Eggy McMuffin

I love Bendtner purely for one story I've heard about him from some Arsenal fans. At Arsenal, Wenger and his assistant (can't think of his name), had a series of tests they would give to their players. They'd measure reaction speed, mental strength, intelligence, confidence as well as physical tests as well. These tests were all marked out of 10 and there was some complex formula for the weighting to get the score out of 10. Bendtner is the only player to have ever scored 11 out of 10 for confidence. He's that confident it can only be measured by an improper fraction.

They're doing it to get Pardew to walk out on his 8 year contract.

There isn't a world of difference, though. He's an attacking midfielder, and I'm suggesting he play as a central midfielder. This isn't like asking him to play in goal or even defence. I disagree with what you say about his instincts as well, if he drops deep instinctively why would that not be what he's instinctively wanting to do? Also, I think you underestimate how much passing is what he's best at and being deeper means he has more space to make those passes through to our attacking band of three. I think he'd add something we're missing by playing there and I don't see what it is in his game you see makes him perfect that much further forward that he couldn't do it deeper.

You see he doesn't tend to stay forward though, it's been discussed above and I have noticed it for Brazil that he tends to drop deeper at certain points in the game so when you say his instincts should be encouraged, it's hard to say what his instincts are exactly. I don't think he's as effective further forward as you do and I don't think we remove that much by having him as one of the central pairing and we as a team gain a hell of a lot. I can't speak to the England vs Brazil game, I was revising for an exam so had to miss it (and obviously all my mates who didn't have that exam got tickets for the bloody game). I just think he'd improve the side so much by playing there that it's worth missing out on the one or two goals he'd score further up and I don't think he'd get too many fewer assists.

Same age as Oscar you mean?

I do want to see him play it, but not quite in the same way they play it. He's faster and can be a bit more active around the pitch using his movement and short passing to make things happen. It's not like he's Hazard when it comes to running at players, he makes things happen with clever interplay and passing, which he can very much do from a deeper position. The point is that with him there, we can keep the ball that well too, whereas with Ramires we can't. I guess this is just a personal preference thing.

He doesn't have the ability to consistently keep the ball though. He often has a poor first touch and misplaces simple passes. Yes, he scores the spectacular, but he also gets the easy wrong and losing us the ball is less than helpful. I think Oscar can play the position in the centre, though. I don't particularly mind if one of the players is on the bench as that just means a strong bench with good options as far as I'm concerned and no doubt they'll all get time as the season goes on. I think both Oscar and Ramires should be options in central midfield, but should be rotated depending on the opposition and what the team needs. Schurrle also would offer more defensive discipline out wide than De Bruyne would if we need to balance out Oscar being in the middle.

There are different kinds, Xavi is often described as a deep-lying playmaker and he gets forward, same with Xabi Alonso. Oscar would most likely be further forward than these as he has more pace to get back, but deep-lying playmaker much like all of these footballing terms is not perfectly or even strictly defined. Look at the term 'pivot' and how that's used around these parts, it comes from double pivot meaning that both go forward at separate times and cover for the other... this doesn't happen in most midfields where people here apply that term.

There's two ways to drive a team forward, with running and with passing. Ramires does it with running and Oscar does it with passing. The advantage Oscar has is that he can help keep the ball better than Ramires can, but Ramires offers more defensively than Oscar can. To me it's something that depends on the game and the tactical need of the team at the time. Well there's a difference between what I'm suggesting Oscar would offer us deeper and what Pirlo does, but as much as anything there's more than one kind of deep-lying playmaker.

De Bruyne is more direct and a better crosser, so if he plays in midfield, we'll end up losing the ball more and missing out the attacking midfield which is where our best players our, whereas Oscar's shorter style I feel would help that. That's why I'm such a big advocate of Oscar playing there.

Lampard still scored a lot of goals last year and that's with Lampards ever decreasing pace, something which Oscar has in abundance. Oscar's tackling means he should be able to handle that part of the game and his pace mean he can get up and down, but more importantly his style suits that part of the pitch. He's very creative with short passes that move the ball around the pitch and stretch the opposition as well as being able to provide the killer ball. He'd help us keep the ball better in that area which we've lacked recently as well as moving the ball forward at the same time and creating space. I see a hell of a lot of positives with Oscar being played deeper, but he has to partnered with the right player and he has to work on certain aspects of his game, but I think it'll improve him as a player overall and it will massively improve us as a team. The line-up that I think Zeta Orionis (I may be wrong) put up where I disagreed with Luiz being in midfield is a scary side to play against for really any team and is young as well. Replace De Rossi with whoever we may end up signing for that position and the same for Cavani, but I just put them in as we've been linked to them heavily, even though I doubt either will happen, now. Cech Azpilicueta - Luiz - Terry - Cole De Rossi - Oscar De Bruyne - Mata - Hazard Cavani That is a top, top quality side that would be able to keep the ball when it needed, break quickly when it needed and more importantly would create chances, whilst not sacrificing too much defensively.

If only there was a way for a central midfielder to score lots of goals...

I want to see Oscar deeper, but it wouldn't really work alongside Luiz. Luiz wouldn't stay back to cover for Oscar. It'd be fine against smaller sides that aren't physical, as in championship sides in the FA Cup, but I wouldn't trust it against most Premiership, because Oscar can be bullied and I wouldn't be sure if Luiz would stay back to protect and cover him. I prefer Luiz in defence, anyway, but if we play him in midfield it needs to be next to Mikel or whoever we may sign as a step up from Mikel and the same goes for Oscar, really.

