Jump to content

SydneyChelsea

Members
  • Content Count

    3,942
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11
  • Donations

    £100.00 

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    SydneyChelsea reacted to Gol15 in Following our Nearest & Dearest Rivals 2020/21   
    Among other things, a photo when Chelsea won the league with Jose in his office at Spurs

  2. Like
    SydneyChelsea reacted to Gol15 in Following our Nearest & Dearest Rivals 2020/21   
    The bias is real

  3. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Slojo in *Officially sacked* but still Super Frank Lampard   
    One of the worst things to happen in the last 10 years has been the proliferation of 'tactical analysis' thinkpieces in both traditional and social media. This analysis is typically based on a circular post-hoc assumption - that which happened was planned to happen, because it did happen. The analysis is usually further characterised by overly simplistic statistical discussion and a tendency to make strong statements of apparent fact that actually have little basis in the data that it is supposed to be based on.
    We're told that Carlo Ancellotti 'tactically outclassed' Frank Lampard, and some Chelsea fans have unfortunately extended that to argue Ancelotti is performing better than Lampard. Carlo's illustrious career aside, the evidence doesn't actually stack up in either case.
    While there's no doubt that Lampard made some tactical mistakes and that he probably could have done better in that second half, the idea that Everton's win was a result of a carefully orchestrated master plan on Ancelotti's part is nonsense which unfortunately continues to be regurgitated by the press and on social media. I think it's far more likely that both managers made a big gamble, but Carlo's paid off and Lampard's didn't.
    Ancelotti and Autumn go together like broccoli and chocolate. Any Chelsea fan who remembers our time under Don Carlo would surely shudder looking at Everton's recent results, with just one win (vs Fulham) prior to beating Chelsea on the weekend. An even closer look at their results shows a huge disparity in results depending on whether Everton score first or not. Everton are one of the best teams in the league if they score first; they're relegation candidates if they don't. 
    From game analysis we know that Everton are set-up to counter-attack which is natural given they are run by one of the best counter-attacking managers in the modern game. Their tactic is simple; sit deep, win the ball and get it as quickly as possible to Richarlison or Calvert-Lewin. It is a very uncomplicated strategy that pays great dividends provided Everton score first. But Everton's results show that this is a high-risk strategy for them.
    Lampard knows this and given the way we started the game, it seemed like the team was instructed to go for the early goal. If Chelsea score first, Lampard knows the game is effectively over. Ancelotti knows the game is over. It works well right up until a penalty given to Everton largely against the run of play. Once the goal is scored, despite Everton being clearly inferior, they are have an extremely favourable situation that allows Carlo's tactical plan to take fruit.
    Everyone's favourite stat xG seems to confirm this (Understat):

     
    The graphs indicate that until the goal, the teams were playing as 'expected' but following the goal Everton had much better quality chances - which is exactly what you'd expect from a naturally counter-attacking team.
    It is also possible to infer that Lampard likely made the best possible decision. Everton's xG skyrockets after the goal, which on the pitch, usually translates to Lampard seeing their players get in good positions and make key passes with ease. Yes, he could have changed the formation to a 3-5-2 to allow for more width, but if you're watching Everton easily picking out Iwobi, Richarlison and DCL in the channels you are not going to want to do anything that risks given them more space in wide areas, meaning you don't push James and Chilwell higher up because the risk of countering is too high, and given we were creating chances, it may have seemed the right thing to do.
    However, another way to look at it is that Lampard actually wasn't aggressive enough. For a title-chasing team like Chelsea, anything short of a loss is a bad result, and a 2-0 or 3-0 loss is functionally the same as 1-0. The graph above shows that post-penalty, Everton were able to restrict Chelsea to speculative chances but not cut them out completely, which in turn suggests that Lampard should have done more to get Chelsea creating half-chances and peppering Pickford's goal, especially given his current form as pointed out above. This would effectively be the tactic that teams were using against Kepa in the past. 
    I hope that Lampard drowns out the nonsense and sees this game as an important lesson. Firstly, even against out-of-form teams, an all-in pursuit of the first goal is a suicidal tactic. Should Lampard perhaps have allowed Chelsea to concede more possession to Everton, given their almost complete lack of ability to create chances in possession?
    Another question we could ask; did Lampard underutilise our 'secret weapon'? Zouma, the most aerially dominant CB in world football right now, is also one of our best chance creators and scorers from set-pieces. With both Giroud and Zouma in the team maybe we could have looked at getting players out wide to win corners and free kicks to turn the game. 
    All the above for me are markers of Lampard's inexperience. By the same token, none of it tells me he was outclassed. You can improve inexperience but you can't always improve ability. The fact that Chelsea can go to a troublesome spot and dominate a game is a huge step-up from last season, and much closer to getting the result we desire. No one criticised Jose Mourinho when Chelsea went to Man City in 2004 and lost to a Anelka penalty. I hope that we can give Lampard the same respect.
     
