Chelsea Thread

It's not like they bought him and personally I don't think they will. there are limits for the number of players a team can have. Today people just use chelsea's name to inflate the players price. Gilardino being the most recente case. I Chelsea's name wasn't called Milan would have got him alot cheaper.
 
Alucard said:
This is the sort of crap that makes me dislike like chelsea. Buying players they dont need just to keep them away from other teams and then they dont even get played.
Click to expand...

Not that i'm bothered with you disliking Chelsea, but i think that's a bit of a misconception. If they buy a player it's generally because they want them. JM made it very public that he wanted to sign both youngsters and English players when he arrived. We haven't seen much of some fit players, but that's because they haven't yet earned their place. Mourinho is a fair man. Sure he has his favourite's, but if you're good enough, you will force your way into the side. Example - Who the hell thought Joe Cole would be a regular? (i remember much discussion at the time on this board and in the press about how he should leave to get more first team footy etc, moving to Chelsea wrecked his career blah blah...) It's of course old news now.
It's down to the player whether or not they wish to join the club at the end of the day. If they're seeking the competitive challenge of establishig a place in the Chelsea XI, that can only be a good thing. I'd hate to think what people would say if we had 8 strikers on our books like Portsmouth, lol :)
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
Not that i'm bothered with you disliking Chelsea, but i think that's a bit of a misconception. If they buy a player it's generally because they want them. JM made it very public that he wanted to sign both youngsters and English players when he arrived. We haven't seen much of some fit players, but that's because they haven't yet earned their place. Mourinho is a fair man. Sure he has his favourite's, but if you're good enough, you will force your way into the side. Example - Who the hell thought Joe Cole would be a regular? (i remember much discussion at the time on this board and in the press about how he should leave to get more first team footy etc, moving to Chelsea wrecked his career blah blah...) It's of course old news now.
It's down to the player whether or not they wish to join the club at the end of the day. If they're seeking the competitive challenge of establishig a place in the Chelsea XI, that can only be a good thing. I'd hate to think what people would say if we had 8 strikers on our books like Portsmouth, lol :)
Click to expand...

Fair enough some players have to wait for their chance, but everytime players get injured, chelsea board or jm (i dont know who calls the transfers) just go and buy another player instead of giving lower ranked player chance. Good example is essien injured or was going to african nations cup. You go out and basically sign manchini when either geremi or diarra could of been given chance. Now tell me plase where is Johm mikel obi and diaby going to play if they go to chelsea? are they even going to be fit for the bench? Joe cole is the only excuse for chances people seem to come up with. But what of cole, how many games has he started in premiership? wayne brigde,swp,huth,diarra the list goes on. I know im going on a bit but it just pisses me off when teams buys players just for sake of it. Real madrid done same thing and i disliked them same way so dont think im biased chelsea hater. I wouldnt have much problem with the club if they went about their business in honourable fashion.

Your portsmouth theory is rubbish because they have had two managers and half of those strikers is who the manager before redknapp bought in and havnt been offloaded as of yet.
 
