remains of the day

It also sends the wrong message to our current players that they have more power than the club and can force a move to the club of their choice. Right now it might just be Matic, who you can argue can be replaced fairly easily, but sooner or later one of our more talented players will want to move to a rival and it will be difficult for the board to refuse because they have already set a precedence of selling to rivals.

A lot of the comments on here proposing that we bring in a better number 10 I think are taking certain things for granted. With Cesc in the side, the player in the number 10 has to poses more than just the ability to pull off neat little through balls. The main creators in this team are Cesc and Hazard, while Iva this season has been contributing a lot to our attacking play, but for the most part everything goes through Cesc and Hazard. These players are given free reign, maybe not so much positionally but on the ball their given a lot of liberties in the sense that their free to do risky things that Oscar (or Willian) would be reluctant to do. Hazard's turnover stats are very high because his role requires him to be adventurous on the ball, so he can lose possession frequently (and he does) without reproach. Cesc too is very offensive, more so than a lot of deep-lying midfielders. My view (and this might be debatable) is that a team can't accommodate a 3rd playmaker. That kind of thing might work in certain leagues or in fifa, but in the premier league it'll create an imbalanced side. Take a look at Real Madrid as an example, the midfield of Modric, Kroos and James Rodriquez really struggled in the beginning. Yes eventually they built a better understanding and became somewhat solid but it took a toll on Modric's offensive game to the point that it was basically non-existent. He was essentially playing as a defensive midfielder with little attacking contribution. Another example off the top of my head is Nasri when he made the move to City. For the longest time, a point of discussion among City fans was "why can't Nasri and Silva play well together?" Toure and Silva are basically City's main creators and in my opinion it had a knock on effect Nasri's attacking contribution. He went from something like 10 goals in 30 games playing at Arsenal to about 5 goals in 30 or some games (don't quote me on this). A team simply can't accommodate or maintain balance with three midfielders all trying to do something adventurous, risky and audacious each time they touch the ball. As long as Cesc and Hazard are the team's main offensive threat, any playmaker, particularly one that's young and still developing as a player, will struggle to make an impact. So with Cesc and Hazard in the side, other qualities then becomes more important. Qualities like tactical nous is exponentially crucial. At the same time, you need the player in that position to have a good understanding and can act as a link between Cesc and Hazard and if he can do all of this while still chipping in with goals, then all the better --- think of Muller's role under Heynckes' Bayern. That's basically what the no. 10 position in this formation and system we play calls for. It's the most tactical position, in terms of balance, and I think too many people take it for granted. Re: the bolded point. That's exactly what I think we should do - put Cesc in the no 10 and bring in a B2B midfielder to play alongside Matic but it just seems unfair to move Cesc from his preferred position. He's spoken many times about enjoying playing his football here partly because he's an important player and he's playing in his best position. He obviously sees himself as a CM, seems unfair to play him in the 10, I dunno.

Yeah I really didn't expect a better response from him to be honest. We're all wearing blue-tinted glasses but him apparently. Lionsden is the football equivalent of a rebel without a cause. If that's his identity as a football fan, then all the power to him but seriously don't strut around here acting like you give a shit about commitment to youth when at the end of the day you care more about being proven right than actually supporting a young struggling player. What's with the pretenses? You don't care about young players, you care about your ego. Right from the very beginning, the guy has mocked, criticized, berated Oscar and every one who has defended him. Yes we get it, you don't think he's talented enough to play for Chelsea, so what? This is a young player wearing the colours of this club. He's a Chelsea player who's making a big step up in leagues and still developing as a player. You can't show him a little support, yet you sit there running your mouth about "putting faith in youth." I can only shake my head....

Completely agree with this. There's nothing more infuriating than the team losing throwing away 3 pnts due to lax defending. It drives me insane. We're 1 goal up, the team is cruising to a victory, the opponent is hardly posing any threat, everything is under control, everything is going according to plan, 3 points almost in the bag then Ivanovic switches off or fails to close down a cross, the opposition scores, the momentum then swings to them, the crowd suddenly finds their voice and the noise becomes deafening, the opposition begins slicing through the midfield at will, the defence is scrambling, Cahill begins moonwalking, they equalize and soon after they score again. Just like that, what would have been a comfortable victory ends in mayhem due to one moment of lax defending. I feel like I've seen this team throw away 3 points in this fashion so many times, I can write a book. The thing is, the approach Jose uses to see-out games depends heavily on every player keeping their concentration and sticking to their roles but Iva switches off too often. Mourinho must be aware of it but he still persists with him so he clearly brings way too many vital qualities that's important to Mourinho's setup. I think he's Mourinho's most important defender and I don't see him ever being dropped regardless of how many goals we concede due to his lapses in concentration.

He's been horrible. Gets caught on the ball all the time and constantly gives away possession. I'm hoping Martinez plays him because he'll struggle against us.

Imagine someone who constantly berates a manager for refusing to show enough faith in young players, only for that person to vociferously brag about the fact that 2 & a half years ago he wrote off a 21 yr old making a big transition from the Brazilian league to English football. Imagine actually bragging about something like that. As if that's something to be proud of. As if that's something that should be lauded. There are a few members on here who questioned whether Oscar was good enough to play in the 10 position, Skipper being one of them. Yet despite not being entirely convinced by Oscar's talent, Skipper still defended him on numerous occasions. That's what a football fan with strong principles of nurturing young players does. Regardless of whether they have doubts about the player's potential, they still show a willingness to support the player. A strong desire to see that player succeed at this club. You though never even gave Oscar a chance. You never gave him an ounce of support. A young Chelsea player making a huge step up in his career and you constantly berated him, rarely praised him when he was playing well and the most perverse thing is how you used every. single. poor performance as a victory of sorts and as an opportunity to further slam him. You sit there in front of your screen and give lip service to showing faith in young players but the truth is, you lionsden care more about being right than any larger commitment to youth. For all your talk about the ills of modern football, you exemplify everything that's wrong with it. You're a walking parody of yourself - a parody that honestly isn't funny anymore.

I'll echo DYC in saying that you've articulated your points well so props for that. But if your argument is that Oscar isn't good enough for Chelsea, irrespective of his goals and assists, because his passing isn't up to your standards (which is essentially what you're implying in bolded part of your post) then that's what I would call a hypercriticism. Oscar's passing has room for improvement. Even those who avidly defend him won't deny that. But overlooking the impact he's made in goals + assists, and assessing his worthiness to this team by a singular standard like passing is nitpicking. That's like writing off Costa because of his weak aerial ability, or Cesc because of his lack of pace or athleticism. I get your point that the team would be more effective if Oscar's passing were better, but the team would also be more effective if Costa were better in aerial duels, or if Cesc had blinding pace. These players might have one one of two limitations but those weaknesses are minutia compared to what they contribute to the team. So while Oscar's passing could certainly be better however his contribution in others aspects is so valuable that it more than compensates for a few misplaced passes. I think unlike one or two others who have been critical of Oscar, your own problem with Oscar is more about you than any major limitations with the player himself and it seems to me that because Chelsea is a club with big ambitions you're using that to rationalize, quite frankly, overly fastidious criticisms. A team does not have to have 11 Eden Hazards to compete with the best, a team can have 1 Hazard, 1 Cesc, 1 Costa and an Oscar and guess what, still be very successful. There's having high standards and then there's have unrealistic standards.

