true, why would that make it Iran's fault? How does Israel have the right to protect itself by building nuclear weapons but Iran does not?

Of course Iran came to your mind first, you've got a whole media that keeps telling you over and over again that Iran is the base of all evil. Which was exactly my first point. One question, how is the only country in the whole world to ever use nuclear weapons on civilians "proven to be responsible with them"? And just for the record, every major military country still make nuclear weapons now. If they don't make nuclear weapons now, meaning they don't think they need them anymore, why don't they get rid of the ones they have? Of course everyone still wants power. There are as much wars now in the world as there has always been if not more. If anything the rise of capitalism in recent history has increase wars as a means of monopolizing natural resources, especially oil, and controlling markets. The will for power is what makes us human.

You'd very surprised. Bush actually called some countries like Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil" and many people still do. Similarly, there is a very popular slogan among some people in Lebanon and the Arab world that labels the US as the "Greatest Daemon".

Funny how you mention Iran first when they don't even have a nuclear weapon yet while the countries with the most nuclear heads in the world, i.e Israel and the US don't make your list.. Anyway, my point is that no one starts a wars, kills people and creates nuclear weapons because he wants to be a super villain. Every country has been through its own circumstances in history that has created a certain mentality and belief that forces to act in they way it does atm. Ultimately everyone just wants power and what's in his best interest and each tries to get that in his own way.

It's funny how most people so quickly believe that those who oppose them politically are the root of all evil. If you really think there are people who sit around planning the destruction of the world and torture of innocent people just for the heck of it then you really need to cut down on watching cartoons!

No please, let's not turn this into yet another Torres vs Ba thread. Take it to the players threads if you want.. Southampton should not be underestimated. They play some very good football and are in great form. They completely outplayed Liverpool at the weekend. Start a full strength team then take off key players if things are going well. Even if you have the Utd game in mind, I think going into it with momentum is more important than resting players.

He got a hand in the face against Steaua.

Kevin vs our other attacking wingers:

Never got the excitement about driving. For me it's just a way to get from point A to point B. In the city with all the traffic, it's just something that adds to my daily stress. I'd much rather use public transportation tbh.

@ChelseaActivityPatrick Bamford at MK Dons: 3 starts (6 apps), 1 goal, 4 assists. Seems no one knows the stats for sure. Either way, I'm glad he's doing well.

His decision to retire came about 6 years too late, imo.

In his short time here, despite starting most games on the bench, he has managed to score 5 goals and get involved in many others. He is nothing like Torres and time will prove that. So yeah, I stand by what I said in December, a decent striker like Ba, can easily reach 30 goals in all competitions in a season. But what's even more important is that he will hold up play and link up with the midfield which will create spaces for the likes of Mata and Hazard. That's all we need, imo. We don't need a world-class striker to challenge for tittles because our team should be centered around our attacking midfielder. I'm sorry to tell you that I will be able to sleep at night nonetheless.

Second place is no real motivation because there is absolutely no difference between it and third since both obviously can't challenge for the title. I think creating a gap on Arsenal and Tottenham is a much bigger incentive for the team, atm.

So the plan is we pay 20-25m for him and let Piazon and KDB go fro free? Pass..

Who else than the daily fail

I'm sorry I can't reply to every one, but here a few extra notes about the points mentioned in this topic: - If we are going to stick with 4-2-3-1 which seems very likely, I think the board are intent on only having two strikers. I can actually see their point, 3 players with one position will result in someone being unhappy with the playing time he will get. - We do not need a world class striker. We have never relied only on our striker to score. We have goals everywhere in the team. I think someone like Ba can easily get 25-30 goals in all competitions per season with the likes of Mata and Hazard behind him. - We don't need a poacher. First, most teams that play against us sit deep and overload their box with defenders. Second, our attacking midfielders, which our team should be built around, are at their best when the striker gets involved in build-up play and attracts defenders and creates space behind him for them to exploit. Asking them to hug the line to put in crosses would be a complete waste of their abilities. - I can see a case for Lukaku staying at WBA for another season. We tend to harshly judge our players, especially if they are young. If he goes on a run of bad form, everyone will be on his back. He is learning a lot and getting game time at WBA. Would be better for his development to stay at WBA, imo. That said, I don't mind him returning since he can help the team next season. - People are forgetting that Torres is not likely to leave in the summer. I mean, who on earth would pay his wages?! - Based on all of the above, I don't think we will be signing a pure striker in the summer, especially if Lukaku returns. We could use, however, someone similar to Anelka who can play as a striker or in the three behind. Jovetic and Villa come to mind.

Merged with the Neymar thread. Please continue the discussion here.

Globalization, man....it's ruining everything!

Btw, I realize this very badly written, but it started as a reply in the Falcao thread and got too long so I tried converting it into an article instead of rewriting it. Thanks for the comments guys, I'll answer tomorrow. Right now I really have to sleep!

