TorontoChelsea

What an exciting game. So many talking points! No question who MOTM was. Fantastic by Hazard.

Well, it's certainly been a really exciting game

Wow, was that an atrocious own goal. Nobody was even close!

Not sure if it was in the box or not but was 100% a foul.

How did Torres miss that???? Well, besides being Torres.... Sunderland got two fluky goals off set-pieces. Sunderland has a total of 2 shots on target both after ping-ponging around the box. It isn't some massive defensive issue for us that deserves condemnation for our defenders. Fluky goals will happen..

One of the best halves of football I've ever seen a Chelsea player play (Hazard, obviously). Overall, we're playing well, dominating possession getting into dangerous areas. Their goal was a fluke and it was their only shot on target. Hope we keep the foot on the pedal in the second half.

Gorgeous goal!

Yes, I am. He'd pretty much play the Ake role which is to play in a handful of meaningless games to give players a rest. Maybe he'd play 5 maybe he'd play 10 but he wouldn't get regular playing time that's a certainty. The post I responded to was talking about replacing Essien in the lineup. How many games is Essien going to get into? 10? You think a player who is struggling in the Championship is going to come to Chelsea and play 25 games the rest of the season? He wouldn't get that if he stayed at Forest where he's played four games so far. There are people who are overrating his readiness and then people who are insanely overrating his readiness. You want Chalobah to come back and take over the Essien role? I think it's bad for his development but he could most likely do it. I think you want to rush him. You want Chalobah to come back and get regular playing time? You're delusional.

You're trying to find a win-win situation for Chelsea and it doesn't exist. You're looking at this through the eyes of a Chelsea supporter and not being remotely realistic. What do you see as the breakdown of this deal? 10M sale? 10M buyback? Teams can buy top keepers for 10M straight out. It's more than Mignolet or Lloris cost. Why would any team spend that much on a loan? You're looking at this to try to get Chelsea to benefit but sales have to be mutually beneficial.In this situation, and this makes no sense for any club except Chelsea. Teams are not going to do Chelsea favours.

Vela was 4M with a 4M buyback clause after 2 years on loan with the same club. The reason Sociedad did it is because they figured Arsenal didn't want him for free for the past 2 years despite having weaknesses up front, the chances of wanting him back are not great. Chelsea will 100% want Courtois back at some point. Besides, worst comes to worst, they have a free loan of a player that helps them. Who would benefit if Athletico bought Courtois for say 20M with a 20M buyback? It's just a loan. It's completely and utterly pointless for all parties involved. It's not going to happen. A 4M loan is about what Chelsea wanted for Ba and

Fabergas doesn't have a buy-back clause, he has a first-refusal clause and only happens when Barcelona accept an offer from another club and anyway Barcelona is Fabergas' home and a top, top team so if they want to keep him, they can. It's a very different thing. Nobody would pay a lot for a player who the club can then just get back whenever they want. (Unless the buyback clause is massive). This doesn't ever happen and it doesn't happen for a reason. It makes no sense for one club or the other or both. There are only three options for Courtois. 1) We bring him back as a starter (or at least to compete to be the starter) 2) We sell him. 3) We loan him out again and risk losing him. That's it. There's no magical option that let's us sell him and still have him.

Buyback clauses are almost unheard of with proven players because the player and the team buying doesn't want them. The purpose of the buyback clause is just in case a player develops, you can get him back. For Courtois, this would drop his sale value to almost nothing because it would simply become a loan because it would be a matter of time before Chelsea would want him back. If you want to include that clause, his sale price would go from something like 25-30M to about 5M and the effect would be the same. (Courtois still waiting to come back to Chelsea).

It doesn't matter one bit. A performance is a performance. We're not a support system to give confidence to young people. The object of our club is not to to develop young talent. We're trying to win trophies. Players should be praised based on what they do, not on how old they are or how long they've been with Chelsea. I'm not talking about fans booing a young player when they make a mistake (I don't believe supporters should boo their own players almost no matter what), we should always be supportive of our players and it is nice to see a young player play well but I'm talking about what Tomo was talking about. The absurd overrating of performances by young players and underrating the performances by veterans.

He deserves better? He's the starting goalie with a top team who he's been with for 3 years. It's a big decision to make for us, but it's not as if we're jerking him around or he's suffering in any way. @Alex-I agree. Keepers are not expensive for a reason. There are just more top keepers than there are top clubs. I'd hate to lose Courtois but if Barcelona or anyone offered 25-30M, I'd take it because it's just such a massive fee for a keeper. Lloris was a top keeper and fairly young and cost 10M Euros. If he were a striker of similar quality, he would have cost about 5X that amount. We bought Cech for, I think 7M pounds. However, Courtois is a very good young goalie, so I don't see the point of taking anything under a massive transfer fee to get him.

