7 hours ago, venom2011 said:

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.

 

He made the decision on who to play midweek against athletico, he knew the west ham fixture was on Saturday. He choose not to make full use of the squad. Don't cry to the media about tiredness if you have chosen to play the same players without proper rotation.  

Pedro, Willian, bats, rudiger, ampadu, kennedy, musonda could all have been better utilised, both this week, and over the season so far, to have given more experience so that Conte would be more comfortable using them regularly.

He could have played the kids against athletico and had a freshly rested full strength team against the pikeys. We may well have lost against athletico, but as it is we finished 2nd anyway...at least we would have been better placed to win yesterday.

Every manager has a best 11. Therefore every manager at times has to decide whether to rotate with "inferior" options...that is what rotation is and why we have a squad. 

If the players are too tired to beat a poor west ham then Conte has failed to choose the right team and has failed to rotate sufficiently which has allowed the players to get to tired.

6 hours ago, Ernie_blue said:

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.

No, Chelsea CLEARLY can't spend like City and Utd, that's the whole point, and this has been obvious for years now. According to https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ City squad cost close to £700m to assemble, United's is about £640m. You know what ours costs? Around £450m. Why do you think that is? Because our squad is so well stocked with world class stars, there's simply no need to spend more? Is that it?

Granted, you don't always have to spend big to get quality signings (pains me to say, but Spurs did well in that respect), but more often than not, you do. That is, if you want to stay competitive and fight for trophies every season.

Those comparisons with City are ridiculous. Gundogan spent most of his first season out injured. They got some great deals, like Jesus, but they wasted plenty of money, too. The difference is, they can afford to make mistakes in the market because they have a bottomless pit of money. We don't.

Conte wanted to upgrade wingback position and asked for Sandro, Walker and Danilo. We ended up with Zappacosta. He wanted Bonucci, Koulibali and Stones and we ended up with Luiz and Rudiger. God knows, who he wanted for LB position back in summer of 2016 but I'm sure Alonso wasn't his first or even second choice. Sooner or later, if you're not getting the right players or getting players of inferior quality to the ones you target, you end up with an inferior squad. We overachieved last season, plus the lack of CL and the players getting lucky with unjuries helped, but there's only so much you can do when you constantly shop at a discount store.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by abramovich

^ Good post Ab.

So much whinging & unnecessary angst on here after the derby. Sure - disappointing result but how many times has that happened over the last few years in the same situation? Quite a bit & regardless of whether it was Mourinho or Conte as the manager. The point being that we've had a thin squad for some years because of other more pressing considerations - ie. to continue with the model of being self-funding as much as possible & because we've got to build the new stadium to ensure for the long term.

In consequence, this idea that we can over the short term match the likes of City or United in terms of player/squad spend is not the reality. Look at our net spend over the last few years compared to theirs - not in the same ball-park & in fact we have been the big over-achievers in respect to silverware both under Mourinho & Conte when the sheer financial spend on players is taken into account. And this has been evidently obvious for some years now & yet we still see the constant whinging in the short term.

Some of you have got to get some perspective - you are chels for life so you have to understand that in this 'moment' we are planning for the long term viability of this club at a time when over the last 5 years or so some very rich benefactors have come into football. We were very lucky that our benefactor came in very early & a glorious decade or so followed. And then others saw that & followed & now it's ultra competitive & we're no longer in the top 3 of clubs in respect to what we can spend. Certainly we are still in the top ten but it's a very different game than it was ten or even 5 years ago now.

So get some perspective - last year as Ab says we over-achieved & won the title (albeit made much easier given we weren't in Europe). This year we're back in Europe where we belong & the aim is to make the top 4 so as to stay in Europe next year & maybe to win a cup or two. What's wrong with that ambition? It's completely realistic given what we've got to do in terms of the new stadium. And given the huge amounts that City has doled out in the last 5 to 6 years for players their return has been pretty ordinary when you think about it. But sooner or later, by the law of averages,  they were going to manage to bring it all together which is what is happening this year. So I don't get the angst exactly.

And quite apart from that, some credit is due to Moyes here: got the early goal & then set up to stonewall - we couldn't un-pick em'. Seen a fair bit of that over the years. Even City found it difficult to un-pick em' the week before with all their firepower. It happens. It's called football.

Going to be a tough battle for top 4 this season. Arsenal will be around there. Spurs will pick back up. Liverpool's attack will mean they are there or there abouts. That's 4 teams for 2 spots, and with our lack of depth and worrying performances we could easily slip out. If we go out of the CL in the next round we could focus on the league, but that's not exactly showing the kind of ambition to keep the likes of Hazard at the club or bring in similar quality players.

