And, we're off.....2016/17

[Fish]

If Chelsea lost Costa for a significant period then it would impact quite severely - got a third of the league goals and a lot of them have been winning goals , he has been the form player , even when Chelsea were struggling to break down a team Costa has delivered with a goal to win the match or has made a match winning impact - he is the one player Chelsea can't afford to lose for any significant length of time. Kante would also be a massive miss .

But he's going to get some of those goals purely for the position he plays in, who's to say Hazard playing in that same position (as he has) wouldn't have got as many? Ok I accept he doesn't have the strength of Costa for some of those hard fought goals he's got but they'd be offset by different skills Hazard possesses.

I think we have a good deep squad who would step up and in quite well with any injury losses.

 

[The Autumn Wind]

If Chelsea lost Costa for a significant period then it would impact quite severely - got a third of the league goals and a lot of them have been winning goals , he has been the form player , even when Chelsea were struggling to break down a team Costa has delivered with a goal to win the match or has made a match winning impact - he is the one player Chelsea can't afford to lose for any significant length of time. Kante would also be a massive miss .

Take a look at the scores from Chelsea v Bournemouth and Leicester v Chelsea recently when Costa was missing. No problem with cover there at all. Kante though would be a bigger loss, but Fabregas would bring other qualities.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But he's going to get some of those goals purely for the position he plays in, who's to say Hazard playing in that same position (as he has) wouldn't have got as many? Ok I accept he doesn't have the strength of Costa for some of those hard fought goals he's got but they'd be offset by different skills Hazard possesses.

I think we have a good deep squad who would step up and in quite well with any injury losses.

Hazards not a central striker and his form fluctuates depending on the wind no doubt , just look at Tuesday - Costa was fighting and battling all game long using his strength and fight and scares Centre Backs so they stand off him and he used that to create himself chances which he scores. Hazard is very skilful but goes down at the slightest touch and just doesn't seem to be there for the fight and the battle and as a central striker with his back to goal wouldn't scare CB's - running from deep at them and creating he would scare them so I don't think you could replace Costa with Hazard in that role. It's why i expect Conte to look at someone like Morata or Lukaku in the summer if Costa leaves - someone who can play that central big striker role. Costa has been massive this year for Chelsea - player of the season at the moment for me - without him Chelsea wouldn't be at the top with the gap they have.

 

[Slime]

To be fair De Gea has been saving Utds bacon for a while now. Utd can't begrudge another keeper doing the same to them.

I can and I will .
The difference is that DE Gea performs to that level week after week whereas the opponents' 'keepers have their game of the season at Old Trafford.
I'll NEVER forgive them for that .

I know mathematically it's obviously still possible but not winning at home and with only 3 possibly 4 clear chances on goal, is that the end of a top 4 position, taking into consideration you have a very poor goal difference also, has it now turned into a top 5?

Certainly not!
We're six points off second spot on our own and still 45 points on offer.
It's harder than it should have been due to last night's fiasco, but still certainly attainable.

 

[stokie_93]

So Lukaku wasn't in an active position and offside?

I've watched it so many times mate and I still don't have a clue

not voicing an an opinion on it as I'm just not sure.
Without that decision however, Craig Pawson is a shambles of a ref.

 

[Fish]

Hazards not a central striker and his form fluctuates depending on the wind no doubt , just look at Tuesday - Costa was fighting and battling all game long using his strength and fight and scares Centre Backs so they stand off him and he used that to create himself chances which he scores. Hazard is very skilful but goes down at the slightest touch and just doesn't seem to be there for the fight and the battle and as a central striker with his back to goal wouldn't scare CB's - running from deep at them and creating he would scare them so I don't think you could replace Costa with Hazard in that role. It's why i expect Conte to look at someone like Morata or Lukaku in the summer if Costa leaves - someone who can play that central big striker role. Costa has been massive this year for Chelsea - player of the season at the moment for me - without him Chelsea wouldn't be at the top with the gap they have.

I understand all that, I was only saying about Hazard standing in, as he has done to great effect when needed, we then simply change our set-up slightly and give him different wing forwards to work with and feed him, as I said, short term I think we can cope with injuries and/or suspensions, longer term, yes, we need to replace Costa with a similar strong striker and I'm sure Conte knows exactly what he wants based on how superbly he's done in his maiden season.

I think we have a very adaptable squad of players that can offer many different options in our play and tactics which is why I think if we lost a key player/s short term we could adapt very well, it will be different to see how we fare in the CL playing like we do currently.

