TorontoChelsea

We don't know. I would say he's probably around that level. He was an excellent striker 3 years ago but well, that was 3 years ago and he's now 31 and he's been playing in a bad league so, really who knows?. I view this like the Willian signing where it's more of a matter of getting a sort of player Mourinho wants for his system rather than getting an upgrade in talent.

I think it remains to be seen if we'll be better with Oscar than with Mata. Oscar is perhaps a better fit for this system because of his work rate and defense, but Mata is a vastly better offensive player at this point. Mata last season had 12 goals on 70 shots, Oscar 4 on 60. Mata has 12 assists to Oscar's 5. 2.7 key passes to 1.4. Mata is capable of moments of offensive genius on a fairly regular basis and has rescued Chelsea many times due to them. Oscar has not shown the ability to lead Chelsea the way Mata has.If Hull showed the benefits of Oscar in the centre, running our offense then Villa showed the drawbacks. He was maybe our worst player against Villa, doing very little. He got into dangerous scoring positions three times and didn't even hit the net on any of them. Mata, when in form, would almost certainly have scored on one of them and maybe on two. So, yes, he does offer us something that Mata can't, but he also isn't nearly as effective in attack. I imagine they will both get time at multiple positions so I don't think it's an either/or proposition.

7 points in 3 games, one of which was at Old Trafford, 1 goal allowed. Way way way too much panic when at this point there should be none.

Who cares about AVB? Why would anyone take the side of some manager we had for a few months over our best ever player anyway? It's insane to me that any Chelsea fan would give a flying fuck about AVB anymore. AVB wasn't fired because of Lampard, he was fired because were shit under him and he couldn't communicate with his players. So many complaints that are oft-repeated but wrong as well. He shoots too much for example. Guess who are most accurate shooter was last season? Yeah, that's right, Lamapard (maybe Mata without penalties actually, but Lampard would have been second regardless). You're criticizing one of our most accurate shooters for shooting too much? Does he shoot too much? Probably, but every single goal scorer shoots too much and the results from Lampard's shooting have been overall very good. And the slowing down the counter attack argument I'm getting sick of as well. Lampard is slow of foot, he's not some player who takes the ball and uses 10 seconds to look around. Look at his decisiveness against Barca in our two legs in a counter-attacking system. His amazing balls into Ramires were instrumental in us winning. He is capable of playing a quick ball and his field judgement is still generally excellent. The idea that we need some fleet-footed young midfielder to run a counter-attack system is flat out wrong. Teams like Madrid and Bayern who play more of a counter-attacking system have Alonso and Scweinsteiger in their pivots and Alonso is slow and Bastian is hardly a speedster and they do just fine. Lampard is fine for our system and he's somehow become one of our most unappreciated players (Along with Cole, Terry, and Cech I'd say-Being over 30 means that too many fans have already written your playing obituary while salivating over youtube videos of some 17 year old in the Swiss league).

Except, Arsenal in European terms are hardly a poor team. Yes, they haven't won a trophy in a long time, but a top-4 finish every year in the best league the world means you are good team.

From the Paul Doyle at the Guardian: "J if you want my view, and his lack of faith in Romelu Lukaku is irritating: it's as if he's trying to exaggerate Chelsea's striking problems in orders to ensure he gets backing to buy at least one new centreforward." An interesting theory but probably a little too cynical. I got the pursuit of Rooney. A top class player that would also weaken a major rival but is Eto'o an improvement? Like the Willian signing, the amount that it improves the team is pretty debatable. Chelsea's 3 strikers combined for 40 goals in the Premier League last season. None of them are elite, but then again, neither is Eto'o.