I guess the problem I have with most of these criticisms of Oscar is that too much significance and value is being placed on something that doesn’t really make a huge difference to the team’s success when looked at in the larger context of the player’s overall contributions. Oscar’s passing can be frustratingly sloppy sometimes, that’s a fair assessment but on the other hand his productivity has been mightily impressive. So while Oscar might be ”failing” in one or two aspects of his role as a number 10, he’s also highly performing in many other aspects of his job. The positives very much outweigh the negatives so I’m confused why so much more importance and value is being placed on him misplacing 10 or so passes than on his excellent output this season. I just think that there’s something very frivolous in complaining about the sloppiness of a player’s passing when that player's direct contributions to 13 goals in the league has helped the team maintain a title challenge. Ultimately, his input in 13 goals is so much more valuable to the team’s success than him being able to complete 85% of his passes in every game. People have every right to criticize him, but others also have every right to say that these people criticizing Oscar are nitpicking. 23 years old, 6 goals and 7 assists, and here we are complaining that he routinely misplaces 5-10 easy passes, hmmm... Well, in an ideal world yes but in the real world you have average players who are excellent passers of the ball and excellent players who are average passers. Nuances like that exists. Assessing a player's contribution to his sides's attacking play only by how high his pass completion is seems like a very skewed way of judging a player's talent.

I don’t think you answered my question, Barbara. Give me concrete examples of instances where that happened? Besides the opening goal against Everton, I can’t think of any other situations that might validate the bold statement. I’m surprised that some haven’t noticed that Eden, this season, has been stepping up and taking more responsibility. He still has room for improvement, after all he’s a 23 yr old playing under a defensively stringent manager - his game isn’t going to be flawless. But I’ll tell you what, the times when the team has been under the cosh and we’ve needed someone to “step-up” the player that has done that consistently has been Eden. In the first half, the trio of Cesc, Costa and Hazard were anonymous, but it was Eden that took charge of the ball, began taking players on, drawing fouls and soon after the rest of the team followed suit and raised their game. Against Everton we were under immense pressure at 2-1, I was pissing myself thinking that they were going to equalize. Cesc and Matic weren’t controlling the game, Costa was losing every single aerial duel.... we were seriously under the cosh. One of the players had to step up and create something out of nothing because Everton were very close to equalizing and out of nowhere Hazard made the dribble that forced the own goal. It was a crucial moment. In every game we’ve played this season, he’s been influential and has made a difference at crucial times - whether it be taking players on, creating a goal or scoring, Eden has stepped up when his team has needed him. He's taken charge in ways that Cesc hasn't (and we really shouldn't be expecting him to because he's still new to the team). It’s mind boggling that some can’t see that. It's even more mind boggling that you would suggest that I'm trying to create a competition by stating that Hazard has been our most pivotal attacking player. Seriously? The only one treating this like a competition is you chica, it ain't me. Think someone is majorly crushin' on cescy.

Ok. Can you name me one game this season where Hazard “did nothing to influence the game”? I’ll wait….

I guess it depends on your definition of "carrying our attack." He's not doing all the offensive work but there were times where costa and cesc had no influence in the game until Hazard did something that allowed them to get a foothold in the game. I don't think half of the assists Cesc has made so far this season would have come about without Hazard's contributions. He's been such a huge catalyst and it's not an exaggeration ( to use your words) to say that he's been carrying us. That's not to say that there aren't other key players but Hazard' has been pivotal in these past 6 games.

The comment about Cesc and Costa carrying our attack is interesting - couldn't 'disagree more with it. Sure they've been key players for us but it's hazard that has actually been the catalyst in the majority of our attacks. It was his dribble that opened up the space for our equalizing goal against Burnley; against Leicester we struggled in the opening mins when hazard was largely anonymous but once he grew into the game we immediately became more threatening, exactly the same thing happened against Swansea, and against Schalke and City it was Hazard that created both goals. Cesc and Costa have gotten the headlines but this kid has been a massive influence in our attacks.

Well in the context of your argument, yes it does matter. That they won both titles in the slightest of margins shows that maybe they're not the dominant "walk the league" force that you're evidently trying to portray them as. I think you're over glorifying their quality and strength while minimizing ours.

