Jump to content
Join Talk Chelsea and join in with the discussions! Click Here

Chelsea 0-1 West Ham


Jase
 Share
Followers 1

Man of the Match  

11 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your Man of the Match?

    • Kepa
      5
    • James
      1
    • Tomori
      1
    • Zouma
      1
    • Emerson
      0
    • Jorginho
      0
    • Kovacic
      1
    • Pedro
      0
    • Mount
      0
    • Pulisic
      2
    • Giroud
      0
    • Willian (sub)
      0
    • Kante (sub)
      0
    • Hudson-Odoi (sub)
      0


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 455
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ya know i've been reading here this morning, about how bad some players were Mount etc, yes i know he and they had poor games, and there were even a couple of folk who were calling for Lamps to be sac

So much for looking a safe bet for the Top 4, aye?  That was a fucking atrocious performance! 

I don't wanna hear any more complaints from Giroud over lack of playing time. The dude is dire

11 hours ago, Tomo said:

He didn't get a keeper or CB of any note for over two years and wasn't given a single signing this summer.

He also still two years on hasn't been backed with a proper like for like replacement for Coutinho.

I am pretty sure he picked karius. But of course after ucl final, they pretty much said f it. Let's just spent big and get a surefire GK. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Vesper said:

I think they were mad as ass to not buy a couple players this summer

 (Origi, who is dregs, is literally their only real backup at all three front positions)

they have fuckall backup at

CF Origi

RW Origi (the utter pants Xherdan Shaqiri  has been basically banned from the club by herr Klopp since September. All year he has played 25 minutes, with half of that at the end of the Community Shield, Klopp did let him sit on the bench yesterday, lololol)

LW Origi

AMF they have ONE on the roster, the just back from injury meh 32yo-in-the-spring Lallana

DMF none  (and now Fabinho is toast for the next 10 or games)

LB literally no backup (emergency is washed-up 34yo-in 4 weeks MF Milner, roflmaooooooooo)

RB (if Gomez is playing CB, they have NO backup here as Clyne is out, perhaps for the season)

and only 3 quality CB's (and only 4 total on the roster, with one of them again being their main backup RB in Gomez)

 

that is INSANE that they didnt buy players this summer, pure madness, they knew they had around SIXTY to SEVENTY potential games this year (Super Cup, Community Shield, EPL regualr season, EFL Cup, FA Cup, FIFA World Club Championships, and  the CL)

IF Origi goes down, they have no backup wingers nor CF's

they now have no DMF (Fabinho injury)

they went ages with no AMF due to Lallana injury (and he is shit anyway)

now they have no backup at either fullback if Gomez is playing at CB (unless you count Milner, lololol, and if he is playing LB, that leaves you with a  total of FOUR CMF'ers (and one of those is basically semi-frozen out by Klopp in Naby Keita), NO DMF's and ONE ageing, just back from a long term injury pants AMF on the roster atm

 

ffs, I thought OUR board was cray

Victimpool is only a few key injuries away from a potentially massive implosion unlike anything I have ever seem (and have 13 games in 40 days, including basically 2 games in a 22 hour period on different CONTINENTS, so they have to split that already crazy thin squad into two)

 

Pool problem is finding good player who is willing to play backup. That is very difficult. 

Only City can spend 50/60 m on backup player. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Coming off a transfer ban and looking at how things develop at Chelsea (the new project seems to work really well), I'd say Frank Lampard is surely going to be backed in the transfer market. 

If Frank Lampard will ask for Mbappe and some other 150M player then I agree, maybe Marina G. will tell him to calm down, but if Lampard identifies like 4 players worth of 150-170M that he thinks he can turn into world class ones, I don't think Chelsea is going to have any problems providing the funds for him. 

Yeah forget the likes of mbappe etc, aint gonna happen. He is either RM or Barca bound. Lets hope the Club pulls through and show the desire and ambition to get to that next step, it may take a while but as long as we continue the right path its all good.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, petre.ispirescu said:

Coming off a transfer ban and looking at how things develop at Chelsea (the new project seems to work really well), I'd say Frank Lampard is surely going to be backed in the transfer market. 

