g3.7

Swansea starting with a back three and wingbacks. Ivanovic will be pleased to be against Neil Taylor rather than one of their wingers

but in spain youth players have access to playing for the B teams (which is like loaning players out to a club you ultimately control) which we don't have here, and clubs like barca and madrid regularly sell players and buy them back later. it is obvious 90% of the players we loan are only going out to increase their value before getting sold. there aren't more than maybe seven players in our entire youth system from age 18 and up that I think realistically could be chelsea players and I can name only one I'm sure would be ready to be in our squad next season and perhaps two more that might be. despite the fact that our situation with defenders makes the two year loan of christensen unwise, I think it is a good idea. it means that the player and his loaning club have more time to make it work. a slow start doesn't mean anyone has to panic- I think it is better than loaning out for one season. personally I'd like to see us start to sell some of these guys but forgo a bigger initial fee in place of having a buy back clause. it is time for people like baker to have a two to three year stretch at a club to determine what they realistically could be.

making two changes (3 I guess as cesar would be moving to the right) to a back four that has just kept a clean sheet would be a little odd. especially when the players would have less time to train together than usual due to the internationals. on the other hand ivanovic has huge problems with pace. I'd be inclined to put alonso in immediately.

what an incredible player. we'll never see his like again. never. when he was being described as a huge flop out there did anyone, even for a second, doubt he'd ultimately prove himself? he's too driven, he works too hard and he's simply too good.

has to be mike phelan all things considered IMO.

@Argo I appreciate what you're saying but without those stats I couldn't even begin to make a conclusion. Like most though I rely on what I see, I saw him live every other week for years and he's a player I have no doubt about. I think he's exactly like bosingwa was as it goes, only in a position where it hurt us more. He's certainly a bigger talent though. @Remodez This is the thing. For a defender, better than one in two is so incredibly far from what is required. It is all about consistency. Two two good games in three would still be well short. Wagering he's probably had more good games than bad days it all. Like pretty much all defences him, you're condemned out of your own mouth. Better than one in two good games is what we are aiming for from Victor moses. A squad player in an attacking position. Anyway thanks for the replies all. I won't be adding to this thread for a while and don't expect me to come in here if he makes a mistake saying I was right or anything. Hopefully I'll be back eating my words, but I'm not optimistic.

@barak81 maybe I am sleep deprived because actually I'm not sure I do understand it. @Argo interpretation is always interesting. in the leverkusen match you could say luiz went off and as a consequence we lost. but you could say that if a team is at home and losing by one goal the natural consequence is late on the defending side drops deep and concedes territory as the home side pushes to get back in the game. it happens all the time, and did so with luiz in and out of the side. as for the graph, it is totally lacking in the kind of specificity we need for it to be useful. I note it doesn't include stats from the season before or after he left. or whether he was in midfield or not. or whether we had given up on the league during any of those games (such as under robbie, going for the cups for example). it doesn't tell us who was his manager at the time. it doesn't say who he was playing alongside. personally, there are too many variables to take it seriously.

@mclovin83 @Remodez I haven't seen one post from any luiz apologist that explains why they think he's a good defender. I've seen lists of his undoubted qualities, but not one person has written to say that they think he's a good defender and why that is. not one. mclovin, your defence of him was littered with so many caveats it looked like a boris johnson victory speech. " The side to his game which lets him down is his decision making" you say. well, that is the most succinct, most perfect encapsulation of what defending is. it is an unglamorous business- anticipating the worst case scenario and making the most pragmatic decision. time after time, minute after minute until the game is done. you can't pass off decision making as if it is a small factor! I took the liberty of looking up the word liability, just to check it wasn't hyperbole: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/liability " A person or thing whose presence or behaviour is likely to put one at a disadvantage " for me, that is a perfect description of luiz. a perfect description. @Dorset thanks for the reply. I think you are putting the (pan)gloss on a difficult issue as you often do and I think that is valuable with all of the negativity that surrounds the boards at times (and of which I am a proponent on this topic). I always read your posts and that is why I'm sure in your heart you aren't pleased that stones has gone to city and not us. you were a persistent and fantastic advocate for his signing even when he lost his form. I also cannot recall you lamenting our sale of luiz and I know that you can't be pleased that his signing pushes aina and tomori further away from the first team. forget fees for one minute (although in fact it emerged luiz was sold for less than £40m, never mind the £50m that was reported at the time), I guess I would ask you if you a) would rather have stones or luiz in our squad and b) how highly do you value defensive reliability in a central defender? shouldn't this post be accompanied by a tin man, judy garland and a cowardly lion? maybe you think it was a coincidence that we won the league the season directly before luiz signed, and directly after he left? guess he was unlucky eh...

