Jump to content

Luiz4Chelsea

Members
  • Posts

    237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Donations

    £0.00 

Everything posted by Luiz4Chelsea

  1. He is a good poacher with undeniable striker's instincts, but find him lacking in too many aspects. - He's not physically robust. He barely wins a header and gets bullied off the ball easily. The other way around, he can't harass the ball playing defender. - His first touch and his hold up play aren't very good. His ball distribution is on and off. When he manages to redistribute the ball with his back to goal he most likely loses his balance in the process and is unavailable for the rest of the attack, until he has caught up. - He can't dribble past opponents nor can he sprint past them. Even when running without the ball he won't always beat defenders to over the top passes. - Most significantly for me, his mindset is off. I think he is a hard worker, but struggles to deal with frustrations. He's a typical blamethrower, throwing his arms in the air at every single missed attempt of his teammates, pointing out how completely free he was - albeit 5 frames after the actual chance. It would be correct to point out that some of these could be said about Werner as well. In fact, against smaller (e.g. bus parking) teams I personally prefer Tammy. Werner is a counter attack striker exclusively, his assets being completely useless against low blocks (apart from being able to win penalties). Yet I believe at Chelsea we need to ask ourselves this with regards to our players: Does he offer something exceptional to the team in specific matches? And Werner does. The teams that actually want to play football simply don't now how to deal with his pressing, his vision, runs and pace, his ability to either finish himself (big room for improvement in the execution) or assist. He has bean an asset against top teams all year and will continue to be in the future. Tammy however is not an exceptional asset even against low blocks. If we find him with a hard low ball in the box he will convert (and thereby accumulate good numbers). In other words, if the team manages to break the opponent down, he'll help us win. But he won't help the team to break the opponent down. And that's exactly what we need to achieve a better point average against lower half teams. I would love if Tammy proves me wrong, but if I was presented with a 40m pound offer for him I'd definitely take it.
  2. He has missed 7 games in the last 5 years, not exactly injury prone. I think he's exactly the player we need, for half the cost of Rice. He can provide defensively just as well but has more to offer when progressing forwards. Him and Kanté would make an amazing double pivot. He`s experienced internationally and on the highest level, yet feels a current urge to prove himself (a rare combo). If we end up signing Rice I'll be happy because I believe he's a good fit. But if we don't, missing out on Saul will be very frustrating. If I was Marina these 40-50m EUR would be a no-brainer for me, exactly the player we need.
  3. Honestly City spending 100m on Grealish is far less threatening than if they did on Harry Kane though. He would have been the perfect addition to a squad only lacking striker / false 9 options and some physicality up front. Seemingly they couldn't get him and wanted to move their money elsewhere. I think Grealish is a great left winger, making up for his lack of pace with vision, technique, intelligence and charisma, but he won't significantly improve a squad that already includes Sterling, Foden and de Bruyne. It's a bit like if we had signed Donnarumma and people would then have said "this is the final puzzle piece that will make Chelsea dominate the PL"
  4. If he's actually available for 40m EUR we'd be mad not to go for him. We've got 3 in-form CM options and are at worst in need of a back-up replacement for Billy, but at best could sign a monster of a player. Plus from all I've seen he should have the positional discipline to play a midfield 2, I believe he'd work in a 3-4-3. If we sign Kounde & Saul for 70m + a player, throw Broja in the mix and hope Timo finds his scoring boots that would be some very shewd business!
  5. Of course it's absolutely absurd. All of it. But when we're talking about the difference between 520k and 320k then only in the context of the impact on our club's performances and success (lower remaining budget + mood of the squad). There it could make a difference for us as fans. From a moral viewpoint I've just personally reframed the whole thing at this point. I hardly spend any money on football any more, so if some guys pay some other guy 520k a week for my free entertainment I'll take it.
  6. So what, apparently we considered those loans a good deal, otherwise why did we agree on them? Cuadrado didn't work well for us, so he went to Juve. Instead of buying him, they loaned him. On the one hand, we didn't get any money, on the other hand the player remained ours. If he had suddenly exploded we could have said "thanks for achieveing that juve, welcome back to London Cuadrado" or could have sold him on for way more money. Ultimately he was only alright, so throguh the loans and the loans we only just about got our money back. All of that happened on our own terms though, no duress or anything.
  7. Not sure, you're comparing 2 very specific situations now with Hakimi and Tomori. Plus, there's nothing inherently immoral or "cheeky" about any of these things. 1. Any club can demand whatever sum they like for a player with a remining contract, unless that contract includes a release clause. They might end up with a dissatisfied player and missing out on some clever business, but it's well within their right. 2. It's not necessarily cheeky to offer a club a fee lower than the agreed option to buy. The option to buy is merely an option to unilaterally buy the player at a certain price but doesn't rule out a later bilateral agreement below that price. Nothing wrong with saying "we can't / don't want to pay the full clause for xyz reason, so either you're fine with a little less or it's your player again". If the selling club comes to the conclusion that they're not gonna be able to sell the player for more than the offer they might agree. Pretty sure it's not gonna happen in Tomori's case though
  8. I think we`re all in agreement that Hakimi would not fundamentally threaten James but play alongside him. Now that could be as a RCB in a back 3, which James has played a lot towards the end of the season. However, for a long time I've been thinking James could also be a midfield powerhouse for us, physical, great delivery from the half spaces and a strong shot from a distance. I could picture James - Kanté to be amazing. I find it unfortunate that we hardly got to see him in that role last season, which would means there'd be some risk in having this assumption impact our transfer plans. But could a Hakimi transfer potentially make a Rice transfer redundant?