3 hours ago, abramovich said:

No, Chelsea CLEARLY can't spend like City and Utd, that's the whole point, and this has been obvious for years now. According to https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ City squad cost close to £700m to assemble, United's is about £640m. You know what ours costs? Around £450m. Why do you think that is? Because our squad is so well stocked with world class stars, there's simply no need to spend more? Is that it?

Granted, you don't always have to spend big to get quality signings (pains me to say, but Spurs did well in that respect), but more often than not, you do. That is, if you want to stay competitive and fight for trophies every season.

Those comparisons with City are ridiculous. Gundogan spent most of his first season out injured. They got some great deals, like Jesus, but they wasted plenty of money, too. The difference is, they can afford to make mistakes in the market because they have a bottomless pit of money. We don't.

Conte wanted to upgrade wingback position and asked for Sandro, Walker and Danilo. We ended up with Zappacosta. He wanted Bonucci, Koulibali and Stones and we ended up with Luiz and Rudiger. God knows, who he wanted for LB position back in summer of 2016 but I'm sure Alonso wasn't his first or even second choice. Sooner or later, if you're not getting the right players or getting players of inferior quality to the ones you target, you end up with an inferior squad. We overachieved last season, plus the lack of CL and the players getting lucky with unjuries helped, but there's only so much you can do when you constantly shop at a discount store.

Chelsea CAN spend like Utd and City but it’s the clubs decision not to, that is the only difference. This is not because they don’t have the money but because they don’t want to overspend on certain players. Net spend is just poor excuses as usual.

First I have heard Chelsea was after Walker, Danilo turned down Chelsea just like the Ox and Barkley did. Whatever happened to the Sandro deal no one knows. None of these deals was really down to money.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Ernie_blue

We can't really. Utd may have been underperforming the last few years but they still have the income to do whatever they want and City have their ridiculous loophole sponsership deals to pump in infinite amounts of money. We are still some way behind.

54 minutes ago, Zeta said:

Going to be a tough battle for top 4 this season. Arsenal will be around there. Spurs will pick back up. Liverpool's attack will mean they are there or there abouts. That's 4 teams for 2 spots, and with our lack of depth and worrying performances we could easily slip out. If we go out of the CL in the next round we could focus on the league, but that's not exactly showing the kind of ambition to keep the likes of Hazard at the club or bring in similar quality players.

3 teams for 5 places. United don't have the consistency in attack not to be dragged in eventually.

1 hour ago, Ernie_blue said:

Chelsea CAN spend like Utd and City but it’s the clubs decision not to, that is the only difference. This is not because they don’t have the money but because they don’t want to overspend on certain players. Net spend is just poor excuses as usual.

First I have heard Chelsea was after Walker, Danilo turned down Chelsea just like the Ox and Barkley did. Whatever happened to the Sandro deal no one knows. None of these deals was really down to money.

No, that's NOT the difference. The difference is, we can't spend what City can. If we could, our squad wouldn't cost 250m less. Forget Barkley, he's a nobody and isn't worth much. We didn't get Sandro because we weren't willing to make the kind of an offer Juventus couldn't refuse. PSG proved this past summer that you can get almost any player, if your offer is big enough. I'm not saying Sandro's worth that sort of money or that he was going to be a guaranteed success, but we could have gotten him, if we offered enough. More or less the same story with Pogba, Stones or any other big money target we were after last few years and were unable to land. We had to walk away time and again or play waiting game like with Lukaku, because we don't throw money around anymore like we used to back in 2003 and because now there's such thing as FFP. 

People like to criticize Marina and I'm sure she's made her share of mistakes, but there's only so much great negotiating you can do when at least three clubs out there can outspend you easily and two of them are playing in your own league.

As for Walker,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/4107659/antonio-conte-admits-he-tried-to-sign-kyle-walker-before-manchester-city-offered-tottenham-50m-for-england-man/

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by abramovich

rotation? is the squad really that thin or is it he just dosent trust all the players, could have rotated with Pedro, Bats, Willian 

48 minutes ago, abramovich said:

No, that's NOT the difference. The difference is, we can't spend what City can. If we could, our squad wouldn't cost 250m less. Forget Barkley, he's a nobody and isn't worth much. We didn't get Sandro because we weren't willing to make the kind of an offer Juventus couldn't refuse. PSG proved this past summer that you can get almost any player, if your offer is big enough. I'm not saying Sandro's worth that sort of money or that he was going to be a guaranteed success, but we could have gotten him, if we offered enough. More or less the same story with Pogba, Stones or any other big money target we were after last few years and were unable to land. We had to walk away time and again or play waiting game like with Lukaku, because we don't throw money around anymore like we used to back in 2003 and because now there's such thing as FFP. 

