TorontoChelsea

Has to be a joke....well, it better be a joke but you really never know.

I was confused by that. It was not RDM who said that Hazard would start on the left wing though, rather the writer from Metro. Given that he said that Mata was injured rather than being rested, it's possible he just doesn't know what he's talking about. I'd be fine with that 4-3-3 as well but my worry is that Hazard and Mata both like to drift to the middle which would leave our wings very vulnerable.

Lampard, Osgood, Terry, Zola, Tambling. Of the players I've seen play, take out Osgood and Tambling and replace them with Cole and Drogba.

We have about 60 more games to go. He was playing at the Olympics so he didn't get a chance to train with the club. He should have plenty of opportunity to play this year and if he plays well, it will earn him a lot of time. This isn't a Lukaku scenario.

No it doesn't. In 2003-2004, Arsenal lost to Inter 3-0 at home in their first match in the CL. They didn't lose a single game in the Premier League. Losing to Juventus would mean just that. A loss to Juventus.

It's not the formation I would have chosen, but I also don't know what he knows. We're not at training. We aren't getting the game broken down for us repeatedly by experts. People here will say "We need to play this or that player". Maybe that player has been awful at training. Maybe they don't track back at all. Maybe they aren't clicking with their teammates at all. Maybe they don't understand their role. RDM is sometimes too conservative for my tastes but it's playing it safe rather than being a coward. I think he wants players to earn their playing time and his trust and I don't see anything wrong with that. It's a long season and I am sure as the season goes along, we will see a lot of changes.

Would prefer City to advance in the CL. Being out of Europe makes it easier to play in the league. Would love to see all the English teams advance a round.

I never said that Lampard doesn't have to help out defensively, just that his position is not about covering for Mikel. That's how the system works. Every single player has to help out defensively. . In Lampard's 3 games, we have outscored out opponents 6-2 but we need to drop him. He has not made a single run that has led to the other side scoring. This massive defensive problem that we have hasn't cost us a single goal but it needs to happen immediately. As for the 4-2-3-1, it is possible to play any way you want but nobody does actually play with two defensive midfielders for a reason. It's a horrible system that creates no ball movement.You are also calling Lampard a weak link after 3 poor matches? After a fabulous decade for us, in the middle of 2 straight man of the match performances for England suddenly Lampard is done because he's had a mediocre 3 matches in the league. It's a ridiculous over-reaction. And I'm sick of seeing the RDM has to be "brave" or "have balls" bullshit. He doesn't play the players you want because he doesn't think it's best for the team, not because he's a coward.

How many times has Lampard's leaving Mikel exposed cost us a goal? The answer is none. It's this ridiculous pretending like there is some massive emergency that needs to be rectified immediately when the problem you are complaining about hasn't cost us anything in Lampard's first three matches. Anyway, Lampard's job is not generally to provide cover for Mikel anymore than it's Hazard's job to provide cover for Lampard. (And I can't imagine you blaming Hazard when Lampard is outnumbered in the midfield). Mikel should rarely be exposed anyway as he should have two central defenders behind him most of the time (unless one of them is making a run or they are splitting wide).

For the millionth time, Lampard's position is not as a defensive midfielder. It's a deep-lying midfielder which is a playmaking positions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-lying_playmaker#Deep-lying_playmaker Also, how exactly has our problem been Lampard's runs? Again, in Lampard's starts, we've scored 6 goals and conceded two, neither which have been Lampard's fault. In yesterday's game, we didn't score a goal and what's the problem? Lampard leaving Mikel exposed? How often did that happen? This nonsense has just gotten out of hand.

I get your point and I think it's a legitimate concern, but I'd like to see our team evolve some before making any big moves. One of the major reasons we didn't have much possession against QPR was playing Ramires are Bertrand. Neither are really possession players. (Also, Torres, couldn't keep possession up front.) I think with Mata back in the starting XI and hopefully moving out left more (the biggest imbalance for me has been the attacking third, it hasn't been sorted out yet and unlike the deep-lying midfield, there are tons of options there), we will be able to keep the ball more. We did have 72% possession against Reading after all. With a lot of new players, RDM has some definite tinkering to do. I'd rather he do it at his own pace than be forced into some ridiculous panicky changes that so many on here seem to want.

