Well more talk is: Mata and Hazard were arguably the best players around this season. I don't know why @Rupert is getting antagonistic on this subject himself - while at the same time so complaining about haters. I currently have 'The Folly of Fools - The Logic of Deceit and Self-Deception in Human Life' open here and this is a text-book example of that very book. Good read by a world beater by the way . If any 'department' slowed thing down for us, it is the pivot. In transition we 'forwarded the ball' so slow that even our defense felt the urge to hump it forward (Luiz, Cech, ...). Also, I have been a critic of Torres, but still liked his play the last games (except the actual last - which Rupert agrees on). I believe he might be good once in a more stable environment (Chelsea just isn't an easy club to be a player in as such) - so never for us. We may never have been a match. Mata seems to be there as a game changer for sure, although some have suggested that he can disappear in big games. I agree on that sometimes (but which player doesn't actually - our goals for player should always be remain rational), but I wouldn't want to miss him - in the easy games but he sure did good stuff in tough games as well. and that is incredible for a guy his age and 'pedigree' in the EPL. Torres was here before, he also was a star in the EPL before ... and doesn't come through. He just doesn't here. I feel really bad about that. Reasons for that - I put that in another thread. Hazard? 'What ... is he slow in build up? He holds up play? I think he made a difference going forward in this team on that one, actually. He has inconsistencies, yes. he is 22. But what about our defence, Rupert? I guess that has nothing to do with Benitez' tactical performances (not qualities - sense the subtle difference). If I - at work - agree on a target and do NOT perform accordingly, I have problems. Btw, every work has that. Why are Benitez' performances apparently a open credit line in our beloved SB. You have an 'idea fixe' - i start to believe, mate. Everytime I see you post, Rupert. It really IS antagonistic. Never sympathetic, not friendly, nor humoursly intended .... just bitter a bit. So ... no more dogs and no more bullshit. Why do you think the way you think? What is the root cause? Without the antagonistic shit? Why do you think what you think? Ps: If you - or other enthousiasts - ever want to read the standard on bullshit (and I bullshit you not) http://www.linguistik.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg72/PDF/Peters_PDF/FRANKFURT__H._G.__2005._On_Bullshit..pdf To quote an interesting passage: "There is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial.notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."
