3 minutes ago, Semper Fi said:

The clickbait had you clicking it though, so it did its job lol

Haha. I didn't pay any attention to their ads though so jokes on them....

29 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Conte, along with a number of players were banned due to alleged corruption and the club, Juventus were relegated.

 

Conte's ban had nothing to do with Juventus. It related to his time as Siena coach.

1 hour ago, RMH said:

It is so one off that England is using a 352 successfully (so far) and in no way very defensively. The struggle this season has been pointed out, a very weak midfield where only Kante performed.

Couldn't care less if it works for another team. On the whole it didn't work for Chelsea last season yet Conte still persisted. 

4 minutes ago, mclovin83 said:

"Pub team"

How many pubs do you know who have teams that get to the knock out stages of the world cup?

Your local must be a hoot. 

Let's not glorify the World Cup to the point where we are blinded by the quality of actual teams playing in it. 

The big teams such as Germany and Spain never turned up and nowhere near their best. Argentina were a shambles. 

Secondly, teams like Saudi Arabia and Panama shouldn't be allowed to participate even in the group stages. They are championship quality at best. With the World Cup increasing the number of teams participating from 32 to 48 in 2026 expect more fodder canon to take up space. Will give FIFA more viewership at least.

This is one of the weaker WC and making it to the quarter finals doesn't make Sweden a great team. From a footballing perspective they actually played poorly in the last 16 and against England. 

I don't believe you actually think the likes of Russia and Sweden are above average sides. Great banter. They made it this far thanks to the competition around them being equally as weak and poor. If anyone has been watching the World Cup so far I'm hard pressed to believe that you found the matches to be of high quality aside from France and Belgium doing their bits. Some of these games e.g. Argentina vs Iceland have been atrocious. 

14 minutes ago, mclovin83 said:

This post cracks me up too. 

The "surprise factor"

I like this a lot.

We should field a new formation I reckon. A 2-1-3-1-1-2.

It will be narrow & unusual but it have a very strong "surprise factor".

Never underestimate the "surprise factor" people. 

What's so funny? Utilising a formation that was never widely used in the league and teams taking time to figure it out? You actually made no rebuttals aside from using quotes and making sarcastic remarks. Let me know if you have anything more constructive to say. 

“Napoli midfielder Jorginho has ‘distanced himself’ from joining Man City and ‘moved closer’ to joining Chelsea instead claim Il Mattino. CdS and CalcioMercato reporting similar. 

Given his relationship with Sarri, could suggest both joining together.”

26 minutes ago, Davey Baby said:

 

Conte's ban had nothing to do with Juventus. It related to his time as Siena coach.

But why let facts get in the way  of a snide dig, @Davey Baby, eh?

And, apparently, that poster "didn't need to google  the facts" 

Edited July 9, 20188 yr by yorkleyblue

38 minutes ago, zes said:

What's so funny? Utilising a formation that was never widely used in the league and teams taking time to figure it out? You actually made no rebuttals aside from using quotes and making sarcastic remarks. Let me know if you have anything more constructive to say. 

It's funny that you put the success of a formation (which was used with success for the majority of a season) down to the element of surprise.

The formation didn't burst out of a cake at kick off and catch everyone off guard, and it wasn't the first time the world has come across it when we started using it. It's a formation, and it's really not that insane that Managers and players need a year to come to terms with it.

I think it clearly worked in Conte's first season, not so much last season. I think he should have switched it up, like he originally did when he introduced it. 

I think there were many factors that contributed to the difference in success, but the "surprise factor" wouldn't be top of my list. 

Edited July 9, 20188 yr by mclovin83

19 minutes ago, yorkleyblue said:

But why let facts get in the way  of a snide dig, @Davey Baby, eh?

And, apparently, that poster "didn't need to google  the facts" 

Come one now, we’re slowly slipped towards being a bunch of Rafas with all this ‘facts’ nonsense!

49 minutes ago, zes said:

Let's not glorify the World Cup to the point where we are blinded by the quality of actual teams playing in it. 

The big teams such as Germany and Spain never turned up and nowhere near their best. Argentina were a shambles. 

