Chelsea 2016/17 - Very Content

[Blueboy969]

Totally depending what mood he was in. I've lost count of the number of times he used to sulk on the half way line. He'll always be a legend for us, but his reputation has gone a bit over the top since the CL final goal. On a good day he was one of the finest, most dominant strikers I've ever seen, but there were plenty of not so good days too.

Drogba was a very emotional person and if you read his book you would be a lot more understanding to his mood swings. Furthermore, his mood swings that frustrated you were so far fewer than the times he was an absolute beast of a player. His reputation is justified. He came as a no one, lost the trust of the fans (play acting) and being the winner and true man he is, he came back and cemented himself as a legend.

That status was earned and not given to him on a plate. That header, that penalty, coming back in 2015 and being a BIG part of the dressing room, being carried off the pitch. It makes my heart sink when even Chelsea fans point out his negatives (no player is perfect) as if they are a patch on the greatness he achieved with us.

 

[Kentonio]

Drogba was a very emotional person and if you read his book you would be a lot more understanding to his mood swings. Furthermore, his mood swings that frustrated you were so far fewer than the times he was an absolute beast of a player. His reputation is justified. He came as a no one, lost the trust of the fans (play acting) and being the winner and true man he is, he came back and cemented himself as a legend.

That status was earned and not given to him on a plate. That header, that penalty, coming back in 2015 and being a BIG part of the dressing room, being carried off the pitch. It makes my heart sink when even Chelsea fans point out his negatives (no player is perfect) as if they are a patch on the greatness he achieved with us.

I think you're reading more negativity into what I'm saying than is actually there. As a person I can't think of ANY player who has done so much incredible good outside of the pitch. As a player he was an inspirational leader, and at times we'll all remember forever he stepped up and became unplayable, scoring impossible goals and giving us the kind of moments that as fans we could never reasonably expect. Although his CL goal was probably my most excited moment as a Chelsea fan, I think my happiest was when he was carried off the pitch that final day. It was just a totally joyful and wonderful moment, and made even better because of how utterly and completely deserved it was.

It shouldn't make your heart sink listening to people talk about his negatives. The fact that he had significant negatives and STILL did those incredible things for us just shows that he's a human being and one who despite weaknesses overcame them and shone. I prefer that approach rather than lionizing someone almost as if they're not a real person. He's a man, men have flaws, but that doesn't mean they can't also be brilliant.

 

[africanspur]

Drogba surely has to be a Chelsea legend? How many trophies did you win because of that man?? He was a beast!

I wasn't talking to you specifically sorry, was just a general comment.

 

[Blueboy969]

I think you're reading more negativity into what I'm saying than is actually there. As a person I can't think of ANY player who has done so much incredible good outside of the pitch. As a player he was an inspirational leader, and at times we'll all remember forever he stepped up and became unplayable, scoring impossible goals and giving us the kind of moments that as fans we could never reasonably expect. Although his CL goal was probably my most excited moment as a Chelsea fan, I think my happiest was when he was carried off the pitch that final day. It was just a totally joyful and wonderful moment and made even better because of how utterly and completely deserved it was.

It shouldn't make your heart sink listening to people talk about his negatives. The fact that he had significant negatives and STILL did those incredible things for us just shows that he's a human being and one who despite weaknesses overcame them and shone. I prefer that approach rather than lionizing someone almost as if they're not a real person. He's a man, men have flaws, but that doesn't mean they can't also be brilliant.

It makes my heart sink when not just hearing the negatives, but hearing the negatives alongside "his legend status is OTT" and "Costa was a better team player". As a legend, I don't think his negatives should even be mentioned (leave that for the non Chelsea fans). There are enough joyous moments from Drogba that can erase and leave no time to speak about his negatives.

 

[BonkersIam]

Are you alright in the head mate?

Ossie and Jimmy. Are you just saying to jump on the typical old school nostalgic Chelsea bandwagon? What I mean is those who will for the sake of nostalgia name their greatest ever player, trophy win or match to times in the 70s 60s etc over something more significant in the modern era, just for the sake of being old school.

