TorontoChelsea

That's absolute nonsense. I compared Lampard to Giggs and Scholes by showing how top players can remain very productive well into their mid to late 30's. Lampard is an elite level player, maybe the best midfielder in Premier League history, there's no reason to believe that he's suddenly going to be useless . Lampard was very good last year playing 49 games, so what is your basis for thinking that he's suddenly not good enough to play regularly? Your logic is basically "well, he's 34 so he's going to be bad, so let's go out and spend 25 million on somebody new". This exactly the same "let's just go out and buy players because it's fun" crap. It's not only ridiculous in football terms, it's treating the best player in Chelsea history who is still a good player like garbage because you want a shiny new toy.

Sparingly? Lampard played 49 matches last season and was one of our better players and we suddenly have to cut his playing time in half simply because he's 34? Scholes was playing 33-38 games a season in his last 4 years before retiring (and coming back).Giggs has averaged almost 39 games a season in the last 5 seasons and he's 5 years older than Lampard. The idea that we have to bench a good player simply because of his age, is ridiculous. It's probably best that he doesn't play 49 games again, but he could easily play 40 and still be very effective. Lampard is probably the greatest player in Chelsea history and is still a very good player and this board is filled with people who want to see him gone.

The exact opposite. Torres was Chelsea going after a specific player and paying way more than he was worth because we were obsessed with getting him. I'm not saying Chelsea should get Pato or any player in particular, but we should be looking for value everywhere and previous injuries can bring down someone's price enormously thereby making them a bargain.

The injuries might actually make him a bargain. Every signing is a risk, but the risk to get a talent like Pato for fairly cheap because of injuries could pay off enormously.

I'm not using Real Madrid as an ideal situation. Real Madrid along with Barcelona, Chelsea,City, and to some extent Liverpool are the cause of this problem. I was just pointing out how even teams that spend enormously rarely spend like you people seem to want Chelsea to spend this summer. Eden Hazard is one of the most expensive transfers in history and people are acting as if Chelsea haven't done anything yet. We've already spent more this transfer period than all but 4 teams in the Premier League spent in all of 2011-2012. You don't have to buy the biggest name at every position to compete and long-term this strategy is disastrous and it creates a never-ending cycle of overspending. The inability to put a proper plan in place, the inability to find or even look for any value in the transfer market is why Chelsea have spent over a billion Euros and still have major holes in the team. I'm just so sick of the "hey, he looks good, let's go spend 25M pounds on him" stuff that dominates here. There's no feeling for football as a game, for footballers as people, for building a sustainable system, for looking for value, it's just a bunch of people treating Chelsea like a videogame for building their dream team.

I'll support Chelsea no matter what, but that kind of spending is disastrous for football. Not just because it makes competition impossible for any team not owned by a billionaire, and it raises transfer costs and wages to ridiculous rates, but because it takes away pride and joy from winning. If we went out and bought Hulk and a CM like Moutinho, our starting XI would cost something like 230+M. So, we beat Arsenal and Spurs? Well, if we spend quadruple what they spend, of course we are going to beat them. It's like challenging someone to a car race and buying a sportscar when they have a 1998 Toyota. It's not a triumph of effort or tactics, it's a triumph of spending much more money.Some teams are always going to spend more than others and that's fine, that's actually good for football, but it has to be within a level that a number of teams can compete and where no team is spending 20 times what other clubs are spending. Two seasons ago, Real Madrid rejuvenated their club by buying Khediera, Ozil, Carvalho, Di Maria, and Canalas. They sold van der Vart. Total expenditure? Just over 50M pounds. You're talking about a 100M summer transfer period for Chelsea and over 270M spent in just over 2 years. That's just insane. I want Chelsea to win but I want us to win in a competitive league.

I would. That kind of spending has only been few a couple of times in history and has been disastrous for the game. Chelsea should be trying to evolve as a club, not going out on an insane spending binge.

LOVE!! Maybe it's because it's the off-season or because of the general youth of most of the posters, but the amounts being theoretically spent on this board are absolutely insane.

I think this is somewhat of a false dichotomy. Labels of style of football are somewhat exaggerated. Every team has to be able to play counter-attack and most teams play a combination of styles. I think it's more of a sliding scale and reacting to the individual game for the vast majority of teams. You look at a team like Real Madrid. They certainly love hitting on the counter attack but they also have the incredible talent in the midfield to build up to goals through clever passing. It's not all Barcelona or Stoke. You really need to do both. That said, losing Drogba and adding Hazard will certainly force Chelsea to play fewer long balls and probably play shorter passes, but you can do that in different styles.

