Frank Lampard

[Hutcho 8,443]

Hazard is in his first season in the league and has four years left on his contract. He's also been pretty good in recent weeks.

Lampard has been the centre of discussions for months and it's perfectly fine to talk about him when he's playing well and people want to slam the club for not renewing him. Then we can bring up his goals and his importance to the team, and his experience and leadership qualities. He's fair game when he puts in a performance like tonight.

To clarify, i am in no way saying Hazard has been bad this season. He is a great player and i am glad we have got him, i am just using him as an example of one of several players who had a game as bad as lampard today. Again, i am not saying no one is allowed to slate lampard. But its the fact he is getting singled out as being bad, as in he is the one responsible for all the long balls and he has been the reason for our poor performances.

As for lampard being the centre of discussion that is true. But then you could say that people are allowed to talk about him when he is playing well because he gets slated when he doesn't (you can put it either way round).

[Hutcho 8,443]

Hazard lost the ball because whenever he recieved it he was swarmed by at least 3 players. He was an identified dangerman and was treated as such. Lampard wasn't operating in those conditions and still put in an abject display even worse than Hazard.

So if he was being swarmed, why wasn't oscar, benayoun and mata when they came on in acres of space. No one played well, not just lampard.

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

Stop Blaming Only and Mainly lamps...

[OneMoSalah 8,615]

Stop Blaming Only and Mainly lamps...

When he starts performing to a suitable standard thats required at Chelsea FC everyone will stop criticizing and blaming him.

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

When he starts performing to a suitable standard thats required at Chelsea FC everyone will stop criticizing and blaming him.

He can't do that by his own.

[OneMoSalah 8,615]

He can't do that by his own.

I didn't mean the teams performances, I meant Lamps' individual performance. He impressed me a while ago when he had scored like 10 goals in 13 games or whatever. Was doing decent enough in the pivot, hes slumped, as the team has but hes been one of our worst players.

[xPetrCechx 13,548]

I didn't mean the teams performances, I meant Lamps' individual performance. He impressed me a while ago when he had scored like 10 goals in 13 games or whatever. Was doing decent enough in the pivot, hes slumped, as the team has but hes been one of our worst players.

ALL THE TEAM IS SHIT.

[Peace. 4,352]

I think that this whole thing "keep 'em for the experience and leadership blablabla" is misleading us. It seems to be the consensus that an old player is useful in the sense that he brings experience to the side. Though, in my mind that's the same thing as saying that a great player will make a good manager. And that's just as saying that an old wine is a good wine. That's not the case.

It's one thing to have cross your sword all around the continent at the highest level. But that's another thing to put this experience into application ; to share it to others.

And to my belief, it's not the case for Lampard. Tonight, once again he went missing. I have already put into the lights that his "experience" was nowhere to be seen against Newcastle (3-1) and Man.City (2-0). That was also the case in the game against QPR (0-1), and tonight against that romanian team as well (1-0). These games are the more relevant in that regard — but there are others. For instance, against West Bromwich (1-0), he was fairly average — not bad, but not good. And in these five games that I have mentioned (Bucarest, West Bromwich, ManCity, Newcastle and QPR), one could question his leadership — tonight being the more convincing example (though, he wasn't the only one who didn't showcase his leadership).

Indeed. He fails to bring his stamp upon the game, to influence it. For someone who's supposed to show leadership and experience, that is not normal. The game just seems to passes him by. And the fact that, the only few times he is noticable are when he shots from 40 yards or score a goal, gets a lot of meanings when it regards a central midfielder.

And the example of Scholes and Giggs is irrelevant. As someone said on this forum yesterday (or so), they are not the rule, but the exception. In my mind, they bring to that Man.United team more than Lampard brings us. Even when they are average, you can feel that they influence the game of their team, that they are involved in it. I do not get the same feeling from our n°8.

