Maurizio Sarri - Chelsea coach

[antihenry]

Kovacic, Jorginho, Willian, Barkley, RLC, Pedro, CHO, practically all their midfielders are creative except for Kante and Drinkwater. He also has Alonso, who is really good in attack.

None of those players are known for their prolific goalscoring, and that's where the problem lies. Unless Hazard is on fire, there's literally no-one to turn to in this Chelsea team, if you desperately need a goal.

Morata fiasco really fecked us up big time, we needed someone up top to be the focal point of the attack and score regularly and he turned out to be a soft moanbag who just fell apart at the first sign of struggle. For all our problems, if we had a quality first choice striker leading the line, we'd be looking at extra 10-15 points per season easily.

Giroud is average and clearly past it , but he was never meant to be the go-to guy.

 

[Vadim]

We played well under ancelloti and conte so your spouting rubbish

No you didn’t. You won matches but it was brutal.

Chelsea like Utd, have played shite football for years. Chelsea have played shite football for as long as I can remember.

Horrible side to watch.

 

[AltiUn]

No you didn’t. You won matches but it was brutal.

Chelsea like Utd, have played shite football for years. Chelsea have played shite football for as long as I can remember.

Horrible side to watch.

Chelsea under Ancelotti were great to watch, they were a free scoring ruthless machine, particularly in 2009-2010. Conte not so much, they were decent enough in his first season but just a well oiled machine.

 

[Rash Decision]

13 goals in last 11 matches. Sure he hasn't got a good striker but he was touted to be an improver of players.

Worth pointing out that Chelsea are the only top6 team that we outplayed under Jose.

Made an instant impact at Napoli but hasn't been as good as expected at Chelsea.

Did we outplay Chelsea this season? My impression of that match was that we had our usual 20min spell of being decent / productive during which we scored 2 goals, but we generally sat back and defended for the rest of the game.

 

[TheLord]

Erm, we’re already in the top 4 and have been basically all season?

True, but the top four isn't secured for Chelsea.
Four points behind Tottenham and effectively 11 points behind league leaders only midway into the season is not where Chelsea would want to be with the best player in the League in the squad.

 

[Kentonio]

No you didn’t. You won matches but it was brutal.

Chelsea like Utd, have played shite football for years. Chelsea have played shite football for as long as I can remember.

Horrible side to watch.

That's such a bullshit analysis. We were outstanding to watch under Ancelloti and Conte's first season was full of beautiful high scoring football. 'Chelsea play shit football' is just one of those nonsense memes that people come out with after watching us maybe twice a season.

 

[LoveFootball]

Chelsea’s problem is as follows:

Quality aside from Hazard is lacking but at the same time Hazard doesn’t quite fit the managers philosophy - he’s too anarchical and indulgent with the ball to allow fast ball retention and Sarri ball to be executed. Compare tempo how his Napoli sides played compared to Chelsea ... Chelsea are like snails, pass, pass get to Hazard and let him just decide how the attack will be carried out - there’s no patterns of play in the attacking third.

Chelsea are therefore caught halfway house between getting best out of Hazard and playing as a unit the way Sarri would want.

Other issues include Kante who looks uncomfortable with this set up and who will struggle to find a club suited to his peculiar talents - IMO he suits pragmatic counter set ups so maybe Juve or Atletico is where he would thrive best.

Personnel in general lacks wow factor of rival squads (CB, CF are particularly average) and if Hazard was to be sold which is what I think they should do - they need to reinvest massively and recruit well - lots of exciting new talent, mould them under Sarri and start a new chapter.

It all feels like a decaying Conte squad managed by Sarri and Hazard ruling the roost tactically whilst Sarri is a puppet.

I don't agree with the bit about Hazard. He's exactly the kind of player who thrives in whatever system you play him in and his close control/dribbling/composure/intelligence/speed makes him a better candidate for a Sarri team. Despite playing in a different role to the one he's used to at LW, he's Chelsea's best scorer and main source of danger.

 

[Raees]

I don't agree with the bit about Hazard. He's exactly the kind of player who thrives in whatever system you play him in and his close control/dribbling/composure/intelligence/speed makes him a better candidate for a Sarri team. Despite playing in a different role to the one he's used to at LW, he's Chelsea's best scorer and main source of danger.

You’re right in that Hazard doesn’t need a system to play his own natural game - the question is whether he gets the best out of Chelsea’s system.

Sometimes an individual player is so good that whilst his own personal stats are great - he is holding the rest of the team back. In this case, he isn’t necessarily holding any individual players back but you can also see how the team would evolve using the funds generated from his sale to create a side more complementary to Sarris style of play.

