TorontoChelsea

I agree but I have noticed that he is keeping to his line and providing width and space which is something we need.

Beautiful!

It's hilarious how much people react to a player's last match. All players have bad games and good games, it doesn't just suddenly swing them from being bad too good players or vice versa. You can go through some player's threads and see "he's useless" followed by "what a player" followed by " he sucks, we need to buy XXX instead" in the course of 3 games.

And I've said this before too and I will repeat. It doesn't matter. Mata is better offensively. It doesn't matter if Oscar is 16 and Mata is 30. We are not discussing age and experience, we are saying who is better right now. Maybe Oscar will refine his offensive game this year or next, it's quite possible but you keep bringing something up that nobody is discussing. If we signed a great 12 YO prospect from Latvia and played him at the #10, it wouldn't be fair to compare his production to Mata or Oscar's either because he's young and has no experience. It's just entirely irrelevant to this discussion. @minseok Yi. Oscar never played RW. That position doesn't exist in our system and the problem with Oscar playing there is that he moved too centrally and we got all bunched up in the middle of the pitch. This wasn't a winger who stuck to the wing to create space for other players and whipped crosses in. (He had fewer crosses per game than Mata) this was a player who interchanged in the middle of the pitch. Anyway, Hazard played all his games on one side of the pitch and had many more chances created (this year and last). Also, he's played entirely in the centre of the pitch this year and has basically the same passing numbers. Oscar is a creative player, he's just not particularly creative for a #10. You don't see the vision that players like Mata, Silva, Ozil, Cazorla, etc...have. Strangely enough, Oscar was 45th in the league in key passes per game last year and the exact same 45th position again so far this year.

I don't think the downgrade is in flair and dribbling. In fact, Oscar is probably better at dribbling and tries for as many flair moves as Mata. The real downgrade is creativity. Oscar's play allows Lampard and Ramires to go forward a bit more so he allows them to be better, but Mata actually makes players around him better. Oscar has 5 assists in 40 league games (and 2 of them were as a sub in that 8-0 Villa game). Mata has 13 in his last 36 games. Oscar has averaged about 1.5 key passes a game in that period, Mata about 2,7. Even without those stats, Mata just sees the pitch better and is able to spring players behind defenses. His passing numbers are better across the board. More long passes, more accurate crosses, more through balls, better passing percentage. Mata's also a better finisher right now. He's just a much better offensive player.

Schurrle and Ramires were both fantastic. Also, Ivanovic gets a lot of flack but he has a lot of very good games. Today, 10 aerial duels won. The rest of the team has 7. Yes, awful opposition, but we've played a bunch of awful teams this year and haven't looked this good so it's progress.

He was still playing 35 times a year so it wasn't reduced much. We definitely need to upgrade at CM but the grief Lampard gets has been ridiculous for the last few years. This year so far, according to Sqwuaka, Lampard is 4th in overall performance, 4th in shot accuracy, 7th in chances created, 4th in defensive duels won (62%), 2nd in average pass length, 8th in passing percentage, etc...Yes, we need to upgrade and Lampard gets worse if he plays too much, but he's hardly the hole in the team people seem to want to believe.

It's a little harsh to drop a player based on one game but if you look at Mourinho's quote, it's more than that. "With Kevin I didn't like the match he played against Swindon, and I didn't like the way he was training." I don't know what that means. Maybe he isn't fitting in with the team, maybe he's sulking, who knows, but it's clear this decision is not only down to one bad game.

Defensive positioning does matter, even at the #10. One of the main reasons our midfield was swamped last season was our attacking midfielders not tracking back. In the centre, Oscar's defensive ability allows Lampard and Ramires to go forward and they are probably our best two finishers overall. Mata there means that if they venture forward at all, we are extremely vulnerable. That said, Mata would be my choice too. We need the creativity more than we need the defensive work-rate.

Running a lot has nothing to do with being good defensively. De Bruyne is awful because he doesn't tackle, when he tries to tackle he is unsuccessful a ridiculous 75% of the time!!!! As for his positioning, have a look at this, http://espnfc.com/team/fixtures/_/id/459/belgium?cc=5901 click through the individual games and look at "average position". De Bruyne, even if he leaves (which I think is unlikely anytime soon) will never be like Sturridge. What bothers so many of us about letting Sturridge go is that we desperately needed a striker and that Sturridge never got a chance which he clearly deserved (even after he proved he could score as a RW). Nobody would put De Bruyne over Mata or Oscar for the #10 so if he were to leave, it's because there is no spot for him. Yes, he played well at Hull but even then it was a mixed game. 78% passing, 0/4 in crosses, 3 shots, none on target, nothing defensively). Squawka gave him a gamescore of 16. (Hazard was 54, Lampard 110, Oscar 61, etc...). It was hardly a dominating performance but it led to De Bruyne getting the start at Manchester United where he was awful and once again against Swindon. No, he will never get his game going playing sparingly, but he also has to perform to get playing time and he isn't. He should probably be loaned out in January to get playing time, but a number of people on here have vastly overrated De Bruyne to begin with.