I think it's also worth noting that unlike in regular economics, there is actually a trickle down effect to some extent at least. We have to buy our players from somewhere and they have to buy replacements from somewhere else. If mega rich people are looking to invest £1bn each then you can't really complain about that. The money adds more into the game. Teams like Southampton and Crewe get rewarded more for their excellent youth teams continually producing excellent players as either the rich teams look to buy them or the teams the rich teams buy from look for replacements. What is ruining football is third party ownership, but that's another story.

I too am an atheist, but I trust in people more than most and am quite the socialist, but that's probably not important. I think you are adding two and two and getting i (maths jokes ITT). I think it was purely the Champions' League thing and not the dropping of Hazard that got Di Matteo sacked. You have to remember how well Sturridge had previously performed, though. He had been excellent on loan, had a good season with us to follow it up and wanted to play the central striker role and then looked terrible. This isn't something that could be 100% predicted, now I may be reinventing history by saying that as my memory for sentiment is terrible, but I think I was arguing that Sturridge, Torres and Moses as an option were OK. They could have been improved on, but to improve on it, we'd have had to at the time spend another £50m on getting Falcao or whoever else we may have been looking at. Maybe the board decided that it wasn't worth it. Obviously it turned out to be wrong (and I was wrong as well, no matter how shocking that may be to you all), but I don't think it was an unreasonable position to hold, nor is it something that could be blamed on the board wanting more shirt sales because Torres is a pretty man. It's a mistake and these things happen, in life and in football. Di Matteo unfortunately paid the price, but the manager almost invariably does in these things, that's just football. The last paragraph I'm in complete agreement with and it is just a hope, but I feel that we have some evidence to back it up a little with Mourinho being appointed seemingly to appease us. Lets hope that fewer mistakes are made in the future, but unfortunately it'll never be none.

Well, I guess I'm going to have to play as Southampton on Football Manager, now then.

It'll probably get taken down soon, but here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OEGueWEetQ

Yep, that's it. I think he sometimes reads the Spanish ones, too.

Sorry, didn't realise it was tongue in cheek, you know how things on forums can go downhill quite quickly. On the field performance is directly related to what is happening off the field. Sacking Di Matteo was premature, but not related to finances and getting knocked out of the Champions League group stage for the first time since before Abramovich arrived is quite a big deal. You're combining fan sentiment with on the pitch performance and clearly they aren't the same thing. What I would say, though is that fan power has been shown this season with Rafa and how our dislike of the man was voiced. It was seen by many as affecting the team performance and that directly affects the finances so our views are very much in their interest. Not that I truly believe that they're as isolated from the culture and history of the club as you do. I may be overly soulless, but I think you're overly cynical.

I wasn't so much trying to be absolutist as I was trying to simplify it somewhat. I wasn't trying to be over the top, which you very much seem to be doing here, although I guess I could come across as such. I don't get what shirt sales have to do with it, but meh. I disagree with you, you disagree with me let us move forward and accept that as the state of affairs.

I thought it only counted once they were professionals and that only happens at 17.

We're simply not going to agree on this, but let me get our positions straight before we go our separate ways. Your view: Abramovich, Granovskaia and anyone else who has not played football or been involved in football before coming to Chelsea football club decided that Torres is more important to protect than Di Matteo because it improves 'the brand' more to keep Torres. Business should not be involved in the club and that is the reason we went into a season with Sturridge and Torres as our only recognised options up front. (I hope that isn't too biased by my own views, but it probably is) My view: In a world with Financial Fair Play, money matters. As a club we have to make a profit in order to be successful. Granovskaia and other business people like her are important to achieve this and play an important role in negotiations after people more skilled to do so identify those players. Each should play to their strengths. The business people understand business and should be able to put limits on signings to help the club break even so we can continue to be successful as a club.

You know he just tweets what is being talked about in Italian papers right, Baby? (something disconcerting about typing that and probably for you reading it) He doesn't claim to be an 'in the know' or anything like that, he's just someone with a twitter account who can read multiple languages.

That looks very light as far as defensive midfield goes, which does raise the question, why sell Mikel? Also, I expect Van Ginkel is an Emenalo type signing and will be going on loan similar to De Bruyne, to see how he progresses. Wallace is no doubt similar. McEachran had a decent-ish season, but nowhere near enough to suggest he is capable of coming back and playing a role, yet. Chalobah comfortably outperformed him and I'd agree that he needs to go on loan to Premiership side to continue his impressive development. I'm not convinced about selling Ivanovic, either, but I can understand your reasoning. I'm guessing that you think it's better to keep Cahill as a backup because of his homegrown status, but as I think that Wallace is likely to head out on loan, I see us needing him as well. Other than that, there isn't really much to say, I think most people are in agreement that we need a backup goalkeeper, a defensive midfielder and a striker and if one is available, a centre back to be Luiz's long term partner. Also, Shaw would be nice as the long term successor to Cole, but that isn't the priority this season.

Playing a key role does not mean it was her decision. If the manager wanted a player, it is surely the board's job to try and get that player as soon as they are available. That was done. I don't care so much if the owners and the board have our interests at heart, as long as they have the club's interests at heart, which they will do if they aim for self preservation. The board did their job, even if it was a mistake in hindsight. To paint this like it's some form of war between 'footballing people' and 'non-footballing people' is odd and just sounds like you're trying to find conflict. There will possibly be conflict at some point, there's no point making it up first. The footballing people identify the targets, the non-footballing people handle the negotiations and I have seen little to say that anything other than this is happening other rumours and hearsay, pure and simple (couldn't help myself).