Radamel Falcao

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

I Would Take RL over him...

[Irakozium257 350]

Has he played in the EL? If not, it would be great if we buy him, it's his playground. =D

[xPetrCechx 13,570]

Has he played in the EL? If not, it would be great if we buy him, it's his playground. =D

Not Played.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

You're just making stuff up. Liverpool MAY(don't trust quotes like this) have known about his knees. You didn't. Nobody did. Torres had scored 65 goals in 102 games at Liverpool including 18 in 22 the year before. . He started slowly for Liverpool after his surgery which was to be expected, but he was starting to come on well before we signed him. He scored 1 goal in his first 8 games in the Premier League and then 8 in 15 afterwards including killing us with two. He looked fabulous against us. His runs, his touches, his finishing. It looked like he was just coming back from surgery and was back to where he was before it.This idea that everyone knew that Torres was going to fail is revisionist nonsense. In fact, Torres was much more likely to succeed at that point than Falcao would be coming in as Torres had already proven himself in the Premier League-was PFA team of the year 2 of his 3 years at Liverpool. I never liked the signing because I hate January signings and huge dollar signings have a very high chance of failing, but Torres was still thought of as en elite striker at that point.

you should read this...

http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/12/20/3785988/falcao-fernando-torres-scoring-against-weak-opponents-chelsea-liverpool-atletico-madrid

[Beepu 1,714]

Im torn, a part of me would love to see Falcao play for us, but the squad needs reinforcements in other areas as well. I mean it doesnt say anywhere that if we get Falcao it will only be Falcao, we dont know the financial structure of the club so we as fans can only assume that the club wont splash that much in jan. Falcao though is the probably the best out and out striker at the moment.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

you should read this...

http://www.weaintgotnohistory.com/2012/12/20/3785988/falcao-fernando-torres-scoring-against-weak-opponents-chelsea-liverpool-atletico-madrid

First off, no matter what you think of the piece, it doesn't change the fact that all this is retroactive. If Falcao or whoever came here and failed we could go back like this and find the reasons why afterwards as well. (Language barrier, playing style, coaching tactics, inexperience in the Champions League, whatever, there are always possible reasons/excuses). Now, on the piece itself. So many problems, the piece was written to try to prove a point, but here a few obvious problems...

1) Why count 1.5 years of Torres? You can count post-injury or something and it would make some sense even though that's a small sample size. The only reason the writer chose that 1.5 year period is because the year before Torres scored against Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU, Everton, and Real Madrid among others which blows his nonsense out of the water. The year before that, he scored against Chelsea, Inter, Porto, Spurs, etc...Torres was with Liverpool for 3.5 years and scored against many many top sides. Saying Torres didn't score against top teams before he joined us is just being dishonest

2) You can't count every game as equal. Torres scored two goals against us in an important league game. Falcao scored a hattrick in a meaningless exhibition game which our players never showed up for. Scoring in the Champions League is harder than scoring in the Europa League where many top teams don't even play their top players, scoring the 5th goal in a 5-1 game is not the same as scoring the winner in a 1-0 game and so on...and you certainly can't count our game against Athletico as a real game and then not count the Community Shield as one (because Torres scored against City which again goes against the author's point in writing this)

3) Probably the biggest problem-This is what it's like with almost all strikers. Torres has been spectacularly bad against decent clubs post-transfer, but his record pre-transfer was normal for a top striker. He scored some goals in big games (Chelsea, Benfica, ManU, etc...) and scored most of his goals against poor teams. Strikers score way more goals against worse opposition because worse opposition lets in more goals. For example Falcao's 17 league goals this year, 8 came in two games against the two worst defensive sides in La Liga . That's the way it works.

That's not to say that Torres is good enough or anything. He does pretty much only score against poor opposition and has been like that since he joined us, but was not when he was at Liverpool. Falcao would be much better than Torres without much doubt, but that's not the point. . You keep trying to create this alternate world where everyone should have known that Torres was going to fail. It wasn't like that. Torres was widely considered one of the best strikers in the world when he bought him and yes, he failed. Lots of players fail. And that's the point. Players disappoint, players get hurt, players need time to adjust and for Falcao to be worth his 50M pounds and what would be a massive wage bill, he would have to score 25-30 goals a year every single season for the length of his contract. The chances of Falcao being worth what we pay for him would be slim. The chance of it being a big mistake are relatively large and the cost would be massive (look how much Torres has cost this club). In the era of FFP and with a team with multiple holes, it simply doesn't make sense to take such a massive risk.

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

I laugh when people talk about his age.....he's 27 for gods sake, probably hasn't even peaked yet.

[The Skipper 20,609]

I laugh when people talk about his age.....he's 27 for gods sake, probably hasn't even peaked yet.

