Thomas Williams

I hope you guys realize Drogba had 22 goals COMBINED in his first two season in the EPL, over 55 games

Lukaku has 27 goals in his first two seasons with West Brom and over 59 games.

Granted, Lukaku will almost certainly never reach Drogba levels, and Drogba did a lot more than just score. But drogba was also 25 when he started the EPL, not 18 like Lukaku (although Drogba started his professional career much later). Lukaku

Drogba was able to be integrated into a Chelsea side a lot better than our current one, and he was even more raw than Lukaku is now. I don't see why Lukaku would be any different.

lol this thread is going to have a meltdown.

Regardless of who wins the league, Brendan Rodgers is the manager of the year for me.

I disagree, had one of his shots been a foot closer and scored, or one of his neat little passes ended in a scoring opportunity, we would be lavishing him in praise. Recently he has been out of form but he was not playing bad today. He was getting bullied a little bit and but the ref should have called more, and in general he was linking up well and creating opportunities. Aston Villa defended very well today and the team as a whole didn't put any chances away.
Poor is way too extreme in my opinion, he wasn't phenomenal, but far from poor.

|
I would have liked that too, but I think it is unlikely that Mourinho would have given him that many games. Look how much playing time Ba gets as our number 3, Lukaku probably would have been lucky to get even 10 full 90 minute games, if that. Lukaku is still very young, we have plenty of time and can make plenty of mistakes with what we do with him before he's "regressed." I don't see how any playing time is bad, I think 9 times out of 10 playing full time is good for a young player in his development. And while Everton isn't perfect, you're going to be hard pressed to find a better EPL side willing to take on a Chelsea youth as a full time player.
This Everton side you're making fun of is ahead of United despite having had an ENORMOUS, and I mean ENORMOUS injury crisis the past couple of months--their football is not that bad. Last year we only had a couple more points after week 25 than they do now. They also play a 4-2-3-1, just like us, and Mirallas and Barkley are basically a poor man's Hazard and Oscar- not that different.
If you think about it, it was pretty much the perfect place to loan him, and definitely an upgrade from West Brom. When he performed well there, you guys complain that he should be here at Chelsea, when he performs poorly, you say playing there is ruining him. Fact is, he IS improving his game there, and frankly Mourinho didn't think he was ready yet to start for us. Lukaku wanted more playing time so he could improve, and he's getting it. Don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think we can all agree the Cahill-Terry is our best partnership this season, Luiz has been in some bad CB form. However, he's been looking better in midfield this year than last year, it may be worth experimenting with him in the pivot (I wouldn't mind him and Matic playing there against Everton).

Stop! Youre going to make Moyes cry.

Stop! Youre going to make Moyes cry.

|
I would have liked that too, but I think it is unlikely that Mourinho would have given him that many games. Look how much playing time Ba gets as our number 3, Lukaku probably would have been lucky to get even 10 full 90 minute games, if that. Lukaku is still very young, we have plenty of time and can make plenty of mistakes with what we do with him before he's "regressed." I don't see how any playing time is bad, I think 9 times out of 10 playing full time is good for a young player in his development. And while Everton isn't perfect, you're going to be hard pressed to find a better EPL side willing to take on a Chelsea youth as a full time player.
This Everton side you're making fun of is ahead of United despite having had an ENORMOUS, and I mean ENORMOUS injury crisis the past couple of months--their football is not that bad. Last year we only had a couple more points after week 25 than they do now. They also play a 4-2-3-1, just like us, and Mirallas and Barkley are basically a poor man's Hazard and Oscar- not that different.
If you think about it, it was pretty much the perfect place to loan him, and definitely an upgrade from West Brom. When he performed well there, you guys complain that he should be here at Chelsea, when he performs poorly, you say playing there is ruining him. Fact is, he IS improving his game there, and frankly Mourinho didn't think he was ready yet to start for us. Lukaku wanted more playing time so he could improve, and he's getting it. Don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think we can all agree the Cahill-Terry is our best partnership this season, Luiz has been in some bad CB form. However, he's been looking better in midfield this year than last year, it may be worth experimenting with him in the pivot (I wouldn't mind him and Matic playing there against Everton).

