Have we underachieved in the Roman era?

[5354 204]

considering the amt of investment we put into the squad... not only the board has a part in it. i think the players themselves are partly overrated?

Sad to say mikel, kalou and probably malouda seems "bad" at that point of time

[warnie_666 1,081]

check the vote 22 6

Poll means fuckall. Majority here wanted Carlo out

[nadavTKL 1,787]

If there was a poll of "Who's the best team in the world" Chelsea wouldn't win it. You obviously dont know this forum if you say that.

And warnie_666, whats you point? Carlo should have got sacked, and he did.

BLionheart,

2006-2007: Wierd season, a lot of injuries, finishing second and lost our title, but winning the FA CUP against Man U in the final. 2 titles, not a bad season.

Im not counting 2003/2004 because it wasnt the same team, the Chelsea you see now, and the Chelsea that people know as one of

the best teams in the world, is the Chelsea of Morinhou.

I think you need to look more at the big picture, you are not considering the lack of experience our club had as a top club. Its not that

easy to come from almost nowhere and competing with huge clubs in Englend and in the CL. I read what both of you said,

I get your point, but im suggesting you to look very closly at Man City in the coming years. And look now on the reaction of people

to City, why people dont taking them more seriously? im not saying people dont take them seriously, but with the

squad and money they have, they should have been appreciated way more. And its becuase of there football, and because of there

lack of experience. We had alot, A LOT of luck that we got a genius to start this team, without Jose I dont know what Chelsea was today,

maybe this project would have failed. And you can see that after Jose got sacked, we didnt have a storng character manager that could

face Roman and do what HE wants. Roman is a very difficult humanbein. Alot of our problems are because of Roman's decisions,

but what can you say? I cant complain about him even if he will left tommorow. He's responsible for almost all, the good and the bad.

Its not a fantasy world, you cant have it all in a split of a second just because of your money and players, there are many big,

rich clubs with a big name on them, teams who hated to see us coming from nowhere and become better than them or at

least int there level. Those clubs still got the fancy history and experience, mentality, and we did our very best to win them

even if we are lack of those things. And we did it very well. 3 PL titles, 3 FA Cups, a CL final and deserved one more final, but uefa

took it from us. Maybe in that year we would have won it? i dont want to think about that, but you need to consider it.

We where the only team ever to do what we did, try to think about that also.

[zolayes 14,489]

Zola has underacheived and so has ballack in his career and so have the current Chelsea core.

But I give up as you lot prefer to live in denial. Sweet dreamzzz

ZOLA has underachieved ,,,,this must be the quote of century

[eldo 868]

Create another voting topic on this forum and ask what's the greatest team in the world right now ?

I bet chelsea will win , but are we the greatest team in the world ? No , we are not .

I love chelsea but unlike others i can admit that we are miles away from being the greatest football team , hope you get my point.

So what's your point? That we are a small team? I seriously don't get that Barca wankfest, 10 years ago they were nothing.

And stop writing like that, it's stupid.

[Guest justin_3d]

I still say that a standard has to be measured. And so far Chelsea was the first to do the big owner thing in modern times.

Now that City is in the top 4, we can measure how they do, and compare how we did with when Roman came.

Cause i don't think measuring City from where the Sheik bought them is fair. They where not even a team worth contending for.

While Chelsea was when Roman came. Chelsea back then was what you could call a modern day Spurs. Fighting for top places, CL, and stuff, but not enough injection of cash to take them to the next level.

Which kinda leaves me thinking why the Sheik not went for a team like that. If any club that is able to become the next Chelsea are those clubs like Spurs, Villareal for Spain, and maybe add Everton in the mix.

They have a good core, but their investment is not that big.

So once we see how other clubs do in top places with a rich owner, then we will know if Chelsea project was one of a kind, or we have underachieved as compare to other clubs.

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

Had JT scored that PK this topic wouldn't even exist.

[nadavTKL 1,787]

I still say that a standard has to be measured. And so far Chelsea was the first to do the big owner thing in modern times.

Now that City is in the top 4, we can measure how they do, and compare how we did with when Roman came.

Cause i don't think measuring City from where the Sheik bought them is fair. They where not even a team worth contending for.

While Chelsea was when Roman came. Chelsea back then was what you could call a modern day Spurs. Fighting for top places, CL, and stuff, but not enough injection of cash to take them to the next level.

Which kinda leaves me thinking why the Sheik not went for a team like that. If any club that is able to become the next Chelsea are those clubs like Spurs, Villareal for Spain, and maybe add Everton in the mix.

They have a good core, but their investment is not that big.

So once we see how other clubs do in top places with a rich owner, then we will know if Chelsea project was one of a kind, or we have underachieved as compare to other clubs.

About City, as i said in my first post, City did started in a different way than us, but look at there squad in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011,

dont you think they have unbelievably underachieved? I mean, ffs, with all those players they didnt get to the Top 4, spuds beated them!!!!

And than they brought YToure, Kolarov, Silva, Balotely, and they still didnt make a real impression on someone until the 1-0 against

United in the FA cup semi-final. Before that? we, with our rubbish form beated them 2-0 easliy.

Manchester City, The Abu Dhabi version, are already big underachievers. But again, they can change it and amazes us all.

We didnt amazed anyone, because for the first minute Mourinou came, we were the absulute best in the country. Our players partnership

with Jose was like...all sparks.

Had JT scored that PK this topic wouldn't even exist.

Very true.

[Guest justin_3d]

About City, as i said in my first post, City did started in a different way than us, but look at there squad in 2009/2010 and 2010/2011,

dont you think they have unbelievably underachieved? I mean, ffs, with all those players they didnt get to the Top 4, spuds beated them!!!!

And than they brought YToure, Kolarov, Silva, Balotely, and they still didnt make a real impression on someone until the 1-0 against

United in the FA cup semi-final. Before that? we, with our rubbish form beated them 2-0 easliy.

Manchester City, The Abu Dhabi version, are already big underachievers. But again, they can change it and amazes us all.

We didnt amazed anyone, because for the first minute Mourinou came, we were the absulute best in the country. Our players partnership

with Jose was like...all sparks.

Very true.

Well you can say that last year might have been the mark year to label them against us.

Their season of last year compare to Roman first season with Roman, I would say it's about even.

They finish 3 on level point with Chelsea and won the FA. I guess the FA would give them weight for not being in the CL, and that we went to the semi in the CL that year when Roman came.

So yes, if you take into concern last year, i think it's even for now.

2009/2010 is way of the mark to consider it IMO.

[BLionheart 516]

So what's your point? That we are a small team? I seriously don't get that Barca wankfest, 10 years ago they were nothing.

And stop writing like that, it's stupid.

Well "smart" ELDO , you didn't get my point .

Zolayes was arguing that since the vote results was 22-6 that proves we haven't underachieved and i was just pointing to the fact that this is a chelsea forum so most of the members will vote for chelsea and will find it hard to admit that sometimes we have have had bad games , bad managers and bad seasons.

Just like some people found it hard to admit that carlo was an average manager.

[BLionheart 516]

If there was a poll of "Who's the best team in the world" Chelsea wouldn't win it. You obviously dont know this forum if you say that.

And warnie_666, whats you point? Carlo should have got sacked, and he did.

BLionheart,

2006-2007: Wierd season, a lot of injuries, finishing second and lost our title, but winning the FA CUP against Man U in the final. 2 titles, not a bad season.

Im not counting 2003/2004 because it wasnt the same team, the Chelsea you see now, and the Chelsea that people know as one of

the best teams in the world, is the Chelsea of Morinhou.

I think you need to look more at the big picture, you are not considering the lack of experience our club had as a top club. Its not that

easy to come from almost nowhere and competing with huge clubs in Englend and in the CL. I read what both of you said,

I get your point, but im suggesting you to look very closly at Man City in the coming years. And look now on the reaction of people

to City, why people dont taking them more seriously? im not saying people dont take them seriously, but with the

squad and money they have, they should have been appreciated way more. And its becuase of there football, and because of there

lack of experience. We had alot, A LOT of luck that we got a genius to start this team, without Jose I dont know what Chelsea was today,

maybe this project would have failed. And you can see that after Jose got sacked, we didnt have a storng character manager that could

face Roman and do what HE wants. Roman is a very difficult humanbein. Alot of our problems are because of Roman's decisions,

but what can you say? I cant complain about him even if he will left tommorow. He's responsible for almost all, the good and the bad.

Its not a fantasy world, you cant have it all in a split of a second just because of your money and players, there are many big,

rich clubs with a big name on them, teams who hated to see us coming from nowhere and become better than them or at

least int there level. Those clubs still got the fancy history and experience, mentality, and we did our very best to win them

even if we are lack of those things. And we did it very well. 3 PL titles, 3 FA Cups, a CL final and deserved one more final, but uefa

took it from us. Maybe in that year we would have won it? i dont want to think about that, but you need to consider it.

We where the only team ever to do what we did, try to think about that also.

Good points .

I know we have been very unlucky with injuries , referees , Jose's sacking and so , also someone said that had JT scored that penalty in 2008 this poll wouldn't exist , that might be true .

But finding reasons and explanations for not winning titles actually proves that we have underachieved regardless those reasons keeping in mind that the questions is have we underachieved or not regardless those reasons.

[nadavTKL 1,787]

Well you can say that last year might have been the mark year to label them against us.

Their season of last year compare to Roman first season with Roman, I would say it's about even.

They finish 3 on level point with Chelsea and won the FA. I guess the FA would give them weight for not being in the CL, and that we went to the semi in the CL that year when Roman came.

So yes, if you take into concern last year, i think it's even for now.

2009/2010 is way of the mark to consider it IMO.

If their last season is even to our first season with Roman, so I tottaly proved my point.

Do you remember our line up back than? laughable compares to 10/11 Man City team. Absulute laughable. No place to discussion realy...

They had/have amazing players, loads of them, and they still played awfull consider their potential. And it was the second/third season

for most of them.

[nadavTKL 1,787]

But finding reasons and explanations for not winning titles actually proves that we have underachieved regardless those reasons keeping in mind that the questions is have we underachieved or not regardless those reasons.

You took it the wrong way... im not trying to find reasons, those "reasons" are actually Football/Sports/Businesses/Life nature.

It seems that you insist to talk about us like we were there all the time, or that it is so easy to build winners mentality and experience. Its just not.

When some young, lack of experince business man, trying to fight the Big Dogs, the big companies, what did he gets normally?

just look at City and see. And than look at us.

[Guest justin_3d]

If their last season is even to our first season with Roman, so I tottaly proved my point.

Do you remember our line up back than? laughable compares to 10/11 Man City team. Absulute laughable. No place to discussion realy...

They had/have amazing players, loads of them, and they still played awfull consider their potential. And it was the second/third season

for most of them.

Yup you got that right according to player. They have perform badly.

But i was just going by them finishing 3 and winning the FA. I thought that was equal to what we did back then. But as you pointed out, the player potential was massively underused then what we had.

[Joker10 946]

Had JT scored that PK this topic wouldn't even exist.

Or if one certain bald referee didn't exist.

this topic is stupid, because the obvious answer is no we didn't underachieve. Could things gone better? yes, but you can say that about anything in life.

[BLionheart 516]

You took it the wrong way... im not trying to find reasons, those "reasons" are actually Football/Sports/Businesses/Life nature.

It seems that you insist to talk about us like we were there all the time, or that it is so easy to build winners mentality and experience. Its just not.

When some young, lack of experince business man, trying to fight the Big Dogs, the big companies, what did he gets normally?

just look at City and see. And than look at us.

That would have been logical and reasonable if we hadn't won 2 EPL titles and became invincibles within the 1st 2 years , in 2005 we were already considered a big team and we already had the winning mentality.

We had a superb start , Unbelievable success story during those 1st 2 years but since then it looks like we are on the decline instead of improving.

Your argument would have made sense if in 2005 we weren't already a big team.

[Blue Armour 4,287]

Ideally you would win'em all.

But we don't live in an ideal world. I think we've done pretty well with regards to the trophy count, minus CL of course. One CL over the past 7 yrs would've been nice (its statistically impossible to win 2 in a row).

Where we have underachieved is perhaps with regard to reeling in the cash, but I think that should improve over the next few years....

[eldo 868]

Well "smart" ELDO , you didn't get my point .

Zolayes was arguing that since the vote results was 22-6 that proves we haven't underachieved and i was just pointing to the fact that this is a chelsea forum so most of the members will vote for chelsea and will find it hard to admit that sometimes we have have had bad games , bad managers and bad seasons.

Just like some people found it hard to admit that carlo was an average manager.