But why???? What benefit is there bringing back Chalobah so he can play in 5 games in the season? Is it really so important to have Chalobah on the team that you're willing to stunt his development? Even if he were ready, and he's clearly not, young players need game time. What is clear is that he needs more development time. Bringing him back to Chelsea is not good for Chelsea, it's not good for Chalobah. So why do it? So fans can get to salivate over a player's potential in League Cup games? It's pointless. @Tomo- This is exactly it. It's not just the overrating of potential, it's the overrating of their actual play. Any game that any young, inexperienced player plays that is even half decent will get over-praised to the skies. If a veteran player had the same game, people would be talking about what players we could splash 40M pounds on to replace them.

My point is that you original post was a all wrong. You claimed that all these players were struggling and got shots and succeeded and none of them were struggling (and all of them had more experience than Chalobah and all of them got shots for worse teams than Chelsea). Chalobah is undeniably struggling right now. He didn't struggle last year but that's not the point you were making. (Although that point is also incorrect.) I am so sick of youth fetishism. Chalobah has never played a game at a top level. Forget about being inexperienced, he has zero experience. He can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world and you want him to play regularly for a top-10 side? He is out of game shape and out of form. His attitude and effort have been poor. Hell, let's give him a shot! Why? Because he's young and that in itself seems to somehow be a virtue. it isn't. . And underrating youth pretty much never happens among fans. I've basically never seen someone write off young players completely whereas I constantly see people thinking young players are about 500% better than they actually are. I see confirmation bias with young players to an insane degree (someone called Van Ginkel the best defensive player he'd ever seen in this forum. Passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger, good games are turned into excellent performances simply because the player is young, forums are filled with people drooling over 17 YOs and comparing them to current superstars even though a fraction of them will ever be any good.) I wanted Lukaku to go because he needs more playing time and because he needs to evolve his game. We were keeping Torres and Ba and bought Eto'o and teams only ever use 2 strikers with any regularity. Demba Ba despite injuries, suspensions, and Mourinho using a surprising number of two-attacker sets has started only 3 games in all competitions and has scored 2 goals. Lukaku has played 9 games and scored 8. HLukaku maybe could have done that but he wouldn't have developed as well because he wouldn't be getting game time.Chelsea is better off with Lukaku playing regularly. . If he were at Chelsea, he would have been sitting on the bench, playing in League Cup games when we had an injury.He needs to improve his game and wouldn't do so not playing. And no, I don't like Lukaku is a very good fit for our system right now which relies on strikers to link up and be (well-rounded) which is a weak aspect of Lukaku's game. Next year, I assume we will be rid of Ba and Eto'o and I'll be happy to see him back here. If Chalobah had had a successful loan spell at a Premier League club, he would sure as hell be welcomed into the club right now but the gap between being successful in the Premier League and struggling in the Championship is enormous. And yes, players need to prove themselves at a top level before being penciled in for regular playing time on a side like Chelsea. that's just the way top teams work. @The only place to be. People keep mentioning Pogba because he is the exception. For every Pogba, there are about a million players than don't pan out. You want to give all the young players chances, you're going to be a mid-table side at best. I am all for giving youth spots on our team. I thought the Willian signing blocking De Bruyne was wasteful, I was happy to see Van Ginkel getting some minutes, etc..but you have to use young players that are ready to make the jump. Van Ginkel was playing well in Holland which is a vastly better league than the Championship. He even got capped by a solid Holland side. Not all young players are at the same level and Chalobah is not at the stage of development yet where he is ready to play in the premier League.

Basically all your descriptions are wrong. Barkley was given a one month loan spell and scored 4 goals in 13 games where he was good. Townsend only got into the Spurs team because he impressed with QPR in the Premier League on loan. (Besides, Townsend really isn't a very good player right now anyway, he just shoots a ton and shouldn't be playing for Spurs with any regularity). Begovic was good in his loan spells and was only recalled because Portsmouth needed him. Tony Pullis said this about him when they signed him for a high fee for a keeper when you say he was struggling . "We have been tracking Asmir for some time and we believe that potentially he is the best young keeper in the country." Hardly sounds like someone who was struggling to make any impression does it? Abagnlahor struggled as a 19 YO both on loan and with Villa and yes, he started the next season (note, not the same season he was struggling but a year later) and had played almost every game and had a decent year but that is Villa, a mid-table and lower side that can take chances on unproven players not a team with high aspirations.. Even if all you said was true (which it isn't) you're still talking about a handful of examples of players struggling in the Championship League and then making an impact for worse teams than Chelsea in the Premier League versus countless examples of players who succeeded into the Championship and still weren't good enough for the Premier League. Have a look at the Championship teams of the year. The best of the best players in the league and at how few of them ever become Premier League players at all, never mind with top teams. The Championship is miles away from the Premier League and galaxies away from the top of the Premier League and right now Chalobah isn't playing much and isn't in any sort of form.. You want Lukaku to get a shot? Yeah, I'm with you You want De Bruyne to get more chances. Sure. These are players who have had success at a top level. You want a player who has never played a game at a top level in his life and who is currently struggling to get playing time in a team that doesn't have a single player good enough to be near Chelsea to become a regular player? It's once again absurdly overrating youth. Chalobah is a fantastic prospect with a bright future but he needs to develop and that is going to take time.