I'm sorry Alucard, but you're coming across a bit bitter, like some upset child or something. Something tells me that if we weren't enjoying such success, you wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered about our transfers. Infact you'd prbably be mocking us. Your frustration, for want of a better word, is directly linked to our current success and your team's subsequent inability to keep pace.
As much as i like the young Diarra, who certainly is one for the future (post-Makelele) we'd only end up wth Arsenal syndrome if we fielded the likes of him and other youngsters in big games. You have to remember we've set a standard now. A standard that hopefully some of the younger squad members, perhaps not all, but some, will eventually adhere to.
I don't see anything dishonourable in loaning in Maniche, who hasn't even been playing football recently as the Russian season finished back in November. I'm pretty sure we didn't "steal" him from anybody.
As for these other young guys, well they haven't signed yet, so hold your horses. JM has an open door policy. If a player isn't happy, they can leave. Again, it's down to the player. We aren't forcing anyone to come or stay here.
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
I'm sorry Alucard, but you're coming across a bit bitter, like some upset child or something. Something tells me that if we weren't enjoying such success, you wouldn't be in the slightest bit bothered about our transfers. Infact you'd prbably be mocking us. Your frustration, for want of a better word, is directly linked to our current success and your team's subsequent inability to keep pace.
As much as i like the young Diarra, who certainly is one for the future (post-Makelele) we'd only end up wth Arsenal syndrome if we fielded the likes of him and other youngsters in big games. You have to remember we've set a standard now. A standard that hopefully some of the younger squad members, perhaps not all, but some, will eventually adhere to.
I don't see anything dishonourable in loaning in Maniche, who hasn't even been playing football recently as the Russian season finished back in November. I'm pretty sure we didn't "steal" him from anybody.
As for these other young guys, well they haven't signed yet, so hold your horses. JM has an open door policy. If a player isn't happy, they can leave. Again, it's down to the player. We aren't forcing anyone to come or stay here.
Click to expand...

Maybe i went on abit there but it just seems every time a decent midfielder comes about chelsea have got to get involved. Its nothing to do with their success, had it be liverpool,arsenal or any other club i be just as much frustrated.

I dont see your point on the club ending up havng 'arsenal syndrome' if they play some youngsters. Surely if diaara was given chance he would be mixed into the team with more experienced players, namely makelele and lampard. Arsenal havnt got as many experienced leaders there to play alongside and guide the younger ones like frabregas and flamini in the middle of the park and thats why they suffer. Chelsea wouldnt.
Im sorry but young players are not gonna pick up any standards watching from the sidelines they have to get games. The thing which i dont get also is that chelsea are sitting pretty comfortable at this minute 13points clear. So why not give a few games to younger players against the lesser teams and why doesnt cole feature much. Its seems its only drogba and crespo competing for place, surely cole is more goal threat than drogba!

Maybe dishonourable was wrong word. Your right though it is down to the players, its their decisions at the end of the day. I just think its a shame when good players with potential dont get played.
 
Hmm, weird things afoot when i posted then.

13 points clear is exactly how JM would like to keep it. Infact, i've no doubt he'd like to extend it. It doesn't make much sense to change what isn't broken. So fielding younger, less experienced players isn't going to happen when we are still able to relinquish the title. It's all about staying one step (or several steps) ahead, or more to the point being relentless. JM wants to win the title as soon as possible. That's no secret. As long as the maths dictates the title isn't won, JM will look to the likes of Terry, Lampard, Makelele, Drogba et al to do it week in week out. If/once the tilte is won, then you'll see the likes of Makelele taking penalties :lol: and/or other key players rested, particularly if we are still in the Champions League/FA Cup.
 
Ok so your happy seeing basically the same team week in week out without any new upcoming hopefuls tested out? It dont bother you atall if no young players break through to the first team from the academy?
 
Alucard said:
Ok so your happy seeing basically the same team week in week out without any new upcoming hopefuls tested out? It dont bother you atall if no young players break through to the first team from the academy?
Click to expand...
I know its sad but this is something that wont concern Chelsea one bit. All other teams look to their young players cuz they are cheaper to develop than buying a world class star. And also because it builds a better connection between the players on the pitch and the supporters in the stands especially if the young player is a local lad.