The bolded part is precisely why managers do matter. Their impact on the success of a team can be as minimum as 10%, but that 10% can define the margins between success or failure; between being relegated or staying up; between winning a championship or being runners up. Is there a correlation between a club's spending and their league position? Of course! But the argument that varying levels of competency in management has no bearing on the success of a team is unequivocally wrong. It assumes that all that's needed to build a successful team is to gather the most expensively paid athletes, throw them on the pitch together and viola! Sit back and watch the trophies roll in. It wholly overlooks the nuances of what makes a team successful and reduces team success down to just one single variable - money. It fails to examine other variables that can affect team performance like motivation and how a manager's ability (or lack thereof) - to motivate his players, to nurture self efficacy, to manage personalities - can either enhance or hinder a team's performances. I think some of the analytics presented in Soccernomics is thought provoking stuff, but this particular argument - that a manager's job can be just as easily replaced by a stuffed animal without it leading to a noticeable impact on success - is a hyperbolic argument meant to provoke a reaction so that people are more inclined to buy the book.

I kinda see where Bluelyon is coming from. This is only my opinion, but out of the players we've signed and are rumored to be after, Cesc is the one I'm worried about for a myriad of reasons. I only skimmed the last few pages, so I'm not sure what has been discussed. But part of the reason why I have doubts over this signing is that Cesc hasn't performed consistently over the course of a season for five years now. He tends to start the season brilliantly but then dips drastically around Christmas and it's a pattern that's been happening since 2009. I also worry because his best form for Arsenal, Barcelona and Spain has come when playing further forward, and I don't think this is something that should be easily disregarded. He did play primarily in a deeper position at Arsenal but in his last two seasons there, he had an advanced role. That was when he put in his best performances and because of that Arsenal fans started calling it "the cesc role". So not only has he not consistently performed well for a duration of a season for five years but he also hasn't consistently played in a deeper position since 2008/2009 when he was 22 years. He's now 27. The formative years of his professional career has basically been spent playing in an advanced position. And if you look at the years Cesc played deep, Arsenal were incredibly vulnerable in central midfield. Even when he played beside Flamini, who back then was a workhorse and had an incredible engine, Arsenal were still so easily overrun in midfield. And it's a problem that persisted regardless of who was paired beside Cesc - whether it was Gilberto, Flamini, or Denilson - they were still so weak in that area. I'm not saying that he won't be good for us playing in central midfield, but I worry that it'll come at the expense of balance and solidity and I worry that we'll be replacing one problem with another. But maybe I'm being overly skeptical. An argument can be made that he'll be playing in a much more defensively organized system than he did at Barca and Arsenal. So maybe his limitations won't be as problematic for us as it was at his previous clubs. You only have to look at J.T's performances under AVB and his performances under Mourinho to see how an organized system can compensate for a player's limitations. .

For the reported fee, what you're mostly paying for IS his potential though.... in the sense that his abilities, right now, doesn't merit anything close to that amount. For the past two seasons, I've been hoping that we'd bring in shaw. I like the composure to his game, and I like that there's a maturity to him. That he's an established left back in the premier league at 18/19 is extremely impressive, although it's not so surprising as So'ton's academy places a big emphasis on nurturing players' emotional intelligence. But I think people are so intent on this transfer, that they're now over glorifying the player to rationalize his fee. He's a solid, and consistent left back at a very young age but I doubt that his contributions on our left flank would be such that it puts us that much closer to the club's objectives. I also don't think it's just a simple case of Shaw for 30M > Luis for 18/20M. As a fan I agree with that, but if I were on the Chelsea board my priority probably wouldn't be to bring in a left back who can give us 15 years. My aim would be to bring in a left back who can provide a platform for Hazard to actualize his potential, for a cost that the club can swallow. I'm hesitant about paying 20M for a 28 yr old, but I can understand the reasoning behind the decision. Luis is a lot more explosive, and dynamic than Shaw. He'll be better at creating space for Hazard and distracting defenders, while also being able to do an excellent job defensively. I'm trying to think of examples of similar deals but the only one that comes to mind is City paying 30M for Fernandinho who was 28 at the time. Many thought they'd be better served investing that money on a younger player who could give them more years, but Fernandinho has been able to bring out the best out of Toure (attacking wise) and went on to be an instrumental player for them. I'm not against signing Shaw, all I'm saying is that if the club decides to pass up on him and go with Luis, then to me it wouldn't be a misguided decision. It would be nice to bring in a young, English talent who's also a Chelsea fan, but essentially what we need in that position is a player who can provide good support for Hazard and provide him with a platform to excel, without putting a financial strain on the club.