  9. Well possible, but if Tammy had started all of Werner's games the season would be over for us today, we could tune into Man City - Real next Saturday and afterwards prepare for our Europa League campaign next season
  10. I'd prefer Mbappe, would be a logical transfer
  11. Mbappe is actually a really good call. Particularly if we win the Champions League Tuchel should give him a call and tell him to avoid the sinking ship Madrid. With one year left on his contract he probably wouldn't be more expensive than Sancho or Salah. The latter could then go to Paris in his place. Ideal.
  12. Pep isn't stupid, this cunning plan won't distract him from the fact that we're obviously gonna play 3-4-3 in the final. As to gaining experience, the 3-4-3 allows for very different approaches. Our schedule disadvantage might well see us rotate a little bit and for once sit a little deeper and look for counter attacks. In that case we'll be a very different side this weekend compared to in three weeks. Switching to a back 4 in this game equals immediate surrender imo, might as well be really secretive by staying at home all together
  13. I don't think Abraham is a good fit for this game, especially since we might not have the lungs to dominate the midfield today. Sending Werner over the top sounds much more promising. I think our best approach is to be compact, pack the area in front of our box and trouble City with counter attacks. This way we don't give anything away because our approach in the final will be much more aggressive -----Pulisic--Werner--Ziyech----- Alonso---Kanté--Gilmour--James ---Rüdiger----AC4----Zouma--- -------------Mendy-------------
  14. Nah I bet they wouldn't sell him for less than 100m. I think our attack is actually pretty strong and well stacked. Giroud will go so maybe getting Depay instead would be a good idea. Maybe he'll work out and if he doesn't it's not a massive loss. Pulisic - CHO - Mount - Havertz - Werner - Ziyech - Depay - Abraham would be a pretty strong group of attackers. I'd rather keep 23 y o Giroud and see 34 y o Abraham retire, but I guess that's not an option. I still think Abraham should stay and get more games against low block teams, in which his goal instinct would serve us better than Timo's pace imo.
  15. Doesn't have to be a disadvantage imo. Let's have Pep spend every minute of the next three weeks coming up with some magical way to screw it up while we keep our rhythm.
  16. When did Toni Rüdiger turn into the best freaking CB on the planet??? Ridiculous
  17. Crazy how much more composed Havertz looks now than at the start of the season
  18. I think it's a sensible response by UEFA. Much better to say "unless you do x by xxxday..." than simply retaliate for ultlimate destruction. That's one of the fundamental wrongdoings of the ESL 12. If they had really worried about the flaws of UEFA or the CL system they could have said in seriousness "look guys if these things don't change we'll have to come up with an alternative." One could have agreed or disagreed. But these clubs knew where they wanted to go so they didn't bother to waste time on any of that
  19. I don't know where you're from but you should seriously consider running for some political office. Commenting on the equitable foundations of the entire system with "who gives a sh*t" is the kind of stuff that draws people to the voting booths these days
  20. The relevant facts are on the table. 15 permanent clubs, 5 merit based, isn't that confirmed? Even if the clubs don't get - justifiedly for making a secret decision behind closed doors - banned from the PL, this will mean... - that the Premier Leauge's appeal is drastically reduced to the title and relegation, taking a lot of air out of the race for European spots. Making the English league far less interesting and marketable overall (Two days ago I thought I'd spend Tuesday night on the edge of my seat watching us fight for Top 4, today I know it doesn't matter) - Leicester / West Ham / Everton etc. will have to qualify for the league while (for example) Tottenham and Arsenal won't. How could that possibly be justified? I might as well watch WWE One way or another we're breaking away from English football. It's confirmed, no ESL statement could possibly change that. In fact Perez has spoken and it hasn't changed that.
  21. There's a big difference between my local green grocer and Chelsea FC though. I give my money to the former to make a salad, I give my money to the latter out of sheer passion, with no tangible benefits. If the passion is gone, my money is gone. But your're right, that's not relevant because there's people with way more money than me that will take my place. Eventually we'll all leave this forum and I will be replaced by a user called Rupees4Chelsea posting things like "Hey this football thing is great, I simply don't get why they allow these extra 5 teams on. Every year I have to memorise a new club name and they hardly ever even win a game. Bit pointless"
  22. Only in a straight swap with Ndidi
  23. Well I did suggest playing Ziyech, Alonso and Werner. And - also in reference to what ozboy said - I agree that in the next to games we should play Jorgi-Billy once and Jorgi-Kante once. I'd be fine with it being Billy against City and Kante against Brighton, pretty 50:50 for me. I disagree on resting Jorginho though, I simply don't think it's possible with Kova injured and Kante still kind of recovering. My strategy wouldn't be to only play fringe players against City to have all the options against Brighton. If you consider top 4 our most important objective then surely less than 4 days after Brighton awaits an even more important game against West Ham. Don't you want us to be fresh against them? Another 3 days later it's away to Real... Every game is massive now, any kind of prioritasion seems unnecessary to me. For every game from now on I'd like us to try and strike the best balance between chance of winning and squad fitness. The best way of achieving that is determining that some kinds of games suit some players better than others. Is Reece simply "better" as RWB than CHO or is he mainly better at defending while not quite as explosive in attack. Is Werner "better" than Giroud or is he just better on the counter while Giroud is better at breaking down a low block? Simple then, Reece and Werner against City and CHO and Giroud against Brighton, and so on... This is my stance on the run-in of our season, I guess Saturday's line-up will tell us a lot about Tuchel's
×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!