I find this "Mourinho got the best out of Mata" narrative baffling. He had one assist on a free kick and played what was a pretty normal game for him. Hard to give Mourinho credit for an excellent player playing very well. I don't see the De Bruyne thing as Mourinho trying to light a fire or anything. I see it as a player who is our #6 attacking midfielder with no real role on the club not getting playing time. Where does De Bruyne fit with Chelsea? He's third choice at every single attacking midfield position. De Bruyne is similar to Mata in that he needs a free role to operate to be at his best except a) he's not as good as Mata He's not as good defensively as Mata as crazy as that sounds because Mata is bad C) He doesn't drop deep like Mata does. You look at his average position for Bremen and he played almost as a striker, more forward than any of our midfielders get regularly, for the Belgian national team the he actually averaged being more forward than any other player on the squad in at least their last 3 matches. His average position is further forward than the strikers which is crazy. Either way, that's not the sort of player who is going to fit into a Mourinho team easily. Bremen was a very good loan for him as it allowed to show his ability as a playmaker but he was never going to get the job at Chelsea based on a loan spell and un-seat Oscar and Mata. A loan to a good club where he has to play as a complimentary player, where he has to play on the wing or is their #3 or #4 option to create but have been very beneficial IMO and would allow De Bruyne to round out his game. Sitting on the bench or not even on the bench is not.

Wow, you never fail to post in the least pleasant and most arrogant way possible (and as usual, miss the point). It was pretty obvious what the poster meant was not "Kalou's lifetime achievements at Chelsea are greater than Schurrle's" or anything remotely similar (and reading them that way is bizarre at best) but rather was referring to the heavily vilified (and mostly ineffective) Kalou of the past few years (and CL and PL winner is a hilarious attempt to make a mediocre player seem like a great player just because he played on great teams). Schurrle is a better player than that Kalou by a fairly wide margin and even if he isn't, it will take more than a few misses to claim that hence the claim being an overreaction. I know that's complicated stuff, but do try to follow.

lukakutostamford- De Bruyne is Chelsea's #6 attacking midfielder. I agree with you that the buying of Willian makes no sense at all, but as soon as that happened, De Bruyne simply was never going to get much playing time. You are vastly overrating the importance De Bruyne's national team success. He's played about what, 5, 6, 7 meaningful matches with Belgium? His performance at Bremen is what got him on the team, not one national team game every couple of months where he has free reign. Chelsea don't care about the Belgian national team, we have to make decisions that are best for us. That said, I agree with you that De Bruyne should have either been loaned out or given enough time to at least improve his game, but Chelsea just have too much depth.

That's pretty much the definition of an overreaction.

Yeah, I don't really get the love for Torres today. He played really well but deserved to be sent off in the 51st minute which almost certainly would have cost us the point. I like what he did when he was on the pitch, but if the ref had seen things, he would have cost us vastly more than he gave us.

I thought Terry was MOTM. Not only did he score, but he almost scored a couple of other times and was excellent defensively. Hopefully, Mata will start the next game. He provided the spark that was missing in the first half. Oscar was the worst player on the pitch. Torres looked very good. Second yellow was BS but I can't feel too badly for him because he could have had a red earlier. Overall, not a great performance, but a point is a fine result.

I thought Terry was MOTM. Not only did he score, but he almost scored a couple of other times and was excellent defensively. Hopefully, Mata will start the next game. He provided the spark that was missing in the first half. Oscar was the worst player on the pitch. Torres looked very good. Second yellow was BS but I can't feel too badly for him because he could have had a red earlier. Overall, not a great performance, but a point is a fine result.

Ramires on the wing was never as bad as people tried to make out. He's an atrocious crosser but we play too narrow to cross anyway. People sometimes get these notions and they spread like wildfire, but he's OK there. (Same with Mikel-Lampard in pivot, it's not ideal, but it's fine.) My big worry is that we seem to now have 5 players fighting for one spot. My other concern is that Mourinho keeps on going with defensive work over offensive skill.

And I think he will likely be not be with Chelsea next season. Recovering from this injury is difficult and takes a long time and a loan to give him regular playing time somewhere else will probably make sense.

