robsblubot

That's consistency or lack thereof and I acknowledge it. So does Jose based on his comments; who also seems to see the quality as I do. Hardly think Jose and Chelsea coaches would be wasting time with him if they did not believe he has the quality. Despite differ opinions, there is one thing ppl here are dead wrong about: fitness does affect technique.

Difficult for me to understand how people choose to ignore the times when he did show quality - technical as well as defensive - both for chelsea and Brazil. BTW, never seen Oscar having any trouble whatsoever with his first touch or losing possession like Cuadrado does. His passing in the final third is what he's been inconsistent with.

Why?! Because Jose said yes to an astronomical offer from the nouveau riche psg? Even folks, like me, who appreciated Luiz play would have said yes to that... Btw Luiz was a lot better than zouma in midfield. In defense, neither played under Jose.

he looked a bit more lively but his control was just as poor as before. Even the pk he got was caused by an initial poor first touch. Sticking to my original idea: not good enough for chelsea (not even rotation) and not young enough to develop.

Ouch No self/auto warning?!

Obviously Oscar is not good enough to play for - a nothing player!

Only the delusional thought otherwise. We have a small squad which leads to little rotation and tired legs at the end of the season and some ppl want him gone... Improve on him sure if we can. Then whether Oscar develops or not is covered, but selling him would be silly. Of course if a massive offer came, like they did for Luiz and Mata, then it's a different situation. Only the bad players are unsellable as they don't get bids.

Right...(^ lamps) Ppl need to be careful when criticizing the defending as Barcelona make them all look poor. They have the best attack in the world by a fair margin.

Always thought Cuadrado was a terrible signing because he'd struggle in the PL. Did not think he was that great for Colombia either, as they played even worse opponents than Brazil did in the group stages. Cuadrado has physical and technical deficiencies: he shows too much of the football and he is easily outmuscled out of plays - it's a dangerous combination esp in the PL. Now sterling has no such deficiencies. Yes, he's also lightweight (though he stays on his feet), but his superb technique allows him to keep possession going through tackles and bouncing off players. Pace alone does not allow you to avoid contact, but together with excellent technique, one can indeed avoid contact even in tight spaces - Sterling does that. Yes, he will be expensive, but if available I also see no reason not to go after him, especially considering how young he is. Chelsea has great coaches in the staff and I am confident the younger players can achieve their full potential.

Sorry, but I don't think you got what I wrote. I was NOT talking about this game, even though I disagree with the 6+ people who liked your post - thought he was mundane as usual. When you play a 27yo striker who has very few goals in his career, you have to realize the goals will be hard to come by. It's the same logic with a midfielder who historically has had a VERY hard time, assisting, scoring, and even hitting long balls. So, it’s really not a stretch to think we were LESS likely to produce something in attack - we were very poor in attack against weak opposition at home - BECAUSE Mikel was the one pulling the strings. See, I did not disagree (completely) that he was the one pulling the strings, I think he still did not make enough runs forwards, hit long balls, etc, but for the sake of argument, let’s say he had a good game…. Still, Chelsea should NOT be relying on Mikel’s attacking prowess to win games esp at the bridge. Because YEARS of stats on his attacking prowess, or lack thereof, don’t lie.

Sterling for me. Coutinho is responsible for good plays as well as many of the goals they concede. no thanks.

Go back a few pages - it's a long thread - and the same folks are saying the odd goal and assist from Oscar isn't enough and doesn't make good prospect... Compared to Coutinho, Oscar is very very rounded as he's got the defensive side of his game down to exactly what his manager wants. Coutinho is really poor defending and with any physical contact? He's been very poor lately actually, despite a couple of goals in between - went missing several time esp in tough matches. A bad game by Oscar doesn't cost you the game as he's going to do his hard work. At São Paulo an internacional in Brazil Oscar was far more creative and the concern back then was whether he'd ever become a competitive player - mourinho has addressed that beautifully. Grass is definitely greener on the other side. (Carzola Mata... liverpool has one really good player and Coutinho ain't it.

Mikel an attacking threat?! I've heard everything now...Are you messing with me? The word threat implies imminent danger... Was it?! From mikel?! No way you look at his stats you can consider him a threat in attack: his attacking stats are as low as they get. Perhaps the reason we had no attack whatsoever was indeed because mikel was our biggest attacking threat. Another way: because our attacking players were off mikel ended up being our attacking threat which did not work obviously as we had little going forward. Let me put in a way everybody can understand (even people who dislike Oscar): the stats (as well as your eyeballs) show that Oscar has a (MUCH) better chance to hit a long ball, assist, and specially score. So, the fact Mikel is trying those things will almost always end up in a lackluster attacking effort by us. Football is about completing these plays not how often trying them... Also, we played crystal palace at the bridge.... Context...