Yeah I see what you mean, but I also understand the points that those who are against the Shaw signing are making. If you're going to pay 30M for a fullback then it can't just be for his potential. Spending that kind of money on an 18 yr old is more justifiable if that player, in addition to having immense potential, can also come in and play a key role for us. When we paid that sum for Hazard two seasons ago, he was the best player in Ligue 1 for the 2nd consecutive season, so there were enough signs that this was a player who could come here and immediately play an instrumental role for us, which he did alongside Mata. We all know that Shaw has great potential but aside from that, can he come here and be a pivotal player for a title challenging side? That’s what you would expect from a 30M signing. Clearly the board, and Jose aren't convinced that he could. Like I said, I would love Shaw here, and if it were left to me I would certainly bring him. But the board I’m sure have weighed the risks and benefits of signing him, and you can hardly blame them for refusing to cough up that amount if they don’t feel it would be money well spent. As for your point that we don't want to end of like Arsenal......of course. I’m so with you on that! But we spent 30M on Willian, 20M plus on Matic. We also spent good money bringing in Hazard and Oscar. So clearly the club has no qualms with breaking the bank for players that they believe can contribute now, while also having the potential to increase in value.

Hopefully the fee is much lower than what's being reported. Would love Shaw here, but I don't see an issue with targeting a more experienced player so long as it's value for money, and I can't say this would be one. The board has done so well with bringing in players like Azpi, Cahill and even Kevin De Bruyne, Courtois etc for all under 10 million. It would be a shame to take a step backwards now by blowing......20m(?) on a player who essentially can only give you 3 seasons. A short term signing isn't necessarily a bad thing, if that's what Jose wants. But a short term signing for that kind of money?

Just did a search for the comments. You're right, it was Frank talking about how Dennis Wise influenced J.T.....

You're right. Wisey left when Frank came. Strange, I faintly recall Frank making his debut and being subbed on for Wise. But maybe that was for England.....or I just invented that memory. I hear what you're saying about putting sentimentality aside and handing the reigns over to the new generation, but I just think that fans are always so quick to want to offload any veteran player who they deem as no longer useful, and in as much as I agree that there comes a time where these players need to move on, but fans also need to realize that without the influence of these players the team would look like a collection of expensive individuals. Look, you can go out and spend 100m bringing in as many expensive, class players as you want but you also need players who can be ambassadors in the locker room, who the Oscars, Hazards, Willians, and Matics can look to as a mentor, and emulate their commitment. You see the effect of that when you hear Oscar say that he wants to stay here for many years and become the next Frank Lampard & John Terry. You need these young guys to buy into the club, so that the shirt becomes something more meaningful than a means to a paycheque. I think the idea that the only way Frank can be valuable to the team is by how much space he can cover in our midfield, and that whatever role he plays in the dressing room can just as easily be supplemented by Ivanovic or Cahill......I think that argument misses the point and takes a few things for granted. Frank has formed a strong bond with the club over the years. He understands the fans, and gets what it truly means to the supporters to have players in the club who play for the shirt. He also knows the manager and knows his expectations. On top of that he brings the added benefit of knowing English football. He's grown up in that culture and understands what it takes to be successful here. I just think that as the squad undergoes this transition, as we bring in new players and as we begin to hand over the mantle to players like Oscar, Hazard, Matic etc while promoting young ones like Nat, there's a particular kind of mentorship that the pair of Frank and J.T can provide to these guys to aid in that transition. I get you, these players are not children, and should not need J.T and Frank to set an example for them but let's be real........if football, or life in general, worked like that then no fan would ever complain about players just being in it for the paycheque. No fan would complain about players not showing enough heart for the shirt. But that's the irony, isn't it? Fans are so quick to want to offload veteran players but yet moan endlessly about players not showing enough leadership or desire when we lose a match. I hear what you're saying though. In the event Frank leaves, we would still have J.T. And luckily we also have a manager who empotizes the club as well....so it's all good.

