robsblubot

I like him as a player and think he's excellent in the role he plays (one of the most important roles in football). Point me a successful team and I will point to a player who performs the same role. He's a good player who at the moment is not even average... with his current level of play he should not be playing at all. His ONE defining characteristic is nowhere to be seen. Sort out the contract situation or leave the team and move elsewhere (contrary to many here I think he would play in any top 4 PL team with ease), but right now he's clearly not contributing. Manager and team could be a contributing factor, but I suspect it's more of the former.

It's not exactly like that. Managers have their own style of play and they may or may not be a fit in a particular club. I couldn't see Mourinho coaching Barca, to your point, for ex. You cite very specific clubs and a handful of them. Not many clubs even take that approach of using a rigid system and style of play. Reckon that does not necessarily translate well to silverware as neither has been overly successful with the exception of City and only in the PL. Barca has been struggling for years... don't see anything seamless there--they play shit when they cannot sign the top player like anyone else. Bayern in particular is an overrated club that plays boring football in my book, but that's me. Arsenal had a very strong DNA under Wenger and wasn't that successful bar in a year or two. It's all relative. It's obviously fine you want that. The question remains: what has Potter done in football that indicates he's capable of not only leading a club like Chelsea, but also implement a particular style of play? do you see something in Brighton you want at Chelsea? because I sure don't. 🤷‍♂️ Nobody here would complain if we hired Pep and he turned us into the same passing machine City is. Potter couldn't be farther from Pep tho IMO. BTW, ironically I thought our team was playing in a very specific style under Tuchel and one that I very much like.

Different things right? the way of playing is indeed tied to manager AND players. In my view only perhaps 3-4 managers employ a particular style of play (some share similar/same style too), the most obvious one is Pep with the high line and 100% possession football. I think aside from these very specific managers, you won't get what you want and I cannot fathom why someone would think Potter would be able to deliver that considering there is nothing remarkable about his teams (like Brighton). Don't think Potter is that much more experienced than Lampard either -- they both have accomplished very little in football as managers. Literally ANYONE can make a group of good players perform well. The tricky part is always always winning! The ruthlessness we had, precisely with the constant pressure and sacking, was the *club's* DNA. Evidently not the one you like, but I personally, think there are many ways of playing and winning in football. And once again, I don't see why Potter has to be the chosen one to take us to wherever the new owner wants to go. They both look pretty lost to me.

Yeah I think there 2 main disagreements in this thread: One about whether Potter deserved the shot or not--I personally think he has not done enough simple as. The second, is that I don't think some folks here understand, or perhaps don't accept, what Chelsea (club) is these days. I hear folks talking about a long-term project as if Chelsea had the luxury of burning seasons in name of some way of play, of a philosophy, or conducting the business. These are acquired over years and years of consistent decision making. We DID have a DNA as a club under Abramovich. It may not have been the DNA folks wanted, but there was one. Now, think about sponsorships, prize money, the ability to acquire as well as *retain* talent... How can someone think a club like Chelsea isn't *constantly* under pressure to win is beyond me.

weird... mixed info this article in Brazil says he did not get it and mentions possible destinations there. https://ge.globo.com/futebol/times/vasco/noticia/2023/02/17/andrey-nao-consegue-visto-de-trabalho-e-deve-ser-emprestado-pelo-Chelsea-vasco-monitora.ghtml

I find the reasoning given by the club here a bit silly tbh. Andrey is clearly a u20 player and would never be deemed 'indispensable' in any PL club. 🤷‍♂️

I suspect it was because he hasn't done/accomplished enough to be granted one. They thought his u20 accomplishment would've been enough, but evidently that did not work.

Did not get the working permit -- will go out on loan likely to some club in Brazil.