He's 26.

[ulsterchelsea 3,221]

He's 26.

right! Doesn't change my point

[Henrique 9,133]

Imo we should continue building younger team. Falcao is 27/28 and for the money that everyone talked about, we can get probably 2 yoing players.

If we want proven striker, we should have gone for rvp last year, proven striker in epl for just half falcao fee

What the fuck are you talking about? the team is already full of these 23 and 21 players with no balls.

What? Proven in PL? Just look at how PL clubs are doing in Europe in last seasons and you will understand that being a proven striker in PL doesnt mean a player is better than a proven striken in Spain or Germany.

Torres was also a proven striker in PL...

[Henrique 9,133]

And whose to say Falcao won't turn into that loser if sign him? And I would take a good striker, a RB and a CM over Falcao alone any day of the week. A few players can sometimes win you games on their own. Players like Messi, Drogba, Del Piero ( I'd even say Cech)...etc I wouldn't say Falcao is in that rare bunch (he relies on his teammates service and very rarely creates for himself) but even if he did, those players can't win you a league or a competition alone, you need 10 other players doing their jobs. That's why squad depth is more important than one star, imo.

I have no idea what you label as "elite". But we have arguably the best keeper in the world in Cech, we have JT who may have lost what little pace he had but is still a top class defender, we have Ash who is still the best LB in the world on his day, and we have the best play maker in the League in Mata, not to mention all the young players who are on their way to being world-class.

I really don't like how our team is portrayed as a mid-table team with shit players and even worse how Falcao is the supposed messiah who will turn us into world-beaters. It's not either death or the demise of Chelsea FC. Falcao is one player, an excellent striker but still one player. We can sign him if the deal is suitable or we can look at other players if the deal does not suit the club; simple as.

Again, Falcao is not the only striker in the world. Yes, we need to replace Torres, but it does not have to be by Falcao.

If one or two of the 4 players we could buy instead of Falcao flop, then it won't be the end of the world because signing players is always a gamble and you can afford lose some average gambles but the last time we made a 50m gamble it cost us 4 managers and we still have not recovered from it.

1- Terry is a good defender, but not a top class.

2- Cole is far from being the bert LB in the world, even when he is on his days, in fact hes been playing bad since last season, He is Chelsea's best LB, thats different.

3- Mata is not the best play maker in the league.

In fact right we dont have players to win game on their own, like Drogba. You that kind of player that can score a goal even when you just create one single chance in 90 minutes? Remember Barcelona and Bayern's game?

Sorry, but Mata, Oscar and Hazard are not these players yet. In fact the team has to create 15 chances to score a single goal. I understand you concerns about the money and that kind of stuff. Falcao is the kind of striker that plays good for 5 years at least, like Nilsterooy for Manchester, Shevchenko for Milan. Buy Falcao now, and no striker will be needed in next 5 years.

And listen, Falcao is not a gamble.

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

First off, no matter what you think of the piece, it doesn't change the fact that all this is retroactive. If Falcao or whoever came here and failed we could go back like this and find the reasons why afterwards as well. (Language barrier, playing style, coaching tactics, inexperience in the Champions League, whatever, there are always possible reasons/excuses). Now, on the piece itself. So many problems, the piece was written to try to prove a point, but here a few obvious problems...

1) Why count 1.5 years of Torres? You can count post-injury or something and it would make some sense even though that's a small sample size. The only reason the writer chose that 1.5 year period is because the year before Torres scored against Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, ManU, Everton, and Real Madrid among others which blows his nonsense out of the water. The year before that, he scored against Chelsea, Inter, Porto, Spurs, etc...Torres was with Liverpool for 3.5 years and scored against many many top sides. Saying Torres didn't score against top teams before he joined us is just being dishonest

2) You can't count every game as equal. Torres scored two goals against us in an important league game. Falcao scored a hattrick in a meaningless exhibition game which our players never showed up for. Scoring in the Champions League is harder than scoring in the Europa League where many top teams don't even play their top players, scoring the 5th goal in a 5-1 game is not the same as scoring the winner in a 1-0 game and so on...and you certainly can't count our game against Athletico as a real game and then not count the Community Shield as one (because Torres scored against City which again goes against the author's point in writing this)

3) Probably the biggest problem-This is what it's like with almost all strikers. Torres has been spectacularly bad against decent clubs post-transfer, but his record pre-transfer was normal for a top striker. He scored some goals in big games (Chelsea, Benfica, ManU, etc...) and scored most of his goals against poor teams. Strikers score way more goals against worse opposition because worse opposition lets in more goals. For example Falcao's 17 league goals this year, 8 came in two games against the two worst defensive sides in La Liga . That's the way it works.

That's not to say that Torres is good enough or anything. He does pretty much only score against poor opposition and has been like that since he joined us, but was not when he was at Liverpool. Falcao would be much better than Torres without much doubt, but that's not the point. . You keep trying to create this alternate world where everyone should have known that Torres was going to fail. It wasn't like that. Torres was widely considered one of the best strikers in the world when he bought him and yes, he failed. Lots of players fail. And that's the point. Players disappoint, players get hurt, players need time to adjust and for Falcao to be worth his 50M pounds and what would be a massive wage bill, he would have to score 25-30 goals a year every single season for the length of his contract. The chances of Falcao being worth what we pay for him would be slim. The chance of it being a big mistake are relatively large and the cost would be massive (look how much Torres has cost this club). In the era of FFP and with a team with multiple holes, it simply doesn't make sense to take such a massive risk.

I find it ironic that you're defending the Torres purchase and battering a Falcao bid... Hahaha anyways.

So a year and a half before purchase isn't enough of a sample size for you? August 2009 till January 2011? Isn't this supposed to have some pertinent meaning as to what form he was in the leading up to the purchase? We all know that once upon a time he was a great striker but given the poor form and the injury it made little sense. How far back do you want to go? And at what point is it relevant to his form before purchase by Chelsea? in 2008-09 Michael Owen scored 14 goals in 29 games, a pretty decent return should we be looking at that with reference to buying a striker? The key word is BEFORE he joined us recent history of a year and a half is enough for me and the fact the trend continued nearly two years into his time here is also evidence.

You really think that Chelsea didn't show up for the Super Cup? given what you've seen this year you still believe that? I don't but at any rate I'll concede that his hat trick against us in a cup final is miniscule to Torres' two against us... What about the other 52 goals he's scored? LOL. Even if you give Torres his wack community Shield goal his record pales in comparison to Falcao. And I'm sorry two goals against Genk in the Champions league vs. two goals in the finals of the Europa league doesn't even come close, if you think it does we should end the convo now.

And no its not the same as any big name striker simply because you're ignoring the volume of goals scored. Falcao scores bushels of goals against big clubs, in big games and also small clubs, to put it frank, he just scores! And what is the 'etc.' of big teams Torres scored against? Stoke city, Portsmouth? give it a rest bro! there is no comparison to Falcao when we're talking about Torres. None.

Maybe I'm so adamantly against Torres because I was indeed one person who NEVER wanted him at the time of purchase! NOT ONE SECOND! whether you choose to believe me or not is your prerogative but its the god's honest truth! I watched him during the World cup and he looked so slow, his movement was non-existent and it carried over into the start of the season with Liverpool and never really got better. I hear what you say about FFP and if it fails we're in a massive hole, but what if it works? What if Falcao just continues to be in form Falcao? The amount of goals don't really matter to me its the weight! For instance Didier didn't do a whole lot of scoring last year but the ones he did get you could say counted like three. That is why I want Falcao the guy is a match winner not a pile on goalscorer like Torres is. If you can find a better, more in form striker that is available for cheaper I will back it 100% but don't say we don't need Falcao and through out the names Holt, Ba and Villa in his place! That's ridiculous...

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

1- Terry is a good defender, but not a top class.

2- Cole is far from being the bert LB in the world, even when he is on his days, in fact hes been playing bad since last season, He is Chelsea's best LB, thats different.

3- Mata is not the best play maker in the league.

In fact right we dont have players to win game on their own, like Drogba. You that kind of player that can score a goal even when you just create one single chance in 90 minutes? Remember Barcelona and Bayern's game?

Sorry, but Mata, Oscar and Hazard are not these players yet. In fact the team has to create 15 chances to score a single goal. I understand you concerns about the money and that kind of stuff. Falcao is the kind of striker that plays good for 5 years at least, like Nilsterooy for Manchester, Shevchenko for Milan. Buy Falcao now, and no striker will be needed in next 5 years.

And listen, Falcao is not a gamble.

He's pretty damn close though

[Sheva. 5,373]

Mata is at this moment better than any playmaker i can think of in the league.

How do you judge a playmaker? assists + chances created? he's right up there with anyone. And he also adds goals.

[Sheva. 5,373]

In fact the team has to create 15 chances to score a single goal. I understand you concerns about the money and that kind of stuff. Falcao is the kind of striker that plays good for 5 years at least, like Nilsterooy for Manchester, Shevchenko for Milan. Buy Falcao now, and no striker will be needed in next 5 years.

And listen, Falcao is not a gamble.

Every player is a gamble actually, Madrid paid 60m for world player of the year Kaka, he's been a disappointment.

Part in bold is true though, but it would be better with almost any other decent striker and not Torres.