But both of these things mean nothing to Chelsea. :(
 
Well you're certainly not speaking for me. Of course i want young talent nurtured and coming through. We can't all rely on buying Wayne Rooneys and on an ageing batch of players who were once the hub of the team. Like most clubs, the majority of the youngsters won't put on a first team shirt. They'll play loads of reserve team football, get loaned out and eventually get released. This happens everywhere, more so at Premiership clubs.
The fact of the matter is, if we fielded the likes of Michael Mancienne, Jimmy Smith, Adrian Pettigrew et al, they'd get ripped to shreds, even more than the Arsenal central midfield. It's all relative and at the moment Chelsea have a squad with strength in depth, the mentality of play being to give nothing away. You field a kid in place of a seasoned, drilled professional, that puts a chink in your armour. And that's a standard we have set ourselves.
I thank you for your concerns however, but i'm positive the special one has these things mapped out. Most of our current squad have the age and legs to remain first team players for a long while yet. Am i'm sure JM already has his eye on at least a couple of kids who you will eventually be seeing more and more of.
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
Well you're certainly not speaking for me. Of course i want young talent nurtured and coming through. We can't all rely on buying Wayne Rooneys and on an ageing batch of players who were once the hub of the team. Like most clubs, the majority of the youngsters won't put on a first team shirt. They'll play loads of reserve team football, get loaned out and eventually get released. This happens everywhere, more so at Premiership clubs.
The fact of the matter is, if we fielded the likes of Michael Mancienne, Jimmy Smith, Adrian Pettigrew et al, they'd get ripped to shreds, even more than the Arsenal central midfield. It's all relative and at the moment Chelsea have a squad with strength in depth, the mentality of play being to give nothing away. You field a kid in place of a seasoned, drilled professional, that puts a chink in your armour. And that's a standard we have set ourselves.
I thank you for your concerns however, but i'm positive the special one has these things mapped out. Most of our current squad have the age and legs to remain first team players for a long while yet. Am i'm sure JM already has his eye on at least a couple of kids who you will eventually be seeing more and more of.
Click to expand...
Thats what I've been saying. :roll:
Your solution seems to be to simply buy top players that are aged 19-22 and you look to them to take you into the future. And once they are old, you'll probably buy some more again. On the other hand, every other team buys players who they see potential in at a very young age or they simply get a local lad.
I see what you're saying about how those player for Chelsea are weak and they cant afford to be fielded but that doest stop US from doing it. And our FA Cup game showed that. The simple fact is, if Chelsea had actually paid any attention to their youth teeam, they might have had better players there who COULD have been able to break into the first team. The reason why you dont have any good youngsters is not because they arent good enough, but because Chelsea just dont care about them.
 
Besides that nutmeg is actually talking as if chelsea have to field out many youngsters all at once which isnt true, if that was case of course chelsea would get ripped to shreds. What many teams do is field maybe One or two at different times. Bringing one on towards end of match as substitute, or trying out a good prospect in a less important match to play alongside with the more experienced players. Chelsea dont seem to do either.
 
RuneEdge said:
Thats what I've been saying. :roll:
Your solution seems to be to simply buy top players that are aged 19-22 and you look to them to take you into the future. And once they are old, you'll probably buy some more again. On the other hand, every other team buys players who they see potential in at a very young age or they simply get a local lad.
Click to expand...

So why have Man Utd just gone and bought Vidic and Evra? Why not let Bardsley & Pique etc fill the void? Don't make out like other teams aren't buying players before promoting youth players. Especially yourselves. Man Utd wre big spenders way before Chelsea.
 
Evra was bought for cover for heinze and giggs as he can play in defense and midfield and gives us more options. Vidic was bought to challange for place in central defense as silvestre isnt cutting it nomore and SAF knows that. Bardsley has got games this season thats the difference. He will be cover for g.neville so his time will come im sure. Bardsley cant play central or leftback so he wasnt ever a option to fill in void. Pique is not ready to be bought into the central position.
 
Exactly, buying players gives you more options and that's why it's done. All teams will always have their juniors who'll eventually, if good enough (relative to the club that is) get their chance.
 
The younger players are still included in those options, where chelsea youngster are not. Example is C.Cole who brought through academy, he is not a option if drogba or crespo is injured. Drogba and crespo are always swapped round.
 