The article at the beginning of this thread was terrible because it makes the same basic mistake in thinking that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders. It just isn't. Many teams play the 4-2-3-1 and the roles are almost always the same. One defensive midfielder, and one deep-lying playmaker. You can't play with two defensive midfielders because there's no bridge from the defence to the attack. Instead of freeing up the attackers to do more, what it actually does is require the attacking players to come further back up the pitch to receive the ball. So you have a team that has static movement and very limited creativity Also, I found the criticisms of Lampard kind of ridiculous. The biggest pproblem at Chelsea is that Lampard makes too many runs and that opens us up too much space? Chelsea have conceded 2 goals in the 3 games Lampard has started and neither of them were remotely caused by Lampard (One, brilliant header Cahill could have done better, one horrible error by Cech)? Why is something that has cost us zero goals this year suddenly the biggest problem with the team? (The criticism of him not being an ideal deep-lying midfielder is legitimate.) Also, the article is wrong about Lampard's positioning. It's not a debate. It's just factually wrong because we actual have Lampard's positioning data available. Look at Lampard's average position in his three starts and each game he averaged being right around midfield which is where he should be. He plays where Xabi Alonso plays and actually more defensively than Pirlo plays. He hasn't played well this season, but so much of the criticism of him is based on a lack of understanding of what his position is supposed to be and what he is responsible for.

Don't see why Athletico would do that. I am sure Chelsea's valuation of Torres will be higher than most teams would pay for him. If he struggles until January, how much is anyone going to pay for him? 15M? Van Persie just went for 24M and he's only year older than Torres and much better. Also, Torres us on what 170K/week? No way a team that is struggling to break even is going to pay that kind of wage.

That;s not remotely it. If this were all about Lampard, RDM could easily switch to a 4-3-3 with Mikel, Ramires, and Lampard in the midfield and Hazard and Mata on the wings. He doesn't because he wants Hazard and Mata running things from the #10 spot.This is about RDM thinking that the 4-2-3-1 is the best formation for Chelsea and the team literally having no other options for the deep lying midfielder. That position requires creativity, vision, and long passing ability. Romeu and Ramires would be awful for that position. They have basically the opposite abilities for what is required from that position. This is a problem caused by Chelsea spending 80M pounds on three players who all want to be/should be playing right behind the striker. Because the squad is so imbalanced, RDM has limited options. This is also because Lampard played very well last season and for the past decade, has been man of the match two games in a row for England, so three mediocre to poor performances in the league doesn't make decent managers panic. It's amazing that so many Chelsea supporters have bought the media conspiracy theories of last season. AVB was not fired because of Lampard and Terry being pissed off, He was fired because his ideas didn't work. He was fired because he couldn't communicate to his players. But most of all, he was fired because Chelsea were losing. Lampard is not playing because of some conspiracy, he's playing because RDM thinks he's the best man he's got for that role.

I think we'll see the regular starting XI. Changes likely to be made for Stoke which makes sense. Kind of silly to give someone their first start in the CL against Juventus. It's clear that RDM likes people to prove themselves to some degree before giving them major responsibility and I think the positive outings from Sturridge and Moses, however brief, will at least let RDM feel more comfortable about using them more.

Not just harsh but ridiculous. RDM is going to be judged on what happens over the course of this season. Not by one match in September.

What? We dropped two points in four games, we have kept three clean sheets, it's obvious we need to make earth-shattering changes. Every time we don't win, we should discuss why RDM needs to go. Every time we don't win 5-0, we need to make big changes. Here's my starting lineup for the Juventus game: Cech, Cesar, Hutchinson,Luiz, Bertrand, Romeu, Oscar, Mata, Hazard, KDB (recall him from loan), Hulk (kidnap him and use him at striker.)

Part of that is Cole is the best 1 on 1 defending LB in the world and Ivanovic is not near that level. Ramires didn't have a good match, but he wasn't nearly as awful as people make him out to be but then again, he never is Look at the game thread, 10 minutes into the match with Ramires creating the best chance of the game and people are writing "take Ramires off" and "he's useless". If it were Oscar who had played that 10 minutes, the same people would have written "that cross to Hazard shows his quality, and he has great pace, he deserves to be starting." It's almost as if the game itself doesn''t matter because no matter what, people will say the players they liked played well and the players they didn't were awful. The reason we didn't win against QPR is that Hazard and Luiz missed 3 glorious opportunities to score and we didn't get a deserved penalty (or two). We really only conceded one very good chance (when Terry cleared the ball away from the empty net, although to be fair Cole was right behind him if it got through).

