Rumoured Marouane Fellaini

[YouNameIt 1,511]

Mata has missed more sitters than Torres this season, yet we hear nothing on this board about it. But its easy to make things look bad when you're selective with your criticism.

What would you rather have:

1) A player who misses 1000 sitters, but scores 20.

2) A player who misses 100 sitters, but scores 5.

[OneMoSalah 8,885]

There is a huge difference in class between the players Chelsea put out on the field, and a team like Everton. When you have better players to play with, you are able to play better. You think passing to Mata, Hazard, Oscar and Torres is the same as what hes doing over there? No.

Its hardly fair to judge a player on a far worse team with a simple head to head of stats. Going by a simple eye test I can tell Fellaini has been 3 times as good as Mikel this season.

He's hardly sloppy, hes great on the ball, and he looks to move the ball forward far more than Mikel.

I beg to differ tbh. Mikel has been excellent, in terms of distributing the ball and making vital tackles/interceptions. Fellaini is excelling behind the striker because he can use his size to great affect (to draw fouls, win the first and second ball). Fellaini wouldn't walk in to our team in the double pivot or the 3 behind the striker. Thats a fact. He is completely average technically, passing is slow and labored, isn't creative, gets caught on the ball too often and gives away a lot of fouls. Just because hes playing well right now doesn't mean we should sign him wait until he has a slump in form and everyone will be saying about how we were right to avoid him. The Everton team is built around Fellaini, they play to his strengths. We try to play to Torres/Mata/Hazard/Oscars strengths at Chelsea.

[Reddish-Blue 2,495]

What would you rather have:

1) A player who misses 1000 sitters, but scores 20.

2) A player who misses 100 sitters, but scores 5.

I'd take option 2, cause the player's conversion rate is 5% compared to option 1 which is only 2%..

[TheCount 146]

What would you rather have:

1) A player who misses 1000 sitters, but scores 20.

2) A player who misses 100 sitters, but scores 5.

The thing about your post's, is that like many things, politicians, religion, advertisement they sound good, but in reality they dont mean anything.

Missing a 1000 but scoring 20 could be as useless to your team as scoring 5 in 100 misses, good example, drogba 6 goals in 36 games last year, a terrible stat, but he scored when it mattered and at the end of the day, that ALL that mattered.

30mill is way too high for fellani and i'd imagine i'd be closer to 25 or maybe even 20, everton arnt greedy and nothing in their transfer past says anything different either, now i would like to see fellani, i think he's better then mikel tho i wouldnt play him their, i actually think he'd be better use as being rotated between DM and CAM, for example lets say we play stoke or west ham? a big physical team, well play him instead of one of the 3 amigo's so it nullifies the effect of being "bullied" of the ball, thats just one example of why i'd like him anyway.

[OneMoSalah 8,885]

I'd take option 2, cause the player's conversion rate is 5% compared to option 1 which is only 2%..

Your crazy haha! The player who scores more goals is the obvious choice. Problem is Mata is an attacking midfielder where as Torres is a striker. I'd rather a striker scoring 20 goals a season than a striker scoring 5 goals a season.

[Reddish-Blue 2,495]

Your crazy haha! The player who scores more goals is the obvious choice. Problem is Mata is an attacking midfielder where as Torres is a striker. I'd rather a striker scoring 20 goals a season than a striker scoring 5 goals a season.

Well obviously we all want a striker to score 20 goals a season...I was only talking about conversion rate based on the examples given!

Also, if your missing 1000 sitters, you shouldn't be called a striker

[Spike 12,049]

What would you rather have:

1) A player who misses 1000 sitters, but scores 20.

2) A player who misses 100 sitters, but scores 5.

Option 2 has the better ratio...after 1000 sitters 50 goals are scored.

Weird choices.

[BlueLyon 9,359]

You guys above would buy Fellaini to score goals?!

I thought that is striker's job...

[StrategiC 73]

i'd rather buy Tioti and cabay with 30£ instead of that giraffe.

[bloody 209]

i'd rather buy Tioti and cabay with 30£ instead of that giraffe.

we have enough midgets.

[Beepu 1,714]

we have enough midgets.

We can never have too much precious hobitses!

[SykikJV 146]

You guys above would buy Fellaini to score goals?!

I thought that is striker's job...

Well, at Everton he plays as an attacking midfielder just behind striker Jelavic. That's the position he has excelled in the most in my opinion.

As a Belgian, I'm not sure if Fellaini is the right player for Chelsea. If you play Fellaini in the same role as Everton does, as an attacking midfielder, it has an influence on the way your team is playing. In the national team we noticed that the team is actually playing better without Fellaini. He is so strong and wins almost every high ball causing his teammates to play high balls more often.

I'm not saying that Fellaini is not a technical player, he is actually pretty good with his feet, but I don't think he would fit in as an attacking midfielder at one of the topclubs. At Chelsea, Man Utd, City,... other things are demanded from an attacking midfielder then at a club like Everton.

[Muzchap 8,966]

Well, at Everton he plays as an attacking midfielder just behind striker Jelavic. That's the position he has excelled in the most in my opinion.

As a Belgian, I'm not sure if Fellaini is the right player for Chelsea. If you play Fellaini in the same role as Everton does, as an attacking midfielder, it has an influence on the way your team is playing. In the national team we noticed that the team is actually playing better without Fellaini. He is so strong and wins almost every high ball causing his teammates to play high balls more often.

I'm not saying that Fellaini is not a technical player, he is actually pretty good with his feet, but I don't think he would fit in as an attacking midfielder at one of the topclubs. At Chelsea, Man Utd, City,... other things are demanded from an attacking midfielder then at a club like Everton.

100% Agree - most sensible post I have read yet

[DYC. 7,542]

We already have the most talented Belgians (Hazard, De Bruyne, Courtois, Lukaku) under contract, bar Witsel. We're good.

[OneMoSalah 8,885]

Limited passing range evidence:

Also evidence hes terrible in possession as hes awarded these:

Evidence Mikel's passing range isn't as limited as others think: