Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Desailly123

  1. Whenever I see anyone advocating for Giroud I do have to ask the question; where are the goals going to come from? We've lost Hazard who was our best goalscorer and our best creator, I don't think we can afford to play a player like Giroud who scores so infrequently. Think about it, of I believe 7 forwards (Pedro, Willian, Giroud, Michy, Tammy, CHO and Pulisic) 3 are very poor in that department. If we start Willian, Pulisic and Giroud. Who is going to score? Especially with Ruben injured and if we have a midfield 3 of Kovacic/Barkley, Jorginho and Kante. Who's going to score? Will we have to rely on Alonso for goals? I just can't see us scoring at all next season if we start Giroud, that's why I think our strikeforce at the beginning of the season must have Michy and Tammy as priority. And I would want our strike force when the season starts to be Tammy, Pulisic and Pedro
  2. The Sarri cult is eating good tonight boys haha But for real, please Sarri out fans, based on tonight give him a chance next season (if he stays).
  3. Being a good player doesn't make you a good manager. Lampard's barely improved Derby. They're in the play-off final whereas Rowett took them to the play-off semi final last year only to narrowly lose. It's not a remarkable achievement what he's done. Sarri's made us better in his first season as manager. So why are you advocating for Lampard? Also, Pochettino's never won anything as manager. And yet I can tell you currently he is better than Lampard. Roberto Martinez won the FA Cup at Wigan, they still got relegated...
  4. Emphasis on the 20 year odd career since that's not Sarri's fault. He was an ordinary banker. Lampard got given the Derby job whereas Sarri had to start in the 8th tier after several years of sunday league coaching. In reality this is Sarri's 4th season with a realistic chance of winning a trophy. Doesn't sound that outrageous now does it? Hiring Lampard on nothing other than sentiment when he really hasn't achieved anything remotely remarkable would be a horrendous decision. How often does it work? Zidane and Pep are the only exceptions from memory and they both had phenomenal squads, and now look at Zidane. Far better comparisons would be Di Matteo and Henry. Di Matteo deserved the job but we were awful until he was sacked. Henry got the Monaco job, again on nothing other than sentiment and did awful. Di Matteo did win the Champions League yes, but again look at the Chelsea squad at that time, AVB was significantly underperforming and in several moment of the CL campaign our win was not down to brilliant tactics or managerial ability but was down to simply being fortunate. Sarri's got a history of being able to improve teams year upon year, something Lampard may not be able to do. So why are we willing to given Lampard hundreds of millions to spend but Sarri no because he didn't actually win anything...despite the fact if Lampard had done exactly what Sarri had done in Italy we'd all be calling him world class and how it didn't matter that he was trophyless.
  5. Pep. And it's amusing because you're making the exact same arguments people made about Pep in his first season. "Why does he make like-for-like substitutions." "Why does he largely insist on playing a 4-3-3, play with 2 up top." Because you know what 2 up top implies? It implies hoofing the ball up long and hoping for the best, wingbacks requires two defensive midfielders in the middle, a role Jorginho can't play very well. Kante's role is him next to a DM that we don't have. He should rest Jorginho more, that's why he asked for a Jorginho backup in January but the board didn't give him one! Kante can't play there, Ampadu can't, Kovacic can't. DaSilva and Aina both have options to buy but that doesn't guarantee anything. DaSilva especially could get much better offers. Swansea weren't convinced because they didn't use him right. Tell me, is the worst team in the Premier League much better than the best team in the Championship? Or do you think Norwich would beat Huddersfield? If Tammy's scoring against the best clubs in the Championship, with better service he'll be able to score against the worst in the Premier League. Also, compare when we play similar level opposition in cups and the likes of Alonso, Zappacosta, Giroud, Morata still struggle. But in the Championship against the same opposition those 4 players bossed it. Just a quick reminder. Dele Alli, Marcus Rashford, Harry Kane, Joe Gomez, Trent Alexander-Arnold all wouldn't have made it at Chelsea but yet they've developed into fantastic players because they were given a chance.
  6. What I find quite amusing about this whole scenario is that it is strikingly similar to Pep's situation at Manchester City in his first season. Genuinely. It's said a lot but going back and looking at the comments from 2016 from City fans is exactly the same. "He's one dimensional." "He's got no plan B." "These tactics don't work in the Premier League." Guess what? That's a complete myth. "Oh these tactics don't work in the Premier League, this isn't Serie A, he's been found out." Don't you think that targeting the regista is the most obvious tactic ever? If he's the key cog in your team, focusing on him isn't some kind of tactical masterclass, I kid you not this happened almost every single game in Serie A. There was a major difference though. In Serie A, Napoli were able to spread the ball to wingbacks who bombed forward and players had much better movement in that team. Poor Jorginho, who in my opinion has actually had a very good season, is being blamed for the failings of our awful fullbacks. Imagine if we got in DaSilva, Aina and Reece James with Emerson and those were our 4 starting fullbacks. Don't you think our performances would be much better? Even in terms of chances created we've created more than I believe everyone but Man City, I may be wrong, just from memory. Imagine if we had an actual finisher like Tammy Abraham, or Luka Jovic, or a player like Dybala, or Lautaro Martinez. We would be so so much better. Do I think we're going to make as big an improvement as City 2016-17 to 2017-18? Of course not, but we can significantly improve if we give Sarri the players he wants because he's the one who almost founded his style of play and knows what's needed to improve it.
  7. What I find quite astonishing about Morata is I've seen a lot of fans say he's been successful at Atletico, 6 goals in 16 games I believe. Whereas Gonzalo "I can't believe that fat fraud bought him" Higuaín has only a slightly worse record of 5 goals in 17. Also heard a few recommendations for next year's manager a few pages back: Favre: Has completely bottled the Bundesliga, you think he'd last here more than a couple of months before our fans turned on him? Hassenhuttl: Can't understand this whatsoever, yes he's been decent with Southampton but Southampton had Hughes as manager, anyone would've steadied the ship as Hughes has been awful for the last couple of years. Rose: Is joining Monchengladbach. As for signings in the summer. We should do everything possible to make sure those 2 players that Sarri gets are Luka Jovic and either Nicolas Pepe or Hakim Ziyech. I think people may have heard 1-2 players and not accounted for loan players returning. We should see the likes of Reece James and Kurt Zouma almost definitely return imo. The 3rd is a bit of a mystery. I'd like to see Mason Mount, Tammy Abraham and Jay DaSilva come back too. Mount as a Kovacic replacement, Abraham as a backup to Jovic and DaSilva competing with Emerson, I think DaSilva is potentially our most underrated youth prospect. He's been fantastic this season and was phenomenal the season before too. The only issue is the height, but it's a sacrifice I think we should be willing to make given what he offers to the team. The only issue is Bristol City have an option to buy but if he's offered a place in our team I hope he'll take it. Maybe Sarri could be persuaded to potentially get Alex Telles or Barella too. Hopefully. Both great players and a lack of a Jorginho backup has really hurt us. I'd like to see us move on marcos Alonso, Gary Cahill, Davide Zappacosta, Mateo Kovacic, Danny Drinkwater, Bakayoko, Willian and Giroud. That could raise a good £80m in my opinion, and would significantly clear out the squad too. Am actually excited for next season under Sarri, I think we'll massively improve. And hey if not, potentially get Lampard in, he'll have had a year's more experience.
  8. Klopp's a better manager than Pochettino that's why. I thought it was more outrageous that Pellegrini was better than Klopp than Pellegrini was better than Pochettino (although also untrue). He did? Great! I guess that makes him a world class manager. But here's a question. Graham Potter did a far more impressive job at Ostersund than Pellegrini did at San Lorenzo, so shouldn't Graham Potter be managing one of the best clubs in the world? I mean by the very same logic he must be a superior manager to Pellegrini, and by what we've already established he must be a superior manager to Klopp and Pochettino. So why is he managing a Championship side? It's because clubs recognise that, simply, some leagues are a lot harder to win than others. The £500m figure is both misleading and actually incorrect. As Liverpool boss Klopp has spent £372,550,000 on players. It seems like a lot, but Klopp has sold £252,300,000 worth of players in that time. Meaning his net spend is £120.25 million, with an added quality of £120.25 million he's took Liverpool from 6th to finishing with probably 97 ish points. A remarkable achievement, regardless of whether they actually win the title or not (of course it'd be a greater achievement if they did but it's good either way). This £120.25 million is very low, especially when you compare it to the likes of Jose Mourinho at Manchester United (£304.7 million net spend) and Conte (just a bit lower at £101.5 million).
  9. Also on a sidenote: Sarri can definitely be criticised. But he needs time. Ajax fans wanted Erik ten Hag out last season when he wasn't performing but he was given time...
  10. Most of the reports actually claim the contrary to what you're saying, and the "well he must be lying because we don't like Sarri so the players must not like him" is pure speculation.