Based on meaningless pre-season performances? .Van Ginkel is for the future. He's coming off a good, but not elite season in a weak league and Lampard scored 15 goals in the Premier League last season.The lack of respect Lampard gets is ridiculous. He was very bad against Villa (but hardly the only one) but he was probably our best player in the first game and did his job against ManU quite well. Overall, in 3 games, Whoscored.com has him as our 2nd best player and Squawka as our 3rd (and in both cases is our highest rated midfielder) yet the amount of blame that gets put on him no matter what is insane. And it isn't just the goal and assist he got. Lampard has 2.3 tackles, 1.7 clearances, 10 more touches a game than any other player, 6/8 in crosses, and on and on. Lampard isn't playing because of sentimentality, he's playing because Mourinho feels he gives Chelsea the best chance to win. Lampard was a poor fit for AVB's side because it was a quick ball-movement and people still have that idea in their heads that that is how we're going to play. Mourinho isn't going to play that style so we don't need a central midfielder who is really quick. Xabi Alonso is slow as hell and he wouldn't have been a great fit under AVB but he was great under Mourinho. Mourinho has never been shy to mix things up or to alienate veteran popular players if he thinks it means a better team (like Casillas). Lampard and Ramires are starting because Mourinho thinks they are the best combination. That's it.

Exactly. He might not even be ready for regular time in the Premier League. This is starting to remind me of Romeu where a promising young player gets elevated in the eyes of some supporters to an elite level player that he really isn't close to. He'll get playing time and if he does well when he plays, he'll get more playing time. It's not Chelsea's responsibility to make sure Van Ginkel gets a chance to play in the World Cup either. They have to do what's best for the team and right now Van Ginkel isn't one of the best XI.

I don't blame our FBs though. They are two of the best in the Premier League overall and you shouldn't need to rely on them to attack. (And Ivanovic is overall good in attack, he just doesn't have speed) We just have too many players clogging up the middle. Oscar is our most well-rounded attacking midfielder but he's maybe our worst finisher so we're sacrificing scoring for defensive solidity. I think the issue with Hazard is that Mourinho requires pretty strict defensive discipline and players are going to have to adjust to that. It's still only 3 games in.

I'd be happy if we went with squad players for this. It'd be nice to win, but it's ultimately meaningless. Bayern were Champions of Europe last season like we were the year before and an exhibition game isn't going to change that.

I can see selling Mata or selling anyone, but loaning out your best player the last two years? What's the point? His value isn't going to get higher and Chelsea's logjam at attacking midfield in't going to go away.

I don't think they are rubbish at all. They know their role which is to move the ball quickly, not give the ball away, and not make mistakes. The entire setup of ManU is to try to feed Van Persie and whoever is behind him (Rooney, Welbeck, etc...) It's not a great midfield of course, but it did it's job well last season.

They also only really cared about one of those games and rested a lot of key players in all the games except the first Premier League game. We played twice in the league and the second time ManU had already clinched. Their Carling Cup lineup was a joke and we beat them 5-4 in extra time with our starters. The FA Cup, they also rested a lot of players. Van Persie only started the 2 games in the league against us. Rooney only started 2 of the 5 games. Lindegaard played twice, etc...and those games we were generally playing full strength or close (or in the case of Carling Cup, full strength after subs). I think we have a good chance to beat them, but last year's results were misleading because we played much stronger teams.

The other thing I don't understand is that if we could hijack deals, why not hijack Jovetic or Navas who fit with natural needs more (natural RM and a striker), were decently priced, and were going to a team who is a more likely contender.

What the hell are you talking about? Torres had a few good games against crappy teams. You can't judge a players' ability on those stats. Schurrle has had seasons worth of play where has shown the ability to dribble. It's called sample size. Ask 10 voters they're likely voting patterns is pointless. Ask 1,000 and it's meaningful. You don't seem to see the difference. 3.2 dribbles a game means that Schurrle can dribble. You said we don't have anyone to replace Hazard who can dribble and Schurrle plays the same position and can dribble and we clarly do. Yes, he's unproven in the Premier League, but he's proven in a much better league than Willian. The signing of Willian itself could make sense if it weren't for the insane cost (basically about double what he should cost), It would also make sense if, in the last 2 years, we also hadn't have spent 18M on Schurrle and 25M on Oscar and 16M on KDB and Moses. This what people don't seem to understand. No team is going to regularly play 6 attacking midfielders so Willian will play instead of Kevin De Bruyne or Schurrle. Last year, we had 3 regular AMs and Moses who barely played. Our 4th AM almost never played. Now, we've added 3 more players to the position? Let's say we have 50 meaningful games this season. (not including early domestic cup or games in CL once you've already advanced sort of games) That's 150 starts overall for attacking midfielders. Let's say Mata starts 40, Hazard 40, Oscar 35, That's 35 starts for Schurrle, De Bruyne, and Willian which is nothing. Will the team be better with Willian getting those minutes over De Bruyne? Maybe, maybe not, but it's insane to me to spend 32M pounds plus high wages for what is, at most, a very slight upgrade.

