1 hour ago, Modueke said:

Our best-attacking player in the last two games to be subbed off in both. I get that yesterday was tactical after the red card, but Sterling stayed on the pitch instead. Mudryk was clearly the better player.

Mudryk had a good summer. 

He was at the highest level during the U21 European Championship. 

Also was at a high level during the pre-season. First things that come to my mind was his back heel control and his goal after a one-two with Jackson. Both technically difficult and the sign of a confident player. 

But at the U21 Euros we was electric and looked like a man playing against a bunch of toddlers. 

What happens next? Starts the season on the bench for Chelsea. Then he's the first to be subbed off everytime he gets to start a football match, although there's others playing way worse. 

Yesterday is the perfect example why Pochettino is not an elite manager, but one that, unlike his days at Spurs, turned into a very similar version to Mourinho, who tends to rely on experienced players to bail him out. 

Sterling does the most stupid thing a footballer can do nowadays and finishes an action thinking he was offside in the first place, although he was not, costs the team a goal and the chance to go in front, then Gusto sees the red card, yet Mudryk, who was the best Chelsea attacker on the pitch, gets subbed off and Sterling gets to stay on the pitch although his brainfart moment and stupid decision was probably the reason the score was still 0-0 at that point and we had to do with one man down for the rest of the match. Had he passed it to Jackson for an open goal, the VAR would have confirmed his onside position, we'd have been 1-0 up and most definitely Gusto's foul would not have happened anymore. 

Call it as you want, but I call this sheer stupidity from Pochettino and the sign of a manager not ready to upset any of his experienced players (not a lot, I agree). 

He was absolutely infuriating yesterday. All but one time he would come inside into traffic and get dispossessed. The one time he knocked it past the fullback he burnt him with pace. Do that more!

In his defence, the team seems heavily weighted to the right hand side. Especially with Colwill bizarrely continuing at LB over Chilly. Everything came down the right with Gusto and Sterling, even Enzo seemed more intrested in drifting that way than over to help Mudryk.

4 hours ago, Ballack & Blu said:

But Hazard was sensational from the off, caused instant chaos for defenders, his individual brilliance would of shine in any team…

Hazard also had years of playing at a decent level in France. And he wasn't sensational from the off, he was relatively inconsistent during his first two seasons but still effective. 

5 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Hazard also had years of playing at a decent level in France. And he wasn't sensational from the off, he was relatively inconsistent during his first two seasons but still effective. 

My memory must be Belgian tinted, as I remember him as this impish brilliant magician, your downer on him is your recall! 

10 hours ago, Snedger said:

Out of curiosity, what is the level of performance required for him to have 'come good'? Is it just 

It is actually very simple. 

Either 

- win 1v1 more than you lose

- Stop losing the ball 

- Stop trying 3 v 1

- Find separation more

- bring other into play

Or

- Produce number at high clip 

 

 

21 hours ago, Remodez said:

Worked fine for Bale. 

Bale could finish

If your definition of good is being Adama Traoré, an average player in mid table club then yes he will become good eventually

 

if your definition of good is becoming worth his price tag then no he will never, doesn’t have the skills nor football IQ to achieve that

15 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Hazard also had years of playing at a decent level in France. And he wasn't sensational from the off, he was relatively inconsistent during his first two seasons but still effective. 

Hazard was the best player in France. 

 

The biggest reason why mudryk played better the last two games because bournemouth and villa played high line (one of the reason why poch played him). 

He played better but with his speed he need to absolutely abuse villa high line, Chilwell got a shot and a cross in 30 min by just running behind. Mudryk only ran behind once and that is not enough. 

What mudryk need to do is to tone down his dribbling by 10 fold. Simplify his game. Focus on running behind and pass. 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Hazard also had years of playing at a decent level in France. And he wasn't sensational from the off, he was relatively inconsistent during his first two seasons but still effective. 

He really wasn't, why do i keep seeing this? 

