BumsteadCFC

As a tackling enforcer I agree he was top class. My disagreement with Ballack and Blu is just based on him saying there are no midfielders that are better which is not remotely true. When youve seen midfielders of the class of Matthaus, Sammer, Cambiasso and the rest I mentioned, players that were complete midfielders: strong, intelligent, great tacklers, great passers who could score, create for themselves and you hear players like Roy Keane (who was a basic ball winner, very good at it) lauded as the best ever midfielder I just cannot agree. As a ball winner I rate Keane highly, as an all round midfielder? Nothing out of the ordinary.

"If he could score as prolifically as Lamps" - thats a pretty huge if when you consider that Lamps is one of the best goal scoring midfielders EVER. As for Keane being better than any of the players I listed, sorry thats a nonsense. No danger he was better than Souness when he played with Dalglish at Liverpool. Not. A. Chance. Ditto Rikaard when AC Milan won back to back European Cups in the late 80s. Desailly was a force of nature in his prime at Milan and even when he was past it he was still bloody effective with us.

Graeme Souness (at Liverpool) Lothar Matthaus (at Inter), Marcel Desailly (at Marseille and Milan), Edgar Davids (at Juventus), Frank Rikaard (at Milan) and Patrick Vieira (at Arsenal) I would all put above above him. There are others that I would put on a par with him such as Essien when he was at his best. Another of the Manchester United players that our media fawn over/overrate.

I think its a very accurate depiction actually. 95% of all Utd, Pool and Spuds fans ive known conform to it.

One swallow doesnt make a summer. Mate, most City fans are sound as. They started that craze of inflatable bananas and we had celery. Nothing to dislike about City mate.

Myles that is the post of the year. Agree with everything youve said. United fans are the biggest plastics going, Spurs fans think they are Real Madrid, Pool think that cos they were good in the 70s and 80s they have some sort of right to perpetual success. Gooners I find the lesser of the 4 evils. Ive always found City fans a decent lot and my Dads best pal is from Gorton and a blue through and through. Id have no problem seeing them win the league this year or in the future to come.

I have only one wish to address: Timekeeping, timekeeping, timekeeping. Now, I am a big basketball fan, there is a 24 second shot clock and 12 minute quarters. The refs are not responsible for timekeeping, an independent timekeeper is thus relieving the ref of that concern. They can just concentrate on making good calls/decisions. Secondly, the timekeepers computer is wired to a scoreboard and to the TV stations, so that when you see 5:37 on the TV you know theres just over 5 1/2 minutes left. It is more transparent, you dont have to play the guessing game of wondering "how long is the ref going to add in stoppage time today?". Stop the clock for substitutions and injuries (thus timewasting). Re the above, I just want to stop Fergie time/constant controversy about whether too much ir too little stoppage time was played.

Agree Myles it was a ludicrous decision. Completely unfathomable that the FA did not, at the least make them enter a hybrid reserve/youth side whilst their first team were in Brazil. A defending champion not defending it is insanity. Along with your point and Scoobys (not playing it as the last game of the season) not playing it at Wembley from 01-06, changing the 3rd round to December and the demise of the Cup Winners Cup have all affected the FA Cups status. I hope we, as Chelsea fans ALWAYS treat the competition with the respect it deserves.

Thats part of my thought behind the thread. I think most fans nowdays would see "only" winning the Cup as a failure. Of course the league/cl is a bigger comp but I hate to see the day when we dont prioritise winning the cup and treat it as Mickey Mouse. Its still magic to me.

I still love the Cup as much as when I was a nipper and I dream of the day we overtake Spurs in overall wins in the Cup which I hope to live to see. Success in the Cup means as much to me as success in the league, not more, every year I hope we, at minimum qualify for the Champs league but have a good old go at winning the Cup as well. Do others hold the Cup in the same esteem nowdays? Just wondering?

"if torres gets a run of games he will start scoring" - with respect is there any reason to suspect this will happen other than idle speculation? Did he manage it when he had a run in the side before?