I'm with you that some are falling too easily for the media driven rhetoric about Jose being this football ruining manager who always sets his team up to 'park the bus'. But I don't blame people for criticizing him for his 19th century jab. Regardless of the differences between our defensive displays under Jose vs what West Ham did when they played us...the fact is Jose has used those sort of tactics before. Maybe not to that extreme but It doesn't have to be identical to the way West Ham played for it to be constituted under the label of 'parking the bus'. Sam Allardyce did what he thought was necessary in order for his team to get a result at a hard ground, at the time they had only won two games in their last 7 or something like that so he set his players up to defend and run down the clock. Jose has had absolutely no qualms in using similar strategies when required, so him belittling it as outdated simply because he was on the receiving end of it, was indeed ironic. What I don't understand is why folks are blowing it out of proportion. Managers say hypocritical things all the time. But it's Mourinho - he can't so much as say a word that resembles any kind of complaint without people foaming at the mouth.

The first time I read this piece a while back, I was nodding my head the whole time. Couldn't agree more with the points brought up. I know the word 'leadership' gets thrown around a lot especially in discussions about veteran players, but I'm a big believer that players like Frank - even when their contribution on the pitch no longer merits their wages, still play integral roles in the dressing room. Their importance in that aspect is something that I just don't feel you can quantify. Just imagine being a new signing and walking into a dressing room with Frank and John Terry - players who have been at the club for more than decade, have won everything possible with the club and have worn the shirt with passion, desire, commitment.....compare that with being a new signing in the dressing room at City or at Spurs. Like the article says, there's a world of difference. I'm not saying that City don't have any leaders. Obviously they have a strong spine of players like Augero, Toure, Silva and Kompany. These players are all world class, and are regarded as being among the best in their positions. But none of them really epitomize the soul of the club. They don't have players like Frank and J.T - players who you look at and think..... these guys are Chelsea through and though. You need these kind of players around, particularly if a club is in a transitional phase and a lot of new signings are coming in. Players like Frank and J.T - who very much embody and personify the heart and soul of the club - are so very important because they set an example for new recruits. They set the standard of professionalism and commitment expected of new players. I remember Frank once talking about joining the club and sharing a changing room with the likes of Dennis Wise, and how instrumental he was in instilling that fighting spirit in him and J.T. When you look at the players we've brought in these past couple of years i.e Luiz, Ramires, Hazard, Oscar, Mata, Azpi, Cahill, Schurlle, Willian.... Torres - look at how they've come in and have been able to buy into the culture of this club and adopt that grit mentality despite the constant managerial turnover, that didn't happen by mistake. We were lucky to have Frank and J.T at their prime, and we're very lucky to still have them now, especially in this period where we've seen an influx of new additions. You only have to look no further than Spurs to see the problems that can arise when a team is comprised of so many new players and none that are able to play the role that both Frank and J.T do here. That role is something that can't be quantified.

@Henrique Barbara pretty much took the words right out of my mouth, and I couldn't have said it better. This series is such a brilliant idea. It's so easy to form a conception of certain members, particularly when it's members you don't agree with often. So I absolutely loved reading your responses as it gave me a chance to learn a thing or two about you, and by doing so it challenged the opinion I previously I had of you. Well done

Now this is class. Some probably would have gotten wound up (I know I would) - props to you for being the bigger person, Skipper. Cheers.

I can still hear the sound of the crossbar rattling. What a goal that would have been! He did and performed really well.