  11. Ah it's nice to know you think Pellegrini is better than Klopp because he's won more trophies. But it's also nice to know you think Guus Hiddink is better than Conte
  12. They most definitely would, like Rudiger did earlier in the season.
  13. He's only a winner because he's had 5 seasons at world class clubs compared to Conte's one. Juventus is dominant in that league and I wouldn't call him a winner because he won Serie A, the biggest monopoly in world football for the past few years. Albeit his first season in Serie A was impressive.
  14. Pellegrini won a couple trophies in South America. He then went to Villarreal and won the UEFA Intertoto Cup (a cup that excluded all clubs who participated in the Champions League/Europa League. He then won the Premier League and 2 League Cups. Impressive trophies: 1 Semi-impressive trophies: 2 Klopp on the meanwhile: Took Dortmund from 13th to Bundesliga winners in 3 seasons. Won back-to-back Bundesligas despite playing in the league that was literally a monopoly in Bayern's favour Did it with extremely limited funding. Impressive trophies: 2 (Bundesliga 10/11 and Bundesliga 11/12) Semi-Impressive trophies: 1 (DFB-Pokal)
  15. "How about the league?" Manuel Pellegrini won the league with Manchester City, doesn't make him even remotely as good a manager as Jurgen Klopp or Mauricio Pochettino who haven't won it (in England). "How about how well he did with a very average Italy side?" This is what I don't think many people understand. On the international level, most managers are genuinely shocking. Didier Deschamps is poor, look at what happened to Scolari when he joined Chelsea with a squad that narrowly lost the CL final. Roberto Martinez has been very successful with Belgium, and yet he failed dramatically at Everton. Louis Van Gaal hugely overperformed with that Netherlands team but when he went to United his limitations as a manager showed. So how come all of these managers succeed at international level compared to club level. Therefore, it was easy for Conte to just order his team to sit back and play on the counter-attack. Also, you hear "quarter finals of the Euros" and assume he did well, but in reality. He beat Belgium 2-0 in his first game, but Belgium significantly underperformed at the Euros and WC 2014 and looked nowhere near as good as they do now. They lost to Wales 3-1, managed by Chris Coleman who failed in the Championship. Beat Sweden, hardly impressive. Lost to Ireland. Beat Spain but Spain was awful at both WC 2014 and the Euros, didn't even top their group. And against Germany they lost on penalties, although holding them out was quite impressive, in the entire campaign he had what? 2 impressive results if that? How can that even be remotely compared to a season with multiple impressive results? Because to point out the hypocrisy, "he didn't win the World Cup so it wasn't impressive" (a play on the Sarri finishing second argument. Maurizio Sarri is a superior manager than Antonio Conte and always will be, his success at Napoli was seen as impossible with the players he had available and their recent history. Tell me, how many managers could have lost their striker who scored the record amount in Serie A, their replacement get injured and only manage 5 goals in 17 games, and STILL improve? If you want to make the argument that Conte has been more successful at Chelsea than Sarri, I'd agree. But Conte's "1 Premier League and 1 FA Cup in 2 seasons" is quite misleading although factually accurate. In reality there were a lot of circumstances that made Conte's success in his first season possible that weren't in anyway related to his managerial ability. And as we know his second season was awful, I do thank him for the memories in the first season though, it's a shame his transfer business in the summer was very poor.
  16. Oh! So you think we can EASILY win the Europa league? It's outstanding that my use of the word easily is the only thing you can say about that post, almost comical in fact. But to answer your question...it's just a figure of speech, I did not mean we would dominate Arsenal in any sense, but we could beat them on the day. We also might easily lose. It's a game I wouldn't be surprised if we won and I think we have a good chance of winning, especially considering the run that Arsenal is on at the moment, although of course Frankfurt are doing very well in the Bundesliga so we may not get into the final whatsoever.
  17. FA Cup campaign: 2017-18 R3: Norwich 0-0 Chelsea Chelsea 1-1 Norwich (5-3 pens) R4: Chelsea 3-0 Newcastle R5: Chelsea 4-0 Hull QF: Leicester 1-2 Chelsea (a.e.t.) SF: Chelsea 2-0 Southampton Final: Chelsea 1-0 Manchester United Tell me, of those teams, how many were top top teams last season? Only 1. League Cup 2018-19: R3: Liverpool 1-2 Chelsea R4: Chelsea 3-2 Derby QF: Chelsea 1-0 Bournemouth SF: Leg 1: Spurs 1-0 Chelsea Leg 2: Chelsea 2-1 Spurs (PENS: 4-2) Final: Chelsea 0-0 Manchester City (PENS: 3-4) The FA Cup is of course the thing you would rather win, but to imply the FA Cup was a result of anything other than pure luck based on the teams we got, and winning the final with a penalty despite getting dominated the entire game. It's the exact same reason why I don't especially credit Sarri for our Europa League performances so far. Of course, most anti-Sarri are quick to point out our fixtures and some even claim that Conte is a superior manager to Sarri, but how does this logic hold when they said nothing last season?
