TorontoChelsea

That's pretty rosy-eyed look at things. These numbers are based entirely on 3 games where Torres scored 7 goals against crappy sides. Also, I don't care what he does for Spain because it has no bearing on Chelsea. Also, you're using the Leicester City match to show Torres is in form? That game was 3 months ago. There is no consistency at all because the goals are bunched in these few games. If you look at a less arbitrary figure, the numbers look much worse. -Torres last 10 Premier League starts-He scored in 2 games. (QPR, Villa) -Torres last 15 Premier league games where he played at least 25 minutes-he scored in those 2 games. -Torres last 15 Premier League starts-he scored in those 2 games -Torres last 15 starts for Chelsea in all competitions- he scored in 3 games -Torres last 15 matches for Chelsea overall-he scored in 3 games It's all about using his 5 goals against Leicester and QPR to try to make it seem like Torres was on form when he pretty obviously wasn't.

Not really. We beat poor teams under AVB as well. We didn't play in well in the league under RDM at all. I'd say we played 2 good league games under Robbie, against Villa and QPR, but that's hardly something to brag about. We had a whole bunch of very good games in the Premier League under AVB. I'm not saying that AVB should have been kept on or that Robbie is a terrible coach, but I think some people are seeing the league through the lenses of the Champions League final. I'm happy that Robbie has been given a chance, but I do have a few concerns about the way he coached last season. Of course, it was a crazy season (still, like some kind of weird dream) so things might be very different this year.

Torres played in 18 matches under RDM and had 3 fabulous games against poor teams (QPR, Leicester, Villa). In the other 15 games, he had 1 goal and 1 assist. The 18 games includes 11 starts and another 5 matches where he played at least 25 minutes (including 3 matches where he played over 35 minutes as a sub.) This is not a trivial amount of playing time. It's almost half a season under RDM where Torres was very poor. As for Torres never "getting that run", he started 34 matches and subbed in another 25 last season which is way more playing time than the vast majority of Premier league strikers.

I think there is something wrong with both of them. I dislike this type of overreaction to individual games. It takes at least 5-10 games at the club level for it's possible to properly judge a player. It's ridiculous to write off a player because of a poor 20 minutes and it's ridiculous to say a player is great because he scored 2 goals in one game after two extremely poor seasons. We all hope Torres does well so he can carry some confidence back to Chelsea, but what he does with Spain will be essentially meaningless.

No, it isn't. I'm sorry, but I said after his misses last game, that I didn't care what he did for Spain and that you can't judge a player base on a few games. Chelsea didn't get Torres to score goals for Spain against Ireland in the Euro, we got him to perform with Chelsea and after 67 games, he's been awful. He could score 15 goals in the tournament and it wouldn't change that (it would bode well for his confidence though.) This "Torres is back" based on one good game against a poor side has happened about 5 times in the past 2 years and every single time, it turned out not to be true. He won't be back until he is scoring regularly for Chelsea.

Agreed although some players have less flexibility than others (see the inability of England to get Lampard, Scholes, and Gerrard to fit for an example.) I think Jovetic would be a good fit though.

I have doubts about RDM long-term, but he's certainly earned a chance to coach this team. A perfect contract from the team's perspective. If RDM succeeds, they'll renew him for years, if he doesn't work out, they'll go after someone else next off-season without having to pay 13M pounds or something.

Not even sure if I see him is the centre in the 4-3-3. Ramires is a very interesting player because he has a unique set of skills which make him able to play almost anywhere but is not really ideally suited for any specific position. He's not creative enough or a good enough passer to be central midfielder, he doesn't cross the ball well enough to be a winger, and his greatest ability, the speed he uses to make great runs is lost if he plays defensive midifield. The position I think he'd be best in is where he was best last season, as a 3 in the 4-2-3-1. No, he's not going to be the guy who gets the great cross in, but he creates a lot of space and if you have 3 other attacking players there, that is incredibly important . Failing that, Ramires is the ultimate bench player because he can sub in at a number of different positions in different systems and his speed can make such a difference when other players are worn down.

Again, your comparing 38 year olds to a 34 year old. And once a week for Chelsea is about 35-40 games which is exactly what Lampard should be playing.. Lampard played 49 games last season and was effective. Nobody is saying that Lampard should play every single game. You keep arguing something that nobody is saying when originally you said that Lampard should be a squad player which you can't defend because it's a ludicrous assertion based not on performance or likely performance but just Lampard's age. And defensive midfield does do a lot of work, but it actually does less running than some positions. The way Lampard used to play, truly box to box on almost every play is much more tiring.

This is exactly it. It's difficult to go and give statues to every individual player, but a statue of some of the Chelsea greats celebrating or just grouped together, I can see. Drogba is a Chelsea legend, but Lampard, Terry, and Cech, and even Cole are all part of this golden generation of players.

