TorontoChelsea

A couple of minor quibbles. The Iran coup was much more in the interest of the UK (and especially BP) than the US. The US was only helping out Britain and only once Eisenhower became President. Also, to categorize Mossadegh as a stable democrat is a bit much. He was in power for a year, quite popular, especially in the cities but not in rural areas and he did things that were pretty anti-democratic (such as suspending voting when it suited him). And as Choulo writes, the revolution itself was populist and the liberals and non-fundamentalist were betrayed as they had fought for democracy, not a different repressive regime. Your major point stands though The West, on behalf of an oil company, helped overthrow a flawed but elected government and that is indefensible. Where I really part from you is that the 1953 coup is justification for current feelings. Chile had its government overthrown in 1973 with CIA help. Pinochet was a brutal leader who killed his own people, but...Chile moved on. It is now a thriving country. Why? Because instead of obsessing over past injustices, they tried to build a future. This is true most of Europe, much of Asia and Latin America. Every people and I mean every single people can rightly feel aggrieved. That must be acknowledged, but people also have to move on and deal with current issues. Otherwise, there will never be anything except permanent war.

You mean like target practice?

The threat of nuclear was was very real. Sure, some of it was to stoke fear, but there were always hawks on both sides willing to risk everything. Here's the end to one of my favourite movies of all time...what very well might have been.

Having good national teams is largely luck-players of top ability coming through at the same time. Had England had a better keeper than a 72 year old Seaman and then a parade of Championship quality keepers, during the "golden generation", they would have had a good chance of winning something. Spain is on top because they have a whole bunch of incredibly talented players who came through at the same time. England are a good squad, but a second tier one. People get their expectations too high and then are too hard on the team when they don't win. In the last 3 World Cups and Euros, they lost in the knockout stages to Germany, Portugal twice, Brazil, and Italy and 3 of those times were on penalties. I think there are a few things to note as well. Many top teams like Spain, Italy, and Germany have almost all their players regularly playing with each other. The Premier League is more balanced so the national team will draw players from 10 different teams. It makes a massive difference. I think one thing England can do better is to concentrate less on specific positions and more on skill with the younger kids. Forcing kids into playing in systems early, takes away creativity and enforces a certain kind of rigidity.

In real life, Belgians are a divided people, the Flemish and the Walloons are unable to agree on much. Governments can take years of haggling to form, there is constant bickering about language, the country itself sometimes seems on the brink of collapse but...they seem to all agree that Chelsea are the team to support....welcome.

I think it's a great idea as long as their is a minimum tax-free amount. Cyprus is a tax haven for all sorts. What I'd really like to see is a global tax treaty that makes these sorts of off-shore accounts impossible. It won't happen but it'd get billions in taxes for a number of countries.

He stayed around a lot longer than I thought he would. He had a very good career but it was still disappointing based on what he could have been. It was that injury while with Newcastle that finished him as a top player.

http://espnfc.com/team/squad?id=363&cc=5901

It's not bad really. Falcao only scores on 1 out ever 6.2 shots from open play. Ronaldo is actually a terrible finisher. It takes 9 shots on goal for him to score. (apart from penalties) and he has scored so many goals largely because he takes over 7 shots a game. Chelsea doesn't have anyone who comes close to taking half that number. People expectations from goal scorers are generally way to high. Even the best players will miss chances quite often. The numbers are also influenced because players like Mata and Lampard take a lot of free kicks and free kicks are generally much harder to score on than being set up in the middle of the box. I'd say Mata and Lampard are both very good finishers. We definitely need to get a new striker in though because strikers should have a higher success rate as they generally get their shots in dangerous places and our strikers have been awful.

Chelsea shots per goal (forwards and midfielders): Lampard- 1 goal for every 4.8 shots with penalties (1 goal for every 6.6 shots without penalties) Mata- 1 goal for every 5.7 shots Hazard- 1 goal for every 6.8 shots (1 goal for every 7.6 shots without penalties) Ramires-1 goal for every 6.8 shots Torres- 1 goal for every 8.1 shots (1 goal for every 9.3 shots without penalties) Ba-1 goal for every 10 shots Moses-1 goal for every 20 shots Oscar-1 goal for every 44 shots (no goals without penalties) I don't see Mata as shooting too often at all. He is our most efficient scorer.