But there's the problem. Your definition of "athletic ability" is incredibly narrow and is being skewed to mean a few things: quickness, jumping ability, and strength. Really, what makes Russell Westbrook for example one of the best athletes? He's quick and can jump really high. Relative to other elite athletes, he's not strong, doesn't have fantastic stamina or flexibility, etc...You take AP and put him next to Usain Bolt, what exactly would AP be better at? Bolt is faster, can jump higher, is stronger, etc..., But being an elite RB is a different skill and Bolt would be awful at it. . You look at Lance Armstrong and he was able to dominate one of the most difficult things people can do for years and even with steroids that takes incredible stamina, strength, etc...None of the people on your list could have done anything close to what he did. Look at Michael Phelps. Strength, speed, endurance, everything... Team sports require specific skills and people who dominate those sports are great at those specific skills. Speed is no more an athletic ability than flexibility and power is no more an athletic ability than endurance.

Best athletes? Way too broad. By the definitions given above, I'd probably have track guys at the top with Bolt being #1. That said, I think this definition of athletics is impossible to work with because you can't compare physical abilities that are vastly different across many different sports and places some attributes over others for no real reason. Why is jumping more important to being a top athlete than hand-eye co-ordination? Why is speed more important than endurance? "pure athletic attributes" is nonsense because there are plenty of athletic attributes that are not mentioned here at all. There is a visual test that is incredibly misleading. The strongest people in the world are actually a little fat and definitely not cut at all. Someone like Haile Gebrselassie is as good an athlete as there ever was, but he was slender and wouldn't fit into these definitions. I've played many sports and many at a pretty decent level and the single hardest thing to do in any sport is to hit a baseball. The hand-eye coordination and reaction time required is absolutely insane. I can't even imagine playing tennis at the intensity professionals do for the length of time they do. Have you ever played squash? It's a brutal sport which requires insane athleticism. How about boxing? UFC? How about decathlon? It's endless and not restricted to popular team sports. (Anyway, in the NFL you can know who the best athletes are because they do the combines which measure all that stuff and the best athletes are almost never the best players. Calvin Johnson and AP were both elite talents, but not top "athletes" by your definition. Not like Vernon David or Darius Heywood-Bey or Mike Mamula.)

So wait, "knowing he was going to be a good player (no such thing in reality, plenty of players look good before going to a top league and fail)"=better than Mata? Barca and Spurs and top teams are interested=better than a PFA team of the year/our best player for 2 years? That's absolute nonsense. You're bringing in two things which have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Oscar is a good player, nobody is disputing that (I hope) but he's going to need to be a lot better to reach the level of Mata. The fact that he was a good player in Brazil or that other teams were interested in him has no bearing on anything.

People overreact massively to form. It's so bad, that even one great or awful game will change peoples' opinions about a players' overall quality. Look at Schurrle after the Bayern game and then after his next start.Of course, this is a massive problem when you start out with unrealistic expectations anyway. If you think Kevin Deb Bruyne is one of the best players in the world, that Van Ginkel is an elite player, or that Chalobah or any of our youth players are good enough to start for Chelsea, you're going to be disappointed and forced to re-adjust your evaluation very quickly which leads to overadjustment. De Bruyne is not one of the best players in the world, but having a bad run of games doesn't make him useless either. I think Oscar will do well in the #10 spot overall if he stays there all year, he's a very good player, he just lacks the offensive genius that Mata has. (There's a term we use in hockey, "playing with your head down/up" and it's something you notice. Mata, even before he receives the ball, knows sees the play developing and has his head up, looking for teammates. That's something that is a rare skill in football.)

Mata PFA team of the year, led the premier League in assists last season along with 12 goals. #4 in key passes per game.He was our best player for 2 years but Oscar, after a poor Premier League season and an excellent CL last year, is now better because of three good home games against Hull, Basel, and Fulham? Mourinho likes him better because he fits his system, but it's going to take a lot more than a few good games to say "he's better".

It isn't about sentimentality, it's about giving your best player a chance to succeed and help the team. Does anyone think that if Mata got consistent playing time, he wouldn't go back to the player we all know he is? And part of what irks me is this idea that Mata has to earn his playing time and after a poor performance, he doesn't deserve to start. Hazard has been bad almost all season and hasn't lost his place. Oscar has three very poor games in a row and kept starting. No player can hit their form starting 3 times in 5 weeks in different positions and with different teammates. Players have to earn their starting spots if you give them a chance to succeed. The "they have to earn it" for proven players is an appealing soundbite, but it's mostly bullshit because the manager decides who he wants to "earn it". Right now, Mourinho has decided that Eto'o, Oscar, and Hazard have the right to earn their places up front. I don't care who you are, but usage is an enormous part of results. If you rarely play them, it's you ensuring that they won't succeed. If you get a lot of chances, you have a very good chance at producing. That doesn't mean Chelsea have to be built around Mata, but by sidelining him, we are are making our most (and really only very) creative player as ineffective as possible.