|
I would have liked that too, but I think it is unlikely that Mourinho would have given him that many games. Look how much playing time Ba gets as our number 3, Lukaku probably would have been lucky to get even 10 full 90 minute games, if that. Lukaku is still very young, we have plenty of time and can make plenty of mistakes with what we do with him before he's "regressed." I don't see how any playing time is bad, I think 9 times out of 10 playing full time is good for a young player in his development. And while Everton isn't perfect, you're going to be hard pressed to find a better EPL side willing to take on a Chelsea youth as a full time player.
This Everton side you're making fun of is ahead of United despite having had an ENORMOUS, and I mean ENORMOUS injury crisis the past couple of months--their football is not that bad. Last year we only had a couple more points after week 25 than they do now. They also play a 4-2-3-1, just like us, and Mirallas and Barkley are basically a poor man's Hazard and Oscar- not that different.
If you think about it, it was pretty much the perfect place to loan him, and definitely an upgrade from West Brom. When he performed well there, you guys complain that he should be here at Chelsea, when he performs poorly, you say playing there is ruining him. Fact is, he IS improving his game there, and frankly Mourinho didn't think he was ready yet to start for us. Lukaku wanted more playing time so he could improve, and he's getting it. Don't see what all the fuss is about.

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.

Key word there being 'yet.' I think Lukaku is causing the issue by rushing himself. If you look at the best teams in the world throughout the past, you will very rarely find a 20 year old as their stand alone striker. It's just too much pressure and too much expected out of a player that young. If Lukaku became our number one at 22, that would still be immensely young for a striker to play for a team with the quality Chelsea has. I understand that Lukaku is exceptional and he knows it, and he feels he is ready to start for Chelsea, but I don't think a couple more EPL loan spells would hurt him, especially because we know he'd get playing time. And because we can demand a loan fee, it would even be economical for Chelsea (we don't need to keep him as a backup because we're stuck with Torres, like it or not).

Just think Lukaku and the fans need to be patient.

|
I would have liked that too, but I think it is unlikely that Mourinho would have given him that many games. Look how much playing time Ba gets as our number 3, Lukaku probably would have been lucky to get even 10 full 90 minute games, if that. Lukaku is still very young, we have plenty of time and can make plenty of mistakes with what we do with him before he's "regressed." I don't see how any playing time is bad, I think 9 times out of 10 playing full time is good for a young player in his development. And while Everton isn't perfect, you're going to be hard pressed to find a better EPL side willing to take on a Chelsea youth as a full time player.
This Everton side you're making fun of is ahead of United despite having had an ENORMOUS, and I mean ENORMOUS injury crisis the past couple of months--their football is not that bad. Last year we only had a couple more points after week 25 than they do now. They also play a 4-2-3-1, just like us, and Mirallas and Barkley are basically a poor man's Hazard and Oscar- not that different.
If you think about it, it was pretty much the perfect place to loan him, and definitely an upgrade from West Brom. When he performed well there, you guys complain that he should be here at Chelsea, when he performs poorly, you say playing there is ruining him. Fact is, he IS improving his game there, and frankly Mourinho didn't think he was ready yet to start for us. Lukaku wanted more playing time so he could improve, and he's getting it. Don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think we can all agree the Cahill-Terry is our best partnership this season, Luiz has been in some bad CB form. However, he's been looking better in midfield this year than last year, it may be worth experimenting with him in the pivot (I wouldn't mind him and Matic playing there against Everton).

I think we can all agree the Cahill-Terry is our best partnership this season, Luiz has been in some bad CB form. However, he's been looking better in midfield this year than last year, it may be worth experimenting with him in the pivot (I wouldn't mind him and Matic playing there against Everton).

Recent of my face


Obligatory one of me showing off when my abs looked ok last halloween in me and my friend's very shoddy 300 costumes.

Recent of my face


Obligatory one of me showing off when my abs looked ok last halloween in me and my friend's very shoddy 300 costumes.

I think having van aanholt here next year could help us against teams that play with 11 hundred men behind the ball. He is imo better than any of our current left backs in scoring and creating chances and is so pacey that he could recover if need should the other team counter attack.

I'd rather have Azpi up against world class wingers, but for relegation teams, I think would be really handy.