Yeah, but I always find these large-scale transitions odd because they last for a few years and then some other team has success with a different formation and suddenly, everyone changes. I think more teams could move to a back three like you're seeing a lot in Italy. If teams aren't going to attack with width and fullbacks are more for attack, then why not play with a wing-back or even wide midfielders instead? They can better mark the attacking fullbacks and when they turn the ball over, can counter very quickly.

It's true but I don't think people appreciate the off the ball importance of true wingers especially the space it creates, dragging the fullback and the tracking winger out of a central position. A lot of 4-2-3-1 teams are playing really centrally with their attacking midfielders, but I don't think it generally works as well. I'm just trying something a little different with the avatar. Trying to squeeze a bunch of Chelsea legends from different eras in although the 1997 FA Cup remains special to me (as it does to many of us).

No thanks. We have Hazard, Mata, Oscar, Moses, and De Bruyne for attacking midfielder next season. We don't need anybody else there. Hazard, Mata, and De Bruyne can all play on the left side. If we were to get another attacking midfielder, I'd rather get a true winger who provides real width and can play on the right. (Someone like the way Antonio Valencia played last year.)

Great piece!

I'm not saying he bears no responsibility, but Torres' game was always based on pace, getting around the defender, and so on, once that was lost, he was never going to be a top striker no matter what.

I don't think that's fair. I think it was mostly due to an injury. His idiot manager at Liverpool overplayed him and rushed him back when he was clearly hurt and he's never recovered. I forget the name of that idiot manager...I'm sure he never got another job after that.

I generally like international football except friendlies which I abhor. That said, I do prefer club football which is much better quality (which makes sense because the players train and play with each other much more). The Champions League is the best football tournament in the world.

I KNEW he wasn't going to show up. He just wanted to feel wanted or something.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF6PfH-ja3w Crazy!

I agree. I want teams like Arsenal and Spurs to do well and us to beat them. If they're shit, it's like playing QPR, if we win, so what, and if we lose, we make their year. I like Chelsea playing in a highly competitive league, it makes winning it truly amazing.

Exactly. Anyone expecting to reproduce those sorts of numbers for Chelsea needs to be more realistic. Offensive stats are, in a large part, about usage. Players that have the offense run through them will always put up much better stats. De Bruyne is not coming to Chelsea to play the same role he plays at Bremen. Mata plays that role and he along with Hazard are going to get most of our stats because most of the offense is rightly going to run through them. He's going to be the 3rd or 4th attacking midfielder and he's going to have to adapt his game to Chelsea rather than the other way around. He's incredibly skilled and versatile and I'm excited about what he might be able to bring to our squad, but people need to keep their expectations in check.

Interesting question...if we are to make a top-4 spot, who would you like to see miss it Spurs or Arsenal? (and we'd probably all prefer Everton to pass them both but don't see that happening). I think I'd prefer Arsenal to make the top-4 because they used to actually win a lot and barely making top-4 for them is still a let-down whereas making top-4 for Spurs would be considered a very good season.

At about 1:00, you can see Jaaskelainen running over to try to stop Terry from warming up next to West Ham fans.

No, it definitely does have an effect. You're view on life once you hit your early 20's changes a lot (especially once you have to go full-time into the working world). Teenagers don't make good decisions not only because they don't have the same experience, they don't make good decisions because they just have poor judgement and are extremely vulnerable to things like peer pressure.

Sometimes, I think that people shouldn't be allowed to drive until they're in their mid 20's (like renting cars). When I think of the way my friends and I drove when we were in high school, it was lunacy. You have a sense of immortality and don't fully understand consequences and do whatever you want. Cars make you so irrational though. There is a big psychological effect of being surrounded by steel that makes almost all drivers ass-holes. The number of deaths caused because people run red lights or take risks is huge and those risks/speeding is really saving 30 seconds.