Scholes and Giggs are 4 years older than Lampard. Scholes played 35, 38, and 33 matches in his 34-37 seasons. Giggs played 44, 43, and 47. Even last season both played regularly. That's exactly the sort of thing I envision for Lampard over the next few years but that's not a squad player, that's a regular starter getting rest. Nobody is saying Lampard should play every single game. Nobody is saying that he doesn't need to be rested. It's a straw-man argument. He should be getting rest. But even if he plays 40 games games next season (a 20% reduction in games which is big), he'll still play in 2/3 of all Chelsea's matches.

This is absolutely the ideal situation to work in a younger player. Lampard played 49 matches last season. We don't need someone to replace him yet, but if we can do the Cole/Bertrand thing and find a youngster that can play 15 games this year and work their way into the rotation, it would be fabulous for us. Chelsea were after Perreira last season as cover for Cole. Had that happened, Chelsea would have spent millions of pounds (Porto was asking for 25M pounds) in transfer fees and wages and Bertrand would never have seen a match. It actually worked out much better for us that we didn't get Perreira. (Yes, he's obviously far ahead of where Bertrand is now, but Bertrand is perfectly acceptable as cover for Cole right now, has a bright future when Cole is ready to move on, and doesn't cost anything to buy.). It's a tough balance, because you need international-level depth to compete, but Chelsea should be trying to work in one or two youngsters into the rotation every season.

Sturridge had a fantastic December but you're right, he started playing worse before AVB got the sack (as you mentioned-after the Spurs game around Christmas). Still, he did play much better under AVB than under RDM (which makes sense because he was moved from RW to RM which was always going to be a horrible fit for him.). Mata is the more interesting case because he was brilliant under AVB but I thought his game took a big dive under RDM. Some of that was probably being tired, but some of it was also the system which relies more on defensive play and counter-attack which is not Mata's strength. This is one of the difficulties the new/old coach will have. How to integrate a system that brings the best out of most of our players when our players are not all meant for the same system. This is why we all want a long-term coach who can be in charge of buying instead of the nonsense we've had over the past few years. .

Lampard was not awful under AVB despite your historical revisionism. He had a poor run of games but then again, so do most players every season. He played 23 games in the PL under AVB and had 9 goals. And come off it. I never said that Lampard isn't going to age, but the idea that he's going to go from being a very good player for us, key to us winning our trophies, to a squad player one in one season, is ridiculous. . I gave the example of Paul Scholes who is 38 and still a good player. Lampard played 49 matches last season. Maybe he can't do that again, but he can be very effective for 35-40 matches which is enough to be our primary creative, deep midfielder.

Exactly, let's take out maybe our best player ever who tied us for first in goals and was third in assists in the league last season and who played better as the season went on and just put make him a squad player. Not because he's not effective but simply because he's 34. Yeah, makes lots of sense.

The entire squad didn't get better. Sturridge was much worse under RDM and Mata was better under AVB as well. Ramires, Lampard, and Mikel improved under RDM. Most of the rest of the players were about the same. Lampard was one of our best players last season. We have to transition him out, but to get a guy to play instead of him next year would be insulting and counter-productive and Ramires and Mikel as our back 2 would be giving up way too much in terms of ball movement and creativity. Lampard played 49 matches last season. Let him rest a little more this season and play in maybe 40 matches to keep him fresh. He'll still be an effective player. (Paul Scholes is 4 years older than Lampard and is still a good player). The idea that we need to replace Lampard immediately is ludicrous. He could easily have 2-3 more seasons as an excellent player. Mikel, I think it depends on the system. In the 4-3-3, he moves the ball a little too slowly. In the 4-2-3-1, he's amazing. Just hi-lights, yet again the problem with doing your transfers without a coach in place.

Weaker by the day? Lampard got better as the season went on and Mikel was excellent in the 4-2-3-1. We'll need someone to replace Lampard eventually, but I can see someone being bought next season and being worked into the lineup.

It's always all about the money. It's actually a little sad because small leagues used to be more competitive. A team like Ajax used to be able to be a dominant force in Europe. It's just not possible any more. The big leagues just swallow up all the talent from everywhere and the big teams swallow up all the talent from the little teams. It's a mixed bag because you get the most talented teams in history now but you also only have about 10-15 sides in Europe who are really good.

The only reason I am banging on about it, is that people like you keep bringing up ridiculous arguments. "Team A beat team B therefore league A is better than league B" is not a logically valid argument because it implies that the team that wins is always from the better league which is nonsense. I am not using random statistics. Go look at the players in the Premiera League. Apart from Porto and Benfica, the league is extremely weak. I am looking at talent. Here is the starting XI for Braga's last match. Quim( Portugal's 4th choice keeper), Coelho (0 caps for Portugal), Echiejele(16 caps for Nigeria) Lopes (1 cap for Portugal), Ewerton (0 caps), Viana ( emergency replacement for the Euros, was not good enough for Newcastle or Valencia who both got rid of him after a year), Custodio (1 cap for Portugal), Amorim (1 cap for Portugal) , Imorou (4 caps for Benin), Mossoro (0 caps for Portugal), and Lima (0 caps for Brazil.) That's the team that came third in the league. Where do you think this team would finish in England? These are not some trick stats, this is not some angle, this is just about talent and the talent of the third place team in Portugal might not even escape relegation in England. This is exactly why it is so hard to judge players who have only had success in Portugal. If you want to see the difference in quality simply, look at one position-keepers. There are 13 keepers who play in England at the Euro.There are 2 who play in Portugal. (And England have international keepers from Belgium, Australia, US, etc...who are not at the Euro as well)