People like to criticize Marina and I'm sure she's made her share of mistakes, but there's only so much great negotiating you can do when at least three clubs out there can outspend you easily and two of them are playing in your own league.

As for Walker,

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/4107659/antonio-conte-admits-he-tried-to-sign-kyle-walker-before-manchester-city-offered-tottenham-50m-for-england-man/

Chelsea can spend the money City do but it's a club that have decided not to. It is really quite simple, whether that's a good or bad thing it's upto them. The board won't spend big on specialised players the manager wants because the manager changes every couple of years.

City have decided to back there manager and the targets that are essential to the system they play. Chelsea have decided not to and that is not down to money but how the club work.

I might aswell say Chelsea's transfer budget since 2014 is 120m which is complete BS. 

The board should be applauded for how they make money from the loan system and the money made from sales. 

Not really great Walker quotes, he could of well turned the club down likes others have.

3 hours ago, Zeta said:

Going to be a tough battle for top 4 this season. Arsenal will be around there. Spurs will pick back up. Liverpool's attack will mean they are there or there abouts. That's 4 teams for 2 spots, and with our lack of depth and worrying performances we could easily slip out. If we go out of the CL in the next round we could focus on the league, but that's not exactly showing the kind of ambition to keep the likes of Hazard at the club or bring in similar quality players.

Get psg in the draw and out we shall go. Either way though we need a good january not sitting on our thumbs. Without proper rotation all that the pundets last season about if we could do the same while being in Europe has been answered with a resounding no.

We are at real risk of dropping out of the top 4. 

27 minutes ago, Ernie_blue said:

Chelsea can spend the money City do but it's a club that have decided not to. It is really quite simple, whether that's a good or bad thing it's upto them. The board won't spend big on specialised players the manager wants because the manager changes every couple of years.

City have decided to back there manager and the targets that are essential to the system they play. Chelsea have decided not to and that is not down to money but how the club work.

I might aswell say Chelsea's transfer budget since 2014 is 120m which is complete BS. 

The board should be applauded for how they make money from the loan system and the money made from sales. 

Not really great Walker quotes, he could of well turned the club down likes others have.

OK, here's the deal. We cannot spend on City's scale because if we do, we'll get in trouble with FFP. All our sponsors are legit and even Abramovich decides to shell out a few hundred million, we cannot call his wallet our official income. City manage to keep spending big due to them being basically owned by an oil state. That's how they can afford to have a huge net outlay every summer. And if they waste a fortune on some dross, they'll just come up with a few more sponsorships tied to Abu Dhabi, and voila - problem solved. The only other club that can do what they do is PSG, for obvious reasons. Even the biggest (Real, Barca) and the most commercially successful(Man United) clubs in the world cannot afford to live like that, because they all run as a business. 

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by abramovich

6 hours ago, abramovich said:

No, Chelsea CLEARLY can't spend like City and Utd, that's the whole point, and this has been obvious for years now. According to https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/ City squad cost close to £700m to assemble, United's is about £640m. You know what ours costs? Around £450m. Why do you think that is? Because our squad is so well stocked with world class stars, there's simply no need to spend more? Is that it?

Granted, you don't always have to spend big to get quality signings (pains me to say, but Spurs did well in that respect), but more often than not, you do. That is, if you want to stay competitive and fight for trophies every season.

Those comparisons with City are ridiculous. Gundogan spent most of his first season out injured. They got some great deals, like Jesus, but they wasted plenty of money, too. The difference is, they can afford to make mistakes in the market because they have a bottomless pit of money. We don't.

Conte wanted to upgrade wingback position and asked for Sandro, Walker and Danilo. We ended up with Zappacosta. He wanted Bonucci, Koulibali and Stones and we ended up with Luiz and Rudiger. God knows, who he wanted for LB position back in summer of 2016 but I'm sure Alonso wasn't his first or even second choice. Sooner or later, if you're not getting the right players or getting players of inferior quality to the ones you target, you end up with an inferior squad. We overachieved last season, plus the lack of CL and the players getting lucky with unjuries helped, but there's only so much you can do when you constantly shop at a discount store.

I agree with you and I’ve written a lot about City & PSG corrupting FFP.

But I won’t have that our billionaire owner isn’t rich enough, he is. Someone is making the technical decisions to not spend much every season, we can’t seem to capture our targets. CIty got two fullbacks we were after and like you said we got Zappacosta instead. 