Schurrle is very much that sort of player. Schurrle had 3.2 2 dribbles a game last year. Besides, you can't build squads with backing up every sort of player. Do we need a backup for a fast, defensively sound midfielder in case Ramires is hurt? This is especially when you have holes and lack of backups all over the pitch.

@CHOULO19. I'll always support any Chelsea player. I just don't get this at all. And beyond that, the price is insane. Willian will improve the squad but not much because he's not replacing Moses because Moses was really never going to play anyway, he's really replacing probably De Bruyne, maybe Schurrle in terms of playing time. That means you're paying 32M pounds to upgrade from De Bruyne or Schurrle to Willian. It's a massive fee and doesn't improve the team much. Why do we only spend big on attacking midfielders? We needed a striker and haven't got one and we needed a central midfielder and got young one for the future who might not be ready for the top level. It just makes no sense and is insanely expensive.

Moses is not an old school winter. He likes to cut in as well. He wasn't going to play before William, now he certainly won't. My guess is De Bruyne will also now almost never play.

I don't get this at all. We had too many attacking midfielders before and we spend big to get another? And an insanely overpriced one at that. Chelsea have now spent something like 150m pounds on attacking midfielders in the last three years. Something else is going to happen or this makes no sense at all.

Very lucky to get the win but I'll take the 3 points. We're still finding our rhythm obviously and you could see how disjointed the front three looked. Hazard played well overall but Oscar and Mata were poor and never got much going. In general, our touch was just off. Missing the net, missing passes but it's early and the important thing is the win.

Looks like a 4-3-3 now with Oscar dropping deeper.

Similar to the second half of last game. Aside from the first 10 minutes, front three has had horrible movement. Still, Villa didn't threaten at all until the goal so it's hardly panic time.

Moses isn`t on the bench because he`s Chelsea`s /6 attacking midfielder. You have the three starters and then 2 AM subs and Ramires to cover there if needed. Despite what people were saying in pre-season (never learning the lesson that it doesn`t matter) Moses is on the periphery of the Chelsea team and is not likely to play meaningful minutes barring a couple major injuries.

8 pages a waste? What's this guy then? http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/13579-hulk/page-273

I agree with you re: Super Cup. It's an exhibition game as far as I;m concerned. If we win this year, does it mean we are actually better than Bayern or that accomplishment was greater? Of course not, so what's the point? (Answer, a way to make money) . I agree, I have never been for lineups were you rest everyone (except in Carling Cup games maybe). I disagree with not rotating players early. Squads have to get used to playing with different players. We don't have a set starting XI that needs to familiarize with itself, everyone has to learn to play with everyone. So, rotation is a must even early. And sometimes, it does come down to priorities. Can Cole's ankle take 3 games in a week? Do you want De Bruyne, Hazard, and Oscar starting 4 times in 12 days this early in the year? And starting is much more taxing on the body that being a sub. You're talking about a 65-75 minute appearance versus a 15-25 minute one. Even when we had no depth last year, our top players only started about 30 games a year in the Premier League and the time to generally rest them is when you have a flurry of games, you rest them against the weaker sides. I don't think any player or Mourinho is just concentrating at ManU but the manager has to be aware of pacing the team for the long season as well.