The only place to be

I've not seen anything in his game that suggests he needs a season in the league here. What sets him apart from other young keepers (and I'm think specifically De Gea here) is that he's always had solid fundamentals. His ability in the air has always been one of his strengths, and he's always impressed me because he does the basics well. For his size he gets down extremely well and coming from a more 'basic' league in Belgium, he's got that experience of slightly messier, more utilitarian football. So I think sending him to Fulham doesn't help him enough to mitigate the loss of another season in Madrid where he gets a chance to play Champions League football. Basically I think it's a bit of a low-class move if we do that.

I hate this bollocks that only sophisticated connoisseurs can appreciate what Mikel does in the team. I'm not sure if you were around the Bridge much when Makelele was at the club but the fans respected and adored him - and it wasn't just because he scored a penalty against Charlton. It's because our fans understand football and respect good players even if they don't score goals or create assists. The same went for players like Spackers and Deschamps who both played a role in the team and were respected (although not at the same level as Makelele obviously). People in this thread, in the stands and around the world who criticise Mikel know exactly what he's supposed to do in that role but they simply don't rate him or think he's consistent enough.

Oscar and Mata can share the central role. This gives us more options on the wings and crucially another option up front. De Bruyne isn't guaranteed to fill that slot though and I expect we'll sign someone who does. He's played in a more advanced role, where we already have Mata and Oscar. Sure he could play wide, but Schurrle could also do that as well as providing a more physical presence there and also an extra option as striker. Hopefully getting Schurrle stops the Falcao silliness.

Apparently it would just be a loan for a season which makes a bit more sense. Schurrle is probably a better fit for the squad's needs right now and De Bruyne should get a season at a better club, in the Champions League. It's frustrating because he's clearly a good player, but we need a winger-cum-striker like Schurrle more at the moment.

A loan makes sense. Leverkusen are 3rd in the league right now which means he'd get a shot at the Champions League and we get the third striker/winger that we need to back-up Lukaku and Ba (maybe). We still have the problem of what to do with De Bruyne, who I already think is good enough to play a role for us, but it delays it for a year.

Oh, he's okay with it. I haven't spoken to him this morning. I'm fairly certain he's met Cech on at least one occasion. As for his loans, they've allowed him to establish himself as one of the top keepers in Europe, win a Europa League winner's medal, a Super Cup winner's medal and also win his national team's shirt. Coming back to Fulham would be a massive step-down for him and would also rob him of experience in the Champions League.

So he plays an integral part in getting Atletico into the CL and we bring him back to play for a mid-table/relegation-fighting team. That seems massively unfair to the young lad.

You could change my mind if you presented an appraisal of their relative attributes. It just seems as though some people toronto....sorry, I mean want to offer an opinion without backing it up by referring to the player in question, relying instead on statistics and generalities.

He had a good performance against a shit Russian team - hopefully other Russian teams were watching and put in a bid in the summer. No more false dawns.

I'm going to say something unpopular, but in terms of squad make-up Schurrle might be a better fit right now than De Bruyne. De Bruyne has excelled in a more central position, where we already have Mata and Oscar. What we need in the summer is a winger-cum-striker and Schurrle doesn't just offer that, he offers something completely different to what we already have. I've hate for us to lose KDB but it does make sense on some level.

Rubin really were a mess so it's hard to read too much into individual performances. Torres has hopefully given some prospective buyers the thought that he isn't a completely busted flush which is good. Glad to see Moses get a goal after he got some stick in the Southampton game. Unsurprisingly the double pivot was fairly woeful, although Ramires worked hard as usual. Lampard didn't score so might as well not been on the pitch. Marin is just pitiful. He's been unfortunate with not getting much game time but this move just wasn't right for him from start to finish. And that finish better be sooner than later. Bertrand looked good and hopefully he continues this against tougher opposition. But it was Mata who just ran the show and showed so much class on the ball. I'd have preferred 3-0 but this scoreline allows us to rest a few of the guys before an important game. BTW, gloating over an injury to a player like Bale is absolutely classless.

Wow....that post had it all. You sir are the 'The Kooks' of writing forum posts.

Don't like the home kit but maybe it will look better on..... The white away one looks very classy and the black one will keep fatties happy. But that home one....the sleeves, just why. And concave yellow piping???? It looks like an Aussie rules sleeveless top that they've added sleeves to.

Lampard is one of three players to feature in both games against Southampton (2-2 draw at home, 2-1 loss away) and QPR (0-0 draw away and 1-0 loss at home). In fact by my reckoning of the last six games we've lost, the only TWO players to start each of them has been Ivanovic and.....Lamps. (Southampton away, Man City away, Steaua away, Newcastle away, Swansea home, QPR home). That doesn't include the Man United FA Cup game that he came off in when we were 2-0 down, before coming back to draw 2-2.

Really? You don't think the way a person conducts themselves is an indicator of their attitude to their profession? That's extraordinary. It's not just in sport where this is pertinent, but in all walks of life. It doesn't mean one can't change but it's these intangibles which you tend to find in winners. Look at any sportsperson at the top of their profession and look at the attitude they have towards training. Indeed his own father seemed to have some concerns during this period. He was dropped for some time after the Reading game if I remember correctly, but he came back from that well in the second-half of the season. You may find it laughable but I'm not altogether sure it's incorrect - if you have the stats to correct me that would be most helpful. I respect that you've taken the time to type a response but I really don't think the stuff about character is arbitrary. Indeed it's integral to the way players conducts themselves throughout their careers and I don't think I've been unfair. As I said before, if you actually want to discuss the players and their attributes then I would welcome that discussion.

Wouldn't be surprised to see a relatively strong team tonight to try and win the tie in the first leg so we can rest players before the City game. Cech Ferreira JT Ivanovic Bertrand Lamps Ake Moses Mata Hazard Torres

Mourinho is my hero? Ok.... And this isn't revisionism. He was technically a very good player and had great physical gifts (remind you of anyone) but where he was miles behind Chalobah is in his mental approach to the game. Mourinho described him as 'pure gold' - he also fined him on a number of occasions because of his approach to training (coming close to letting him go if you believed the rumours) and dropped him early on in the season. But if you actually want to talk about their relative merits as players then I'm happy to - it would be one of the few posts that discusses Chalobah's attributes in this thread. Technically, I'd probably put them on a level footing. Mikel's passing in the final third showed more ambition than Chalobah's but that's to be expected when you look at how they'd been used. Chalobah comes from a defensive position whereas Mikel was much more of a box-to-box midfielder, maybe even considered a conventional attacking midfielder. In terms of reading and understanding the game, there's no contest. Chalobah is streets ahead in terms of anticipating the opposition movement of the ball as well as his own players'. He's much more patient than Mikel was at that age. In terms of the intangibles, Chalobah is about as good as you could want which is why he's been marked out as a future captain at both club and international level. Mikel is approaching 300 games and there's no serious discussion about him being handed the armband which is odd because he plays in one of the most responsibility-laden positions on the pitch. I believe character matters. I may be in the minority but I think you need leaders in the team and I don't see that in Mikel. Physically, Mikel was a freak. He still is in some regards whereas Chalobah can look a little skinny. The interesting thing is that hasn't shown itself to be a factor in his time at Watford, indeed he's looked dominant in a league that can prioritise physicality over technique. Still to this day, Mikel uses his strength to shield the ball if he gets caught in possession (something that even Steaua can do apparently), although that's not to say it's all he does. Chalobah doesn't do that quite so much preferring to move the ball no before that happens. Now if you think I'm revising history when talking about Mikel, that's fair enough. Physically he was top class. Technically he was great. Mentally, not what you'd want. Chalobah excels in these three categories.

It's interesting to note that Mourinho used Mikel quite a lot in his first season at the club, and Chalobah is further along in his development than Mikel was at roughly the same age and had no experience in English football.

That last point reminds me of Joe Cole towards the end of his career here - undoubtably a good player but just killed momentum whenever he picked up the ball and was ultimately let go. In terms of passing though, Mikel has a very cosseted role in the team. He's surrounded by options, including the keeper, so of course he should be maintaining a high pass completion ratio as well as a hugh number of passes in general. No-one is saying he's such a bad player that he can't do that. His role is as a conduit, a facilitator and an important cog in the machine. But could he be better? Could he shave a few milliseconds off the time between receiving a pass and moving it one? Could he play with more urgency? I think that's what people want to see from him. Maybe he's constrained by the lack of ambition that the role demands, which is why I'd actually like to see him be given a go as the playmaker in the team's midfield. He'd have less responsibility on the defensive side of the ball and more freedom to use his passing ability which is under-utilised according to his supporters. We could play a DM like Romeu or someone else (naming no names) who could do the water-carrying and let him express himself more creatively. That's the point people who criticise his performances keep making - he has the technical skills and physical gifts to be better than he is right now. If he was a limited footballer then he wouldn't be nearly so frustrating.

