Barbara

I'd agree beforehand, but watching the match and seeing how their AMs were ripping us apart, I think he would have made it worse. In theory it would be a match for him based on how superior we are, but when you see Stocker and Salah having a party with our midfield, I think it would have been worse... Also I don't believe he isn't fit for big matches, I guess it depends on how the other team plays. Whoever plays possession football (as long as it doesn't come with pace) fits Mata, but fast attacking players, teams playing wide, but starting the plays from the middle don't fit him imo. Maybe he would have been more useful in the attack, but I feel like he would detract even more us defensively. Also, let's be honest, Zidane himself couldn't save that team today. We were awful through and through and only one man in the middle wouldn't have solved our problems If anything we'd be burning him gratuitously.

too bad I didn't remember that when I defended Mourinho not playing him today. Isn't it clear it would have been suicide especially when they dominated us so completely in the first half as it was? That's the problem, people see only the benefit and ignore the price that comes with it. With Mata in the midfield today I'm positive Basel wouldhave dominated us even farther. This was never the match for Mata, NEVER, but I do understand people begging him to start more often. I want to see him more often, but tonight's wasn't the match for that at all.

mate, we were all badmouthing the lineup in the weekend before the match and Jason was going on and on about how Mourinho is never criticized while there wasn't ONE single positive Mourinho post in the live thread (the most positive I remember were people saying we should wait before overreacting over a lineup). If I were I'd consider moving on from his obsession on Mourinho's worship.

He made tons of mistakes today. Playing Lampard was one of them because he's 35 and he's already showed Mourinho many times that when he plays twice a week, he can't be the same player. He admitted making mistakes by tiring out the players when he should have rested a few of them instead. He didn't blame the players, saying they were tired... I don't know if I'm as willing to disregard their awful displays by tiredness. Anyway, Oscar in the wing is a waste, but I guess he put him there to try to stop Salah and Stocker, but not only that didn't happen, but we our midfield suffered from missing Oscar there and having Lampard instead. I think this match was perfect for Schurrle. He has an excellent work-rate and he would have taken care of at least one of our flanks, and he's also very fast and objective and he's completely rested. So my main complaint (after playing a tired Lampard) is not playing Schurrle from the start, but even more so not using him as a sub once he realized the match's scenario. Ramires was shocking. One of his worst matches I've ever watched. I would have replaced him with André, moved Oscar for the CAM position to give our midfield stability and as bad as a pivot with Mikel and Lampard is, Ramires was simply too bad to be kept. As much as Lampard as bad, Ramires was worse. I already covered in the match thread why I think this match wasn't suitable for Mata at all and I won't repeat myself. In the first half Willian was the only decent player in our attack, but that was basically because of his ball control because he didn't create anything out of it either. I feel like he was too slow and we were too narrow (one more reason to have Schurrle). Hazard was needed and if he had brought Schurrle at the same time, for Ramires and Willian or Ramires and Oscar, I think our luck could have been different. I'm not sure we would have conceded that goal with André in the pitch because even if he wasn't well positioned, he's faster than Salah and could have at least pressed him whereas Ivanovic and Cahill didn't have enough legs to close in. I expect about 3-4 changes in the weekend, but not because the players should be punished, but because they should be rested. If Schurrle doesn't start against Southampton, I'll be the first to come bitch in this thread...

I stand by my words, if Hazard didn't fix it, I don't believe Mata would have. When I go to his thread I see people justifying his lack of assists on the lack of matches, and rhythm and he hasn't played in weeks... a bit contradictory and I don't know if I should believe he'll solve all our problems in a match that was already difficult as it was, or if he wouldn't because he doesn't have match rhythm. I'm not even surprised the same people would be saying the same thing. He could have created a chance, that's a possibility, but one thing is for sure though, Basel's AM would have taken advantage of his defensive limitations. So let's exchange the certain (he exposing us in an already difficult game defensively) for the uncertain (the possibility of him creating something and one of the other players actually capitalizing it). I'm against a lot of José decisions today, not playing Mata isn't one of them.