Jimmy wasn't with us long enough and Ossie is a legend in a different way to Drogba. However, that is not really my concern with what I'm quoting.

How in the Blue hell (pun intended) can you say Costa's team play was better than what Drogba's ever was?????

Drogba's main strength at Chelsea was just that! His team play! I remember after 2006 title win, he was disappointed and openly said that "I've sacrificed myself for the team, which I why my goalscoring is so low. Next season I will be more selfish". That very next season he scored a ridiculous amount of goals in the league. Hold up play, defending corners, slowing down play with play acting were all things Drogba had to help the team. Without Drogba's hold up play, Lampard, Robben, Duff, Malouda and Joe Cole don't have the space and free path to run through on goal. 8 years of great service and teamwork easily beats what Costa has offered us so far.

Drogba was the ultimate team player (way above Costa) and he is an absolute legend at Stamford Bridge. I really question your thought process and motives as a real Chelsea fan to even think that Drogba's legendary status is OTT.

where have i said he isnta legend?
I just question the OTT remarks about him......although a great player when he wanted to be...that was not always the case.

 

[salford_]

Are you alright in the head mate?

Ossie and Jimmy. Are you just saying to jump on the typical old school nostalgic Chelsea bandwagon? What I mean is those who will for the sake of nostalgia name their greatest ever player, trophy win or match to times in the 70s 60s etc over something more significant in the modern era, just for the sake of being old school.

Jimmy wasn't with us long enough and Ossie is a legend in a different way to Drogba. However, that is not really my concern with what I'm quoting.

How in the Blue hell (pun intended) can you say Costa's team play was better than what Drogba's ever was?????

Drogba's main strength at Chelsea was just that! His team play! I remember after 2006 title win, he was disappointed and openly said that "I've sacrificed myself for the team, which I why my goalscoring is so low. Next season I will be more selfish". That very next season he scored a ridiculous amount of goals in the league. Hold up play, defending corners, slowing down play with play acting were all things Drogba had to help the team. Without Drogba's hold up play, Lampard, Robben, Duff, Malouda and Joe Cole don't have the space and free path to run through on goal. 8 years of great service and teamwork easily beats what Costa has offered us so far.

Drogba was the ultimate team player (way above Costa) and he is an absolute legend at Stamford Bridge. I really question your thought process and motives as a real Chelsea fan to even think that Drogba's legendary status is OTT.

Althoiugh he is more known for his Spurs era, Greaves played for about 4 yrs with Chelsea, and scored a lot. Also played a lot of games too. The best striker in modern times to play for you is Drogba. Neither Drogba or Costa are the best "finishers" you have had though. Well, Drogba comes close at the top... but he wouldnt be top IMO. Vialli or Crespo

 

[Don _ Conte]

How hilarious Trebles opinion now looks about Jose being respectful for acknowledging LVG and Conte not doing the same.

Because over the last 24 hours Jose has criticised LVG/Moyes by saying he wouldn't have sold the players they did and questioning there transfer activity whereas when Conte was quizzed on Jose doing the exact same thing he basically refused to answer or criticize him today.

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

How hilarious Trebles opinion now looks about Jose being respectful for acknowledging LVG and Conte not doing the same.

Because over the last 24 hours Jose has criticised LVG/Moyes by saying he wouldn't have sold the players they did and questioning there transfer activity whereas when Conte was quizzed on Jose doing the exact same thing he basically refused to answer or criticize him today.

It's especially funny since selling de Bruyne was by far the biggest mistake made by any one of Mourinho, Van Gaal, or Moyes in the transfer market, followed closely by selling Lukaku.

 

[3KDré]

It's especially funny since selling de Bruyne was by far the biggest mistake made by any one of Mourinho, Van Gaal, or Moyes in the transfer market, followed closely by selling Lukaku.

Is it though? Right now I would argue Kante is better than De Bruyne and Costa better than Lukaku. Pedro probably fits your team a lot better than De Bruyne too so was it really such a big mistake to get rid of the two?