So all these managers who were smart enough in the past to play him aren't smart enough to realise what a good passer he is and integrate that? I enjoy stats, but I understand they require context. You actually have to watch the games at the same time and realise that a player can have 84% pass completion and still put in a poor shift against a team like Southampton. That's the difference between watching a game on the stats sheet and actually bothering to watch the match itself. Not all passes are equal either, so looking to make 5-10 yard passes to full-backs will obviously be lower risk than the 30 yard raking passes that other players might make. There's also a point you never acknowledge - do those passes put other players in better positions. Ball circulation is key to dragging the opposition out of position but the best players in that position also move their own players into more productive areas and that's an area Mikel needs to work on. Again, this requires watching the matches but look at what happens when Mikel completes a pass - sometimes you'll see him halt the forward movement of the team, or give the ball to a player where they were and not where they will be. You'll also see the occasional hospital pass too, yet they all count as completed passes. Like I've said before, you're in 'backstreet mode' on Mikel. You're not objective in the slightest about him, similar to those who criticise Mikel constantly aren't. He'll be an important player in our squad next season but we need better players around him because he's always needed that. Too often he's seemed like a passenger and until he elevates his game he'll struggle to win over a fair amount of the Chelsea faithful.

I don't think he needs to work on his tempo to be honest. He's never going to be a Ramires, haring around the pitch and that's a good thing. He's got a languid style reminiscent of a Vieira, and he allows the ball to most of the work. He shows plenty of hustle getting back as well, something that Mikel has rarely shown. In fact isn't that one of the points - we're saying he needs to up his tempo when John Obi Mikel has made almost 300 appearances playing somewhere close to horizontal?? As for strength, the one thing the Championship has over most other leagues is physicality and he's looked more than comfortable in one of the more combative areas of the pitch. That's a fair point unfortunately. So why would the managers at a club looking to avoid relegation or fight for a European spot be more inclined to play him? That's a pretty good suggestion. I personally don't think we'll look to buy another defensive midfielder and still with Mikel, Romeu, Rami and Luiz whilst buying a playmaker like Modric or Benat. In that situation he'd be competing with Mikel, Romeu and Ramires for a spot in pre-season and I'd fancy his chances. Yes he's young, yes he's relatively inexperienced but he's good and I'll take being good over being experienced every day of the week.

Is he a photograph? What does 'develop' actually mean? Does he need to develop wings, because that's unlikely. It's these meaningless generalities that I really wanted to move away from in this discussion. I want to know specifically what areas of his game he needs to develop. As I pointed out, this kid has looked exceptional at every level he's played at. Again, this is a case of people talking about what an 18 year old should be rather than what Nathanial Chalobah actually is. This isn't a thread about Todd Kane. This isn't a thread about Billy Clifford. This isn't a thread about Sam Walker. This is a thread about Nathanial Chalobah - let's try taking about him. Very few. That's why he'd be the exception, and the reason supporters of this club want the youth to do well is because football isn't just about winning trophies. It's about turning up at youth games and seeing a kid do something amazing, and then watching him grow to become a key player in the squad. It's about forming those emotional attachments with players on the pitch - winning the CL was special but seeing Lamps, JT, Drogba, Ashley and Cech up there with Robbie made it even more special. I have no doubt we will sign players, but I think that if this man is given a chance to compete for a spot then he'll have a good chance of making the squad. No mention of how good Chalobah is, what type of skills he has, what he needs to improve upon.... How many times this season have you watched him play? Miles ahead in what regard? Oscar is a completely different type of player on a completely different development schedule. Let's actually have a discussion about Chalobah at some point. You should really start a thread explaining why Chalobah isn't ready. Our youth policy is to buy young players AND develop our own. Ah Cleverley - a player who wasn't as good as Chalobah when he was 18, isn't as good as he is now and will never be as good as him (to paraphrase Bret Hart). Look, I get what you're saying. I understand how young players usually develop. What we're discussing is making an exception for some players. What I wanted to ask is whether Chalobah is an exceptional talent, and if he is shouldn't we be making exceptions for him?

I'll be honest. I want Modric to join us for half what we offered Spurs in the past, just to rub their fans' faces in it. Having said that, outbidding them for Moutinho would also be fun but Modric is proven in this league. Either option would be better than what we currently have though. Ooh, 2-0. Decent cross by Essien, shit defending by Eboue though.

All fair points. There's no getting away from the fact that he is 18 and you don't see many 18 year olds in such prominent positions because most simply aren't ready. Equally you shouldn't see a 19 year old starting in defence in a Champions League quarter-final against Didier Drogba but Varane is an exceptional talent. I think the middle ground could be him spending at least part of the pre-season with us for the new manager to assess. That might actually work in his favour as everyone will have a relatively clean slate.

That ball from Alonso to Ozil was fabulous and is just what we've been missing all season. Alonso -> Ozil -> Ronaldo Modric -> Mata -> Hazard