Ole & United vs. Frank & Chelsea: who will have the better season?

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
Kante, Rudiger, Hudson-Odoi, Loftus-Cheek, James, Christensen and Emerson. I think that's a pretty big chunk of our squad, most of which would be starters if not for their injuries.
The fact that the rest of our squad has been able to cover those losses as well as they have, does not detract from the fact that we have had a lot of injuries to just as many key players as United.
Is that true? Are RLC, James, Christensen and Emerson undeniable first choice players for Chelsea? I don't think they are. That's like me pointing at injuries to the likes of Lingard, Matic, Bailly and Dalot

The only key injuries you've had in my mind are to Kante and Rudiger while we've been without our first choice LB, first choice CM and first choice CF basically since the 3rd game of the season as well as all the others to the squad players

The fact your squad is much deeper than ours most certainly shouldn't be overlooked either much as you may want to to suit your argument. The difference between Chelsea picking between Alonso and Emerson is minimal, the difference between us picking between Shaw and Young is huge for example
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,640
Supports
Chelsea
Is that true? Are RLC, James, Christensen and Emerson undeniable first choice players for Chelsea? I don't think they are. That's like me pointing at injuries to the likes of Lingard, Matic, Bailly and Dalot

The only key injuries you've had in my mind are to Kante and Rudiger while we've been without our first choice LB, first choice CM and first choice CF basically since the 3rd game of the season as well as all the others to the squad players

The fact your squad is much deeper than ours most certainly shouldn't be overlooked either much as you may want to to suit your argument. The difference between Chelsea picking between Alonso and Emerson is minimal, the difference between us picking between Shaw and Young is huge for example
Our squad is now only seen as 'good' because we're getting the results.

The lineup we put out at Old Trafford was universally laughed at and branded midtable fodder.
 
Last edited:

BridgeBanter

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
255
Started the season without our best two young players, best defender and best midfielder. Only just got the first two back, still without the third and have had the latter for

Our squad is now only seen as 'good' because we're getting the results.

The lineup we put out at Old Trafford was universally laughed at and branded midtable fodder.
Bingo.

So convenient that Chelsea now has a large, deep squad when people said this team was lousy and/or too inexperienced.
 

Ruufio

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
9
Supports
Chelsea
Is that true? Are RLC, James, Christensen and Emerson undeniable first choice players for Chelsea? I don't think they are. That's like me pointing at injuries to the likes of Lingard, Matic, Bailly and Dalot

The only key injuries you've had in my mind are to Kante and Rudiger while we've been without our first choice LB, first choice CM and first choice CF basically since the 3rd game of the season as well as all the others to the squad players

The fact your squad is much deeper than ours most certainly shouldn't be overlooked either much as you may want to to suit your argument. The difference between Chelsea picking between Alonso and Emerson is minimal, the difference between us picking between Shaw and Young is huge for example
The only two that wouldn't be starters are Christensen and James. Kante, Rudiger and Hudson-Odoi go without saying. Emerson was our number 1 LB until his injury. And as good as Mount is, he hasn't hit the heights of RLC who would undoubtedly be starting in Mounts place had he not been injured.
 

Ruufio

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 3, 2018
Messages
9
Supports
Chelsea
The only two that wouldn't be starters are Christensen and James. Kante, Rudiger and Hudson-Odoi go without saying. Emerson was our number 1 LB until his injury. And as good as Mount is, he hasn't hit the heights of RLC who would undoubtedly be starting in Mounts place had he not been injured.
And can I just point out, the person I was originally quoting suggested that United were missing 5 key players players who would be starting if not for injury. Chelsea have also had 5 key players missing for a large chunk of this season. Also having James out left us without a backup RB.
We have been able to manage better than United without those players because of the players we had waiting in the wings.
 

Supermonkey_Wolf

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
15
Location
London
Supports
Chelsea
The recent results have overblown how good we are, just as the first we results made us look worse than we are.

You have to take into account we've beat Grimsby, Brighton, Lille, Southampton, Newcastle, Ajax and Burnley. The two champions league games were the only good teams and they were damn close. We just pretty weak defensively against Lille too. I know a few Chelsea fans who were looking at that easy run and hoping to make up for the disastrous start.

We're still easy to walk through in the middle if you beat our press. Ajax was our first good defensive performance of the season where we haven't played a 433 with kovacic Jorginho and Kante (when we did against Liverpool, twice, we were the better team!) So there is progression but it's helped that the recent teams are hopeless to counter attack.

Old Trafford wasn't a fluke. I still think Chelsea are naive and particularly vulnerable to the counter attack. Whilst the scoreline was too big, I expect United to pose just as big an attacking threat especially with martial back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fortitude

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
This is factually a lie. Until very recently we had 9 registered injuries, 5 of those on regular starters. We JUST got 2 of them back and we're worlds better already. - No team in the EPL have had to deal with more injuries than us. The only teams that come close are Norwich and Watford. The injury on Kante is a bad one for sure, but let's not pretend that our situations are remotely similar.
Which part is a lie? United have more serious injuries or they haven't dealt with it as well as Chelsea?

Ruufio's response clearly highlights how Chelsea are missing 5 or 6 starters from the team let alone the squad. I think Utd currently have 7 players on the injured list and amongst them are the likes of Matic and Fosu-Mensah who many Utd fans wouldn't consider to be starters. We could argue about who's injured players are the best but again I think Kante cancels out Pogba (and some) and I'll raise you our best centre half in Rudiger, our best central midfielder (after Kante) in Rubens Loftus cheek and until his injury Christensen was a regular starter as was Emerson.

I think the league position and results indicate that Chelsea have dealt with their injuries better than Utd.

To suggest Utd's and CFC's situations are not remotely similar is clearly wrong and it can argued that Chelsea's is worse.
 

Tom Cato

Full Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
1,116
Which part is a lie? United have more serious injuries or they haven't dealt with it as well as Chelsea?

Ruufio's response clearly highlights how Chelsea are missing 5 or 6 starters from the team let alone the squad. I think Utd currently have 7 players on the injured list and amongst them are the likes of Matic and Fosu-Mensah who many Utd fans wouldn't consider to be starters. We could argue about who's injured players are the best but again I think Kante cancels out Pogba (and some) and I'll raise you our best centre half in Rudiger, our best central midfielder (after Kante) in Rubens Loftus cheek and until his injury Christensen was a regular starter as was Emerson.

I think the league position and results indicate that Chelsea have dealt with their injuries better than Utd.

To suggest Utd's and CFC's situations are not remotely similar is clearly wrong and it can argued that Chelsea's is worse.
We've had more serious injuries than Chelsea. We have 7 players out now yes, but only recently got AWB and Martial back. AWB, Martial, Shaw, Pogba, Tuanzebe, Greenwood AND De Gea have all been out injured at the same time. Bailly got injured in the pre-season. Rashford has dealt with an injury as well.

Fact of the matter is that we've had had virtually no chance at creating a cohesive team throughout the campaign, having to rely on a squad of teenagers to fill in the gaps with various amounts of success as well as depending on Fred to fill Pogbas shoes, which he has been woefully unsuccessful at so far.

Our squad is unfortuantely not equipped to deal with this many injuries. The backups we have are all players who have in general lost a step (Mata, Matic) or are just not good options overall, like Young - who constantly puts in bad games.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
Our squad is now only seen as 'good' because we're getting the results.

The lineup we put out at Old Trafford was universally laughed at and branded midtable fodder.
Right and? All that says it that people universally underrated the ability of your players
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
We've had more serious injuries than Chelsea. We have 7 players out now yes, but only recently got AWB and Martial back. AWB, Martial, Shaw, Pogba, Tuanzebe, Greenwood AND De Gea have all been out injured at the same time. Bailly got injured in the pre-season. Rashford has dealt with an injury as well.

Fact of the matter is that we've had had virtually no chance at creating a cohesive team throughout the campaign, having to rely on a squad of teenagers to fill in the gaps with various amounts of success as well as depending on Fred to fill Pogbas shoes, which he has been woefully unsuccessful at so far.

Our squad is unfortuantely not equipped to deal with this many injuries. The backups we have are all players who have in general lost a step (Mata, Matic) or are just not good options overall, like Young - who constantly puts in bad games.
I'm sorry but keeping on repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct. Chelsea have had 5 - 6 starters out with CHO,RLC and Rudiger long term, Kante regularly and Christensen/Emerson for many weeks. How having Bailly, Pogba, Shaw, Tuanzebe, Dalot, Fosu-Mensah and Matic out when probably at least two of them don't start is any worse just doesn't stack up.

The reality is that that both clubs have suffered with serious injuries but your previous comment that the situation wasn't comparable is clearly wrong.

Chelsea have weathered the storm more favourably because they have a better squad. Here's Chelsea's team that didn't start our last game.