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

Is it though? Right now I would argue Kante is better than De Bruyne and Costa better than Lukaku. Pedro probably fits your team a lot better than De Bruyne too so was it really such a big mistake to get rid of the two?

De Bruyne wouldn't play in a midfield two. As good as Pedro has been I think De Bruyne is much better but has been misused by Pep as a central midfielder for much of this season; in a 3-4-3 closer to goal with the freedom to come infield I think he'd be absolutely lethal. At the very least he was sold for peanuts and for no reason; he still had 2.5 years left on his contract when sold to Wolfsburg. It was a terrible move then that has only looked worse in hindsight.

The Lukaku deal was less egregious, it's true, though reportedly Chelsea wanted to include a buyback option and Mourinho outright vetoed it in favour of getting a bigger fee upfront. This is the part that rankles, it's not as though Chelsea needed the money and it was more a case of Mourinho deciding that he'd made his mind up about a 20 year old striker who had played for about half an hour. I genuinely think that a major reason for this was the penalty he missed against Bayern in the UEFA super cup.

 

[BonkersIam]

The Lukaku deal was less egregious, it's true, though reportedly Chelsea wanted to include a buyback option and Mourinho outright vetoed it in favour of getting a bigger fee upfront. This is the part that rankles, it's not as though Chelsea needed the money and it was more a case of Mourinho deciding that he'd made his mind up about a 20 year old striker who had played for about half an hour. I genuinely think that a major reason for this was the penalty he missed against Bayern in the UEFA super cup.

It was reported that a sell on fee was included so theoretically if Chelsea decide to buy him then that fee would be knocked off the price but that depends which publication you believe....also something about that as Everton are paying by installments there could be some loopholes...again which media do you believe.
Also, the manager at Chelsea has no say in the buying and selling fees or what is included in the contract monetry wise. That is left solely up the board led by Marina Granovskaia in these matters.
All the manager indicates is whether he wants a player, certain type of player and whether he is ok with players leaving for whatever reason

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

It was reported that a sell on fee was included so theoretically if Chelsea decide to buy him then that fee would be knocked off the price but that depends which publication you believe....also something about that as Everton are paying by installments there could be some loopholes...again which media do you believe.
Also, the manager at Chelsea has no say in the buying and selling fees or what is included in the contract monetry wise. That is left solely up the board led by Marina Granovskaia in these matters.
All the manager indicates is whether he wants a player, certain type of player and whether he is ok with players leaving for whatever reason

I'm certainly not suggesting that he was solely responsible for the decision to sell, but Mourinho was consulted on all transfers and he specifically advised against the buyback:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-to-put-buy-back-clause-in-romelu-lukakus-ev/

 

[BonkersIam]

I'm certainly not suggesting that he was solely responsible for the decision to sell, but Mourinho was consulted on all transfers and he specifically advised against the buyback:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...-to-put-buy-back-clause-in-romelu-lukakus-ev/

again...that is newspaper speculation

this is the source from the article
"According to sources close to the deal in Belgium, Chelsea missed their chance to make sure they could re-sign Lukaku for a cut-price fee, regardless of opposition from Everton, thanks to former manager Mourinho."

not very convincing is it?

Jose is well known for stating that if a player wants to go...then he can go, and leaves it up to the board to sort out.

Every manager is consulted on transfers but yet again I stress again that its very unlikely that Mourinho or any of the more recent ones has a say in buy backs, sell on fees etc....crikeys he didnt even know about the ownership rights of his own name


p.s even I am getting it slightly wrong because Jose was not a manager at Chelsea...he was the Head Coach

 

[TheMagicFoolBus]

again...that is newspaper speculation

this is the source from the article
"According to sources close to the deal in Belgium, Chelsea missed their chance to make sure they could re-sign Lukaku for a cut-price fee, regardless of opposition from Everton, thanks to former manager Mourinho."

not very convincing is it?

Jose is well known for stating that if a player wants to go...then he can go, and leaves it up to the board to sort out.

