robsblubot

We are going to win tomorrow with a good performance -- with whatever starting XI. Different attitude can temporarily fix the lack of fluidity and is key when starting a new season.

Indeed and that only comes with experience... Both Cahill and Luiz will become better as they acquire experience. Whether they will reach JT's level of composure, well, that's a difficult to know at this point. Alex, Cahill and Terry are (IMO obviously) a bad pairing. Because they are the same player in terms of characteristics. They are both good blockers, play deep, excellent in the air and not very mobile; Cahill is a bit more pacey, but not very agile which is the reason he backs off a lot. This pairing works in certain matches, especially when we forgo possession by playing a deep defensive line.

Lampard is 35... like thirty-fucking-five... And talking about old, this is the oldest thing in the game: older players take longer to hit form. He's a tall guy too and that goes against him. They just can't ripe the benefits from their workout in practice as easily as the younger players do. He was able to hit form and perform at at very high level for many games (only) late into last season. I expect him to - eventually - do the same this season, but perhaps for fewer games. It's really up to him to keep playing at this level or not, because at his age it's all about sacrifices.

[knocking on wood] imagine if he picks up an injury... Then we'd be depending on some DM to provide the *energy*... Just imagine... Lampard would prob decide to retire in Jan...

Mikel has zero goals and zero assists for Chelsea... how can you do any worse than that offensively?! I guess individual stats are only valid when talking about short-passing completion rates - easiest ability in football. If you are saying Makelele was also better than Mikel offensively, how does that help Mikel if we've established Makelele was better defensively!? BTW, I think I know the answer to The Place to Be's question: Mikel is a bit soft and that shows on and off the pitch.

fair enough - don't really remember. It actually makes the case against Mikel a lot stronger.

nope. I've been saying that we should either seek a player as dominant defensively as Makelele, which is pretty rare I agree, *or* go for a player who is not as dominant as Makelele was (defensively), but is more rounded. That's what I see other top teams doing, with guys like Khedira & Toure. Honestly, like I said before I don't think Mikel is a bad player, but I don't think he is good enough either. He's just a tad slow and lack aggression for a an enforcer role; do you remember him ever being dirty as in picking up a red for a bad tackle?

But that's the point isn't it? As a specialist, Makalele's contribution in attack was poor, just like Mikel's (we all agree on that) - the zero assists and goals showcase that. So, since Mikel, like Makelele, is so single-dimensional (defense only), shouldn't he be as good as Makelele was to be good enough?!

I don't completely disagree with what you said, except of course about the stuff I did not say (about Luiz). Luiz is a great CB, but too old to move to a DM position. I have no doubt if he played as a DM since 20yo he'd be a lot better than Mikel, just because he is a better natural footballer. I just think that all players you listed are indeed better than Mikel in passing, pace (his main weakness in defense) even not mentioning attacking which is a bonus. Also remember Mikel has zero assists, which is pretty rare specially in combination with a zero goal tally.

I don't think Rooney is very interesting because he is on the bench and has been second option to RVP for quite some time... No, the difficulty in short passing is ALL about pressure! The deeper you are, the easier it is to complete them. Without pressure a player will not miss a single short pass...

Makelele *was* because it was a different time where those type of players were indeed used. Their "job" has changed. Where is Munich's pure DM? How about Real? Or Barca? makelele had a lot more aggression and pace than Mikel btw. Please notice the terms you've used to describe Mikel: decent, not elite... well pardon me for wanting better than "decent" and "not elite." And yet, David, the player you dislike, is a sure starter for one of the top Nationals Teams in the world, is sought after by a number of top managers and teams, including Barca and Munich. The same can't be said of Mikel. Sorry, but I will stick with the evidence here.

The quote you mentioned from last page is incomplete: how many games? what are they? Where were they played? The list you've been given for Mikel had all those! Once again, I'd be extremely worried if the team I was part performed better without me. Because short passes are easy! Have you even played semi-professionally? I am NOT a good player and still always had an easy time with short passing, especially without pressure - even my long ones weren't too bad. You keep saying that about our system, but Mikel has never become more than a rotation player and we don't even have a sub for the DM position with Romeu on loan. Also, I look at the other top sides and they all play without one pure holding mid like Mikel. They play with players who can create and score on occasion. Who are far more involved in the attacking process than Mikel can ever be. It's not about style, it's a bout quality or lack thereof. I don't think Mikel has good technique because he can't shoot for his life, can't dribble, can't play long balls. Isn't creative, as his 0 assists will showcase. He just has a hard time in tight spaces.

Why did we play better and won far more games without Drogba vs with him or it was the other way around? Did Barcelona play better without Messi than with him or has it always been the other way around? I am not saying the player is the sole responsible for the teams performance, but at some point you need to assess whether the SYSTEM, the TEAM, does better with or without him. And you've been tying his short-passing completion (a completely useless stat) for the past 50 pages or so to quality. That's precisely where we completely disagree; you find his contribution adequate while I find it completely inadequate based on his embarrassing contribution in attack (if you go by individual numbers alone). again, we will find out soon enough how important a player Mikel is for Mourinho.