That's because Bilbao is a minor club and Barcelona have been the best club in the world over the past decade. We've faced Barcelona in a number of closely contested, key games. As far as I know, we've never played a match against Bilbao. Of course there's going to be competition and conflict against Barcelona and none against Bilbao. Plenty of Chelsea fans dislike Barcelona and I'm pretty sure we're all ambivalent about Bilbao. It's like saying "people from Torquay are cooler than people from North London because Arsenal and Spurs fans always attack us and Torquay United supporters don't."

More coo about it? You mean like ETA and their car bombs and assassinations? The Basques are, unlike the Catalans, a separate ethnic group with a language that's not even related to the romance languages in the area. Catalonia is somewhat like Scotland is to England, connected and similar in many ways, but still a separate entity. The Basques are sort of like the Kurds, an ethnic group who was enormously oppressed by the government, has their own language, and whose boundaries are in multiple countries (Spain and France) and feel they deserve their own country.

There was a study that came out a month ago. Manchester United are the most popular team in the world followed by Barcelona, Madrid, Chelsea, and Arsenal. The Premier League is the most popular and the most watched league in the world. Of course, popularity will ebb and flow based on success. Many many supporters will abandon clubs if they go through a dry spell and a team that has success will draw in millions of new fans.

Chelsea played 61 games last season. Malouda and Kalou combined to start 37 of those matches. Chelsea have added Hazard, Marin, and possibly De Bruyne at winger and are looking very likely to sign someone else to play the right side. We signed Hazard to start at LW, replacing Kalou's role at the end of last season and signed Marin to replace Malouda's role a while back. Chelsea would be going with Mata, Hazard, Marin, new RW, Sturridge, Ramires, and Meireles for those 3 positions. (And Benayoun/McEachran/Piazon/Kakuta/KDB if they wanted). It's more than enough depth and quality.

It depends. If Napoli are willing to pay say 12-15M for him, Chelsea can likely buy a replacement less and therefore make some money in the transaction. If they don't make a big offer, we might as well hold on to him.

Certainly. Somebody who can fill the same role: Be able to play a few positions, be pretty decent at everything, have a good work rate, be OK with being a squad player, etc...

Agreed. The Guardian reported Chelsea offered 30M for Hulk which is in the realm of reasonable. If Porto accept that, then great. If not, as you say, time to move on.

I do deny it and it's very easy. Chelsea have spent what, 175M on 11 players in the past two seasons? Only one of them is a bona fide core player (Mata) while Luiz, Cahill and Ramires are useful players. The others it either remains to be seen or have been flops. Manchester City has spent about 197M in the past two years and they got Ya Ya Toure, Silva, Nasri, Aguero, Balotelli, Milner, Dzeko, and Clichy. That''s a hell of a lot better than what we've got for 12% less spending. Manchester United spent about 75M and got Kagawa, Javier Hernandez, De Gea, Ashley Young, Smalling, and Phil Jones. And I'm sorry, saying Luiz has been a class defender has got to be a joke. He was much better under RDM, but Luiz was a disaster before that. It wasn't just a mistake here or there like what happens with all defenders, it was Luiz consistently being completely out of position. I don't know how many times I yelled at the screen "Where the F*** are you going?" at Luiz because he was wandering far up the left side or or just standing there as his defender ran by him or standing 15 feet away from where he should have been. Not just that, but Luiz made a lot of stupid choices, lunging for defenders, giving away free kicks and even penalties when he had position and he only needed to stand his ground. Not just that, but his passing was way too ambitious. Instead of playing the ball to Mikel or Lampard, he kept trying and failing to hit 50 yard passes. His decision making and his positioning were awful.I know he's got great hair and is good at going forward and he seems like a really nice guy, but he's been incredible mediocre at Chelsea and not worth anything close to what we paid for him. Gary Neville's "he's like a 10 year old playing playstation" is about how Luiz played under Ancelotti and AVB. That said, I do have hope for him with a coach that tells him he has to stay put like RDM seemed to last season, but we paid world-class defender money for him. As for Barca, I think he'd actually be really good there as he loves to go forward and that fits into the way they play. Also, they basically never give up possession so defenders don't really have to defend much. In England, it's the opposite. Being a top defender is almost all about positioning and making good choices and going forward as a defender is a small part of the game. I said this earlier in this thread yesterday because I know it would be the same with Hulk. Torres and Luiz are easily the two most overrated players on Chelsea for what they have actually brought the team and it's the whole image thing. If a player has a strong image, fans will love them. There are so many examples of Luiz making a complete mess of it, but one of the lesser-known ones that I think is a good example was Stracqualursi's goal to make it 2-0 Everton.There was a 50-50 in midfield and the ball comes to Landon Donovan on the right side. Instead of standing his ground, Luiz comes out about 25 yards and to the left of the box putting himself in an awful position. Then, instead of trying to play Donovan and forcing him wide or back, he tries to kick at the ball. Donovan goes right by him and Luiz is left standing there. Ivanvovic is trying to cut down the angle but it's impossible because Everton now have two attackers in space. Donovan plays a ball into a streaking Stracqualursi who is right where Luiz should have been and he scores. Luiz is 20 yards from the play. It's the trifecta combination of poor positioning, poor decision making, and poor execution.