Secondly, teams like Saudi Arabia and Panama shouldn't be allowed to participate even in the group stages. They are championship quality at best. With the World Cup increasing the number of teams participating from 32 to 48 in 2026 expect more fodder canon to take up space. Will give FIFA more viewership at least.

This is one of the weaker WC and making it to the quarter finals doesn't make Sweden a great team. From a footballing perspective they actually played poorly in the last 16 and against England. 

???I don't believe you actually think the likes of Russia and Sweden are above? average sides. Great banter. They made it this far thanks to the competition around them being equally as weak and poor. If anyone has been watching the World Cup so far I'm hard pressed to believe that you found the matches to be of high quality aside from France and Belgium doing their bits. Some of these games e.g. Argentina vs Iceland have been atrocious.  ?

Tunisia I think are ranked top 20 in the world or just short off, gave Spain and Portugal tough examinations in the run up to Russia and every man and his dog were fearing they would frustrate us but despite needing a last minute winner ultimately we were by far the better side. Yes Panama ill grant you are a bit sh*t but they held Belgium for a half and in the same period England went 5 up, being 5 up at half time is excellent regardless of the opposition.

Columbia lit up the last world cup and granted James was not playing but they still had a bloody good side who you could argue are the best of the rest outside of the top nations. As for Sweden, very much workman like but England's record against them is about as good as Tottenham's record against us and that could have turned into a problem mentally if we weren't careful.

I'm far from the most passionate when it comes to the National side (club over country all day) but it cannot in any way possible be argued that we have made no progress this world cup, bar us doing a Brazil 2014 in the semi/3rd place play off/final we will leave this tournament genuinely content about the progress and direction the team are heading in, probably for the first time since the 90's.

Edited July 9, 20188 yr by Argo

According to the papers, Napoli wanting £17 million to release Sarri.  why the F**K didn't we pay the release clause at the time.  or tell Napoli to stick him up their ass.  They already have a replacement hired, so they will have to sack him at some stage, or pay both.  Maybe that's what we're waiting for.  I didn't like it at the time the way we were so trigger happy with managers, but at least it was done as soon as and we moved on.

39 minutes ago, zes said:

Let's not glorify the World Cup to the point where we are blinded by the quality of actual teams playing in it. 

The big teams such as Germany and Spain never turned up and nowhere near their best. Argentina were a shambles. 

Secondly, teams like Saudi Arabia and Panama shouldn't be allowed to participate even in the group stages. They are championship quality at best. With the World Cup increasing the number of teams participating from 32 to 48 in 2026 expect more fodder canon to take up space. Will give FIFA more viewership at least.

This is one of the weaker WC and making it to the quarter finals doesn't make Sweden a great team. From a footballing perspective they actually played poorly in the last 16 and against England. 

I don't believe you actually think the likes of Russia and Sweden are above average sides. Great banter. They made it this far thanks to the competition around them being equally as weak and poor. If anyone has been watching the World Cup so far I'm hard pressed to believe that you found the matches to be of high quality aside from France and Belgium doing their bits. Some of these games e.g. Argentina vs Iceland have been atrocious. 

Lot's of sweeping statements in your post which there is no point addressing to be honest, as ultimately it's down to opinion (even though you are presenting your opinions as if they are quantifiable facts). 

I just personally think it's dismissive and lazy to label teams as "pub teams"  just because they aren't among the strongest teams (on paper) in the competition. By your score card I imagine over half the teams in the competition are "pub teams" which is just a bit silly really isn't it. 

Edited July 9, 20188 yr by mclovin83

Palmeri has just tweeted:

“The countdown for Sarri at Chelsea has started.

Don’t ask when, but finally things are working towards a solution”. 

 

Too early to post the “it’s happening” GIF?

Or is it too early to  post the "Just another guesswork chancer trying to  get clicks" GIF?????

Edited July 9, 20188 yr by yorkleyblue

38 minutes ago, zes said:

Let's not glorify the World Cup to the point where we are blinded by the quality of actual teams playing in it. 

The big teams such as Germany and Spain never turned up and nowhere near their best. Argentina were a shambles. 