Less than that davey he only had one full season with us mate 91/92, dean saunders done him in aug/sept 92

I dont want to see torres shoehorned into the side like he was when we bought him. If I recall correct we was on a run of 3 successive league wins when we got him from liverpool, we dropped whoever was in the side and lost the game v them. I knew it was a sh*t purchase from day one £50 million on a player who hadnt played a full season for a few years and was injury prone was never gonna be good business was it?

On the telly it came thru like the brugge game in 95. Truth be told night games always had a special feel at chelsea.

Evissy, the draw is the be all in the cl. Im praying that Barca draw Real in the quarters.

Everyone has their own idea of what a legend is, I think you should rethink saying Lampard isnt, consider: Most prolific midfield goalscorer ever for Chelsea, ONLY player to win player of the year 3 times, top 10 in appearances, scored goals v Bolton that won us the league, scored in CL Final, played here 10+ years. He kisses the badge a lot and thats not to be fake, he really loves this club. Truth be told ive followed chelsea since the late 70s and lamps is the best player ive seen in a chelsea shirt.

Drogs has blown too hot and cold to be considered a bona fide legend in my eyes. Dont get me wrong he has been unstoppable when on song but theres been times when Ive qurstioned his commitment. A true CFC legend you would never question if they were giving 100%. I never felt like Wisey Lampard, Steve Clarke didnt fancy it, yhey were 100 percenters ALL THE TIME.

Where do you live rahul?

That is funny as fark. I love how they try and play off their reaction to the draw as "optimistic". It wasnt, it was downright arrogant, "we will piss this group". Anything can and does happen in football.

Lets not count our chickens Rami. We should be favourites whoever we play but every tie is a potential banana skin.

Lets not count our chickens Rami. We should be favourites whoever we play but every tie is a potential banana skin.

"He's a really nice bloke" thats another strand of the Scholes mystique. Look, Im not saying he isnt but that hardly puts him in an exclusive category. Plenty of very talented footballers have been decent chaps: Bergkamp, Zola, Beardsley, Messi, Del Piero, John Barnes, Kaka, Nevin all kept their heads down but we arent constantly reminded about what great blokes they are. The same media that claim Scholes as a saint, demonize JT and Ashley as the antichrist. I dont place much stock in media created reputations.

Great feedback. Yeah it seems my opinion of him is not congruent with the majority of our fans, Im probably guilty of being overly critical. I will definitely re-evaluate him taking on board all the points made in this thread. Thanks.

Spiller - except Lampard has never been referred to as the greatest midfielder of his generation by anyone, in fact he is chronically underrated by loads of know nothing prats, England boo boys, called "Fat Frank". Compare: Best Ballon d or finish: Lamps - 2nd, Scholes - n/a Club player of year: Lamps - 3, Scholes - 0. Fwa footballer of year: Lamps - 1, Scholes 0. Top scorer at club: Lamps - 3, Scholes 0. Seasons with 15+ goals: Lamps - 7, Scholes 1. Lamps holds the Prem record for most goals for a midfielder and most consecutive appearances for an outfield player. Scholes was a great passer, other than that his game was limited. Lamps is a far better all round player.

Or rather has become laughably overrated. Dont get me wrong he could pass a football but all this "best midfielder" sh*te that was bandied around in the wake of his retirement is nonsensical. He was slow, could not beat anyone via dribbling or pace, could not tackle to save his life, perennially booked, was sh*te at tracking back. He scored goals here and there but his goals/game ratio was nothing to write home about (1 in 4-5 games). Only once did he score more than 15+ goals in a season. Did not, to my recollection excel at set pieces (taking free kicks, corners or penalties). England wise I never remember him having a tournament that would compare to Franks in 2004. In fact he took retirement after those Euros. He did, of course score a hattrick in Keegans first game but for the most he did nothing in an England shirt. For such a limited midfielder the praise that is heaped on him is a joke. He was never in the class of Nedved, Seedorf, even Viera who could all take the game by the scruff of the neck and were great defensively AND in attack whereas Scholes was a one trick pony. Sorry if anyone disagrees but Im Chelsea through and through and have had enough of nauseating Scholes hype. He was good but nowhere as good as some try to make out. Thoughts?