TorontoChelsea

This is why I find the Hulk buy strange. (beyond the price) We have Sturridge and Ramires (and Marin) on the right already and only Torres as a striker and Hulk is not a striker. He can play the position, but he's better and more experienced as a RW. Why not go for Cavani or Falcao or Ba or someone else who is a natural striker?

Torres has played 67 matches with Chelsea and been awful. He;s started 45 matches. in a year and a half. People act as if he's some delicate child that needs some to be coddled. Drogba was pushed aside for Shevchenko, Anelka, and Torres, and you know what, he still dominated. You can say that you think Torres will do better or that Torres will return to where he was at Liverpool, but the idea that Torres has not been given a chance is simply untrue.

Agreed...Plus, it doesn't work as well in England. In the Premiership, you need to have more power, size, and physicality than in Spain.

It's not all Chelsea's fault, no. It's also City, Liverpool, Madrid, Barca, and others and it really needs to be slowed down. (Liverpool's spending was the most baffling as it wasn't for players with any success but those of us who remember Chris Sutton can feel for their fans a bit.) This type of spending bad for football on so many levels. As for Hulk having success with Chelsea next season...well, none of us know. He should succeed but Torres and Shevchenko were much more established players and they both flopped. It's not easy to take players and just plop them onto a team and have success. Barca play like Barca because these players have been playing with each other for years. Will Hazard, Hulk, Mata, and Torres gel? Maybe, maybe not. I liked Ramires on the right because he doesn't need to touch the ball very often. You have 4 players who all are used to having the ball and shooting regularly could lead to frustration or it could be amazing. I guess we'll have to see.

5 goals in 7 CL games is great. Drogba scored 11 goals in 16 games in Europe in one season with Marsailles and he signed for £24m. He played 2 games against Liverpool and scored in both. He played against Newcastle and scored 2 goals. He played against Inter and scored. He scored against Real Madrid. Hulk has never had that type of success. It's not that I dislike Hulk, it's that the price is crazy. I know Chelsea fans are not supposed to talk about this, but It's also bad for football. RA spent like crazy when he first came and then he settled down but Chelsea and City have lead an insane rise in transfer prices and in wages.

I imagine it will be Mata left-footed, Hazard right-footed and Lampard from deeper.

Of course, you're right, but he was injured 2 years ago. The point is that Valencia has been incredible value. In order for Hulk to be good value, he has to turn into one of the best players in the world. And as far as FFP goes, it's real. No matter what the actual figures are, Chelsea can't go spending money like crazy. Chelsea have the highest wage bill in England and that's before Hazard and Hulk. This is a real issue.

Hazard is 21. Hulk will 26 in a month. And yes, Hulk's success in Europe has been very limited. Hulk has played 24 UCL games and has 7 goals and 2 assists. Hulk has played 18 games against teams from Spain and England and has 2 goals. He has 0 goals in 10 games against English clubs. It's the same issue. He has no success against top sides in his career. For this kind of money, you should be getting someone who has dominated.

Financial fair play. This is one of the most expensive transfers in football history for a player with no success in Europe or Internationally. For this kind of money, you should be getting an established star from a top level league. What bothers me (and I think other people here) is that this move was born out of RA's obsession with Hulk. Like Torres or Shevchenko, RA just wanted Hulk and was willing to over-pay for him. Does Hulk fit in with the team? I'm not sure. In Porto, he's their go-to guy. In Chelsea he's not going to touch the ball nearly as often. He doesn't fit in a 4-2-3-1 well. He's a 4-3-3 winger. He's going to play against much much tougher opposition. There are a while bunch of strikers and wingers available and instead of going out and finding the best value, he went after the player he was obsessed with. Last season, ManU got Antonion Valencia for £16 million and he had a fabulous season. It seems like there is almost no attempt by Chelsea to ever look for value. What happens now if Torres continues to falter? Well, we have no established central strikers and no money to go get one. Hulk replaces Sturridge or Ramires in the lineup depending on the system who were two of our better players. It's a signing that may turn out well, but doesn't really make any sense.