     
     
  4. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from dkw in *Officially sacked* but still Super Frank Lampard   
    One of the worst things to happen in the last 10 years has been the proliferation of 'tactical analysis' thinkpieces in both traditional and social media. This analysis is typically based on a circular post-hoc assumption - that which happened was planned to happen, because it did happen. The analysis is usually further characterised by overly simplistic statistical discussion and a tendency to make strong statements of apparent fact that actually have little basis in the data that it is supposed to be based on.
    We're told that Carlo Ancellotti 'tactically outclassed' Frank Lampard, and some Chelsea fans have unfortunately extended that to argue Ancelotti is performing better than Lampard. Carlo's illustrious career aside, the evidence doesn't actually stack up in either case.
    While there's no doubt that Lampard made some tactical mistakes and that he probably could have done better in that second half, the idea that Everton's win was a result of a carefully orchestrated master plan on Ancelotti's part is nonsense which unfortunately continues to be regurgitated by the press and on social media. I think it's far more likely that both managers made a big gamble, but Carlo's paid off and Lampard's didn't.
    Ancelotti and Autumn go together like broccoli and chocolate. Any Chelsea fan who remembers our time under Don Carlo would surely shudder looking at Everton's recent results, with just one win (vs Fulham) prior to beating Chelsea on the weekend. An even closer look at their results shows a huge disparity in results depending on whether Everton score first or not. Everton are one of the best teams in the league if they score first; they're relegation candidates if they don't. 
    From game analysis we know that Everton are set-up to counter-attack which is natural given they are run by one of the best counter-attacking managers in the modern game. Their tactic is simple; sit deep, win the ball and get it as quickly as possible to Richarlison or Calvert-Lewin. It is a very uncomplicated strategy that pays great dividends provided Everton score first. But Everton's results show that this is a high-risk strategy for them.
    Lampard knows this and given the way we started the game, it seemed like the team was instructed to go for the early goal. If Chelsea score first, Lampard knows the game is effectively over. Ancelotti knows the game is over. It works well right up until a penalty given to Everton largely against the run of play. Once the goal is scored, despite Everton being clearly inferior, they are have an extremely favourable situation that allows Carlo's tactical plan to take fruit.
    Everyone's favourite stat xG seems to confirm this (Understat):

     
    The graphs indicate that until the goal, the teams were playing as 'expected' but following the goal Everton had much better quality chances - which is exactly what you'd expect from a naturally counter-attacking team.
    It is also possible to infer that Lampard likely made the best possible decision. Everton's xG skyrockets after the goal, which on the pitch, usually translates to Lampard seeing their players get in good positions and make key passes with ease. Yes, he could have changed the formation to a 3-5-2 to allow for more width, but if you're watching Everton easily picking out Iwobi, Richarlison and DCL in the channels you are not going to want to do anything that risks given them more space in wide areas, meaning you don't push James and Chilwell higher up because the risk of countering is too high, and given we were creating chances, it may have seemed the right thing to do.
    However, another way to look at it is that Lampard actually wasn't aggressive enough. For a title-chasing team like Chelsea, anything short of a loss is a bad result, and a 2-0 or 3-0 loss is functionally the same as 1-0. The graph above shows that post-penalty, Everton were able to restrict Chelsea to speculative chances but not cut them out completely, which in turn suggests that Lampard should have done more to get Chelsea creating half-chances and peppering Pickford's goal, especially given his current form as pointed out above. This would effectively be the tactic that teams were using against Kepa in the past. 
    I hope that Lampard drowns out the nonsense and sees this game as an important lesson. Firstly, even against out-of-form teams, an all-in pursuit of the first goal is a suicidal tactic. Should Lampard perhaps have allowed Chelsea to concede more possession to Everton, given their almost complete lack of ability to create chances in possession?
    Another question we could ask; did Lampard underutilise our 'secret weapon'? Zouma, the most aerially dominant CB in world football right now, is also one of our best chance creators and scorers from set-pieces. With both Giroud and Zouma in the team maybe we could have looked at getting players out wide to win corners and free kicks to turn the game. 
    All the above for me are markers of Lampard's inexperience. By the same token, none of it tells me he was outclassed. You can improve inexperience but you can't always improve ability. The fact that Chelsea can go to a troublesome spot and dominate a game is a huge step-up from last season, and much closer to getting the result we desire. No one criticised Jose Mourinho when Chelsea went to Man City in 2004 and lost to a Anelka penalty. I hope that we can give Lampard the same respect.
     
