Rumoured Luke Shaw

[Phil Driver 503]

Another overrated young English player.

A bit like Frank Lampard was?

[Polo7 3,496]

A bit like Frank Lampard was?

How many years ago was that? How many world class players have England had since Lampard? Rooney. How many up and coming English players have we heard about? Hundreds. Its always the same, a play shows a bit of competence on the ball and suddenly he is an amazing talent.

[Phil Driver 503]

How many years ago was that? How many world class players have England had since Lampard? Rooney. How many up and coming English players have we heard about? Hundreds. Its always the same, a play shows a bit of competence on the ball and suddenly he is an amazing talent.

Dont worry yourself ,Shaw is class ,how many foreign overated full backs have Chelsea signed?

[zolayes 14,489]

Dont worry yourself ,Shaw is class ,how many foreign overated full backs have Chelsea signed?

should I start with McCreadie ,,then G le Saux who we actually signed twice.....oh and We played Duff at Lb as well

[robsblubot 3,595]

Haven't seen enough of Shaw to know whether he is class or not, but if you don't understand Polo7's point... well you are just very bad with numbers, esp probabilities.

[Spike 12,049]

How many years ago was that? How many world class players have England had since Lampard? Rooney. How many up and coming English players have we heard about? Hundreds. Its always the same, a play shows a bit of competence on the ball and suddenly he is an amazing talent.

I think Shaw has shown a bit more than a 'bit of competence'. Sure there have been a lot of wasted English players but what has Shaw done to suggest that he is going to be just another name in the pile of failed Englishmen?

[Phil Driver 503]

Haven't seen enough of Shaw to know whether he is class or not, but if you don't understand Polo7's point... well you are just very bad with numbers, esp probabilities.

I think you should see more of Shaw and also we need to realise that the Chelsea success of recent times revolves to a large percentage around John Terry and Frank Lampard.

[robsblubot 3,595]

I think you should see more of Shaw and also we need to realise that the Chelsea success of recent times revolves to a large percentage around John Terry and Frank Lampard.

Chelsea success of recent times involves large sums of cash used to acquire top players from all over the world - the exact same policy of today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/roman-abramovichs-10year-chelsea-anniversary-what-did-he-ever-do-for-us-spend-2-billion-in-10-years-at-chelsea-thats-what-8680084.html

I do remember Chelsea back then kicking the ball up field to hasselbaink... effective at times, but hardly world class.

However, I do not deny the importance of Lampard and Terry in this winning process. My point was merely due to the odds of trying to find the odd talent in a smaller pool (England) vs a much larger one (the world).

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Forget potential, Shaw is already operating at a level that is consistent, and arguably has been playing better football than Cole has over the last 12-18 months. That is reason alone to make him a target.

[Joelasticot 111]

Chelsea success of recent times involves large sums of cash used to acquire top players from all over the world - the exact same policy of today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/roman-abramovichs-10year-chelsea-anniversary-what-did-he-ever-do-for-us-spend-2-billion-in-10-years-at-chelsea-thats-what-8680084.html

I do remember Chelsea back then kicking the ball up field to hasselbaink... effective at times, but hardly world class.

However, I do not deny the importance of Lampard and Terry in this winning process. My point was merely due to the odds of trying to find the odd talent in a smaller pool (England) vs a much larger one (the world).

That kind of probabilities (at least the way you describe it) only applies to picking random players. It's not such a lottery when you know the player, you see him play week in / week out and you have already assessed what he could bring to the team.

We are talking about Luke Shaw, the fact that he is english is not such a factor here. I mean, sure Chelsea needs homegrown players, English players and all that jazz but it is not exactly your point is it?

If we want to assess how good he is going to be in the future as an individual player playing for Chelsea FC, then his nationality doesn't matter. Not a single bit.

Now, regarding that article, Chelsea FC is a company, pretty much like any other company. They get money in essentially two ways : Donations/investments and earnings. In this article there is no mention of the actual earnings of the club. The shirts and tickets sales, the money acquired with the results in the champions league, the premier league etc... all coming from TV rights, the sponsors and the many other ways that the club uses to earn money. Thinking that every single penny chelsea fc ever spent since roman arrived came straight out of his pocket is pure delusion. Of course, we probably spent more than we earned but every football club at the top level has exceedingly high spendings (all of them not as much as chelsea but still... hell we could even be the top spender in the world it wouldn't change my point). In other words, the turnover or the money going in and out of a club like chelsea is expected to be big, and it doesn't say anything about the actual profit.