If Frank Lampard will ask for Mbappe and some other 150M player then I agree, maybe Marina G. will tell him to calm down, but if Lampard identifies like 4 players worth of 150-170M that he thinks he can turn into world class ones, I don't think Chelsea is going to have any problems providing the funds for him. 

I think Lampard will be backed and likely in a way similar to how you've laid it out. 

If the ban is lifted for January I could see us possibly eyeing up an attacking player and thus paving the way for Giroud and Pedro to possibly leave. (Pedro may decide to stay until the end of the season but I think Giroud will be keen to move in January for football prior to the Euro's).

The big business will come in the summer though. I personally think the club will look at working on a budget of around £150m which is pretty much the Hazard and Morata funds and then selling off a few fringe players we may push closer to £200m if the right targets are available. I would be surprised if we went bigger than this, but you never know with Chelsea. When things seem to be getting reigned in we seem to go and pull something out of the bag unexpectedly and there is a lot of talk that Roman seems to be getting his mojo back watching a young, exciting team being developed under Lampard.

What will be more interesting beyond the transfer budget is the targets. With a plethora of young talent and a couple more either in the academy (Guehi, Gilmour, etc) or out on loan (Ampadu, Gallagher, etc), we don't really need to be adding to that unless the player looks top drawer already. The club could really benefit in my opinion from buying a couple of top targets at a prime age in their career (say 25-28) to really boost this group. It's whether the club would be prepared to spend, say £50-100m on a player that is 26, 27 years old and will not likely carry much sell on potential after our outlay. I can fully understand the philosophy behind the transfer policy in recent times and I'd rather usually work within those guidelines of identifying younger players with many more years ahead and/or a good resale value. However I feel this summer at least we're in an enviable position of being stacked with younger talent and a couple of prime additions to this group could elevate us enormously.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a lot after the match about the West Ham fans calling us 'rent boys' which always goes on to be fair. From my perspective, I don't care what the West Ham fans sing at us. I can understand that they were happy to beat us, and whilst it is a very over used word, it is banter. Is it really worth making such a fuss over? Do gay people really care? I don't know, I am happy to be put right on this and if it really is a big problem for us to call them pikeys and them to call us rent boys then ban it by all means, but I just can't feel any real anger about it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Football has gone fucking mad, and I mean off the scale bonkers. All this 'Can't call them pikys' and can't say 'rent boys' is all a load of fucking bollocks.

Banter is lost in the world now, too many fucking snowflakes about. As for Dan Levene, he's just a cunt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2019 at 7:06 PM, Tomo said:

I actually don't see the Liverpool comparison barring the fact we're a flawed team on the up. Liverpool were great in the big games but very so so against the lesser ones where we're the other way round, we tend to play with more patience and want to dominate possesion and the game.

If we're going to force a comparison with another big game in their early stages of development I would say we share a lot more comparisons to 16/17 City than Liverpool.

City was splashing the cash like mad so its nothing to compare here to begin with. 

Its true that Pool was better against big teams and worse against smaller, but their play was about attack which worked well due to a system and adaptable, smart manager despite them not having world class attackers. Their defence was a massive leakhole too. 

Lamps was like Klopp thrown into a disfunctional team and brought the most he can by playing football that relies on team work. 

While we use plenty of youth, Klopp relied on less proven, cheaper players and turned them into a stars. Similar, Lamps is doing it with Mount, Abraham,...

And in the end, like with Pool, we will have to 1. strenghten our back line, be smarter and 2. buy a top player or two to add extra quality.

Obviously there are differences but there are many many similarities.

City bought just everything they wanted, Pep didnt make stars, he bought those because he couldnt adapt like Lamps or Klopp did. Dude spent 100s of millions on CBs and with Laporte out, they are realy in bad shape not to mention they will again fork shitload of cash for replacement. Klopp adapted with the likes of Lovren and Matip. Lamps will adopt with whoever he gets too.

Literaly one similarity is the one you mentioned,  that being we and city both play good against worse sides and worse against good sides. But the way we are rebuilding, the manager ideology and adapting, financial output, importance of team work and belonging to the club is nothing like City. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Special Juan said:

Football has gone fucking mad, and I mean off the scale bonkers. All this 'Can't call them pikys' and can't say 'rent boys' is all a load of fucking bollocks.

Banter is lost in the world now, too many fucking snowflakes about. As for Dan Levene, he's just a cunt.