Last summer, we didn't hesitate to part our paths with Drogba. Even though the half French would have had a lot more to bring us than what Lampard could bring us in the future. When we let him go, he was still able to make World-Class performance (c.f. his whole CL campaign, especially against Valencia). He has also that ability to know when calm down the game and he manages perfectly to waste time — these abilities would have been handy more than once this season. Off course he has also his share of games where he cannot be bother. But all in all, I think that someone like Didier would have been a good condidate for that "experience" thing (Ashley Cole is also a good call) ; I do not think that Lampard suits that role (at the light of the the 20 last games, he has proved me right).

Sometimes we need to stop to hang to our past and to make the big step, in order to go forward. The day will come when we will have to swim without our life buoy. I believe that blooding-out one Old-Guard player per year is the good rate. In my opinion, this summer is the perfect time for Chelsea and Lampard to take different paths.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

Its taken a right wing extremist looney to state the obvious to the English press.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4828595/Steaua-Bucharest-owner-Gigi-Becali-says-Chelsea-are-too-slow-to-win.html

Becali warned: “I think we can win this and I’m sure we will, you will
see!

“Chelsea are a very good team but they are slow and we also want to win more.

“Alexandru Chipciu is going to be dynamite in midfield against Frank Lampard.
You’ll see, he will fly passed him!”

[Magic Lamps 11,453]

Its taken a right wing extremist looney to state the obvious to the English press.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4828595/Steaua-Bucharest-owner-Gigi-Becali-says-Chelsea-are-too-slow-to-win.html

yeah, he will fly passed him. We probably needed a coproduction of the Sun and that clown to construct such an abject sentence. wonder what fly passed him. Actually it happens many flies pass me every day. That is just because flies are so damn small and fast and i do not care about them passing me. But if Bucharest fielded flys they surely had an advantage cos they do not get stuck in the swamp they call pitch. Coincidentially it is also their natural habitat so of course they had an advantage.

This result has nothing to do with Chelsea or with Lamps being to slow or with a player no one has ever heard of. our player simply did not care about this match. If they wanted to win this joke of a competition, they would smash this shit site with Lamps scoring a hattrick, but it is simply not worth the effort. This clown should shut up or he provides us with a reason to actually put in a bit of effort and drive them back into the caves they have come from.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Its taken a right wing extremist looney to state the obvious to the English press.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/4828595/Steaua-Bucharest-owner-Gigi-Becali-says-Chelsea-are-too-slow-to-win.html

It's not obvious and it's not even correct. We didn't get beaten because of their counter-attack, we got beaten because we couldn't string passes together and we gave the ball away too easily. It's not like Bucharest dominated. Apart from the penalty, they had 1 shot on target and that was in the last minutes of extra time. Not only that. but Chipicu who the owner said would go around Lampard was Bucharest's lowest rated player on whoscored. He did absolutely nothing all game. Lampard owned him in the midfield and Chipicu had 4 turnovers and no tackles and Lampard had 4 interceptions and 4 tackles. The problem is that Lampard couldn't pass at all (and the couple of times he did, Torres unsurprisingly screwed it up.) There are games where our lack of speed is an issue either in the midfield or central defence, but it wasn't the issue this game.

[Manuf 1,448]

Yeah he has in my opinion. In the last 20 games we've played, how many good performances by him can you think of? Everton? Stoke? Arsenal in the first half?

Am I missing any?

in the last games, apart from Cech, Azpi and Hazard, who had more than 5 good performances?

[The only place to be 11,313]

in the last games, apart from Cech, Azpi and Hazard, who had more than 5 good performances?

Oscar, Mata, Cole and maybe Ba. But that's a weak line to take when we're discussing him isn't it? Because other players haven't been good that gives him a free pass? If you don't want to discuss Lamps in his thread then fine.

I'd argue that many of our problems (and this other players poor performances) stems from our weak midfield.

