Only because you happened to have a spell when Roman lost interest. You're right back into the player conveyor belt these days. Not as bad as City, admittedly, but that's not much of a boast.
Bluemoon goes into Meltdown
- Thread starter Logan!
- Start date
Only because you happened to have a spell when Roman lost interest. You're right back into the player conveyor belt these days. Not as bad as City, admittedly, but that's not much of a boast.
I'm not sure what the point is you're trying to make
I was answering his question.
You're making no sense.
The core of this Chelsea team has been there for a very long time.
We laugh at them but we have just had three pages of whether you can handle the ball in the D.How do you know he lost interest? Also how are we back on the conveyer belt? Eto a stop gap signing. A lot of our players have been there for years. Hell half the team were starters back in 05. We have a core of players, same as United, and additions tend to be made around them.
You've maintained a core better than City, with Cech-Terry-Cole-Lampard, but I'm talking about all the money spent on Crespo, Mutu, Parker, Veron, Robben, Geremi, Duff, Johnson, Bridge, Cole, Tiago, Kezman, Shevchenko, Ballack, SWP, Boulahrouz, Del Horno, Anelka, Deco, Zhirkov, Benayoun, Meireles, Moses, Ba...
And yes, I did have to Google that list because half of them did so little / lasted such a short time that it's hard to remember they were ever at Chelsea.
OK, just speculation, but there was a period from around 07 to 10 when you only spent about £80m in three seasons or something but...
You've spent about £340m in the last 3 or 4 seasons. I'd say you're back on it.
I don't know about losing interest, but there certainly was a period when Abramovich seriously limited spending. Was extra clear during 2006/07 when Chelsea really were struggling with injuries and very few defensive players, but he still wouldn't sanction signing new players.
Woah! Posted today? Looks like you're the lucky guy who saw it first! Well done man. I'm surprised you saw it so early.
wasnt me was posted in the 50K thread, just spreading the news
Has anyone heard the City radio advert advertising tickets for their home game against CSKA on Bonfire Night next week?
It's cringe, even for the Massives.
It's cringe, even for the Massives.
A lot of teams are beginning to do it. While I want to be smug about our attendances, I'm not sure this points to a lack of interest totally. There are financial factors at stake these days and fans will have to pick and choose which matches to go toHas anyone heard the City radio advert advertising tickets for their home game against CSKA on Bonfire Night next week?
It's cringe, even for the Massives.
Most of those teams aren't bragging about adding twenty thousand new seats to their unfillable stadium, though.
That's the club not the fans
That's true, United do it a bit, too. However, we don't advertise like the Berties do.
"Come along this Bonfire Night to see plenty of fireworks and fire-dancers before the explosive action on the pitch against CSKA."
The closing slogan is "THERE WILL BE FIREWORKS."
FixedThat's true, United do it a bit, too. However, we don't advertise like the Berties do.
"Come along this Bonfire Night to see plenty of fireworks and fire-dancers before the explosive action on the pitch against CSKA."
The closing slogan is "THERE WILL BE FIREWORKS." ( Joe Hart's in Goal!)
That is embarrassing
I've had the radio on since 9 o'clock and I've heard the advert now I'd say six times in total. I split my hole laughing every time.
They are the masters of cringe.
I've had the radio on since 9 o'clock and I've heard the advert now I'd say six times in total. I split my hole laughing every time.
They are the masters of cringe.
Fire dancers? feck that. hope it pisses down
"THERE WILL BE BLOOD FIREWORKS!1!!"
City are far more crude than we were/are, because You cant purely buy success and City are finding that out. They are never had a great team, even when they won the title the side was full of world class talent but not a great team. We had a great team in 04-08 that would have been more successful if it wasnt for United having an even greater one, and are hopefully molding another great one. We bought the right players, got in the right managers, and played with a lot more spirit and team ethic than City have ever shown.
Put simply we, like United are a trophy winning team with a winning mentality, City are not no matter how much they spend, and until they can combine money with the right team and balance they will continue to be also rans. Can you imagine Chelsea or United losing the fa cup final to Wigan for example?
Put simply we, like United are a trophy winning team with a winning mentality, City are not no matter how much they spend, and until they can combine money with the right team and balance they will continue to be also rans. Can you imagine Chelsea or United losing the fa cup final to Wigan for example?
We lost one to Everton.
and Southampton
This is the definition of irony, really. How are they far more crude? They've taken a very similar approach, they've actually been more patient than you lot were too. Stick City's full starting XI out and I don't think you can say they lack spirit or ethic.
You were managed by a world class manager since Roman took over and he laid the foundation of success. City's managerial choices haven't been too great, although Mancini was a success. That's the only difference between you two clubs.
Pellegrini is a good manager, but let's see how he does here.
We have had good managers, but we have alsohad a proper team, a team that has been there since 2003, the likes of Lampard, Terry, Cech, Drogba,Carvalho,Cole, Essein, and some before then.
With regards to the other point I think they do lack spirit and ethic, i've rarely seen the same kind of spirit and fight in City that I have in United and Chelsea and whilst they were good in 2011/12 they only really won the league by a monumental feck up on Uniteds part, a team that had far more team ethic and spirit, and they should really have had nothing to show but one FA cup for all their efforts.
If you're going to say you've had them there since 2003 surely you have to give City a similar amount of time to prove that they intend on keeping this group of players together?
What spirit are you talking about? The spirit/mentality to win games from behind? Dzeko helped do that a fair few times last year... City also fecked up the season they won the league, so it works both ways.
City didnt feck up in the same way though, they gradually lost their 5 point lead over the course of the season, United lost it in around 4 games. The ability to win tough away games, games when youre not playing well, they didnt always win or draw those.
The only games I can really remember anything like that was the 3-3 draw with Sunderland and the 2-1 win over us when we scored first. Thew only players I could see them keeping for that long are Kompany, Hart and maybe Zabaleta.
In fairness to City though if you're comparing since they got the Sheikh's money you've kind of contradictred yourself.
You say they didn't appoint good managers, the only 2 managers they've appointed are Mancini and Pellegrini, one you say was a success, the other you say is a good manager?
I think City's problem with team spirit did stem from Mancini when it went "wrong" to be fair, when they won the league it was a close unit, even when Tevez returned you could tell that, last season the wheels fell off and he did nothing to try and fix that, a better manager would of done something, he hang the players out to dry at times especially Hart.
If you're going to talk about players who have been at Chelsea since 2003 and wear it as a badge of honour it's probably wise to not include players who aren't there any more.
They were all part of the spine that became so successful. Only 2 aren't there anymore and one is a 35 year old striker who won and did just about everything he could do for us by signing off his account winning us the CL.
Anelka, Joe Cole and Ballack definitely shouldn't be in that list. They spent a substantial amount of time there, especially considering Anelka was a perennial journeyman, Chelsea is the club he played the most for in his career, and he did well. They couldn't have kept Ballack any longer really, as they snatched him in the twilight of his career, enjoying his best years. Joe Cole was great until he got knackered, but he was there for 7 years. I'd say he was a part of the core until he was released, as he was no longer good enough.
Right, so those two haven't been there since 2003 then, and therefore shouldn't be included in a list of players at Chelsea since 2003.
I'll concede Cole, and maybe Anelka... four seasons is certainly more than most of the rest, but it's still not that long and as you say he's the ultimate mercenary journeyman so isn't exactly out of place in the list.
Ballack, I'm actually surprised to find played four seasons... I'd have guessed two I reckon. For me, after Deco, Shevchenko and Crespo he's the ultimate example of Chelsea just picking up a big name player because they can, without actually bothering about whether he's going to help much.
I may keep this list open, as there's every chance of at least half the following joining it in the next couple of years:
Luiz, De Bruyne, Mata, Romeu, Marin, Schurrle, Willian, Eto'o, Torres (recent signs are he may dodge the list at the last minute, but jury is still out).
Players Chelsea have brought in since 03/04: Paulo Ferreira, Arjen Robben, Peter Cech, Scott Parker, Neil Sullivan, Claude Makelele, Hernan Crespo, Alexei Smertin, Adrian Mutu, Joe Cole, Juan Veron, Wayne Bridge, Damien Duff, Geremi, Glen Johnson, Craig Roscastle, Yves Makaba-Makalambay, Jiri Jarosik, Ricardo Carvalho, Didier Drogba, Tiago, Mateja Kezman, John Obi Mikel, Ben Sahar, Andrei Shevchenko, Salomon Kalou, Michael Ballack, Michael Essien, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Lassana Diarra, Scott Sinclair, Asier Del Horno, Claudio Pizarro, Steve Sidwell, Ashley Cole, Khalid Boulahrouz, Henrique Hilario, Franco Di Santo, Branislav Ivanovic, Nicolas Anelka, Juliano Belletti, Florent Malouda, Deco, Carlos De Silva Mineiro, Quaresma, Jose Bosingwa, Daniel Sturridge, Ross Turnbull, Yuri Zhirkov, Nemanja Matic ||| Yossi Benayoun, Ramires, Fernando Torres, David Luiz, Matej Delac, Thibaut Courtois, Oriol Romeu, Romelu Lukaku, Ulises Davila Plasencia, Juan Mata, Raul Meireles, Gary Cahill, Kevin De Bruyne, Patrick Bamford, Lucas Piazon, Marko Marin, Eden Hazard, Thorgan Hazard, Oscar, Cesar Azpiicueta, Victor Moses, Demba Ba, Wallace, Andre Schurlle, Marco van Ginkel, Mark Schwarzer, Cristian Cuevas, Samuel Eto'o, Willian, Christan Atsu.
That's 80 players. The players in bold are players that were involved in 5 seasons or more at the club (The ||| marks when it becomes impossible for this to have happened yet). The players in italics are players that are still there. The underlined players played 100+ games. So if we say a 'core' or 'spine' is made up of the players who were there for 5 seasons and played 100 games, that gives Chelsea a spine consisting of:
Paulo Ferreira - Nope. Became a bit-part player after three years there.
Petr Cech - I'd agree he's been part of the spine.
Claude Makelele - An integral part of the team for a long enough length of time to be considered part of a 'spine' or 'core'.
Hernan Crespo - Nope. Spent more time away on loan than he did at the club.
Joe Cole - Agree with. Spent 7 years there, left when he wasn't good enough anymore.
Wayne Bridge - Nope. Managed over 30 games just twice, was just cover for Cole after a couple of seasons.
Ricardo Carvalho - I'd say he was a core member of the squad. A fixture in the defence for a good few years, arguably let go a season early.
Didier Drogba - Was definitely a key figure up until he left, which was mainly due to his ability to keep his performances at the level they needed.
John Obi Mikel - Certainly been around for a while but he's by no means a central figure in the team.
Salomon Kalou - As with Mikel, stayed around for a while but was never a central figure.
Michael Essien - A key player for a few seasons so I'd agree he was part of the team's spine. Not so much anymore.
Ashley Cole - Key player for a number of years.
Branislav Ivanovic - Not really a key player but he's been a pretty consistent figure in the defence for a few seasons now so he qualifies.
Nicolas Anelka - Only actually spent 4 1/2 years there but covered 5 seasons. Not really a key figure and only had 3 seasons where he played a great deal.
Florent Malouda - Over 30 games a season for 5 straight years so I reckon he qualifies as being part of a core.
So out of 80 signings, only 9 look remotely like they were part of any sort of core. Two of those are Malouda and Ivanovic so I'm not really sure if they count, and only Cech and Cole really play for them anymore. Essien's apparently still on the books but his days are numbered, and I don't think Mikel is ever going to be a key player for them. Looking at the players who haven't had enough time to qualify as key players with my parameters, the only one who actually looks like he might become part of one is David Luiz and there were rumours he was off in the summer. You could argue the case for Oscar as well. Mata looked a certainty until Mourinho came back and I wouldn't be surprised to see him leaving soon, Torres has been so hit and miss he'll never be part of one, and the rest just haven't been there long enough to judge properly. I think it's certainly fair to say that Chelsea have a bit of a revolving door policy when it comes to players as well as managers.
Not that this has anything to do with the fecking thread.
That's 80 players. The players in bold are players that were involved in 5 seasons or more at the club (The ||| marks when it becomes impossible for this to have happened yet). The players in italics are players that are still there. The underlined players played 100+ games. So if we say a 'core' or 'spine' is made up of the players who were there for 5 seasons and played 100 games, that gives Chelsea a spine consisting of:
Paulo Ferreira - Nope. Became a bit-part player after three years there.
Petr Cech - I'd agree he's been part of the spine.
Claude Makelele - An integral part of the team for a long enough length of time to be considered part of a 'spine' or 'core'.
Hernan Crespo - Nope. Spent more time away on loan than he did at the club.
Joe Cole - Agree with. Spent 7 years there, left when he wasn't good enough anymore.
Wayne Bridge - Nope. Managed over 30 games just twice, was just cover for Cole after a couple of seasons.
Ricardo Carvalho - I'd say he was a core member of the squad. A fixture in the defence for a good few years, arguably let go a season early.
Didier Drogba - Was definitely a key figure up until he left, which was mainly due to his ability to keep his performances at the level they needed.
John Obi Mikel - Certainly been around for a while but he's by no means a central figure in the team.
Salomon Kalou - As with Mikel, stayed around for a while but was never a central figure.
Michael Essien - A key player for a few seasons so I'd agree he was part of the team's spine. Not so much anymore.
Ashley Cole - Key player for a number of years.
Branislav Ivanovic - Not really a key player but he's been a pretty consistent figure in the defence for a few seasons now so he qualifies.
Nicolas Anelka - Only actually spent 4 1/2 years there but covered 5 seasons. Not really a key figure and only had 3 seasons where he played a great deal.
Florent Malouda - Over 30 games a season for 5 straight years so I reckon he qualifies as being part of a core.
So out of 80 signings, only 9 look remotely like they were part of any sort of core. Two of those are Malouda and Ivanovic so I'm not really sure if they count, and only Cech and Cole really play for them anymore. Essien's apparently still on the books but his days are numbered, and I don't think Mikel is ever going to be a key player for them. Looking at the players who haven't had enough time to qualify as key players with my parameters, the only one who actually looks like he might become part of one is David Luiz and there were rumours he was off in the summer. You could argue the case for Oscar as well. Mata looked a certainty until Mourinho came back and I wouldn't be surprised to see him leaving soon, Torres has been so hit and miss he'll never be part of one, and the rest just haven't been there long enough to judge properly. I think it's certainly fair to say that Chelsea have a bit of a revolving door policy when it comes to players as well as managers.
Not that this has anything to do with the fecking thread.