Every manager is consulted on transfers but yet again I stress again that its very unlikely that Mourinho or any of the more recent ones has a say in buy backs, sell on fees etc....crikeys he didnt even know about the ownership rights of his own name

Fair points, but Matt Law tends to have a pretty good track record with Chelsea-related matters. Given his previous history with youth players and the fact that Mourinho used the corpses of Torres, Eto'o, and Ba over giving Lukaku even the briefest of run outs suggests to me his mind was made up. Mourinho is also famous for rarely changing his mind on players once it's made up-he's not the least stubborn bloke around...

It's possible it's all nonsense but for me the whole story rings true. I'm certainly not claiming to be objective here though.

 

[BlueCelery]

RLC's late game cameo was very good. Still have no idea why he's stalled here for 3 straight years when inferior youngsters are getting consistent gametime at other Premier League clubs.

He should already be in the England squad by now.

 

[tangent]

I'm sorry but some people don't realise that Jose NEVER EVER makes a mistake.

 

[UweBein]

RLC's late game cameo was very good. ....

He should already be in the England squad by now.

Come on. He is a player with huge question marks about his future at Chelsea. He is definitely not England material atm.

 

[duffer]

Come on. He is a player with huge question marks about his future at Chelsea. He is definitely not England material atm.

Have you seen the England squad? I'm close to getting a call up.

 

[BonkersIam]

Come on. He is a player with huge question marks about his future at Chelsea. He is definitely not England material atm.

think what he meant was that with the potential shown 3 years ago....he should have progressed ..well thats the way I read it anyway

 

[UweBein]

True but that should not be his priority now.
Walcott has over 40 caps for England and is still an on and off player at the club. You could say that about half of the England squad.

 

[BlueCelery]

Come on. He is a player with huge question marks about his future at Chelsea. He is definitely not England material atm.

Seems like you read my post wrong.

Also, he's hardly competing with Gerrard/Lampard/Scholes/Carrick etc like @duffer implying.

 

[The Outsider]

RLC's late game cameo was very good. Still have no idea why he's stalled here for 3 straight years when inferior youngsters are getting consistent gametime at other Premier League clubs.

He should already be in the England squad by now.

I think a number of these young players were told by their greedy agents they had made it and stopped trying.
Hopefully they are now dropping the arrogant attitudes and now working hard for a chance.

 

[BonkersIam]

I think a number of these young players were told by their greedy agents they had made it and stopped trying.
Hopefully they are now dropping the arrogant attitudes and now working hard for a chance.

wish Solanke had such advice a year or so back....wasted

 

[Synco]

How did Chelsea fare yesterday without Hazard, especially in terms of creativity and fluidity? Watched the Real game so I couldn't see this one.

 

[Don _ Conte]

How did Chelsea fare yesterday without Hazard, especially in terms of creativity and fluidity? Watched the Real game so I couldn't see this one.

We was okay in the first half it was quite open and we were just 1 ball away each time from having clear opportunities just lacked the final ball. Second half much better we dominated possession especially considering both fab and hazard wernt on ao its probably us at our very lowest for creativity. Much better when fab come on and once we had the second goal loftus cheek carved them open quite a few times in the last 10.

 

[SteveJ]

 

[Treble_Winning]

Jose made a mistake selling Lukaku? Not quite. What has Lukaku really done since joining Everton, how has he performed in big games and what has he won? He has not shown himself to be capable of being regarded as a truly top notch player, so Jose sold him and got a lot of money for him. If I recall correctly there were question marks about his mentality, he bottled a penalty against Bayern and was crushed by that experience. That is an indication of a weak willed player. If Conte now goes and signs Lukaku for £70 million or whatever, THAT would be a mistake. Higuaín, Morata, Aubemayang are all better than Lukaku, in fact if Chelsea had any shrewdness they would break the bank and splurge £70-80m on Harry Kane. United should make a bid for him too. Proven player.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Jose made a mistake selling Lukaku? Not quite. What has Lukaku really done since joining Everton, how has he performed in big games and what has he won? He has not shown himself to be capable of being regarded as a truly top notch player, so Jose sold him and got a lot of money for him. If I recall correctly there were question marks about his mentality, he bottled a penalty against Bayern and was crushed by that experience. That is an indication of a weak willed player. If Conte now goes and signs Lukaku for £70 million or whatever, THAT would be a mistake. Higuaín, Morata, Aubemayang are all better than Lukaku, in fact if Chelsea had any shrewdness they would break the bank and splurge £70-80m on Harry Kane. United should make a bid for him too. Proven player.