I could buy a painting for 4 billion euros (more than what Roman supposedly spent) sell it for 4 billion and 1 euros, I'd have spent 4 billion, earned 4 billion and 1 and gained a profit of 1 euros or lost of profit of whatever the number you want.

Anyway that kind of article is actually stupid, we don't have access to chelsea FC accounts and to my knowledge no journalist has the personnal number of our chief accountant so there is actually no way to know for sure what he actually spent especially if we take into account sponsoring deals.

Sorry for being a bit off topic.

Edit : Ok so apparently i went a bit overboard with this and I just checked again and they register an amount as a "loss" for the club. So it's a bit better than what I first thought.

Anyway, it still doesn't show how this "loss" amount is obtained and therefore it is not satisfying. We would need to have a more detailed and exhaustive report of the actual earnings in a season to count it as somehow reliable.

[robsblubot 3,595]

That kind of probabilities (at least the way you describe it) only applies to picking random players. It's not such a lottery when you know the player, you see him play week in / week out and you have already assessed what he could bring to the team.

We are talking about Luke Shaw, the fact that he is english is not such a factor here. I mean, sure Chelsea needs homegrown players, English players and all that jazz but it is not exactly your point is it?

If we want to assess how good he is going to be in the future as an individual player playing for Chelsea FC, then his nationality doesn't matter. Not a single bit.

Now, regarding that article, Chelsea FC is a company, pretty much like any other company. They get money in essentially two ways : Donations/investments and earnings. In this article there is no mention of the actual earnings of the club. The shirts and tickets sales, the money acquired with the results in the champions league, the premier league etc... all coming from TV rights, the sponsors and the many other ways that the club uses to earn money. Thinking that every single penny chelsea fc ever spent since roman arrived came straight out of his pocket is pure delusion. Of course, we probably spent more than we earned but every football club at the top level has exceedingly high spendings (all of them not as much as chelsea but still... hell we could even be the top spender in the world it wouldn't change my point). In other words, the turnover or the money going in and out of a club like chelsea is expected to be big, and it doesn't say anything about the actual profit.

I could buy a painting for 4 billion euros (more than what Roman supposedly spent) sell it for 4 billion and 1 euros, I'd have spent 4 billion, earned 4 billion and 1 and gained a profit of 1 euros or lost of profit of whatever the number you want.

Anyway that kind of article is actually stupid, we don't have access to chelsea FC accounts and to my knowledge no journalist has the personnal number of our chief accountant so there is actually no way to know for sure what he actually spent especially if we take into account sponsoring deals.

Sorry for being a bit off topic.

Edit : Ok so apparently i went a bit overboard with this and I just checked again and they register an amount as a "loss" for the club. So it's a bit better than what I first thought.

Anyway, it still doesn't show how this "loss" amount is obtained and therefore it is not satisfying. We would need to have a more detailed and exhaustive report of the actual earnings in a season to count it as somehow reliable.

agreed.

If Shaw is good enough then he is good enough - no doubt about it.

Again, I was just referring to Polo7's point when he warned about going gaga for English talent.

[Korea 734]

English have always had "high potential" full backs..

In recent times, it was Gibbs, Walker and now Shaw.... (and rose)

For the people that watch Shaw a lot, how would you rate him over those 2 in terms of attacking, defense and durability/physicality?

[Polo7 3,496]

I think Shaw has shown a bit more than a 'bit of competence'. Sure there have been a lot of wasted English players but what has Shaw done to suggest that he is going to be just another name in the pile of failed Englishmen?

My point was its too risky to buy a young English player and expect him to be world class.We have made that mistake so many times. Parker, SWP and Sidwell to name a few. Also Shaw seems quite injury prone.

[Phil Driver 503]

English have always had "high potential" full backs..

In recent times, it was Gibbs, Walker and now Shaw.... (and rose)

For the people that watch Shaw a lot, how would you rate him over those 2 in terms of attacking, defense and durability/physicality?

In a different league Shaw and Gibbs are athletes first and foremost Shaw is a great footballer come athlete ,he left Azpilecueta for dead at the Bridge last season .

The player Shaw reminds me of going forward is Lahm ,but he is quicker and more physical as someone said he is 6ft 1" ,I would compare him more to Lahm then Walker or Gibbs ,he could really be that good ,I am talking the best in the world ,hence the fuss about him ,definitely not the token English player some think he would be for Chelsea. Bring him home to the Bridge .

[Phil Driver 503]

In a different league Shaw and Gibbs are athletes first and foremost Shaw is a great footballer come athlete ,he left Azpilecueta for dead at the Bridge last season .

Edit ...............Walker and Gibbs are athletes first and foremost.........................................