Sarri doesn’t like his forwards to hog the ball, he likes movement of his forwards and quick interchange of possession. His front three at the moment doesn’t look like Napoli at all.. it’s very Hazard centric.

 

[LoveFootball]

You’re right in that Hazard doesn’t need a system to play his own natural game - the question is whether he gets the best out of Chelsea’s system.

Sometimes an individual player is so good that whilst his own personal stats are great - he is holding the rest of the team back. In this case, he isn’t necessarily holding any individual players back but you can also see how the team would evolve using the funds generated from his sale to create a side more complementary to Sarris style of play.

Sarri doesn’t like his forwards to hog the ball, he likes movement of his forwards and quick interchange of possession. His front three at the moment doesn’t look like Napoli at all.. it’s very Hazard centric.

I agree with you but a player like Hazard is gold for a possession oriented style as his skills bring a lot to the team against packed defenses. Without Messi, Pep Barca would be as toothless as many possession based teams. At Napoli, Sari relied on the magic of Insigne to carry the attack and to make that front 3 click. The best thing with Hazard is he's a team player, I think if Sarri brings in good players to complement him in attack, Hazard will play well with them.

 

[UweBein]

13 goals in last 11 matches. Sure he hasn't got a good striker but he was touted to be an improver of players.

Worth pointing out that Chelsea are the only top6 team that we outplayed under Jose.

Made an instant impact at Napoli but hasn't been as good as expected at Chelsea.

For me, he has been an improvement. I like the way we play under him. My evaluation until now: so far, so good.

 

[meninred]

Hazard would fit barcelona better than Chelsea.Swap him with Dembele.

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

Kovacic, Jorginho, Willian, Barkley, RLC, Pedro, CHO, practically all their midfielders are creative except for Kante and Drinkwater. He also has Alonso, who is really good in attack.

Jorginho is tidy, but not that creative. At least he still has to show it.

 

[Dancfc]

13 goals in last 11 matches. Sure he hasn't got a good striker but he was touted to be an improver of players.

Worth pointing out that Chelsea are the only top6 team that we outplayed under Jose.

Made an instant impact at Napoli but hasn't been as good as expected at Chelsea.

Which game did you outplay us? There was that 2-0 under Conte but i'm assuming you are talking about Sarri it being his thread and you certainly didn't outplay us then.

 

[charlenefan]

Which game did you outplay us? There was that 2-0 under Conte but i'm assuming you are talking about Sarri it being his thread and you certainly didn't outplay us then.

I assume he means the game where you were lucky to get a point. That one

 

[FutbolFan]

I assume he means the game where you were lucky to get a point. That one

To be fair other than the 20 min period in the second half, Utd sat back and rightly paid the price. Being a Chelsea fan, I see nothing wrong in that tactic as we have done it to other teams. It was top notch counter-attacking play for that short period.

Having said that surely we weren't outplayed at all. The meaning of the term 'outplayed' has not changed so much at Man Utd surely.

Spurs completely destroyed us as they countered all game when they outplayed us for the 3-1 match earlier in the season.

 

[Dancfc]

I assume he means the game where you were lucky to get a point. That one

You honestly believe you outplayed us?

 

[charlenefan]

You honestly believe you outplayed us?

I said nothing of the sort. I'm just clarifying which game the other chap was (probably) referring to

 

[Snow]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Jesus. One thing to spout the nonsense that the refs had the wrong field of view on the screens (they had perfectly symmetrical lines to use) but to waste his time doing this when you can clearly see how badly that line is drawn and he's using a worse FOV to evaluate the offside

 

[crossy1686]

Are Chelsea fans not worried that your squad is already lacking depth yet Sarri seems to be cutting decent players out of the team? I mean, you don't seem to be spending big money at the moment and there's no signs you plan to in the summer. If Hazard finally goes you'll probably reinvest that but if you don't get it right you could be in real trouble for a couple of seasons.

 

[duffer]

Are Chelsea fans not worried that your squad is already lacking depth yet Sarri seems to be cutting decent players out of the team? I mean, you don't seem to be spending big money at the moment and there's no signs you plan to in the summer. If Hazard finally goes you'll probably reinvest that but if you don't get it right you could be in real trouble for a couple of seasons.

What do you consider to be "big money"? We just spent £58 million on Pusilic a few days ago.

 

[crossy1686]

What do you consider to be "big money"? We just spent £58 million on Pusilic a few days ago.

About normal in this market isn't it? And it didn't get you much. He's largely an unproven quantity at this point. A like for like replacement for Hazard will cost you £120m+

 

[duffer]

About normal in this market isn't it? And it didn't get you much. He's largely an unproven quantity at this point. A like for like replacement for Hazard will cost you £120m+

58 million for a 20 year old is normal? Dunno about that!