Caballero

James Rudiger Christensen Emerson

Kante Barkley

Pedro Loftus-Cheek Hudson-Odoi

Batshuayi or Giroud

This depth will help later in the season.
 

el3mel

Full Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2016
Messages
29,097
Location
Egypt
Apparently for some here any team that is doing better than us are doing that only because they have better players. Before the season started the majority expected Chelsea to finish 6th at best. Now that they are around top 4 with 1 point or GD suddenly they started to have a better squad. It's like people are avoiding the direct comparison between both managers.

During Mourinho days people here were saying inferior teams are playing better football than us with worse players because they have good managers. Now every team who plays better than us have better players.

Consistency.

Lampard has been doing a marvelous job there so far and with this rate he can be a top manager in the making.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
I'm sorry but keeping on repeating the same thing doesn't make it correct. Chelsea have had 5 - 6 starters out with CHO,RLC and Rudiger long term, Kante regularly and Christensen/Emerson for many weeks. How having Bailly, Pogba, Shaw, Tuanzebe, Dalot, Fosu-Mensah and Matic out when probably at least two of them don't start is any worse just doesn't stack up.

The reality is that that both clubs have suffered with serious injuries but your previous comment that the situation wasn't comparable is clearly wrong.

Chelsea have weathered the storm more favourably because they have a better squad. Here's Chelsea's team that didn't start our last game.

Caballero

James Rudiger Christensen Emerson

Kante Barkley

Pedro Loftus-Cheek Hudson-Odoi

Batshuayi or Giroud

This depth will help later in the season.
Nor does your insistence to the contrary

In my mind Chelsea's full strength starting XI looks like this

---------------Kepa---------------
Azpilicueta--Rudiger--Zouma*--Emerson*
----------Kante----Jorginho----------
Willian*--------Mount--------Pulisic*
--------------Abraham--------------

Now facts are you can toss a coin over who starts between Zouma & Christensen, you can toss a coin who starts between Emerson and Alonso and you can toss a coin over which 2 start between Willian/Pulisic and CHO. Talking about those players missing as key injuries is bollocks and it's 100% comparable to us potentially moaning about loosing Lingard, Matic and Bailly

Chelsea have had 2 major absentees this season Kante and Rudiger, we've had 3 in Pogba, Martial and Shaw. Chelsea's greater depth means them loosing Kante (and able to bring in Kovacic in his place) has no where near the same impact as us losing Pogba and bringing in Fred
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
Nor does your insistence to the contrary

In my mind Chelsea's full strength starting XI looks like this

---------------Kepa---------------
Azpilicueta--Rudiger--Zouma*--Emerson*
----------Kante----Jorginho----------
Willian*--------Mount--------Pulisic*
--------------Abraham--------------

Now facts are you can toss a coin over who starts between Zouma & Christensen, you can toss a coin who starts between Emerson and Alonso and you can toss a coin over which 2 start between Willian/Pulisic and CHO. Talking about those players missing as key injuries is bollocks and it's 100% comparable to us potentially moaning about loosing Lingard, Matic and Bailly

Chelsea have had 2 major absentees this season Kante and Rudiger, we've had 3 in Pogba, Martial and Shaw. Chelsea's greater depth means them loosing Kante (and able to bring in Kovacic in his place) has no where near the same impact as us losing Pogba and bringing in Fred
Tom Cato was saying the situations were incomparable when that just isn't true.

You have over looked the effect of RLC long term injury. He is crucial to Chelsea as are CHO and Rudiger. He starts over Mason Mount in the big games and gives a bit of strength to what is sometimes a team of short players.

I'm not going to argue MUFC are less effected by injuries because they have a weaker squad. I will argue that Chelsea are, at worst, equally effected by their injuries yet cope better because they have a better squad.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
Tom Cato was saying the situations were incomparable when that just isn't true.

You have over looked the effect of RLC long term injury. He is crucial to Chelsea as are CHO and Rudiger. He starts over Mason Mount in the big games and gives a bit of strength to what is sometimes a team of short players.

I'm not going to argue MUFC are less effected by injuries because they have a weaker squad. I will argue that Chelsea are, at worst, equally effected by their injuries yet cope better because they have a better squad.
What is this based on other than an opinion though? The are no actual facts that suggest a player that's been overlooked at Chelsea for most of his professional football career would be favoured over Mount a player your manager had at his previous club last season
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
What is this based on other than an opinion though? The are no actual facts that suggest a player that's been overlooked at Chelsea for most of his professional football career would be favoured over Mount a player your manager had at his previous club last season
The vast majority of this forum is based upon opinions. Personally I think you are rating Martial much too high when you say he is a big miss. He's been at Utd for a while and he hasn't exactly torn the place up. But that's just my opinion.