Win/lose ratio as a team with and without Mikel are the only stats that matter to me. It's a team sport after all. Pass completion means nothing... because it does not show the quality of the passing. I would certainly like if Mikel had the pace to quickly close down players like you wrote, however even then he would still not be good enough for me. A modern player at t top side must be able to contribute in attack somehow. That play he lost the football on his own, without pressure, was embarrassing to say the least. I think it's my Brazilian background (way of seeing the game) talking here, but technique/quality manifests itself in tight spaces and in goals/assists - not in side passes.

deleted - have already made my point before.

well at least pool fans must be thinking the same about Shelvey. TBH always thought the guy as an interesting player with the right amount of aggression (perhaps a bit too much at times) and some quality passing the ball. Would have gone for him as a HG squad player for the right price. And only 21 btw...

Also, we fans, in general, have this strange reasoning that when we swap players we gain the replacement's virtues without his shortcomings. It's as if we purposely forget the weakness of the player who (in our opinion) should've played TM. Perhaps it's just a case of "the grass is always greener..." My point being that when Cahill is on, his weaknesses are exploitable, tracking back, lack of mobility and his lesser contribution in attack (compared to David). It's the same when David plays, we have to handle -- as a team -- his shortcomings. That's called teamwork. Terry and Cahill are the same player; they have the same virtues as well as shortcomings. They are both very good in the air, composed, but lack agility and mobility. The team becomes more stretched when they play because they don't push forward with the other lines. David and either one of them makes a perfect pairing.

That's from Jamie Redknapp's column isn't it? Just go by the comment section and read them all, especially the highly rated ones. Yes, it was bad positioning on his part, so what?! The defensive line failed including Cech. With Cole, JT, and Iva, they could've marked individually, but remained zonal. So, yes, David was to blame IMO, but blaming him alone for the goal is absolutely ridiculous as the entire defense failed to handle that ball. I wonder if David gets a free pass to move up especially when Mikel plays. So, the reasoning might be that Mikel would cover for him. I mention this because his forward runs seem to bother people for some strange reason. Ironically, he rarely (as in never) makes them when playing for Brazil. If we are going to lose every game in which we concede a goal when playing away from home, this is going to be a very very long season.

absolutely! If you can look past his finishing (which is really lacking at the moment) you see that he's a very interesting player. Despite his build and height, his movement is great with lots of pace. Now, I have to say that we can't afford to wait until his finishing comes good; Mourinho will drop him and when Andre shows some signs of improvement in training he will get another shot. Business as usual in football.

Jela lost Iva; because Iva was marking him at the beginning of the play but did not do a good job allowing the ball to be sent back into the box. JT was obviously not prepared for the live ball and also lost his man, but I reckon Iva mishap was the main cause for the goal. My point remain he moved up *because* we were getting involved. So, you can't say had he not moved up we'd be able to cover... etc Because had he not moved up, the wide pass by the everton player wouldn't have been necessary as he might have gone straight for the goal. There was an opening there. My bias here is that I dislike defenders in line inside our own box most of the time (used to be common in the EPL I know), especially in open play. No I am not sure his movement was good, as I don't know what Mourinho instructs him to do, but I also don't think it was the main cause for the goal as we had two defenders covering two everton players and the cross wasn't that great to be honest. So, while I also question David's positioning (with the caveat that I am not 100% certain it was a bad move), I'd not call him the culprit; JT and Iva were just as, if not more, at fault there. They are supposed to be the dominant ones in the air after all, and prob the reason they were inside the box at that moment and David wasn't - perhaps just as instructed by Mou.

Was not involved in Everton's goal, but that'd be my criticism: don't think his moving up helped. Not sure it was wrong, since Everton were involving our midfielders at the time, so he moved up to try to intercept the play which is what he's good at. Disagree with above. He's had a decent game along with his virtues of intercepting the ball - he did that many times. His deficiencies are mostly in the air and when he has to position, but thankfully David's deficiencies are precisely the virtues of our other defenders; they are all great in the air. One could be disappointed wit Iva and Tery since they are so good in the air, but that was good save by Jelavic.

yes bad day in the office for Cole, but he was having was constantly under pressure by the electric Coleman. Same way Jelavic was a handful for both Luiz and Terry.

Think he zipped past Mikel a few times and we were only able to control him when doubling up on him: usually Mikel and Luiz with one of them covering. Bear in mind Ross is 19 years old... from that perspective he does look promising.

Didn't some players look a bit tired? Especially in the second half. I wonder whether Mourinho could've used more the players who did not play internationally midweek. I guess Mata did not and still looked a bit lethargic. To the people saying we just lacked a clinical striker... but we do not have one! So, are you saying we are not title contenders because of that?

agree... while his work rate was above of the other two strikers, his finishing and acceleration don't seem to be there any more. Hope I am wrong.