Eggy McMuffin

You probably know full well that I'm going to disagree, but it's always best if I explain why I think you're wrong. I think the lack of urgency to make a tackle as you put it, is more to do with his lack of mobility. You can't just charge in if you're just going to get turned when you, especially in his position. You just can't afford to let an attacker have free reign to charge at the centre backs, he has to hold back to ensure there's always an extra line there, unless he's very sure he'll get the ball. I think his ability to read the game and his positioning is shown by his interceptions and he's very good at them. I think his awareness issues are more to do with tracking off the ball runs, which he has been known to miss and that is something Mourinho may be able to help him with, but maybe not. I'm probably one of the most pro-Mikel people on here, but I'm in no way blind to his weaknesses, although I probably do think they're in different areas to you. I'm happy with us to improve on Mikel, but I'd rather it be at the expense of Essien than at the expense of Mikel as I think Mikel is the more able understudy of the two, although Essien's versatility is of course nice. De Rossi would likely improve us, although the new league syndrome may be something to watch for with him as others have noted. I'd very much like Khedira if he actually is available as another thread suggests, although he was formerly more attacking, Mourinho has used him successfully alongside a passer in Alonso or Modric at Madrid.

I disagree on the positioning one. The awareness is definitely a problem at times and urgency I think is debatable as it's a stylistic issue rather than an outright flaw. For example, being urgent is necessary to playing fast counter attacking football, but if you're playing possession based methodical build-up football then it's not. Mikel's positioning looks bad only when he's on his own and the ball is played around him, which for me is more of a pace issue than it is a positioning one. In general his positioning actually makes up for his lack of pace, whereas other players tend to have it the other way around. Personally, I wouldn't say that Mikel is the weak link in the team, but he is the easiest to improve upon. I think that Torres has shown himself to be more of a weak link than Mikel, but it's much more expensive to sign a striker than it is a midfielder and of course we have Lukaku coming through up front, whereas Ake is further away from coming through and I don't expect Romeu to come back, as I don't think he'll impress that much at Valencia after his injuries.

Incredibly easy.

No he's half left.

I was about 3 and was fluent in both, so neurhhh! Admittedly, I forgot Dutch by the age of 13, but that's not the point.

I've heard there's this guy who had a cracking season in Australia last season. Emile Heskey I think his name is. He sounds like he'd really set us up for a great season.

Doesn't Mata

Cheers, quite interesting. It's what I expected, but it doesn't mean anything for the start of the season, he may just be experimenting.

Interesting that he doesn't include anyone else in there, like De Bruyne. A sign we're not playing 4-3-3? Anyone who watched the friendly, what formation did we play and where did De Bruyne play?

I agree with some of this, not all. I completely agree that holding on to leads is our biggest problem and that it's a problem with our midfield that causes it, but I disagree that we'll move Mikel on, but I'll get to that in due time. I agree with what you say about our centre backs, but I'd say you can never have too much quality so I'd disagree with what you say about our attacking midfield. From past experience what I believe Mourinho likes is to have two formations to switch between as and when it's required. With our squad that'll be both the 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. Which is great. He's also one for the 25 man squad. 2 players for each position and 2/3 utility players. Our midfield options will be excellent, but I think that Essien will be a utility player rather than the second choice at defensive midfield, also being used at right back if he's needed there. We'd have Mikel and De Rossi for defensive midfield and Ramires, Van Ginkel, Oscar and Lampard for the more attacking roles, although as you say De Bruyne will likely make a fair few appearances there as well as covering the attacking midfield positions. Perhaps the squad will be overloaded by one player, but I think that's fine considering that Lampard will play less and I don't expect Essien to play many at all. What's really strong about that midfield is that we could slip into a 4-2-3-1 quite seamlessly. Let's say our first choice side is along these lines Cech Dave - Luiz - Terry - Cole De Rossi Van Ginkel - Oscar Mata------------------Hazard Lukaku It wouldn't even take a substitution to make it a 4-2-3-1, just by pushing Oscar further forwards. In fact most people watching wouldn't even notice it. It gives a fair amount of tactical flexibility. Having just thought about it, that'd be most likely if Torres comes on. We'd want to get players close to him to make things happen as he can't hold the ball up all that well. Also, having both Mikel and De Rossi means we could play them both at the same time if we need to really hold on to a lead. As much as everyone on here would hate it, it would be very stable defensively. Our squad is strong and with De Rossi, a centre back to partner Luiz for the next few years and arguably a striker depending on how good you feel Lukaku is right now, our squad would be perfect. If we only sign De Rossi and no one else, though... I'd be extremely happy and expect us to be challenging right up to the end of the season. A centre back and a striker aren't necessities, but are 'nice to have' type signings. It's like having a 40 inch TV and saying well it'd be nice to have a 50 inch one. The movie will be just as exciting and the picture quality won't be much better, but if that's the only thing that isn't perfect, it's the thing you'll be wanting to change.

I finally got round to getting The Last Of Us today. So now I'm set up in my massive bean bag with two TVs, with The Ashes on one and The Last Of Us on the other. This is a day of takeaways and self indulgence.

