g3.7

well, I'll certainly miss his weird pm's that's for sure.

3 semi finals in the CL is good but not great for that team. they'll be disappointed with him in that respect- particularly the manner they went out in the first two, but he's won three league titles in a row (almost) which would make it four including heynckes one. the last two sides to win 3 in a row in germany were moenchengladbach in 75-77 and bayern in 99-01: he's obviously not been a failure on that basis in my eyes. he's also broken plenty of domestic records whilst doing so. the champions league is a cup after all, and I think in particular his winning of the title in record time in his first season with only two new players and a massive season long injury crisis is a serious achievement. historically following a treble season is often tricky. they were a better side than heynckes munich. also in my eyes he's improved the quality of their football. but that is down to preference. guardiola is clearly a great coach IMO. simeone is too- he's done an unbelievably good job at atletico.

if only we had an example of this... ideally a really, really recent example.

fine margins often are the difference between winning and losing. leaving aside a description of the likes of hart and cudicini as average, just think of the difference between begovic and courtois; the latter is quicker and positions himself higher up the pitch- this allows for slower central defenders to play higher up (and the end consequence is the striker gets to play closer to the opposition goal). he is better with his feet so is a better option for the defenders to keep the ball (i.e. they trust him to receive it and circulate possession) he is far better at claiming crosses and set pieces- this cuts out chances before they become chances. he is better at releasing the ball after claiming it so we would have more chances to counter attack. all of these things hugely benefit the team in a cumulative way. just because you can't quantify them with 'points won' doesn't mean it isn't important. goalkeeping is about far more than shot stopping, which in any case he's better than begovic at.

too nice to be a winner.

begovic is too good to be a number two, but he's not good enough to be a first choice for a side with our ambitions. I don't think he'll be at the club next season. keeping courtois is going to be an important part of our summer work. if not, it is almost impossible that we'll get someone of a similar level.

cheers eden. nice celebration too.

to be fair I think you're both saying the same thing. to me I think the key word he uses is perception and the key word you use is misinterpret. you're both right- no one can deny a statistic because it is a fact. the problem is, and I don't what to pick on this poster, when someone says hazard has the same shot accuracy percentage as ronaldo (that's the fact) so in theory he should score as many goals (that's the interpretation). this person, in the example above, has used a fact to come up with a ridiculous conclusion because he simply doesn't understand what the stat means or how to apply it. my reading is that you are both making this point. my supplementary point is that I think that the problem is the environment / way football is consumed creates this type of reading. I think if the person simply watched both players he would never come to the same conclusion.

unfortunately you are fighting against the tide with this argument. you are correct, obviously, but you may as well not even bother writing it. this argument has been long lost when it comes to talking about football now. people think that more information means a more informed debate but that clearly isn't the case. this is how the majority of young people (in my experience) view football- through the hyperbole of edited footage, through computer games and through numbers on the internet. they aren't completely to blame- football is too expensive for people to watch live and often. their first interactions are through the things I mention and eventually that conception calcifies. the result is people who don't have the tools to read the game, and who see eleven independent individuals on the pitch rather than one team- a living thing in itself, made up of people dependent on, and affected by, one another.

He's a quality player and obviously brings far more than his goals and assists. Ther are plenty of players who would have a bigger output in those terms but far fewer would have an improved contribution overall. I don't think he's easily replaceable. £50m is huge for a player who wouldn't have much resale value after his next contract, but given the way the market has inflated it isn't THAT huge. I'd prefer it if we kept our best players, and Willian is undoubtedly one of that group imo.

One wonders: Surely the fact hazards' best seasons at Chelsea came under Jose proves that he COULD handle the pressure of playing under Jose? Oh wait, some third party said he can't handle the pressure under jose. Better compose a rambling diatribe, contradicting myself at every turn. Again.

the telegraph claim his representatives are asking for £50'000 per week. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/04/25/chelseas-dominic-solanke-demands-50000-per-week/ surely that can't be the case.

chelsea player of the year twice in a row. in the pfa team of the year every season before this one. won the pfa young player of the year and then the outright player of the year. did the same in france. arrived in the league at 21 and became a key player immediately. has given me some of my most enjoyable moments in terms of individual performance I have ever seen in my time supporting the club. he's had a rubbish season- like most of the squad- and has been hit with a number of injuries for the first time in his career really. but given the above he still has my backing and I remain convinced he's a fantastic player. what I want is a fitter, happier hazard at the club next season. and I think we may well get that. I really don't think there is anything to gain from carrying grievances into next season.

