Ok, my personal view is that Roman is so dominant that none of the rest of the voices really have much power in that room, but I'll set that to one side for the moment.

 

What is Chelsea's philosophy of football?

 

I'm sure people here could tell you what 'the United way' is, what the 'Liverpool way' is, what Arsenal have been over the last two decades, what Barcelona is, what Atletico is and what Bayern might even be.

 

What's our's?

I don't think you need a set in stone philosophy on football.  The game and style of the game changes all the time.  You only have to look at highlights from 10 years ago to see there was a difference then even to now.  I think it's important to adapt to the way the game changes and change with it.  

If we have the same success we've had in the last 12 years for the next 12 years, and then the next 12 after than and then the 12 after that.. people may say we have a philosophy. But the fact is we would have had to adapt fairly regularly to counter the threat of other clubs.   If we get anywhere near that kind of success, there may not be a moment to stop and think what the philosophical ramifications of buying a couple of quicker centre backs may be, but we need them to stop the threat of teams playing counter attack football and so that's what we'll do.

Those first three teams you've mentioned are in the same position as us right now and that is not vying for the league title.  They can have their philosophy.

Older fans could probably talk about the swagger in which we used to play with, predominantly a cup team with a bit of west end flair.  That was the Chelsea way, but to win the league we had to change a little but that's still there, and it makes up part of who we are today.

I don't think you need a set in stone philosophy on football.  The game and style of the game changes all the time.  You only have to look at highlights from 10 years ago to see there was a difference then even to now.  I think it's important to adapt to the way the game changes and change with it.  

If we have the same success we've had in the last 12 years for the next 12 years, and then the next 12 after than and then the 12 after that.. people may say we have a philosophy. But the fact is we would have had to adapt fairly regularly to counter the threat of other clubs.   If we get anywhere near that kind of success, there may not be a moment to stop and think what the philosophical ramifications of buying a couple of quicker centre backs may be, but we need them to stop the threat of teams playing counter attack football and so that's what we'll do.

Those first three teams you've mentioned are in the same position as us right now and that is not vying for the league title.  They can have their philosophy.

Older fans could probably talk about the swagger in which we used to play with, predominantly a cup team with a bit of west end flair.  That was the Chelsea way, but to win the league we had to change a little but that's still there, and it makes up part of who we are today.

 

I might be reading this wrong, but earlier you said the culture or philosophy was ingrained in the club, in the people who work for it, the fans etc. but reading this post I'm not sure you've actually identified anything that is unique to this club other than 'swagger'.

 

I'd agree that we have that, but with the teams I've mentioned there's a certain ethos that's been there for a while and in the successful examples it informs the purchases the clubs make and the style of football they teach their kids.

 

I might be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time, but I would tend to agree that we lack an identity at the moment. In the 90s we were a fairly attractive team, a continental-side with a soft underbelly who lacked the bottle to really compete in the league. 

 

Under Roman and Jose we become a team with a powerful core who had flair on the wings. We'd overpower teams but also play some brilliant football.

 

The problem is that around 2012 we start to try and build a tika-taka-esque side with smaller technical players, until we decided to change again and build another Jose-esque team which won the league.

 

I think our identity is whatever Roman wants at that moment in time. I don't think there's an underlying culture or style of play because that ONLY comes from footballing people, and Roman isn't. He's a businessman.

 

That's why people are concerned with the direction I think. We have every resource to build something uniquely Chelsea (with plenty of swagger!) but Roman won't get out of his own way to allow it to happen. He doesn't give people time, he doesn't give them freedom and this isn't just about Jose either.

 

 

Chelsea Football Club is increasingly become Roman Abramovich. That to me is the philosophy or identity it is moving towards and I don't really want that. I don't think any of us do.

What is Chelsea's philosophy of football?

 

I'm sure people here could tell you what 'the United way' is, what the 'Liverpool way' is, what Arsenal have been over the last two decades, what Barcelona is, what Atletico is and what Bayern might even be.