Dorset that is one hell of an effort. You could fashion a silk purse from the ears of a pig that had done 12 rounds with Mike tyson. I'm afraid I really can't agree with much of it though, and I strongly suspect had we signed stones and city Luiz you'd be laughing your way to the word bank. Let's start with stones. Depending on the source, it could be he cost merely £10m more. Obviously we had no chance of signing him this summer, but it is worth thinking about. Also think about the fact he's been in a struggling Everton side working under the defensive genius Roberto martinez. Luiz has worked under benitez, blanc, mourinho and ancelotti. There isn't anything this group, in totality, don't know about being a defender or coaching a defender. And as a result of working with them , we have a player in his theoretical peak who is described by a French journalist as worse than he was when he left. If he's better than stones (and imo he's got nothing on him, let alone stone's potential to improve) why did Jose sell him and try to sign the supposedly inferior player? Why were psg happy to sell him at a loss with no chance of signing a replacement? Think of that - people seem to think my contention that I'd rather have no-one than mad Dave is overstating my case. Psg have actually made that choice. Where was guardiola's interest in this genius footballer? Stones does have mistakes to iron out as you say, presumably you'd characterise luiz' as permanent wrinkles? Unai emery is creasing himself at any rate. I really object to this, it reads like the unpublished sequel to the emperor's new clothes, or, if you prefer, the devil wears pravda. Maybe that is below the belt or out of line, perhaps you could call this a rush of blood to the head... but then I guess that would be apposite when we're talking about David Luiz. Tackling, heading, blocking etc dont need to be analysed separately to judge a defender. Defending isnt one or many attributes. You can't distill it. Defending is the appliance of those qualities. You dont judge a magician on his props. You judge him based on whether he manages to deceive you. Something dave has managed to do with rather more success than his day job, in my assessment. What kind of reasoning is this? imagine what a pathetic, sorry club it would be to cower from a signing in fear of the fans crying on social media. It would be nice if decisions were taken with the benefit of the team in mind rather than appeasing the false or idle. "Think what you're doing! Signing david Luiz won't bring back your failed crop of youth team players!" Come on mate, with a bit of luck he might be.

Good work davey. This squad is balanced, fit and premier league ready. What excites me is the potential conte could yet wring out of people like Willian, Oscar, pedro etc. For example, and it is too small a sample to get too excited about, Hazard is taking more than double the shots per game he ever had for us. I think he could squeeze more out of players assumed to have nothing more to offer.

I appreciate your honesty. It's a risible, parochial sentiment though. @bjd http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36763631 Pretty clear conte wasn't interested in ake as a fullback. He's not the most attacking player in that position. Shame about the wilshere loan from his point of view.

no- EVERY transfer is potentially a mangala. none of them are guarantees and no-one on earth can say with absolute certainty that they will be a success. risk is inherent in the act of taking a player out of one context and placing him in a new one. so should I f*ck off for being critical or am I within my rights? I said days ago I'd prefer us to sign no-one than sign players who add depth rather than quality (which may or may not be the case with yesterdays deals).

follow this logic through, and we'll never sign another player. every potential transfer has the possibility of not being a success. p.s. people are well within their rights to be critical of whomsoever they feel. so wind your neck in.

well @The Brit the window is closed. I think we'll probably need a couple of months to truly have a strong idea about how we did. first reactions are that we did amazingly well to get kante, batshuayi looks promising too. we've kept begovic and signed a third keeper. I don't really see the point, and I think begovic is too good to sit on our bench and not good enough to start regularly for us. but clearly conte wanted these three. as for the deadline day signings, we did get a leftback, he can cover in the middle and he's left footed. on the surface he ticks the boxes. now we'll find out whether he's any good. in david luiz we've signed someone who plainly is not a nobody, is clearly divisive but certainly has qualities that others don't in our squad. he's the right age and the right... status? I'm not sure of the right word. he is a significant player in the world game. it is down to taste, but he's a player around whom a team and a defence could be built in a way that you couldn't reasonably expectof someone like djilobodji, who was a last minute purchase and only ever going to be a backup player. if conte wanted luiz (I have my doubts), then I don't think the board can be criticised, or that heads need to roll. if he didn't then I guess it is down to taste. I've made my feelings clear elsewhere. @ForeverCarefree (I think) made a great point- these guys all know the league and speak the language. that is not to be understated. none of them are going to be like baba, with their manager unsure about their readiness, they shouldn't even struggle like pedro, who despite his quality had obvious issues too. overall I don't think it is costa / fabregas level work, but it is a big improvement on last season in theory.