I was replying to your post but it turned out to be too long, so I thought I might as well make it into an article and post it on the main site here. Sorry if it's too long, but here is the reply: http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/15665-a-case-against-signing-radamel-falcao

A Case Against Signing Radamel Falcao Rumours of Radamel Falcao joining Chelsea have been tediously pouring down on our heads for the best part of two years since the appointment of AVB at Stamford Bridge. In fact, if you believe the papers, we’ve already signed him on 5 or 6 different occasions since the summer of 2011. But realistically, Chelsea have probably not even been close to signing the Colombian for reasons that were much more obvious than the media would have us believe. But in the upcoming summer window, a marque striker signing does seem to be on the cards for Chelsea if we chose to part ways with Fernando Torres. So, should we be looking to sign the highest profile and most expensive striker in the world at the moment? I wholeheartedly disapprove. Here is why: Is Falcao suited for Chelsea? We, here at Chelsea, have knack for buying very good, very expensive strikers and turning them into useless garbage, so I think, if we want to get another expensive striker, we should first ask ourselves: Is he likely to fit at Chelsea? Now Falcao is an excellent finisher, one of the best in the world atm; no one can deny that. But he likes to play on the shoulders of defenders, facing the goal. He needs spaces to be at his best. Athletico are a very solid and organized team; they have the best defense in La Liga. They use this asset in most games to defend first then play on the counter. Even Porto played a counter attacking game under AVB that is very similar to Mourinho's Chelsea. At Chelsea, however, the system will be completely different since most teams will be happy to sit back and give us possession while they park 10 players behind the ball which leaves little room for Radamel to utilize his explosive pace. Moreover, while his 40-50 goals a season are impressive to say the least, they have required the teams he plays in, be it Madrid or Porto, to play a system that is centred around the striker. They employ direct traditional wingers who are constantly putting crosses into the box for Falcao to finish off. We, on the other hand, have spent quite the fortune on some of the best young attacking midfielders who like to drift centrally and combine together near the opposition's penalty area. And for them to do so effectively, they need a striker who either runs away from the danger area, like Torres does, and creates space behind him or someone like Ba who is excellent at his hold-up play and can get involved in the link-up with his back to goal to great effect. This role is completely strange to Radamel who almost never does that. Now I don’t claim that Falcao will turn into another Torres or Sheva, but based on the above, I would say that Radamel is not the most likely striker to fit well at Chelsea. Should we spend all that money on Falcao? Bringing Falcao to the bridge will cost quite a lot of money. I will attempt to figure out how much approximately that is in the next paragraph, but let us first ask ourselves if we should be spending big on a striker in the summer. I believe our biggest priority, right now, should be to invest in our midfield. This is because, firstly, the strength of Chelsea has always been in the middle of the park. And secondly, we currently have a very thin squad that we’ve had to play a defender at central midfield at times, while some of our attackers (Mata in particular) have been run to the ground by our hectic schedule and lack of rotation options. And with some of our senior players like Lampard, JT, and Cole likely leaving in the next couple of seasons, we do seem to have more pressing priorities in the transfer market. To keep it short, I would much rather see us sign a good central midfielder to partner Mikel in the pivot along with 2-3 squad players than spend that kind of money on one striker. Can we even afford to buy Falcao? We’ve all been told scary tales about the FFP rules that are going to be implemented, and while I don’t believe they are the horror movie some are making them out to be, FFP rules are very much a reality, as our friends at Malaga will no doubt tell you. So gone are the days where we could spend 50m on a player and not give it another thought. Hence, here is a quick glance at the financial feasibility of signing Falcao: Now Athletico have been rumoured to price Radamel at a staggering 50m. And recently, British newspapers claimed that Radamel is demanding a ridiculous wage of 250k/wk. Over 5 years, that amounts to 65m! Now those numbers are probably exaggerated, but even if they are so, can we afford to make something like a 90m investment over five years or 18m per year? To put that into perspective, last year, despite winning the CL and receiving a reported 47m as reward, we just about broke even and made a profit less than 1 million pounds. This year, however, our exit from the CL means that we will only be getting around 9m at best (I made a detailed post back in December about this which I can’t find right now). We’ve also invested heavily in the past summer in quite a lot of players, the most expensive of whom are Hazard (32m) and Oscar (25m), and whose fees we are likely to still be paying in the next couple of years since fees this big are usually divided along the contract period. Meaning, despite us adding some sponsorship deals last season like Gazprom and Subaru, our balance books are probably not very balanced atm. Admittedly, most of those numbers are mere speculations and no one knows the exact numbers except for the club, itself. But considering the money we will need to be spending in the market on other players, I think it is fair to assume that we probably can’t sign Falcao and still be in EUFA and Platini’s good books in regards to FFP. More logical options available: Finally, and most importantly, there are plenty of other options on the market who have much better value for money and could do the required job at Chelsea. Cavani is an option who is likely to work well at Chelsea. His price, however, is not much cheaper than Radamel. Leandowiski offers great value for money, and seems to be a favourite among the Chelsea fans. Other options include Wilfried Bony, Dzeko, Aspas..etc We should also remember that we have a 20yo striker on loan who’s found the net on thirteen occasions this season already. So, to sum up, while Radamel Falcao maybe the most prized striker in the world right now, bringing him to Stamford Bridge, seem to me as one of the worst decisions we could make on many levels. Click here to view the article

Hopefully the diversity in the squad will help prevent this. Don't think Oscar and Hazard can speak with each other without a translator, atm

Completely agree. As much as I dislike Rafa, only he should pick the team and have complete authority over the squad if we are to achieve our objectives for the remainder of the season.