 

All this 'United Way', 'Liverpool Way' b*ll*cks is just that. B*ll*cks. From clubs who love to mythologise themselves, conveniently ignoring all the times over the years that they've played negative, cynical football or sent out a team of cloggers to grind out a 1-0. Style comes down to the manager, and the players at his disposal. Barcelona under Enrique don't play the same way they did under Pep, or under Rijkaard. Arsenal don't play the same way under Wenger as they did under George Graham.

Edited April 21, 201610 yr by Englishman

All this 'United Way', 'Liverpool Way' b*ll*cks is just that. B*ll*cks. From clubs who love to mythologise themselves, conveniently ignoring all the times over the years that they've played negative, cynical football or sent out a team of cloggers to grind out a 1-0. Style comes down to the manager, and the players at his disposal. Barcelona under Enrique don't play the same way they did under Pep, or under Rijkaard. Arsenal don't play the same way under Wenger as they did under George Graham.

 

I agree that in some part that it can be about that, but I think that a lot of clubs like to play a certain style. Often that does come down to coaches (Fergie being a perfect example) and pragmatism can take over, but is it right to think that clubs would ideally like to play a certain way? Sometimes that can go to far (Wenger) but I'm not sure I agree it's just bollocks.

 

Barcelona is a bad example though in my opinion. From Rijkaard to Pep and onto Enrique (and even Vilanova) there's progression, but it's more evolution than revolution and that's because (again, my opinion) the philosophy of that club is rooted in La Masia which obviously finds it's roots in Cruyff and that Dutch model. Again I'll agree that each coach puts a slight spin on the details, but ultimately it's a specific philosophy at that club.

 

I don't think we have that. I'm not sure if we said to one another that you could have any player in the world at your disposal to put Chelsea's style of football on display that we could come up with one. I don't know if we'd get past deciding on a formation.

 

That's the problem with this club and I'd like to think that we could make steps forward under Conte, but I'm not sure if that's likely.

Thanks mate. Yeah I registered yesterday because I wanted to vent some frustration and get a general consensus about things from other fans.

I don't think there really is a 'Chelsea way' - and I like it that way. Can't be doing with teams like West Ham demanding a certain type of football and lying to themselves that they've been this free-flowing, expansive team for their 100+ years of history.

 

There probably is a 'United way', stemming from Busby and Ferguson who both had similar ideas about football. But an 'Arsenal way'? Well there are two, aren't there. Pre-Wenger, 1-0 to the Arsenal and all that, and then the attractive but soft-centred style of the Wenger era. I don't accept there's any such thing as 'the Liverpool way'.

 

I'm glad that we're not constrained by a single style - just do what it takes to win.

In my personal opinion we definitely need a change in style of play, having 2 wide players who in effect are central attackers is pretty pointless unless they are aggressive down the wing or trying to beat a defender or have a pop at goal... The days of robben and duff probably spoiled us but that is what I think we could do with. I would love to see Lucas moura at the club along with pogba or modric. To elevate us into a force in Europe again I do think we need to change the way we play. Atletico are a great example, champions a couple seasons ago, champions league final, and back in the semi this year, sold some important players and maintained their identity and philosophy which is working, I don't necessarily care whether it's attractive all the time, results are what matter. Ancelotti had us disciplined and I was gutted when he left. The managers who come and go seems to be the trend at the club, all I wish for is to see some of our young boys given a chance. That has to come from above, sadly I don't see that ever happen in unless Roman leaves.

I think the 'chelsea way' was us circa mid 90s up till roman bought in, when he came he brought with him his own philosophy with him which it seems is either simply win at all costs or is ever changing.

My god the first post in hete is ridiculous, you not only feel the need to justify your support before anyone has questioned it (why?) you then precede to say you'll abandon supporting the club if things don't go your way. What kind of fan is that? I understand frustration, losing interest and a few other things but not been a supporter if the club baffles me. I am frustrated myself but I wouldn't dream of claiming I'm no longer a Chelsea fan or supporting another club because of that.