So many people willing to become the pen for Roman to sign Mourinho's dismissal. The live-match thread was unbearable and this one isn't much better. Yeah, Mourinho made mistakes and the team was terrible... the players didn't turn up and Mourinho could have tried something else. Sorry if I don't think Mata is suitable in a match when we finally balanced the actions and stopped them from pressing us nonstop. Bringing Mata in the 2nd would have given them momentum and even when we stopped their advances, they scored, so I think it could have been even worse in all honesty. Not sure if we would have scored with Mata in the pitch... maybe yes, but I saw Hazard sparkling and his efforts were useless because everyone else in the attack was abysmal and I don't think fancy plays between Mata and Hazard - like in the Newcastle match - would have rewarded us with a goal (they didn't even have a shot 2 weeks ago, confusing Chelsea for Barça and the annoying endless passing). Mata's best shot would have been an assist, but I don't see any of our players scoring in all honesty. So if Hazard didn't fix our attack - when he could have worked a fast counter, I don't see how Mata would... and Mata slowness and lack of defensive skills could have compromised it even more. I'm not taking away Mourinho's responsibility. It's just against a solid team, playing wide and incisively, with good wingers, I see Mata making our life harder than easier to be honest. I would have played Schurrle though and would have got ridden of Lampard as our CAM because he just didn't work in the position today... Just my opinion though and while I get the frustration from everyone, some reactions seem awfully exaggerated and the lack of patience is overwhelming. I don't see how people expected us to be a finished product so soon, with a new manager, new tactics especially when players collective play out of their mind and then don't turn up at all.

this is Ramires' worst match in the last few months. He's been shocking...

You know what completely messed up our attack and Mourinho seems to be okay with it? We have Lampard playing as CAM when it should have been Oscar and now should be Willian... Lamps hasn't turned up and as said by others, he's 35, we shouldn't rely on him to play week in and out, twice a week... as long as Willian plays in the right and Lampard is our CAM we won't be able to create anything and we'll have to rely on a counter-attack with Hazard. That's the only way I see us scoring. Torres improved slightly the team going forward, and hopefully he'll benefit of a counter by Eden.

Willian's ball control is mesmerizing... so many shaky passes he received and he controlled the ball superbly in every each of them That's the only positive I can observe so far

We need to somehow manage to end the first half without conceding and then in HT Mourinho will give them a piece of their mind and hopefully - with subs or not - we'll come better in the second because this was a 1st time to forget. Shocking football by everyone maybe except Willian... Oscar, Lampard, Ramires ball control and first touch were atrocious at some points. I think the match is more suitable for Torres, but it's not like the ball has been kept in our attack...

Can Azpili and Iva switch places? Basel's left side is exposed and ours for the take, but with Ivanovic's crosses we won't be able to take advantage of it. Not that Azpili's are that much better, but still, better. How I wish we had a Brazilian FB!

The Champions Anthem gives me goose bumps every single time! Go Chels!!!!!!!

At least he seems to be in a good mood. I was hoping he'd play today, but after Mourinho's press I guess it won't happen x

http://epl.squawka.com/west-ham-united-vs-chelsea/23-11-2013/english-barclays-premier-league/matches I'm a bit lazy to save and upload the images, but click on full stats > individual > Oscar/Hazard/Ramires/Lampard/Mikel (because if we want to discuss how it worked, we need to see everyone working together. You suggested in your previous post that we should just play Ramires behind Mata to provide him coverage, but who's going to cover Ramires in other areas he was supposed to also cover? Ramires can't be Mata bodyguard, they have all to work in sync with each of them fulfilling their tasks). In addition to the heat maps you should also check actions areas. You'll see Hazard still went to the 2nd third quiet often and had his cameos in the 1st third (for example, he played deeper against WHU than he did against WBA --> http://epl.squawka.com/chelsea-vs-west-bromwich-albion/09-11-2013/english-barclays-premier-league/matches), Oscar had more actions in the 2nd and 1st third than he did in the final third - which was unnecessary if you ask me, we didn't need him to provide as much help for Ivanovic if West Ham barely attacked. But when they did it was normally in our left, meaning that Oscar + Ramires + Iva shut down completely the right flank. I remember only one attack from WHU in our right (the very last attack of the match, already during stoppage time). Replace Oscar for whoever you want, for the team to shut down opposition as we need the guy would have to have similar work-rate.