There is no scenario where Josh has a significant role with Chelsea this season. (Short of a series of catastrophic injuries after the transfer deadline.) He'll go on loan and get some experience which is what's best for him.

I am not for blocking our youth players, but the truth is at any club very very few of them ever make an impact. There is a real fetishization of potential. You look at the young player of the season-Kyle Walker and he played for years on loan before he was regular at Spurs. Welbeck was on loan for two years. That's the way things are done. Neither Hutichinson or Kane are remotely ready for top football. Go on loan, succeed, and I'll be the first to say that they should get playing time.

Absolutely not. This is the Premier League, you need to have quality reserves. None of us (I assume) were fans of Bosingwa, but he was still an international quality player. You can't replace him with a couple of reserve team players with no experience. Kane has never played a professional match in his life. Hutchinson has had 6 total appearances almost all as subs. It's quite possible that neither of them will ever be good enough to play for Chelsea and they definitely aren't good enough yet. Ryan Bertrand played 129 games on loan before he was ready to play at Chelsea. If either of these guys have a future at Chelsea, it will be through that route.

Exactly! I have no idea why Sturridge is so hated. He's 22 years old, has incredible skills, and can score. Is he too selfish? Yes, he is. but all top strikers are selfish. It's in their DNA to want to score. He was Chelsea's second best player the second half of the season. When he was moved to a midfield position, he did poorly, but he's not a midfielder, he's a pure forward with a nose for goal. He has incredible potential.

Very interesting list. Have any of these players been worth what they've been sold for? Maybe Falcao if he keeps doing what he does or gets sold for more. Porto has a great system where they take young talent, they dominate the Portuguese league and then they get sold for ridiculous amounts of money which and end up being mediocre at their new clubs. Very smart club.

Ramires represents an interesting problem. He is terrific on the counter-attack and has incredible speed and stamina. However, in the traditional passing or long-ball game, he was pretty mediocre because he's not much of a passer and is not strong in the air. His perfect position is that AM in the 4-2-3-1 formation. If we do play that formation, I like Ramires to play in the 3 with Mata and Hazard as Ramires doesn't need to touch the ball that often and he creates space for other players. (With Mikel and Lampard in the 2). In a 4-3-3, he doesn't really fit as well although it's not like I'd sit him all the time or anything. (Oddly, Mata is basically the opposite. He excelled under AVB in the 4-3-3 and his worst games were in the defensive, counter-attack systems that Ramires excelled in. Sturridge was great in the 4-3-3 and useless in the 4-2-3-1. Lampard was better once he was move back a bit...Whoever the next Chelsea manager is going to have to get the best out of all the players, but it's difficult when they thrive in different systems.)

Chelsea don't have ideas and can't pass? Tell me how many teams have a more creative player than Mata? Do Chelsea play all-out attacking football? No, they don't but almost no clubs do. In fact, AVB played a very attacking system and Torres was historically awful (not scoring for what, 26 games?). I'm not saying to get rid of him, but there is absolutely no way that Chelsea should go into next season with Torres as their only real striker.

This creative team stuff is just nonsense. What the hell does "creative team" mean? Is Chelsea Spain or Barcelona? No, but if you can only succeed playing on a team of that quality, you're not very good. Chelsea scored the fifth most goals in the premiership. Newcastle is much less creative team than Chelsea and Cisse and Ba still managed to score with regularity. Norwich has almost no creativity and Holt scored 15 goals. That's what strikers do. They score goals. They don't need to be surrounded by world class talent in order to have any success.