He has scored 20 goals every season since joining Everton and you are not going to win a ton of trophies playing for Everton right now. And are really going to call him a weak willed player for missing a penalty in a glorified friendly?

 

[AshfordLad]

Jose made a mistake selling Lukaku? Not quite. What has Lukaku really done since joining Everton, how has he performed in big games and what has he won? He has not shown himself to be capable of being regarded as a truly top notch player, so Jose sold him and got a lot of money for him. If I recall correctly there were question marks about his mentality, he bottled a penalty against Bayern and was crushed by that experience. That is an indication of a weak willed player. If Conte now goes and signs Lukaku for £70 million or whatever, THAT would be a mistake. Higuaín, Morata, Aubemayang are all better than Lukaku, in fact if Chelsea had any shrewdness they would break the bank and splurge £70-80m on Harry Kane. United should make a bid for him too. Proven player.

I agree with you on that Lukaku is a sub-par player when being mentioned next to the likes of Kane, Icardi, Morata etc. and it would be a big big mistake for Chelsea to sign him again.

That said, Chelsea have no chance of getting Kane (even United's chance of having him is negligible). when Kane leaves spurs it will be for £100m+ surely. I mean Costa could go for £100m this summer ffs. And he is 5 years older than Kane (and only marginally better).

If Chelsea were to be really shrewd in the transfer market this summer the player they should go for is Rashford. He is unlikely to get game time for United going forward and will probably force a move by January window next year.

 

[Treble_Winning]

I agree with you on that Lukaku is a sub-par player when being mentioned next to the likes of Kane, Icardi, Morata etc. and it would be a big big mistake for Chelsea to sign him again.

That said, Chelsea have no chance of getting Kane (even United's chance of having him is negligible). when Kane leaves spurs it will be for £100m+ surely. I mean Costa could go for £100m this summer ffs. And he is 5 years older than Kane (and only marginally better).

If Chelsea were to be really shrewd in the transfer market this summer the player they should go for is Rashford. He is unlikely to get game time for United going forward and will probably force a move by January window next year.

There's absolutely no way we should sell Rashford to Chelsea. No way. He is, in many ways, our future. Rooney is past it. Zlatan is 35 and won't be around forever. Rashford is comfortably our second choice, with a clear path to being our first choice once Zlatan retires. We can't sell Rashford to them, well not unless they're prepared to pay us £65-75 million. I don't care if he isn't worth that much (yet). We should not sell him unless they are willing to pay an exorbitant sum.

 

[roonster09]

Chelsea fans

Go and check Chelsea fans posts in old Lukaku thread when Jose was Chelsea manager and compare it with the posts now. Lukaku's attitude was question and nothing against Jose at the time of transfer and now they are trying to blame ManUtd manager.

 

[AshfordLad]

There's absolutely no way we should sell Rashford to Chelsea. No way. He is, in many ways, our future. Rooney is past it. Zlatan is 35 and won't be around forever. Rashford is comfortably our second choice, with a clear path to being our first choice once Zlatan retires. We can't sell Rashford to them, well not unless they're prepared to pay us £65-75 million. I don't care if he isn't worth that much (yet). We should not sell him unless they are willing to pay an exorbitant sum.

You are discounting the Jose factor. He sold DeBruyne and Lukaku at ages similar to what Rashford will be in a year's time. And they were supposed to be Chelsea's future.