No, they haven't been smart even without Torres. They've been mixed at best. In fact, our poor transfer record in the past 4 years is the biggest reason we have declined. Our best players, our core were still the same players from years ago. This is something that AVB didn't get. He wanted to replace the old guard, but the old guard were still most of our best players so replacing them meant we were a worse team. We spent something like 125M in the past 4 years and have got one excellent player (Mata) and a few of other useful to good ones. Luiz was a terrible signing -25.5M euros and a player. Even if he ends up becoming a regular starter, it's an enormous fee for a central defender, (I think 4th highest ever after Ferdinand, Nesta, and Carvalho) For that price, you need to be getting one of the best defenders in the world in your central defence for a decade, not an inconsistent player who makes a lot of simple mistakes. We paid 12M for Meireles which is too much for a pretty good squad player. Lukaku was 13-18M pounds which has been a disaster so far. If we sold him now,he'd fetch about half of that now. Ramires for 17M is about right. Mata for 23.5M was good value. Benayoun for 5.5M barely played a game for us. 18M for Zhirkov was terrible, 3.5-6.5M for Sturridge was fabulous.Bosingwa for 16.2M was way overpriced, Deco for 8M didn't really give us much. Cahill for 7M looks good but he was out of contract in a few months so it's a different case. Still, even if he were 12-14M, it'd be a pretty decent buy IMO. Those are the significant the transfers over the past 4 years where we can make some judgement.When adding the Torres debacle, I am certain, it's the worst recent transfer history of any of the top-6 teams this season. (Liverpool's would be probably even worse than ours.)

No, we don't. Not 38M anyway. United have never paid that for anyone and they are a top team every year. City only paid that much once and it was for Aguero. We have spent over 30M twice before Hazard (obviously can't judge him yet) and both buys were epic flops. Yes, you would have had to get lucky to have those exact buys, but that wasn't my point. The point is if that you spread your buying around a little, you can find real talent. Impact, star players, are bought every year for 20-25M. Nasri, Silva, Ya Ya Toure, and Mata all went between 23-25M in the last couple of years. Mario Balotelli was 19-year old striker playing regularly for Milan, and he went for 22M Euros. The idea that you have to spend huge money to get a top player is just nonsense.In fact, if you look at the PFA team of the year and how much it cost to buy these players: Hart-1.5 M, Walker-Under 9M , Kompany-6M, Coloccini-10.3M, Baines-6M, Silva and Toure both 24M, Parker-5.5M, Bale5-10M, RVP-2.75M, Rooney-25.6M. The entire starting XI of the team of the year, cost 124,65M or an average of 11.33M. As I said, the idea that you have to go out and buy a bunch of 30M+ players to win is absolute nonsense.

Forgot to respond to this point. No, big name stars don't always make up for their transfer fees and sometimes players from smaller leagues turn out to be great. But, sometimes you can get a royal flush at poker, it doesn't mean you should go all-in every hand just in case you get one. It's about making smart bets and minimizing risk. If you have 38M pounds to spend, spend it well. Last, year in the premier League, 38M would have got you Mata, Arteta, Scott Parker, Demba Ba, and James McClain. Or, Papa Cisse, Nasri, Danny Graham, and Vorm. If you're going to pay more than 25-30M or so for a player, you have to be certain that they will be a superstar calibre player.Otherwise, It's better to spread the money out to minimize risk. While it's possible Hulk is that superstar guy, it's also quite possible he isn't and for 38M, you can't take the risk at such a high price. If the rumours are true and Chelsea are not willing to get into a bidding war, this would signal a start to a smarter transfer policy and I'd be very happy. I suppose we'll see.