Tbh the whole open statement trying to defend your support raises a huge red flag for me if you are who you say you are. If you're not get a life but if you are get a grip.

Did I mention supporting another club?? No. To be honest the state of football in itself is a joke. My concerns reach further than the way we have or haven't changed over the years.

You can question what I've said but can you disagree with the rest.

I think the 'chelsea way' was us circa mid 90s up till roman bought in, when he came he brought with him his own philosophy with him which it seems is either simply win at all costs or is ever changing.

 

That 90s style was similar to what I grew up hearing about the 70s being like. That fashionable, exciting, cosmopolitan style of football. Ruud probably coined it best - it was sexy.

 

Now I couldn't tell you what the Chelsea way was.

 

In fact can anyone? Without throwing up players' names, what actually is Chelsea Football Club's style? What makes us unique?

 

That's what has happened under Roman's reign. Maybe there were times when you'd describe us as powerful and fluid (when we had Essien, Drogba, Lamps, JT etc. and would steamroller teams). But what are we now?

 

 

The defining aspect of Chelsea Football Club is Roman Abramovich's chequebook. 

 

 

It needs to change. We have a golden generation of youngsters coming through. Let them define Chelsea for the next generation.

Edited April 22, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

Did I mention supporting another club?? No. To be honest the state of football in itself is a joke. My concerns reach further than the way we have or haven't changed over the years.

You can question what I've said but can you disagree with the rest.

'do you have a shortlist of clubs that you might support in future'

'Yeah Man City...'

Not sure where to put this but solanke has apparently rejected a contract from us, one year left and doing well in Holland, I'd bet a crisp ten pound note that it's as much about progression as it is about money, he might well still sign a new contract but expect it to be big ala rlc if he does

Not sure where to put this but solanke has apparently rejected a contract from us, one year left and doing well in Holland, I'd bet a crisp ten pound note that it's as much about progression as it is about money, he might well still sign a new contract but expect it to be big ala rlc if he does

 

Posted in the youth section.

 

I can't blame the guy if he wants to leave because it would probably be the smart move. Look at Bamford - has a great loan and then it's loan after loan with no chance taken. Even Traore who goes to Vitesse, comes back and does well ends up losing minutes to a loan signing from Brazil.

 

The club is broken. We've got great players in the youth team but no idea how to develop them into first-team talent. He needs to go to a proper club for the sake of his career.

Did I mention supporting another club?? No. To be honest the state of football in itself is a joke. My concerns reach further than the way we have or haven't changed over the years.

You can question what I've said but can you disagree with the rest.

Never said you did nor did I say I disagreed with the rest. I just wondered why you felt the need to justify your support only to say you're basically spitting your dummy out because you don't like the way things are going. As I said I can understand a lack of interest but your reasons for supporting Chelsea should be deeper if what's currently happening is enough to make you stop supporting Chelsea.

Edited April 23, 201610 yr by Bobbywoodhogan

Posted in the youth section.

 

I can't blame the guy if he wants to leave because it would probably be the smart move. Look at Bamford - has a great loan and then it's loan after loan with no chance taken. Even Traore who goes to Vitesse, comes back and does well ends up losing minutes to a loan signing from Brazil.

 

The club is broken. We've got great players in the youth team but no idea how to develop them into first-team talent. He needs to go to a proper club for the sake of his career.

You hope all our best young talent leaves, as we're not a real football club? That's the sort of comment you read from Arsenal or ManU supporters.

You hope all our best young talent leaves, as we're not a real football club? That's the sort of comment you read from Arsenal or ManU supporters.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said that for the sake of his career he needs to go to a proper club. If you're an Academy player at this squad, where is the hope in making it here when the last person to actually cement a first-team place is 35??

 

Which Arsenal or United fans am I being compared to because there are clubs you could've used in that 'burn', but those wouldn't be the ones that sprung to mind? Very random choices plucked from thin air there.

