TorontoChelsea

Makes sense. Even if he's very close to ready, if we sit him one more game, he'll have an extra two weeks off. Really not worth risking aggravating his injury for one early season season match which we should be able to win without him.

Exactly. The way I see it, there are two decent ways to do it. 1) As you mention, just stopping the clock every time there is a significant stoppage or 2) Having an official whose job it is to calculate that time (basically stopping and starting a stop-watch whenever there is a delay) and then giving that amount of time as extra time. The current system just makes no sense.

1-I don't think we have a best starting XI. I think it depends on the side we're playing and the game we're trying to play. For example, the side we played against Arsenal would be terrible against a team that has natrual width and a target man up front but is great against sides that try to use the middle of the pitch.. 2-Premier league just ahead of CL. Then FA Cup, then league cup, then the club WC 3-I would like to see our attack seem more planned and less "hey guys, go out there and try to score". We seem to have excellent defensive gameplans and almost non-existent offensive ones. 4-New signings look good so far, but it's early. 5-CL-quarter finals, 3rd place Premier league, FA Cup win, League cup out next round, 6-Marin as a squad player, Sturridge as a CF who plays his way into extra playing time.

I don't think any striker would fit in with the way we're playing right now. We're just not striker-friendly. Cavani does a lot of things very well so he contributes in many different ways . He is an incredible defender for a forward and he holds the ball up brilliantly. Not sure if buying any striker for 40M+ is a good idea right now, but I can't think of a (realistic) striker I'd rather have.

Absolutely agree. Sturridge was our second best player in the first half of the season last year. He scored some absolutely crucial goals, He then picked up a knock and had a poor month and then was played absurdly out of position under RDM. (Torres would have actually been a better fit in the midfield than Sturridge). He also scored some dynamic goals, ones that he created out of nothing which is something special. It bothers me that he gets so much flak. I mean, he was 21 and it was his first season and he was playing out of position and he led us in goals. I don't know why he was so disliked. (yeah, he is selfish, but I don't think that's always a negative for a striker).

I don't people appreciate how strikers would fit into different systems. Falcao is one of the best finishers in the world and nobody would dispute that, but as others have mentioned, I don't think that fits in well with Chelsea. Athletico are a team built around service to Falcao and creating space and opportunity for him. Chelsea are not like that in the least. All you have to do is look at the shots taken last season. Falcao took 124 shots last year in the league. The next highest total for the team was Adrian with 61, Diego had 56 and nobody else cracked 50.. Sturridge led Chelsea with 93 shots and then we had Torres, Drogba, Lampard, and Mata all with 65 or 66. This season, Falcao is taking 4.5 shots a game. Torres and Hazard are our shot leaders and they both have 13 shots in 6 matches. Again, Falcao is a fantastic finisher, but he's not a multi-dimensional player the way a top striker should be. Just to show you statistically-a comparison to Cavani Long balls per game-Cavani, 1.3, Falcao-0.2 Clearances per game-Cavani-2.5, Falcao-0.2 Tackles per game-Cavani-1.7, Falcao-0.6 Blocked shots per game-Cavani-1, Falcao-0 Dribbles per game-Cavani-1.5, Falcao-0.6 In fact, I think whoscored.com sums up strengths well Falcao-Finishing-strong, long shots-strong, headed attempts-strong. Those are his attributes. Shooting and scoring. Now, you look at a top striker and I'll pick someone other than Cavani, take Van Persie. Key Passes-very strong, Holding on to the ball-strong, finishing-strong, long shots-strong, through-balls-strong, dribbling-strong, taking set pieces-strong. Scoring is the most important aspect of a strikers' game, but very few strikers are in the position that Falcao is in where a tea is built to get him opportunities. Chelsea is not built like that at all. We are built in a way where we need a balanced striker, not a poacher.

I don't think it's really that hard to pronouncehttp://www.forvo.com/word/azpilicueta/ (you obviously never get the exact local flavour) it's just a bit of a mouthful. People always like to shorten names anyway. Generally, any name that is longer than one syllable, maybe two, gets cut down to a nickname so to their friends David becomes Dave, Michael becomes Mike, Quetzalcoatl becomes...um...

Oh good, let's have 350 pages of this too.

Welcome!

It was very disappointing BUT Romney has a massive advantage. He just promises everything. "I will lower taxes, increase spending on the military, and somehow also balance the budget" and people want to believe the impossible. Obama definitely needs to attack more though and call him on his B.S.

Exactly. There is a difference between rotating players which you do every match, and resting players which you do when you have an easy game. Most clubs have around 15 regular players that they will rotate into the games on a regular basis. For us, That's Cech, Cole, Terry, Cahill, Luiz, Ivanovic,Mikel, Ramires, Lampard, Oscar, Hazard, Mata, Torres, and Sturridge with Moses and Bertrand close to that group as well. Other players can play their way into that group also. .

