BlueLion.

Agreed that most have been sub-par. Frank seems to have copped most of the blame, which is a shame, but as much as it pains me to say he has stood out as one of the worst performers over the last few weeks. Hopefully yesterday's performance will arrest the slump, and as he is a man who scores his goals in clusters, you can imagine him netting another 3 or 4 by the end of 2014. As you say he still does have a defensive function, but he was definitely the more advanced of he and Mikel, which meant there was a little more licence to roam and less defensive responsibility (slightly). Gave him the chance to impose himself more on the game and he was one of our best players alongside Azpi and Oscar last night.

^ good post, but Lampard has been pony recently. Granted he had a good game last night, though. He plays far better when he has less work to do defensively.

Cech Azpi - Luiz - Terry - Cole Ramires - Mikel Schurrle - Mata - Willian Torres.

Absolutely. The War-Guilt Clause of Versailles was an absolute joke. As Lloyd-George said; the European powers "slithered into the cauldron of war". There was no-one at fault specifically. All the European powers went through extensive military mobilization due to a lack of trust and communication. As soon as Russia mobilized, the British followed suit, and Germany then followed suit. At that point, the Great War was inevitable. If the Allies had have followed Wilson's 14 Points, we would have seen a more representative conclusion to the war. Instead, Germany took the blame. You really can't blame Hitler for gearing them up for war, really.

I am not particularly well-read on the subject (I am a medievalist - a specialist in Crusader and Byzantine studies; but I did study the Nazi state in significant depth back in 2010/11, reading the likes of AJP Taylor, Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Bill Niven (who now teaches me!), and the like), but I know that many historians would agree that Hitler was at the centre of a web of cumulative radicalism, and that the most extreme of Nazi ideals were very rarely his own. The Nazis aligned themselves with a winning combination - national-socialism. You must realise that leftism was sweeping alarmingly across Europe in the 1930s, and Hitler was able to maintain a political status-quo by aligning centrist-leftism with far-right conservatism. The Germans had been backed into a wall by Versailles in 1919, and the populace wanted to pick a party that could unite the country. The Weimar Republic only heightened the social tensions of the time due to its unstable coalitions, so to vote in the Nazi Party was a sensible move that would help the country rebuild.

Azpi was the clear MOTM tonight, but it was a wonderful team effort. Lovely to see.

Outstanding tonight. MOTM.

Not happy with the line-up, in truth, unless José is playing 4-3-3?

That is the beauty of history. Since the recent libertarian view of feminism and the revival of the feminine voice, I am of the opinion that we are seeing more female-orientated history. Certainly in my experiences, I am looking at the history of female involvement in the medieval "Estates" model, including looking at the role of women within the Church, and even on Crusade. I believe that our religio-centric views have denied us the rightful investigation of the female race, and now we are attempting to counter-balance that by making history a female-centric endeavour. Counter-factual history is an easy way of engaging oneself in the grand scheme of things. What if Hitler had been accepted into the Vienna Academy of Art? Absolutely. The postmodernist in me says that history is a flawed practice. We will never realistically be able to look back at the past and assert that something definitely happened because of factor A, or factor B. That is the beauty of this subject, and why one man can look at a piece of source evidence and interpret it in an entirely different way to another. I believe that our modern-day surrounds consciously affect our ability to look at the past. How can we objectively look at the medieval period and attempt to assert historical "fact"? Are we not completely bound by our present-day biases and presuppositions? I believe that we can identify elements of the past, but that it is impossible to state for definite what society was like back then. Yes, we can agree on what we call historical "facts" - three or more sources can corroborate to imply that something happened in a particular way - but does that make it truth? If enough people lie about an event, that application of evidence becomes truth. And that is why people are engrossed in my subject, because the more and more we delve, the closer we come to the realisation that we haven't got a fucking clue. It is the sheer unwillingness to accept that that drives us to unearth more "truths" and "facts" about the past. What a magnificent post. History surrounds us, and those people that fail to acknowledge it are the same people that are doomed to repeat it. There is a postmodern assertion that the "end of history" came with the Holocaust. Indeed, there had been previous genocides - how the fuck did we not learn not to repeat the tragic events that have gone before? It does make you wonder whether history is the subject of the Enlightened... Wonderful choice. You will find the European reformations are the basic divider in modern-day western society in many ways. Of course it is a religio-centric assertion of society, but the Reformations preceded the Enlightenment, and the Enlightenment is a prelude to man's modern-day mental liberation, is it not? There you are; a serious issue with this country's history curriculum. Everyone knows - and bores of - the World Wars, the Tudors, and the Ancient Greeks. From a young age, in our ignorance, we become even more ignorant when we are spoon-fed "facts" like Hitler was evil, Henry the 8th was a great king, and the Greeks invented everything. Then, as we progress through GCSEs and A-Levels and then into degrees, we realise we're told lies from a very early age! But it doesn't matter how many times you look at a particular episode in history; there is always another historiographical viewpoint which will confuse and enthuse you to go and find out more. History is like a spider's web; you start from the centre with a small amount of information, and before you know it, you're tangled in an absolute mess of men (largely, anyway...) disagreeing with one-another over the importance of the importation of bone dust in the Lincolnshire fens during the mid-Victorian years of the agricultural revolutions...

Disgusting. As a manager and coach I see how bad many young "referees" are in England, but this is a fully-grown man, ffs!

I love this place! Happy birthday TalkChelsea!

If people are referring to him being beaten at his near post by Benteke and Aguero this season as "mistakes", they clearly don't know the first thing about goalkeeping. You try saving those shots, I know I wouldn't, even if I was expecting them.

ABANDON THREAD

Tell me about it! Really looking forward for Thor 2 to be released on DVD so more GIFs can be released.

Sorry, I've already been named MOTM-for-life. Admin's prerogative.

I would like him to go to Turkey as well. He is a good striker and it saddens me that his career is stagnating here.

There's a lot more action in ADWD than in AFFC, so if you're looking for more of the adrenaline-fuelled chaos of the first three books you'll prefer this to AFFC. However I loved the characterisation in AFFC, especially our introductions to Dorne and more exploits in the Iron Islands with Victarion and the Crows Eye.

The sooner we sign him, the better.

My only qualm with Azpi at left-back is his positioning. At times, it is horrific. I don't know if it is as noticeable on the television, but I was at the Schalke game last week and I lost count of how many times Schurrle had to run back in fill in at left-back - what Dave does is he plays so tight and narrow to the left-CB, leaving a lot of space down the flank. Now, he is very quick to close down wingers, but it does leave a lot of space to exploit. I guess it's because he isn't as comfortable, but there are some big gaps often left uncovered as he naturally drifts quite central, following the play. A switch of passes and teams can get in behind us with ease.

He has all the attributes of a right-back, to me....

He isn't suited to playing upfield, now, either. He hasn't the legs for it. When you come to think about it, he really is a square peg in a round hole.

How things have changed... I think we all secretly wished he was injured at times prior to last season! He is the striker most suited to our style of play, but with Eto'o showing his skills as a bit of a poacher, it's nice to have two strikers who are competing for places by trying to outscore each other.

I think he might even move on this January, in all honesty. I know he only has 6 months left to run on his contract, but we would easily fetch £3-5 million from a club like PSG or Monaco, or even an MLS franchise.

Trademark FIFA 2005 celebration

Haha, fuck you as well! Edit: Apologies to Manpe. Realise I misread the statement. Topic locked.