Edited April 23, 201610 yr by ShedEnder91

You hope all our best young talent leaves, as we're not a real football club? That's the sort of comment you read from Arsenal or ManU supporters.

 

I doubt it would be as their clubs give their youth products avenues into the first team!

A shame when you see some posts from supposed Chelsea fans on here. No wonder we aren't held in high regard by opposition fans. Football is part of life, you go through rough patch, learn from it and improve/become a better person. Same can be applied to a football club, model clubs like Barca and Bayern have gone through bad times also and here they are today. No need day in day out saying same things repeatedly, honestly it gets boring.

A shame when you see some posts from supposed Chelsea fans on here. No wonder we aren't held in high regard by opposition fans. Football is part of life, you go through rough patch, learn from it and improve/become a better person. Same can be applied to a football club, model clubs like Barca and Bayern have gone through bad times also and here they are today. No need day in day out saying same things repeatedly, honestly it gets boring.

 

I think you've got to have empathy with fans who have seen the club change over the years, and not just for the better. Clubs are community hubs and I think there always has to be something within them that the supporters can identify with and feel a certain kinship with.

 

Doesn't make them 'supposed' Chelsea fans, just frustrated and slightly saddened ones.

I think you've got to have empathy with fans who have seen the club change over the years, and not just for the better. Clubs are community hubs and I think there always has to be something within them that the supporters can identify with and feel a certain kinship with.

Doesn't make them 'supposed' Chelsea fans, just frustrated and slightly saddened ones.

Then exercising a bit more patience will be useful, I'm sure we have capable of not excellent individuals at the helm of the club activities and they have realized their mistakes and hopefully avoid them in the future. Our youth this season have given us a glimmer of hope and personally I'm eagerly anticipating next season, Chelsea will bounce back and I believe stronger, only a few will doubt that.

Then exercising a bit more patience will be useful, I'm sure we have capable of not excellent individuals at the helm of the club activities and they have realized their mistakes and hopefully avoid them in the future. Our youth this season have given us a glimmer of hope and personally I'm eagerly anticipating next season, Chelsea will bounce back and I believe stronger, only a few will doubt that.

 

The hope is that the people are capable, but no changes have been made so you're essentially hoping for the same individuals producing different results. Fingers crossed.

 

Plus the youth always offer hope. They always look good, we always talk them up and then invariably ground them down on a series of loans before selling them. Again, looking for different results without seeming to change practices.

The hope is that the people are capable, but no changes have been made so you're essentially hoping for the same individuals producing different results. Fingers crossed.

Plus the youth always offer hope. They always look good, we always talk them up and then invariably ground them down on a series of loans before selling them. Again,

looking for different results without seeming to change practices.

Mate sorry but I disagree, like many have stated we fans don't really know much about personnel in the boardroom, how do you know changes are required up there or not? I'm sure like any other corporate organization, it's professional. If changes are required they would be made but not at the requests of fans.

Yes the youth has always given us a glimmer of hope and most times we end up being disappointed by lack of opportunities given to them but always an optimist, I have drawn positives from this second half of the season and I believe youth players would be involved more than previous.

PS: Hope im not insulting your competitive spirit I don't post on this subject any longer not one for debates really. Pls don't feel offended.

I didn't say that.

 

I said that for the sake of his career he needs to go to a proper club. If you're an Academy player at this squad, where is the hope in making it here when the last person to actually cement a first-team place is 35??

 

Which Arsenal or United fans am I being compared to because there are clubs you could've used in that 'burn', but those wouldn't be the ones that sprung to mind? Very random choices plucked from thin air there.

Arsenal, United  (and Liverpool and Everton and others) constantly deride us as a club. A rich man's plaything, plastic, no history etc. And you've just said we're not a proper club. So I'm comparing you to Arsenal and ManU fans. I could have compared you to Liverpool and Everton fans, or maybe Villa fans, or maybe Forest fans. Anyone who dismisses us as not a proper club, as you did.

