TorontoChelsea

I have a hard time believing this. Lots of rumours going around, but 50M for Torres was crazy and Torres was a striker with an excellent history in the Premiership and in Spain. It just seems like double what teams should be paying for Hulk. We'll see when it happens.

I have my doubts as to how good Feliiani actually is. I don't think he's rubbish or anything, but for a defensive midfielder, 20-25M, you should be getting Ya Ya Toure. If all these Belgian players were as good as people said they were, they'd be a world-class team, not the #54 ranked team in the world. And I disagree. We absolutely don't need him. From last season, we've subtracted Kalou from our midfield/wingers and added Marin, Hazard, Benayoun, probably Hulk and maybe De Bruyne. If we play the 4-3-3, we'll have Hulk and Hazard as wingers with Marin, Sturridge Mata, Malouda, and Ramires able to play there as well. In the midfield, we'd likely rotate with something like Mikel, Lampard, Mata, Meireles, and Ramires starting the bulk of the games with Romeu, Malouda, and Essien providing cover (with Hazard and Benayoun also able to play more centrally if needed.) If we play a 4-2-3-1, We'll likely have Hulk, Mata, and Hazard behind the striker with Lampard and Mikel deeper. Ramires would be able to provide cover to most of those spots but then Meireles, Benayoun, Malouda, Romeu, etc...can also cover. This idea that we need another midfielder seems crazy to me. We actually have about 2 or 3 too many midfielders right now.

I agree. Ronaldo was worth it, but Ronaldo was 23 and the second best player in the world who was dominating in the best league in the world and in Europe and won a Balloon D'or after being the runner up the year before. Ronaldo is also one of the biggest brands in the world. Hulk is 26 and has had 2 excellent years in the Portuguese league and nothing else. I'd put Hulk's value at around £20-25M which is about what Chelsea paid for Mata and more than we paid for Ramires.

He wouldn't score 66 goals goals in 94 games with this Chelsea team, but he'd have done a hell of a lot better than Torres did. Torres basically contributed nothing in the last year and a half. 12 goals and 9 of them were against crap teams in games that weren't close. It drives me crazy the number of excuses people make for Torres. One of the reason Torres didn't get more opportunities (and he got enough where he should have scored significantly more than he did) is that his positioning was poor. He has this natural inclination to go out wide. He tries to use his speed to get around defenders and that just hasn't worked against decent defences so instead he just carries out wide and tries to cross. Yes, that led to some very nice crosses into the box, but he's a striker, he should be in front of the net. The other thing is that Torres' first touch has lacked any confidence in front of net. Instead of getting the ball on his foot and blasting it in, how many times did Torres try to make one move then a second and then end up either making a mess of it or getting the shot blocked. A striker finds ways to score.You think Norwich is a hub of creativity? Holt scores 17 goals. Stoke City almost play rugby instead of football and Crouch had 14 goals. Here are the regular strikers (playing regularly) who had better scoring rates in the Premiership: RVP, Rooney, Aguero, Adabayor, Aiyegbeni, Ba, Holt, Dzek, Balotelli, Cisse, Fletcher, Graham, Defoe, Suarez, Crouch, Odemwingie, Drogba, Morison, Jelavic, Welbeck, Bendtner, Shane Long, Bent, Jamie Mackie, Klasnic, Kevin Davies The regular strikers with worse scoring rates: Doyle, Carroll,,Walters, Di Santo, Agbanlahor, and N'Gog, . You have to have a lot of gall to claim that that's all because Chelsea isn't creative enough. I'm absolutely sick of people blaming Torres' awfulness on other players, on hurt feelings, on poor service, on a system he doesn't get, on his hair band, on anything other than Torres being in poor form. I'm also sick of the "Torres showed that he's back" stuff. Why? In Torres, last 12 Premiership games, he scored in 2 of them, in games against QPR and Villa where we outscored those teams 10-3. In that time, he started against Liverpool Newcastle, Man City, Fulham, and Arsenal-all key games in Chelsea's hope to make the top-4 and didn't get a single goal or even an assist. Yes, maybe he'll go back to Liverpool form, but to deny that Torres has been terrible is just a flat out lie.

Two issues here. It's not a real competition though. Lampard was one of our best players last season and will start 30-35 games. Ramires will play regularly in the double pivot. Mikel will play regularly. Romeu will back up Mikel. And that's if we play a 4-2-3-1, if we play a 4-3-3, the competition for playing time would be worse. The second problem is that you don't pay 20-25M for a guy to come off the bench or to play sparingly. Would Fellaini be an improvement on Meireles? Probably, but it's a minor improvement.

