Chelsea 2 Sheffield United 0

[Dwmh]

42 minutes ago, Ham said:

I think you're forgetting the shit he got week after week in the match day forum, often justifiably, for his performances. 

Why not - all those that posted it have forgotten.

Funny how a top class CM/AM gets so many goals in a good side when he got so few as a CF.
And funny how the 3 managers kept playing Havertz at CF and nobody else.

[Mark Kelly]

22 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

By that logic we will be selling Mudryk, Jackson, Enzo, Caicedo, and Disasi in the summer.

It's about having some experience. And not selling everyone all at once. Some continuity.

 

Havertz scored the odd goal for us, it didn't make him any good then and it doesn't now. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

15 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

Havertz scored the odd goal for us, it didn't make him any good then and it doesn't now. 

“Generational talent” my arse. 

[boratsbrother]

5 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

 

I'm not seeing a team blessed with highly talented but under performing players. I wish I was but I'm not! We have a good/very good one in Palmer.  A good, consistent workhorse in Gallagher. Flashes of quality from Sterling. Flashes of potential from Mudryk, but that's about it at this moment in time.

 

Forgot to add Badiashile to those names. Looks to have a lot of potential. A nice bit of Rudi aggression about him.

Would obviously have included James and Chilly too, but their awful injury problems is now making it increasingly difficult to see them as part of our future.😟

[chara]

2 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

Havertz scored the odd goal for us, it didn't make him any good then and it doesn't now. 

Saw his goal in the highlights....more room than the Serengeti Plains........took it well but my goodness ..brings back my childhood shivers ."Journey Into Space"........

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, Dwmh said:

Why not - all those that posted it have forgotten.

Funny how a top class CM/AM gets so many goals in a good side when he got so few as a CF.
And funny how the 3 managers kept playing Havertz at CF and nobody else.

It’s a bit of a pointless discussion on here. 
 

It’s bloody obvious, that Havertz who is scoring goals for fun is toilet compared to the likes of Enzo, Caceido, Mudyrk, Madueke and those other MF reinforcements brought in during the summer. 
Same argument in the CF department with Lukaku who scoring for fun,  is toilet compared to Jackson and the game changer Nkunku. 

[Max Fowler]

All my point was - there are many fans who feel we have moved too fast in replacing players and that is partly why we have done so poorly.

Based on their current showing, think Havertz and Kova are two we could have tried to keep a bit longer.

[boratsbrother]

25 minutes ago, ROTG said:

It’s a bit of a pointless discussion on here. 
 

It’s bloody obvious, that Havertz who is scoring goals for fun is toilet compared to the likes of Enzo, Caceido, Mudyrk, Madueke and those other MF reinforcements brought in during the summer. 
Same argument in the CF department with Lukaku who scoring for fun,  is toilet compared to Jackson and the game changer Nkunku. 

Havertz "scoring for fun" has 2 fewer goals than our much derided Jackson. Havertz is also playing in a far better team and under a better coach.   Havertz is doing what he did for us, which is showing patches of good form in amongst a lot of frustratingly mediocre form. He had three years to blossom for us but sadly failed to do so. We couldn't wait any longer and were absolutely right to sell him for the money offered to us.

Lukaku is playing in a significantly weaker league.  A league where KK was considered a star defender but soon found out to be not good enough even  for a midtable Chelsea team. Also, Jackson is on course to score as many as Lukaku did for us and again, scoring in a poorer team.

 

 

[Dwmh]

37 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

All my point was - there are many fans who feel we have moved too fast in replacing players and that is partly why we have done so poorly.

Based on their current showing, think Havertz and Kova are two we could have tried to keep a bit longer.  who wanted away the most and were wanted by the biggest clubs.

Fixed.  This club could not have kept them.

[ROTG]

38 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

Havertz "scoring for fun" has 2 fewer goals than our much derided Jackson. Havertz is also playing in a far better team and under a better coach.   Havertz is doing what he did for us, which is showing patches of good form in amongst a lot of frustratingly mediocre form. He had three years to blossom for us but sadly failed to do so. We couldn't wait any longer and were absolutely right to sell him for the money offered to us.

Lukaku is playing in a significantly weaker league.  A league where KK was considered a star defender but soon found out to be not good enough even  for a midtable Chelsea team. Also, Jackson is on course to score as many as Lukaku did for us and again, scoring in a poorer team.