 

[crossy1686]

It is for someone that's played Champions league quite regularly for Dortmund. Mbappe, Rashford and Donnarumma would all probably cost more. So in the current market I'd say it about on par with a £20m player in old money.

 

[giorno]

You’re right in that Hazard doesn’t need a system to play his own natural game - the question is whether he gets the best out of Chelsea’s system.

Sometimes an individual player is so good that whilst his own personal stats are great - he is holding the rest of the team back. In this case, he isn’t necessarily holding any individual players back but you can also see how the team would evolve using the funds generated from his sale to create a side more complementary to Sarris style of play.

Sarri doesn’t like his forwards to hog the ball, he likes movement of his forwards and quick interchange of possession. His front three at the moment doesn’t look like Napoli at all.. it’s very Hazard centric.

This is backwards. If i give you grapes, you make wine, you don't try to make tequila

 

[duffer]

It is for someone that's played Champions league quite regularly for Dortmund. Mbappe, Rashford and Donnarumma would all probably cost more. So in the current market I'd say it about on par with a £20m player in old money.

Mbappe would probably cost more? If course he would cost more!

Pulisic can't even get in the Dortmund team. 58 million quid is a huge sum for a 20 year old reserve.

 

[Raees]

This is backwards. If i give you grapes, you make wine, you don't try to make tequila

So there has never been a case in the history of football of where a excellent player from an individual perspective was a less than optimal fit in terms of the collective?

 

[SquishyMcSquish]

No you didn’t. You won matches but it was brutal.

Chelsea like Utd, have played shite football for years. Chelsea have played shite football for as long as I can remember.

Horrible side to watch.

Nah, Chelsea were quality to watch under Ancelotti, and scored a ton of goals in Conte's first season. I remember the 3 at the back system causing tons of confusion for PL teams and they were just ripping sides to bits most weeks with Hazard a total joy to watch. All went stale in the end, but they've definitely had periods where the football has been great to watch. They were dull for periods under Mourinho (especially in the big games) and definitely under Di Matteo, but they've played of good stuff in recent times.

 

[Synco]

Everytime i watched chelsea this season Kante has been great. I don't get why people keep saying he isn't suited or comfortable with his current role

Think so too, his short passing and off the ball movement are quite tidy, better than I expected. Plus the occasional well timed run into the box. And his defensive abilities are well suited to pressing higher up.

 

[Santi_Mesut_Alexis_87]

So Higuain is coming, with Morata going to Seville. Sarri got what he wants.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

58 million for a 20 year old is normal? Dunno about that!

City paid £50m for Sterling 3 years ago, we paid €50m (up front) for a 19 year old kid from Monaco 4 years ago.

It’s pretty much the going rate nowadays, absurd as it is.

 

[ErranMorad]

City paid £50m for Sterling 3 years ago, we paid €50m (up front) for a 19 year old kid from Monaco 4 years ago.

It’s pretty much the going rate nowadays, absurd as it is.

Pulisic would have had only an year remaining on his contract going into next season. The fee is way over the top for a player with a hell lot of prove and little time left on his contract, even with the inflated transfer fees these days.

 

[ErranMorad]

No you didn’t. You won matches but it was brutal.

Chelsea like Utd, have played shite football for years. Chelsea have played shite football for as long as I can remember.

Horrible side to watch.

In addition to their football under Ancelotti, Chelsea played some nice football in the first half of the season under Jose the year they won the title. They were blowing teams away with relative ease. Then the Spurs game happened and Jose for some reason made the team completely go into their shell for the rest of the season.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Pulisic would have had only an year remaining on his contract going into next season. The fee is way over the top for a player with a hell lot of prove and little time left on his contract, even with the inflated transfer fees these days.

I don’t think year remaining on contract means as much as it did with the inflated fees nowadays. You can either overpay by 20-30m or risk losing the hot prospect/big star when he becomes available for Bosman and other clubs swoop in I.e what happened to City on the Sanchez deal (ofc turned out to be good for them but then nobody can account for that). Sterling iirc also had like 1/1.5 year on his contract?

 

[ErranMorad]

I don’t think year remaining on contract means as much as it did with the inflated fees nowadays. You can either overpay by 20-30m or risk losing the hot prospect/big star when he becomes available for Bosman and other clubs swoop in I.e what happened to City on the Sanchez deal (ofc turned out to be good for them but then nobody can account for that). Sterling iirc also had like 1/1.5 year on his contract?

I do not agree. The length of the contract does matter when it comes to transfer fees. In the Sanchez deal we simply got to desperate in order to get one over City. Plus, we had a player who they wanted and we were looking to offload. So, it kind of worked out. I have no idea about Sterling's contract but he is an English lad, so the usual homegrown tax applied there.

