mickyg

Just wanted to raise the issue of thread structure again. i really think the threads in the main General Chelsea section are getting too long and that this leads to a "boring" forum. For example, as of now, there are about 5,500 posts in the Conte topic thread. i understand that there needs to be a balance. But every time I go in, the board looks pretty much the same. I would much rather see, say, three or four, latest "hot" topics for Conte - even if that meant there was some duplication of ideas between them. I could then pick the topic(s) I am most interested in and go straight to that content. For example - “Conte’s Sending Off”. At the moment, it is almost just like looking at a directory of names and is a bit dull. I love TheShedEnd and have read it for years. I appreciate all the effort that goes into running it. That is why I want the best for it and am offering my thought in that spirit. I really think that the thread structure needs to be livened. What do you think?

Ha!

So I think for all of us, Torres has been a big part of our Chelsea life for the last few years. Thoughts such as: "How did he miss that" "OK this is the big chance to silence the critics" "What?!" But for me, a large chunk of his failings are forgiven because of the night that, even though we were going to get through anyway, he scored the goal against Barca that gave me one of the best moments of my life. And now he's gone, almost "just like that." On the one hand I'm not too concerned - Costa and the rest of the team look great right now and we're moving on On the other hand I'm almost feeling like Torres deserves a bit more of a proper goodbye. For me, Zola's farewell was beautiful. But, in general, how do you think we do at saying goodbye to players? Do all the right ones get the testimonials? Are there any players that you think we've allowed to just "slip away" without due recognition?

Fantastic performance - he was full of energy and the assist was great!

Yeah, I think you're right. But it's always good to see him!

Drogb is always Chelsea - so I think it's valid to post about him here! Coincidence that since he came on CIV scores two?

Well played Oscar - some really good crosses as well as the oal. Also, I'd like to see us get Modric.

This is going to be very interesting.

I'm watching it now on Fox Sports in Boston.

I think that if our squad this year had included Drogba-at-his-best, then we would have already won the league. So if I follow that logic, our main focus should be on another Drogba.

Michel Platini must be hating this!

Ref seems OK - so far

Our record of getting into the Champions League semis over the last decade is fantastic. Also we've done well in the FA cup and the Europa win was nice. In terms of the league we have also done well in the last decade. But somehow we seem to perform better in cup competitons. Have I got this right? Maybe there is a statistical way of determining if this is true or not? Is geting into the top four of the CL more difficult than getting in the top four of the Premier League? I would think it is - at least when you take a 10 year average view. If it is true that we are a better "cup side" then what explains it? Maybe because we get more up for the big nights and the intensity of knock-outs? And the flip side of ghis would be that an away game against the likes of Palace orQPR in the league doesn't get the juices flowing?

Eden's haircut makes him look a bit like Joe Cole.

Is it mainly player motivation or mainly tactical savvy?

Does anyone have data on our record when we attack towards the Shed End versus going the other way?

Interesting. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I wonder how most players react to abuse. On TV you often see shots were the away supporters are clearly giving players verbal insults and hand signs to go with it. In some cases this escalates to thrown things like coins. Do you think this makes players play better because they become riled up? Thrre are some good examples of players who "take the bait" and get stuck in - Cantana for one. I could never imagine Zola doing that - but then again, I could never imagine a fan from any other team insulting him.

The thing I like about our chances is the Jose-inspired defence. We're not giving up many goals. (As opposed to the AVB period). City, us or Arsenal - ha, I love it.

Is it possible to quantify the impact that fans have on our team? At one extreme, we could say that fans have no impact. Players are professionals and will usually play their best and are not influenced by the crowd. At the other end we might say that crowds have a big impact - if we are down 1-0 and played the same match 100 times, then we are far more likely to win when the fans are strongly and vocally behind us. The fact that teams win more games at home suggests the fans have some impact. But maybe many times the fans just follow the trend, not lead it - if the team is doing well they cheer. If things are bad, they boo. Let's say that in a given season we expect to get 90 points. Now imagine that for some strange reason we are told that we have to play all our home games in an empty stadium and no Chelsea supporters are allowed to away games. What do you think would happen to our total points? I think it would go to 80. And is this all about the fans who are actually there in the stadium, or do the fans posting on forums and commenting on other sites have an impact?

I'm in favour of it. Next question for me is how far should we go? American Football (NFL) has video reviews of most important plays. So should we do something similar? For starts, every penalty decision be reviewed? My only issue is that NFL decisions take 4 to 5 minutes, but that ties in with the nature of the game, and TV ads. But a review of penalty decisions could be done in a minute. I think it would be good. Maybe red cards too?

I was watching Butch Wilkins during the United vesus Fulham game and it got me thinking about how ex-Chelsea players feel about us now. Let's say that I'm a Spanish player who has never played for us and might not even know much about us. Now he's playing against us in, say, the Champions league, and I can see that he will be 100% happy if his team beat us. Now imagine a premier league player who grew up supporting us but plays for another prmiership team and beats us. Still 100%? Maybe 96% But then how about Mata? And how about Didier? Is there a sliding scale here? Or does every player have a 100% happiness for their new team? Something like "I respect and love Chelsea and my time there, but I am ...." I think the fact that often ex-players will not celebrate when scoring against their old team suggests there is a sliding scale. So if that is true, on a scale of 1 to 10, how happy would Drogba be if they beat us, with 1 being not happy? Where would Benitez be? How about Zola when with West Ham? Maybe it can't be reduced to a scale? Maybe there is no real conflict?

As of now, Bestbetting has us as favorites!

I can see that when Aguero comes back is important. Do you think we would have beaten them if he was playing on Monday?

I often go to sites such as "Bestbetting" to see the odds for us winnng the league. They show the bets from several bookmakers, and overall, currently, City are at even odds to win whereas we are 2 to 1. Assuming that these odds are based on many punters who are prepared to risk their money and presumably think they know, then maybe this is the most accurate prediction of what will happen. But why do people favor City since we beat them? Is it the run-in games that we face or it something else? I know Jose doesn't have us winning, but I assume that's part his communication gift to take presure off the players. If I had to bet today, I would put us dead even with City and Arsenal, and would not put us so far in the odds versus City. Hmmm.

Brilliant win today against City. However, It did get me thinking about what we call " luck". In particular, when Chahill's header hit the post, I thought, aaarrrghh, if only that was two inches to the left. My first thought was, how unlucky was that. In the end we won and that potential goal did not matter. But how much do you think luck comes into it? Was Cahill's miss not unlucky, but just a slight lack of skill? Are the only "unlucky" things to do with a bad ref decision, or an unexpected breeze, or a hamstring problem? I guess if you look at a whole season of 38 games, then things should balance out. You might get some bad ref calls in some games but they should be mitigated by some advantageous decisions in others. And in some games you are one inch wide to the right on a shot versus in others where you are one inch to the left and score. Statistically, as we get nearer to the end of the season I think the role of luck for the remaining closely-matched top teams will increase - because less games means a greater chance for things such as a bad ref decision or an injury to a key payer will count for more. How much do you think that luck will play as to whether we win the league? After the win against City, I am 70% sure that we will win the league, but would put that at + or - 20% One or two bad penalty decisions could turn it either way. One or two shots close to the crossbar could do the same - though would these be due due to skill or luck? Anyway, it seems that this league often comes down to a knife-edge in the blend of skill and luck.