Chelsea 2020/21 - General discussion

[duffer]

Frank: 225m euro net spent
Ole: 205m euro net spent

Net spend? That's a different conversation.

Either way, can you agree they've spent (or net spent!) a pretty similar figure? About a 10% difference however it is spun.

The idea that "Ole can only dream of getting that kind of support in the transfer market" is ridiculous.

As for Arsenal, they spent 200 odd million over the past 2 seasons as well.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Net spend? That's a different conversation.

Either way, can you agree they've spent (or net spent!) a pretty similar figure? About a 10% difference however it is spun.

The idea that "Ole can only dream of getting that kind of support in the transfer market" is ridiculous.

As for Arsenal, they spent 200 odd million over the past 2 seasons as well.

No! Net spend is very relevant in this conversation because if you lost players from first team squad for example Lukaku and etc, the squad‘s quality is also reduced so it makes sense the manager requires more money or more support in transfer market not just to fix the existing problem but also to replace the players he just lost.

And remember, in 18/19 we finished 6th with zero trophy means there were much more problems to fix compared to what Lampard had when Sarri finished 3rd and won EL. More problem requires more ‘’support in the transfer market’.

 

[duffer]

No! Net spend is very relevant in this conversation because if you lost players from first team squad for example Lukaku and etc, the squad‘s quality is also reduced so it makes sense the manager requires more money or more support in transfer market not just to fix the existing problem but also to replace the players he just lost.

And remember, in 18/19 we finished 6th with zero trophy means there were much more problems to fix compared to what Lampard had when Sarri finished 3rd and won EL. More problem requires more ‘’support in the transfer market’.

This is the first time net spent has been brought up in this conversation, and it only has now because someone was wrong about the actual outlay.

They've spent about the same. To say "one had support the other can only dream of" is ridiculous to the point of parody.

Ole is doing incredibly well at the moment, I don't know why there is a need for all the mental gymnastics to make it seem like he did it without being heavily backed by his club.

 

[FortBoyard]

Lads let's not have a net spend discussion, please.

 

[duffer]

Lads let's not have a net spend discussion, please.

It's the footballing equivalent of Godwin's law.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

This is the first time net spent has been brought up in this conversation, and it only has now because someone was wrong about the actual outlay.

They've spent about the same. To say "one had support the other can only dream of" is ridiculous to the point of parody.

Ole is doing incredibly well at the moment, I don't know why there is a need for all the mental gymnastics to make it seem like he did it without being heavily backed by his club.

I never argue about Ole isn’t backed. I was arguing how you are very wrong saying ‘’Ole spent more than Frank’’ instead of calling it the same. And after I showed the number, now you changed it to ‘’they‘ve spent about the same’’.

Net spent is part of money spending from the budget that was given. Ole probably wouldn’t have Bruno‘s money without selling Lukaku first means if we keep Lukaku, we might not sign Bruno in January.

 

[duffer]

I never argue about Ole isn’t backed. I was arguing how you are very wrong saying Ole spent more money than Lampard instead of calling it the same and after I showed the number, now you changed it to ‘’they‘ve spent about the same’’.

Net spent is part of money spending from the budget that was given. Ole probably wouldn’t have Bruno‘s money without selling Lukaku first means if we keep Lukaku, we might not sign Bruno in January.

Ole has spent more than Lampard, that's just a fact.

Ole has also sold more than Lampard, that's a different fact and not what me and that other chap were talking about.

The phrase "Ole can only dream of the backing Lampard had had," is what caught my eye.

If you want a discussion on net spend, that's fine as there's surely a lot of people interested in that, I'm just not one of them.

 

[Dancfc]

No! Net spend is very relevant in this conversation because if you lost players from first team squad for example Lukaku and etc, the squad‘s quality is also reduced so it makes sense the manager requires more money or more support in transfer market not just to fix the existing problem but also to replace the players he just lost.

And remember, in 18/19 we finished 6th with zero trophy means there were much more problems to fix compared to what Lampard had when Sarri finished 3rd and won EL. More problem requires more ‘’support in the transfer market’.

