It's what he's best known for but you're right he is very versatile. The thing is, we wouldn't really need him in the centre as we've got plenty of cover for everyone bar Mata. When you've got Lampard, Meireles and Ramires competing for one spot and Mikel, Romeu and possibly Essien competing for the other it's safe to say we're well stocked. Not to mention Josh McEachran, Piazon and De Bruyne if they don't go out on loan. It's out wide where we're more lacking so that's what I was focusing on.

It's about a squad filled with options. Different situations need different players. Lets say we're a goal up against Man Utd with 20 minutes to go, would you look to bring on Johnson or Milner? Someone who will most likely lose the ball trying to beat a player too many and won't track back or a player who will fight for every inch.

If it's to be believed that we're close to signing Hulk and maybe Hazard (thus spake Star), Milner would be a better complement to our current squad than Johnson would. With Marin we already have a squad player capable of something special, beating a man and fighting for a first team spot. With Milner we'll have someone offering something different in the squad. Ramires on one side and Milner on the other and Hulk/Torres central would allow us to win another few games like how we beat Barca and Bayern, Johnson wouldn't offer us the same options. It's a squad game, not just a team game any more.

I agree with your sentiments but not your point. If we were one up against one of the league's best attacking forces, why in the world of all things sane and rational would it make sense to eschew any momentum we have and hand it back to them? Chelsea were up 3-0 at home to United this season and sitting back didn't do a whole lot of good. If we're 1-0 up needing to overturn a 3-0 deficit in a Champions' League tie, is Milner going to help?

We don't need more work-horses, especially on the wings, in key creative areas. A good manager should be able to get that out of his players regardless of their attacking talent. If the likes of Messi, Tevez, Rooney and Ozil are among their team's best tacklers, there's no excuse for any other attacking player to show the same attitude. As such, we shouldn't be buying attacking players on their defensive ability, because it needs to be a minimum expectation drilled into every member of the Chelsea first team.

The other thing is that too many cooks spoil the broth, both in attack and also in defense. Far too much critcism is levelled at attacking teams for supposedly not having enough "tough tacklers" or "hardmen" yet the struggles of teams who are far too reactive and defensive, such as Chelsea over the past few years, are often attributed to other things. Too many defensive-minded, safety-first kinds of players ironically can hamper a defense as they fail to maintain control of the game.

I don't believe that more hard working players means a more defensive shape. In fact your point about losing momentum is more about the team sitting deep than it is about the personnel on the pitch. Would you say we attack less with Ramires on the wing, purely because it's Ramires? I think that having players like Milner and Ramires in wide positions gives a level of guarantee about how much defensive work the players will get through and how much cover we have when defending. The players themselves are actually very good at attacking.

I'd love it to be true that any player can be made to work hard but it just isn't as easy as saying 'look, Messi does it, so you should too'. If it was, there would be no lazy player in the world, instead we have Sturridge, City have Johnson, Man Utd have Nani...

I think we should buy players based on what they can bring to the squad, not based on whether attacking players attack well or defensive players defend well, that just isn't going to work for me. I think we need someone in the squad who can do what Kalou did but better, we already have a tricky option wide in Marin and something different like a Milner or someone similar would improve the squad a lot. You're free to disagree of course, but I just think that a different option is what we need.

Gylfi Sigurdsson seems to be on his way to Swansea for £6.8m. Great signing for them if true. For that kind of money I wouldn't mind replacing Meireles with him, but I guess he would just be in McEachran's way like he was in Swansea last season.

It's on their official site now, excellent piece of business from Brendan. Surprised that the big clubs are sleeping on him, I'm sure he'll be sold to one of them for three times the fee in just a couple of years. http://www.swanseacity.net/page/Latest/0,,10354~2790365,00.html

Edited May 28, 201214 yr by Anders

It's not so much the fact that others weren't interested, believe a team like United would have at least shown interest, but the loan deal included a fee of around £7m I think so Swansea had first dibs. Glad he didn't turn them down cause no other team in the prem would let/allow him to play in the same way he does for Swansea.

Update Radamel Falcao / Atletico Madrid / Chelsea FC : Follow up on May 16th post . Atletico Madrid has rejected a 35M euros offer from Chelsea FC for the Colombian Striker . This is their 3rd informal offer which has been rejected !!

p.s : Honestly , I'm quite surprised here as Torres was told He'd lead the line . Dont know if Chelsea would insist on him !

I seriously doubt we made a bid for Falcao. Is this the same guy reporting on the Hulk situation?

I seriously doubt we made a bid for Falcao. Is this the same guy reporting on the Hulk situation?

It is. Like all these "insiders" they're not always right. But he is on the money more often then not.

As i said before we do need another striker. If Torres still fails to be consistant then we will be screwed.

are sturridge and lukaku not striker? or does Sturridge need to be 25 before he gets a chance to play CF? Is he not good enough?

Lukaku will be on loan and even with Sturridge that will leave us two strikers. If Studge gets injured and Torres keeps on being a flop then we struggle for goals.

I thought that was part of the reason for getting the Hulk in? In case both strikers are injured, he can cover there, even if it's not his natural position.

Lukaku will be on loan and even with Sturridge that will leave us two strikers. If Studge gets injured and Torres keeps on being a flop then we struggle for goals.

So, in case that happens, we should get another striker in and push our young ones further down the pecking order and ensure they get no games? sounds like a good idea.

Or we could just use Hulk there, or insert a recall clause into Lukaku's loan....

Oh ok so what we should do if risk it and it that happend throw some of the youth team in and hope for the best huh! Thank god you arent my manager!

If we sign hulk for the rw we don't need another striker. I don't want to see Studge go to a team like Spurs and score 15-20 goals, because he will!

