remains of the day

Very impressed with him, he had a fantastic game. He did miss a very good chance but also gave the assist for the second goal (see below). http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x18504b_mike-havenaar_sport Interesting that he's been playing in centre midfield. I wonder if that has anything to do with how Chelsea plans on using him? If at all they have any particular plans for him.....

I know people are disappointed and rightly so. But my two cents? This loss isn't going to decide the title, there's still so many more games to be played and so many more twists and turns that will inevitably happen. So everyone, chill. Secondly even if we don't win the league, I won't be losing much sleep. The team is in bad shape, as in their struggling with the most basic things. It's been like that for a while now and I don't even feel it's something you can attribute to one or two players or even something that can immediately be solved by throwing more money at the problem. I think the priority right now should be to stick with the manager and allow him enough time to instill a structure, implement a system and get his ideas across to these players. This will probably be Jose's hardest job because his predecessors have taken the short cut and while that approach has brought in trophies in the short term however it's not sustainable and has left the team in kind of a mess. If by the end of the season we don't win the league but have managed to re-build a strong team structure while still remaining in touching distance from the top then I'll be thrilled, because at least then there's progress and a good foundation to build upon for next season.

I think I already mentioned this already, but it's not just in this game or against sunderland. This season, set pieces and crosses into the box have been giving us more problems than it normally does. Quite a few of the goals we've conceded have come from crosses into the box. Off the top of my head, Basel (h), Norwich, West Brom, Newcastle are a few of the games where we conceded a goal from a set piece or a cross into the box. Having said that, I don't think it's anything to panic about just yet.

To be fair though, and I might be in the minority but I thought Lampard was a very close second. Aside from his goal, he also created a lot of our chances today, the ball to Torres (that he really should have done better with) the backheel to Hazard, the awareness to even make that movement while everyone else stood rooted to their spots. Plus he put in a shift. I thought his performance was fantastic. Hazard was just excellent. Top class performance from him, hopefully he's able to put in good performances like these more consistently. We all know what he's capable of!

6 mins!

Our defending from set pieces this season has been awful.

So you’ve mentioned this word – ‘wrong’ a couple of times now. Everything I said is wrong, my examples are wrong, my descriptions were wrong, everything is wrong. Yet the only evidence you can give me as to why these things are supposedly “wrong”…. is one Tony Pulis quote where he only praised the potential of a young Begovic. You then go on to say how Barkley didn’t struggle because according to you he scored 4 goals in 12 appearances (it was 13). You gave absolutely no details and didn't specify that when Barkley scored 4 goals, he was actually at Sheffield Wednesday and he was there longer than the one-month spell you claimed. After a good spell at sheff wed, he was then sent to a bigger challenge at Leeds; this was for an initial one-month loan spell that was going to be extended if he managed to impress. He didn’t impress, he managed 3 starts and 1 sub appearance. He couldn’t get into that Leeds side and he was sent back to Everton. But according to you, he didn’t ‘struggle’ and I'm just subscribing to confirmatory bias. Got it. You then make the bizarre point that "and all of them had more experience than Chalobah" – so now not only did Begovic & Barkley not struggle in their last loan spells (which they did) but (according to you) they were a lot more experienced than Chalobah was before they got a shot at their parent clubs? Keep in mind that Barkley & Begovic made a combined total of 10 apps in their last loan spell before they returned to their parent club and keep in mind that Nathaniel had a more successful loan spell in the championship last season than Barkley did. Yet, somehow, Barkley was more experienced than Nat when he returned to Everton? Got it. Your point that these are only a handful of examples and ones that are only relevant to mid-table sides is actually an excellent point and one of the few points you raised with some merit. Although there are many more examples across Europe of young players who didn’t exactly set the world alight during their loan spells only to go on to impress either at their parent club or when they were eventually sold to another club. For ‘fear’ of being called ‘wrong’ again and being accused of displaying confirmation bias, it’s best I just keep those examples to myself. I'm sticking to my main point that loans can't be used to predict whether a youngster will be successful when he returns to his parent club. You haven't provided anything to show the contrary. If your point is that these players didn't immediately succeed when they returned, fair enough....although I never once said they were able to instantly do well upon returning nor am I expecting Nat to come back in Jan and suddenly start putting in top class performances. From what I've seen of Nat at Forest, he just looks like he can't be arsed. I work with young athletes and I'm convinced that him coming back in Jan, and making a few appearances in the first team will go a long way towards preparing him for next season than risking another championship loan move that may or may not work out. Your point that Nat "can't get into a side that's not in the top few hundred sides in the world" so how can I then expect him to "play regularly for a top-10 side" - I think that's myopism. You're looking at his performances this season in isolation. He's the same player that not only got into a “top few hundred side in the world” as you call it, last season but played an important role for that side. If we're going draw meaning into Nat's performances in the championship, why then focus & read more into his poor performances so far at forest than his good performances with Watford. Isn't that confirmation bias? Regarding this notion that “passes that veteran players make all the time get praised if they are made by someone younger” - so your response to that is to basically lean to the other extreme to the point that we give very little recognition of youngster’s talent? Why is being overly optimistic about youth any worse than being overly pessimistic? And don’t think for a second that somehow your view on this matter is representative of a balanced, biased- free perspective. It is not. You have a problem with people lavishing praises onto youngsters yet you yourself don’t see any problem with being blatantly over-critical of youth. Yet you have temerity to call confirmation bias. Please, don’t make me laugh. You only see confirmatory bias when it suits your own skewed & blinkered view of things, which becomes a confirmation bias in itself. I think most rational people will agree that yes, far too often, people tend to blow everything that youngsters do way out of proportion. But so what? That's football culture. We had to listen to non-stop media love fest over a Utd teenager because he scored two goals in one game, something that many players do all the time. But does that then mean that we should now refrain from praising youth when they exhibit talented performances that exceeds that of their peers? Just because some, over glorify youngsters, we shouldn’t then recognize their talent or potential and encourage them even when their performances has been subpar? As for your comment that ‘underrating youth never happens among fans” – to use the term you so generously throw around - that’s wrong. Many, such as yourself, somehow think it's your duty to "right the wrongs" and banish the evils of what you call youth fetishism; So if someone hypes up a youth - you over criticize the youth, if someone praises a pass a youth made, you then bring up how 10 passes weren't perfectly executed; what you end up accomplishing is not objectivism of any sense but hypersensitive critic. See Choulo's comment below regarding Marco, after two preseason games. @Choulo19 really don’t mean to single you out! To be fair to Choulo he did warm up to Van Ginkel afterwards. But my point is, just because some tend to glorify youth and be too eager to want them to play in the first team, doesn't legitimize being overly critical of youth talent and being overly pessimistic and dismissive about their chances of playing for a top club and you, @TorontoChelsea, seem to be prescribing to that notion. "And yes, players need to prove themselves at a top level before being penciled in for regular playing time on a side like Chelsea. that's just the way top teams work" - except top teams in PL have already given apps to less experienced and proven youngsters than Nathaniel? Yes, yes...I know."I'm wrong", right?