 

 

Havertz is a midfielder and was being compared to our midfield. 
 

As for the Lukaku  and the weaker league myth. 3 Italian clubs qualified for the CL KO stage with Newcastle failing to beat AC Milan  home or away. 
 

As for Jackson comparisons, I don’t remember Lukaku have the luck of being the striker in 11 vs 9 game.  Also if you take those 3 off of Jackson’s tally even Havertz has score more.

 

[xceleryx]

14 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

At this point we struggle against all types of sides Prof. Celery Sticks. Low block myth is in the past. 

We still do better against more open teams, as has been the case even this season and in prior years. 

Once the game gets compact in that final third however we look void of idea, a long standing issue that's gone on to be further exacerbated by not having RJ and Chilly bombing forward and taking on some of that offensive workload. 

[xceleryx]

11 hours ago, Sciatika said:

I think Jackson used to play wide regularly before he came to us.

Just took a peep at his heat maps from La Liga last season to how they're looking so far, you can see a bit of a difference between the two. He's occupying central ares far more regularly for us, where a wider spread can be seen at Villarreal.

You can see he wants to carry the ball, but that's naturally harder to do centrally and a bit part of why I get frustrated with him because he attempts to do it and then loses possession in shit areas that hurt us. There isn't quite the same risk when in the wider areas, and he looks a lot more active yesterday in that second half once Broja came on and he shifted over to the left more. 

This could be where Nkunku comes in handy, they seemed to play off each other fairly well in pre-season but the real plus point is that they can comfortably interchange during a match. We don't really get that at the moment because none of our wide options are really forwards, so they don't have that sort of instinct or attributes with the exception of possibly Sterling. Mudryk is more a winger and Palmer is kinda like a Ziyech-type, someone that lacks the pace but thrives in the half spaces. 

[xceleryx]

3 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

All my point was - there are many fans who feel we have moved too fast in replacing players and that is partly why we have done so poorly.

Based on their current showing, think Havertz and Kova are two we could have tried to keep a bit longer.

Havertz's contract with us ran until 2025, we had reached that general 2 year mark where you either get a player to extend or you consider selling. There was never going to be a notion of just keeping him around for one more season because once you let a player enter that final 12 months of their contract you're playing with fire. With the way football finances are these days letting players like a Havertz or Kovacic (also entering his final year) go for nothing is detrimental in itself. 

So the question more revolves around whether or not you'd have extended him? He was reportedly on around £250k pw - our fourth highest earner from last seasons squad. Where do you go from there? His performances certainly didn't align with his cost as is, much less any sort of increase. Nor would you necessarily say his performances warranted tying him down longer term either. 

I think it's easy to just say "we should've or could've kept him" (or the several others in similar positions), but being bogged down longer term with inconsistent high earners, experienced or otherwise, isn't what I'd call a great outcome either. 

Edited December 18, 2023 by xceleryx
spelling

[ROTG]

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Havertz's contract with us ran until 2025, we had reached that general 2 year mark where you either get a player to extend or you consider selling. There was never going to be a notion of just keeping him around for one more season because once you let a player enter that final 12 months of their contract you're playing with fire. With the way football finances are these days letting players like a Havertz or Kovacic (also entering his final year) go for nothing is detrimental in itself. 

Sensible analysis

6 hours ago, xceleryx said:

So the question more revolves around whether or not you'd have extended him? He was reportedly on around £250k pw - our fourth highest earner from last seasons squad. Where do you go from there? His performances certainly didn't align with his cost as is, much less any sort of increase. Nor would you necessarily say his performances warranted tying him down longer term either. 

I think it's easy to just say "we should've or could've kept him" (or the several others in similar positions), but being bogged down longer term with inconsistent high earners, experienced or otherwise, isn't what I'd call a great outcome either. 

Not so sensible analysis

Just giving clogg to an ex-player departed and gone to a better club.  The continued reference to wages seems your key part of you analysis most of the senior players departed, without taking into account that during his time at Chelsea, Havertz helped the team win various cups, qualify for the CL very season etc. which generates revenue through, winning competitions, reaching finals of competitions, TV deals, Blue chip sponsorships which is more than just the sponsor on the front of the shirt, with the result higher wagers being offset by additional revenue.