no, the three players in the midfield provide cover, stability and solidness to all three ahead of them and all four behind them. It's not only Mata, the problem is Mata doesn't have a good work-rate, so consequently the midfield has to make up for it, if Hazard is given more freedom, so he can do his runs, dribble past opponents in counter-attack and do quick link-up with the striker, both running down the pitch - all of which Mata can't do - then the other AM has to have even better work-rate. That was the problem with Chelsea for the last two seasons imo. We didn't have enough coverage in the midfield because our AMs - all of them, not only Mata (although I guess Oscar did his part last season too) - left tons of space surrounding them and especially behind them and we were astoundingly fragile in the midfield at points, which is why some oppositions whipped our midfield. It's about team balance. I don't care who the AMs are, we need to have balance, we can't overload the midfielders, especially when one of them is 35, and we only really have one genuinely holding player among the four options for the positions (Mikel). Looking partially at the team makes it easy to play whoever we want in whatever position, but when we look at the team as an alive system, working together, completing and complementing each other, you have to look beyond what one offers defensively or offensively, and see what they do collectively for the team to work as a well-oiled machine. Oscar for example needs to improve his vision, he needs to improve offensively, despite scoring a good amount of goals... Mata has the same challenge defensively, Hazard needs to be more incisive and daring and start deciding matches for us (given that is the role José gave him as our most important attacking player), Willian needs to be more incisive too and André has to improve his finishing. Poor Kev needs to be select first before we try to discuss what he needs to improve. So yeah, imo if we want to replace Oscar for Mata is mandatory we play with three MDs instead of only two. As for the last part, despite what Mourinho said, Hazard did go deep to defend, only not as much as in previous matches, he was near our corner at points and a few times at the edge of our box. Oscar was very deep too (he covered the entire right flank, attack and defense), so both of our players going wide came back to defend a lot. Do you want the heat maps?

why talk about meritocracy sometimes as the answer to some players and ignore it for others? If one player is doing well he deserves to be in the team, but to actually make it to the team he has to not only do well but better than the other contenders to the spot. Azpilicueta did better at RB than Bertrand, so the same meritocracy that would have played Bertrand, plays Cesar instead. And in the case they both showed the same 'deserving' rate, then it's down to preference, but why on earth should we question the meritocracy in Mourinho's choice of Cesar in the LB when he did so well there? So just because Ryan is a natural LB he deserves better even if Cesar played better? Then it comes down to rightfulness - as if Ryan had the rightful spot - instead of merit. I swear I can't follow this reasoning... I mean one could question why Ryan isn't playing, but label it down to a failure in meritocracy when Azpilicueta has been one of our best players in the whole team, not only in the position when playing in RB makes no sense whatsoever. As for Kevin and his work-rate, I can't say from Werder Bremen because I didn't watch it, but for us? Did nothing for me. He has started 4 matches (Hull, ManU, Swindon and Arsenal) and he has a total of 1 tackle, 0 interceptions, 0 blocks, 0 clearances. I know stats won't tell the whole story, but it's doesn't scream work-rate imo.

This formation has Mazacar and while they're slightly less underwhelming in a 4-3-3 than they are in a 4-2-3-1, it's still worse than nearly all other combinations with our 6 AMs imo. If we play Mata, we need three MDs in the midfield, so it requires the exact three that played against WHU: Mikel, Ramires and Lamps. For domestic games Essien is an option for the midfield. As for Oscar playing as the most advanced player in the midfield, I like that idea, that's how he played in Confederations Cup, although some people thought we used a 4-2-3-1 (I think it was 4-3-3). Oscar can use a rest (even if he doesn't need one). We only need one point, I see now reason why Mata can't replace him . edit: this formation doesn't require less defending from our wide players... Mourinho's system requires a lot of pressing from 8 outfield players while 2 others can press a little bit less, those being Eden and the striker. Whoever plays by Hazard side will be required to press and mark a lot, after all they're filling Oscar's shoes, but regardless of Oscar standards, this AM will need to have high work-rate.

I personally don't see one problem being solved by that to be honest... He's perfect in the position he plays. If we move him to MD not only will lose some of his advances, his differential which is tackling high in the pitch, the pressure he puts on opponents near the box, his goals may be affected (he's been scoring a considerable amount of them, I guess he's our top scorer this season) and in addition to that I don't think he improves our pivot, he is an AM not a CM, MD or DLP. Moving him deeper only makes room for another AM, but the amount of AMs sitting in the bench - whoever they are - isn't a problem imo, so I don't see any problems being solved with him being moved to midfield and I foresee a few new problems being created. Just my opinion though

guys, why you even bother with him?

