The only place to be

10 players on international duty - that's 2 more than Fulham. I'm just being honest. Everton are a great club and they play good football but looking at the type of environment Lukaku is playing in, you have to wonder who are the players putting their arms round his shoulder and telling him how to behave. The amount of times he's completed the full 90 is probably a little high as well, but that's because his competition was Jelavic and Naismith.

A few. Plus there's players like Cole, Terry and Lampard who have pretty much been there and got the t-shirt. No disrespect to Everton or Martinez but there's a whole different level of experience at Chelsea. Not being funny but Everton's PR department couldn't even prevent him from defending a player accused of anti-semitism. I think he's just suffered from the lack of competition and support in the striker's position. Maybe it's a good thing that he's played without much threat to his spot, but judging by his downturn in form he could've perhaps done with a rest here and there.

For young players it's all about momentum. Look at players like McEachran who have stalled and are trying to get going again, and look at how well Lukaku did last season. The reason Ba doesn't play is simple - he's dogshit. He offers fuck all on the pitch. He's a bad footballer which is a shame because it's his chosen profession, but he gets paid well and has great seats. Beyond that he's an empty vessel. They're a decent side. But personally I'd have liked to have seen Lukaku train with world-class players and not pale imitations. I'd have loved to have seen him come off the bench and get 30 minutes here and there for us, a few starts and have Jose put his arm round him after each game. He's improving marginally, but I still don't think loans are the magical elixir some think they are. At the end of the day players are either good enough or they're not and Lukaku offered enough last season to deserve a season here. And who gives a fuck what Lukaku wants? He's barely an adult and he's a footballer - two things that tend to make someone a bit thick. I just think we need to re-evaluate how we develop young players rather than sticking them in the Bank of Vitesse to cash in on a few weeks down the line.

Personally I think he's been run into the ground at Everton. He's played more games than Sturridge in a team who have the creative spark of a boyband member. It was a stupid loan to make and it'll probably see him end up regressing as a player rather than becoming a player we could actually use in the near future. He's faced almost zero competition in a club whose season is probably over after this weekend (bar the cup competitions) and whose most 'distinguished' player is Gareth Barry. He'll become a 'what if' for us fans who would've preferred to see him used as a third striker where he'd probably have made 25 appearances. Oh, and despite all that he's scored 2 fewer goals than Eto'o, Torres and Ba combined.

But if we're going to introduce Zouma and Shaw then why not go with Courtois as well? Develop that relationship now and let them loose for the next decade. As it is Luiz and Cech have played together for more than 3 years now and looked like strangers against West Brom. I think I'd rather we go with the better player and right now that looks increasingly like it's Courtois. He has two years left on his contract and wants certainty in his future. Why would he sign a new contract with us? He wouldn't, so you're saying we should just let him go this summer and hope that Cech's decline is nothing more than a temporary blip.

The goalkeeper isn't the paint, it's the foundations. We have a chance to move from one world-class keeper to another in a way no other team has ever managed. Two decades of solidity at that position is something very few teams are able to achieve, and not at such small cost. Imagine we did sell Cech for £10 million - that covers the cost of buying Courtois. Bayern ended up paying £20 million to replace Kahn. In the long-term that's a great move. I also don't think switching keepers is that big a deal if we do it decisively. In fact I think your short-termist thinking is a step backwards to the bad old days of a few seasons ago. Would you like to pay Courtois in rainbows or hugs? I mean if we're going to negotiate a new contract with a keeper who has stated he wants certainty (and deserves it in my opinion) then you may as well go full-on with that fantasy. He has two years on his contract left. If he isn't being brought back to play for us then he shouldn't sign a contract. In fact if he's being advised any differently then he needs to sack his advisors.

So we should put next season's potential success above long-term stability in the GK position? Right now Atletico are joint top of La Liga, probably through to the next round of the CL and in the summer Belgium will be in the World Cup. In each of these Courtois is a key figure. Cech on the other hand has made more mistakes this season than I can remember him making in any other season. He's actually been dropped for the first time I can remember (or rested to give Schwarzer a CL debut....it's actually hard to tell because he was at fault for the first goal against Stoke). Here's another question - is Cech actually getting worse? He doesn't seem to be approaching that golden age for keepers in their 30s. I think there's a solid case to be made that Courtois is the better keeper right now (and there are stats to back that up as well) and the guy is still only 21???? That's phenomenal and the argument that Cech is entering his prime can be used to suggest that it's highly likely Courtois will actually get better. Courtois has achieved more at 21 than Cech did. He's arguably the better keeper at this moment in time. Selling him just tastes funny.

Lukaku would've got less minutes than he's got at Everton (who have probably overplayed him), but he would've also got more minutes than Ba who is quite simply untrusted by Jose. Loaning out Chalobah - great idea. Loaning out Chalobah to a team with a manager whose ethos isn't suited to Chalobah - bad idea. So when you say it's the right choice in your mind, are you talking about the reality of loaning out Chalobah or some mythical realm where he joins a competitive team who fit his playstyle and where he learns things to improve him as a player. Because that second choice is undoubtably a great stepping stone for a young player. Is that the one you think is the great idea? It is isn't it. Yeah, they are and it's a sickening thought. Essien made a mistake in the first few seconds against Southampton. Mikel puts in consistently poor performances. Torres....well, Torres. Age is not the sole factor in deciding how a player will perform. It's why we're going to replace Ashley Cole and all his experience with a 19 year old next season. Not because of age, but because of quality. Piazon doesn't have experience at the top level. Nor does Van Ginkel. If they get chances it will be because they're good enough. The simple fact is that the way we've done things hasn't worked and that's because of a lack of stability. Once you have quality running throughout the first team then you can integrate more youngsters because there's a stable platform for them to play on. The problem is that we can't just put Chalobah in the team because Ramires and Mikel weren't good enough. Once we've got that established spine I think we will most certainly integrate more young players and this myth that you're propagating wlll disappear for good hopefully. But if Hansen can recover from saying 'you can't win things with youth' then so can you.

