Chelsea 2 Sheffield United 0

[xceleryx]

15 hours ago, Max Fowler said:

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.

I like how you're playing the no comparison card but have been quite happy to use prior seasons (ie, last season) when judging our overall form. Despite the fact the team we currently have is virtually entirely different to what we had last season. 

Can't have it both ways mate. 

It's common knowledge that we've had tough time against low-block sides for years, and then traditionally done better against teams that play more open, not sure why you're trying to argue otherwise. The proof is literally there in front of you.

[Dwmh]

8 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

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). 

You missed the fifth option - offer him the same contract that Arsenal offered him only without us having to pay a transfer fee.

Along with the sixth option - run the club properly so all your good players want to stay instead of fighting to get away.

[xceleryx]

Just now, Dwmh said:

You missed the fifth option - offer him the same contract that Arsenal offered him only without us having to pay a transfer fee.

Along with the sixth option - run the club properly so all your good players want to stay instead of fighting to get away.

Literally just amended that before/as you posted after reading it back.

[Dwmh]

19 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

Literally just amended that before/as you posted after reading it back.

It doesn't work until you realise that the club has to be better run if it wants players older than 21 to extend their contracts.  
It is the sixth option that gives the club alternatives.

[kev61]

17 hours ago, ROTG said:

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

What's wrong with that?.Wing backs become full backs when we are under pressure - Full backs become wing backs when we are not.

Of course the midfield needs to be solid.We haven't quite cracked that yet.We play with no fluidity - it's all... player A plays to player B, Player B  looks for an opening to play to player C player C receives the ball and struggles to find player D  meanwhile our game has come to a standstill and then it goes sideways and backwards.

What do we do in training!!!.That's why I want Poch out.

[ROTG]

7 hours ago, xceleryx said:

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).

You don't go from top 4 team over night unless the is a specific flaw. E.G. bringing in a Looser like Potter and his clowns of a coaching team.

As has been proven year in year out by RA when a coach goes south you replace him with a better coach and rejuvenate the playing staff and bring in a couple of the coaches preferred players. You don't fire your playing squad and replace them with championship level players.

IMO TT transfer window last summer was a disaster along with January's, however it was possible to salvage the situation when respected coaches were available and would have reenergised the senior playing staff.

As for the Havertz question, yes I would have kept him, due to his quality and would have gambled last season was a blip due to Potter and the coming season would have put the club back where it belongs "and lets be honest its doesn't seen that difficult based on the clubs occupying the top 6-7 slots". The bottom line is keeping Havertz vs flogging him is no different to the gambles the TBSD have done with a majority of the over priced long contracted players they recruited.

Maybe you can enlighten rather than dodge your opinion on how loosing blue chip sponsorship and the revenue impacts the clubs operating cost. Also when you watch the highlights of the Newcastle game and the pre and post match interviews count the number of sponsors on the board at the back, then compare the boards of other clubs its embarrassing and will not get any better being mid table.

[Thiago97]

I really wouldn't get too deep in discussing the sale of Havertz. The only reason it is being discussed is due to scoring 4-5 recently, but he showed in his time here that he was a bit of a streaky player.

He had these spells for us where he scored for 3-4 games and played well, which was then followed by some lesser performances and a dry run in front of goal. Give it a month and I am sure we will be back into the cycle of Arsenal fans moaning about him, whilst Chelsea fans rejoice at what is good business.....until the next streaky patch comes back!

[ROTG]

6 hours ago, kev61 said:

What's wrong with that?.Wing backs become full backs when we are under pressure - Full backs become wing backs when we are not.

Of course the midfield needs to be solid.We haven't quite cracked that yet.We play with no fluidity - it's all... player A plays to player B, Player B  looks for an opening to play to player C player C receives the ball and struggles to find player D  meanwhile our game has come to a standstill and then it goes sideways and backwards.

What do we do in training!!!.That's why I want Poch out.

WB are good when you have crap players e.g. Cucurella would excel as a WB due to his thinking on the field would be reduced by 90%.

Alternatively maybe Poch should play 5 CB and then he could use the Wilder overlapping CB tactics

[ROTG]

1 minute ago, Thiago97 said:

I really wouldn't get too deep in discussing the sale of Havertz. The only reason it is being discussed is due to scoring 4-5 recently, but he showed in his time here that he was a bit of a streaky player.

