Shouldn't forget that the 2nd of that 3 spent 90% of the first half of the season injured as well and so before Bruno came in no Pogba meant no creativity and playing Andreas or Lingard every week (dark times indeed)
Chelsea 2020/21 - General discussion
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
Shouldn't forget that the 2nd of that 3 spent 90% of the first half of the season injured as well and so before Bruno came in no Pogba meant no creativity and playing Andreas or Lingard every week (dark times indeed)
Are any of the Chelsea midfielders or forwards barring Mason Mount actually performing close to their best level right now? I caught some of the second half yesterday and Chelsea looked really laboured at times, against a promoted side playing half the game with 10 men.
You might say Ole has spent similar sums but it doesn't really look like any of Ziyech, Havertz, Werner (or even Pulisic) are clicking right now. That has to be a concern.
You might say Ole has spent similar sums but it doesn't really look like any of Ziyech, Havertz, Werner (or even Pulisic) are clicking right now. That has to be a concern.
Ole has definitely managed his squad a lot better that’s for sure. It does seem like Frank just brought up all the talent on the market last year.
Werner, Havertz, Ziyech. They’ve got mount, Pulisic, Abraham, Hudson Odoi, Giroud.
It just seems like a bunch of talent, whereas Ole saw our weakness and concentrated on Bruno an excellent proven signing.
They needed some proven quality, Grealish would have been a great signing in place of Havertz and Ziyech. They’ve gone for buying loads of talent, I think someone older and more proven would have been the answer.
They say hindsight is a wonderful thing and it does show us Lampard has been a bit haphazard. Saying this, as always with talent they may start to prove themselves next season but Lampard will need to show some leadership and tough decisions lie ahead.
Werner, Havertz, Ziyech. They’ve got mount, Pulisic, Abraham, Hudson Odoi, Giroud.
It just seems like a bunch of talent, whereas Ole saw our weakness and concentrated on Bruno an excellent proven signing.
They needed some proven quality, Grealish would have been a great signing in place of Havertz and Ziyech. They’ve gone for buying loads of talent, I think someone older and more proven would have been the answer.
They say hindsight is a wonderful thing and it does show us Lampard has been a bit haphazard. Saying this, as always with talent they may start to prove themselves next season but Lampard will need to show some leadership and tough decisions lie ahead.
depends on how much say Lampard has with transfers. I would bet OGS has far more of a say/ sign off/ involvement than Lampard.
that’s not a criticism.
So again a situation where you had able and ready backups and no need to spend to replace the player leaving? As in, exactly what I'm talking about?
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?
This can't possibly be a real argument. To say nothing of the fact that I'm talking about replacing one player with one other one, you've essentially compared 3 positions' output from 18/19 with 4 from 19/20. In terms of minutes, you've compared 8742 from 18/19 to 10428 from 19/20.
Backup quality is converted to regular while no player come in to take the backup spot. So?
That's you not me, why would I care?
You are jumping your butt into others & my conversation which are not talking about that, that's why I told you irrelevant. I'm talking more as squad & team because football is a team sport not individual sport right?My mate Chelsea fans also told me before the 19/20 season started, he believed Hazard wasn't going to be big loss because it allows Chelsea to finally not relying or built based on one player but actually as team. Well, he wasn't wrong because 48 goals is better than 34 goals.
Frank keeps experimenting with multiple strikers on the pitch. Is it just a matter of time before we see a 4-4-2 or other strike partnership?
Backup quality is converted to regular while no player come in to take the backup spot. So?
That's you not me, why would I care?
My mate Chelsea fans also told me before the 19/20 season started, he believed Hazard wasn't going to be big loss because it allows Chelsea to finally not relying or built based on one player but actually as team. Well, he wasn't wrong because 48 goals is better than 34 goals.
You seem to think all players who are sold are equal. It's bizarre.
It's rich that you're on about butting in when you jumped down Duffer's throat to gripe about his post - talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I can see that apparently the concept of minutes played is beyond you, so I suppose I'll just leave it there and allow you to continue prattling on about how one number is bigger than another. Gold star for you!
Wait, you think someone who spent the best past of £200m and needed goal difference to finish above someone with a transfer ban did the better job?
I mean, really?
I can't wait to hear this!
Where did I say that?
But I wasn’t jumping my butt into his discussion tried to have debate with his argument though.
How is concept of minutes played is relevant with the original post you replied and discussion?
Last edited:
Lampard took the side that won Europa league, finished 3rd in the league. Lost Hazard but added players like Pulisic, Kovacic (loan to permanent), Tammy, James, Mount, Zouma.
It's not as if ManUtd added world class players, the player we signed from Championship wasn't better than Mount, most of the Chelsea fans even said how Reece James was much better than AWB (some argued he was as good if not better than TAA)
This "manager x spent yz millions" always lack context. So ManUtd had to spend around 60 million to sign players who aren't as good as Chelsea loaned out players who returned in 2019 summer.
Also Chelsea only Hazard from their starting 11 (he was arguably best in the world, so big loss). ManUtd lost Herrera, Smalling, Lukaku who were all part of our best 11. Of course they weren't as good as Hazard but then we don't have anyone who was as good as Hazard to lose.
Arguments can be made on both sides easily, people talk about transfer ban but completely ignore the players who all had few years experience out on loan (these players had more experience than ManUtd players like AWB, James, McTominay). Just like how Chelsea squad had lot of doubters, ManUtd squad had too, saying we don't have any attacker capable of scoring 20 goals and we sold the only player who is capable of it. We didn't replace Herrera, McT and Fred are not good enough.
Both managers did good job in shaping the squad, whoever takes over will have much better squad than what Lampard and Ole had.
Edit: Thought this was Ole vs Lampard thread. We have dedicated thread for that.
It's not as if ManUtd added world class players, the player we signed from Championship wasn't better than Mount, most of the Chelsea fans even said how Reece James was much better than AWB (some argued he was as good if not better than TAA)
This "manager x spent yz millions" always lack context. So ManUtd had to spend around 60 million to sign players who aren't as good as Chelsea loaned out players who returned in 2019 summer.
Also Chelsea only Hazard from their starting 11 (he was arguably best in the world, so big loss). ManUtd lost Herrera, Smalling, Lukaku who were all part of our best 11. Of course they weren't as good as Hazard but then we don't have anyone who was as good as Hazard to lose.
Arguments can be made on both sides easily, people talk about transfer ban but completely ignore the players who all had few years experience out on loan (these players had more experience than ManUtd players like AWB, James, McTominay). Just like how Chelsea squad had lot of doubters, ManUtd squad had too, saying we don't have any attacker capable of scoring 20 goals and we sold the only player who is capable of it. We didn't replace Herrera, McT and Fred are not good enough.
Both managers did good job in shaping the squad, whoever takes over will have much better squad than what Lampard and Ole had.
Edit: Thought this was Ole vs Lampard thread. We have dedicated thread for that.
Where did I say that?
But I wasn’t jumping my butt into his discussion tried to have debate with his argument though.
How is concept of minutes played is relevant with the original post you replied and discussion?
You keep inferring that if any player is sold if he is not replaced by a purchase that is some sort of hurdle to be overcome. If there are replacements already, it plainly is not.
I've done absolutely nothing differently to you than you did to duffer. If you have a problem with my behaviour then I suggest you reevaluate your own.
You actually don't understand that the number of goals scored is a function of minutes played? And that minutes are a zero sum game across a league season? It's completely meaningless to compare goals scored across a seemingly random assortment of 5 players from two different seasons played under two different managers with a minutes difference of ~20%.
Like I have said before, the backup is converted to regular while no player come in to take the backup spot. So where is the replacement?
You are jumping your butt to talk about the argument, this is you below:
I wasn’t jumping my butt to talk about the argument, this me below:
So you shouldn’t compare 18/19 Hazard with 19/20 Pulisic and also 18/19 Lukaku & 18/19 Sanchez with 19/20 Martial & 19/20 Greenwood then.
Like I have said before, the backup is converted to regular while no player come in to take the backup spot. So where is the replacement?
You are jumping your butt to talk about the argument, this is you below:
I wasn’t jumping my butt to talk about the argument, this me below:
So you shouldn’t compare 18/19 Hazard with 19/20 Pulisic and also 18/19 Lukaku & 18/19 Sanchez with 19/20 Martial & 19/20 Greenwood then.
So you can't think of any scenario by which a player gets replaced aside from a purchase? Or one where there's a bloated squad that merits trimming?
So now you're trying to argue semantics? You popped into another discussion about total outlay by insisting that net spend is actually more important when that wasn't germane to the conversation. Duffer initially corrected someone who said that Ole hadn't had financial backing comparable to Lampard by pointing out that United have spent more to bring in players than Chelsea have, and you derailed the conversation by going on about net spend when that wasn't the point at all to begin with.
Finally, do you not understand the difference between comparing like-for-like replacements with the entire attack in the squad? How can a comparison between Hazard and his direct replacement possibly be equivalent in your mind to adding up the goals from our left winger, two right wingers, and two strikers (one of whom who was only there for half a season) from 18/19 versus those from 20% more minutes from our left winger, two strikers, right winger, and attacking midfielder from 19/20? Just because apparently this has to be spelled out in the most basic terms, the latter includes exponentially more variables, which effectively renders your comparison meaningless. Re: the Martial / Greenwood vs. Lukaku / Alexis comparison, you'll note that I didn't just tot up their goals scored and said that's proof; it's a subjective argument.
Chelsea’s innocent owner just got linked to enabling Putin (as if we didn’t know already) by Alexey Navalny.
Again, it's not rocket science. If the backup is replacing the regular so who's replacing the backup?
