The only place to be

I'm not ignoring it, I'm simply saying that we're playing in a 4231 now. I'm not sure why you bought up the 433 if I'm being honest and in that scenario I think he could play either the 'Makelele-role' or further forward. Technically he's superb, but it takes more than that. Put it like this - his talent is his engine, but you need the right tyres and suspension to actually put that superior engine power to work and that's what he's struggled to do in my opinion. Too often he drifts out of games and struggles to put his technical gifts to work. He needs to overcome those issues which is why i still think he's a couple of seasons away from being ready for us. I don't think he'll be the only one either, but it depends how young you want to discuss players. And now we start with you just throwing insults. Why don't we actually talk about a player's abilities and be specific? To say he wasn't that special is as bad as the people you accuse of 'overhyping' him. He was always a very classy player, but of course he made errors. Ake makes errors. Feruz makes errors. All young players make errors. Guess what.....McEachran made errors too. But Chalobah has made massive strides since being pushed into midfield and has shown an ability to impose himself on matches consistently that Josh simply hasn't. Now this doesn't need to be an either/or discussion because there's room for both players to progress but they are very different players at different stages in their development. That's normal for young players though - despite what some people might think there isn't a prescribed formula that works for all youngsters. Now hopefully you're got the insults out of your system and you could try and articulate just why you think Chalobah can't ever be as good as Toure. What specific aspects of his game are lacking?

You don't talk specifics. You say he's inexperienced and that's it. In what ways has his 'inexperience' shown itself in his league form? Now you've edited, I can disagree with the specific points. I've always felt his reading of the game was exceptional for his age and that's continued. The one thing that defines his game his time - he always looks to have a second more on the ball then everyone around him and that's been the case at Watford. That all stems from an understanding of space within the game - he knows where the opposition are and where his teammates will be. That's why I don't recognise the criticism you're leveling at him as bearing much of a resemblance to reality. His defensive stability is one of the stronger aspects of his game having come from a background as a centre-back. As for his place in the team, I'd be happy to see him alongside Mikel or a new playmaker in a 4231.

In what sense? From having watched Chalobah play, in what specific areas is he not ready?

Again, not a single reference to his footballing ability or aspect of his character. You're just making unqualified statements, or chatting shit as it's more commonly known. McEachran has great technical gifts but there are question marks over the physical aspects of his game and increasingly the mental aspects. He's shown a tendency to drift out of games late on and struggle to impose himself on entire games.

I disagree. I think he shows a level of composure and maturity few players his age, in fact any age, have. Physically he's got all the tools and he's also very good on a technical level. Chalobah is very much on his way to earning a shot in our team, in a position that we're lacking. Whilst we shouldn't go overboard about every player in our academy, we should try and be honest when a player is good as well. You haven't presented a single footballing reason why you think Chalobah couldn't be as good as Toure so you just sound like a hater. Do you think he lacks one of the tools needed to succeed? Which one? Does he lack vision? Is he not physically strong enough to compete at the top level? Do he look rushed or hurried when put under pressure?

Yes. They're a mid-table team who play some nice stuff but playing for them isn't close to what it will be like playing at Chelsea. Can you tell me a date....no a month in the next 10 years when there won't be huge expectations for him? This is what top level sport is all about. If you don't think he can handle the pressure now having heard him speak and seen the way he conducts himself, then that's fine. But I completely disagree. This guy seems to have elite level intangibles and he's been playing professional football for about half a decade. I don't think that West Brom will push him like he needs to be pushed and I think he's ready to be part of our first-team squad.

Oh, now I see. Overseas fans. Not quite sure that's correct to be honest but I've learnt to take what Romper says with a pinch of salt.

I don't claim to be an international fan though, although I'm really not too sure what point you're trying to make.

You never fail to take a dig at Chelsea supporters, yet you say you are one. Isn't that a little bit strange?

Falcao is proven in La Liga and Portugal. In terms of the Premier League, he has no experience and he also hasn't has masses of top level CL experience. He's 27, and he's never played at a top, top team in my opinion. The target for this club is to win in a sustainable manner. We have to start that at some point and if that means we don't win everything next year but continue to build a young team capable of winning TOGETHER for many years then I'd be fine with that. We'll still have Cech, Terry, Cole, Mikel, Cahill, Ivanovic, Ba and possibly Torres. In our squad we have about half a dozen national team captains, World Cup Winners, African Cup Winners, Premier League Winners, French Players of the Year, Champions League winners and almost all are key players for their national sides. People think we're going to be a young team, but that's not true and even if it were to be true it's not the be all and end all. It's just one possible narrative. WE WON'T BECOME FUCKING ARSENAL. It's the stupidest fucking comparison because it shows a complete lack of understanding about what happened at Arsenal whilst simultaneously failing to understand what we're trying to do here. I'm sorry if that sounds rude, but the amount of times someone incorrectly invokes the spectre of Arsenal is really rather grating. Arsenal sold their best players and replaced them with the Artetas, Mertesackers and Podolskis of this world. They sold world-class players and replaced them with old (sorry, experienced) players who weren't good enough. They underinvested in their team as a whole whereas we're still spending big. In fact we spent about £18 million on a striker not too long ago. And yes it is romantic. That's why we follow football isn't it? For the romance? Do you know what else is romantic? A team who played together for close to a decade lifting themselves one more time against all odds to win the biggest prize in football. You might as well go the whole hog and say you can't win anything with kids....oh, you very nearly did.