He had these spells for us where he scored for 3-4 games and played well, which was then followed by some lesser performances and a dry run in front of goal. Give it a month and I am sure we will be back into the cycle of Arsenal fans moaning about him, whilst Chelsea fans rejoice at what is good business.....until the next streaky patch comes back!

Streaky performances? - that is also true of the current Chelsea team

Chelsea fans rejoice at what is good business? - Don't think there are too many Chelsea supporters are rejoicing on the business done to replace the likes of Havertz

[Thiago97]

2 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Streaky performances? - that is also true of the current Chelsea team

Chelsea fans rejoice at what is good business? - Don't think there are too many Chelsea supporters are rejoicing on the business done to replace the likes of Havertz

By business, it's fairly clear I mean the fee received. You have taken it down another avenue, its almost like you have previous for this 🙂

He is a streaky player. I have not looked back at his goals for Chelsea, but to my mind they often came in little clusters of 4 in 6 and then 10 without etc.

The only reason it is a current conversational point is the usual knee jerk reaction to some recent goals. His name won't be on anyone's radar, in a positive sense , when he hits a run of games where he has not scored in 8.

[ROTG]

3 minutes ago, Thiago97 said:

By business, it's fairly clear I mean the fee received. You have taken it down another avenue, its almost like you have previous for this 🙂

He is a streaky player. I have not looked back at his goals for Chelsea, but to my mind they often came in little clusters of 4 in 6 and then 10 without etc.

The only reason it is a current conversational point is the usual knee jerk reaction to some recent goals. His name won't be on anyone's radar, in a positive sense , when he hits a run of games where he has not scored in 8.

Not taking down any other avenues, If you think with was good business so be it, however IMO he could have been kept another season to work with Pochettino  as his age etc ticked the clubs profile, instead the TBSD decided bean counting rather than performance was the driver. With the bottom line being if he did work out with Pochettino he still had 12 months remaining on his contract and I am sure the club would have still got a good price for him. Let put it like this if the club got 40m next summer they would have only lost 1/4 of the price the arse paid which in reality is still far less of a loss than say Madueke

[Mark Kelly]

24 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Streaky performances? - that is also true of the current Chelsea team

Chelsea fans rejoice at what is good business? - Don't think there are too many Chelsea supporters are rejoicing on the business done to replace the likes of Havertz

I am , Cole Palmer is far better in my opinion . 

[ROTG]

44 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

I am , Cole Palmer is far better in my opinion . 

Palmer is a real tallent, and hopefully he continues to impress. However let’s not count our chickens to early I suspect there are bumps in the road ahead, just like Havertz ,MM and Chalobah to name a few. 

[jasonb]

On 17/12/2023 at 13:23, NoblyBobly said:

We seem to be putting all our eggs in a Nkunku shaped basket. Is that wise? I hate it when we all get disappointed 😔 

Yes there is always that risk after a long lay off he comes back a different player and not in a good way yet of course we hope for a good outcome.

Suggests to me do not get rid of any strikers until we get other replacements.........

[paulw66]

5 hours ago, ROTG said:

Not taking down any other avenues, If you think with was good business so be it, however IMO he could have been kept another season to work with Pochettino  as his age etc ticked the clubs profile, instead the TBSD decided bean counting rather than performance was the driver. With the bottom line being if he did work out with Pochettino he still had 12 months remaining on his contract and I am sure the club would have still got a good price for him. Let put it like this if the club got 40m next summer they would have only lost 1/4 of the price the arse paid which in reality is still far less of a loss than say Madueke

He went for 65m with 2 years left. With 12 months left, that fee goes in half. And we've paid him another circa 15m in wages. 

More likely though, the player then runs that contract down to nothing and leaves for nothing.

At 2 years left, you either sell or renew. IMO the club did the right thing. Got most of the initial outlay back, and getting an inconsistent performer on enormous wages off the books. 

[chara]

6 hours ago, ROTG said:

Palmer is a real tallent, and hopefully he continues to impress. However let’s not count our chickens to early I suspect there are bumps in the road ahead, just like Havertz ,MM and Chalobah to name a few. 

Attitude ,Attitude, Attitude,,,,,,,,,,,, that's the difference..Havertz in this squad would be a hanger on and not a grasper of opportunities or of work ethic .... even now I think I could have scored Havertz last effort...as I said..more room than the The Serengeti.....

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, chara said:

Attitude ,Attitude, Attitude,,,,,,,,,,,, that's the difference..Havertz in this squad would be a hanger on and not a grasper of opportunities or of work ethic .... even now I think I could have scored Havertz last effort...as I said..more room than the The Serengeti.....