In my opinion fact remains that when Mata received the chances he did in October (more than Azpilicueta at the time had) he didn't capitalize them and Oscar just kept proving to be worth of them, so it's a combination of Oscar and Mata himself playing him out of the team. The Mata Gate is a tale. First he got injured and missed a considerable part of pre-season (as he had already lost some of it because of Confederations Cup). He was behind others physically while Oscar was growing with each match he played for us. Mata finally recovered and struggled a little in September to find his foot, but at the end of the month he had a chance against Swindon. Then he played 45 minutes in the following match (Spurs), he started against Steua and Norwich the following week, then there was international break and the first match back he started once again (ahead of Oscar) against Cardiff. It means he played in five consecutive matches for us, 4 of which starting and he should have capitalized them, but he failed. No matter how many excuses some of us are willing to give him (lack of matches, adapting to the defensive demands, lack of trust from Mourinho, lack of rhythm, etc), it doesn't change the fact he played himself out of the team. Willian was in a very similar position and while he's also in the bench right now, I feel he made better use of his chances than Mata did. I want Mata in the team as much as the next person and in a 4-3-3 Oscar doesn't even need to leave the team to make that happen, but he needs to earn his way back into the team. Two years as POTY, assists and goals from the last two seasons shouldn't play him into the team, his current performances should. Whoever complains that other players also didn't turn up in some matches or even made mistakes and still played continuously should keep in mind the alternatives to those players and their contributions to the team. When Hazard is played every single match at the start of the season, his replacements don't bring the impact Oscar does. The same with Lampard and even ivanovic (bc no matter how great Azpili is, and he is, he doesn't bring as much impact as Oscar has been bringing) . Oscar had 2-3 bad matches (one of which Mata started, and the other he played a few minutes), that was the moment for Mata to displace him. He didn't do anything that could possibly convince Mourinho that he should dropped the arguably best player for us this season to play Mata. Maybe another manager would have insisted with Mata instead of Hazard for example, but I'm not sure many would have. When your team is struggling and points are being dropped, bench the player in the best form in the team doesn't seem wise. And any manager with brains know Mazacar is a risk. It could be amazing or it could be a disaster, given the exposition in our MD when the three of them play and how Oscar is sort of sacrificed, it's no surprise it's been barely featured this season.

I picked 4-3-3 as my favorite formation for our players even before the season started. I liked 4-2-3-1 just like the next person, but I think 4-3-3 suits our players much better. I do hope Mourinho gives this formation a few more goes and maybe he'll be convinced it works better? I mean it's my personal preference and I think we played well in a few matches we played 4-2-3-1 and if he sticks with it we can still be a solid team, but the 4-3-3 is so tempting and so perfect for us!

Then I guess I couldn't express myself... I meant that as Mata's game is slower and he slows down play, why defending affects his attacking abilities? If he's deeper in the field, he'll carry the ball slowly, and will try to see the best play. If he has freedom, he'll have to wait other players to run because he - himself - doesn't run, so it's almost like if he's the second to last man in our side of the pitch, waiting for others to recover possession for us rather than himself, he'll receive the ball and either of two things will happen 1) he'll pass it to the striker, if it's a good alternative; 2) he'll wait for the team to move forward again, by either holding the ball, or slowly moving to the attacking half. Hazard with the same freedom would most likely run and dribble, leading the rest of our team to run as well, just like he did a few times yesterday. When we have possession is when Mata is the most dangerous and whether he helped recover or not that possession either by going deep when opposition has the ball or pressing high in their own half, I don't see how this affects his ability to receive the ball and do his thing. Hazard on the other hand, if he's too deep, then he has an entire team ahead of him to dribble, run by and take on. That's why giving freedom to Hazard makes sense in my head, and giving freedom to Mata - like we did for two seasons - doesn't. We end up exposed exactly for those reasons, he's slow, he favors possession football, and in waiting others to recover possession he overloads Lampard who isn't defensively good for himself, let alone to make up for Mata. The only way I see for us to have Mata as the guy with freedom, is if we have two Oscars, one on each side of him to make up for him without exposing Lampard's deficiencies defending. To have 2 Oscars we sacrifice Hazard from the team, as while Eden improved significantly his defending stats, he's nowhere near Oscar. So the question remains, who should we sacrifice Hazard or Mata because clearly we can't keep both of them free from defending. The other day I spent a long time thinking of a way to make this team work again with Mata in a way that having Mata doesn't compromise even further our weak pivot and doesn't detract Hazard's performances. Just so we're clear, I don't think the problem is Mata, but how he fits in a team that have a few problems in the midfield as it is.