I don't have any problem with Chelsea signing all these players personally, I don't blame them at all. Why bother with the youth, as long as they dont' see a detriment to not havinga team that grow together. I mean Chelsea aren't exactly known for their amazing youth teams, unlike west ham, charlton, united, arsenal etc. What I do hate is their handling of players like Crespo. Forced back from Italy where he was so happy to play, that's no way to treat someone, today he's come out and said:
"Life isn't onyl about football" ""I miss everything, My friends, the cinema, the TV and the theatre."

I just feel really bad for him and his family, i mean why not sell him or give him away, it's not like they can't afford a replacement!
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
So why have Man Utd just gone and bought Vidic and Evra? Why not let Bardsley & Pique etc fill the void? Don't make out like other teams aren't buying players before promoting youth players. Especially yourselves. Man Utd wre big spenders way before Chelsea.
Click to expand...
In case you missed it, we fielded a young team in the FA Cup and almost cost up the tie. Chelsea on the other hand dont ever do that.
 
Anyone else thinks this whole essien 'injury' is a bit suspicious? As soon as I heard he was hurt following all this controversy about him and the african cup of nations i began to wonder if he was really injured, and now it looks as though he's only hurt just enough to miss that tournament, but don't worry he'll be playing for cheslea.

Find that a little fishy...
 
RuneEdge said:
In case you missed it, we fielded a young team in the FA Cup and almost cost up the tie. Chelsea on the other hand dont ever do that.
Click to expand...

No, i saw the youngsters.

That's not entirely correct. In the past Chelsea have selected the likes of Watt (under Mourinho) and Tillen, Grant debuted at Old Trafford no less, as a sub however. Keenan made a handful of appearances a few years back (2002) along with Carlton Cole's first team debut in the same season. As you know, he's since remained in the first team squad. I for one would like to see more of Cole, especially if he can show the form he played at the end of his debut season. I feel with Drogba away, we will see more him.

With regards to the youth academy, it's an avenue that has since been addressed under the new regime, rather like the training facilities. Chelsea wasn't famous for it before, even when the club was pennyless. Nonetheless they had one. However, i've no doubt the fruits of the academy will be seen within a few years. You only need to produce a new Terry, Downing or Rooney for it to have worked.
 
beachryan said:
Anyone else thinks this whole essien 'injury' is a bit suspicious? As soon as I heard he was hurt following all this controversy about him and the african cup of nations i began to wonder if he was really injured, and now it looks as though he's only hurt just enough to miss that tournament, but don't worry he'll be playing for cheslea.

Find that a little fishy...
Click to expand...

I've often thought this about other "top" club players in the past, around about the time of friendly internationals. However, trust me, Essien was injured. R-C's challenge was awful. I don't think you plan to go off in the first 15 mins of a game just to fake an injury. Perhaps think of it as positive Karma (for Chelsea) - Bad at the time, but good has come from it.
 
Lyon are allegedly inetrested in Glen Johnson. I reckon he's more likely to go on a domestic loan though, which would be better if we had to recall the lad. Unfortunately JM seems to love Ferreira, but i reckon Johnson should be challenging him.
 
Professor Nutmeg said:
I've often thought this about other "top" club players in the past, around about the time of friendly internationals. However, trust me, Essien was injured. R-C's challenge was awful. I don't think you plan to go off in the first 15 mins of a game just to fake an injury. Perhaps think of it as positive Karma (for Chelsea) - Bad at the time, but good has come from it.
Click to expand...
Maybe that one may be real but there was that time when he pulled Terry out of the England team due to injury which looked very suspicious (many other teams pulled their players out that day too because of "injuries").
 
There is a more growing concern from the clubs about the players loaned to national teams, since the clubs still pay the salaries and if they comeback injured the club still has to pay for the salary while the'r out.
The G-14, the group of europe's biggest clubs as been putting pressure on FIFA to start with an insurance system to cover for these situations, but it seems it falls on deaf ears.
But I remember reading about a club that is suing FIFA because of a player that came to the club injured after playing for his national side. Don't know how it's going though.

I personally agree with the position of the clubs since FIFA gets everything for free and the clubs are the ones that have to pay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom