Have we underachieved in the Roman era?

[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 4,461]

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.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

This topic is going nowhere, I'll lock it unless people stop insisting their own opinion is fact, because otherwise we might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

[zolayes 14,489]

when someone calls Zola and Ballack " under achievers " it warrants the thread being locked

[nadavTKL 1,787]

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.

You still dont get it... in the first two season we had a superb start, but when people talk about experience and winners mentallity its also the abiliity to

continue the superb start. It wasnt easy for us. And after Mou left, we kind a got lost. This could happen to an inexperience club in that level.

It was hard for us to compete for everything again... but we did it. We had two seasons that we compete for everything as good as we can even if

it was quite a mess(3 managers in a year and a half).

[warnie_666 1,081]

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

You yourself said, he deserved a Title, which he never got. So What has he achieved? Please dont bring up Cup Winners Cup and FA Cup. Even, Pompey with their substandard players won the FA Cup. Its the Same with Ballack. There is a reason why he has been tagged the "nearly man". I am beginning to wonder if you even understand what underachievement means.

[zolayes 14,489]

You yourself said, he deserved a Title, which he never got. So What has he achieved? Please dont bring up Cup Winners Cup and FA Cup. Even, Pompey with their substandard players won the FA Cup. Its the Same with Ballack. There is a reason why he has been tagged the "nearly man". I am beginning to wonder if you even understand what underachievement means.

im watching the cricket so I can see them ....

[Laylabelle 9,539]

If winning 3 league titiles,2 Carling Cups,3 FA Cups and 2 Community Shields is underachieving oh dear...money doesnt mean you'll win a trophy.Money does not stop Managers being crap and not having a clue and players get injured.Had we won one or two trophy then yeh we would've under achieved but we havent.Soon as they step on the field money and price tag goes out the window.Being a pricey player and spending loads on a team doesnt stop them playing like crap on certain days

And certain players not winning tropies and all,its hard but its the way it goes for every club

[Styles 9,790]

This went well then.

I think the 5 undecided should be chalked up as a yes to the question.

[zolayes 14,489]

This went well then.

I think the 5 undecided should be chalked up as a yes to the question.

and all the other forum members who didnt vote agree with you ...great logic

[Styles 9,790]

and all the other forum members who didnt vote agree with you ...great logic

I didn't think of that but you're right! They're probably too afraid to vote as they don't want to seem anti-Chelsea to the die-hards

[zolayes 14,489]

I didn't think of that but you're right! They're probably too afraid to vote as they don't want to seem anti-Chelsea to the die-hards

have you ever considered we arent ALL glory hunters..LOVE your witty skulls so clever