We have our own Toure - he's called Nathanial Chalobah.

Same here. I follow the England rugby team closely and despite having season tickets at Quins I still think that the national team is the most important one I follow. With the England football team, my first concern is always are any Chelsea players injured and how did our players do? Maybe it's that football is more 'tribal' or maybe it's just the case that the club game at the top end, i.e. the Champions League, is now the pinnacle of the sport whereas in sports like rugby the club teams are still some way below the national teams.

Not really.

I think it's perfectly fine for them to do that and it's the height of hypocrisy to take everything that the 'moneybags, Murdoch, Sky, grrrrrr....' era has given us (the players we've seen, the places we've been) and then moan about it superseding the national game. It is an inconvenience - in fact this international break right now is a major fucking inconvenience. We have to play 4 games in a week because we can't play games this week. We're hitting form and now the players have to disband and join up with their national teams. And I honestly think this trend will continue.

I said it at the time, but it was essentially getting all the bad feeling out in the open rather than bottling it up. He made it clear he was leaving and removed any of the uncertainty and I liked the fact that he was honest and candid for once, rather than beating around the bush. We've also been performing better and he deserves at least a bit of credit for that and he did make the right changes against United. Robbie did the same in the league game and I praised him for his ability to react to in-game circumstances so it's only fair to credit Rafa with the same.

I'm genuinely not that bothered about how good England might be, but I think our academy is actually turning into something special. The likes of Chalobah, McEachran and Hunte all have the talent to become very good players but I'm just as interested in the Musondas and Bogas in all honesty. But if I had to defend the national team, I'd say we're going from one very good but underachieving generation into something new. It's too early to say how good it could be but any success won't come on the backs of the Welbecks, Cleverleys and Rodwells of the world (Phil Jones actually has tremendous potential in my opinion, but he needs to pick a position and stick to it). So, um yeah. England as a country has a few issues and some of the players reflect that but there's cause for optimism because people (not just footballers, but actual human beings) like Chalobah, Shaw and possibly McEachran actually might have what it takes to bring success at both club and international level. But personally I'm relieved we can build success on Belgian and Brazilian youth.

No-one will disagree with him being the greatest goalscoring midfielder not just of his generation, but possibly of all time. But the point isn't about how many goals he might score next season, but how many the team as a whole would score and also concede were he to still be playing regularly.

I disagree. Handling pressure is about character and this guy seems to have that in spades. I can name guys in different sports who stepped up when they were thrown into high pressure situations, and I can name guys who had tons of experience but none of the intangibles that you need to succeed. So another year at West Brom prepares him for a starting role at Chelsea Football Club? If people are saying he should spend another year on loan to get ready for Chelsea, then WHY IN FUCK ARE THEY SUGGESTING WEST BROM? Seriously? What more can he learn at West Bromwich Albion? This guy loves this club - there is not a moment in the next decade when he won't be under pressure at this club. That's because he's a professional footballer. He didn't win a competition, he's not a YTS kid, it's not 'take your son to work day'. He's a man who is paid money to play football and he appears to be pretty good at it. At some point you've got to take the plunge with him and I don't see what else he can learn at West Brom.

Two more seasons than Falcao has had in the Premier League. Let's not pretend that signing Falcao isn't a gamble either. The difference is we've already gambled on Lukaku by signing him. Does Eden Hazard's age seem to be holding him back? What about Mata? Let's not confuse age and experience. My personal fantasy is Lukaku fulfilling his potential in a Chelsea shirt. It'll be a commitment of close to £100 million. FFP or not that's a lot of money. What we're doing right now is building a team, one that can grow together and buying some flash fucking tart who is 27 and expensive isn't a guarantee of success. We've got a kid who loves this club and has EARNED his shot because of his attitude and it's having faith in that is what will bring us success in my opinion.

Random list - Josh and PVA (and arguably Kakuta) are both on-loan and could figure in the team in the next few years, Borini wouldn't re-sign, Bruma is struggling in a poor Hamburg team, Sam had a career-ending injury and the rest on that list really aren't anything special. It's too early to go writing off these kids' potential Chelsea careers because a few players who weren't as good as them didn't make it here.

I can see why Arsenal have put him on a shortlist. He cechs (boom boom) all the boxes and we do have a ready-made replacement who costs about a third as much as Petr. If we made the move to change them then of course Arsenal would have to take a look at him. But I can't imagine he'd ever go there to be honest. It's not on the same level as some transfers but it's hard to imagine us selling to them. If we did (and it's been done before with Ashley, albeit the other way) then hopefully it would be for an extortionate fee. If Arsenal did come at us with an offer of around £20 million then it would be hard to dismiss out of hand. So it could possibly happen, if about half a dozen other things happened and each is fairly unlikely.

Stick a NSFW on that sucka because that shit is straight porn.

If you look at Hazard's goal, Ba creates space for him by sticking on the last two defenders. Too often Torres would be playing off them or simply not offering a threat. Ba actually uses his body to shield one of the defenders, and throughout the game he just kept the West Ham defenders honest. He had an off-day with the finishing but that happens to all strikers (Van Persie for instance). Unlike Torres, his bad day in front of goal didn't make the team worse like Torres often does.

Zola mugged off Dicks. Hazard just mugged off four Dicks.

We're just lucky to have Emenalo handling our transfers, and not Wenger.