     
     
  5. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Argo in *Officially sacked* but still Super Frank Lampard   
    One of the worst things to happen in the last 10 years has been the proliferation of 'tactical analysis' thinkpieces in both traditional and social media. This analysis is typically based on a circular post-hoc assumption - that which happened was planned to happen, because it did happen. The analysis is usually further characterised by overly simplistic statistical discussion and a tendency to make strong statements of apparent fact that actually have little basis in the data that it is supposed to be based on.
    We're told that Carlo Ancellotti 'tactically outclassed' Frank Lampard, and some Chelsea fans have unfortunately extended that to argue Ancelotti is performing better than Lampard. Carlo's illustrious career aside, the evidence doesn't actually stack up in either case.
    While there's no doubt that Lampard made some tactical mistakes and that he probably could have done better in that second half, the idea that Everton's win was a result of a carefully orchestrated master plan on Ancelotti's part is nonsense which unfortunately continues to be regurgitated by the press and on social media. I think it's far more likely that both managers made a big gamble, but Carlo's paid off and Lampard's didn't.
    Ancelotti and Autumn go together like broccoli and chocolate. Any Chelsea fan who remembers our time under Don Carlo would surely shudder looking at Everton's recent results, with just one win (vs Fulham) prior to beating Chelsea on the weekend. An even closer look at their results shows a huge disparity in results depending on whether Everton score first or not. Everton are one of the best teams in the league if they score first; they're relegation candidates if they don't. 
    From game analysis we know that Everton are set-up to counter-attack which is natural given they are run by one of the best counter-attacking managers in the modern game. Their tactic is simple; sit deep, win the ball and get it as quickly as possible to Richarlison or Calvert-Lewin. It is a very uncomplicated strategy that pays great dividends provided Everton score first. But Everton's results show that this is a high-risk strategy for them.
    Lampard knows this and given the way we started the game, it seemed like the team was instructed to go for the early goal. If Chelsea score first, Lampard knows the game is effectively over. Ancelotti knows the game is over. It works well right up until a penalty given to Everton largely against the run of play. Once the goal is scored, despite Everton being clearly inferior, they are have an extremely favourable situation that allows Carlo's tactical plan to take fruit.
    Everyone's favourite stat xG seems to confirm this (Understat):