Then if they're on the same level we should use the younger player who will be more likely to improve. He should be the type of player we build the future of this club around.

It's impossible to say how many minutes Lukaku would've got, but I definitely think we could've used him. Nat simply didn't fit the style of football Forest played. It was a terrible choice of loan and he would've probably benefitted more from staying here. I don't know many Chelsea supporters who wouldn't want him being selected over Mikel either. I completely disagree with you on this point. I think it can be done and I think we will do it. Rodgers has developed a title-challenging squad on less funds than those around him whilst integrating young players into the squad and having his team play attractive football. We have passengers in our squad like Mikel, Ba and Cole when we could be using younger players like Chalobah and Lukaku, and I think once we have a solid core we'll do that. I would've just preferred to have seen it start this season.

Is he better than Cech now? If we actually brought him back and played him, would we be better?

Exactly - Ba has been a non-entity when we could've used someone like Lukaku in matches, whilst Chalobah got nothing out of his loan to Forest. I would've much rather seen Chalobah getting minutes than Essien or Mikel. And how's that working out for them? Pogba was the player they needed and they fucked up. We shouldn't be using their failure to develop young players as a template - we should actually look at their mistakes and learn from them. Why use them as an example and not someone like Liverpool or Arsenal who are both above them and have used players like Flanaghan, Sterling and Gnabry?

Luiz was marking Anichebe, loses him and doesn't even contest the header. Watch it. There's a reason Luiz has barely been selected in the last three months, and it isn't because Cahill's English - it's because Cahill defends our goal better. He might not be as technically sound as Luiz, he might not be as wacky, but if we want to win goals then there is no reason to select Luiz in defence.

I don't expect us to keep clean sheets every game, but against teams like West Brom it should be our target and but for Luiz not losing Anichebe we would've. There's no reason to risk playing Luiz as a defender when Terry and Cahill are better.

No Schweinsteiger, Muller or Ribery. I'm not disagreeing with you but there's some big guys missing for them.

Against West Brom it was. I'm all for him playing in midfield, but we need Terry and Cahill in defence in the big games....and every game between now and the end of the season is a big game.

But can he do it against Anichebe on a cold night in West Brom?

It's not like he had Hazard in front of him like Schurrle does. He had Essien and Mikel ahead of him, one of whom has retired....sorry, gone to Milan and another who is nothing but a spectator on the pitch. The loan to Forest was an utter failure on every level, and he simply didn't fit the style of play they wanted. He would've been better staying here and getting the occasional appearance whilst also training with world-class players. Unfortunately the club/Jose chose Ba over Lukaku and Essien over Chalobah.

Taking their ball and going home. http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=297762 And their 'outside the box penalty' was nowhere near as bad as the one Ellery gave in the 94 cup final, so sshhh.

I'm actually watching it now. Mikel's finest defensive performance came in a game where we constantly looked to get 9-10 players behind the ball whenever Bayern were in possession. Mikel did nothing exceptional in that game and we won because of luck and because Bayern's finishing was absolutely atrocious. And the fact that ONE performance in 2012 is all his supporters can point to is precisely why he's viewed the way he is. He's a passenger. He always has been.

That's not true in the slightest though is it. In that game, Lamps kept hold of the ball better and also worked his arse off defensively. In fact the whole team put in a shift whilst Mikel was very much his normal self. Bonus question - who was the player slow in closing down the crosser for Muller's 83rd minute goal?

So Mikel's greatest performance came in a game when the whole team was set up to defend. Jose Bosingwa probably had his best performance that night. It's an absolute joke to use a one-off performance where we simply looked to stop a team and pray for luck to go our way as the best example of Mikel's use to us now. And the fact the he's been our 'best holding player since Make' is one of the reasons we've won just one league title in that time.

The games you're pointing to seemed to be more about defensive frailties than anything else. We created chances against all of those teams.

Yet the criticisms always come down to the same exact point - his quality on the ball and to a lesser extent his footballing IQ. Oscar has been inconsistent. Hazard has been inconsistent. Willian is four years older. Schurrle has barely featured in the last few months. I don't see these players' performances as any reason for criticising Salah. In fact I defended Hazard earlier in the season from people saying he wasn't performing well and my response was to give him time because he's still young.

If teams come to our place to defend, then they'll be tough to break down. That's going to happen. What they still need is luck which is what West Ham had against us. The only other points we've dropped at home in the league was back in November against West Brom, and we actually scored two against them whilst creating 17 chances. We do need more from the pivot, but Matic seems to have a decent amount of attacking intent in his game and we also have Lamps there. Beyond that Luiz, Ramires and Mikel probably do offer very little going forward (Luiz is probably the most attacking of the three and he's a converted defender).