Yeah, then we lost the player that single handedly dragged us to that 3rd place. In the two years upto Lamps taking over we effectively lost 5 world class player's, 3 to sales (Costa, Eden, Courtois) and 2 to decline (Kante, Azpi). People were hysterically laughing at the lineup we rolled out at OT for Frank's first game and didn't give us a prayer of Europe let alone top 4.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Ole has spent more than Lampard, that's just a fact.

Ole has also sold more than Lampard, that's a different fact and not what me and that other chap were talking about.

The phrase "Ole can only dream of the backing Lampard had had," is what caught my eye.

If you want a discussion on net spend, that's fine as there's surely a lot of people interested in that, I'm just not one of them.

Ole spent more, Ole spent about the same, and now Ole has spent more. Make up your mind mate!!

The post that I replied was this (below):

Ole has spent more than Frank.

The phrase "Ole can only dream of the backing Lampard had," is not my problem, it's your problem with the other poster. My problem is that you made false claim which I gave you the number already to correct you and it's fact. You got problem with that then you got problem with fact.

Frank: 225m euro net spent
Ole: 205m euro net spent

 

[duffer]

Ole spent more, Ole spent about the same, and now Ole has spent more. Make up your mind mate!!

The post that I replied was this (below):


The phrase "Ole can only dream of the backing Lampard had," is not my problem, it's your problem with the other poster. My problem is that you made false claim which I gave you the number already to correct you and it's fact. You got problem with that then you got problem with fact.

I am not talking about net spend. You know that. Goodbye.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

I am not talking about net spend. You know that. Goodbye.

This is you or your brother?

Ole has spent more than Frank.

 

[duffer]

You are talking about spending and net spent is spending.

Spending is spending.

Sales are sales.

Net spend is the difference between the two.

Three different things. Glad to clear that up for you.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Spending is spending.

Sales are sales.

Net spend is the difference between the two.

Three different things. Glad to clear that up for you.

It's called net ''spent'' not net ''sales'' for a reason. It's not different thing because money doesn't come out from out of nowhere, Ole wouldn't have that extra 70m to spent without selling Lukaku first.

Ole spent more or Ole spent about the same? Make up your mind mate!!

 

[duffer]

It's called net ''spent'' not net ''sales'' for a reason. It's not different thing because money doesn't come out from out of nowhere, Ole wouldn't have that extra 70m to spent without selling Lukaku first.

The money for spending comes from a variety of different places, not just player sales. TV money, prize money, sponsorship, investment from owners, etc.

Net spend is an interesting thing, it's just not the topic here, or at least it wasn't until you butted in and tried to change the conversation.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Yeah, then we lost the player that single handedly dragged us to that 3rd place. In the two years upto Lamps taking over we effectively lost 5 world class player's, 3 to sales (Costa, Eden, Courtois) and 2 to decline (Kante, Azpi). People were hysterically laughing at the lineup we rolled out at OT for Frank's first game and didn't give us a prayer of Europe let alone top 4.

I could make the same case that Ole lost Herrera who was part of his starting XI in 18/19.

Either way, you finished 3rd & won EL under Sarri without Costa & Courtois. What you lost was Hazard and you signed young talented winger when you lost him. Ole needed to wait in January to sign Lukaku's replacement Ighalo on loan and waited another summer to finally sign Cavani.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

The money for spending comes from a variety of different places, not just player sales. TV money, prize money, sponsorship, investment from owners, etc.

Net spend is an interesting thing, it's just not the topic here, or at least it wasn't until you butted in and tried to change the conversation.

And Ole wouldn't have that extra 70m to spent without selling Lukaku first. I didn't try to change the conversation because I was never in it with your discussion, I'm correcting your false claim, that's all.

Don't act like you don't understand, the fact that you changed from Ole spent more to Ole spent about the same shows your inconsistency within the claim you made.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Has there ever been any evidence that this was true or is it just something people like to say to avoid giving Grant credit? I mean, it’s pretty weird that Lampard was a better manager as an unqualified 29 year old than he is now.

