Hazardous

I think it's useful to compare our situation to our competitors. I looked at the goalscoring records from last season and worked out a simple metric called dependency. At the team level, it measures the percentage of goals scored by the team's strikers. At the player level, it measures the contribution of each striker in respect of the total number of goals scored by his team. At the team level, the ordered dependency scores are: United (65.6), Liverpool (51.5), City (44.1), Chelsea (38.0), and Arsenal (35.3). The only two dubious players I included were Schurrle and Podolski. It could be argued these are not strikers, but I made the choice to include them. One interpretation of these results is that United are heavily dependent on their strikers for goals, while Chelsea and Arsenal are much less so. It's interesting, but not surprising, that we have a relatively low team-dependency score. We tend to play one striker, so we expect our midfielders and other forwards to weigh-in with goals. United and Liverpool usually play two or more strikers, while City often play two. At the individual level, the scores are: United (Rooney 26.5, RVP 18.8, Welbeck 14.1, Hernandez 6.3), Liverpool (Suarez 30.7, Sturridge 20.8, Aspas 0), City (Aguero 16.7, Dzeko 15.7, Negredo 8.8, Jovetic 2.9), Chelsea (Eto'o 12.7, Schurrle 11.3, Ba 7.0, Torres 7.0), and Arsenal (Giroud 23.5, Podolski 11.8, Sanogo 0). If you compare the players within each team with the highest dependency score, Chelsea have the lowest single-player dependency - Eto'o (12.7). The second lowest was City - Aguero (16.7). The team with the highest player-dependency score was Liverpool - Suarez (30.7). In other words, for every 3 goals that Liverpool scored in the Premier League, Suarez scored 1 of them. Liverpool were also highly dependent on Sturridge (20.8). In more detail, Chelsea's player dependency scores were lower and more balanced: Eto'o (12.7), Schurrle (11.3), Ba (7.0), Torres (7.0). On the one hand, this carries the advantage that we're not overly dependent on one player. On the other hand, this represented a problem for us last season. In a one striker formation, you would expect a player to hit form, score goals, and hold their place in the team for a prolonged period. This would lead to one of our players having a relatively high dependency score compared to our other strikers. That never really happened for us. In fact, this was a key reason that we scored around 30 less goals than City and Liverpool. It should be noted that we conceded less goals than City and Liverpool. If we maintain that record, it's not essential that we close the goal scoring gap entirely. However, if we are to be successful next season we are likely to require an increased single-player dependency (i.e. upon Costa). Increased single-player dependency is one of those nice problems to have, and one that we didn't have last season.

I think we have to treat the Torres transfer as a sunk cost. It looks unlikely that we'll be able to recover any sizeable proportion. As supporters with the clubs best interests at heart, we shouldn't let this retrospective cost affect our decision making going forward. Our best option, I think, is to continue to support Torres until his contract terminates, and hope his performances improve. The alternative is to complain until the day his contract ends, and probably make it more difficult for Torres to improve his performances. It's a pain to treat such an expensive transfer as a sunk cost, but it's our best choice as rational decision makers who prioritise Chelsea's interests.

Without watching footage from the last couple of seasons, the best signals of Luis' quality that we have are: (1) his reported £20M price tag; (2) that he seems to be highly rated by Atletico fans, even when departing; and (3) the fact that he was a regular starter for the La Liga winners and Champions League finalists. From these signals, I'm reasonably confident Luis is low-risk in terms of performance and capability. With that said, £20M for a left-back who will be 29 at the start of the season (his birthday is August 9) seems relatively expensive. He will depreciate in value dramatically over the length of his contract. If he can give us 4 solid years, however, I think we'll look back on this transfer as sound business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsqJFIJ5lLs

The two most important questions, I think, are (1) did we correctly value Torres ex-ante? and (2) how far off were we in our valuation ex-post? In other words, at the time of the transfer - and given the information that was available at that time (ex-ante) - was the transfer fee and his wages appropriate? Clearly, in hindsight (ex-post) we know the transfer fee and his wages were an overvaluation. But knowledge with hindsight doesn't necessarily help us to improve our (i.e. the club's) future decision making. For the second question, the extent to which we incorrectly valued Torres is important for any future decisions regarding his status as a Chelsea player. If it was a massive overvaluation, it's very unlikely that any other club is going to be able to sign Torres due to our overvaluation being realised in Torres' current wage. Other clubs now have more information, and can thus make a more accurate valuation that will fall short of the valuation we made when negotiating Torres' contract. I think that most of us supporters have, for a while now, assumed this to be the case. Therefore, my logic has been to throw my weight behind Torres and hope that we (as a fan base) can contribute in some small way to getting the most out of the outlay that's already been committed. I don't feel the need to condemn or defend Torres, I just want the club to get the most out of its expenditure.