Yes, Barca would have gone through 95 times out of 100. I didn't think anybody, even Chelsea fans, would disagree. How we did against Barca 5 years ago is irrelevant. This Chelsea team was (ironically) the worst in years. They outshot us 47-11 over two games. We had 3 scoring opportunities in 2 games and scored on all of them. We got lucky. There's no shame in that, but saying that Barca have to change their style of play because of what happened against Chelsea is just ridiculous. And Mata was 23 when he moved here and Hulk will be 26 in a month. That's a 3 year difference.I'm not saying that 26 is over the hill, it isn't, but there is a difference between buying a mid-career player and buying someone like Hazard who is very likely to improve.

It's incredible...Terry might be a complete prick in real life. Quite frankly, I don't really care. He's a Chelsea legend and has been a great captain. He has played over 500 matches with Chelsea and has been a dominant player for us and a key to almost all of our success. Even last season, he was still easily our best central defender. If you want to play the "let's get rid of him because he's a dick" game, Chelsea (and all top teams) would be screwed.

Speed is a huge advantage at winger...It's a must at the position. Strength is not a drawback anywhere, but for a winger, to me it's like having a defender who can take shots from distance. Sure, it's fine, but it's a minor aspect of the position. (Behind things like speed, endurance, passing, finishing, etc...) If you're a striker, you can use your strength to hold off a defender with your back to the goal to get into a better position. If you're a defender and you're strong, you can stand your ground and force the striker into a worse position. You generally don't have those types of positions as fullbacks or wingers. When you get the ball on the wing, it is almost always in some space and usually with forward momentum. Defenders will try to keep the wingers from getting into good positions to pass or score which means cutting certain angles out. They'll try to force them wide and maybe out for a throw. Or, they'll try to close off any forward pass and to try to force the winger to pass back into their own half. They are rarely going to directly attack the winger because it's too risky. Physical battles can happen on the wings but they are rare and they usually are, like the Coentrao/Jiracek battle from a couple of days ago, more chippy than anything. You mention Ashley Cole and Cole has been one of the best LBs ever and is quite a small guy. It's rare to find big fullbacks or wingers. I'm not saying that physicality is useless as a winger, just that it's a pretty minor advantage. (Hulk has skills that are much more relevant to the position-speed, creativity, a great shot)

Barcelona lost because they got unlucky and they couldn't finish not because they didn't have a plan B. If we played those two matches 100 times, Barca would have gone through at least 95 of them. They lost in Spain because Real Madrid is an amazing team. They don't need to change anything to continue their success. Secondly, you do need physicality in England, but you need it only in certain positions. You need it central defence, defensive and/or central midfield and maybe at striker if you want to play a physical attacking game. Having physicality at wingers is fine, but it's a not a major component of the game. You're not going to win because your wingers are physical. The physical nature of the game comes in fairly static positions where players are fighting for a little extra space which are in central midfield and striker versus central defender. Battles on the wings are won by positioning, speed, and footwork. . If strength were important on the wings, then coaches would put strong players on the wings. They don't. Pedro, Mata, Silva, and Navas are all 5'7". Alexis is 5'6".etc... Third, paying 38M for a player so we can beat Stoke? We haven't lost to Stoke since they've been in the Premier League.

Calling Hulk average is ridiculous, but I think David Silva is an interesting comp.. Silva was 24 when he first played for City, Hulk will be 26 next month. Not a huge difference, but a difference. Silva had had 4 years of success playing in one of the best leagues in the world. Hulk has had two playing in a lesser league. Silva was already a key member in the best national team in the world at a position of incredible depth. He didn't play much in the World Cup, but he was starting for Spain throughout the Euros in 2008. Hulk has not played a single game in a major tournament for Brasil. Now, the biggest difference: Silva was sold for 24M. If Chelsea buy Hulk for 24M even though he was a worse pedigree, I don't think anybody would complain. It's the insane costs seemingly being discussed that make the deal so ridiculous.