 

I'm as concerned as anyone about the lack of progression from youth set-up to the first team. It's been harder to break into the first team here than anywhere else in the past 13 years because we have had more success than any other Prem club in that time. We have wanted to maintain that success and have had the financial resources to keep investing big money in the squad, which has had the effect of limiting opportunities to the youngsters. As has the fact that we have wanted to win every competition we entered, rather than play the kids in the Carling Cup.

I wanted to see Kakuta, Bruma, McEachran, Chalobah and others establish themselves in our first team as they were fantastic for the youth team. The fact that they never did is a great shame, but the way their careers have gone suggests they weren't as good as we hoped they'd be. I hope we give chances to players like Ake and Baker (and RLC, Kenedy, Traore, Christensen, Solanke and Boga), and Abraham and Aina and DaSilva, rather than chuck money at players like Rahman, Cuadrado and Salah, but statistically very few youth products make it at top Premier League clubs these days, so of that rich array of young talent the odds are stacked against any of them doing what JT has done.That is the reality, and it doesn't mean we are not a proper club.

PS: Hope im not insulting your competitive spirit I don't post on this subject any longer not one for debates really. Pls don't feel offended.

 

Not at all mate. I agree with much of what you're saying and being optimistic I hope we pull everything together, I just have my doubts.

 

Arsenal, United  (and Liverpool and Everton and others) constantly deride us as a club. A rich man's plaything, plastic, no history etc. And you've just said we're not a proper club. So I'm comparing you to Arsenal and ManU fans. I could have compared you to Liverpool and Everton fans, or maybe Villa fans, or maybe Forest fans. Anyone who dismisses us as not a proper club, as you did.

 

 

Our fans aren't plastic and we've certainly got history. That's always annoyed me because whilst it might not have been as 'glorious' as other clubs' history, it's our history and it's still pretty unique.

 

The rich man's plaything is what worries me though. When you look at someone like Matthew Harding, here was a guy who knew what Chelsea was and wanted to make something bigger but retaining those unique characteristics (the guy was also a bit of a visionary and could see which way the winds were blowing in the early-90s, massive loss). I don't know if Roman is that, or if we were simply a moderately big club with potential on probably the most expensive piece of real estate in the football leagues. 

 

I don't trust the guy as much as others and that's for a few reasons, chiefly the club lying to us and trying to pinch/steal the freehold of the Bridge. I think his wealth means we aren't run like other clubs because, for better or worse, he is a big investor (or sugar daddy).

 

 

 

I'm as concerned as anyone about the lack of progression from youth set-up to the first team. It's been harder to break into the first team here than anywhere else in the past 13 years because we have had more success than any other Prem club in that time. We have wanted to maintain that success and have had the financial resources to keep investing big money in the squad, which has had the effect of limiting opportunities to the youngsters. As has the fact that we have wanted to win every competition we entered, rather than play the kids in the Carling Cup.

I wanted to see Kakuta, Bruma, McEachran, Chalobah and others establish themselves in our first team as they were fantastic for the youth team. The fact that they never did is a great shame, but the way their careers have gone suggests they weren't as good as we hoped they'd be. I hope we give chances to players like Ake and Baker (and RLC, Kenedy, Traore, Christensen, Solanke and Boga), and Abraham and Aina and DaSilva, rather than chuck money at players like Rahman, Cuadrado and Salah, but statistically very few youth products make it at top Premier League clubs these days, so of that rich array of young talent the odds are stacked against any of them doing what JT has done.That is the reality, and it doesn't mean we are not a proper club.

 

That's the problem though. A club should reflect the community who makes it what it is shouldn't it? JT, Frank and Ashley were people we could recognise ourselves in weren't they?

 

If you lose that then I think you lose anything uniquely Chelsea because those are the people who represent us and our values aren't they? Otherwise what's the difference between Chelsea and Man City? What makes us unique and not just a soulless franchise who happen to play at Stamford Bridge? That's my concern.