Hopefully Ramires and Oscar won't play more than 60 minutes for Brazil this week. I would use Schurrle, Willian and Hazard behind Eto'o. We really want to try and isolate their full backs for Schurrle and Hazard. I noticed that Kyle Walker pulled out of the England squad. But even if he recovers, Spurs will be choosing between Walker, Fryers and Rose. This has to be Spurs' primary weakness.

Schürrle made so many forward runs after he scored his second. Although stating the obvious; he really wanted that hat-trick! Clinical finishes, too. The players really stepped up in the second half. Good to see Torres persevere and make an assist. Arsenal and Liverpool are now four points behind. We also play again before Man City's next Premier League fixture. If we can beat Spurs at the Bridge, City will be nine points behind (with three games in hand) going into their next league game away to Hull. To increase the pressure futher, City face Arsenal (A), Man United (A), and Liverpool (A) in their next six fixtures. From a psychological point of view, beating Spurs could be huge for us.

Matic could be very important for us. If we're level going into the last 30-35 minutes, I wouldn't be surprised to see Matic pushing further into Fulham's third to create more space for our forwards and full backs in wide positions. If we're chasing the game, this could happen even earlier. Ordinarily Ramires fulfills this role, but Jose mentioned that he was carrying an injury after the Everton game (and he played the full match against Galatasaray). I hope it won't be required, but we might see Matic in a particularly attacking role against Fulham.

I always had the impression that his knee injury(s) affected his mobility. What a player, though. I remember so many games where he totally commanded the midfield. Opposition players couldn't get past him when attacking, or near him when defending. For a few seasons he was right up there amongst my favourite players.

Doh!

Early twenties; transfer fee a bit over £10M; left footed; a good turn of pace; and enjoys taking on isolated defenders. Where have we seen a Jose signing like that before? With that said, I don't want to place unreasonable pressure on Salah (I've barely even seen him play). Let's be positive and patient.

Some statistics on Mata's first two seasons at Chelsea. After signing for £23M in August 2011; 2011-12: Games Started: 47 Appearences as Substitute: 7 Goals: 12 Assists: 20 Shots: 97 Shots on Target: 42 2012-13: Games Started: 55 Appearences as Substitute: 9 Goals: 20 Assists: 28 Shots: 113 Shots on Target: 49 In the Premier League only, Mata contributed 18 goals and 25 assists during the 2011-12 & 2012-13 seasons. Chelsea scored 140 league goals in that time; which means Mata was directly involved (either through scoring or assist) in 30.7% of our league goals. I'm preaching to the choir, I know. I just wanted to highlight his contribution. The club has had an amazing return (in terms of his performance) on the £23M investment, matched by an estimated £14M climb in value. So while it sucks to see him go, I'm still delighted we signed Juan Mata and witnessed his control and solemnity in possession, those subtle through balls, and the delicate, save-defying shots. He's been great.

According to current bookies' odds (http://tiny.cc/2b219w), the implied probability of Mata joining United by the end of January ranges from 69-74%. We can't assess the information that goes into those odds, so we should be cautious about inferring too much from this. Speculation amongst hungry punters could be forcing the odds to shorten temporarily, for example. But it's looking somewhat ominous.

I don't know very much about Matic since I haven't been watching Benfica. But from his stats and what I've read, it seems like Ramires, Van Ginkel and Matic could be a well balanced midfield three. Matic more defensive and playing from deep; Ramires with his athleticism and speed on the break; and Van Ginkel linking up with the forwards. I must avoid getting over excited, though - Van Ginkel is still young and will likely need time to recover from an awful injury, while Matic hasn't been confirmed, yet! Although it's disappointing to lose KDB, if it enables Matic to rejoin I think that we'll be stronger moving forwards.

I don't think KDB's ability or potential is under too much question; this transfer is a huge outlay for Wolfsburg. It seems the transfer is more about rebalancing the squad. KDB is competing with Oscar (21), Schurrle (23), Hazard (23), Mata (25) and Willian (25). Meanwhile, our central midfielders are Ramires (26), Mikel (26), Essien (31) and Lampard (35). The average age of our forwards is 23.4; compared with 29.5 for our midfield. We could maintain this forward line-up for several years without requiring a major transfer. However, Essien (whose contract expires in 2015) and Lampard will (sadly) need to be replaced in the much nearer future.

Hello all, first post here after being a reader for a while. It's great to see the flexibilty we have in defence. When Ivanovic picked up an injury, Azpi's switch to right back was seemless. This flexibility has been considerably enhanced by Azpi gaining experience on the right. We now have the options of Ivanovic switching into central defence, Azpi playing on the left or right, and Luiz playing in central defence or in front of the back four. Couple this with our flexibility in forward positions, where Hazard, Mata, Willian, Schurrle, and Oscar can switch around, and I think we have the capacity to surprise teams tactically. We're capable of making radical changes during games with only one or two substitutions. This will surely please Jose going into the new year.