My recollection is that Hazard was immediately brilliant and only became more brilliant as time went on. (A goal and an assist in the first 15 minutes of his debut or something?)

I seem to remember saying at the time that he would have been our Player of the Season by miles had it not been for how outrageous Juan Mata was. 

For all the negativity around the club, and the room for improvement Mudryk needs to consistently show, to me he was still the most dangerous player against Villa. 

He will come good... I'm just not sure if it's going to happen at Chelsea. With the team around him underperforming the way they are, I don't think he will get the required time to develop here. The pressure and expectations are just too high.

5 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said:

He really wasn't, why do i keep seeing this? 

Rewriting history. Seeing a lot of this since the new owners came in.

6 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said:

He really wasn't, why do i keep seeing this? 

That's the issue with facts I guess...

1 hour ago, Scott Harris said:

Rewriting history. Seeing a lot of this since the new owners came in.

Or, an even more common and plausible explanation - recency bias. People claiming Hazard was sensational as soon as he arrived...

2 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Or, an even more common and plausible explanation - recency bias. People claiming Hazard was sensational as soon as he arrived...

He was though. Easily in the top 5 of his age group. 

After doing a search of the best young players in 2012, most have Hazard at the top of the list. 

Edited September 26, 20232 yr by Scott Harris

17 hours ago, RIP Mourinho said:

He really wasn't, why do i keep seeing this? 

Hazard was fantastic as soon as we bought him, the only point I can see in that post by Venom is that he got better by his 3rd season, I think that's fair to say. Hazard pretty much soloed the league title under Mourinho, especially after January when we set up shop. The tactics were basically "pass it to Hazard" and he did all the magic. 
 

11 hours ago, venom2011 said:

Or, an even more common and plausible explanation - recency bias. People claiming Hazard was sensational as soon as he arrived...

I have to disagree, are you getting carried away by people's reactions during the Charity Shield game? (his debut) because he didn't even play badly in that game he just made one mess of a backheel and that was it. His debut he grabbed two assists and went on to have a good season. He definitely got better as time went on but you cannot compare his start to Mudryks. 

No debate, Hazard was already an established player when he joined, I remember the debut game, he even made Torres looked good😁 Mudryk on the other hand was clearly not, and the the timing of his signing made it even worse. He may do a good supporting act cameo job  Saka had he gone to them, that's a different story.

Keep playing him... see what happens

3 hours ago, Victor90 said:

I have to disagree, are you getting carried away by people's reactions during the Charity Shield game? (his debut) because he didn't even play badly in that game he just made one mess of a backheel and that was it. His debut he grabbed two assists and went on to have a good season. He definitely got better as time went on but you cannot compare his start to Mudryks. 

No, it's not a reflection on that. He had quite a few flat performances that season where all he did was offer control and do simple lay offs. He went missing for large parts of games and lacked defensive nous.

He did some sensational things, no doubt, but he was no where near the player we saw after those first 2 seasons.

No where did anyone compare his start to Mudryk's.

On 06/09/2023 at 12:17, Whats_The_Mata? said:

Did we?

If it wasn't for the transfer fee I don't think anyone would think there's much talent there at all.

For me Mudryk is a very low ceiling player we've seen plenty of extremely quick wingers over the years who don't have the technical ability or the understanding of the game to be effective and almost all of them never develop what they lack.

Mudryk lacks both.

What a ball against Villa by the very low ceiling player with no technical ability...

I think we're forgetting that we are not a settled side.

We're not seeing the best of anyone right now let alone Mudryk. If any of these players were signed for more established sides with stable management and players they would likely be showing a lot more than they are now.

Hazard was good when he arrived but he also had a large number of games under his belt in Ligue 1 (147 games ) and came into a squad full of experience with some of our greatest ever players. That makes a huge difference in my opinion.

15 hours ago, venom2011 said:

That's the issue with facts I guess...

FaCtS...

37 G/A in his first season with us. He would have been our POTS is not for Mata putting up generational numbers.