g3.7

yes they've used it a lot lately, and they play it well. like against city, the forward players wide of their striker are much more inclined to stay in midfield. we had problems there at the etihad where it was sometimes 2 against 4 in their favour and that is a worry for me here.

bet his goals per minute ratio since we changed formation has gone right up too. interesting for people who obsess about those sort of stats.

just a reminder- we've won nothing at all this season. lets stop talking as if winning the title is a done deal, and like we can afford to bring old boys back to top up their medal collections.

no. he's 38. lets be realistic- he is unlikely to have much else to offer at this level and those minutes should go to a young player. plus he'll be back at chelsea in some other capacity sooner or later.

good luck to him. feels like a huge waste of his talents- one wonders if and how he could return to european football.

obviously conte deserves to be trusted so if he wants him we have to assume he's got an idea of how to use him. for me I don't think "he's not a winger" is a fair reason to be against this. we play two players with freedom to receive the ball anywhere between the lines- the width comes from the wingbacks. positionally of course he can fit into a 3421. the bigger problem is would we then become a team with only one player who gets behind the defence in costa? hazard has improved in that area but he still prefers to come short for the ball. would a player like rodriguez create an imbalance in the team? and then there are also question marks over his workrate, consistency and attitude. seems a gamble. conte would arguably be the best coach he's ever worked with though.

is he an improvement on willian and pedro? yes, probably. he's very much a ball to feet player though so if we are looking for a player who can run in behind then there are better potential options if we are about to spend a record fee on a player. I don't think he's world class though- he's extremely talented but he has it all to do to prove he belongs in that company. the best no.10 in the world doesn't watch 120 minutes of a champions league final from the bench. he is far from that at the moment. he's done it in france and in portugal but I'd say he's disappointed in spain and lets face it, they bought him on the back of a few games in the summer of 2014. I think it would be a fairly risky transfer. no doubting his ability though.

seems a bit harsh on luiz and cahill that they've got 0 votes between them. having said that, I voted azpilicueta too...

great win, the back three were fantastic in particular. I know it is an obvious thing to say, but we look like a real team. relationships all over the pitch, moving the ball well, doing the ugly stuff. great times.

christ almighty. why not set the bar at winning the champions league this season?

get jack butland in

in the last ten minutes of a game, throwing ivanovic on to hold onto a lead I can understand (though I'm not sure I agree with it), because at that point we're just defending. asking him to be a proper wingback for an entire game is something I wouldn't understand. he's not good enough going forwards, he's not good enough on the ball, and we're asking him to go up and down the pitch all game at his age. plus he's likely to be up against van aanholt, who was much quicker than him even before his legs started to fail him. I don't understand why we would consider this.

@axman2526 I am wondering the same thing. fabregas in either behind or ahead of the midfield with costa and pedro or batshuayi. I think he should and probably will go with willian given that the team are used to the patterns of a 343, but it is probably worth having a 352 as an option.

I think it would have, given the circumstances. our options were either to keep him on the bench for a season and then see him go there for nothing, or to get whatever money we could have (and honour the promise jose made to him when he made courtois no.1). our hands were tied by the fact cech wanted to remain in london and had a year left on his contract. regarding sanchez I don't think we have much chance- the money he would want would then need to go to people like hazard, even with 18months left on his contract the fee would be very high AND we'd be competing with other clubs who he may find more attractive and who arsenal would prefer to sell to. if we're saying that we've got the money for one massive signing (and if we're saying that should go on another forward) then I think we should look at a younger player who would be cheaper overall, have a greater potential resale value, and most importantly would be a more realistic transfer.

It's good money but I'll be sorry to see him go. The writing has been on the wall for a while though, he doesn't really fit into this system in any position.

I think he's a box to box midfielder- his attributes and playing style are totally suited, in theory, to playing in the two man midfield. now clearly chalobah and fabregas are ahead of him at this point and he probably needs to learn how to play competitive football, so in the short term I don't see how keeping him around is going to help. if he goes out on loan and takes his chances I think in future he could compete for a place in that position.

no- that isn't what I'm saying. I feel like I've given my perspective on this and I don't have the inclination to second guess the thoughts and mental processes of someone who was abused as a child. the way I'm reading this thread I think I'm going to do myself a favour and stop posting and probably stop reading too. no one needs to interpret that as a personal criticism- it is a sensitive issue after all.