Fucking truth mate. 

Just watching some of recent movies or shows tells just how stupid all this went.

Comedies suck these days because everything funny is censored or offensive nowdays and all you have left is stupid corny lines that make you puke.

Imagine The Office being released today? Haha it would be torn apart. 

Not to mention they are forcing feminism, lgbt and races into every damn movie today. I always liked badass females and always will, while I never had anything against any community or race but the way movies portray that stuff nowdays makes these movies completely unwatchable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

I read a lot after the match about the West Ham fans calling us 'rent boys' which always goes on to be fair. From my perspective, I don't care what the West Ham fans sing at us. I can understand that they were happy to beat us, and whilst it is a very over used word, it is banter. Is it really worth making such a fuss over? Do gay people really care? I don't know, I am happy to be put right on this and if it really is a big problem for us to call them pikeys and them to call us rent boys then ban it by all means, but I just can't feel any real anger about it.

Totally agree FB and I'm not sure calling someone a rent boy is homophobic it is after all a male prostitute. What I can't fathom out is the genesis of it we certainly weren't called rent boys until recently. If they're talking about pedo rings they were everywhere in the 70's and 80's and if there was one in Chelsea well someone should tell them we play at Fulham Broadway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BlueLyon said:

City was splashing the cash like mad so its nothing to compare here to begin with. 

Its true that Pool was better against big teams and worse against smaller, but their play was about attack which worked well due to a system and adaptable, smart manager despite them not having world class attackers. Their defence was a massive leakhole too. 

Lamps was like Klopp thrown into a disfunctional team and brought the most he can by playing football that relies on team work. 

While we use plenty of youth, Klopp relied on less proven, cheaper players and turned them into a stars. Similar, Lamps is doing it with Mount, Abraham,...

And in the end, like with Pool, we will have to 1. strenghten our back line, be smarter and 2. buy a top player or two to add extra quality.

Obviously there are differences but there are many many similarities.

City bought just everything they wanted, Pep didnt make stars, he bought those because he couldnt adapt like Lamps or Klopp did. Dude spent 100s of millions on CBs and with Laporte out, they are realy in bad shape not to mention they will again fork shitload of cash for replacement. Klopp adapted with the likes of Lovren and Matip. Lamps will adopt with whoever he gets too.

Literaly one similarity is the one you mentioned,  that being we and city both play good against worse sides and worse against good sides. But the way we are rebuilding, the manager ideology and adapting, financial output, importance of team work and belonging to the club is nothing like City. 

What we spend next year is irrelevant in the context of the point I'm making.

I'm merely comparing to the style of play. We try to dominate games territorially the same way they do and like them in the first season under Pep we have and will drop points and probably "only" finish top four because we aren't ready in some areas. We likely won't spend the same amount of money (net) as they did which I probably why it will take a little longer to become a title challenging team but in terms of style of play we're a lot closer to them than Liverpool, infact I'd go as far as saying Klopp is actually close to what Jose adapting his tactics to suit the modern game would have looked like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Iggy Doonican said:

Totally agree FB and I'm not sure calling someone a rent boy is homophobic it is after all a male prostitute. What I can't fathom out is the genesis of it we certainly weren't called rent boys until recently. If they're talking about pedo rings they were everywhere in the 70's and 80's and if there was one in Chelsea well someone should tell them we play at Fulham Broadway.

Think it was because Earls Court was where you used to pick up boys, as done by MPs , Judges etc. Iggy I can remember us being called that late 1970s, so it's been around for a while. Early 80s it was sprayed round the back of the Shed. Seems funny now !

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Think it was because Earls Court was where you used to pick up boys, as done by MPs , Judges etc. Iggy I can remember us being called that late 1970s, so it's been around for a while. Early 80s it was sprayed round the back of the Shed. Seems funny now !

I do remember the Earls Court thing lot of gay boozers round there in the 70's but I've never heard Chelsea fans being called rent boys till recently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fulham Broadway said:

Think it was because Earls Court was where you used to pick up boys, as done by MPs , Judges etc. Iggy I can remember us being called that late 1970s, so it's been around for a while. Early 80s it was sprayed round the back of the Shed. Seems funny now !

And of course the mention of The Coleherne in hanging around.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...