Jump to content


Ready Player One

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Donations

    £0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ready Player One

  • Rank
    Youth Team

Recent Profile Visitors

750 profile views
  1. we'd be due £5-10m in compensation (amount decided by a tribunal) if he left. he's going nowhere on a free. but i'm pretty sure he'll sign a new contract. i don't think he'll get more money elsewhere (from the sound of it we're offering silly money), and he's gonna be in our first team plans. that'll be enough.
  2. at least they've cleared up handball, which has been entirely at the discretion of refs for far too long. before this, the "laws of the game" were just it's an offence to "handle the ball deliberately", and that has been completely ignored for years with unintentional handballs constantly being penalised (like the cl final, that was never a pen imo...even under these rules). what var will do is stop refs making decisions. that's why it was resisted for so long. and when refs want to make sh*t decisions and stick by them, they will anyway. wasn't there an fa cup game we had with var under conte that was chock full of horrific decisions against us? norwich at home? i remember being furious about it, but i can't remember specifics tbh.
  3. It's good to have a manager that is proper Chels. Since we sacked Jose the second time, I've known full well that our managers have seen us as a stepping stone, no intention of sticking around. No offence to them, but they were never long term things. It's hard to put my finger on, but it honestly feels a bit mercenary. Managers who are here for the quick buck. Players with so little pride in the badge they'll down tools for a season if they don't like the training or whatever. Frank may or may not last a while, but I know he cares about the club. I know he's a fan, just like us. It actually feels like we could get some of the identity back that we have been missing. We're not a clone of what the "next big thing" gaffer did at his last club. We're Chelsea. We're not a stepping stone, or an easy ride. We're Chelsea. I don't know how well you'll do, I don't know if you're a good manager or not. But good luck Frank. Great to have you back.
  4. here's that 6 month bump i promised you. lulz.
  5. #SarriOut trending in Italy:
  6. I don't really know or care whether he should stay or go. He's not irreplaceable, but replacing him doesn't have to be a priority. He's a good manager, he has a style of football he wants to play, but he's inflexible, and I think the quality of players he has will tell more than anything he does. One thing that bothers me, and probably bothers the board, is that he was presented as a "super coach" who "works with players" and doesn't need any say in the transfer market. What a load of bollocks that was. He is more inflexible than any manager we've had here since AVB. If we want to play "his way" we're going to have to sell half the team, and if we don't do that, he's going to go with it anyway and let us get exposed. If the answer is selling Azpilicueta, Kante and so on, then the question is wrong. And for all the talk of it, "Sarriball" is the exact same carrot on a stick possession football with fast breaks that AVB tried to implement nearly a decade ago with players far less suited to it. I don't want to criticise him too much, he is what he is, and a good manager, but he came here under false pretences, and a whole load of people bought the bullsh*t. New shiny things are exciting, but they lose their lustre under close examination. It helps if we understand that we are just looking more closely at what we have, not that what we have is worse than the exciting looking thing that someone else has in the highlights programmes. And I include Sarri in that. There is no point replacing him because someone else is selling us a different brand of bullsh*t (a criticism i could make of manager hires since Carlo telling Roman that the team "lacked personality" and Roman lapping it up like a mark).
  7. I thought he was really poor in this game (although TBF, he's not the only one, and I'm not looking to single him out or slate him above others), but I don't think that's his fault. I think the problem with Ruben is that he looks like a physical beast, but he's not that player at all. He is class on the ball. Absolute class. That's his game. Elegant, stylish, great touch. He can explode past players in little bursts, but he isn't a 90 mins grafter who can (or should) chase opposition attackers around the pitch. He's a strolling ballplayer. Nothing wrong with that either, if you have the talent he has (and when he's had the chance this season to show how talented he is in attacking positions, he's taken it. No-one can doubt that any more IMO). If we want to use him deep, play him in the Jorginho role. It would be a waste of his talent, but not as much as asking him to bomb up and down the pitch for 90 mins, tracking midfield runs, then making his own. It's like having a Ferrari and using it as a tractor. Personally, I want to see him as a No.10. Leave him up the pitch. He can make a difference; score goals, make goals, use his outstanding skill level to terrorise defences. We should be asking opposition players if they can live with him, not forcing him to deal with them. I think Conte had him right, and he's an attacking player, not a traditional mid (although Conte didn't have a position for him in that kind of role either, but that's more about Conte's systems than him IMO). I don't want to see him chasing around the pitch forlornly, looking knackered, and getting outmuscled by midgets. He has it in him to be the English Zidane, but it seems like he's expected to be the English Viera, because it's England and he's English and that's what's "expected". "You gotta work hard, smash into tackles, run all day, be like Henderson and Milner, good English pros". I love a good hard-working pro as much as anyone, but that's never going to be RLC. He has other, much rarer, gifts. TBH if he's going to be given the role he had in this game, we may as well play Barkley. He's nowhere near RLC in terms of talent, but he can run for 90 mins.