It also makes Mourinho look like a bit of a fraud. If that team was capable of managing itself to marginally losing the two biggest trophies to the best Manchester United side of all time, what the hell was he doing between 2004 and 2007?

Point is he wasn't on his own at age 29, there was an existing hierarchy within the club of international captains capable of managing themselves more or less. Also it does the opposite of making Mourinho seem a fraud - if anything it's huge credit to him that the structure he built and implemented was able to persist long after he went.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I could make the same case that Ole lost Herrera who was part of his starting XI in 18/19.

Either way, you finished 3rd & won EL under Sarri without Costa & Courtois. What you lost was Hazard and you signed young talented winger when you lost him. Ole needed to wait in January to sign Lukaku's replacement Ighalo on loan and waited another summer to finally sign Cavani.

Comparing losing Herrera to losing Hazard

Also Lukaku's replacement was very obviously Martial and not Ighalo. Or are you actually asking whether the drop off from Hazard to an acclimatising and not fully fit Pulisic is smaller than that between Lukaku in 18/19 to Martial in 19/20? If anything Martial was better last year for you than Lukaku was 2 years ago.

 

[Dancfc]

Point is he wasn't on his own at age 29, there was an existing hierarchy within the club of international captains capable of managing themselves more or less. Also it does the opposite of making Mourinho seem a fraud - if anything it's huge credit to him that the structure he built and implemented was able to persist long after he went.

I'm convinced Ten Cate was incharge in all but name for a couple of reasons.

1. Why else would he have left his job as #1 at Ajax? Who ditches a manager role to become a #2? Managers don't leave lower league jobs to become assistants at top clubs let alone leaving a big club like Ajax.

2. The football played after his arrival improved hugely.

Sounds far fetched but I wonder if the board quickly realised Avram was so hilariously out of his depth even after only a few games and this was some sort of middle ground so Roman didn't have to humiliate his mate and his football club didn't dive down the league, the timing of Ten Cate's arrival (totally out of the blue a month or so into Avram's tenure) was strange.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

I'm convinced Ten Cate was incharge in all but name for a couple of reasons.

1. Why else would he have left his job as #1 at Ajax? Who ditches a manager role to become a #2? Managers don't leave lower league jobs to become assistants at top clubs let alone leaving a big club like Ajax.

2. The football played after his arrival improved hugely.

Sounds far fetched but I wonder if the board quickly realised Avram was so hilariously out of his depth even after only a few games and this was some sort of middle ground so Roman didn't have to humiliate his mate and his football club didn't dive down the league, the timing of Ten Cate's arrival (totally out of the blue a month or so into Avram's tenure) was strange.

Yeah this is a good point. Certainly would make sense.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Comparing losing Herrera to losing Hazard

Where did I compare losing Herrera to losing Hazard?

Also Lukaku's replacement was very obviously Martial and not Ighalo. Or are you actually asking whether the drop off from Hazard to an acclimatising and not fully fit Pulisic is smaller than that between Lukaku in 18/19 to Martial in 19/20? If anything Martial was better last year for you than Lukaku was 2 years ago.

Martial was part of 18/19 squad, he wasn't new signing while Lukaku was United 2nd top scorer in 18/19. The point is United lost goal scorer without adding a new one until January Bruno & Ighalo. What Martial did in 19/20 is irrelevant to the point & discussion, it only tells you good coaching and man management from the manager to improve Martial as player which not something we are discussing.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Where did I compare losing Herrera to losing Hazard?

You responded to @Dancfc 's post about us losing Hazard, who scored or assisted half our goals, by pointing out that you'd also lost Herrera, a functional player who is entirely average.

Martial was part of 18/19 squad, he wasn't new signing while Lukaku was United 2nd top scorer in 18/19. The point is United lost goal scorer without adding a new one until January Bruno & Ighalo. What Martial did in 19/20 is irrelevant to the point & discussion, it only tells you good coaching and man management from the manager to improve Martial as player which not something we are discussing.