There are so many problems I have with the way people generally perceive managers. Aside from what you mentioned: 1) The managers who are perceived to be the best also have the most options to change things. Very few games are chess matches, they are more like chess matches where one side can exchange pawns for knights. How many teams in the world have stacked benches like Chelsea do? Maybe 5? 10? 2) The idea that winning=managing well. What would have happened had Chelsea brought on Willian and Schurrle instead of Lampard and Ba? Well, Chelsea probably would still have won. We are simply a much better team than Southampton who, like WBA last season, is a mid-table team who got off to a really good start. We are a much better and deeper team and we were playing at home. Any lineup we put out in almost any system (apart from the ridiculous) should have won us the game. Mourinho is a good manager. This is not a specific criticism of him, just of how people vastly overrate managers in general especially those who are on teams that have money.

Especially because we have excellent depth at his position.

Essien and Lampard don't play the same position. Mata and Oscar are rightfully ahead of KDB at the #10. .

Yes, forgot about the CL squad. Good call. As for wingers, I consider Hazard a winger and both Willian and Schurrle are also very capable of cutting in. I meant just not playing Mata with Oscar/Ramires attacking next to him for a couple of games.

I have a hard time giving Mourinho credit simply for undoing the awful tactics he started with. Essien wasn't good enough to start for Chelsea two years ago and hasn't played at all this season. Considering we have a game against the weak Bucharest coming up, why not play him there? He looked confused and out of place. Oscar, Hazard, and Mata just don't work together. They run all over each others' space. I'd love to see Mata start next to a couple of actual wingers for a game or two and unlike last season, we actually have players who can play there! Ramires was pretty bad to start the game but ended up fantastically and was my MOTM. The 4 defenders all had very good games.

Wow Essien.

And Demba Ba had 13 goals in 20 games before he came over last year and 2 in 14 games after. The goals tallies are related to the way a team plays and strikers will not have as much success on Chelsea as they will elsewhere (Chelsea's system tends to favour our midfielders scoring.) That being said, letting Sturridge go without ever giving him a chance was criminal and he, unlike Lukaku IMO, actually is perfect for our system in that he is flexible, quick, and provides link up play. One of the things that leaves the sourest taste in my mouth about Sturridge is the way fans derided him for being selfish and many many people wanted him gone. (This are two sad facts on Chelsea message boards. There are some people want most players gone so we can replace them with whatever FIFA2014 fantasy they have. if we get rid of Sturridge, we can sign Hulk or Falcao!!!" The other is that people overreact massively to a couple of bad games and expect some sort of constant and immediate production from everyone or they aren't good enough and never will be. The number of people who said Sturridge wasn't good enough for Chelsea based on a handful of games playing out of position was crazy. This is not like Josh or some other young players because Sturridge actually did prove his skill at a top level both with Bolton and with Chelsea. He scored 19 goals in about 1 year of regular Premier League action.) @Tomo The reason he didn't play under RDM is that Sturridge doesn't fit in a 4-2-3-1 anywhere except striker and nobody at Chelsea saw him as a striker. RDM tried to play him as a right sided (and even left sided) midfielder and he predictably failed. Last season, Sturridge would likely have got some games at striker but was hurt most of the first half. He had success under AVB as an attacking 4-3-3 RW and that suited him well but the 4-2-3-1 actually suited the team overall better but not Sturridge. @henrique-You can't be against Sturridge as our striker and also blame RDM for not using him as a striker. "Everybody who thinks Sturridge should be our main CF is wrong." Henrique, November 3rd, 2012.

The EPL is pretty easily the best league in the world and has a lot of money to spend so keeps getting stronger. It has drained a lot of the Spanish league and taken players who, in the past, would have played for Italian teams. Yes, there isn't any truly dominant team, but that is a hard thing to be in England for a number of reasons. In Spain, Germany, and Italy. the top teams are absurdly dominant but most of the lower and even mid-table sides are absolute jokes with almost no talent. In England, as GeeMon points out, there are a lot of tough matchups. If you look at mid-table sides in England, they are still filled with internationals. Swansea for example, the team halfway down the table, has more Spanish internationals than all but maybe 3 or 4 Spanish sides. Spurs are currently 9th and are loaded with top talent. Other leagues thin out extremely quickly once you get away from the very top of the table. BTW, the stats. % of players that are internationals. EPL-36.5% Bundesliga-20.9% Seria A-19.6% La Liga-16.2% England also has had easily the most success in Europe over the last decade. You also look in the last decade, look at the CL Finals. EPL-3 wins, 3 different teams, 8 appearances in finals, 4 different teams in finals. La Liga-3 wins, 1 team, 3 appearances in finals, 1 team in finals Seria A-2 wins, 2 different teams, 3 appearances in finals, 2 different teams in finals Bundesliga-1 win, 2 different teams, 4 appearances in finals, 2 different teams in finals. . 4 different English teams have made the CL final and 3 different ones have won it. So, 8 or 40% of all CL final clubs in the last decade have been English. Compare that to 1 Spanish team making the final,