Lets see What Palmer's attitude  is at the end of the season.
Our best player avoided pre-season, what does that tell us?

[chara]

3 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Lets see What Palmer's attitude  is at the end of the season.
Our best player avoided pre-season, what does that tell us?

Understand your end of season comment but that goes for any player I suppose..as things stand his "attitude" is far better than Havertz could ever muster even when he made the occasional effort (I had great hopes of him with his promising graceful style that never quite stuck)

Not sure what your second comment means..explain to an OG...genuine question ..you know I rarely do windups.

[thevelourfog]

I think Havertz worked incredibly hard (just often alone and fruitlessly) for us last season, never understood criticism of his attitude. 

He left because he's won what there is to win here and has too much of his career left to waste it. We had no realistic alternative but to sell, but only because that's what happens to clubs going nowhere fast.

[chara]

27 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I think Havertz worked incredibly hard (just often alone and fruitlessly) for us last season, never understood criticism of his attitude. 

He left because he's won what there is to win here and has too much of his career left to waste it. We had no realistic alternative but to sell, but only because that's what happens to clubs going nowhere fast.

Rarely disagree with you tvf..and understand where you are coming from here but imho think you are being a bit too generous with your praise,,,it's the "often" reference I question..again..only my humble opinion...when he did apply himself I always had that renewed flicker of hope but like others seemed always to be a false dawn...didn't dislike him but expected more from a 'generational" talent..and I did take into account covid and early injuries.

Not arguing your respected opinion...just my view.

[Dwmh]

29 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

I think Havertz worked incredibly hard (just often alone and fruitlessly) for us last season, never understood criticism of his attitude. 

He left because he's won what there is to win here and has too much of his career left to waste it. We had no realistic alternative but to sell, but only because that's what happens to clubs going nowhere fast.

Agree with both.  In fact you could argue that his time spent up front with little support and being a a fish out of water blessed with neither brute force not pace and with his back to goal and up against bigger faster CBs was heroic and showed a lot of bottle 
No one else wanted the job.

We are kidding our selves that those players who went to bigger clubs were kicked out unwillingly.  They wanted out - obviously.

49 minutes ago, chara said:

57 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Our best player avoided pre-season, what does that tell us?

Not sure what your second comment means..explain to an OG...genuine question ..you know I rarely do windups.

Cobham is a miserable place to be nowadays.  Fernandez signed Jan 31 a month after the WC and debuted Feb 3 and was brilliant.  His form has faded 10 months later.
Cole Palmer signed Sept 1 and debuted the very next day.  Also on a personal high.
Most of our squad other than Caicedo (another who started well albeit after injury) have been here 6 to 12 months before the season started.
In fact it is almost a rule that the longer a player is here the more their form drops off.

Good luck Cole Palmer.

 

[ROTG]

3 hours ago, chara said:

Attitude ,Attitude, Attitude,,,,,,,,,,,, that's the difference..Havertz in this squad would be a hanger on and not a grasper of opportunities or of work ethic .... even now I think I could have scored Havertz last effort...as I said..more room than the The Serengeti.....

Whatever floats you boat 

all I do know for someone with and attitude problem 139 games for the club in three seasons scoring 39 goals does not seem someone with and attitude problem.  With last season him playing 35 games and over 2,500 minutes in a season when these so called senior players downed tools. 

[chara]

6 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Whatever floats you boat 

all I do know for someone with and attitude problem 139 games for the club in three seasons scoring 39 goals does not seem someone with and attitude problem.  With last season him playing 35 games and over 2,500 minutes in a season when these so called senior players downed tools. 

Sigh..I always read your views with interest but I believe maybe you are deliberately taking my post away from the point I was trying to make...perhaps I didn;t make my point too well...it was more the positive aspects of Palmers appearances rather than the Havertz apparent inability to harness a great deal of talent and ability on a regular basis,,,that's what disappointed me and possibly others,

[kev61]

On 19/12/2023 at 19:50, chara said:

Sigh..I always read your views with interest but I believe maybe you are deliberately taking my post away from the point I was trying to make...perhaps I didn;t make my point too well...it was more the positive aspects of Palmers appearances rather than the Havertz apparent inability to harness a great deal of talent and ability on a regular basis,,,that's what disappointed me and possibly others,

Palmer hit the ground running because he is a good player with bags of talent no matter who is in charge.

Havertz needs good players around him - otherwise he is at best functional. He scored the winning goal in the CL,thanks for that.