What’s your point @TorontoChelsea? I can pull out about a dozen quotes from Zola & Billy Davies lauding praises on Nat. Begovic’s potential (which is what Pulis is speaking about) isn’t the point of argument is it? Pulis' comments doesn’t prove one way or another that Begovic had a good spell (as you seem to be claiming) at Ipswich or even at Yeovil, which I don’t think he did. When I think of successful loan spells, I think of players putting in quality and consistent enough performances that sets them apart from the rest and draws them accolades. Begovic's time at Ipswich doesn’t fall into that category for me. He made only a handful of apps and his inconsistency and constant errors/blunders was a point of frustration among supporters. Yes, he was recalled by Portsmouth due to injury but then (surprisingly) did very well for them. Townsend.....did he really impress at QPR? Besides that one screamer, I don’t remember him making much of an impression. Barkley, was excellent for sheff weds where he (as you mentioned) scored about 4 goals, what you didn't mention though is that after impressing for sheff weds he was loaned out again to Leeds where he struggled for playing time. I don't think he scored any goals at Leeds and in the two months or so he was there, made only like 4 apps. So, for clarity sake, are you suggesting that the only clubs who take such risks on unproven players are mid-table/lower sides? But that's exactly the general point I’m making, players can go to a championship club put in top class performances and still fail in the PL. The opposite can happen as well. In bringing in the example of Begovic, my point is that loan spells at championship clubs (or any club for that matter) can't be used as an indicator to predict whether a player will be successful or not in their parent club. The only way to determine the readiness of a player is by actually giving them opportunities in the first team. Anyway, in the last few posts I’ve made, I think my underlying argument has been clear and that is that we should take a risk in bedding Nathaniel into the first team, particularly after his successful loan spell at Watford. Note, I’m not saying that Chalobah is already better than Mikel, Ramires et al, nor I’m I arguing that he should become a regular. I’m also not inferring that he’s the answer to our midfield problems. What I’m saying is that the kid is good enough to be given chances in the first team, particularly since centre midfield is already a weak area for us, thus we can certainly then afford to take more liberties in playing a youngster without risking a significant drop in quality. I think the idea that you find this suggestion so absurd and the fact you’re so quick to file it under the heading of “overrating youth” is frankly absurd in itself. You’re free to call my suggestion idealistic, you can call it unrealistic and you certainly would have been justified in calling it ‘outdated’ but it's absolutely not "absurdly overrating a youth" to suggest that Nat should continue his development here. After all, two of our rivals have already given first team opportunities to less experienced youngsters than nat. Even we gave a few apps to Ake last season and to Josh a few seasons back. I see absolutely no reason why Nat can't replace someone like Essien in the squad. Btw, this thing of "overrating youth" - you know, it's also possible to "underrate youth" as well which is just as problematic as the former. Are you really, though? See that’s interesting because from what I remember you suggested that Lukaku isn’t better than Ba/torres and you were definitely in favour of him being loaned out again. In fact, I’m going to boldly say that in as much as you go on about youth needing to prove themselves at a top level first before they can apparently get a sniff at playing for Chelsea, I really don’t think your general stance would change all that much even if, lets say, Nathaniel had come off of a good loan spell at a lower PL side.