 

[Old Colner]

I can and I will .
The difference is that DE Gea performs to that level week after week whereas the opponents' 'keepers have their game of the season at Old Trafford.
I'll NEVER forgive them for that .



I think you will find that Tom Heatons recent performance at OT was quite normal, been doing it week in week out for some time now.

 

[Pin-seeker]

When key players are missing it's then upto the manager to come up with a solution.
Conte did this when Costa wasn't available.
No point in crying about what you haven't got.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I've watched it so many times mate and I still don't have a clue

not voicing an an opinion on it as I'm just not sure.
Without that decision however, Craig Pawson is a shambles of a ref.

Apparently, he was in an offside position when the ball was crossed, but as he was behind Grant and Shawcross and never received the ball (thanks Shawcross) he is deemed to not been in an active role, as it was an iwn Lukaku position is immaterial, ridiculous when he was stood in the 6yd box.

 

[drewster]

When key players are missing it's then upto the manager to come up with a solution.
Conte did this when Costa wasn't available.
No point in crying about what you haven't got.

Agreed, as much as i dislike Chelsea , you just cannot argue with where they are and their adaptability to change when required. Huge, but begrudging, respect to Conte , he's been the difference and has the answers when his high profile peer group seem to be left floundering for ideas at times.

 

[Fish]

Apparently, he was in an offside position when the ball was crossed, but as he was behind Grant and Shawcross and never received the ball (thanks Shawcross) he is deemed to not been in an active role, as it was an iwn Lukaku position is immaterial, ridiculous when he was stood in the 6yd box.

Again your highlighting things that are not relevant, if Lukaku made any attempt towards the ball it should have been flagged offside, he does not need to receive it, he becomes active in an offside position if he makes any kind of attempt to get the ball irrelevant if someone gets to it first!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Oh to go back to the old system of offside. No confusion, no ambiguity.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Just received an email from Everton asking me to answer a questionnaire about the design of a future kit. Good questionnaire and I like what the club have done with this. How long before it gets hijacked by Liverpool fans asking for a red kit?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Again your highlighting things that are not relevant, if Lukaku made any attempt towards the ball it should have been flagged offside, he does not need to receive it, he becomes active in an offside position if he makes any kind of attempt to get the ball irrelevant if someone gets to it first!

It was a goal, the Ref was right, Lukaku is irrelevant once Shawcross touched it, you highlighting Lukaku is pointless, we could have had 3 players stood offside and they'd been deemed inactive as well

 

[Fish]

It was a goal, the Ref was right, Lukaku is irrelevant once Shawcross touched it, you highlighting Lukaku is pointless, we could have had 3 players stood offside and they'd been deemed inactive as well

I don't agree, Lukaku is in an offside position when the ball is played by his team-mate, it's obviously hit Ryan on the way through but Lukaku has made a movement and if you make a movement you are distracting the keeper, that makes him active and offside!

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/stok...-mark-hughes/story-30106066-detail/story.html

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I don't agree, Lukaku is in an offside position when the ball is played by his team-mate, it's obviously hit Ryan on the way through but Lukaku has made a movement and if you make a movement you are distracting the keeper, that makes him active and offside!

http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/stok...-mark-hughes/story-30106066-detail/story.html

And I've agreed numerous times and was explaining why it was given.
Hughes is just moaning, Linesman thought Lukaku put it in the net, ref explained he never. Replace Shawcross with any Everton player and Lukaku would still be deemed inactive, regardless the fact me and you agree it's ridiculous.
It all hinges on the fact the ball never reached Lukaku despite his movement and position.

Same paper

http://m.stokesentinel.co.uk/stoke-...-pundit/story-30106696-detail/story.html[url]

 

[Jensen]

Oh to go back to the old system of offside. No confusion, no ambiguity.

In the words of the great Brian Clough "any player not trying to make an impact shouldn't be there"

 

[Old Skier]

In the words of the great Brian Clough "any player not trying to make an impact shouldn't be there"

Sounds like a misquote of Shankly

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I can understand doubt in certain parts of the pitch, but in the 18yd box it should be either your onside or your offside, none of this active rubbish.

 

[clubchamp98]

Apparently, he was in an offside position when the ball was crossed, but as he was behind Grant and Shawcross and never received the ball (thanks Shawcross) he is deemed to not been in an active role, as it was an iwn Lukaku position is immaterial, ridiculous when he was stood in the 6yd box.

The problem with decisions like this is lukaku in an offside position forces the defender to play the ball as he can't just let it go as Striker may not have been offside when the ball was played.
So striker is interfering in the defenders decision making .
This is a poor rule and I think we need to go back to you are offside or you are not end of , especially in the 18 yard box.