No one outside the English teams will pay that amount for a player with only a year remaining on the contract. My guess is that for Chelsea the fees they pay are not that big of a concern. Their whole transfer model is about balancing the budget. They'll sell Hudson-Odoi, Drinkwater, Moses etc. plus some others from their academy farm to offset the inflated fees they pay to buy players.

 

[roonster09]

Are Chelsea fans not worried that your squad is already lacking depth yet Sarri seems to be cutting decent players out of the team? I mean, you don't seem to be spending big money at the moment and there's no signs you plan to in the summer. If Hazard finally goes you'll probably reinvest that but if you don't get it right you could be in real trouble for a couple of seasons.

They sold lot of players, so net transfer is less but they spend big money. In the last 2 seasons (since Conte was appointed).

Kepa - 70+ million
Pulisic - 58 million
Jorgiho - 55 million
Morata - 60 million
Bakayoko - 35-40 million
Drinkwater - 35 million
Ridiger - 32 million
Zapacosta - 22 million
Batshuayi - 35 million
Kante - 32 million
Luiz - 30 million
Alonso - 22-25 million

This is excluding players like Giroud (18 million), Barkley (15M), Emerson (20m)

Rudiger, Alonso doesn't sound big transfers but when they signed it was.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I do not agree. The length of the contract does matter when it comes to transfer fees. In the Sanchez deal we simply got to desperate in order to get one over City. Plus, we had a player who they wanted and we were looking to offload. So, it kind of worked out. I have no idea about Sterling's contract but he is an English lad, so the usual homegrown tax applied there.

No one outside the English teams will pay that amount for a player with only a year remaining on the contract. My guess is that for Chelsea the fees they pay are not that big of a concern. Their whole transfer model is about balancing the budget. They'll sell Hudson-Odoi, Drinkwater, Moses etc. plus some others from their academy farm to offset the inflated fees they pay to buy players.

Length of contract matters, of course, otherwise no club would be keen to tie down players on long term contract, but the point I was making is that it doesn’t have as much of an importance as, say, 10 years before. Clubs now won’t have to risk losing their stars for peanuts when there are clubs involved. In the case of Pulisic, he’s young, he’s performed well in one season at a tender age, he’s American, which opens the market for Chelsea. In the absolute worst case scenario and he tanks, Chelsea can still flog him for 35/40m (aka his ‘fair’ price), so they essentially gamble 20m on the prospect of him turning good, as opposed to risk losing him when a more glamorous club swoop in and provide more competition when he can leave for free. We also had whatshisname in Sampdoria or sth quoted at €100m when there were rumors about Pogba leaving. The ballgame has changed, you can’t enter negotiations with anything south of 50m nowadays, even if there is only a small group of buyers who can afford those prices.

 

[TheLord]

Kovacic, Jorginho, Willian, Barkley, RLC, Pedro, CHO, practically all their midfielders are creative except for Kante and Drinkwater. He also has Alonso, who is really good in attack.

Kovacic hasn't impressed. Injuries haven't helped.
Jorginho has some extremely good attributes, but goalscoring through balls isn't one among them.
Willian is all huff and puff and an occasional good spot kick.
Barkley and in particular, RLC have been plagued by injuries.
Pedro is past his prime.
Fabregas has left.
CHO is probably leaving.
Alonso's speed is a liability.

Hazard is the talisman in that team. Leave him out and there's very little creativity.

 

[Mb194dc]

So Higuain is coming, with Morata going to Seville. Sarri got what he wants.

Board can see we are going in the right direction imo. We lack creativity and goal threat though, despite dominating possession, too reliant on Hazard. If we want Hazard to sign his deal need to show him we're looking to improve. Getting Morata out who is obviously very unhappy in England and getting another striker in will help for the rest of this season. Playing CHO as a regular starter too.

Hopefully we'll get one of Barella or Parades in as well to replace Fabregas.

 

[PedroMendez]

So Higuain is coming, with Morata going to Seville. Sarri got what he wants.

is this already a sure thing? I know that it would be a loan, but i don't want him anywhere near the sanchez pishuan.


on a different note: Chelsea wasted a huge amount of money on dross. Its hard to say which transfer has been the worst. Morata is high up there, but buying Danny freaking Drinkwater for ~35m€ strikes me is insane. Bakayoko, Zappacosta, Emerson, Batshuayi, Rahman Baba, Remy. There are so many.

 

[giorno]

So there has never been a case in the history of football of where a excellent player from an individual perspective was a less than optimal fit in terms of the collective?

Certainly. Zlatan at barcelona, for one. But as always, it comes down to each different situation. Are chelsea so good a side that they'd be better off not playing to Hazard's strenghts? At the moment, it doesn't look like it. And keep in mind Hazard is currently having his best season for chelsea