Chelsea signings

[fundy]

I don't know how much of Chelsea you see but having seen quite a lot of him over the last few years he has made more than enough runs that if our midfield was truly clever, they'd have picked him out more often than they do. Then if he misses all the time I'll agree with you. But I've seen enough to consider that with better service he is still up to it.

Sturridge's ability was never in doubt, his attitude was by all accounts as he considered he should be picked ahead of Drogba as a centre forward and he was somewhat lacking in the tackling department. As I understand it we wanted to keep Lukaku but couldn't offload one of the other strikers. He is still our asset and is probably getting much more playing time under a good manager than he would with us, so probably for the best. From what I saw of De Bruyne I wasn't convinced. Would I prefer that we developed more youth and ran a better ship in that respect? Yes I would, but we are better than we were 10 years ago and hopefully moving in the right direction. A lot of the players we have out on loan are there to get playing experience at a higher level than they would in the reserves or youth, so you could consider that a part of the development plan.

I see your point about Matic, but needs change. At the time we let him go we considered we needed Luiz more so the deal was done. Now that he has developed, we have a need for him and have re-signed him. Who is to say that if he had stayed he would have developed into the player he is now? He stays but we possibly don't have the Matic we have signed and we wouldn't have Luiz; without Luiz would we have had the Champions League win in the absence of Terry & Ivanovich? So many variables, but whether you like Roman's way or not, it does seem to work.

Complete spin from Chelsea post event. They admitted they pulled the plug on loan deal for Ba to Arsenal at the last nminute (cos Mourinho was scared Ozil made us contenders), so to say they couldnt offload any of the other strikers is simply not true, they chose not to and ultimately Mourinho chose that Lukaku was the one to go out on loan

 

[Pin-seeker]

Does this tit for tat have a point at the end ?

It's clear you're not a fan of my posts yet you always reply looking for some sort of reaction ? Is it not easier just to ignore my posts instead of starting this tit for tat crap ?

You don't do too bad replying to all of another forum members posts trying to get a reaction.
I do rate Mata,but Willian seems to be doing a pretty decent job.
I'd be more worried about Liverpool finishing top 4 rather than obsessing with how much Chelsea are spending.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No one is obsessing about anything and not worried about where we finish ( even if it is irrelevant to the thread )!

 

[Blue in Munich]

If you couldn't offload one of the strikers why did you buy Etoo and send Lukaku on loan ?

Apparently all part of a massive plot to destabilise Arsenal's season.

Seriously, Lukaku had played some competitive games for us this season before the loan, so I'd imagine Jose considered he wasn't ready and wanted a finished product. He's been loaned for one season, Eto'o, who Jose knows, has been signed for one season; you do the maths.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Apparently all part of a massive plot to destabilise Arsenal's season.

Seriously, Lukaku had played some competitive games for us this season before the loan, so I'd imagine Jose considered he wasn't ready and wanted a finished product. He's been loaned for one season, Eto'o, who Jose knows, has been signed for one season; you do the maths.

Jose should have looked at his games for West Brom - it was clear he was ready to lead the line for you guys.

Etoo when watching him for Anzhi against us is a spent force.

Think it was a big mistake letting Lukaku go on loan - one that could cost you the title because if he had stayed then could see you and City going clear. Now I think your lack of a goalscorer will be the difference between you and City

 

[Blue in Munich]

Jose should have looked at his games for West Brom - it was clear he was ready to lead the line for you guys.

Etoo when watching him for Anzhi against us is a spent force.

Think it was a big mistake letting Lukaku go on loan - one that could cost you the title because if he had stayed then could see you and City going clear. Now I think your lack of a goalscorer will be the difference between you and City

Based on what I've seen so far it will be the failure to close out games from winning positions and a failure to convert dominance to wins that will cost us as a team, rather than the lack of one individual. And for all his good points, Lukaku's missed some sitters as well.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Based on what I've seen so far it will be the failure to close out games from winning positions and a failure to convert dominance to wins that will cost us as a team, rather than the lack of one individual. And for all his good points, Lukaku's missed some sitters as well.

All strikers miss sitters but Lukakus physical presence causes no amount of problems - he creates so much space that Hazard, Mata and Oscar ( even though I don't rate him ) would take big advantage off.

He is ideal for Maureen's style which is why i was surprised he left - or maybe Maureen's ego wanted to get Torres working again ?

 

[Liverbirdie]

IF Matic goes on to become a great Chelsea player, stays there for years and bags loads of medals it will be the right signing. Ok, they could have kept him the other year, but Lampard was still a fixture in the side, Ramires and maybe even Essien was still ahead of him, so he may not have developed as much as he maybe has.