This lower wage longer contract to younger players might seems a good idea on paper and for the bean counters however, the reality has kicked in, Also if the rumours are true and Pochettino want more senior players coming to the club, do you honestly believe they will come for peanuts, and how do existing players "Probably the players agents" react when they see new faces coming on board on significantly higher wages?

On the other hand maybe it is the case of keeping the overheads low and stay as a mid table team.

Note: last season performances by any player should be taken onto consideration for any analysis when you take into account the quality of the coaching teams post TT

[ROTG]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Once the game gets compact in that final third however we look void of idea, a long standing issue that's gone on to be further exacerbated by not having RJ and Chilly bombing forward and taking on some of that offensive workload. 

I hope you are not inferring to going back to a back 3 and WB's?

[boratsbrother]

9 hours ago, ROTG said:

 

As for the Lukaku  and the weaker league myth. 3 Italian clubs qualified for the CL KO stage with Newcastle failing to beat AC Milan  home or away. 
 

 

 

Last 18 CL finals.

12 years there's been an English team in the final. 3 times with an all English final. 6 years with Italian teams in the final. 5 of the last 6 have had an English team in the final with 1 having an Italian team.

6 English teams have been to finals. 3 Italian teams have been to finals. English team has won 3 out of last 5. No Italian team has won any of the last 5. An English team has won it 6 years. Italians have won 2. An English team has won 3 out of the last 5. No Italian win for 13 years.

Debate over!😁

 

 

 

 

 

[Max Fowler]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Havertz's contract with us ran until 2025, we had reached that general 2 year mark where you either get a player to extend or you consider selling. There was never going to be a notion of just keeping him around for one more season because once you let a player enter that final 12 months of their contract you're playing with fire. With the way football finances are these days letting players like a Havertz or Kovacic (also entering his final year) go for nothing is detrimental in itself. 

So the question more revolves around whether or not you'd have extended him? He was reportedly on around £250k pw - our fourth highest earner from last seasons squad. Where do you go from there? His performances certainly didn't align with his cost as is, much less any sort of increase. Nor would you necessarily say his performances warranted tying him down longer term either. 

I think it's easy to just say "we should've or could've kept him" (or the several others in similar positions), but being bogged down longer term with inconsistent high earners, experienced or otherwise, isn't what I'd call a great outcome either. 

At some point we're going to have to have a more nuanced approach than length of contract. We are now looking to sell Gallagher for the same logic you are using with Havertz. "He has 18 months left on his contact and would be sold for pure profit - it's easy to say we should have kept him". At some point we have to persuade someone to stay, even if it's for an extra season. But this board has an obsession with getting everyone on 8 year deals so we never face this problem, even if we create more problems for ourselves in the process. 

[Max Fowler]

8 hours ago, xceleryx said:

We still do better against more open teams, as has been the case even this season and in prior years. 

Once the game gets compact in that final third however we look void of idea, a long standing issue that's gone on to be further exacerbated by not having RJ and Chilly bombing forward and taking on some of that offensive workload. 

Again - the "this season and prior years" argument. There's no comparison.

There's the football under Poch, Lampard mk.2 and Potter, and then there's everything that came before. This constant potrayal of - "we had problems scoring goals and creating chances under Tuchel in the same way!" I am sorry - is for the birds.

Lazy argument that tries to suggest what's come after Tuchel isn't miles worse than him or what came before.

[Sciatika]

57 minutes ago, Max Fowler said:

We are now looking to sell Gallagher for the same logic you are using with Havertz.

You have no evidence apart from some clickbait on Twitter. Where is the evidence that this is the case (i.e. not from Twitter).

Edited December 18, 2023 by Sciatika

[NoblyBobly]

14 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

All my point was - there are many fans who feel we have moved too fast in replacing players and that is partly why we have done so poorly.

Based on their current showing, think Havertz and Kova are two we could have tried to keep a bit longer.

Yes and no. What I don’t like is us giving away a half decent player for next to nothing and then buying crap for 10 times the price. Imo CHO is a better all round player than Mudryk ( from what I’ve seen so far). We sold Hudson for 5 mill and brought Mudryk for 81mill.
If it was up to me I’d still have Tammy A here and a 64 year old Giroud 🥐
As for Havertz , I did champion him for a while but I started to lose the faith eventually . I could take him or leave him but he seemed to lose interest being here.I like Kova but  Players like Werner and Zyech , I couldn’t see the back of fast enough. I actually don’t thinkJackson is that bad. There’s bits about him I like , but he just shouldn’t be our number one choice. 