So every time you sell a player you need to sign one? If you have a replacement within the squad who can perform to a similar if not higher level, then complaining about not signing someone is just silly. Again you dodged the question - do you honestly think the drop-off from 18/19 Hazard to 19/20 Pulisic is smaller than that between 18/19 Lukaku to 19/20 Martial?

 

[Knux]

Chelsea Will be lurking around 5-6th place this season imo but fully expect them to grab a CL spot before the season is over. It Will be tight though.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

You responded to @Dancfc 's post about us losing Hazard, who scored or assisted half our goals, by pointing out that you'd also lost Herrera, a functional player who is entirely average.



So every time you sell a player you need to sign one? If you have a replacement within the squad who can perform to a similar if not higher level, then complaining about not signing someone is just silly. Again you dodged the question - do you honestly think the drop-off from 18/19 Hazard to 19/20 Pulisic is smaller than that between 18/19 Lukaku to 19/20 Martial?

@Dancfc wasn't just talking about losing Hazard though in his post that I replied. May be you should read both conversation first before guessing so you understand what is the Herrera thing I refer to.

If a team that finished 6th lost their your 2nd top scorer, it makes sense to actually add another goal scorer in the team.

I didn't avoid the question, I already gave you the answer, irrelevant to the topic.
How do you know that if Hazard stays at Chelsea in 19/20 wouldn't perform the same as Pulisic 19/20 or worse? The same with Martial & Lukaku. How do you know if Lukaku 19/20 wouldn't perform the same as Martial 19/20 if Lukaku stays at United?

If Hazard stays in 19/20, he could easily be considered as deadwood last season and Pulisic would have been considered as good replacement of Hazard's position and creativity in 19/20 while last season Abraham would have been considered as replacement Hazard's 18/19 goals product since he scored about the same amount.

''Pulisic'', Abraham and Martial improvement have to be given credit to manager's coaching and man management which not something we are discussing right now.

 

[renandstimpyfan83]

I'm convinced Ten Cate was incharge in all but name for a couple of reasons.

1. Why else would he have left his job as #1 at Ajax? Who ditches a manager role to become a #2? Managers don't leave lower league jobs to become assistants at top clubs let alone leaving a big club like Ajax.

2. The football played after his arrival improved hugely.

Sounds far fetched but I wonder if the board quickly realised Avram was so hilariously out of his depth even after only a few games and this was some sort of middle ground so Roman didn't have to humiliate his mate and his football club didn't dive down the league, the timing of Ten Cate's arrival (totally out of the blue a month or so into Avram's tenure) was strange.

Definitely sounds more likely than “the team managing itself”. Also explains why those same players didn’t step up when Scolari was stinking up the joint yet were able to win the double a year later with Ancelotti. Relying on the strength of the squad will enable you to get by when you have the quality of Chelsea between 2004 and 2012 but to have the best record in the league over 30 games and reach a Champions League final takes at least some tactical ability and managerial leadership.

 

[Djemba-Djemba]

Look spending or net spending whatever.

We can all agree Ole finished above Lampard last season, and he's doing much much better than him this season.

That clears it all up I'd say.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

@Dancfc wasn't just talking about losing Hazard though in his post that I replied. May be you should read both conversation first before guessing so you understand what is the Herrera thing I refer to.

If a team that finished 6th lost their your 2nd top scorer, it makes sense to actually add another goal scorer in the team.

I didn't avoid the question, I already gave you the answer, irrelevant to the topic.
How do you know that if Hazard stays at Chelsea in 19/20 wouldn't perform the same as Pulisic 19/20 or worse? The same with Martial & Lukaku. How do you know if Lukaku 19/20 wouldn't perform the same as Martial 19/20 if Lukaku stays at United?

If Hazard stays in 19/20, he could easily be considered as deadwood last season and Pulisic would have been considered as good replacement of Hazard's position and creativity in 19/20 while last season Abraham would have been considered as replacement Hazard's 18/19 goals product since he scored about the same amount.

''Pulisic'', Abraham and Martial improvement have to be given credit to manager's coaching and man management which not something we are discussing right now.

So you then think Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of Hazard, Costa, Courtois, Kante, and Azpilicueta? Not much better there, mate.