There're many examples of PL players who despite failing to impress during their loan spells in the championship returned to the PL & were able to play an important role for their clubs. Of course Barkley & Townsend are the obvious examples but there's also Begovic who struggled in his loan spells and looked nothing like a PL quality keeper. Agbonlahor was terrible in the championships, didn't even manage up to 10 apps but returned to Villa the next season and started almost every game. So this notion that Nat struggling for playing time at Forest is somehow indicative that he's not ready to do a job in midfield, I'm sorry to say, is myopic thinking. Him failing to impress at Forest can't be attributed to his ability nor his 'readiness.' He's the same player who easily excelled last season in the same league and was one of the best players, so why look at his performances so far this season in isolation? Many non-footballing factors also play a part, i.e relationship with manager. Also Choulo you've mentioned the wage issue a few times now, just want to point out that one reason why Chelsea would insist that a club interested in acquiring Nat on loan must pay his full wages is more for collateral purposes than anything. If a club is covering the full wages of a player they're more likely to take more of an invested interest in the development/wellbeing of said player than they would if there were no added financial risks to them. It doesn't always work but it's a good way of ensuring that clubs take more 'ownership' of the player during the loan spell. If Nat didn't have that injury right before the season I suspect there might have been more suitors.

My stream kept lagging, but actually didn't think the performance in the first half was bad. I thought Essien was dragging down the team a bit and left Ramires to do too much on his own but regardless chances were still created and the pressing was good. Second half we were excellent. Good performance overall; of course this result means nothing if we go on to lose against Sunderland.

Someone really should have overlapped with Ivanovic just then when he was cornered. The movement, I think, is a big concern. Way too many static bodies standing around.

Someone really should have overlapped with Ivanovic just then when he was cornered. The movement, I think, is a big concern. Way too many static bodies standing around.

Yeah I think some posters have actually raised perfectly legitimate reasons as to why Oscar deserves to be starting in the hole over Mata. I don't necessarily agree, but that's okay....people will obviously have their own ideas that differs greatly from mine about what's best for the team, at the end of the day it's really just a matter of individuals' preferences. What does my head in though is this whole thing of "you're not a true supporter if......" So if you genuinely believe that Mata's involvement will benefit the team more than Oscar's then you're supporting the player over the club but it's not supporting a player over the club if you prefer Oscar over Mata? What's the difference?

Agree 100%! I just think it addresses and mitigates a lot of the issues the team has been struggling with, particularly in centre midfield. Some people were against switching to that formation because of Mata but in my opinion it's a more suitable system for the team than the 4-2-3-1. Certainly hope it's tried out more often, especially against better quality opposition! If it is used more, I would imagine Kdb would find himself in a more favourable position to start as he'll most likely to be competing with Lamps and he'll excel in that position.

Is it any coincidence that our best performance of the season came when playing a 4-3-3 formation? There's no way anyone can tell me that it wasn't a 433 - although a more narrower version (4-3-2-1?). Regardless, a 3 man midfield is more suitable for the players we have with the exception of Mata (who isn't playing anyway). It allows us to control the midfield without Oscar being required to spend the majority of the game helping lamps and Ramires. With the extra man in midfield, naturally he was more free to contribute much more offensively and have more of a direct impact in attack. It also allows us to use Mikel's strengths - his composure on the ball - while also playing Ramires & Lampard and utilizing their strengths. Mikel looked more in his element in a 3 man midfield so did Ramires and of course we know Lamps was basically born to play in this formation! All the players just looked comfortable out there. It probably won't be our default system since we have a zillion attacking midfielders that suddenly will be competing for 2 positions instead of 3 but the 4231 system works when you have the right players for the double pivot, we don't have the right players and persisting with it is like trying to fit square pegs in round holes. There's no point in playing 3 attacking midfielders at once when the players in the double pivot can't optimize their strengths, the system then won't function. 4 assists between Hazard, Willian, Schurrle, Kdb, Mata & Oscar (1 or 2 of which, I think came against west ham) - something is not working.

