Fair enough on the WBA one. small miscalculation.

You do realize that if not pedro, we would have had another player on the pitch. We wont have been playing with 10 men. Replace pedro with cuadrado/moses/salah (who in all honesty was not that bad for his half season here) and the minimum you expect is the same return,

You obviously didn't watch us when Salah and Cuadrado were playing.

That's a ridiculous comment to make!

You obviously didn't watch us when Salah and Cuadrado were playing.

That's a ridiculous comment to make!

I did. Both were got in the Jan transfer window. For me, thats the worst time to buy a player, moreover as a squad player made to sit on the bench. 

Cuadrado played 300 minutes of football. So to judge him on that, thats what i would say is ridiculous. Moreover, his 300 minutes were stretched over 12 appearances. Also, If i remember correctly, a lot of those appearances were to see out a 1-0 advantage. So honestly, I can not make a judgement on a player on that. Cuadrado was brilliant for Fiorentina, Columbia and he has been very good for Juve, all teams where he was given a fair oppurtunity. 

 

Salah was as bad/good as Pedro. again a winter buy. No time to acclimitize. Got 2 goals and 2 assists in 544 minutes in 13/14 playing for chelsea (136 minutes per goal-assist) compared to pedro's 8 goals and 3 assists in 2561 minutes (233minutes per goal-assist). 

So i am not sure how salah is "not good enough" yet pedro is.

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by didierforever

It's pointless if you can't see how useless Salah and Cuadrado were. I don't know a single Chelsea supporter who rated them when they were with us.

Pedro has done far more in his time with us than those 2 combined and that’s a season where 90% of the players have been underperforming.

If you rate Salah and Cuadrado over Pedro that’s obviously your opinion but I think you are barking mate.

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by Chelsbear

I think Pedro in a thriving Chelsea team would be immense personally. That doesn't make him a bad player either but given how sh*t we've been he's done decent IMO.

It's pointless if you can't see how useless Salah and Cuadrado were. I don't know a single Chelsea supporter who rated them when they were with us.

Pedro has done far more in his time with us than those 2 combined and that’s a season where 90% of the players have been underperforming.

If you rate Salah and Cuadrado over Pedro that’s obviously your opinion but I think you are barking mate.

Stats prove otherwise.

You were talking about a decent goal return, well salah had a better one. Cuadrado has been far more successful than Pedro.

 

Again, not saying either of them were better. Simply saying how pointless it is to compare sh*ts and turds. None of these are "good enough" for chelsea. None of them have the potential to be more than a squad player and not even good ones at that. 

 

THAT is the only comparable thing between them - Not good enough.

 

You can say "I m barking", but I am the one bringing material to the table while you on the other hand have simply maintained a stance of "pedro being better than willian and good enough to stay for us". Please tell me what exactly has pedro done and why he should be kept here for another season?

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by didierforever

What material are you brining?

If you are not saying Cuadrado and Salah are better than Pedro then why are you trying to make it sound like they are?

Is Pedro an upgrade on both those players? Yes or no.

Has Pedro influenced games more than those 2 in their time at Chelsea? Yes or no.

Look you don't like Pedro, we get it but don't try to make it out like the Chelsea fanbase as a whole want him out just because you do. You just sound rather silly.

What material are you brining?

If you are not saying Cuadrado and Salah are better than Pedro then why are you trying to make it sound like they are?

Is Pedro an upgrade on both those players? Yes or no.

Has Pedro influenced games more than those 2 in their time at Chelsea? Yes or no.

Look you don't like Pedro, we get it but don't try to make it out like the Chelsea fanbase as a whole want him out just because you do. You just sound rather silly.

I just gave you proof that Salah's goal return was better than Pedro.

I am not trying to prove Salah/cuadrado is better than Pedro. I am proving that the basic yard sticks to measure these players are very different which makes you very hypocritical.

You say Salah and cuadrado'a time at Chelsea was poor (which I accept), yet for you Pedro had a good season? Lol

How has Pedro been better?

Yes Pedro has influenced more games because he has played 2700 minutes compared to a combined 800 minutes of Salah and cuadrado. How are you not getting this simple math?

You say Pedro should be given time since it was his first season, yet after just 800 minutes of combined football for Salah and cuadrado,you have classified them worse than Pedro despite both having better seasons at their respective loan clubs.

As for the whole fanbase, do have selective amnesia. I wrote a post showing the number of people in a thread that wanted Pedro in their squads or not. Even in and around SB, Pedro is not much thought of, yet you want him to replace Willian.

I might be sounding silly but honestly u r being one.

I asked you what has Pedro done to be given a chance. If we don't want a youth player as a back up to hazard and willian, then we should be looking to buy a back up rather than settling for mediocre players like Salah/juan/pedro. And just because Pedro might be better than some average players, does not mean he is worth keeping. Otherwise we might as well keep Oscar and mikel for the next season.

I think we can still get more out of Pedro. I think playing fast, counter attacking football would suit players like him, Willian and Hazard. He may have played with a team full of tiki taka players for most of his career, but i don't think it's really his style of football.

I just gave you proof that Salah's goal return was better than Pedro.

I

No you didn't....

How many goals did Salah get for Chelsea?

There was a reason Pedro got more game time and that's simply because he's a better footballer than Salah..Cuadrado...Moses and whoever else you listed in that post.

As I said before you clearly didn't watch us with him in the side.

No you didn't....

How many goals did Salah get for Chelsea?

There was a reason Pedro got more game time and that's simply because he's a better footballer than Salah..Cuadrado...Moses and whoever else you listed in that post.

