I agree with all of that, I was just using the example to point out that club size is well down on the list on reason's why players chose clubs. If that was even a secondary factor they'd have been a que of top talent wanting to go Milan this past decade.
Chelsea 2020/21 - General discussion
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
So you just reiterate my point, which is that the role of a manger goes beyond team selection? Even beyond that, I am of the opinion that a manager should tailor his starting XI to the opposition to give his team the best chance of winning. I wouldn't want to use the same tactics against Burnley and Wolves. Or Arsenal and Sheffield United. Lampard selecting the same teams for those fixtures is a point against him. Also, how could I have known he'd make these dumb selections as they hadn't happened yet?
And re: Villa, we absolutely could have played Emerson there given that Villa disproportionately attack down their left via Grealish - Azpi being a more conservative fullback there makes sense. We also could have played, I dunno, Havertz as the right sided 8 instead of Kante, we could have played Werner down the middle, we could have played Zouma instead of that absolute muppet Christensen, etc. I think Lampard has been very fortunate to escape criticism for his selection as it seems our players emerged unscathed - Pulisic and Kante in particular have had troublesome hamstrings over the past 2 years so playing both of them was mind-bogglingly stupid.
You never made such a point (check quotes below), in fact you are the one who blamed the team selection as excuse. In fact I was the one who tried to tell you the issue isn't just the team selection. All those man management and tactic you were so excited, overrated & you thought were positive before were actually the problem. You chatted shits when you praised them, his man management & tactic are and were this whole season are the problems. It worked against the lesser teams, congrats.
Your inability to understand nuance is frankly staggering. Apparently I'm only allowed to praise Lampard's recruitment and work to integrate youth if I'm 100% on board with his team selection. Of course I'm still happy with Lampard's man management and tactics as a whole; the only thing I said was that if he keeps doing stupid shit with his team selections then his position will be questioned. It seems like this is somehow controversial for those that support a manager blindly. Couldn't be me.
The problem wasn't just his team selection, it goes beyond just team selection. It's his man management and tactics mate. This is your inability to understand.
What a quality post, deserves an award.
Your argument boils down to "blindly support your manager even when he does dumb things" so I'm not sure I'd be talking about quality posting if I were you.
@UNITED ACADEMY & @TheMagicFoolBus be nice, it's the new year.
“FRANK LAMPARD is statistically Chelsea's joint-worst Premier League manager since Roman Abramovich bought the club.
His current points-per-game (PPG) record of 1.70 is matched only by Andre Villas-Boas at the bottom of the pile.”
That doesn’t make good reading.
His current points-per-game (PPG) record of 1.70 is matched only by Andre Villas-Boas at the bottom of the pile.”
That doesn’t make good reading.
Lampard just announced that 2 staff (not players) have tested positive for Covid but the game on Sunday is going ahead as far as he knows.
I'm not sure that is fair considering COVID's impact on the last 2 seasons.
Or get a room
It’s always tough to have proper discussion with someone who don’t read like you. Let me make it clear so you know what’s my argument was; I was arguing the fact you were the ones who hyped his tactic and his man management a month ago but all of sudden based on 5 games you have doubt in him due to his team selection which part of his tactic and man management.
We spent the most in European football. How does the impact of Covid affect Lampard building the team?
I'm saying that the last season and this one, performances have been adversely impacted by the fixture congestion due to COVID, such that comparing points obtained in this period with points obtained BC* is flawed.
Of course he still has to make top 4 as a minimum requirement.
*BC: before COVID
Truth is, no one chooses to go to Chelsea because it’s “Chelsea”. Players only go for chequebooks. Havertz is another example of chasing the money where the more sensible option would have been Bayern.
Such a silly post. Who the feck even has a chequebook nowadays.
You surely don’t believe a player wants to come for any other reason other than money? It’s the same for City and Chelsea. What other reason would they have? The history and tradition is non existent.
That's an incredibly silly thing to believe if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.
Why are you paying De Gea £300K+ a week? Why are you paying Rashford £200K+ a week? Why are you paying Maguire £190K per week? Because if you didn't they'd tell you to feck off and go and play for Man City. Money talks and Manchester United know they still have to pay big money, regardless of their storied history. Rooney and Rio were a cnut hair away from moving to Chelsea if you didn't cough up the big money.
And Chelsea have been at the top table of European football for nearly two decades anyway. You think a 25 year old player really cares what happened in the 1960s? Come on.
Easier way to look at it. If a player is getting offered 250k a week by Utd, Chelsea and City. He picks Utd more often than not. Utd is the bigger club regardless of anything else.
Sure, Man United is bigger of course.
The idea that players only join Chelsea of Man City for money is dumb. If Man United didn't offer big money, no decent players would go there.
Why?
A player will most likely choose to go where he will win trophies. I would assume that if a player was offered the same terms at Man Utd, City and Chelsea, Utd would be last in that decision making process.
Nice faux arrogance though. Wait until you’re winning trophies before starting that.
Most players in their 20's these days have grown up seeing Chelsea, Utd and City winning a lot in England, and being the most successful. They dont give a monkeys about what happened in the 60s and 70s and 80s, really.
The only club who i would genuinely accept can probably win almost all "where does he go?" arguments because of who they are and their size, is Real Madrid. Soon as they come knocking, the player is off. Or at least wants to
The only club who i would genuinely accept can probably win almost all "where does he go?" arguments because of who they are and their size, is Real Madrid. Soon as they come knocking, the player is off. Or at least wants to
Well you know what they say about assumptions
Seriously though a Chelsea fan calling out someone's arrogance after saying a player would pick Chelsea over United?
What a load of nonsense
Some players might want to turn out each week infront of 75+k people too.
Not at Stamford Bridge. Might aswel play at Villa Park.
It dont work like that, otherwise its like saying if Sunderland and Leicester offered a player a contract he'd only pick Leicester because they offered him more money. Sunderland are historically a bigger club and won more trophies. Its a nonsense argument, overall. The only club i could hand on heart say would be chosen because of who they are, is Real Madrid
you must be in cuckoo land mate. You say a player will go where he’ll most likely win trophies. How likely are Chelsea to win a trophy having spent a shit load? Manager on the brink of the sack and big money signings looking like failures. Defo be first choice to go Chelsea
Some big games coming up for them with City and Leicester in the next 3. Lose to City and I think that would be them completely done for the title if not already, but losing both (or even dropping points in both) would likely see a bit of a gap open up between them and 4th which might be terminal for Frank.
Last season when they needed a decent result in the league they usually got it and they’re going to need to get their act together pretty quickly, they could easily be net 8th once a few more games in hand are played.
Last season when they needed a decent result in the league they usually got it and they’re going to need to get their act together pretty quickly, they could easily be net 8th once a few more games in hand are played.
Doesn’t Chelsea’s record under Abramovic speak for itself though? Even if Lampard gets the sack, you know their next trophy is just around the corner. They never go long without winning something. They won the Europa League in 2019. They won the league in 2017.you must be in cuckoo land mate. You say a player will go where he’ll most likely win trophies. How likely are Chelsea to win a trophy having spent a shit load? Manager on the brink of the sack and big money signings looking like failures. Defo be first choice to go Chelsea
United haven’t gone into the final five games of a season still in the title conversation since Ferguson retired.
Complete nonsense. Over the past two seasons, we are the side making the most progress. On the steepest upward trajectory if you like. Then, add to that the fact that we are bigger than City and Chelsea combined (not arrogance, it’s true), our worldwide fan base and massive 75,000 seater stadium where they can strut their stuff every fortnight.
Even if we’re not first place though, at least City have the Pep factor and two very recent titles. What do you lot have over either club? Seriously, I’m not sure.
We both wanted Kante (and he was on around 120-140k during his first contract with us so let's skip the bit where you pretend you wouldn't have at the very least matched it) so if this is all players care about why didn't you get him?
No Chelsea fan either on here or elsewhere denies you're the bigger club (which makes you and others coming on this thread uptight about it all the more strange).
Answer me this, if club size and history were the primary or even secondary thoughts in a players mind when picking a new club then why hasn't top talent been queing up to go to AC Milan this past decade? In terms of historical pedigree (especially in Europe) only Madrid can top them, so if history/size is what players care about surely some would have gone there even recently, no?
Chelsea have won two league titles since United put up a challenge let alone won one.
Also your two year upward trajectory has a fair few Ole out holes in it. A couple of months ago you were losing 1-0 at home to Arsenal and you’ve been flirting with the idea of sacking him for ages now. A few bad results and you’re back there again.
Chelsea can at least point to their trophy success regardless of who is managing them. They went from 10th in 2016 to 1st in 2017 and had three different managers across those two seasons.
Yeah, but it is still the steepest upward trajectory of the three teams since last season began. No doubt about that, no? Also, I know Chelsea has won two titles recently, but I doubt players making a decision on where to go would take that into account. After all, only Azpilicueta and Kante remain from the most recent Chelsea title-winning team.
Yeah I’d say so but United have been so badly run previously on the pitch. You’d reached a fairly low point when Mourinho was sacked.
If we’re talking about finances United are still a powerhouse but on the pitch there’s some work to be done to get you back where you were In terms of reputation. If you do win the league this season then that’s a huge statement.
Chelsea are still an attractive prospect for players and in the same bracket as United currently imo.
Thats a fair question, but we are still arguably the most, or 2nd most successful club in England since the year 2000 say. Give or take. Most of the top European players in the current era will have grown up, or mainly noticed seeing City, Chelsea, Utd winning most of the trophies in England, and to an extent Europe.
So prospective signings do find us more attractive than City, Utd or Liverpool in some instances.
Like i said in another post there is only one club in Europe who could claim that players choose them simply for who they are, and almost all players would choose them given the option - and that is Real Madrid
The Milan example is very good. Only Madrid can geuninely say a player would pick them over anyone else, most of the time, if not all - I put an example earlier using their logic which is this, given that history and club size mean so much.....
Most players would pick Sunderland over Leicester City, unless Leicester offered more money.....? Mackems have more history and honours. bigger stadium too, i think - OR does the player think "Leicester havent long won the league, i couldnt care a toss what Sunderland won in the 60s; 70s; 80s whatever, theyll pay me more and arguably a better place to live. Yep, ill go there"
Last edited:
Alot of small dick energy on both side of the arguments in this thread.
Imo, if we take all factors into account as I detailed a few posts ago, we are still slightly more attractive than Chelsea. However, it’s of course true that Chelsea are a big club too and have won trophies recently. Obviously, factors like who the player supports has to be taken into account too.
Plus the location factor. It does seem to matter to some.
It's a perfectly fine place but let's be honest, it's not a selling point the way London is