Lukaku will be on loan and even with Sturridge that will leave us two strikers. If Studge gets injured and Torres keeps on being a flop then we struggle for goals.

with hazard and hulk coming in we wont struggle for goals, even if torres keeps misfiring. im firmly against bringing in a new striker

Oh ok so what we should do if risk it and it that happend throw some of the youth team in and hope for the best huh! Thank god you arent my manager!

Let me get this straight.

We're going to presume that Sturridge and Torres will both be injured for extended periods of time, and so to make sure we don't suffer as a result of this, we'd spend a load of money on a new striker. And then when none of them are injured, our 22 year old with f**kloads of potential will sit on the bench game after game. Great idea, it's not like we've always struggled to bring youth through due to short term thinking.

I'd rather we had to recall Lukaku from loan or play Feruz for a couple of games if Sturridge and Torres are injured rather than going on the presumption that they both will be (neither are hugely injury prone...) or that Torres won't score.

Lukaku will be on loan and even with Sturridge that will leave us two strikers. If Studge gets injured and Torres keeps on being a flop then we struggle for goals.

So you want us to spend about £40million on Falcao in the event of Sturridge being injured and Torres being a flop? That's a lot of money, especially with us probably signing Hulk, who can play as a striker aswell, so if Torres AND Sturridge can't play we can play Hulk up top and put someone else on the right. Spoending 40 mil+ on Falcao would be a waste this season.

I don't think we need a new striker. I think if Torres is the only big name striker he will be more confident and if he was to get injured Sturridge & Lukaku are adequate backup. And if reports are to believed we will also have Hulk who is more than capable of playing as the striker.

Hold on a minute i didnt say pay 40 million, i said bring in another striker.

Also if we loan Lukaku for a fee then we cant recall him.

Also it isnt impossible for Studge to pick up and injury and its more than possible for Torres to fail to find the back of the net.

You say you dont want people to sit on the bench, well whats the point of having a bench.

Last season we had at the start of the season, Anelka, Drogba, Sturridge, Torres and Kalou. How many times did you hear them moan about not playing.

With the amount of games we will have next season with the world club championship there will be plenty of games for the players to get a run out.

I would rather be prepared than left short.

Hold on a minute i didnt say pay 40 million, i said bring in another striker.

Also if we loan Lukaku for a fee then we cant recall him.

Also it isnt impossible for Studge to pick up and injury and its more than possible for Torres to fail to find the back of the net.

You say you dont want people to sit on the bench, well whats the point of having a bench.

Last season we had at the start of the season, Anelka, Drogba, Sturridge, Torres and Kalou. How many times did you hear them moan about not playing.

With the amount of games we will have next season with the world club championship there will be plenty of games for the players to get a run out.

I would rather be prepared than left short.

You're being retarded, or deliberately obtuse.

1. if we're worried about Sturridge/Torres both being injured, we can ensure that Lukaku's loan isn't for a fee, and write in a good recall clause.

2. SITTING ON THE BENCH IS NOT GOING TO HELP ONE OF THE MOST PROMISING STRIKERS IN EUROPE DEVELOP.

He had two strikers ahead of him this season. Both were misfiring, both were injured/suspended at times, yet he still never played as a striker, but you want to replicate the same situation? f**kING GREAT SHOUT.

Seriously, you need to think sometimes: we've always been "prepared" and it has meant that we don't develop youth, we let them rot. We have a very talented forward who needs game time yet you keep banging on about bringing in Cavani/Falcao/whoever instead of letting him develop "in case him and torres are injured"....................................

Right, need to get off here, stupid people piss me off too much.

^ Maybe don't get too pissed off. It's only a football discussion.

As it happens, I agree with you, it would be absolute lunacy to get another striker, assuming we buy Hulk, who can fill in in that position and give us another option, i.e. a more physical one, thereby also allowing Lukaku to go out on loan, as he needs to do.

The bottom line is this ..

We spent £50m on Torres, so there's no point signing someone for big bucks that might threaten his position, unless you sell him of course, which we're not going to do.

As back-up for Torres we have Sturridge, who has waited patiently at Chelsea for his shot of playing up front. What, are we going to make that wait entirely futile? No, we're going to make him Torres' back-up, as he deserves to be, so what's the point of signing someone with a big reputation that takes that shot away from Sturridge? Sturridge is going to surprise a lot of people, in fact, by the end of the season, I wouldn't be surprised if he's established himself as our number one striker. He has pace (far more than Torres), he has skill, he has an eye for goal, finishing, and he has that bit of arrogance every striker needs. His selfishness won't be such a problem when he plays his rightful position, which is up front. He may not be the finished article, but he has played precious little competitive football when you break it down, and he can only develop if he plays games. He will give Torres competition and that's healthy, so signing someone else is a no-no.

Last season, Torres and Drogba alternated as our front man, next season it will be Torres and Sturridge with Hulk as back-up, and that's sufficient. People say we had Kalou, Drogba, Torres, Sturridge and Anelka last term, but Anelka left straight away, and neither Kalou or Sturridge played up front. We will be fine with 3 strikers, and if something occurs, like an injury for example, we can always sign someone else in the winter, but we probably won't need to.

Right now, we should leave the front positions well alone, and that's an order.

Heh, I guess I'm just quite intolerant of ignorance/stupidity, when coupled with exam stress it doesn't make a great combination :D

But yeah, basically, we've spent £50m on a striker, we need to stick with him and have our youngster as backup. If the manager doesn't trust Torres, he needs to get rid of him rather than buying another backup "in case he fails" and bloating our squad (again).

He is playing really well for Spain at the moment, really mobile

The irish commentator was ripping into him though. Anyone else hear that?