TorontoChelsea

I have no objection to this thread, I just don't get it. How can you be a fan of another big club and be a fan of Chelsea? I understand supporting your local club if they're small and then also Chelsea. Many fans of smaller clubs also support a larger club. I mean, if you support say Wimbledon, the joy you are going to get of that, is pretty limited. Or, say, you live in Japan or Sweden or wherever and you know your local clubs will have limited success so you can choose a big international team to follow. I also get preferring certain teams in other leagues based on their style of play or if you like a player (or if they have ex-Chelsea players)...But supporting a team like Real Madrid or Bayern or Inter AND supporting Chelsea just makes no sense to me.

I don't think many football games are won by the height of a central or defensive midfielder. You do need some height in central defence and depending on the style you play, the striker, but it's a very minimal advantage if any in midfield. Makalele is 5'7" and probably the best defensive midfielder we've ever had. Didier Deschamps had an incredible career and is 5'8" Dunga might be the best defensive midfielder ever and isn't even 5'10".

Agreed. The second half of the season, he was asked to play both RM and LM which just will never suite Sturridge. He is an attacker with a natural nose for goal. If we sell him, we're idiots. This is exactly the kind of player we need to keep.

Surely, you jest. That list of "brilliant games" is laughably light. He has played 67 games with us, and he's had maybe 7 or 8 games where he has been decent and the vast majority of those were against Championship quality sides. Torres has had four games where he has been a dominant force in a year and a half and those four games were against Genk, Villa, Leicester, and QPR. We're competing with teams that have Aguero, Rooney, and Van Persie...you know strikers who can score regularly, who can create chances and score meaningful goals and we're suppose to get excited because Torres looked good against Genk? Even the list you give is giving him too much credit. Of those 9 games you mention, he didn't even score in 3 of them, had maybe the worst miss in history in another, and got sent off for a stupid tackle in yet another and those are his quality games? The bar for Torres having a "quality game" is so low, that any game where he doesn't suck, gets qualified as "brilliance". He runs around for 65 minutes and people fawn over him. How many goals did Torres get when Chelsea really needed a goal in a year and a half? How many matches did Torres win for us? How many key goals did he get? Umm...It' amazing, utterly amazing, to watch people twist and turn to try to turn an obvious year and a half of incompetence into the exact opposite.

No, the problem is that Torres has been very consistent, it's just that he's been consistently bad. And MOTM? Please...how many games was Torres really the best player on the pitch? Games against VIlla, QPR, Leicester, Genk, and Benfica...In 67 games, that's it.

No, he hasn't. This is exactly the kind of stuff that drives so many of us crazy. A striker's job is to score goals. That's why people pay big money for them. It's the most difficult and most important thing to do in all of football. I would say that scoring is about 90% of what a striker is supposed to do. So, it doesn't matter if a striker is fabulous at everything else (and Torres is not), if he's not scoring, he's not doing his job. It's this attempt to see value when there has been virtually none that drives so many of us crazy. If people said "Torres has been poor, but I think he'll turn it around" some may disagree, but it's a reasonable position but to claim that Torres has been anything but poor to atrocious is living in la la land. It's like Torres is their child and they can see only the good in him. I don't understand how anyone can claim that Torres made a fantastic contribution. I think I can count Torres' contributions to Chelsea on one hand.

Good post in general, but who thinks David Luiz is a legend? Mata has been generally great since joining us, but Luiz has been incredibly inconsistent and quite frankly, pretty mediocre. (I wouldn't call anybody who has been at Chelsea for fewer than a few years a legend anyway). His positioning has been absolutely atrocious for a lot of the time with us and he makes a ton of awful mental mistakes. I don't how many times I yelled at the TV "where is Luiz going" or "stop trying to pass the ball 70 yards every time" or something similar. He played better under RDM because he was more disciplined, so I have hope for him, but if the season were to start tomorrow, I'd go with Cahill and Terry as our top pairing. For me, the people who rate Luiz and rate Torres are fundamentally the same-it's loving someone because of their flair or their persona more than because of their production. (Although, to be fair to Luiz, he has been a lot better/more valuable than Torres.)

I never said everyone thinks like this, but a lot of people do, especially when it comes to players on other teams. Just follow any of Euro matches and you'll see after a good performance "Chelsea should buy him" or after a bad performance "He's crap". Or, look at the transfer rumours when people talk about how fabulous or awful players are. Also, when people talk about our youth team, virtually every single player there is overrated. Most of the actually Chelsea squad is rated fairly accurately by the majority of fans and I'd agree with you that Mikel and Sturridge are both underrated. Overrated and underrated are odd terms because they are based purely on perception. For example, I think Ramires is a good player but I think he's overrated by people who think he's a top-notch player and underrated by people who think he's useless.