Yes it does look financially careless by having a player, selling him for not much then buying him again for a massive fee, but it doesn’t matter to Chelsea, they aren’t abiding by everyone else’s rules with regards to financial probity (except city and PSG).

Mourinho has also been careless (with hindsight), if seen by who else thay had/have (Sturridge/Lukaku) instead of sticking with ba, Torres and signing an aging Eto’o. If they had Sturridge and Lukaku this season they would probably be out of sight, as long as they played a 4-4-2.

I don’t think there is any reason why Oscar/Hazard/Mata can’t supply Torres with good service as they are great suppliers. What I think is he likes an early ball through or a close pass in, but Chelsea tend to build up as a team, and his runs go unwelcomed nearly. Arsenal also do the same whereby they try to pull a team out of position first, then hit the short killer pass, whereas Torres was often put in earlier in his Liverpool days. I think him playing 3 seasons on the run at Liverpool/Chelsea with hardly any rest (Euro champs/Confederation cup/World cup) and carrying injuries took it’s toll.

That said, Chelsea didn’t play to him as well as Liverpool. He lost confidence, looked lost, and overall has massively regressed as a player since. Still, it’s a team game, and he has done well for medals since.

It will still be interesting to see if the press still laud Mourinho, if Chelsea win nothing this season, and Sturridge and Lukaku finish on 20+ goals each this season. Love affair over?

 

[Papas1982]

IF Matic goes on to become a great Chelsea player, stays there for years and bags loads of medals it will be the right signing. Ok, they could have kept him the other year, but Lampard was still a fixture in the side, Ramires and maybe even Essien was still ahead of him, so he may not have developed as much as he maybe has.

Yes it does look financially careless by having a player, selling him for not much then buying him again for a massive fee, but it doesn’t matter to Chelsea, they aren’t abiding by everyone else’s rules with regards to financial probity (except city and PSG).

Mourinho has also been careless (with hindsight), if seen by who else thay had/have (Sturridge/Lukaku) instead of sticking with ba, Torres and signing an aging Eto’o. If they had Sturridge and Lukaku this season they would probably be out of sight, as long as they played a 4-4-2.

I don’t think there is any reason why Oscar/Hazard/Mata can’t supply Torres with good service as they are great suppliers. What I think is he likes an early ball through or a close pass in, but Chelsea tend to build up as a team, and his runs go unwelcomed nearly. Arsenal also do the same whereby they try to pull a team out of position first, then hit the short killer pass, whereas Torres was often put in earlier in his Liverpool days. I think him playing 3 seasons on the run at Liverpool/Chelsea with hardly any rest (Euro champs/Confederation cup/World cup) and carrying injuries took it’s toll.

That said, Chelsea didn’t play to him as well as Liverpool. He lost confidence, looked lost, and overall has massively regressed as a player since. Still, it’s a team game, and he has done well for medals since.

It will still be interesting to see if the press still laud Mourinho, if Chelsea win nothing this season, and Sturridge and Lukaku finish on 20+ goals each this season. Love affair over?

thats a fair assessment. Tbh I'm probably in the minority, but I never thought Torres was as good as others. I mean for vidic he was unplayable. But as an out and out striker, his caree record isn't as impressive as you'd expect for someone held in such high regard. Then again, he hadn't until Chelsea played for one of the leagues current top clubs. So wouldn't if had as many chances as other strikers.

Re Matic, yeah he could become a great and I suppose we all hope our respective clubs next signing will be. So Chelsea could think it's good business for them. Just for me, if the financial rules actually come in and are properly policed (they won't be). Then it could hurt Chelsea.

 

[Liverbirdie]

thats a fair assessment. Tbh I'm probably in the minority, but I never thought Torres was as good as others. I mean for vidic he was unplayable. But as an out and out striker, his caree record isn't as impressive as you'd expect for someone held in such high regard. Then again, he hadn't until Chelsea played for one of the leagues current top clubs. So wouldn't if had as many chances as other strikers.

Re Matic, yeah he could become a great and I suppose we all hope our respective clubs next signing will be. So Chelsea could think it's good business for them. Just for me, if the financial rules actually come in and are properly policed (they won't be). Then it could hurt Chelsea.

81 goals in 142 games for Liverpool, says you were a top striker, outside of the current uber-sriker (Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Aguero) who are banging in a goal a game currently.

 

[Papas1982]

81 goals in 142 games for Liverpool, says you were a top striker, outside of the current uber-sriker (Ronaldo, Messi, Suarez, Aguero) who are banging in a goal a game currently.

For me an top quality striker has a career average if better than one goal in two games. Torres doesn't. Forget the goal a game superstars, all beit argue to and RVP both cost less than Torres. All I'm saying is that if Chelsea are pinnig their season on Torres I reckon the last 2 years sow it ain't worth it!