@Davey Baby @bjd what I will say is that in addition to all of the qualities davey mentioned (and barney, when I say charisma, amidst the obvious criticism, I mean it sincerely- he has on pitch charisma. he gets the crowd and the team going and that massively helps. it is a rare quality and I couldn't name more than five players we've had in the last ten years or so who have it. he's one of them), I do not think zouma and christensen are a ready made partnership. stylistically they could work, but I don't want two youngsters playing there together. they'll need an experienced player alongside one or both of them. I don't think cahill should be that player, because as much as I appreciate him, I've never felt he was a top player. he's a wholehearted, but ultimately limited footballer and when JT goes I can't see him being more than a squad player. So those young kids will need someone in his peak alongside them. luiz is 29, for me that is when defenders peak. maybe conte will get something out of him that others haven't. barzagli wasn't considered a truly top defender when conte first started working with him at a similar age so I suppose it is not impossible...

alright, alright. just can't emphasise how strongly I despair at this signing. to answer your question: weaker.

this was on the weekend. luckily refs aren't clamping down on this sort of thing in england...

some good points. yes, he's got the ability and inclination to step into midfield with the ball. yes, he he's good with his left foot. yes, he can play long passes out and balls over the top when the game is short (i.e. when the two opposing defensive lines are close together). yes, he is familiar playing in wide positions and could, in theory play in any of the three positions in a back three. those are all things conte wants, they are all things our defenders can't really do. zouma and cahill are average with the ball, JT has no agility. luiz adds all of these attributes to the squad. he can't defend though, can he? he's a defender who actually can't defend. why have PSG, in this age of transfer fee inflation, taken a loss on one of their starters? zlatan left, and yet they were happy to dispense with this supposed leader. never mind, he's got a great social media presence...

presumably we will re-sign him in five years time to partner david luiz in the middle of defence.

an absolute f**king travesty of a signing. but nevertheless, welcome back david. good luck.

he's a totally unreliable footballer who plays in a position where reliability is paramount. I watched him in person for years and as a result attend a weekly david luiz survivors group. it isn't a big group, a parisian who like to thumb through a dog eared copy of the myth of sisyphus, @just pops in from time to time, franco baresi accidentally did some punditry on him once so he's pretty much a regular, and other than the entire population of brazil there aren't too many others. there are some players who you need to watch live to see quite how good they are. makelele, crespo, van nistelrooy, gallas etc... luiz is the exact opposite. and more than that, he often inspired visible panic in his teammates, who clearly could not predict or anticipate what he was going to do. was he going to charge out of defence to win the ball in midfield? or dribble down the wing? or throw an elbow for no reason? or drop deep to play 3 players onside? everything was instinctive and off the cuff. I hate footballers like that. total individualists. to a point, they can still be useful if they are attacking players, like faustino asprilla, for example. I was so happy when joe cole showed the dedication and humility to learn how to play as part of a team. luiz never did. and for a defender, that is totally unacceptable.

@bjd I don't get it. £30m on a player you know is a liability vs £60m on one who might not be? (unless you've seen koulibaly- I saw him play one game last season, he was great but obviously that's not enough) if that is the choice I'd pay £90m for the latter anyway.

I am being serious and I don't think it is. I don't see one person explaining why they think he's a good defender here. not one. I don't see anyone daring to suggest he's improved as a defender. before and after his chelsea career he was at clubs in leagues where he could afford to dick about to his hearts content safe in the knowledge that it would ultimately be of no consequence. that is where he belongs.

nope. not having that. we've got JT, cahill, ivanovic and potentially people like chalobah and tomori before january. that is, worse case scenario, enough for us to deal with a league and league cup campaign (for that is all we have). in january the window opens again, we should have zouma back and we could start to pursue people again. if napoli were out of the title race and europe then they might be happier to consider selling koulibaly for example. if not then we are 6 months away from christensen returning and we'd have a good idea of how useable the players we currently have are. I always felt a fullback was a more important signing (although I have my misgivings about alonso). I even said in some other thread I'd rather not buy just anyone. back then, in those heady, cloud free days, I had forgotten luiz existed. honestly when we sold the bloke I felt like I was a foster parent being told little damien was being moved on. now apparently there was something wrong with the forms, he's back, and in the interim he's started to collect antique weaponry. p.s. @Shotgun883 four or five years?!!! give me a break mate! this is like the election all over again.