Cavani obviously. It's possible Torres regains his old form, but it's possible he doesn't and Cavani is right now one of the best strikers in the world. Last two seasons: Torres: 93 games: 21 goals. Cavani 94 games, 66 goals. And this is not some tiny sample size in some second-rate league. This is Seria a. He also scored 12 goals in 18 European games including against us. And with Cavani, it's not just scoring in one-sided games against poor sides, he scored a hat-trick to beat Milan. he scored both goals to beat man City 2-1. He scored 2 goals to come from 2 down to tie Udinese 2-2. He scored both goals in a 2-0 win over Inter to knock them out of the Coppa Italia. He scored the winner against Juventus to win the Coppa Italia. To me, he is everything you would want in a striker. He scores regularly, he scores big goals, he can create his own chances, he has a great work rate, great in the air, he's an excellent defensive player, etc.... I don't think anyone in the world would take Torres over him right now. Of course, Cavani would probably cost 50M or so which is a whole different argument.

Because there are only so many games to go around. If you play 50-60 games, that means there are 100-120 total games available for Mikel, Romeu, Lampard, Ramires, Essien, and Fellaini (with Meireles probably getting into some games too).It simply isn't enough game time for everyone even if Chelsea sold Essien. There is a balance between depth and guys being upset at not playing enough.

Almost everyone tends to be overrated or underrated. It's the nature of this type of discussion. Either a player is amazing/world class/etc...or they're useless and need to be jettisoned immediately. Supporters often overreact to individual plays as well as small sample sizes. ("he made a bad pass, get rid of him" or "he looked great in this one game, he's amazing") The most overrated players tend to be players that haven't played yet at Chelsea. So, possible transfer targets and youngsters always get the "they're amazing" treatment because their ability is based on fleeting glimpses, youtube videos, a game or two, etc... Once players actually play regularly, it becomes obvious that they're flawed like 100% of players are. (and with youth players, it becomes obvious that they are almost never as good as the players they are replacing.) As for Romeu? Is he a fantastic, game-changing player? No, of course not. He's not remotely close to that, but it was a pretty good début season and he's still very young. I think he's fine as a backup DM.

Agreed. he started out pretty well, but started making too many mental mistakes and was too slow to move the ball. That's fine. He's 20 and he'll get better. Positioning comes with experience. Mikel was exceptional for us once RDM came though. Either way, I'm quite fine with having Mikel and Romeu as our DMers. There is a real question of value when you start buying players when you already have talent. let's say Chelsea go out and buy Fellaini for 20-25M. Is he better than Mikel/Romeu? Maybe, but even if he is, how much better is he? So, you end up spending 20-25M (plus extra salary) for a possibility of slight upgrade .It's just horrible value.

The Community Shield is a trophy as well, I just don't really care about either. I'd take an away win against a tough side in the league over this game any day. I mean, really, what is the purpose of the game besides another way to make money. To see who the best team in Europe is? Chelsea won the Champions League, the collection of the best teams in Europe. Athletico won the Europa league, a collection of second-tier teams and teams that couldn't advance in the Champions League. We are the Champions of Europe. One meaningless game wont change that.

Lampard played 49 matches last season and had a great year. Maybe we play him in 40 this season? Are we going to spend 20-25M for someone to play a handful of games? We have very good depth at everywhere except RB and striker at the moment. Why do we need another midfielder? We have Hazard, Mata, Lampard, Hulk (probably), Meireles, Sturridge, Ramires, Mikel, Romeu, Benayoun, Malouda, Marin, and Essien for those 5 spots. And that's without considering de Bruyne, Kakuta, Piazon, and McEachran. That's excellent talent and excellent depth.

I'd let him play. This is not the Champions League, this is an exhibition game. (Except for the money).

Who knows? RDM actually played pretty attacking football at WBA but played exceptionally defensively at Chelsea. Decent managers adapt their tactics to fit the team which is where AVB really failed. (That and his poor communication skills) There was nothing wrong with his tactics, they just weren't going to work with Chelsea. Personally, I think every manager is overrated. You look at the teams that succeed and they are the teams that spend the most money and have the most talent. You don't think that any coach could do well at Barcelona? You think that there's a coach who would ever win anything at Stoke? The most important thing is that whoever comes in can communicate a vision and player responsibilities to everyone as well as handling player's egos. That, and an ability to get the most out of the players rather disparate talent.

To me, this is what makes a top striker. Someone who can do a lot with not much service, who can create on their own. If your game is predicated on being given incredible service...well, there are tons of players who can score when that happens.

Why? What has Kakuta done to deserve a shot at playing with the Champions of Europe? Forget about his awful attitude for a second, what, in terms of actual football, has Kakuta done to warrant a spot ahead of international players? Kakuta didn't score a goal in his last 7 matches for Dijon and then didn't even play the last 3 games. Yes, a team battling (and failing) to stay in the first division in France thought they were better off with Kakuta not playing, but he's good enough to play regularly for Chelsea? I have no idea how anyone could say that Kakuta has earned anything.

It's hard to know because Napoli ever only play counter-attack. It's not like he played in a different system and failed there. For me, I think he'd be good in any system. He really doesn't have a weakness in his game. He's a great finisher, he's strong, he's great in the air, he's even an excellent defender and passer for a target man. Would vastly prefer him to Hulk as I think striker is Chelsea's biggest weakness and unlike Hulk, Cavani is proven in a top league and against top competition including Premiership sides (In Hulk's 10 games against English clubs, he has 0 goals. Cavani had 4 goals in 4 games this season against Man City and Chelsea).

