Jase

Very average team performance so far. Ahead because of individual quality.

That is one thing but there is literally no pressure on the ball whatsoever. The pressing is non-existent.

Would be nice if we stopped being so leaky at the back...

Great finish for the goal but Abraham's touch is horrendous. Can never seem to control the ball properly.

But in the case of our midfield, it is quite bloated to be honest. 1. Jorginho 2. Kante 3. Kovacic 4. Barkley 5. Gilmour 6. Mount 7. Havertz 8. Loftus-Cheek If we play 4-3-3, then Mount and Havertz could be counted as options for the midfield and that would mean we have 8 players for that area, which is A LOT. Even if we take those two out, 6 for 3 positions is a lot and if we play 4-2-3-1, then it is SERIOUSLY TOO MANY players for the midfield area.

No Loftus-Cheek at all...

You're ruining the fun, Tomo. Go away...

Would have been interesting to see if Hazard's still at the club. His talent is undeniable but the same can't be said about his work rate and desire.

Wonder what Werner and Havertz are thinking...

Rudiger set to leave on loan apparently. PSG and Napoli interested in him.

I didn't count the Anfield game because we performed far better in the other 3 games and it was a better representation of what we can actually do. The one at Anfield just turned into one of those silly games. Doesn't matter how many times we lumped the ball to Havertz, we still did. We ended up doing that partly because of Liverpool's pressing but that should have been known beforehand since it's Liverpool's play style. As you said, it was questionable not to start Giroud since he would be better equipped for this than Havertz. Also, since you are all here saying Lampard set up the way he did because of unfavorable circumstances and prioritized getting a result over anything else, then why didn't he play Giroud instead of Havertz upfront? Havertz may have played upfront before but he played as a False 9 as opposed to a traditional No.9. Moreover, if Lampard could take time to ease Pulisic into the team last season, then shouldn't he at least try to do the same with Havertz?

Werner admits to having doubts over Chelsea transfer after watching Champions League defeat to Bayern https://www.goal.com/en/news/werner-admits-to-having-doubts-over-chelsea-transfer-after/hp50h71c5fx5zdbkpwic35nl

Everyone's fitness level will still be different when you take into consideration not everyone will play every game and there are players returning from injury.

If it's because the fitness level isn't the same, then guess everyone will be happy if we play pragmatically against Barnsley, West Brom, Crystal Palace and Southampton then? No. What is the common theme here is people simply assuming showing more attacking intent equates to going gung-ho, as if we can't strike a balance between defending and attacking.

No one said we didn't defend well. We did. The game at Anfield aside, did we leak many goals against Liverpool last season? The aggregate score of the other 3 games was 5-4 in our favor. Why do you focus only on the defending side? Does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we do both sides well? Again the game at Anfield aside, we had the right balance between defence and offence in the other 3 games. Sure, there were some silly defensive mistakes in the goals we conceded (not that it was any different on Sunday) but we were still okay defensively and didn't look like we were going to get blown away. And not to mention, we had threats going forward, more so than on Sunday. Have said it a few times, I wasn't necessarily against the counter attacking approach on Sunday but what was our plan to win the game? How were we going to hurt them? Because as it turned out, it didn't look like we had a proper plan. Hoping Werner did something was like hoping Hazard did something in the past. Werner is great in his own right but he is not like Hazard who can conjure something out of nothing. We had Havertz upfront but ended treating him like a target man by lumping long balls up to him to win against Van Dijk. Other than that, we didn't look like we had a proper plan on how to hurt Liverpool because we had a defensive player on the RW and 3 midfielders who couldn't do anything offensively to save their lives.

You joked there but I wouldn't be surprised if that happens.

Sunday's starting XI wasn't our ideal best new XI but judging by how some people keep on using the absentees as an excuse, you would think that our squad was actually down to its bare bones and had to rely on academy players for the match. Werner and Havertz aside, the team was basically the same one that played against Liverpool and competed very well and looked very threatening against them last season. There were also enough options that were sitting on the bench to do more than what we did on Sunday. If this is how we're gonna play every time we have a few absentees, well then, we are truly fucked going forward.

What would be the point? Mount will just end up being used out wide...

No, we DO NOT need another midfielder, not when we do not even look like selling one.

That is why the reaction would be interesting to see if CHO does end up leaving under Lampard's watch. Have seen lots of Chelsea fans elsewhere comparing this situation to Pulisic's last season. Do not know if they are just trying to convince themselves or what but there were some differences between the two.