Secondly, teams like Saudi Arabia and Panama shouldn't be allowed to participate even in the group stages. They are championship quality at best. With the World Cup increasing the number of teams participating from 32 to 48 in 2026 expect more fodder canon to take up space. Will give FIFA more viewership at least.

This is one of the weaker WC and making it to the quarter finals doesn't make Sweden a great team. From a footballing perspective they actually played poorly in the last 16 and against England. 

I don't believe you actually think the likes of Russia and Sweden are above average sides. Great banter. They made it this far thanks to the competition around them being equally as weak and poor. If anyone has been watching the World Cup so far I'm hard pressed to believe that you found the matches to be of high quality aside from France and Belgium doing their bits. Some of these games e.g. Argentina vs Iceland have been atrocious. 

Not sure why the world cup has ended up in this thread. It should be remembered though you are talking about a World Cup hence the nations from weaker federations are taking their rightful place in the competition. These weaker teams have over the years gained strength from playing in the competition, there are no longer any mugs that qualify these days. I do though agree with your point of further increasing the numbers will at its inauguration dilute the quality.

As for the England team, you can only beat what is put in front of you. In reaching the semi's most would accept we have over achieved given the squad Southgate has at his disposal. The world cup has always had matches of differing quality, I go back to 1970 as an avid viewer,'66 was slightly too soon. There have always been hard luck stories, teams that failed to perform but eventually one team will be crowned rightfully as champions, it could be England. A quick glance at tournaments in the past will show that Brazil in 94 only beat Netherlands on the way to the final and Italy similarly only beat the Germans in 2006. If you haven't enjoyed the tournament fair play to you, I would say though you are in a minority.  

Must stop opening this thread

 

25 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Palmeri has just tweeted:

“The countdown for Sarri at Chelsea has started.

Don’t ask when, but finally things are working towards a solution”. 

 

Too early to post the “it’s happening” GIF?

You mean like the past month or so when every journalist around the globe said Sarri to Chelsea is imminent or will happen in the next 48hrs?

3 minutes ago, Zola said:

Must stop opening this thread

 

Yeah good luck with that @Zola. I’ve said that to myself many times but break the next time I visit the site. However this time I’m really going to do it. I’m definitely waiting for the ‘welcome Sarri’ post.

19 minutes ago, JM7 said:

Palmeri has just tweeted:

“The countdown for Sarri at Chelsea has started.

Don’t ask when, but finally things are working towards a solution”. 

 

Too early to post the “it’s happening” GIF?

It must be happening if that knobend is now tweeting it. Just wait for the 'boom' ... and he ends up at Milan or similar.

 

I think one thing we have to agree on, having reached pre season, changing our manager now during it, can only be classed as mismanagement at the highest level. We've had plenty of time to get this done and any change now can only hurt our aspirations for the season ahead. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail!

2 minutes ago, goose said:

Yeah good luck with that @Zola. I’ve said that to myself many times but break the next time I visit the site. However this time I’m really going to do it. I’m definitely waiting for the ‘welcome Sarri’ post.

You and me both mate! 

1 hour ago, RIP Mourinho said:

Couldn't care less if it works for another team. On the whole it didn't work for Chelsea last season yet Conte still persisted. 

Fair point, but I doubt any other formation would have worked with the midfield we had last season. Unfortunately, the midfield we had this season would have been taken apart whether a 3-4-3, 3-5-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or whichever you want was played. Bar Kante, the others underperformed massively.

“Been told that #Sarri not #cfc have asked #Zola to be part of coaching set-up if #Conte leaves the club. “ Standard

4 minutes ago, RMH said:

Fair point, but I doubt any other formation would have worked with the midfield we had last season. Unfortunately, the midfield we had this season would have been taken apart whether a 3-4-3, 3-5-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-2 or whichever you want was played. Bar Kante, the others underperformed massively.

Although i agree our midfield under performed surely its the managers job to try new things to get the best out of them? When we saw the 3 at the back wasn't helping us in any way Conte should have at least tried going to a back 4 for a few games. 

And the club just released a new video with players training that showed Conte at least three times in 1 minute. 

Meaning he's doing his job knowing if he goes club can't withhold compensation if they sack him

And the club just released a new video with players training that showed Conte at least three times in 1 minute.