2 minutes ago, abister1 said:

That's Conte. He's always been that way. In fact i would say we have not seen his worst side yet in Chelsea. He was very controversial and divisive in Italy. Almost like Mourinho. 

And they made him the national manager?

On 11/30/2017 at 14:28, atomis said:

 Again the receiver of their dong between our legs.....

you too nice....The FA has bent us over & is ready for a rear assault again.....No KY or Vasoline - just spit

21 hours ago, Strider6003 said:

I start to understand why Millwall used to sing, 'No one likes us'.

I suspect Mourinho noticed this and realised he could use it to develop that siege mentality that we benefited from.

I've always thought of "Millwall with money" as more of a compliment than an insult.

20 minutes ago, Upsetter said:

I've always thought of "Millwall with money" as more of a compliment than an insult.

Not sure I follow. I've never heard of "Millwall with money."

On 02/12/2017 at 16:00, Strider6003 said:

And they made him the national manager?

And the point? Having character flaws doesn't mean he wasn't respected for the great manager he was and still is. I know Mourinho is a twunt doesn't mean I don't like him or regard him as one of the best in the game. Charlton's views on him didn't stop man u appointing him when they were desperate to be dug out the hole they were in.

Edited December 5, 20178 yr by abister1

Interesting bit on a Chelsea podcast this week about Conte and what happened in the summer. Apparently Conte put forward some players and just before the club we’re due submit offers, he told the club he wanted to leave. Obviously the club didn’t move forward with the transfers and Conte did then say he was staying. 

The guy he got it from knows Bruce Buck so he thinks he’s quite well sourced. 

It could be a load of nonsense but looking at the timeline of transfers over the summer, it does fit that narrative. 

Gotta love these emotional Italians eh..

I'm reading Pirlo's autobiography at the moment - I think therefore I play - and there's some interesting comments in there about Conte. The book is worth a read even if the translation is a bit clunky at times.

Not surprised, but RA won't like the sound of that.

1 hour ago, Ledgerson said:

Not surprised, but RA won't like the sound of that.

We're a top 4 club these days not a title winning one according to our net spend outlay in the last 4 seasons. RA has no business being mad about a top 4 finish and a run in the domestic cups. That's the reality of our ambition these days. Anything else is a bonus. 

Edited December 9, 20178 yr by The Liquidator

Top four looks difficult to me. We need some serious January reinforcements or we risk arsenal and Liverpool pushing us out 

Top 4 looks probable for me. Title out of reach.

I wonder how Morata would feel if Conte leaves next season.

11 minutes ago, ivorycoast said:

I wonder how Morata would feel if Conte leaves next season.

Over the moon if Zidane comes in I'm sure lol.

 

More likely someone like Laurent Blanc to be honest if Conté up sticks. Or Carlo MkII.

Brendan Bodgers anyone?

2 hours ago, BordeauxBlue said:

Over the moon if Zidane comes in I'm sure lol.

 

More likely someone like Laurent Blanc to be honest if Conté up sticks. Or Carlo MkII.

Brendan Bodgers anyone?

Are you trolling or being serious?

PL net spend 2014+

Man City £448.7m

Man Utd £424.7m

Arsenal £193.8m

Chelsea £126.9m

Spurs £20.5m 

This should put some things into perspective.

8 minutes ago, The Liquidator said:

PL net spend 2014+

Man City £448.7m

Man Utd £424.7m

Arsenal £193.8m

Chelsea £126.9m

Spurs £20.5m 

This should put some things into perspective.

Net spend means nothing. Chelsea have had alot of players which still held there value and they got good money for. Chelsea didn't sell to spend and they would have spend the money regardless.

Conte f**ked up today. He came out and said players were tired, but he was the one that choose 10 players who started midweek

If players were tired....bloody rotate them!  

 

Edited December 9, 20178 yr by nonotnowjim

2 hours ago, Ernie_blue said:

Net spend means nothing. Chelsea have had alot of players which still held there value and they got good money for. Chelsea didn't sell to spend and they would have spend the money regardless.