Can we spend as much as City? No because of FFP, but we definitely have a budget to spend big every season and we’ve turned very hesitant in the market. I’m hoping that was Emenalo’s doing so it can end. 

3 minutes ago, abramovich said:

OK, here's the deal. We cannot spend on City's scale because if we do, we'll get in trouble with FFP. All our sponsors are legit and even Abramovich decides to shell out a few hundred million, we cannot call his wallet our official income. City manage to keep spending big due to them being basically owned by an oil state. That's how they can afford to have a huge net outlay every summer. And if they waste a fortune on some dross, they'll just come up with a few more sponsorships tied to Abu Dhabi, and voila - problem solved. The only other club that can do what they do is PSG, for obvious reasons. Even the biggest (Real, Barca) and the most commercially successful(Man United) clubs in the world cannot afford to live like that, because they all run as a business. 

I've got it, Chelsea have had a transfer budget of 120m from 2014-2017.

6 minutes ago, abramovich said:

OK, here's the deal. We cannot spend on City's scale because if we do, we'll get in trouble with FFP. All our sponsors are legit and even Abramovich decides to shell out a few hundred million, we cannot call his wallet our official income. City manage to keep spending big due to them being basically owned by an oil state. That's how they can afford to have a huge net outlay every summer. And if they waste a fortune on some dross, they'll just come up with a few more sponsorships tied to Abu Dhabi, and voila - problem solved. The only othe club that can do what they do is PSG, for obvious reasons. Even the biggest (Real, Barca) and the most commercially successful(Man United) clubs in the world cannot afford to live like that, because they all run as a business. 

This is why FFP was never a great idea like so many claimed, it’s managed by the most corrupt beaurocrats in the world, FIFA. 

The Spanish clubs are bar stewards but they’re right, City & PSG have an unfair advantage and it’s clear as day. That M’bappe deal was incredibly shady and nothing has come of it. 

8 minutes ago, Slojo said:

I agree with you and I’ve written a lot about City & PSG corrupting FFP.

But I won’t have that our billionaire owner isn’t rich enough, he is. Someone is making the technical decisions to not spend much every season, we can’t seem to capture our targets. CIty got two fullbacks we were after and like you said we got Zappacosta instead. 

Can we spend as much as City? No because of FFP, but we definitely have a budget to spend big every season and we’ve turned very hesitant in the market. I’m hoping that was Emenalo’s doing so it can end. 

I'm pretty sure Chelsea could have spent the extra 20m to get Walker without breaking FFP.  Barkley would have cost 35m to 40m, Sane cost 45m and I'm pretty sure Chelsea could have paid the extra money without breaking FFP. It's also not all about money why Chelsea can't get players, tbh City look more ambitious and a club most likely to bring trophies in the near future to me.

It's obvious the club are holding back and don't want to be taken to ransom, a part of that is why would you commit sh*t loads of money to one manager, Conte never signed an extension after all.

Also the board have to take some of the blame because they like having a busy last day of the window, it's like they enjoy it.

Chelsea could have at least spent another 100m last summer without flinching so net spend is always a nice excuse for some.

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Ernie_blue

5 hours ago, youlots said:

^ Good post Ab.

So much whinging & unnecessary angst on here after the derby. Sure - disappointing result but how many times has that happened over the last few years in the same situation? Quite a bit & regardless of whether it was Mourinho or Conte as the manager. The point being that we've had a thin squad for some years because of other more pressing considerations - ie. to continue with the model of being self-funding as much as possible & because we've got to build the new stadium to ensure for the long term.

In consequence, this idea that we can over the short term match the likes of City or United in terms of player/squad spend is not the reality. Look at our net spend over the last few years compared to theirs - not in the same ball-park & in fact we have been the big over-achievers in respect to silverware both under Mourinho & Conte when the sheer financial spend on players is taken into account. And this has been evidently obvious for some years now & yet we still see the constant whinging in the short term.

Some of you have got to get some perspective - you are chels for life so you have to understand that in this 'moment' we are planning for the long term viability of this club at a time when over the last 5 years or so some very rich benefactors have come into football. We were very lucky that our benefactor came in very early & a glorious decade or so followed. And then others saw that & followed & now it's ultra competitive & we're no longer in the top 3 of clubs in respect to what we can spend. Certainly we are still in the top ten but it's a very different game than it was ten or even 5 years ago now.