RLC cheek transformed Chelsea's midfield last season and scored 10 goals. He is in the England squad and played at the world cup where he had a significant impact when he came on. His experience, strength and overall footballing ability will improve the team when he comes back. Ask any Chelsea fan.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,868
The vast majority of this forum is based upon opinions. Personally I think you are rating Martial much too high when you say he is a big miss. He's been at Utd for a while and he hasn't exactly torn the place up. But that's just my opinion.

RLC cheek transformed Chelsea's midfield last season and scored 10 goals. He is in the England squad and played at the world cup where he had a significant impact when he came on. His experience, strength and overall footballing ability will improve the team when he comes back. Ask any Chelsea fan.
So Martial wasn't a big miss but players like RLC, CHO, Emerson are big misses. Always good to see unbiased posts.
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
The vast majority of this forum is based upon opinions. Personally I think you are rating Martial much too high when you say he is a big miss. He's been at Utd for a while and he hasn't exactly torn the place up. But that's just my opinion.

RLC cheek transformed Chelsea's midfield last season and scored 10 goals. He is in the England squad and played at the world cup where he had a significant impact when he came on. His experience, strength and overall footballing ability will improve the team when he comes back. Ask any Chelsea fan.
But that's a completely different argument though, for us in our present state Martial is our best option as a CF (in many people's eyes our only option). Ignore whether you think he's actually any good or not, not having that person in that position is a big deal because not only do you suffer not having that player in that position you're inevitably shoehorning someone else into that role so you're then not getting the best out of where that person would normally play either. It's a domino effect

That's completely different to debating who's best in the same position which is what we're doing when comparing RLC and Mount
 

Grande

Full Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
2,557
Location
The Land of Do-What-You-Will
Apparently for some here any team that is doing better than us are doing that only because they have better players. Before the season started the majority expected Chelsea to finish 6th at best. Now that they are around top 4 with 1 point or GD suddenly they started to have a better squad. It's like people are avoiding the direct comparison between both managers.

During Mourinho days people here were saying inferior teams are playing better football than us with worse players because they have good managers. Now every team who plays better than us have better players.

Consistency.

Lampard has been doing a marvelous job there so far and with this rate he can be a top manager in the making.
I agree with you, I don’t think that Chelsea have a particularly better group of players than United. Fairly even, I would say, after Chelsea’s ban/Hazard loss, and Woodward’s transfer window weakened both teams.

I am fascinated by the comparison of managers, tbh, the arguments pro and against both have many similarities.

One think that is challenging, is deciding what to compare: If there is a honey moon period to be had from an old club hero coming in and a dividing figure leaving, Lampard surely is in his now. So should we compare it to Solskjaers first twenty games? Will it then be more interesting to compare the teams in March, and see their trajectories over some more time?

Another point is that Lampard has taken over a well functioning team already much closer to his preferred style and philosophy (judging on his Derby stint), so what they learnt under Sarri will not go to waste. Solskjær took over a mess that did not play like his teams prefer (based on his Molde teams) and wasn’t trained for it either. He will have to build more from scratch (if he’s able to, which of course is what the jury is quarrelling about). So should we rather compare the coming February version of his United team with Chelsea, when relations in the team and playing style should be falling more into place?

So far, Solskjær has had the best start as a manager, Lampard has had the best start of the season, Solskjær has had most trouble with injuries, Lampard has been able to more clearly retain/implement a recognizable pattern of attacking play in his team.

Will be interesting to see the coming months and the months after that.
 

HNK55

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
94
Supports
Chelsea
I dont think its fair for United fans to decide who gets into our first 11. Same goes vice versa. We watch the players week in week out.

Anyone who thinks RLC wont get into this Chelsea team clearly hasnt watch him play, especially the 2nd half of last season. He offers something different to Mount, power, better dribbling and a great shot.

But I agree with whats been said before. At the start of the season our team was laughed at, ridiculed infact by most other fans. Now that we are performing, its suddenly "well they have a better team". You cant take away what Lampard has done. He has been absolutely brilliant. Ole on the other hand has been the complete opposite.
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
But that's a completely different argument though, for us in our present state Martial is our best option as a CF (in many people's eyes our only option). Ignore whether you think he's actually any good or not, not having that person in that position is a big deal because not only do you suffer not having that player in that position you're inevitably shoehorning someone else into that role so you're then not getting the best out of where that person would normally play either. It's a domino effect

That's completely different to debating who's best in the same position which is what we're doing when comparing RLC and Mount
Its a fluid situation at Chelsea because arguably the young players that have come in are putting pressure on the injured players, like RLC, and they may not get back in when fit. RLC will have to be at the top of his game to get back in the side but he offers a different skill set to Mount who hasn't yet proved himself over any length of time. If RLC had been fit at the beginning of the season he would definitely have been picked and Mount would have been on the bench.

