TorontoChelsea

The problem is that the better the team the less likely he is to play. Look at what happened with Josh last season. He just needs to play fairly regularly and a team in the bottom third of the league will give him the best opportunity to do so.

You do need to have some creativity from a deeper position. This was one of the big problems for Chelsea last season. You need to get the ball from the defence to the attackers by passing. If you get the ball to Mata when he's running back for it near midfield, it's hard for him to create anything. You want to be able to hit a player going forward and to be able to hit different attacking players so the opposing defence is uncertain of how you are attacking. You need to find the proper player for the role. I like Ramires for this Chelsea squad because in a squad of players that need to touch the ball a lot, it is very useful to have a player who can contribute without needing touches. His speed creates space for other players which is fabulous. However, he simply is not the type of player you want setting up your offense. He has 1 or 2 assists (Wikipedia and Soccernet disagree about the total) in 56 Premiership games at Chelsea. He just isn't a very good passer nor does he have very good vision for creating plays. (He has very good timing on when to make runs though.)

I agree although I'd also say that buying a young player for cheap and watching them develop into an excellent player or buying an unknown and watching them excel are excellent.

I doubt Bertrand plays any midfield this season. He played one game as defensive cover in an extreme defensive formation. It's just not his position. Also, we really need Lampard to be in the defensive midfield. Mikel is excellent defensively and Ramires is good, but neither is good at ball movement or is particularly creative and you need to bridge the gap between the defenders and the attackers. Otherwise, you have the attackers coming back too deep to receive the ball.

Agreed.A loan would do him a world of good. Stoke makes the most sense. (They wanted him last year)..Also, why is it that every video seems to come with the worst music? I just want to watch a player, I don't want to dance while I'm watching.

Lukaku should probably go on loan. We used only 2 strikers all of last season and we have 2 or 3 players ahead of Lukaku right now. It was actually quite wasteful of Chelsea to bring him to the Bridge last season. They should have done the De Bruyne thing (loan him back to his club so he can play.) He has some incredible physical skills but he needs to play to develop. Stoke makes sense as they wanted him last season and they play a physical style which I think would suite his development.

I just hope he plays.I have a feeling Chelsea are going to go out and buy another striker which will bury Sturridge completely. We talk about developing Josh or Piazon or whomever, but if we can't even give opportunities to our leading goal scorer, what chance does any young player have to develop?

Except Sturridge's selfishness also helped. People talk about selfishness as purely a negative trait and for a striker it absolutely is both negative and positive. There is no top striker in the world who isn't always looking to shoot. Sturridge carried us in December when neither Drogba or Torres could score and he created goals out of nothing a number of times. While I don't particularly like selfishness, I'll take selfishness and production over work-rate and a complete lack of productivity every time.The amount that fans seem to value work-rate is so disproportionate to how beneficial it actually is to the team. The truth is that Sturridge while being selfish actually did much more for the team than Torres did while being a "team player". Then, if you claim that it' all about work-rate, you can then compare Kalou to Torres it also doesn't make sense. Kalou had a fabulous work-rate and never complained even when he was benched by AVB and was very solid defensively and had a better scoring record than Torres and yet many fans just loathed him. (And yes, I do understand why people were frustrated with Sturridge, I was too, but the negativity around him is ridiculous. He's 22 and led the team in goals. That should be something as a club we try to build on.)

I find this baffling. Sturridge has never complained publicly. He has said that his preferred position was as a central striker and he'd rather be playing there. He never said "I hate playing RW" or "why do they make me play out of position"?Even when RDM came in and made put him in the midfield which was never going to work, he didn't publicly complain. What is most amazing about this to me is the insane difference between the way fans treat Sturridge and Torres. Torres has publicly complained. Within hours of winning the CL, he was whining. Early in the season, he complained that Chelsea weren't moving the ball quickly enough for him. He sulks when he's on the bench. Yet, fans don't care. Sturridge is young, led us in goals, and fans boo him and say that we should sell him. Torres is our most expensive player and has contributed virtually nothing in a year and a half yet fans sing his name. Yes, I get why Sturridge is frustrating, he is selfish and he has to learn discipline, but he's 22 and was our second best player in the first half of the season. Sturridge scored 5 match winning goals last season. Torres had none. As I said...baffling.

He won't be deployed at all. He's going to go on loan. It's best for everyone that he gets regular playing time and that won't happen at Chelsea right now.

About two months too early to even make proper predictions.

True, but for £8m, he's not a bad buy. (not going to get a great all-around young RB for anything that cheap) We need cover for Ivanovic especially with terry likely to be suspended. Our lack of depth on the defence this year was really evident. It's also quite possible that he'll improve. Defensive positioning is something players can work on.

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.