  8. There is a theory that football is a "weak link" game, in that your worst player costs you more often than your best player benefits you (as opposed to basketball which is a "strong link" game, your best player is more important than whether his team-mates are bobbins or not, because he will score sh*t tons regardless). It came from the book "The Numbers Game", which had good stuff and bad stuff, but this was a good theory I think. In this context, I think the amount that Roman has invested in the youth team doesn't actually benefit our youth prospects. If you have a team full of players who are fixing to be good solid championship pros (but are never likely to make it at our level), they will beat most teams who have one or two potential top talents who will go on to be Prem (or equivalent) stars, but also a handful of players who will never make it as pros at all. The amount they have won is meaningless, as it's not because they're truly the elite at that level. It's because our worst player at that level is leagues better than everyone else's worst player, because we likely spent a (relative) ton of money on buying him from the a Danish youth team or whatever. Because of that, I've been pretty cold on youth players breaking through in general. Your record in youth football here is pretty meaningless, because of the way we do it. I will say that CHO and Christensen look a different level to pretty much every other player we've had coming through the youth system in the last decade and a half though; based on their appearances in the first team. But, I still get why managers aren't as trusting of youth here, as it's really hard to tell who's a CHO and who's a Musonda/Kakuta/So on without actually putting them in the first team.
  9. I also thought he was excellent against Spurs. And I thought Emerson was very good against City. And Azpilicueta was very good in both games. The benefit to the FBs of playing slightly more defensively and actually giving them some cover is the main difference tho, rather than them magically becoming better players. The constant pressing regardless of situation wasn't working, and was exposing our defence. the idea that they need help isn't a knock on any of them. It's a team game. All of these guys can look like good players in the right system, and all of them will get slaughtered if we leave them constantly exposed. I'm glad Sarri has adapted a little bit, because he needed to. What we were doing was making the whole team look worse than it is. Right now, it's two good performances on the spin, against two very good teams.
  10. TBH a lot of the frustration with Sarri seems to be that he doesn't change things when things are going badly. The like for like FB swap in a couple of recent defeats in particular has been a bit cringe. I think he'd get more support from the matchday fans if he at least tried something different, whether it worked or not. We can see it's not working. He must be able to see it's not working. Everyone can see it's not working. Why keep doing it? Change things up for 20 mins. I think that's what the "f*ck Sarriball" chants were about. We're getting beat by Utd. Planning for next season be bollocksed. Do something to get us back in the game. Don't fiddle about with the fullbacks.
  11. I can't talk about all of the 29 cases, but the Bertrand case, we are bang to rights, and it's amazing we thought we could get away with that.
  12. i worry about him, not because he's a bad player (which he isn't IMO, regardless of his relative struggles), but because he doesn't seem to gel with Kante, and "Getting the best out of Kante" will be one of the things the next fella says at his first press conference.
  13. Emery's Arsenal are in pretty much the exact same position as us, but no-one is talking about sacking him. We created this high pressure environment for managers, this culture of "player power", and it's not going to change unless we choose to change it. The scenario will be exactly the same for the next guy. Whoever that is. We're dumping girlfriends the first time we see a wrinkle, or grey hair, and wondering why we don't have long term relationships. And no manager who genuinely wants a long term project would touch us with a barge pole, because everyone looking at us knows we're not a long term project. We're a whirlwind romance, but one that could get you a few trophies on a CV and a big payoff when it ends. And that's what managers want from us. The thing is, I don't think we want to change it. I think we do very well out of what we do, and we use that to justify it. But don't expect things like "this manager is the one it will be different for, we'll give him time, he'll overhaul the squad, and integrate the youth". It's not going to happen.

×
×
  • Create New...