I think the timing and circumstances around Potter appointment made it less likely to succeed even when it was always a bet like few others (as discussed above). Many of these players have won the CL. I know some here think that's not a big deal, a fluke, and I strongly disagree. It takes quality and a high level of discipline, which is what makes it so difficult a feat. Regardless, the point is that it also brings other things: increases the value of players, which leads to contract talks and inflated egos. And pretty much the same set of players are now managed by someone without any important accomplishment in football as well as coming from a much smaller club. If that does not play a part, then nothing will imo.

In an ideal world where the power had not shifted (heavily) towards players and agents, yes. I'm not claiming I like the way it is... just that that's what I see everywhere. Even smaller leagues are pretty much the same. Players finally realized that time is always on their side: win or lose they get their paycheck due to the long contracts they have, but the club and manager need the wins because the income does depend on some level of success (CL or not for ex)--not to mention fan/press pressure.

Wouldn't surprise me on bit if that actually did happen. You are ignoring one of the most important aspects of management in football: whether the manager has the backing of the players or not... esp the leaders. Like I wrote elsewhere, whether Potter will become (or not) a top manager in the future is pretty much irrelevant right now. however, it is intriguing to me at least, why he has so much support on this forum having done so little career wise. Kai, Mount, and Pulisic to name a few, have played better in the past under a different manager. We can attribute that to intangibles, or assume the current manager has failed to a) fit them where they perform best b) motivate them to perform at their best It's not easy to know which is which esp from out here.

yup you see how much success PSG has had over the years... but don't let facts ruin the fun of blissful imagination. 😃 Seen what PSG has been doing done 10 times before and it failed 10 times: too many maestros and not enough players.

couldn't agree more.... question is tho, does the owner also agree with that? 😅 Neymar weakness is quite simple actually: he lacks intensity... the competitive side of his game is lacking. The rest is just a result of his personality or the lack thereof.

you are forgetting Neymar 😅 (new rumor)

yeah let's strongly disagree on that then, because for me age is extremely important in high-performance sports, which includes football at this level. Sure I understand transition. On the other hand, clubs like Chelsea are always at the mercy of *some* success. If for whatever reason some of these players don't deliver immediately (very common) that will affect success, may affect management, which in turn would affect any long-term plans the club may have. My only point is that there is risk in doing what you suggested (esp around age). And regarding Fofana, I sure did not see anything special: bit of impetus and physicality as I wrote earlier and little else. He will play and improve, but just stating about what I see/saw right now... as a short-term solution. Fofana scored how many goals in Norway? how many would Kai score in that league? This is all very relative.

Sorry, but that's a very single-minded look at a particular stat. Perhaps Mudryk's movement is shit (right now it kinda is), so Cucu is having a hard time finding a forward pass. It would be easier if Chilwells presence alone changed that, which I find hard to believe. The same was said about Reece, and the improvement was only marginal. Don't get me wrong, I still think Chilwell is twice the player, but one or two players coming back won't magically fix the obviously lacking teamwork. I thought both our wingers were shit for example. yeah I know they are young and will improve, but that does not help in this particular game.

You guys are clearly being paranoid. Guy is clearly not looking at the ball, not reaching towards the ball, and everything is happening by accident. clearly. 🙄

I don't know... he looked very similar to United days for us as he does now. That Inter run was the exception.

Would be strange indeed, except that nobody did that. What I read above was a criticism of the tastefulness of the whole thing, which I also find questionable. Little or really nothing to do with Potter himself tho. As an *extreme* example, had Potter been wearing a blackface too, then I'm sure more/most people would think it was tasteless. The way it happened, only a few/couple did. Really not a big deal. 🤷‍♂️ Nobody is saying he shouldn't do it. Again, very cool he's involved. Normally, for rich folk, it's better to just donate money, which is a better use of their time (and money), but for public figures, their actual presence does make for a more powerful message, no doubt about that. 👏

That can't possibly be true! here any player who isn't the [maligned player of the month] is always a win/win by definition! Mount tracks back as did Werner! the horror! 🤭 Their momentum is indeed bad, and reckon losing Jesus has finally caught up with them. That's what many of us have been saying from the first day. It isn't a question of "what's Potter ceiling as a manager?", because that's not a question to be answered at a club like Chelsea. He should've done more *before* getting a shot at Chelsea, and of course! it affects how much sway Potter has with the players. Brighton is just way TOO different from Chelsea as a club, which made the assignment really odd in my mind. I'm convinced that Potter does not have the squad like Tuchel once did. I think he's got some players playing for him, but not nearly enough. The club is giving him support, but it is all about whether the key players will buy into that or not. Time is on their side, which makes for all the "player power" these days.