     
    The graphs indicate that until the goal, the teams were playing as 'expected' but following the goal Everton had much better quality chances - which is exactly what you'd expect from a naturally counter-attacking team.
    It is also possible to infer that Lampard likely made the best possible decision. Everton's xG skyrockets after the goal, which on the pitch, usually translates to Lampard seeing their players get in good positions and make key passes with ease. Yes, he could have changed the formation to a 3-5-2 to allow for more width, but if you're watching Everton easily picking out Iwobi, Richarlison and DCL in the channels you are not going to want to do anything that risks given them more space in wide areas, meaning you don't push James and Chilwell higher up because the risk of countering is too high, and given we were creating chances, it may have seemed the right thing to do.
    However, another way to look at it is that Lampard actually wasn't aggressive enough. For a title-chasing team like Chelsea, anything short of a loss is a bad result, and a 2-0 or 3-0 loss is functionally the same as 1-0. The graph above shows that post-penalty, Everton were able to restrict Chelsea to speculative chances but not cut them out completely, which in turn suggests that Lampard should have done more to get Chelsea creating half-chances and peppering Pickford's goal, especially given his current form as pointed out above. This would effectively be the tactic that teams were using against Kepa in the past. 
    I hope that Lampard drowns out the nonsense and sees this game as an important lesson. Firstly, even against out-of-form teams, an all-in pursuit of the first goal is a suicidal tactic. Should Lampard perhaps have allowed Chelsea to concede more possession to Everton, given their almost complete lack of ability to create chances in possession?
    Another question we could ask; did Lampard underutilise our 'secret weapon'? Zouma, the most aerially dominant CB in world football right now, is also one of our best chance creators and scorers from set-pieces. With both Giroud and Zouma in the team maybe we could have looked at getting players out wide to win corners and free kicks to turn the game. 
    All the above for me are markers of Lampard's inexperience. By the same token, none of it tells me he was outclassed. You can improve inexperience but you can't always improve ability. The fact that Chelsea can go to a troublesome spot and dominate a game is a huge step-up from last season, and much closer to getting the result we desire. No one criticised Jose Mourinho when Chelsea went to Man City in 2004 and lost to a Anelka penalty. I hope that we can give Lampard the same respect.
     
     
     
  6. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from ashwin in *Officially sacked* but still Super Frank Lampard   
    One of the worst things to happen in the last 10 years has been the proliferation of 'tactical analysis' thinkpieces in both traditional and social media. This analysis is typically based on a circular post-hoc assumption - that which happened was planned to happen, because it did happen. The analysis is usually further characterised by overly simplistic statistical discussion and a tendency to make strong statements of apparent fact that actually have little basis in the data that it is supposed to be based on.
    We're told that Carlo Ancellotti 'tactically outclassed' Frank Lampard, and some Chelsea fans have unfortunately extended that to argue Ancelotti is performing better than Lampard. Carlo's illustrious career aside, the evidence doesn't actually stack up in either case.
    While there's no doubt that Lampard made some tactical mistakes and that he probably could have done better in that second half, the idea that Everton's win was a result of a carefully orchestrated master plan on Ancelotti's part is nonsense which unfortunately continues to be regurgitated by the press and on social media. I think it's far more likely that both managers made a big gamble, but Carlo's paid off and Lampard's didn't.
    Ancelotti and Autumn go together like broccoli and chocolate. Any Chelsea fan who remembers our time under Don Carlo would surely shudder looking at Everton's recent results, with just one win (vs Fulham) prior to beating Chelsea on the weekend. An even closer look at their results shows a huge disparity in results depending on whether Everton score first or not. Everton are one of the best teams in the league if they score first; they're relegation candidates if they don't. 
    From game analysis we know that Everton are set-up to counter-attack which is natural given they are run by one of the best counter-attacking managers in the modern game. Their tactic is simple; sit deep, win the ball and get it as quickly as possible to Richarlison or Calvert-Lewin. It is a very uncomplicated strategy that pays great dividends provided Everton score first. But Everton's results show that this is a high-risk strategy for them.
    Lampard knows this and given the way we started the game, it seemed like the team was instructed to go for the early goal. If Chelsea score first, Lampard knows the game is effectively over. Ancelotti knows the game is over. It works well right up until a penalty given to Everton largely against the run of play. Once the goal is scored, despite Everton being clearly inferior, they are have an extremely favourable situation that allows Carlo's tactical plan to take fruit.
    Everyone's favourite stat xG seems to confirm this (Understat):