It's hard to say what impact RLC's absence has had but this discussion only highlights Chelsea's superior squad depth. It doesn't, however, change the fact that he is a significant player who's return will improve the squad. The same could be said of Rudiger who is now under pressure from Tomori. Rudiger was our best centre half last season yet will have to be at the top of his game to get back in the team.

If we are discussing the fact that Utd's injuries have impacted them more than Chelsea's it would only be because UTD do not have replacements whereas Chelsea have found some in-house. It could even be argued that Chelsea's performance levels have improved because of their injuries. We will never know but I can't help but feel Chelsea having 3 main players missing from the start of the season has lowered Chelsea performances more than Utd's by missing Pogba, Martial and Shaw. In other words we are more worse than Utd are, the fact that the opposite is true when you look at the table is very encouraging and testament to the depth of squad at Chelsea. It's complex argument and one that doesn't count for much either way.
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
So Martial wasn't a big miss but players like RLC, CHO, Emerson are big misses. Always good to see unbiased posts.
No, Kante, Rudiger (Chelsea's best central defender) and RLC (arguably our second best midfielder) are more of a miss than a centre forward who really isn't a centre forward. If you want bring in Emerson & CHO then maybe that proves my point even more.
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,868
No, Kante, Rudiger (Chelsea's best central defender) and RLC (arguably our second best midfielder) are more of a miss than a centre forward who really isn't a centre forward. If you want bring in Emerson & CHO then maybe that proves my point even more.
CF who isn't a CF? It's better to do some basic research before arguing.
 

blue blue

Full Member
Joined
May 23, 2016
Messages
823
Supports
chelsea
CF who isn't a CF? It's better to do some basic research before arguing.
Some quick research revealed that after the Norwich game Ole referred to him as a "top striker". Can't say I agree but who am I to argue with Ole?
 

roonster09

Correctly predicted France to win World Cup 2018
Scout
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
20,868
Some quick research revealed that after the Norwich game Ole referred to him as a "top striker". Can't say I agree but who am I to argue with Ole?
What's your argument? That Martial is a striker but not a CF?
 

charlenefan

Far less insightful than the other Charley
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
21,163
If we are discussing the fact that Utd's injuries have impacted them more than Chelsea's it would only be because UTD do not have replacements whereas Chelsea have found some in-house. It could even be argued that Chelsea's performance levels have improved because of their injuries. We will never know but I can't help but feel Chelsea having 3 main players missing from the start of the season has lowered Chelsea performances more than Utd's by missing Pogba, Martial and Shaw. In other words we are more worse than Utd are, the fact that the opposite is true when you look at the table is very encouraging and testament to the depth of squad at Chelsea. It's complex argument and one that doesn't count for much either way.
I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt until I read that. Utter nonsense
 

LJJT

Full Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
780
Location
North West
So who’s the best manager now? We’ve beat them twice, tactically schooling them on both occasions with an inferior squad. Oles at the wheel....
 

FutbolFan

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Sep 10, 2018
Messages
138
Supports
Chelsea
Utd played well and defended well. They tpok their chances. Deserved win imo.

Hopefully Rudi, Kante, Emerson, Ruben being back at various stages would help us. Odoi and Puli are far from finished articles. Hope they learn from this
 

lysglimt

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
9,195
Surprised all the Frank lovers aren’t leaping to his defence in here.
I still think he has done a good job so far....wouldn't call myself a Frank-lover, but he has surprised me!
 

Dancfc

Full Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
1,640
Supports
Chelsea
This shit with facing Ole reminds me of Kenny when he returned to Liverpool and to an extent Wenger Vs Conte.

Crap managers who are/were losing to all sorts of shit but somehow keep/kept pulling the rabbit out of the hat when it came to facing us.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
24,211
Location
Manchester
This shit with facing Ole reminds me of Kenny when he returned to Liverpool and to an extent Wenger Vs Conte.

Crap managers who are/were losing to all sorts of shit but somehow keep/kept pulling the rabbit out of the hat when it came to facing us.
The fact you class Wenger as a crap manager speaks volumes