Jesus....Did you even bother reading what I wrote? West Ham are not better than Porto or Benfica and I never said anything like that, but they'd be near the top of the Portuguese League, yes. And Porto and Benfica are absolutely not one of the top clubs in Europe. Where do you think they'd finish if they were in the Premiership? Chelsea has vastly more talent and finished 6th. Portugal doesn't even have the best Portuguese players. In the game against Germany, only 2 of the starting 11 for Portugal actually play in the Portuguese league.

It is vastly inferior to the English league. Braga was the third place team in Portugal and they might be battling for relegation in England. Do they have a single starting international player? Their squad is made up of second-rate Brazilian and Portuguese players. The best players from all over the world go to the Premier League. Even teams struggling will have some internationals. There are internationals from England, France, Spain, Holland, all over Africa and Asia,, etc...The Portuguese League doesn't even have the best Portuguese players. In fact, West Ham had more internationals playing in the Championship than Braga did as the third place team. And Braga had a +30 goal differential which tells you all you need to know about the rest of the league.

Why is everyone so insistent on Chelsea needing a RW? Has everyone become Roy Hodgson and become obsessed with formation discipline? What you need on a squad are roles. Chelsea have Hazard and Mata to create up front and Lampard to create from deeper. Teams don't have or need four players setting up the attack. In fact, that becomes a problem because when you have too many people wanting the ball, it leaves others unhappy. That is, unless you play the Barcelona ball control type of games, but Hulk is not that kind of player anyway. He loves to shoot from distance. People act as if it's a mathematical equation. "We scored 65 goals last season and Torres will be much better so he should double his tally and Hazard should score 10-15 and Hulk should score 15 etc...so we should score 120 goals!!!". Football doesn't work that way. There are a limited number of chances, a limited number of shots available and a limited number of touches. There comes a point when if you keep adding playmakers and keep adding scorers, it makes no difference because they are just taking away touches from other players. I thought Ramires was overrated by many supporters last season, but I actually really like him in this formation because he doesn't have to touch the ball to be successful. If Chelsea had Ramires, Mata, and Hazard behind the striker, Ramires' movement and speed would allow Hazard and Mata to create space and chances for themselves and the striker. And it's not like these players are forced to stick in one position. You let them have freedom with the cover of Lampard and Mikel and the back 4. Mata played all over the pitch last season and Hazard can do the same. If there is space on the right hand side, either one of them can move into that position and let Ramires make his runs up the middle. If you want to play a more attacking 4-3-3, then Sturridge can provide you with another scorer with Lampard, Mata, and Hazard all supporting him and Torres.

That's simply not true on any level. £38M would be one of the highest transfers in history for a anybody and the highest ever for a player who has never played at a top level. More importantly, you are wrong about how teams are built. You know how many teams have spent £38M+ on a single player? Seven. You know how many teams have spent £38M+ on more than one player? One. Just Real Madrid. (and if we get Hulk at that price, us as well.) And the players that Real Madrid bought at those prices? Cristiano Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo, and Kaka (and Ronaldo, just missed the list)-every single one of them had won FIFA player of the year before. Plenty of teams have success without spending ridiculous transfer fees on any one player and no teams have success splashing massive dollars out for unproven players. You look at a smartly run team like Bayern and they got Ribery and Robben for about £40M combined. They don't pay more than £25-30M for anybody ever. ManU, another well run team has only gone over £30 million once and it was a disaster. (Berbatov). Arsenal finished above us in the league and they spent £2.75M on Van Persie, £1M on Song, £10M for Vermalen, £12M for Nasri, etc...Even when they miss when they buy like that like with Arshavin, so what? It's only £15M. We paid that much for Lukaku. And £38M? Hell, we bought Mata for £23.5M last season and he was more sought after. It shouldn't be complicated. You look at a player, you see if he'll fit into the squad (hopefully by discussing it with the manager), you give him an evaluation, you negotiate up until that level. If they ask for more, you don't pay it and go and get someone else.

Not when we're willing to pay Hazard who hasn't played a match at Chelsea or in a top league ever and Torres who has been awful, £170,000+ a week. The problem with wage and transfer inflation is not just with making it impossible for other clubs to compete, it also drives up your own players demands and unhappiness. Is Sturridge worth 40% of Torres?

If you read what I wrote, I said that I have no problem with "liking" another team. In fact, I said that I get that completely. It's supporting another team that makes no sense. If someone asks me who I support, I say "Chelsea" without hesitation. If someone asks me who I prefer in a match between Lazio and Roma, I'll say "Roma" but I don't support Roma. I don't own any Roma gear. I don't go out of my way to watch their matches, in general, I don't care about Roma. I'm not saying that you can't have a rooting interest or anything, but if you are a supporter of Chelsea, then you should support Chelsea.