Honestly, you're the perfect target market for an iPhone. My dad has one after having struggled with a couple of android phones and absolutely loves it. They're very easy to use and you'll get the hang of it in no time. They're not for me personally, but I love messing around with settings all day and changing things you wouldn't know exist! iPhones are very good and extremely easy to use.

Leeds thought they knew what they were doing, Portsmouth, Rangers etc... The point is, it's something to consider when talking about transfers, especially in the detail we all talk about them in. We discuss who would be a better signing out of Matic or De Rossi, does it affect the club's decision? Of course not. Does that mean we should close the Rumours forum down and just accept what the club does? Again no. Discussing how a transfer affects the team and club implicitly includes how it affects the club's future and finance come into that.

I care about how the club I love is run. In the light of Financial Fair Play it's an important factor in the future success of the club and that is why I worry about someone else's money.

I don't think Zola and a time machine are viable transfer options.

It was just a gentle poke, nothing meant by it. It's just they were discussing the Gerrard thing right above your post and it seemed a little out of place.

I don't know if anyone knows anything about this, but I heard we almost signed Gerrard from Liverpool a few years ago.

It seems defending is not something you enjoy.

Maybe I'm misremembering. I'll check at some point.

He has and he's also started playing there since David Luiz has come in and performed better on the left side.

For me there are three main areas of debate. The striker, the central midfield and the formation which of course affects the second of them. The striker. Lukaku did very well at West Brom, but it was a completely different situation to what he'll find himself in at Chelsea. He has weaknesses in terms of his touch being erratic at times and he sometimes doesn't know the best way to use his strength yet. These things will come, but that doesn't mean they're there right now. For me, this means he still has to fight for his place, much like he did when he first arrived at West Brom where he took the place away from Long after mainly being a sub in the first half of the season. Torres is Torres and talking about his strengths and weaknesses has gone on since even before the day he missed his first chance for us. Ba showed glimpses, but nothing to make him stand out and claim the shirt for himself. For me, Torres is still our first choice and it's up to Lukaku and Ba to show that they're better when they get their chances and they will. Day one, Torres starts I think, after that it's up to the players to change that. The central midfield question can only be discussed in terms of the formation question. Assuming a two man midfield for now, we need one more defensive minded player alongside a more attacking central midfielder. For the defensive minded player, we have Mikel, Ake, Chalobah and possibly Essien. Similarly to the striker position, Mikel is the settled first choice here and it's up to Ake, Chalobah and even Essien to show that they're better choices. Personally I feel that Chalobah will go on loan, but nothing is agreed yet. The attacking central midfielder is a tougher one, we have Ramires, Van Ginkel, Lampard, De Bruyne and possibly Oscar. De Bruyne is very good, but played central midfield in a three man set up, so will require adjustment, as will Oscar of course, but he's a longer shot there, anyway and just a personal preference there. Lampard and Ramires are the tried and trusted options and Van Ginkel is an exciting prospect. Personally I'd go with De Bruyne alongside Mikel, but that's because I prefer a game controlling, possession based style in most games, rather than a counter-attacking style where Ramires would be the better option. In terms of the formation. If we change to a 4-3-3, we have a three man midfield to play with, which gives certain advantages to certain players. It would mean that we can play both Ramires and De Bruyne in the centre with Mikel (or Ake, Chalobah or Essien if you prefer), but it means pushing Mata wide and Oscar going to the bench, or being converted to take De Bruyne's role. That's how I see it all, and here's some visual representation for those of you too impatient for words. Cech Azpilicueta - Terry - Luiz - Cole Mikel - De Bruyne Oscar - Mata - Hazard Torres or Cech Azpilicueta - Terry - Luiz - Cole Mikel Ramires - De Bruyne Mata--------------------Hazard Torres

I couldn't disagree more, but don't want to do this whole thing again, it has kind of been done to death on here.

I think you missed my point whether on purpose or not. My point was that Ramires does not play the same role as Mikel and so comparing their goal return is stupid. As to what you're saying there, Ramires doesn't get back instantly, there's a time lag. A period where the attackers are running at our defenders, which is a dangerous situation. Mikel acts like a proper shield and an extra level of defence by positioning himself deeper and not charging forwards. They're different players who play different roles, comparing their statistics so plainly is futile.

That's a rather simplistic view of things and I'm not a fan of it. When comparing defensive contributions, it fails to even mention interceptions. It wholly defines the midfield duo we have as defensive, yet lauds Ramires' attacking contribution and chastises Mikel's.. when really one of the midfielders is expected to be more attacking than the other. It also doesn't include defensive contributions not made, a hard thing to measure admittedly, but an important one to consider with Ramires. When he runs forward, he often loses the ball and gets caught out of position so is unable to make a defensive contribution until he finds his position again. That's usually OK if you're the more attacking of the two central midfielders and have someone there to cover for you, but that isn't always the case with Ramires, as he's been played with Lampard on a few occasions and has had to be the more defensive of the two. There's a lot of nuance to consider in what I would call the 'Ramires Conundrum' and it isn't just as simple as saying 'look he scores more than Mikel even though he's out of position, he must be better'. The two central midfield roles are not equal and Ramires' lack of passing and ball control are of greater concern to me, but that's of course something to do with me preferring to control the possession and flow of a game, which he doesn't really do.

I think everyone in here needs a hug.