Not sure what our current style is. I don't think we have one yet. We are mostly just relying on individual skill to try to create goals. I just think possession is vastly overrated. Look at our match against Stoke, one of the worst road teams in the Premier League. We had the ball most of the time, had it in decent areas and created 1 good scoring all game which came off of a an incredible bit of individual skill. I care much more about creating and preventing opportunities to score.

The good thing about counter-attack is that you don't have to chase. You can sit back and wait. Besides, how many teams in the world can pass the ball like Barca? None.

I actually think Dortmund is the ideal football model to follow. Both financially where they manage to be successful in a tough league despite spending wisely and on the field where they play an attractive brand of football that is more realistic for teams to emulate than what Barcelona play. They play beautiful, quick counter-attacking game. They open up space beautifully for their attackers and are adept at passing short and long. Even in this game where Dortmund vastly outplayed City, City still had 64% of the possession. I find that style much more exciting than the infinite midfield passing of Barcelona. I think people obsess about possession too much anyway. Just my POV.

Thought it was a 50-50 call. Seen them given, seen them not given. Dortmund was unlucky as they had the run of play, but that's why you need to put away the chances you do get.

I think the economy has something to do with that to be honest. It's not cheap to go to games and people just have less money to spend than they used to.

You almost feel sorry for Joe Hart.

Play has opened up well. BD moving the ball very well. Couple of nice saves from Hart too.

Also, it makes it tougher for them in the league. We all saw how it was impossible for us to play our starters late in the season last season because of the CL and FA Cups. I'd love to see all the English teams get to the quarter-finals at least.

I actually hate how extra time is given. The first half is always 1 minute and if there's an injury, a red card, or a couple of goals, maybe you'll get 2 minutes. Second half is always 3 or 4 minutes except in rare occasions. I remember reading that the amount of time the ball is actually in play is about 60 minutes in a game. Either way, I actually think extra time should be generally longer than it is. Especially, when you've had 6 changes, 4 bookings, 2 goals, 3 minor injuries, and about 5 minutes of time wasting in a half and then you get 4 minutes of extra time. It's really just a convention that just makes no sense. I'd just rather see more actual football.

HA! I watched Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High when I was younger and Snake was on those as well. I actually knew someone who lived on De Grassi street in Toronto which the show is named after. I always heard the show had a wide audience, but it's still surprising. .

You need a great passer from central midfield for the 4-2-3-1. It's essential to the set-up. Chelsea are either going to move Oscar back to that position or are going to have to buy someone who fits that role long-term. Having a poor passer in that spot breaks up the offense as you can't link play between the defenders and the attacks properly. @Bluesmaster-thought the ref had a poor game throughout. Not biased in any way, just way too quick with his whistle. The game was pretty clean. If I think about the game, I think there were maybe 5-7 fouls by either team and then you look at the stats and see 27 total fouls which is just ridiculous.I think sometimes refs feel like they need to make a mark on the game when really, they're at their best when you don't even notice them.

That's an absurd comparison. Ya Ya Toure is a beast. He is also an excellent passer and a very smart offensive player. Ramires is not. (Ya Ya Toure created a chance once every 49 minutes last season. Ramires created one once every 124 minutes which is one of the worst rates among box to box midfielders in the Premier league.) He is also a terrible crosser. Ramires is excellent for a counter-attack system because his speed is incredible, but he is not a good player with the ball at his feet. Ramires has specific strengths. He's an aggressive tackler with a high success rate, he is a great dribbler, he can slot in at a number of positions, he's incredibly fast, and he has wonderful stamina but he also has severe drawbacks as a player . This is a good statistical analysis of last season. http://www.eplindex.com/14737/premier-league-team-year-1112-opta-stats-part-2-midfield.html

I watched the match and broke down every one of the opposition attacks. None of them were the fault of Lampard playing too far upfield and there is no way in hell he should be playing in Mikel's spot. Of the two midfielders, Ramires is the more defensive in the pivot and rightly played a deeper role (And HE, not Lampard, made two awful defensive mistakes which led to chances). As far as us benefiting more from Ramires attacks, I am very dubious about that. Ramires is definitely better defensively than Lampard but he is vastly inferior offensively.He is a much poorer passer, has worse vision, doesn't create opportunities, and is a worse finisher. It's not even remotely close. (And the statistics bear this out. Lampard was one of the most creative midfielders in the premier league last season and Ramires was one of the least). He does create space, but only if we have natural width and in this current set-up, Ramires' counter-attack offensive game is mostly wasted. RDM has been using Ramires in the centre to provide defensive solidity and speed in the middle of the park and it's worked. Ramires is not in there for his offensive game which is very limited.

I would have said Bluesmaster too, but he's all corporate now. Tough for me, a bunch of posters I quite like so I'll just throw out a few names: Joker10, SeB, Zolayes, DYC, ..(On another note, is there a way we can easily see who the past winners are? Wouldn't want to vote for someone who has got it recently).