Mathematics, stats and projections are fascinating to this Brazilian girl, I might as well share what I do in my free time - which right now is 95% of my time As for being short - not sure if you're sarcastic, but I'm trying to force myself to write less. It's a challenge as big as Arsenal winning even Mickey Mouse Cups...

We need a bit of starting XI stability. It's end of november and while adjustments are still expected to be done for a few more months imo, I think we could use team stability now and keep the winning formula until it exposes its weaknesses and we struggle to deliver with that. Squad rotation is for December imo when we have 9 games, including a potential dead rubber in UCL and a League Cup match against Sunderland. We'll also face a couple of bottom table teams, so in order to prevent tiredness and muscular injuries, I'd see some squad rotation then. Right now I think Mourinho wants to know what's his best team and formation and he needs to test yesterday's team against a stronger side (not that Basel is that much stronger, but Southampton on Sunday definitely is).

So, I keep my own table with all kind of stats, comparisons, results and stuff in an Excel file and as I had the data broken down by team (what? I love stats, math and I enjoy a few projections, but I don't take any of the aforementioned too seriously because football isn't a science, thank God for that) I did an analysis considering who Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City have played so far and who they're yet to play and with some formulas and subjective criteria I did an analysis to know how many of the tricky matches are already left behind and how many are yet to come. I'll be the first to say it's a flawed system by definition, as football is unpredictable as it gets, and I didn't take into consideration if it's a local derby or not to change the criteria, so if you're interested to know, here it goes. I divided all teams in EPL in four groups according to how difficult it is for title contenders to play against them: Very difficult, prone to drop points: Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City away or home; Tottenham away (red) Challenging, points may be dropped: Tottenham home; Southampton, Everton, Newcastle away (orange) Tricky, those teams may steal a few points from contenders: Southampton, Everton, Newcastle home; Swansea and West Brom away (yellow) Manageable, titles contenders aren't expected to drop points: Villa, Hull, Stoke, Cardiff, Norwich, Sunderland, West Ham, Fulham, Crystal away or home (green). I'm positive some of you will agree or disagree about some teams (hence why I said the criteria was subjective). This is exclusively from the title contenders point of view, they shouldn't drop any points, away or home from the green group and should get nearly 100% of points at stake in the yellow group, whereas the orange group is dangerous and the red group are the title contenders against themselves in addition to Tottenham at WHL, and points are expected to be dropped. Here is just the summary (there are nearly infinite worksheets in this file, it's almost as bad as my tennis file) if you were able to follow this nonsensical rambling at all: The black spots mean those teams are yet to face any sides from those groups. The lighter colors inside the table highlights the best, the worst and the intermediate according their results, whereas the same colors in the head (only darker) show the group criteria. It's a bit confusing, but here some interesting things. Liverpool are the only side to have not dropped any points against the green group away and at home. Manchester City haven't dropped points at home against any side - regardless of their caliber - but they've dropped the most points away against teams in the green group. In another words Liverpool win against the weaker sides home and away whereas ManCity have been dropped points to sides they shouldn't away from Manchester and they may or may not make up for those points beating every other side at home. Also I made a mistake in the caption (and I'm too lazy to edit the image, upload it and whats not) so let me clarify it for you. The PYD corresponds to matches played (not points), regardless of the results. I broke down in the four groups, and to offer a more realistically prospect in the last two I multiplied the red and the green group results by 2, meaning the red group is twice harder than the orange and the green twice easier than the yellow. That's why Chelsea have the best prospect. We've played the most against more difficult sides and we're played the least against more manageable sides. Arsenal and City are the opposite. They played the least against stronger sides and the more against weaker sides. The fact that City have dropped so many points even in that case isn't promising to them, although it should be said it's too early to say if they'll pay for that or not. Now, I'll be back with other crazy input and analysis in my nonsense Excel file