Of course Mount should start because any manager would want to improve the form of good players who are in poor form. If the manager would go for performances alone Mudryk would be playing u20 for a couple of weeks after what he did against Fulham. Thankfully, it's a bit more nuanced than that. BTW, 🤦‍♂️ on the Gallagher and Mount comparison. For me the starting lineup matters very little. We need to start playing A LOT better as a team, which also includes a bit more running and dedication when not in possession. I know some folks here think we are missing a striker or whatnot, but I simply do not see the team doing enough to win matches... simple as.

Not only that, but also the signings the club has been making. They all aim next season + and do not necessarily address the issues the team has today. I suspect the club will be working hard to determine which players will remain and which players will be let go/involved in deals in the future. I'm not a fan of his work (previous as well), but I don't see Potter going anywhere this season.

We agree that AT THIS MOMENT Kai is NOT playing well, but my point was ☝️ ☝️ Dude! So, basically, WTF?! You literally wrote above that "[age] was nothing but a number," which I addressed... perhaps I shouldn't have? So, basically, it was your tangent! 😅Again, it's not my fault the club spent everywhere but in the striker/FW position. Perhaps they don't see anyone worth investing at this time? 🤷‍♂️ I agree that Kai has been poor and I'm not sure he's going to make it at this level... few truly do. I am SURE Kai is a good player, but good isn't always good enough at this level. Wanna bet he'd tear it elsewhere? @Thor I'm not sure the modern game can fit a player with Kai's characteristics in any position other than striker/FW. He's just too slow and his work rate not high enough to do the job anywhere else I'm afraid. Perhaps as a second FW, but we don't play like that today. TBH, I think his work rate needs to improve period -- regardless of position.

hmm I thought that point was pretty obvious and non-controversial tbh. A Haaland is an extremely rare thing for a reason. 🤷‍♂️ Speaking of which, absolutely dreadful game against Spurs today -- City won't win the PL because of Halland even if they will likely win more in the future also because of him. As an older guy I can absolutely tell you that age is not just a number. 😅 Science pretty much tells us it's not a number. First thing a doctor wants to know is someone's age, then sex (gender is largely irrelevant). That's science. I played amateur level football in Brazil (semi-organized) and spoke with plenty of professional players, even the way you play changes from your early to late 20s . It's not just a number in either end of the spectrum. VERY FEW players can stretch the limits but it's extremely rare (for every Thiago Silva...). Now, to the established pattern: very young teams, filled with young players (esp 20yo) have never won shit... esp at this level. The so called "transition" periods are called that because they never include silverware, but they usually include lots of young unproven players (aka bets). Median age of a squad IS very much so a thing that clubs think about when they plan and sign players. They also know what the likelihood of a 20yo, who is not a genius, delivering the goods this early is. For this reason, younger players are given time without much pressure. Would I like if Fofana were a young R9 who scored goals at 19yo? sure! Do I think he's one? nope. Honestly, this is not opinion, but rather what I know how teams go about building a squad. Would really take some new information for me to think that that has changed - IMO I think it has shifted towards older players given better fitness levels. So, perhaps agree to disagree.

He was by far the worst player on the pitch against Fulham. Absolutely dreadful in every aspect of the game, and you know what? it's OK. He's young and he's entitled to performances like these. It happens and he will learn form it, or not... in which case he won't make it. Still way too early to tell and games like these, not mediocre, not average, but really poor, are typical of younger players.