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

Debate over!😁

Yep

Especially as you are debating historical data rather than the here and now 😀👍

[boratsbrother]

6 hours ago, ROTG said:

Yep

Especially as you are debating historical data rather than the here and now 😀👍

Salah didn't score this weekend so I guess Jackson is now a better striker than Salah.🤪

[xceleryx]

16 hours ago, ROTG said:

Not so sensible analysis

Just giving clogg to an ex-player departed and gone to a better club.  The continued reference to wages seems your key part of you analysis most of the senior players departed, without taking into account that during his time at Chelsea, Havertz helped the team win various cups, qualify for the CL very season etc. which generates revenue through, winning competitions, reaching finals of competitions, TV deals, Blue chip sponsorships which is more than just the sponsor on the front of the shirt, with the result higher wagers being offset by additional revenue.

This lower wage longer contract to younger players might seems a good idea on paper and for the bean counters however, the reality has kicked in, Also if the rumours are true and Pochettino want more senior players coming to the club, do you honestly believe they will come for peanuts, and how do existing players "Probably the players agents" react when they see new faces coming on board on significantly higher wages?

On the other hand maybe it is the case of keeping the overheads low and stay as a mid table team.

Note: last season performances by any player should be taken onto consideration for any analysis when you take into account the quality of the coaching teams post TT

It is sensible, what you've gone on to speak about has very little to do with anything I actually said initially. So keeping it actually on topic, opposed to letting things run down the river.

The crux of the matter is that a decision had to be arrived at. Either we;

• Allowed Havertz to enter the final 12 months of his contract by keeping him here and gamble with trying to sell him (likely for less) next summer.
• Retain him for the remaining two years he had left on his contract and allow a player that cost us £70m to walk for nothing.
• Gamble a little by hanging onto him until the upcoming January window, then try to sell him in what is usually a dryer market with 18 months left. on his contract.
• Come to the conclusion to sell in the summer (as we did) while he still had two years remaining. Whether that was for footballing only reasons, financial reasons, or both (the most likely). 
• Or extend his deal and most likely pay more for the privilege. 

Using the information out there that we have to go on, I'll ask you what I asked Max. Would you have extended Havertz? At the reported £250k pw he was on he certainly wasn't justifying that, nor would he likely have reduced it in any significant fashion to make an extension worthwhile. 

(FWIW I don't mind Havertz, have nothing particularly against him, and at something closer to say £125-150k pw I'd have kept him around without much objection and continued to try and find a solid place in the team for him. None of that was ever likely to occur though, evident by the increase he got joining Arsenal where he now earns around £280k pw - definitely not value for money IMO).

Edited December 19, 2023 by xceleryx
edit, forgot a point.

[xceleryx]

16 hours ago, ROTG said:

I hope you are not inferring to going back to a back 3 and WB's?

Clearly I wasn't.

[xceleryx]

15 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

At some point we're going to have to have a more nuanced approach than length of contract. We are now looking to sell Gallagher for the same logic you are using with Havertz. "He has 18 months left on his contact and would be sold for pure profit - it's easy to say we should have kept him". At some point we have to persuade someone to stay, even if it's for an extra season. But this board has an obsession with getting everyone on 8 year deals so we never face this problem, even if we create more problems for ourselves in the process. 

It's the reality of the sport, whether you like it or not. Modern football is dictated by contract lengths, there's just no way you can let high valued assets - particularly one we spent £71m on, to walk for peanuts or worse nothing. That's why that 2 year mark is what clubs generally work around, and what we've tried to prolong by handing out longer deals. A general 5 year deal really only means 3 years of proper security before having to make a choice of extending (usually involving a wage increase) or selling. Sometimes that just isn't enough time to draw a conclusion on a player, so the extra years helps buy time and saves paying increased wages. 

As I said before, and you've ignored, would you have extended Havertz? Would you be satisfied paying him £280k pw - his current Arsenal wages? Do you think he's ever represented value for money during his 3 seasons here? 

Gallagher's situation is different again. He's a player that wants to stay, he's also not going to demand obscene wages that exceed his output. What hurts Gallagher is he's homegrown and deemed pure profit. If we're in a position of needing to sell to help offset spending in other areas then that's a different decision. I don't want him sold, I'll be pretty dirty if we do and have said as much several times before.