well he said he felt pressured into accepting it. maybe he felt it was that or nothing. who knows what his financial circumstances are or were, and indeed how being abused as a child would have affected his ability to succeed in his professional life (never mind his personal life) and that abuse occurred when he was under the protection of chelsea football club. in compensation for his life being profoundly changed for the worse he was given less than four years of the national minimum wage. I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that isn't enough to compensate him for his distress. indeed no amount alone may be, but his description of it as "too little, too late" sounds far more accurate than any attempt to describe him as a money grabber. indeed I am truly depressed to see that this is how you and a couple of others are describing him. something, I think it is empathy, tells me that he isn't "happy" to be publicly admitting that he was abused in his childhood.

What are you getting at? Hopefully not going down the path of painting the victim of sexual abuse as some sort of money grabber?

@Dorset thanks for that mate. I saw your previous take on hughes and dickinson before and thought it was very interesting. without putting words in your mouth I took it as a criticism of this need (on the part of those particular journalists) to not appear 'out of the loop' in regard to supposed rumours or whispers whilst at the same time not realising that (if they truly were privy to said rumours) then they would share some culpability or complicity in the wider culture that allows this type of abuse to happen. I presume you have followed the savile aftermath in more detail than I (I have a copy of in plain sight but truthfully I am reluctant to open it), but it is something I am interested in- where machinery or structures are designed in a way that are open to manipulation. it makes accountability very complex and individual people and institutions can often get very defensive. that definitely includes journalists and journalism as a homogeneous group. I have to say I do not like what I have seen from chelsea (i.e. the club) in the last year or so. the carneiro affair removed any good faith I might otherwise reserve for them. these are people I don't trust to act with clarity or propriety, so this payment to johnson concerns me greatly. I think it is reasonable to say that certain journalists may be predisposed against chelsea for whatever reason, or will write about this issue in a manner that is self serving or self protecting, but at the moment those things are less immediately important. this payment was made by the club now, post savile, and by people still in their positions*. I think for that reason, whatever interests or dispositions certain journalists may have, it is right that there is an immediate focus on the club. *it always amazes me that sky were allowed to move on keys and gray and apparently that was that- sexism was rooted out. similarly jose was sacked and we, as chelsea supporters, are meant to accept that the club has taken care of the problem. I get the feeling that for many, appearing to resolve the issue is more important than actually resolving it.

Needs a loan desperately. Somewhere where he is guaranteed to start every week.

with respect, that is irrelevant. this isn't about whether chelsea play good football or if it is fair that abramovich outspends rivals. this is actually important and if what he has to say has merit then we have to engage with it. I don't understand this mentality that if you don't like a journalist, or if you doubt their sincerity, that entitles you to ignore what they are actually saying. syed being biased against chelsea and potentially correct about bad practices employed by the club in this case are NOT mutually exclusive. I'm quite interested in what he has to say on this so if you could copy and paste it that would be a help.

what is his argument and is anyone saying he's wrong? I'd say, especially on a matter so important, we need to judge the writing not the writer. I think this is too serious and too sensitive a matter for another thread moaning about perceived unfair treatment by the press.

he's back to his best level I'd say. the difference stat wise to me speaks to how much higher up the pitch he's playing. he's making more runs in behind and receiving the ball to feet slightly less. stats may show that he's winning the ball less and they must show fewer touches in our own half and aside from when luiz plays a penetrative pass I don't recall him taking the ball off the defenders as much. stats never showed quite what a great player he is and they still don't IMO. I think in jose's team we played in our own half more than this one and we needed him to receive the ball very deep at times. I suppose as he's a poor defender and a great attacking player it is good to see him with a freer rein and further up the pitch, but I don't think his performances the season before last were inferior. IMO his job was different then.

it is worth noting that yesterday we were able to get out easier than against spurs in part because fabregas is, in terms of touch, passing ability, speed of thought and positioning, much better at that type of football than kante or matic. it is a shame he doesn't have the physical attributes to suit the system when we don't have the ball. obviously we have to also accept that city didn't press as aggressively as liverpool or spurs. I think in general though the reason conte MAY want better players on the ball in defence here is because, like in germany, playing in england it is more usual for teams to get up the pitch and press. closing down is a big characteristic of northern european football. in italy and in spain the natural tendency to defend is more positionally and to block passing lanes. the cultural attitude is to force the opposition to lose the ball, here it is to win it back yourself.