In terms of goal scorers, you went from Lukaku / Sanchez to Martial / Greenwood. Seems like a clear upgrade to me.

And your answer is of course a dodge. I'm not even talking about hypotheticals; with both seasons complete you can just look at their outputs. The incomprehensible scenario you've dreamed up has nothing to do with it. So I'll ask again - do you think the gap between Hazard in 18/19 and Pulisic in 19/20 is smaller than that of Lukaku in 18/19 and Martial in 19/20? It's a simple question.

 

[Dancfc]

Look spending or net spending whatever.

We can all agree Ole finished above Lampard last season, and he's doing much much better than him this season.

That clears it all up I'd say.

There's no argument he's doing better this season but last Lampard did the better job. Transfer ban and loses his gamechanger vs around £200m spent, should have been a mismatch on paper yet Ole needed GD to get above us.

As much as the next stage of the job looks sadly beyond him, i'll always defend his work last season.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Definitely sounds more likely than “the team managing itself”. Also explains why those same players didn’t step up when Scolari was stinking up the joint yet were able to win the double a year later with Ancelotti. Relying on the strength of the squad will enable you to get by when you have the quality of Chelsea between 2004 and 2012 but to have the best record in the league over 30 games and reach a Champions League final takes at least some tactical ability and managerial leadership.

The issue with Scolari was in his team selection - he essentially ousted Drogba for no real reason whilst crowbarring Deco into the midfield. It's the same thing that happened to AVB - both tried to kick out the senior players abruptly and without proper justification and were ultimately undermined & ignored.

 

[Bilbo]

Net spend. Total spend. Doesnt really matter. Our teams were neck and neck in the league last season. Then one team added a number of first team players, some of whom looked to be clear upgrades, while another added squad depth only. That can of course go either way.

The expectation was that Chelsea's business would help them kick on and go clear of United, but it hasn't happened that way yet so of course rival fans are going to perceive that Lampard is struggling a bit.

 

[Dancfc]

The issue with Scolari was in his team selection - he essentially ousted Drogba for no real reason whilst crowbarring Deco into the midfield. It's the same thing that happened to AVB - both tried to kick out the senior players abruptly and without proper justification and were ultimately undermined & ignored.

To Scolari's credit the first two month's we played some breathtaking football with Anelka leading the line (also Drogba was very unsure about his long term commitment to us at that point). Scolari's issue came post Liverpool when Rafa showed the world the way to stop us (pin back the fullbacks and press the shit out of Mikel) to which everyone else followed that blueprint and he had no plan B.

 

[duffer]

Look spending or net spending whatever.

We can all agree Ole finished above Lampard last season, and he's doing much much better than him this season.

That clears it all up I'd say.

If Lampard had as much financial backing Ole was given, it'd would be a different story.

White text of course.

 

[Kentonio]

Isn’t there already an annoying Ole vs Lampard thread somewhere where people can fight over this nonsense without polluting the club thread?

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

So you then think Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of Hazard, Costa, Courtois, Kante, and Azpilicueta? Not much better there, mate.

When did I say Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of those? Although, calling those players world class is debatable but that's another different discussion.

In terms of goal scorers, you went from Lukaku / Sanchez to Martial / Greenwood. Seems like a clear upgrade to me.

Upgrade? Both Martial & Greenwood were in 18/19 squad.

And your answer is of course a dodge. I'm not even talking about hypotheticals; with both seasons complete you can just look at their outputs. The incomprehensible scenario you've dreamed up has nothing to do with it. So I'll ask again - do you think the gap between Hazard in 18/19 and Pulisic in 19/20 is smaller than that of Lukaku in 18/19 and Martial in 19/20? It's a simple question.

No. What was your point?

 

[charlenefan]

There's no argument he's doing better this season but last Lampard did the better job. Transfer ban and loses his gamechanger vs around £200m spent, should have been a mismatch on paper yet Ole needed GD to get above us.

As much as the next stage of the job looks sadly beyond him, i'll always defend his work last season.