  18. I think if the likes of Jurgen Klopp, Mauricio Pochettino or Pep Guardiola were available, I could be persuaded for Sarri to leave. However, something I've been very critical of the Sarriout crowd has been, who would replace Sarri? In fact, the last time I saw this mentioned on this thread the only response was "that's all your Sarriin fans say! If he's not the right man, he's not the right man." Which is a fair point I suppose. But to use a comparison, Antonio Conte sold Diego Costa because he wanted to upgrade on him and sign Alvaro Morata. Now, at the time, most of us weren't too against this move. What we were against was Costa's lacklustre attitude and Conte's handling of the situation. Costa had a tendency to perform exceptionally well for half of the season (first half 14/15 and 16/17, second half 15/16) and be very poor in the other half of the season. In hindsight, we can all see that Antonio Conte made the wrong decision. Despite Costa having significant flaws to his game, he would have proved to be a better option than all 3 of our possible replacements; Andrea Belotti, Romelu Lukaku and Alvaro Morata, so despite Costa arguably not being the right man for the job, as Conte perceived, that didn't mean we shouldn't keep him. And the exact same is true with Sarri, Sarri is better than all of the alternatives, with the majority being put forward very inexperienced managers who wouldn't be able to handle such a squad of personalities that we clearly have. So, I thought I would go through the 10 managers with the best odds of joining Chelsea: 1. Frank Lampard (Derby County): Very inexperienced and would only be being hired for sentiment as he was a player. Not a good idea and hasn't done exceptionally well at Derby, although you could argue they've slightly improved this season. 2. Nuno Santo (Wolves): An interesting shout. But my issue with Wolves is; yes their record against the top 6 this season is exceptional for a team not in the top 6. However, the style of football they play against the top 6 is very very negative, playing very much on the counterattack. And when they actually try to play football and try to win games they do very poorly, which is why I would not have him. It would mean to be successful we'd have to play such a negative style of football every single week, and having watched that for almost a decade, I'm sick of it. You could also argue he's quite inexperienced, and should be given a couple more years to see how he performs. Another point to make is has he actually done that well (excluding their record against the top 6), they have a lot of extremely talented, young players who have signed for Wolves due to their relation to agent Jorge Mendes. Could also argue why would he want to join, as he seems very happy at Wolves. 3. Steve Holland (England Assistant Manager): Almost no purely managerial experience. Has only been a manager once, for a season at Crewe in 2007. 4. Diego Simeone(Atletico Madrid): He would need a lot of time. In addition, Atletico play some of the most unattractive, boring, `tactical' football. He's a good manager, but I think with our players he wouldn't be suited to us whatsoever, and would make this season of attempting to play attractive football redundant, as we'd have to start all over again, increasing the distance between us and our rivals more. 5. Laurent Blanc(Unemployed; most recent job PSG 2015/16): Have never rated him as a manager whatsoever, which is seemingly why no clubs have hired him for years. 6. Gianfranco Zola(Chelsea Assistant Manager): A poor manager as his record shows, and seems to have a very similar mindset to Sarri so would likely see very little change in the objectives of our football, it would just be being implemented more poorly. 7. Massimiliano Allegri (Juventus): A lot of the same issues shared with Simeone, however, I think he is very Conte-esque. That's all I should need to say. 8. Didier Deschamps (France): Again I think he's a very poor manager, who's been blessed with an phenomenal France squad, football very unattractive. 9. Thomas Tuchel (PSG): A manager I would actually take, however, I'm unsure if he'd want to join. 10. Jose Mourinho (Unemployed; most recent job Manchester United 2018/19): Mourinho in my mind, unless a miracle happens, tactically is finished. He was awful at Manchester United and led us to an awful campaign only 3 seasons ago, not what this club needs. The only other manager I'd take would be Leonardo Jardim, however, he's only recently rejoined Monaco and they were very poor this season, although you could argue that that's largely down to selling too many players.
  19. The point is of course, we know who had the better season, despite one winning silverware and the other not.
  20. What season would you have preferred, 16/17 Spurs or 12/13 Wigan?
  21. What season would you have preferred, 16/17 Spurs or 12/13 Wigan?
  22. That's because Spurs are a small club and would celebrate the Community Shield like it was the Champions League
  23. I think it's a huge stretch to imply any manager tactically outthought the other, both teams were dreadful today.

  • Create New...