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

It's not obvious and it's not even correct. We didn't get beaten because of their counter-attack, we got beaten because we couldn't string passes together and we gave the ball away too easily. It's not like Bucharest dominated. Apart from the penalty, they had 1 shot on target and that was in the last minutes of extra time. Not only that. but Chipicu who the owner said would go around Lampard was Bucharest's lowest rated player on whoscored. He did absolutely nothing all game. Lampard owned him in the midfield and Chipicu had 4 turnovers and no tackles and Lampard had 4 interceptions and 4 tackles. The problem is that Lampard couldn't pass at all (and the couple of times he did, Torres unsurprisingly screwed it up.) There are games where our lack of speed is an issue either in the midfield or central defence, but it wasn't the issue this game.

But that still does not deter the fact that once again Lampard was complete passenger in the game with no attempt of trying to press any of the Steaua players or instruct any of his team mates to get closer together, pass more efficently and not to lump it upwards to the goalkeeper, which he was one of the worst cases. How is this the showing of exprience and leadership? You contantly bring it up and glorify and yet so many games he is just a passenger and seems to do nothing (and don't say trying to score, I mean trying to help the midflied function instead of making constant runs forward that most of the time lead to nothing). Sorry if I'm holding him to a higher standerd,but when I constantly here how vital he is to the team becuase of leadership and experience then he should be acting like a leader on the pitch, not standing like a lemon.

[TrippingStep 336]

I think that this whole thing "keep 'em for the experience and leadership blablabla" is misleading us. It seems to be the consensus that an old player is useful in the sense that he brings experience to the side. Though, in my mind that's the same thing as saying that a great player will make a good manager. And that's just as saying that an old wine is a good wine. That's not the case.

It's one thing to have cross your sword all around the continent at the highest level. But that's another thing to put this experience into application ; to share it to others.

And to my belief, it's not the case for Lampard. Tonight, once again he went missing. I have already put into the lights that his "experience" was nowhere to be seen against Newcastle (3-1) and Man.City (2-0). That was also the case in the game against QPR (0-1), and tonight against that romanian team as well (1-0). These games are the more relevant in that regard — but there are others. For instance, against West Bromwich (1-0), he was fairly average — not bad, but not good. And in these five games that I have mentioned (Bucarest, West Bromwich, ManCity, Newcastle and QPR), one could question his leadership — tonight being the more convincing example (though, he wasn't the only one who didn't showcase his leadership).

Indeed. He fails to bring his stamp upon the game, to influence it. For someone who's supposed to show leadership and experience, that is not normal. The game just seems to passes him by. And the fact that, the only few times he is noticable are when he shots from 40 yards or score a goal, gets a lot of meanings when it regards a central midfielder.

And the example of Scholes and Giggs is irrelevant. As someone said on this forum yesterday (or so), they are not the rule, but the exception. In my mind, they bring to that Man.United team more than Lampard brings us. Even when they are average, you can feel that they influence the game of their team, that they are involved in it. I do not get the same feeling from our n°8.

Last summer, we didn't hesitate to part our paths with Drogba. Even though the half French would have had a lot more to bring us than what Lampard could bring us in the future. When we let him go, he was still able to make World-Class performance (c.f. his whole CL campaign, especially against Valencia). He has also that ability to know when calm down the game and he manages perfectly to waste time — these abilities would have been handy more than once this season. Off course he has also his share of games where he cannot be bother. But all in all, I think that someone like Didier would have been a good condidate for that "experience" thing (Ashley Cole is also a good call) ; I do not think that Lampard suits that role (at the light of the the 20 last games, he has proved me right).

Sometimes we need to stop to hang to our past and to make the big step, in order to go forward. The day will come when we will have to swim without our life buoy. I believe that blooding-out one Old-Guard player per year is the good rate. In my opinion, this summer is the perfect time for Chelsea and Lampard to take different paths.

And in regards to Manchester, Giggs and Scholes are often mentioned but they forget how Beckham leaved while he was a huge star marketing wise.

[NishC300 1,865]

[Styles 9,790]

Lampard rubbish again. The team vastly improved once he was hauled off.

Mikel and Ramires is our best midfield duo by faaaaaaaar. You have one guy who sits and passes and another who uses his energy and speed and, despite his all his flaws, is still very effective in this current team.

[Mundaka 243]

Blame Benitez for that one not Lampard.