Still with the Torres excuses? The team doesn't move the ball quickly enough, the formation is wrong, the style of play is wrong,he's too worried about having another striker around... etc.... He cost £50 million pounds. He should be able to score in any single formation or style. Chelsea had two main weaknesses last season. The first was a lack of a second creative midfielder/winger to allow Mata to stay in one place and to get some rest now and then. We bought Hazard to fix that. The second was a complete lack of success from our strikers. Not buying a new striker is crazy. Torres has now played 67 games at Chelsea and has been awful. I don't think people appreciate just how awful he's been. He's played 67 games with Chelsea and has scored 12 goals. That's bad enough but it's even worse than that. Of those 12 goals, 9 of them were in games where we beat up very poor sides. (Leicester, QPR, West Ham, Villa Genk, Birmingham). Against decent and good teams (say, top 10 in the premiership, Valencia, Napoli, Barcelona, Benfica, and Leverkusen) Torres has played 36 games with Chelsea and has scored 2 goals. In his 67 games at Chelsea, Torres has not scored a single goal to win us a game or to draw us even. We won the CL with Drogba. We won the FA Cup with Drogba. You look at a player like Drogba or Van Persie or Cisse or any good striker and they are able to create their own chances. They are able to turn nothing into goals. If Torres needs a team to be built to his own specifications to succeed, he's just isn't that good. None of this is to say that Torres can't be a world-class striker. He was excellent at Liverpool and a return to that form is certainly possible, but to rely on a striker who has been so awful for a year and a half is insane. Especially if Chelsea are going to spend big this off-season.

Oh come on. There was nothing particularly dirty about it. There were a few tough tackles, a couple of yellow cards. Basically, a standard game in any competition.

Brazil's keeper has been incredible. Neymar looks like he's going to be special. Hulk was very quiet but impossible to judge a player on one game.

This ref is just awful.

And Benni McCarthy 45 goals in 85 games in Portugal and Oscar Cardoza has scored 87 goals in 133 games in Portugal. Lima had 20 goals and 7 assists this season.The Portuguese league has two or three good teams but if you play on Porto or Benfica, the vast majority of your competition is against sides that would be in the Championship or League 1 in England. I mean, Porto has only lost 1 game in the last 2 years. This is why it's very difficult to take statistics from lesser leagues and apply them to the Premiership. This is why I don't understand how anybody can claim that Hulk is anything approaching a world class player. Hulk has never had any success in Europe or in international tournaments so this "he's a world-class player" is gleaned entirely from him dominating poor competition. Look at the Portuguese league player of the year before Hulk. David Luiz, Bruno Alvez, Lisandro Lopez, Simao Sabrosa, and Ricardo Quiersma. That's the best of the Portuguese league. Luiz was a dominant defender in Portugual. He's struggled a fair bit at Chelsea. None of this is to say that Hulk won't be terrific. It's absolutely possible, but it's a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a player we don't need who has never accomplished anything at a high level. It's possible, he'll be terrific, but it's also possible that he's not good enough to succeed in England. Sergio Aguero cost in this range and he was 23, had 4 excellent years in Spain and had success in Europe and had played regularly with some success for Argentina.

Financial fair play might come in so overspending on someone by £15 million could be huge. Also, some of use like to see Chelsea build smartly. Chelsea has obvious needs. They needed a creative midfielder, a RB, and a striker to replace Drogba. This is exactly the kind of move that's messed Chelsea up previously. Roman desperately wants a player, doesn't care whether they fit into the system or not, massively overpays for them, and then they flop. Is Hulk going to succeed in the Premiership? Maybe, but maybe not. Paying £30-40 million for someone who has had two excellent years playing almost exclusively against poor competition is insane. Not to mention that Chelsea don't need another shoot-first forward. Here's are a couple of interesting stats: 1- Hulk has played 10 games in his career against English clubs. He has 0 goals. 2- Sturridge played 21 Premiership games under AVB last season as our RW and scored 9 goals. Hulk played 23 games at Porto in the same system and scored 9 non-penalty goals. Yes, that's right. Sturridge had a better scoring rate in England than Hulk did in Portugal (and is 4 years younger and costs nothing to buy).