Perhaps and you could be right but I question if this isn't something that's more a matter of your own individual preference than anything factual. An argument can be made that Oscar contributes more noticeably in defence than he does in attack. He's fantastic in tracking back and helping Lamps and Ramires to win and retain possession but he has certain glaring weaknesses that a lot of times stifles our attack. His touch is hit or miss and this becomes particularly noticeable when playing good teams that pressure high up the pitch. Against spurs Oscar was virtually anonymous offensively. He also doesn't pick his head up enough and because of that he frequently misses teammates in good positions. Also, his passing can actually be quite sloppy in the final third. I don't want to be harsh on him because he's still developing and these are all things that he can improve on, but my point is that this notion that Oscar is the type of player you build a title challenging side around simply because he's better at tracking back than Mata is inherently flawed. On a side note - in light of this modern day expectation that offensive players need to be just as good off & on the ball, I think more discussion needs to be had on whether tracking back has become the new bench stick to judge the quality of performances. There have been games where Schurrle has contributed basically nothing in attack but because he runs around, tracking back, people will comment that he had a fantastic game. Is this now what we're using to judge our AMs on their performances? Sometimes I wonder if Oscar's ability off the ball is more of a curse than a gift. I've been watching him in the NT for a while now and it doesn't seem like he's made any improvements attacking wise. While Neymar is going from strength to strength, Oscar's contribution in attack is stagnating little by little and it seems like he's beginning to draw criticisms from some pockets of Brazilian pundits. Is Oscar's ability to help out in defence and Mourinho's insistence that he does, resulting in his offensive game being underdeveloped? A long winded post, I know. Anyway we can certainly appreciate the good qualities that Oscar brings without being dismissive towards that of Mata's. It's a good point. But I think this argument assumes that Oscar or any other good attacking midfielder would naturally be able to replicate Mata's stats in the last two season if they were afforded the same amount of freedom and role. That's something I very much doubt.

Or when Drogba was booked for basically being assaulted by Johnny Evans? The hell was our apology for that! The frustrating part is how some Arsenal fans were enraged that we got helped by the ref, are you kidding me? Have they forgotten about the Cazorla dive that earned them two dodgy penalties when they played West Brom last season? How convenient that West Brom weren't called with an apology then, clearly these things only matter when it's a match against Chelsea.

Tipping my hat to Jose for making those comments. Interestingly enough the last manager to have received an apology from Mike Riley was Roberto Martinez at Wigan. Guess who the opposition was? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17666840 The funny thing is that we've suffered from being on the receiving end of some really dodgy and incompetent refereeing , one of our defenders was freaking bitten by an opposition player who still remained on the pitch to score an equalizer without so much of an apology given. But heavens forbid if a soft penalty is awarded in our favour!

Well when you infer that Jose shouldn't "accommodate" (whatever that means) Mata a player who you claim was "only the best player in a team that finished 3rd and 6th" then yeah dude that kind of falls into the definition of undermining the contributions of a player so how about you save that 'face palm' for when it's actually needed? Oh you mean the free pass that Hazard and Oscar are seemingly awarded with despite putting in poor performances? Please, let's not pretend that Jose doesn't have his favourites who are continuously afforded with ample opportunities regardless of their form.

I find it very strange when people use our league position in the past two years as some sort of basis to undermine the contribution Mata made in those years. I don't think people realize just how much more it takes and how much more effort it requires to be the best player in an under performing team. If Mata can perform as he did when the rest of the team was subpar at times then what makes folks think that he's not capable of raising his game to an even higher standard?

Of course, and also let's not forget how Nathaniel has been struggling to get minutes at Forest......for a whole TWO months! If that just doesn't prove to people that he'll never make it at Chelsea I don't know what will....