     
    The graphs indicate that until the goal, the teams were playing as 'expected' but following the goal Everton had much better quality chances - which is exactly what you'd expect from a naturally counter-attacking team.
    It is also possible to infer that Lampard likely made the best possible decision. Everton's xG skyrockets after the goal, which on the pitch, usually translates to Lampard seeing their players get in good positions and make key passes with ease. Yes, he could have changed the formation to a 3-5-2 to allow for more width, but if you're watching Everton easily picking out Iwobi, Richarlison and DCL in the channels you are not going to want to do anything that risks given them more space in wide areas, meaning you don't push James and Chilwell higher up because the risk of countering is too high, and given we were creating chances, it may have seemed the right thing to do.
    However, another way to look at it is that Lampard actually wasn't aggressive enough. For a title-chasing team like Chelsea, anything short of a loss is a bad result, and a 2-0 or 3-0 loss is functionally the same as 1-0. The graph above shows that post-penalty, Everton were able to restrict Chelsea to speculative chances but not cut them out completely, which in turn suggests that Lampard should have done more to get Chelsea creating half-chances and peppering Pickford's goal, especially given his current form as pointed out above. This would effectively be the tactic that teams were using against Kepa in the past. 
    I hope that Lampard drowns out the nonsense and sees this game as an important lesson. Firstly, even against out-of-form teams, an all-in pursuit of the first goal is a suicidal tactic. Should Lampard perhaps have allowed Chelsea to concede more possession to Everton, given their almost complete lack of ability to create chances in possession?
    Another question we could ask; did Lampard underutilise our 'secret weapon'? Zouma, the most aerially dominant CB in world football right now, is also one of our best chance creators and scorers from set-pieces. With both Giroud and Zouma in the team maybe we could have looked at getting players out wide to win corners and free kicks to turn the game. 
    All the above for me are markers of Lampard's inexperience. By the same token, none of it tells me he was outclassed. You can improve inexperience but you can't always improve ability. The fact that Chelsea can go to a troublesome spot and dominate a game is a huge step-up from last season, and much closer to getting the result we desire. No one criticised Jose Mourinho when Chelsea went to Man City in 2004 and lost to a Anelka penalty. I hope that we can give Lampard the same respect.
     
     
     
  7. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Simplymo in Chelsea v Leeds (PL) Sat 5th Dec 2020 20:00 GMT   
    I think the kindest thing that can be said is that it was an incredible goal line clearance!
    Werner misses plenty. He'll also score plenty. The best and most effective forwards in world football for the last 20 years have been 'inefficient' players who take 4-5 shots a game and score just 1. The reason is that a player who creates chances for themselves is much harder to shut down than someone who relies on finishing the few chances they have. 
    At the moment Werner is being a little too cute with his sidefoots and gentle placement, and really needs to get back to blasting them in like he normally does. Had he done that he would've ended up with a hattrick against Leeds and crocked their GK too.
  8. Like
    SydneyChelsea reacted to bisright1 in *Officially sacked* but still Super Frank Lampard   
    Yeah the point the journalist is making is that Chelsea have a great team in spite of Lampard, not because of him.
    It's continuing a theme that I see where people are clinging to narratives despite evidence to the contrary. 
    Lampard is a bad manager. Chelsea start winning, Lampard is still a bad manager but he's winning because of reasons. 
    I saw it under Sarri when he won the Europa league, took us to 3rd, brought CHO and RLC into the first team and all of that was because of fan pressure and Hazard and nothing to do with his management.
    The view on Lampard if we end up challenging for the title / winning a trophy, will be that it happened because we spent a lot of money and because there are too many games for "proper" tactics to win out. 
    It's trash.
  9. Like
    SydneyChelsea reacted to dR3 in Chelsea v Leeds (PL) Sat 5th Dec 2020 20:00 GMT   
    Indeed. I think we've scored 7 from corners this season, the most in the league. The second most is 3.
    You'd think Willian no longer taking the corners might have something to do with it.
  10. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from ashwin in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    Statistically, that's actually not a good comparison, because it relies on an untested assumption that Giroud and Abraham will continue to maintain the same scoring rates regardless of minutes played. Regression to the mean is a powerful mistress.
    Abraham (0.54) and Giroud (0.58) actually have very similar career goals/90 mins stats, albeit Abraham comes with a much smaller sample size, but in context it still means it is more likely that Giroud's scoring rate will regress over a period of time to be similar to Abraham's. In fact, if we restrict it to goal contributions last season alone, they ended up with identical numbers (0.73)!
    A more accurate statistical conclusion would be:
    Chelsea have two competent and in-form target men  They are both more similar in output than different but tend to be in-form at different times We are similarly likely to score a goal when either is on the pitch. This actually means there's a lot more pressure on Lampard since the decision should be based on tactics and not a judgement of quality - basically, if we need to get strikers behind the line or press hard we should start Abraham, and if we expect our best chances to come from crosses we should start Giroud. If Ziyech is starting he would probably prefer Abraham whereas Chilwell/James would relish Giroud attacking their crosses. 
  11. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from bluedave in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    Statistically, that's actually not a good comparison, because it relies on an untested assumption that Giroud and Abraham will continue to maintain the same scoring rates regardless of minutes played. Regression to the mean is a powerful mistress.
    Abraham (0.54) and Giroud (0.58) actually have very similar career goals/90 mins stats, albeit Abraham comes with a much smaller sample size, but in context it still means it is more likely that Giroud's scoring rate will regress over a period of time to be similar to Abraham's. In fact, if we restrict it to goal contributions last season alone, they ended up with identical numbers (0.73)!
    A more accurate statistical conclusion would be:
    Chelsea have two competent and in-form target men  They are both more similar in output than different but tend to be in-form at different times We are similarly likely to score a goal when either is on the pitch. This actually means there's a lot more pressure on Lampard since the decision should be based on tactics and not a judgement of quality - basically, if we need to get strikers behind the line or press hard we should start Abraham, and if we expect our best chances to come from crosses we should start Giroud. If Ziyech is starting he would probably prefer Abraham whereas Chilwell/James would relish Giroud attacking their crosses. 
  12. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from yorkleyblue in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    I hate to break it to you but one guy on an internet forum having a different opinion to the majority of football media doesn't equal "underrated" 
     