As I said before you clearly didn't watch us with him in the side.

I did not?

Well, there is that selective memory again.

2 goals and 2 assists in 544 minutes in 13/14 playing for chelsea (136 minutes per goal-assist) compared to pedro's 8 goals and 3 assists in 2561 minutes (233minutes per goal-assist).

Maybe, just maybe salah got less minutes because he was here for only half a season compared to pedro who had a whole season.  Just maybe :)

Once again you are making a statement. "Pedro is a better footballer than so and so..." I am asking for the reasons. Nothing we have seen in his 2700 minutes shows pedro is better or worth keeping.

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by didierforever

Maybe, just maybe salah got less minutes because he was here for only half a season compared to pedro who had a whole season. Just maybe :)[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Once again you are making a statement. "Pedro is a better footballer than so and so..." I am asking for the reasons. Nothing we have seen in his 2700 minutes shows pedro is better or worth keeping.

Yes because in that half a season he didn't impress and was shipped out.

Why do you think that was?

It's honestly not that hard to understand

Fact remains Pedro scored, assisted and offered more to Chelsea than both Cuadrado and Salah combined. It's there in black and white if what you see on the pitch isn't enough.

At this point I think you are just trying to argue for arguments sake.

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by Chelsbear

Yes because in that half a season he didn't impress and was shipped out.

Why do you think that was?

It's honestly not that hard to understand

Fact remains Pedro scored, assisted and offered more to Chelsea than both Cuadrado and Salah combined. It's there in black and white if what you see on the pitch isn't enough.

At this point I think you are just trying to argue for arguments sake.

Spot on mate

Yes because in that half a season he didn't impress and was shipped out.

Why do you think that was?

It's honestly not that hard to understand

Fact remains Pedro scored, assisted and offered more to Chelsea than both Cuadrado and Salah combined. It's there in black and white if what you see on the pitch isn't enough.

At this point I think you are just trying to argue for arguments sake.

hahhahahah... Ok bro. So tell me how many assists and goals did pedro have in his first 500 minutes? 

Its like saying "look at kdb, he did not have as many goals and assists for us playing once in 2 months, so it was fair to kick him out"

Pedro got consistentcy which both cuadrado and salah did not. 

I think thats the only thing thats not hard to understand.

While you and the others keep saying "it was his first season" yet you dont give the same leeway to the other players.

"Fact remains Pedro scored, assisted and offered more to Chelsea than both Cuadrado and Salah combined" another vague statement with absolutely no proof. 

You are expecting 2 squad players who got less than a 3rd of pedro's game time to produce the equal productivity as pedro. well that seems fair.

I am arguing because none of your points seem to be making any sense specially when i look at the stats and the past season.

 

Yes, salah did not impress and should have been shipped off. The same goes for Pedro who has been as bad if not worse, be it in his goal return or general play. AND thats the plain and simple point that I am trying to get across.

Edited May 13, 201610 yr by didierforever

You're a bit of a prick ain't ya mate?

Seen you in a few threads now acting like Billy Big Bollocks.

Wind your neck in and stop being so hostile.

You're a bit of a prick ain't ya mate?

Seen you in a few threads now acting like Billy Big Bollocks.

Wind your neck in and stop being so hostile.

People should have the basic courtesy of atleast quoting one when abusing him, right?

While I might be a prick when trying to drive my point home, but I dont randomly go about abusing people. 

You're a bit of a prick ain't ya mate?

Seen you in a few threads now acting like Billy Big Bollocks.

Wind your neck in and stop being so hostile.

Agree. He's a terrible poster.

You can't really compare Pedro to Cuadrado or Salah with the minutes played, that's like comparing Costa to Remy and Falcao.

So let me get this straight. We have people getting abusive over a difference in opinion of two players worth to the team.

Christ I'd hate to see how wound up you get if something crucial happened in your life that you couldn't reconcile. Such as coco pops vs coco pops rocks.

What on earth are Coco Pops Rocks?

So let me get this straight. We have people getting abusive over a difference in opinion of two players worth to the team.

Christ I'd hate to see how wound up you get if something crucial happened in your life that you couldn't reconcile. Such as coco pops vs coco pops rocks.

Oh do me a lemon! Coco pops what are you on? Look at the stats. Rice Krispies have a higher iron content and less fat per gramme.

You know nothing about cereal based breakfast foods.

Oh do me a lemon! Coco pops what are you on? Look at the stats. Rice Krispies have a higher iron content and less fat per gramme.

You know nothing about cereal based breakfast foods.

You plastic cereal eater, you should be ashamed. Everyone knows cornflakes are a real cereal fans choice, you Jonny come lately and your rice crispies can do one.

Pssh only JCLs eat that sh*te, it's all about Honey Nut cornflakes...

 

Oh do me a lemon! Coco pops what are you on? Look at the stats. Rice Krispies have a higher iron content and less fat per gramme.

You know nothing about cereal based breakfast foods.

Hark at you. I bet you weren't even watching cereal before sugar puffs were on the scene. Modern day bandwagon fan.

Hark at you. I bet you weren't even watching cereal before sugar puffs were on the scene. Modern day bandwagon fan.

Yeah! You reckon you muesli muncher. At least I eat Sugar Puffs bet you eat Sugar Poofs.

Yeah! You reckon you muesli muncher. At least I eat Sugar Puffs bet you eat Sugar Poofs.

Tw*t. I was eating shredded wheat when you were still offering Mickey Nutton your nestle golden hoops.