I agree. The other similar guy I quite like is Christian Eriksen at Ajax. He hasn't quite accomplished what Hazrad and Gotze have yet, but I think he has the makings of a superstar.

There's just absolutely no room for him at Chelsea right now. If Chelsea sign Hulk, they will have Hazard, Mata, Hulk, Ramires, Sturridge, Marin, Malouda, Benayoun, and Meireles for 3 spots in the starting XI. (Ramires and Meireles could be options in a more defensive roles as well but Lampard, Mikel, and Romeu are options there as well). Even if Chelsea sell Malouda and Benayoun, we'd start off with Ramires, Sturridge, Marin, and Meireles on the bench. Kakuta is not going to play ahead of any of those guys and do we really want a 20-year old sitting in the stands all season? In addition to having no room for him, I doubt Kakuta is ready. He hardly set the world on fire last season and could definitely use more game time.

You think that it's debatable that Benayoun and Malouda would be ahead Kakuta? You think Kakuta would be ahead of Sturridge and Meireles? Nobody is writing the lad off, but he has done nothing in his career yet. All the players you mention are internationals with a history of success in the Premiership.. Kakuta just played 14 games for a team that got relegated in France and you're treating him like a bona fide superstar. This is not a debate about potential or ability, it's about where players are in their careers. Kakuta has done nothing in his career as of yet. Even if Benayoun and Malouda get sold, there is no hole at winger. As for Borini, you are picking and choosing. Chelsea have signed and let go a lot of players and very few have ever done anything: Ben Sahar, Jimmy Smith, Shaun Cummings, Fabio Ferriera, Lee Sawyer, Sergio Tejera, Carl Magnay, Liam Bridcutt, Ben Gordon, etc...It's almost an endless list. You have two choices as a club. Either you give young players plenty of opportunity to succeed and you lose a lot of games because they are not very good, or you send the youth out on loans and let them succeed or fail elsewhere and once every decade, you miss out on a good player.

The teams in Portugal are very weak after Porto and Benfica. Sporting and Braga are decent teams and after that, the league is pitiful. Of course, a player can come from anywhere and succeed in the Premier League but success in Portugal (or any lesser league) is not a great indicator of success in England.

Yes, but that is based entirely on one club, Porto, having success in Europe. The French League is definitely deeper and more difficult to play in. Five champions in the last five seasons. Porto has lost one game in 2 years in Portugal. It's a league that is one dominant team, two or three decent teams, and most of the rest of the league would be in the first division in England. So, if you are a player for Marsaille or Lille or PSG, you have a much more difficult test than if you are coming from Porto. As for "I bet you've never seen Hulk play" crap, I've seen him play in about 20 games. He had excellent skills and is very tricky, but in this youtube/fifa12 world, Hulk has gone from being a very skilled winger with a great left foot to a "world-class player" without accomplishing anything. People are trying to make Hulk to be the exact player they want him to be. He isn't. He has some incredible skills, but he has real flaws too. He shoots way too much and from too far (he took way more shots than Sturridge did last year), he goes down very easily, he's suspect defensively, and he's unproven against good clubs. (And if you think he's going to physically dominate Premiership defenders, you're crazy) Yes, it's possible he'll come to Chelsea and turn into a dominant offensive force. It's absolutely a real possibility. But it's also a real possibility that he'll come to Chelsea and find that the speed, trickery, and power that he was able to use against Portuguese defenders is just not good enough to succeed in the Premiership. Considering that David Silva cost £24m two years ago and Mata cost £23.5m last season and they were both younger, more established, and played in a better league than Hulk, this talk of £38m seems ridiculous.

Soccernet has him at 68 KG which is 150 pounds. It's possible he weighs more. I have no idea. The point is that he's not some physical monster.

I never said Hulk wouldn't be able to play, I just said that he's not a physical force the way some are describing him. Aguero is a terrific player, but he doesn't dominate physically, he uses skill and vision to play brilliantly.

I disagree. I think he can outmuscle the LB and wingers but if he tries to go up against central defenders, they will often outweigh him by 30-40 pounds in the Premiership.

First of all, Hulk's name is misleading. He's not this bullish physical player the way Drogba is. Hulk is listed at 5'11, 150 LBs. Drogba is 6' 2'', 185. Hulk is not going to out-muscle Premier League defenders who are just much bigger. He is not really an inside player anyway. He liked to come in from the right on his left foot and shoot not play with his back to the goal. What Hulk is, is actually a typical Brazilian skill/moves kind of player with the added benefit of a cannon for a left foot. Secondly, who are you comparing Hulk to? Portuguese league defenders? Hulk definitely has speed, but among the fastest in the world? I doubt anyone would claim that. Ramires is certainly faster and Sturridge and Torres might be as well. Hulk has excellent skills, but there are tons of players with fabulous skills who can't put it together as top footballers and some top footballers who manage to succeed without the greatest skills.