whilst I don't agree with you that cesc fabregas, (100 caps for spain, world cup and european championship winner etc etc) needs to prove he can perform in big games, I definitely agree with this. I think it is a bit of a superficial comparison. pirlo has been playing as the deepest midfield player since he was about 22. his career has been built in that position. he's actually a worse tackler, slower and a far poorer tracker of runners than fabregas, but I don't think cesc has the same range of passing or ability to step away from players closing him down that pirlo has. obviously he's more similar to pirlo than vidal or marchisio, but I don't think it is a guarantee that conte would use him there or that he would be a perfect fit for the role.

From that I have to infer that you can't answer. That's fine. Your specious arguments are therefore completely discredited in my view.

The question isn't "do you think he is a symptom of larger issues that preclude young players getting picked" so I'll thank you not to answer questions no one is asking. It's easy. Yes, no or don't know. You can give as much reasoning as you like to support your answer. The question is worded perfectly and is totally fair (I.e. Not leading). If I am asked a yes or no question I can give an answer. don't suggest I can't. Don't suggest it is simplistic either. It is a closed question but it doesn't stop you from offering as much reasoning as you like. So I repeat: Yes, no or don't know: do you think emenalo being in place as the club's technical director precludes (or has precluded) the first team coach / manager from giving a chance (or chances) to any of the young players the club has produced or signed as teenagers?

john terry was a freak though. he was, by the time he was 21, 90% of the player he was at his peak. he wasn't like stones or zouma or most others. he emerged nearly fully formed, with an innate understanding of how to play the position and how to play the game. like rooney or busquets at barcelona. they appear from nowhere and the mistakes you associate with young players simply don't exist in their game. on top of that, jt was not, even then, shy or retiring. he carried himself like someone who considered himself an equal to world cup and champions league winner marcel desailly. his entire career, on and off the pitch, for good and for bad, has betrayed his absolute unstinting confidence and belief in himself. claudio didn't just put him in over robbie, franco and le saux as vice captain on a whim or as a speculative guess. by then he knew, terry knew, desailly knew and everyone else knew it- this guy was already a bona fide leader. it was obvious. read any interview or see any clip of people talking about how he was back then. there was no question who would be the long term leader of the dressing room at that point. zouma is nothing like that. the only thing he has in common with terry is that he plays the same position and he's a talented footballer. there is nothing else to suggest he is captaincy material really. christensen is the same to an extent. if they are both chelsea players in 5 years time then their time may come. but christensen probably won't be at the club next season. zouma won't be able to train before the season has started in all likelihood. he's a quiet, introverted character who still has loads to learn about his own position and how to play it. neither of them are cast iron guarantees to even have a long term future as first team players. zouma may not be a first choice and christensen hasn't had one league game in his position for us. that is nothing like JT when he was vice captain. far from it. I think it would be far to much pressure on them, particularly on the back of this season. let them get on with their development and we can revisit it in five years. IMO, realistically there are 3 candidates. 1. ivanovic- an exceptionally committed player with many years and successes in the bank. but finished as a top fullback at least and past his best in any case. is the incumbent vice captain though. 2. cahill- I think gary's a good player but I've never rated him as highly as some on here. if zouma merely becomes as good a player I'd be disappointed. I think he's risen to vice captain for england by default and this would be similar. he is english though which may count in his favour, and he has served us well for many years. has become a reasonable talker. I think he'd be a safe but uninspiring choice. a placeholder perhaps. 3. fabregas. see above. the youngest of the three, the best player of the three and the one who can feel safest about his place in the side.

thats because you can't overachieve once you reach a certain status of club and resources. no manager, once they reach the top really, truly overachieves. their previous work demands they get the best clubs, the best resources and ultimately the best players. guardiola won the double having reprogrammed a club's first team squad in his first season at bayern. people have called him a failure in his current job. once you reach a certain level the way you're judged changes. but jose's career is littered with defenders or defensive players who have vastly improved under his guidance. should zouma fully recover he will benefit massively from the time he spent under mourinho's tutelage. there is not a better coach of reactive football or of defensive spatial structure working today.