And you are right Chelsea couldnt force United to sell a player but we chould just put out name in the hat for when Jose inevitably refuses to give him game time.

 

[Treble_Winning]

You are discounting the Jose factor. He sold DeBruyne and Lukaku at ages similar to what Rashford will be in a year's time. And they were supposed to be Chelsea's future.

And you are right Chelsea couldnt force United to sell a player but we chould just put out name in the hat for when Jose inevitably refuses to give him game time.

Jose needs another striker to provide cover/rotation for Zlatan. And it won't be Rooney. Rooney is on his way out.

But anyway, sure, £75 million and Rashford is yours.

 

[gajender]

There's absolutely no way we should sell Rashford to Chelsea. No way. He is, in many ways, our future. Rooney is past it. Zlatan is 35 and won't be around forever. Rashford is comfortably our second choice, with a clear path to being our first choice once Zlatan retires. We can't sell Rashford to them, well not unless they're prepared to pay us £65-75 million. I don't care if he isn't worth that much (yet). We should not sell him unless they are willing to pay an exorbitant sum.

Rashford is a decent young prospect without being an exceptional one, we as supporters always tend to overrate our academy products I have no doubt once Zlatan finishes with United we would have a new striker could be as early as next season.

As far selling him for exorbitant fee we don't need money and despite not rating him as highly as some of the posters here I would still like him to develop with us and see whether he can amount to anything more than a squad player with United in future.

 

[roonster09]

You are discounting the Jose factor. He sold DeBruyne and Lukaku at ages similar to what Rashford will be in a year's time. And they were supposed to be Chelsea's future.

And you are right Chelsea couldnt force United to sell a player but we chould just put out name in the hat for when Jose inevitably refuses to give him game time.

Rashfrod played 2072 mins this season, only 9 players played more mins.

In that 9 players
1 is a GK
2 CMs
1 Striker
2 Full backs
2 CBs
1 winger/Attacking mid (Mata)

So he is getting more than enough chances and once narrative was that Jose didn't like Mata but he is among the top when it comes to mins played this season.

 

[Don _ Conte]

There is literally no chance Jose would sell Rashford to us whatsoever. I would be happy if we got Lukaku but my preference would be icardi or morata with Costa also staying.

 

[Treble_Winning]

You are discounting the Jose factor. He sold DeBruyne and Lukaku at ages similar to what Rashford will be in a year's time. And they were supposed to be Chelsea's future.

And you are right Chelsea couldnt force United to sell a player but we chould just put out name in the hat for when Jose inevitably refuses to give him game time.

According to most media reports and to Jose himself, he sold De Bruyne because he refused to compete for a place in the team and insisted on being guaranteed playing time. This was despite the fact that Jose also had Hazard, Mata, Oscar and Willian at his disposal. Undoubtedly Jose has a very low tolerance to prima donna attitudes, and that is why he sold him - to Wolfsburg, too. Talented player but he was rightly shown who was boss. I don't think Jose was wrong there.

 

[Francoruud]

Why on earth would we even be going for Rashford anyway? Good player. Nothing more. Maybe he can start for a West Ham or something at this stage. Not Chelsea. At this moment, he's nowhere near "I'm challenging for the CL and CL and this is my starting CF" level. We don't have time for that. If we wanted to be patient with a young striker, we'd bring in Tammy Abraham and groom him. Next.

 

[AshfordLad]

There is literally no chance Jose would sell Rashford to us whatsoever. I would be happy if we got Lukaku but my preference would be icardi or morata with Costa also staying.

If Costa stays why would we need Icardi or Morata?

In my assessment, Lukaku is the poorest choice of the bunch among Kane, Icardi, Morata. And that is saying something since Morata has never scored even 10 league goals for a season in his career. We have zero chance of getting Kane so Icardi should be the clear favorite IF Costa leaves.

 

[Moonwalker]

I think a number of these young players were told by their greedy agents they had made it and stopped trying.
Hopefully they are now dropping the arrogant attitudes and now working hard for a chance.

How would a greedy agent benefit if his client were to stop trying?