Isn't this season with Lampard proving that spending tons of money is moot if you can't get those players to perform? Ole took a team that finished 6th to 3rd, making 3 SF's having sold our only consistent 20+ goal a season striker taking a punt on Martial to replace him. Lampard took a team that finish 3rd to 4th having lost Hazard taking a punt in Pulisic to replace him (which was a transfer in regardless) and made one cup final

Ole did a better job last season and is doing a much better job thus far this. Obviously plenty of time left in this season for it all to go wrong for us and Lampard to turn it around for Chelsea but no Lampard didn't do a better job last season

 

[Dancfc]

Isn't this season with Lampard proving that spending tons of money is moot if you can't get those players to perform? Ole took a team that finished 6th to 3rd, making 3 SF's having sold our only consistent 20+ goal a season striker taking a punt on Martial to replace him. Lampard took a team that finish 3rd to 4th having lost Hazard taking a punt in Pulisic to replace him (which was a transfer in regardless) and made one cup final

Ole did a better job last season and is doing a much better job thus far this. Obviously plenty of time left in this season for it all to go wrong for us and Lampard to turn it around for Chelsea but no Lampard didn't do a better job last season

And Ole didn't improve your points tally from the previous season despite the money spent, if Lampard finishes level with Leicester or Arsenal on same number of points (regardless of whether he jumps positions) as last after this summer's outlay would he be deemed to have a successful season and a better one than Brendan/Arteta? Absolutely not.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

When did I say Herrera is a world class player in the bracket of those? Although, calling those players world class is debatable but that's another different discussion.

Upgrade? Both Martial & Greenwood were in 18/19 squad.

No. What was your point?

Right, so mentioning Herrera as a loss in the context of those players was meaningless then? Gotcha.

Obviously I know they were in the squad, but their roles expanded and they produced at a higher level than those they effectively replaced.

The point was losing Lukaku wasn't some huge and massive burden; you had a younger and better option ready to step up. Obviously Ole deserves credit for fostering that development and putting Martial in a position to succeed, but this notion that losing Lukaku is in any way comparable to us losing Hazard is just silly.

 

[charlenefan]

And Ole didn't improve your points tally from the previous season despite the money spent, if Lampard finishes level with Leicester or Arsenal on same number of points (regardless of whether he jumps positions) as last after this summer's outlay would he be deemed to have a successful season and a better one than Brendan/Arteta? Absolutely not.

Again why the despite the money spent argument? Lampard is proving spending money doesn't guarantee improvement if the manager struggles to get the best out of those players

As for your second point if Chelsea were to finish on 66 points again and it happened to be enough to win the league I don't expect too many Chelsea fans moaning about the points total do you?

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

Right, so mentioning Herrera as a loss in the context of those players was meaningless then? Gotcha.

We finished 6th with Herrera, Matic, Pogba as our regular midfield three and Fred + McTominay as our backup in 18/19, and we lost one of them without adding new midfielder as replacement in the summer 19/20. Do you finally get the point why I mentioned Herrera in the discussion now?

Obviously I know they were in the squad, but their roles expanded and they produced at a higher level than those they effectively replaced.

The point was losing Lukaku wasn't some huge and massive burden; you had a younger and better option ready to step up. Obviously Ole deserves credit for fostering that development and putting Martial in a position to succeed, but this notion that losing Lukaku is in any way comparable to us losing Hazard is just silly.

Well, that's unfair. You are just doing that to suits your argument . In reality, the same can be applied to Chelsea as well that losing Hazard wasn't some huge and massive burden as you also had younger and better options ready to step up.

Hazard 18/19 + Pedro 18/19 + Willian 18/19 + Higuain 18/19 + Giroud 18/19 = 34goals
Abraham 19/20 + Willian 19/20 + Pulisic 19/20 + Giroud 19/20 + Mount 19/20 = 48goals

Surely you can't tell me that 34 goals is better than 48 goals?

 

[Ace of Spades]

I said it before the start of the season, their season would depend on how quick the new signings settle, and so far they have not.

By next season they should be expected to challenge, but the question is will Lampard will still be in the job. Chelsea are not exactly known for being patient.