Would Wilshere and Pogba be the players they are now (at age 21 mind you) if Arsenal & Juventus hadn't given them the platform to step up to the first team? Of course they wouldn't. At age 21? Not a chance and I think a better question we should perhaps be asking is would those two be where they are now if they came through Chelsea's academy. In other words, If we had Pogba & Wilshere in our books, would they have developed into the top players they are now at the age of 21? Or would they still be perpetually floating from one loan to another? Also, I must have missed something because I made the argument that Pogba at utd was just another hyped up talented prospect before moving to Juventus where he was then able to establish himself as an exceptional talent and you're going off on a tangent of drawing comparisons to Lewis baker. What relevance does Lewis Baker have in this discussion? Baker is criminally underrated among a lot of cfc fans let alone supporters of other club. Nate on the other hand is publicly known as an emerging young talent and regularly features in lists of top youth prospects. Lewis Baker doesn't have that hype and public profile around him. Using him as an example is completely inconsequential and just pointless. Pogba drew media attention because not only was he a top youth prospect but he was also a Man Utd top youth prospect, that carries some value. Even less talented young prospects at Utd have garnered similar degrees of media spotlight, Ravel Morrison being an example so the attention Pogba received in the press isn't really indicative of anything. Also the fact that he had top clubs after his signature can't be used as any big indicator. Van Ginkel was rumoured to have Utd, Juventus and of course Chelsea, all interested in him but you, Choulo, wouldn't call him an exceptional talent would you? Anyway this whole thing of trying to determine whether Nate is exactly on the same level that Pogba was at that age - is a minutiae detail and besides the point. I think the point myself and a few others on here are trying to make is - if Utd can take a risk in progressing young prospects like Januzaj to the first team and if Arsenal can give first team opportunities to gnabry then why can't we and why shouldn't we do the same with our own best youth prospect?

Fair enough the championship is on a whole different level from the premier league but often times that argument becomes an excuse for people to justify their discomfort with 'inexperience'. If Nate had done well at a PL club rather than Watford, would those who are against giving him chances in the first team feel any differently? Somehow I doubt it. Lukaku last season had a successful loan spell at a PL side and some people on here still found reasons as to why he needed to go out on loan again - "he only did well at west brom" " he's not ready" "his back to goal play isn't good enough" - at what point do these just become excuses to avoid taking risks on young talented players, who may be raw and inexperienced but surely could become something special if they were given time and the opportunity? As much as the loan system, in general, works I'm yet to see it actually work for this club. A ridiculous number of chelsea players have gone through the loan pipeline and there still hasn't been one player who has an established role in the team. De Bruyne excelled during his loan spell, but then we went out and shelled 30 mill on Willian. The club isn't giving enough chances to academy youth players and they're not giving enough chances to players returning from loan spells (whether from championship sides, PL, or Bundesliga sides) - those two things are a lot more interrelated than many on here realize. It's problematic because (among the top sides in the PL and in Europe) this club is very much lagging behind when it comes to converting youth potential and that's a shame. I know for me, I take a lot of pride in that the club produced one of the best central defenders in PL history.

Really interesting how our memory of top athletes and their potential in their younger days, is so selective. If Van Ginkel were suddenly to explode onto the football scene next year and become a top class player, I wonder if you would remember saying that he bad vision and a simple passing range. Chances are you wouldn't. You would probably remember his remarkable composure, strong tackling and outstanding reading of the game. Anyway, Paul Pogba at Nathaniel's age (18) most definitely hadn't showed more potential or talent. When Pogba was 17/18, he couldn't even get a decent run in the utd reserves while Nate at that age had become an integral player for Watford. Pogba at 18 was just another face in the pool of hyped up young, talented, midfielders with potential. Yeah he was highly rated, but many are at that age. To make him out to seem like he was a rare talent who was just miles ahead of everyone in the reserves is straight up a revisioning. His emergence as a top talent was more a case of Juventus deciding to take a punt on him than it was with him being an exceptional talent. I get that there's a tendency on this forum to overrate and exaggerate the potential of some of our young players as was the case with Romeu, but let's not use that as some kind of justification to be pessimistic and dismissive towards the idea of giving one or two of our more, young talented youth academy products chances to move up to the first team. Nate has showed enough talent and enough potential to warrant a place in the first team. This whole argument of "oh well Wilshere and Pogba are the exception because they were just really talented" is such a falsity because it operates from this assumption that clubs give chances to young players only when their ridiculously talented which is not true.

Not sure if it's that black and white. Probably important to keep in mind that against Cardiff and Newcastle he wasn't allowed as much space as he had against Schalke. I don't think Torres is at all effective in games where the opposition plays with a low block. Eto'o is more ideal for those kind of games. On another note, Torres and Schurrle should be played together more often, particularly in big games. They've combined to create some really good goals and also decent chances. http://i.minus.com/iq9Pn0RmlzdAS.gif http://i.minus.com/ibuvczXT2hSkJ7.gif