That's not what is happening at all. I have no idea why people think that the double pivot is two defensive midfielders nor do I have any idea why people think speed is crucial for a deep-lying midfielder. I think there is just a narrative that has taken hold that cannot be shaken. Possible the three best deep-lying midfielders in football today are Pirlo, Iniesta, and Xabi Alonso. None of them are particularly fast (in fact, I would say "slow" would be applicable to Alonso at least). None of them are defensive midfielders. They are distributors and they also know how to get forward to join the attack. The deep-lying midfielder position is a creative, distributive one with some defensive responsibilities. Speed is simply not crucial for the role. Lampard's problem has been that his passing so far has been sub-standard and he's probably making one or two too many runs a game. Maybe it's that he's lost something but it could also be a bad few games to start the season. Players do have bad stretches. The reason we have been playing Ramires on the right is that neither Hazard or Mata track back enough (and Ivanovic needs some protection as he's been caught out of position often so far this season.) It's clear that no matter what Lampard is going to get blamed for everything (and this is a trend that went back to last year after he had a few bad games then.) If we give up goals, it's because of Lampard in the double pivot. If we don't score, it's because of Lampard in the double pivot. (And if we do keep a clean sheet or score, it has nothing to do with Lampard.) People just have the same ideas for what's wrong with Chelsea and they watching games to confirm these opinions. It's really the same with Ramires. He's not ideal for the right attacking midfield, but because people hate him there, they don't see any good that he does and exaggerate how bad he is there. Nobody seems to have mentioned Ramires' pass to Hazard that he should have scored on. Nobody mentions Lampard's beautiful through-ball to Bertrand that he should have done better with. If it doesn't fit with the narrative, just ignore it. With Ramires, we do have other options to play on the right. With Lampard, we don't have any other options. He's not ideal for the deep-lying midfield positions, but we literally have nobody else right now to fill that spot. Perhaps Oscar will develop into that spot, but he has a lot of adapting still to go.

I'm getting tired of this discussion but I just don't get this POV. Torres hasn't had great service with Chelsea but if a striker needs to get the ball at his feet in front of net to score, he's not very good. Many many players can score if you give them excellent service. What makes a top striker is the ability to put those chances away, the ability to get himself into great positions to get those easy chances,and also to create their own chances. Torres has been poor at all three aspects.

1) It's not the formation I would have chosen, but no manager ever picks the exact starting XI I want. I don't care if you disagree with it, I do too, it's the overreaction, the "RDM is an idiot" or "Should RDM keep his job?" just because he put up too defensive a formation one game. There are also things that we are not privy to. Maybe Moses didn't track back at all in training. Maybe Oscar keeps getting physically pushed around in training. It's the armchair general view of things. You will never have to field your starting XI so you are immune to criticism so your theoretical starting XI is always perfect and since no real starting XI is ever perfect, yours is always better. (And I am using "your" in a general sense". 2) That's not any different to me. Dropping someone after 2 bad games after months or years of solid play is ridiculous as well. If managers did that, nobody would ever play for them. The idea that the team top of the table is going to make massive personnel changes because of one away draw in a derby is absurd. We are likely to make changes for next game simply because we are playing 3 games this week.

I agree with Zolayes, you are hardly the problem. It's the people on the match day thread who do the "take so and so off" after 10 minutes because he made two bad passes. It's the "so and so is crap" because they had a bad game. It's the "fire the coach" when you're on top of the table. Look, I have said many times before that my main worry with RDM is that he seems too conservative which means that he's slow to make changes both between matches and in-game. There is a lot of room for legitimate and reasoned criticism and analysis which you do quite well. (I very much like your game analyses) Nobody is saying that you have to love everything RDM does or think that every player is great, I just would love to see reasoned discussion take the place of insane over-reaction. Right now, the latter dominates.

Exactly. Some people expect us to win every match against a decent side 3-0 and 7-0 against poorer sides. Going into the season, a realistic expectation was (still is) 3rd place. Last year's 3rd place team Arsenal lost 10 matches and drew 7, winning 55% of their matches. There are just so many ridiculous expectations. 1) That RDM is going to use tactics that you want and the players you want. No manager will ever do that. They also know things we do not. 2) The RDM will drop a player after one bad game or one bad match or even a couple of bad plays. The truth is, every single player has poor periods and some need to play out of them. 3) That Chelsea will play well and win every single game. (Just absurd). 4) That not only will they win every single game, but they will look great doing it. Fluid passing, excellent finishing, dominating possession. 5) That the players you want to play well will play well every single game and the players you want to see replaced will play poorly every single game. The levels of confirmation bias are just insane. We're top of the league and people are freaking out. Honestly, stuff like this puts me off of this board.

Nice to see him FINALLY get a few minutes as a striker. Should probably start against Stoke. We need to give him a chance to show what he can do and he's played well in pretty much every match he's played this season (with us and with England).

I thought the opposite. He made a few very good key plays late, but overall, his positioning was atrocious. He was upfield way too often, drifted off to the right too far and kept trying to bomb the ball forward instead of playing the simple pass. You don't notice it as much when the other team doesn't score, but he needs to stay back and play simple, short passes instead of being caught upfield. He played like a defender late in the game (perhaps because Terry was hurt and Luiz knew he had to cover some for him) and was great in the last 30 minutes, but he needs to simplify his game.