 

[Liverbirdie]

For me an top quality striker has a career average if better than one goal in two games. Torres doesn't. Forget the goal a game superstars, all beit argue to and RVP both cost less than Torres. All I'm saying is that if Chelsea are pinnig their season on Torres I reckon the last 2 years sow it ain't worth it!

I agree to a point, torres didn’t have a great scoring record before Liverpool (about 1 in 3 iirc), and I’ll hold my hand up and say I didn’t want him. He hasn’t done great since either at Chelsea.

However he wasn’t a one season wonder and in his prime at Liverpool he was a top striker, as he also was for Spain at the time. If he would have gone to a different team than Chelsea after Liverpool, he may still have been.

Chelsea broke him!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

During his time at Liverpool he was the best striker in the World IMO

 

[Blue in Munich]

All strikers miss sitters but Lukakus physical presence causes no amount of problems - he creates so much space that Hazard, Mata and Oscar ( even though I don't rate him ) would take big advantage off.

He is ideal for Maureen's style which is why i was surprised he left - or maybe Maureen's ego wanted to get Torres working again ?

You don't need a physical presence as a striker to do that; Vialli pulled people all over the place just by his movement. Forced myself to watch him for 45 minutes of one game rather than the match, absolutely amazing.

Jose had seen him play and let him go on loan, possibly because the current squad isn't as well suited to his style of play as he might like, and might explain his current preference for the other strikers.

 

[Papas1982]

During his time at Liverpool he was the best striker in the World IMO

He wasn't even the first choice for Spain, Villa was. He may have been best in for Liverpool lol, but during his time at Liverpool, how many times did he top the goalscorers charts? And before you counter with what he won during the time. Strikers are there to score goals. Anything else is a bonus.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I agree to a point, torres didn’t have a great scoring record before Liverpool (about 1 in 3 iirc), and I’ll hold my hand up and say I didn’t want him. He hasn’t done great since either at Chelsea.

However he wasn’t a one season wonder and in his prime at Liverpool he was a top striker, as he also was for Spain at the time. If he would have gone to a different team than Chelsea after Liverpool, he may still have been.

Chelsea broke him!

Yup, absolutely wrecked him & completely spoiled his medal collection :ears:

 

[Deleted member 15344]

He wasn't even the first choice for Spain, Villa was. He may have been best in for Liverpool lol, but during his time at Liverpool, how many times did he top the goalscorers charts? And before you counter with what he won during the time. Strikers are there to score goals. Anything else is a bonus.

He was first choice for Spain alongside Villa

Just recall yourself back to the final of Euro 2008 - Torres was up front on his own

Torres wasn't just about scoring goals - Kevin Phillips topped the scoring charts as did Ricketts and Stewart

For Liverpool he was outstanding and he transferred that form into Europe and for Spain and in that period IMO he was the best striker in the world - he tore defences apart. Stats never tell a story nor should they form the basis - they are used to supplement

 

[Papas1982]

He was first choice for Spain alongside Villa

Just recall yourself back to the final of Euro 2008 - Torres was up front on his own

Torres wasn't just about scoring goals - Kevin Phillips topped the scoring charts as did Ricketts and Stewart

For Liverpool he was outstanding and he transferred that form into Europe and for Spain and in that period IMO he was the best striker in the world - he tore defences apart. Stats never tell a story nor should they form the basis - they are used to supplement

thats fair enough. I'd always judge a striker on goals first, Heskey and Carlton cole both bring a lot to teams but I'd still rather a goalscorer. Although, combining the two is good, I'd say Drogba was a better astounded than Torres so would have taken him Over Torres each season. For me, his first season was immense. After that he got 15 goals a season. Good, but not tearing teams apart.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

thats fair enough. I'd always judge a striker on goals first, Heskey and Carlton cole both bring a lot to teams but I'd still rather a goalscorer. Although, combining the two is good, I'd say Drogba was a better astounded than Torres so would have taken him Over Torres each season. For me, his first season was immense. After that he got 15 goals a season. Good, but not tearing teams apart.

Torres got 65 prem goals in 102 prem games in 3 1/2 seasons - that strike rate is better than a goal every other game

You are just looking at the amount scored without looking at how many games played

 

[Papas1982]

Torres got 65 prem goals in 102 prem games in 3 1/2 seasons - that strike rate is better than a goal every other game

You are just looking at the amount scored without looking at how many games played

So first numbers don't matter and now they prove your point?

Its my opinion. It's not going to change. I've accepted he was very good. But nothing will make me think he was the best in the business.

Did he win a ballon dor in that time? I don't believe so?

He had a bit couple of seasons. But my original point is that he's no good now. Which I stand by.