Creative? No assist, no shots, no long balls actually. Can't remember many forward passes either... Yes he helped containing their impetus, but calling creative when he is the opposite is just crazy... Btw can't really give too much praise to our defenders against glorious crystal palace at the bridge. Praise is to be given for the championship and for the entire season performance, but we've been very poor lately.

hate to talk about shit I don't know a thing about - this qualifies even more than football itself - but it's not what heard from professionals; they want to work with players as young as possible as their development is not entirely complete so they can shoot for more permanent changes which isnt possible once they are close to their 30s. Perhaps bulking up can be done in a short term, but there are a number of other specialized training that demands time, as in years, so expecting a 27 yo to achieve the level of improvement of a 19yo is unrealistic IMHO. This aspect, development of players, is something I see entirely ignored around here. Cuadrado is a 30m buy and he should perform as such. I personally did not think he was an improvement over Andre or Salah - both younger players.

That's what a few of us were concerned about. And that is exactly why age matters: far easier to bulk up a 22yo than a 26yo. However I'm just not that crazy about his technique as his control of the football is just not up there with our starters. Saw the same during the WC where he was ok (against poor opposition).

Couldn't agree more. He was completely out of it after the collision. He shouldn't have been kept on for both his own health as well as the team's. How the officials thought the gk did not foul Oscar is beyond me and I guess most ppl.

I find it hard to give too much praise to our defense today because of the strategy and intent. I feel that the attacking players had the short end of the stick while all defense players looked good because they were mostly dealing with scraps. The entire team defended well. That's why I voted for William who was one of the best players going forward. With the defensive praise out of the way, very disappointed with hazard today - he was watched and double marked but get used that because it will happen more and more often. But he needs to be more aggressive and make more runs - way too passive.

I've finally watched the return leg and if, like the British announcer, you spotted luiz ball watching in the first goal, then I'm sorry to say that you are either a moron or (less sorry) have a crush on him. Iniesta dribbled past the entire psg team (brilliant!!! Magic!!!) and then passes it to Neymar who got a pace and a perfect first touch. So what did you expect David luiz do? If you say stop the attack then, you definitely have a crush on him... Btw it seemed to me, a fucking moron as I am, that barca did not need luiz help at all to beat psg. They outplayed them in both legs.

Agreed We'd make top four without a replacement. Could challenge though. Just not sure about bale - like him a lot but his general contribution is low - he's more of moments player.

Quite on the contrary, Neymar carried a subpar Brazil side all the to the semis of the worl cup getting all the attention in the world - wish he hadn't though. Barcas prob is actually thy got too much of a good thing...

You've just described Mikel... well minus the technical ability assuming Nathaniel can hit long balls. And Nat can still improve a lot including upping his work rate and awareness.

My top 6 are 1. Messi A wide gulf 2/3. Suarez and Ronaldo A less wide gulf 4. Robben 5. Neymar 6. Hazard Hazard just needs to keep on improving. Nothing different than what he's been doing. As soon as his shots start going in more often he will overtake robben and start challenging Ronaldo and Suarez. Edit: Neymar is still ahead of Eden on shooting and goals.

You misunderstood what I wrote as I did not say he loses possession - you cannot lose what you don't have. He never keeps the ball long enough to lose it. Once again you are making a directly link between the CB pairing and the defensive numbers which is wrong. The correlation is very subtle because it pertains another 9 players as well as the team setup/strategy and above all, intent.

Please spare me of your rhetoric - either you quote me on what you claim I've said or it's just another figment of your vast imagination. Luiz is an excellent natural player, which makes him interesting but as a defender he's at about the same level of Cahill - good but flawed. His performance in defense against us was a surprise to me (I thought he was going to play in middle) even though I do think he is a dangerous player to play with or against. Cahill enjoys a level of protection that has made Luiz look 'solid' for long stretches of time and in a very defensive minded CL win. I know the footballing world is not made of the sharpest tools in the shed, but do we have to be surprised every time Luiz makes a mistake? He's mistake prone... if you want to play him in defense then adequate protection must be provided. Don't let him be the last man, esp when injured as he'll be late and make a fool of himself. Your obsession with Luiz is unhealthy... Going back to Cahill though - It's not about his solidity - because we know he is a solid dependable defender who's going to make few mistakes. However, he can be beaten by better players. He cannot hit a long ball to save his life which slow us down when he reclaims possession. When he hits row Z we lose possession. When he is incapable of cleanly take the football and/or dribble his marker in a more proactive way, we lose possession. His lack of pace is a problem especially when we are chasing and have to move the defense line up the pitch - we become vulnerable. He also makes a terrible partnership with Terry because they are very similar players so nobody chases and both sit back. Zouma isn't the most technical player out there, but when someone has to play DM it's zouma not Cahill. Because zouma has more pace and s a bit more rounded even if not particularly technical. So, again, it's not that Cahill is a a bad player, but IMO he's not good enough. The same way you think Oscar is not good enough, and some say he's 'solid' because we can depend on his hard work, I say we can do A LOT better than Cahill as a starter even though he won't be a liability. And mind you, Cahill is 29, not 23...