I never say it was important to the conversation/discussion, that's why I told him I wasn't trying to discuss his argument/discussion. It was important to the post that I replied though. You on the other hand wanted to talk about my argument/discussion.
I didn't compare like for like replacements.
I made comparison for the case between United & Chelsea, Chelsea lost some of their attacker like Hazard & Higuain for example, but still managed to added Pulisic, Abraham & Mount into the squad. While United lost attackers like Lukaku & Sanchez for example but only added James into the squad and needed to wait until January to sign Bruno & Ighalo.
Again, it's not rocket science. If the backup is replacing the regular so who's replacing the backup?
I never say it was important to the conversation/discussion, that's why I told him I wasn't trying to discuss his argument/discussion. It was important to the post that I replied though. You on the other hand wanted to talk about my argument/discussion.
I didn't compare like for like replacements.
I made comparison for the case between United & Chelsea, Chelsea lost some of their attacker like Hazard & Higuain for example, but still managed to added Pulisic, Abraham & Mount into the squad. While United lost attackers like Lukaku & Sanchez for example but only added James into the squad and needed to wait until January to sign Bruno & Ighalo.
A player from the academy. A player already purchased who needed time to bed in. A player being adjusted to a new role. Throughout this thread you've argued this black and white view that if a player is sold, they must be replaced via transfer. Par for the course for you, that's a ridiculous and simple way of looking at things.
So because you deemed it important, that's the objective truth? I find it important to respond to the nonsense you post. Again, pot meet kettle.
And of course you didn't compare like for like replacements, I did. Glad to see you can admit that. You made an inane and idiotic comparison based on absolutely nothing whilst ignoring all context, and I called you out on it. I find it very important to correct these misconceptions, such as "selling Lukaku was just as impactful as selling Hazard", "Kante and Kovacic could be a functional midfield pairing", and "these random 5 Chelsea players combined for fewer goals in fewer minutes than these other 5 Chelsea players the next season, therefore Hazard isn't that good".
But the reality is that no midfielder from academy 19/20 were ready to replace the backup while the purchased were backup that replaced the first team.
I never say it's the objective though.
What's the context I'm ignoring here?
I've been talking about squad not individual player, and now you started inserting Kante & Kovacic into the discussion WTF? What's the context I'm ignoring here?
It's a callback to when you tried to explain the qualities of my club's midfielders to me, getting it hilariously wrong as usual. Point being that there's no need to continue talking past each other.
Just go back to Shed End where you belong. This forum is not for you mate.
Considering I've been around significantly longer than you, can comprehend English better, and have almost certainly made more trips to Old Trafford I'd suggest otherwise.
Oh really? That chuckles me especially the last one
Even the first one is wrong.Oh really? That chuckles me especially the last one
1. Mate, look at the joined date. Unless you are admitting to avoiding a ban by making a new account. 2. "Chuckles" isn't a verb in that context. 3. I did an exchange programme to Manchester for a semester; went to OT for every home game for half a year. Reckon that's more than you've managed.
Feel like I'm actually spot on here
You know nothing about me.
Seems I've touched a nerve! And with that I'll stop derailing the thread.
Stop your bitching both of you ^^
As for Chelsea. Good squad, unlucky with injuries, poor manager. I’ll not worry about them as long as Lumplard is there.
As for Chelsea. Good squad, unlucky with injuries, poor manager. I’ll not worry about them as long as Lumplard is there.
Massive game for Chelsea tomorrow, loose and they'll be 9 points off of Leicester, that's a lot off a team who themselves (Leicester) may not even have enough to finish top 4
Only hope is that Lampard's idiotic team selection at the weekend is an indication that he'll rotate for this one. Given his history over the Xmas period though I'm pessimistic. If CHO doesn't start that's grounds for him to be sacked at this point.
Damn.. Ah well. At least you have “Transfer Window Champions 2020-21” to remember him by.
It's becoming increasingly clear that Lampard has limited input into our transfer dealings - at this point it looks like Chilwell and Ziyech were the two players he pushed for most of all and the rest were decided on by the board. Same seems to be the case with Rice - believe it was one of The Athletic writers who was asked if Chelsea's interest in Rice would be at the same level should Lampard be sacked, and the answer was no. Given the stories today about our interest in Haaland, it seems our hierarchy are keen on young Bundesliga talent whilst Lampard is focused on young English players.
aren’t you the kid who tried to buy a Chelsea kit from the merchandise section?
I couldn’t believe how good your English was. That humbled me thanks
Considering the rumours today about Haaland, I'd say we're gunning for the second consecutive transfer title win next summer. And if the team's struggles continues, I'd imagine the upcoming £150-200m transfer budget isn't for Lampard.
Im worried Lampard will do it so badly that Chelsea's board will have no other option but to sack him and actually get a quality manager. I hope he improve just enough for them to grant him some more time.
...no? Did you forget to switch to your alt or something here?
Hope it's a draw tomorrow just to convince the board.