This is exactly it. Torres has been one of the worst players at Chelsea since he's been with us. He's been one of the worst strikers in the Premiership. He has been basically useless and that is not hyperbole. Jose Bosingwa was more integral to Chelsea's success than Fernando Torres has been. Yet, all he seems to get from many supporters is excuses or discussions of how he is actually secretly playing really well. Lampard and Cole both had a poor run of games this season and people said "they're done, get rid of them". Lampard and Cole were great for us this overall year and are both Chelsea legends (Lampard has an argument for being the greatest Chelsea player ever). Mikel had a poor few games. Let's get rid of him! Yet, the same people who talk about getting rid of good or even great players for having a few bad games, want to hold on to Torres and build a squad around him despite a year and a half of uselessness. Kalou got incredible stick on Chelsea forums and he was much better than Torres. (Better scoring rate, better defensively, never complained) Hell, Malouda led us in goals two seasons ago and fans hate him. Fans hate Sturridge and he led us in goals in the Premiership. But Torres? He didn't score for 29 games in a row for crying out loud. That's epically awful. Doesn't matter. People still sing his name. They talk about him as if he's a great player. It's as if there are Torres fans and he matters more to them than Chelsea.The Lampard goal that came off the bar is a perfect example of this. These people want to set-up an entire squad just for the benefit of Torres. We have to build a system around Torres. We have to buy players that will help Torres succeed. Torres Torres Torres. It's bordering on insanity.

I'm judging him on a year and a half of being awful. Is that enough time for you?

£35m-£38m is insane. It'd make Hulk one of the highest transfers ever for a player that has never played at a high level. For that price, Hulk has to be scoring 20 goals a year for years. That's the same value as players like Aguero and David Villa who were established stars in Spain for years. As for Hulk's dominance, he actually only scored 9 goals last season during play. He had 7 penalties. Also, whoever Porto makes as their main striking option (and Hulk may have played RW, but he easily led Porto in shot attempts.) will always dominate. Hulk, Falcao, Lisandro Lopez and I guarantee whoever they replace Hulk with will be dominant as well. I have no idea why everyone so adamant that we need a RW. If we play in a 4-3-3, Sturridge is excellent in that system. He was our second best player under AVB. No, he's not a good passer, but we have Lampard, Mata and Hazard to set-up play. You don't need five creative players. If we play a 4-2-3-1, Ramires was very good on the right. Marin could act as cover for both We have Hazard and Mata as creative players. Our biggest weakness last season was our poor form from our strikers. Torres and Drogba combined for 11 goals in the league. You need a number 9 who can score regularly and we don't have that. Also, just because Valencia has/had financial problems, doesn't mean they sold their players on the cheap. Don't you think other teams were interested in Mata and Valencia? There isn't a team in the world that wouldn't love to have those guys. It's not like Chelsea came by and low-balled Valencia for Mata. he was a 23.5M buy. As for who else is available for cheap? I don't know, but there are lots of clubs in financial trouble now. If it's so easy to raid those clubs, why don't we go for that again?

Several years? Try two. three years ago, he had 5 goals. The players of the year in the Portuguese league before Hulk were David Luiz, Bruno Alves, Lisandro Lopez, Simao Sabrosa, and Quaersma and not a single one of the those players is remotely close to being a top-level talent right now so dominating the Portuguese league is hardly a sign of great things to come. It doesn't mean Hulk couldn't be a great player at Chelsea, it just means that paying huge bucks for a player with this little experience against top clubs (and being 26 and not 21) is a massive risk. It's also annoying because it's as if Chelsea don't understand how negotiations work. Chelsea need someone who can score goals. There are dozens of options for them. Instead of saying "let's find the best talent at value", they say "let's get Hulk no matter what" and so will inevitably overpay for him which means there will be extra pressure on him and virtually no chance that he will be good value. It's the same situation with Torres. Instead of saying "we need to replace Drogba so let's find a striker who can do that" Chelsea said "we want Torres" and ridiculously overpaid for him. Chelsea should have had an evaluation on Hulk of around £20-25M and maybe if they really liked him, going up to £30M. David Silva was £24M. Mata was £23.5M and both were more established, played in a better league, and were younger. If Porto wants more, then say "thanks, but no thanks" and go and buy someone who is a better value.

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.