     
     
  13. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Slojo in Tammy Abraham   
    Why is this sort of talk necessary? I seriously don't understand how one can slag off a guy who has been at Chelsea since he was a kid, because some other guy is scoring goals??
  14. Haha
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Amputechture in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    I hate to break it to you but one guy on an internet forum having a different opinion to the majority of football media doesn't equal "underrated" 
     
     
     
  15. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from BlueLilly in Tammy Abraham   
    Why is this sort of talk necessary? I seriously don't understand how one can slag off a guy who has been at Chelsea since he was a kid, because some other guy is scoring goals??
  16. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from dkw in Tammy Abraham   
    Why is this sort of talk necessary? I seriously don't understand how one can slag off a guy who has been at Chelsea since he was a kid, because some other guy is scoring goals??
  17. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from ashwin in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    I mean even if there were 100 fans from on this forum who were anti-Giroud it would still not make him "underrated" given the majority of the football world publically rate him as a top-class performer for the last 3-4 years.
  18. Haha
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from ashwin in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    I hate to break it to you but one guy on an internet forum having a different opinion to the majority of football media doesn't equal "underrated" 
     
     
     
  19. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from ashwin in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    Exactly who is underrating him?
    He has been on a tear since the World Cup and virtually every pundit in the media extols the virtue of his finishing and 'good touch for a big man'. They call him the best target man in the world.
    He's right where he should be, a late bloomer who is at a top club challenging for trophies.
  20. Haha
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from dkw in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    I hate to break it to you but one guy on an internet forum having a different opinion to the majority of football media doesn't equal "underrated" 
     
     
     
  21. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from True Blue23 in Tammy Abraham   
    Why is this sort of talk necessary? I seriously don't understand how one can slag off a guy who has been at Chelsea since he was a kid, because some other guy is scoring goals??
  22. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from bluedave in Tammy Abraham   
    Why is this sort of talk necessary? I seriously don't understand how one can slag off a guy who has been at Chelsea since he was a kid, because some other guy is scoring goals??
  23. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from erskblue in Olivier Giroud to Chelsea   
    Exactly who is underrating him?
    He has been on a tear since the World Cup and virtually every pundit in the media extols the virtue of his finishing and 'good touch for a big man'. They call him the best target man in the world.
    He's right where he should be, a late bloomer who is at a top club challenging for trophies.
  24. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from Paddy in Edouard Mendy to Chelsea!   
    He's Basque and never gets picked for Spain anyway, so I doubt he cares about getting minutes for international selection. Given his natural fitness and ability I think he could still have another 3-4 years at the top level if he manages himself well.
  25. Like
    SydneyChelsea got a reaction from PloKoon13 in Tammy Abraham   
    It most likely is stat-padding although Tammy's defensive contribution should not be underestimated given how physically short our defence (bar Zouma) is. One of Abraham or Havertz is absolutely essential at the near-post role on corners.
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!