Lol, whatever that means!
You and your stats. How about not looking at numbers and look at the games themselves? No? Too difficult? A blind person would know who the better player is. One player has 30 appearances for one of the best international sides in the world with 11 goals and the other is Victor Moses for fuck sake. Schurrle scores against quality teams like Austria, Belgium, Sweden and Ireland ( ) in important World Cup qualifiers while Moses scores against Ethiopia...
Look at the stats then. Moses, an established PL player, scored 1 goals in the league in 23 appearances against Swansea. Goals against Leeds, Middlesbrough, Wolves, Southampton, Rubin Kazan, Basel and Shaktar in cup competitions. Besides from Shaktar, the teams he's scored against aren't exactly great. They're mainly Championship and Europa League level.
Schurrle on the other hand is only half-way through his first season and has already tripled Moses' contribution in the league. Sounds exaggerated I know, but those are the stats! His goals came away to Stoke and at home to Manchester City, a title rival. That goal against City could mean a lot more than a number on a page. If we end up winning the league, it could be argued that Schurrle's contribution is already tenfold to that of Moses. He's also only been used in one cup game so far against PL opposition compared to 14 games of Moses (including EL) where he was mainly effective.
He's performed well in the Champions League games and looked an absolute menace against Munich - people tend to forget that as well. That is mainly due to the pace being similar to the Bundesliga and as soon as he is fully adapted here I would expect to see similar performances in the league. He has still done well in the league though and I do not think it is a coincidence that his dip in form has come at a time where he is used to having a winter break.
My main point is that we want players who can do well against quality opposition when called upon, not just against Championship/Europa league level teams...and so, indicating that Moses is as good as/better than Schurrle based on those stats is like saying Torres had a fantastic goalscoring season last year!
Let's wait until Schurrle's second season to begin to truly judge him, but so far I think it is clear that he's the better option when compared alongside Moses. Though, I'm not really sure if you remember what Moses was like. I think you're in for a shock if he ever comes back!
Just to remind you as well, the only reason we signed Moses was because we couldn't get Schurrle. I think the club had Schurrle as the preferred choice for a reason. I'll leave you with that and your dissected stats. Now jog bog on

This is very short sighted, a draw would be the best result for us. It's only Round 16, I rather Arsenal gain 1 point than Citeh get all 3.

Obviously he's really raw, and he's far from the best striker in the world. But honestly, I think if he was given the same starts torres was this season, he would have had more goals for us than Torres has. You'll have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

At the very least he is more dangerous in the air, which gives the opposing defenses something to be afraid of. With our tiny AM's, it would be nice to have some more physicality in the final third (Ba does a decent job of that, but his shooting boots have been lost for a long time.

Fact is, despite his technical shortcomings, he finds a way to get goals. He just does. And though I doubt he'd be as a prolific as he has been for West Brom and Everton, he would still do well here. And as a HUGE bonus, he would adapt more and more to our team, and by the time he's 25 he would be among the very best in the world, I guarantee you.

The rest of our strikers are just collecting paychecks, Lukaku has something to prove.

Obviously he's really raw, and he's far from the best striker in the world. But honestly, I think if he was given the same starts torres was this season, he would have had more goals for us than Torres has. You'll have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

At the very least he is more dangerous in the air, which gives the opposing defenses something to be afraid of. With our tiny AM's, it would be nice to have some more physicality in the final third (Ba does a decent job of that, but his shooting boots have been lost for a long time.

Fact is, despite his technical shortcomings, he finds a way to get goals. He just does. And though I doubt he'd be as a prolific as he has been for West Brom and Everton, he would still do well here. And as a HUGE bonus, he would adapt more and more to our team, and by the time he's 25 he would be among the very best in the world, I guarantee you.

The rest of our strikers are just collecting paychecks, Lukaku has something to prove.

Obviously he's really raw, and he's far from the best striker in the world. But honestly, I think if he was given the same starts torres was this season, he would have had more goals for us than Torres has. You'll have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

At the very least he is more dangerous in the air, which gives the opposing defenses something to be afraid of. With our tiny AM's, it would be nice to have some more physicality in the final third (Ba does a decent job of that, but his shooting boots have been lost for a long time.

Fact is, despite his technical shortcomings, he finds a way to get goals. He just does. And though I doubt he'd be as a prolific as he has been for West Brom and Everton, he would still do well here. And as a HUGE bonus, he would adapt more and more to our team, and by the time he's 25 he would be among the very best in the world, I guarantee you.

The rest of our strikers are just collecting paychecks, Lukaku has something to prove.

Obviously he's really raw, and he's far from the best striker in the world. But honestly, I think if he was given the same starts torres was this season, he would have had more goals for us than Torres has. You'll have a very hard time convincing me otherwise.

At the very least he is more dangerous in the air, which gives the opposing defenses something to be afraid of. With our tiny AM's, it would be nice to have some more physicality in the final third (Ba does a decent job of that, but his shooting boots have been lost for a long time.

Fact is, despite his technical shortcomings, he finds a way to get goals. He just does. And though I doubt he'd be as a prolific as he has been for West Brom and Everton, he would still do well here. And as a HUGE bonus, he would adapt more and more to our team, and by the time he's 25 he would be among the very best in the world, I guarantee you.

The rest of our strikers are just collecting paychecks, Lukaku has something to prove.