How can you say it "means nothing" when two of our supposed "rivals" can spend as they please without losing quality. That's just silly. This is not an excuse for any of our shortcomings btw but to play it down is stupid

2 minutes ago, The Liquidator said:

How can you say it "means nothing" when two of our supposed "rivals" can spend as they please without losing quality. That's just silly. This is not an excuse for any of our shortcomings btw but to play it down is stupid

Chelsea can spend as they please if they wanted. The club wanted Sandro and Barkley in the summer at least so you could be talking at least another 100m spent in the last window.

Chelsea have let some players go like Costa and Matic but they didn’t want to be at the club and got replaced. Chelsea’s net spend looks good because Chelsea have a lot of assets in youngsters going on loan and players still having value like Begovic, Ake, Oscar, Cuadrado and more players. 

Players will leave City next summer anyway, I can’t see Bernardo Silva being happy playing in the league cup.

Conte shored up the defence last season by going to a back five. Then this season he's gone to three in midfield to try and dominate possession. With the keeper that's nine players in non offensive positions.

It's ok when Hazard and Morata take their chances. But when we are looking to deeper players to score things look very worrying.

If we had a defensive LB we could play 4-2-3-1 and have four players back in the attack. Would also mean we could do without Bakayoko, who has been a complete waste of a position.

2 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

Conte f**ked up today. He came out and said players were tired, but he was the one that choose 10 players who started midweek

If players were tired....bloody rotate them!  

 

Just 'bloody rotate them'?

Great. So Conte, who has rightly come to the conclusion that we don't have the quality of midfield options to play two at the moment, has a choice of 3 fit options.  He picks them.

The defense must stay consistent, and with Moses still in recovery we are seeing the needed rotation at RB.

Then he has to decide whether to play his best 2 attackers or go for inferior options. Again, going for right choice in my opinion, as I'd rather see the others start on Tuesday.

The players are tired. His options are limited. He went for the right combination. I don't see the point in blaming Conte here.

 

2 hours ago, Ernie_blue said:

Chelsea can spend as they please if they wanted. The club wanted Sandro and Barkley in the summer at least so you could be talking at least another 100m spent in the last window.

Chelsea have let some players go like Costa and Matic but they didn’t want to be at the club and got replaced. Chelsea’s net spend looks good because Chelsea have a lot of assets in youngsters going on loan and players still having value like Begovic, Ake, Oscar, Cuadrado and more players. 

Players will leave City next summer anyway, I can’t see Bernardo Silva being happy playing in the league cup.

You're contradicting yourself here. You say our board can spend as they please but apparently they can't get their main transfer targets? It's either they can or cannot.

City get their targets by paying what clubs want. This is why our mediocre net spend is not something that can be ignored!

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by The Liquidator

48 minutes ago, The Liquidator said:

You're contradicting yourself here. You say our board can spend as they please but apparently they can't get their main transfer targets? It's either they can or cannot.

City get their targets by paying what clubs want. This is why our mediocre net spend is not something that can be ignored!

Not really, Barkley turned down Chelsea and I’m not sure what happened with the Sandro deal. My point is Chelsea can quite easily spend big like City and Utd.  Chelsea’s spending is not influenced by how much they make by sales of players so net spend isn’t important but rather by players leaving etc. Costa - Morata and Matic - Baka. The Chelsea board went to sign Barkley and Sandro and failed for one reason or another and that’s not due to money. A LB and winger would be enough for the squad in numbers IMO, whether it has the quality is down to the manager and board.

For example City brought Jesus for 28m and Chelsea Batman for 35m, City Gundogan for 24m and Chelsea Baka for 36m and Drinkwater for 34m. City ended up with better players for less money. 

I personally think Chelsea have a better all round squad than Utds anyway.

With City there is no doubt Chelsea have better defensive and central mid fielders.  It's attacking wise Chelsea lack but Conte isn't a flamboyant manager.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Ernie_blue

UCL will be a realisitic target if we get besiktas... otherwise, we ll need a miracle a la 2012 !!

I think Conte’s thrown in the towel. He just doesn’t look up for it and the players know. When he talks about tiredness, he’s giving the players an excuse. He’ll be gone at the end of the season. 

Thoughts on the next manager? I reckon it will be Zidiane.