So get some perspective - last year as Ab says we over-achieved & won the title (albeit made much easier given we weren't in Europe). This year we're back in Europe where we belong & the aim is to make the top 4 so as to stay in Europe next year & maybe to win a cup or two. What's wrong with that ambition? It's completely realistic given what we've got to do in terms of the new stadium. And given the huge amounts that City has doled out in the last 5 to 6 years for players their return has been pretty ordinary when you think about it. But sooner or later, by the law of averages,  they were going to manage to bring it all together which is what is happening this year. So I don't get the angst exactly.

And quite apart from that, some credit is due to Moyes here: got the early goal & then set up to stonewall - we couldn't un-pick em'. Seen a fair bit of that over the years. Even City found it difficult to un-pick em' the week before with all their firepower. It happens. It's called football.

This is something Arsene Wenger has said to Arsenal for the past 15 years and still says to Arsenal to this day. So I find this very depressing but I also see some truth too it. 

I’ve heard talks of a new stadium since 2010 and nothing has happened yet. 

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Slojo

To be honest, we didn't miss out much with danilo and he wanted to go to city. Walker had his wages doubled to 150k per week, maybe much more than we would have paid for his services tbh as good as he is, I don't think he's that much of a level above moses, maybe slightly better going forward. 

Conte was in dreamland trying to go after bonucci when he is a true italian and wouldn't have gone anywhere else outside of italy. Sandro wasn't going to be allowed to leave no matter what, as juve considered him too important. The same for napoli and koulibaly. 

At the end of the day utd are doing well because they have put faith in their younger players. I think we should have or be doing the same. Why we were looking at barkley over loftus-cheek I'll never know.

We lack a left footed attacking player, which is why it's annoying to see salah playing so well for pool. We need to focus on making top 3/4 as if we drop out of the top four then getting any of the names that had been mentioned is going to be near on impossible. 

1 hour ago, Ernie_blue said:

I'm pretty sure Chelsea could have spent the extra 20m to get Walker without breaking FFP.  Barkley would have cost 35m to 40m, Sane cost 45m and I'm pretty sure Chelsea could have paid the extra money without breaking FFP. It's also not all about money why Chelsea can't get players, tbh City look more ambitious and a club most likely to bring trophies in the near future to me.

It's obvious the club are holding back and don't want to be taken to ransom, a part of that is why would you commit sh*t loads of money to one manager, Conte never signed an extension after all.

Also the board have to take some of the blame because they like having a busy last day of the window, it's like they enjoy it.

Chelsea could have at least spent another 100m last summer without flinching so net spend is always a nice excuse for some.

Okay so we get Kyle Walker for 50 million, and then what? We are lumped with an average player who've we have just spent a huge sum on with high wages, we can legitimately only spend roughly 130 million more, in today's market that is another 2-3 good players at best. 

15 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Okay so we get Kyle Walker for 50 million, and then what? We are lumped with an average player who've we have just spent a huge sum on with high wages, we can legitimately only spend roughly 130 million more, in today's market that is another 2-3 good players at best. 

130m more than Chelsea have already spent? Personally i think it would be more but even that's alot.

That's money for class winger, LWB and a better RWB if one can be found better than Zaba. 

The squad isn't that thin or needing many changes. 

Edited December 10, 20178 yr by Ernie_blue

 

5 hours ago, Zeta said:

Going to be a tough battle for top 4 this season. Arsenal will be around there. Spurs will pick back up. Liverpool's attack will mean they are there or there abouts. That's 4 teams for 2 spots, and with our lack of depth and worrying performances we could easily slip out. If we go out of the CL in the next round we could focus on the league, but that's not exactly showing the kind of ambition to keep the likes of Hazard at the club or bring in similar quality players.

Thankfully they all dropped points. In hindsight, this would have been a good weekend to take advantage but I guess its also good weekend to drop points with all the teams beneath us dropping points as well

I still think City might trip up, consider we played Arsenal, Liverpool, City and United midweek after our UCL matches, they will probably have something like this themselves. So we need to keep the faith and go for every match.

58 minutes ago, Strider6003 said:

I still think City might trip up, consider we played Arsenal, Liverpool, City and United midweek after our UCL matches, they will probably have something like this themselves. So we need to keep the faith and go for every match.

Really can't see them slipping. We have blown our own chances in the first nine games, yesterday cemented what we already knew. Our aim now has to be to secure CL football for next season and apply ourselves in the three cups available for us to win.

Now a bit has been said about missing Diego or missing matic but how badly is conte, and our team, missing the influence of Steve Holland and jt? 

11 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

Now a bit has been said about missing Diego or missing matic but how badly is conte, and our team, missing the influence of Steve Holland and jt? 

Yes ....Conte and all of the players......must surely be missing Steve and JT.......as they were excellent people to have around the club especially the training ground.