I think the concept of the captain and especially the armband are overrated. you need leaders but that is obvious. I think it is extremely rare that giving a player the armband improves them as players. but what is leadership? I don't think players screaming and bollocking their teammates are leaders. to me those are players who need to be guided by leaders. they lack emotional control IMO. there are many times of leaders in football. the ones who guide and encourage those around them. the charismatic ones whose personality and style of play can inspire those around them. the communicative ones who have a tactical brain and are constantly organising. I think you can lead by always showing for the ball even when there is a risk you could lose it or get clattered or when things aren't going your way. this is the type of leadership hazard for example showed last season. if this season is a blip and somehow he is still a chelsea player 3 years down the line he could become that kind of captain. outside of Britain the captain is often the longest serving player. nothing more or less. whether he is a leader doesn't matter so long as others in the group are. I don't think one leader is ever enough in a side and I don't agree in placing that responsibility solely with him. JT is a great captain. like most great captains he is a mixture of all of the above. but even his success as skipper needs to be shared with his teammates. particularly makelele, lampard, drogba, cech, ballack and, when he was vice captain, desailly. captains like terry are rare and there isn't another like him in the squad. there are other players whose commitment and loyalty to chelsea are not in question, like our current vice captain, but I don't think he has enough of the characteristics above. what he lacks in particular is that it is unclear he will be a first choice, in my view a prerequisite. fabregas does tick some boxes. he has captained at club and international level before. he's likely to be a starter. he's experienced. he talks a lot on the pitch, which I value highly. there have been some fantastic lead-by-example silent captains, but my preference is for a guardiola on the field. fabregas has the temperament, the conception of the game, footballing charisma and the obvious respect of his teammates. I don't see a better candidate at the club should JT go. in my dreams hazard is a long term chelsea player and a possible candidate far down the line but much would have to change between now and then. for the moment can anyone suggest a better name?

mmm. let me ask you a direct yes or no question: do you think emenalo being in place as the club's technical director precludes (or has precluded) the first team coach / manager from giving a chance (or chances) to any of the young players the club has produced or signed as teenagers?

We've done this bit already. I agree. However I don't think his hiring of emenalo impinges on the managers ability to play young players one iota. If anything his tenure has coincided with the best young players we've produced under abramovich. The only thing I think needs to change is that abramovich shows patience and the manager shows a desire to play the kids. Only ancelotti has shown a real interest in playing the kids out of all his appointments and only Jose in his second spell was afforded any kind of patience. Time will tell...

On chalobah I disagree to a point - Jose wasn't giving him chances and it was out of the window so the options were limited for first team football. If a player goes to a club where he gets a chance or if he gets injured then that can't be put on emenalo. On the non academy players my point is that clearly those are examples of the loans working. Also traore is an academy player. He doesn't count as one, but that is a technical issue. He's a product of the Chelsea system as much as anyone. It's a problem that no academy players has fully established themselves since jt, but it needs to be recognised that no technical director can force a manager to play the kids. He has to want to.

Step 1. It's the managers responsibility to decide keep them in the first team squad or not. Not emenalo, not bath- the manager. Step 2. If the manager doesn't want to keep them it is emenalos responsibility to find the player a suitable club to go out on loan to, or to sell them if the manager has no long term interest in them. The player had to agree to the loan as well. Step 3. It is down to the player to take his chances whether he stays in the first team or not. At the end of the season you go back to step 1. Has emenalo done a good job there? Yes, in my opinion he has. I think mistakes have been made, but I don't think Bamford is an example. Chalobah to napoli was a mistake. Delac loaned out as a second choice keeper was a huge mistake, even though he was never going to be a Chelsea player. Wallace to inter. But the successes are out there. Thorgan hazard, Andreas christensen, Thibaut courtois, Kevin de Bruyne, Bertrand traore, Nathan ake, Lewis baker and dom solanke have all had or are still having loans that are clearly benefitting their development.

beautiful bit of work rate from the overrated one.

bournemouth are doing a good job. their long balls into the channels are scaring the defence into staying deep, but our midfield and front four are making no adjustments because they are playing well with the ball. that's created a huge gap between matic, fabregas and the back four. it is very easy for one pass to have them running at mikel. it is also another reason why courtois is important, his aggressive starting position could get the back four up the pitch. mikel is really uncomfortable out of position but what I think guus needs to do is close the gap between those lines. either bring more players behind the ball and play less on the front foot or push the back four up the pitch and have begovic stand further away from his goal. miazga on would improve our defending (you would assume) in terms of individual decision making but we'd still concede chances.