2 minutes ago, Frankfurter said:

Obviously talking about Cucurella

I read he keeps it like that so his mom knows who he is on the tv.

39 minutes ago, axman2526 said:

4 games no goals.

First time we have gone 4 games without scoring since 1993 apparently. A 5th game would be the worst since our barren run under Geoff Hurst in 80-81 season.

28 minutes ago, Dean said:

It’s utterly broken. What’s happened/happening to CFC is tectonic - an implosion beyond anyone’s control now that I fear most haven’t come to terms with yet and I hope I’m wrong. Probably am.

People scrambling for analogous situations- “remember that time we overturned a 0-2 deficit and went on to win the competition.”  The optimism is admirable and credit to you all. Anything is possible. But I think things are going to get worse, and maybe a lot worse. This isn’t the same as those low points during the Roman era. It’s a full on regime change. 

Agreed. I will always hope for the best but realistically I cannot see us turning this around. We are missing the right character to do that. Whether we like or not the new owners have decided that we need a major rebuild, and it may take a while before we see positive signs.

DIdn't see all the game but they were much better than us especially obtaining possession - shame we switched off for the 2nd goal - too easy that one.

We don't have a "team" atm so any "team" that plays us, with or without talent, has a distinct advantage...

Maybe we can try reintroduce some of the Chelsea youngsters to help us gel a bit, something like:

Personally, I would drop Silva for the next game, it that sort of crap that undermines SFL management.

And Kovacic, looks like he wants to go - much rather see Gallagher or RLC who want to play on the pitch.

There’s nothing lifts a team more than a goal. We haven’t celebrated a goal in over 6 hrs of play. No wonder the team looks down. 
 

Chilwells sending off was a split second decision and one he thought in that split second was right for the team. I think it was all on CC and his sh*te positioning and  pushing forward for the earlier ball which he was never getting too and should have held position. 
 

We have ended up with an expensively assembled squad with many terrible footballers who I wouldn’t care if never saw wearing a blue shirt again.

Felix, Sterling, CC, KK, Kova, Kai all need to go at the end of the season IMO. Kepa can stay as back up.

1 hour ago, Zeta said:

So what you're saying is... The boys gave everything?

Could have been a lot worse had RM actually been trying I guess but our players despite being totally dejected at least kept the score respectable playing with 10.

49 minutes ago, Blue Pete said:

Totally pointless analogy.  Would I bet on Chelsea no. Never have never will and yes the way the season has progressed its odds on we won't progress, still gotta have hope tho that has nothing at all to do with common sense

Pete, it just irritated me a bit in your original message how you implied that others are not really fans if they do not believe we will progress.  And let me disagree with your response: there is a delusional hope and there is hope based on solid considerations.  I can only admire your unwarranted optimism, but we all know its the end of the road for us in CL. 

46 minutes ago, The Don Antonio said:

That was the same logic with Lukakau last season and see how that panned out

Won the super cup, Finished 3rd and made 2 domestic cup finals. Hence why I said we finish in the top 4 with a striker. Youve just proven my point you numpty.

If you cant value or see what a striker brings to the table you are someone who hasnt played the game, not even to a local level. 
 

‘Antonio’ without Costa Chelsea dont get anywhere winning the league in 16-17.

12 minutes ago, Vialli96 said:

Won the super cup, Finished 3rd and made 2 domestic cup finals. Hence why I said we finish in the top 4 with a striker. Youve just proven my point you numpty.

If you cant value or see what a striker brings to the table you are someone who hasnt played the game, not even to a local level. 
 

‘Antonio’ without Costa Chelsea dont get anywhere winning the league in 16-17.

When the football was different. 

Some people need to understand that the times when Titles, Cups were won with 50 goals and 20 wins per season are gone.

Plus in these days there is lack of proper striker . Besides of Haaland, Kane, is there someone else who can score more than 20 goals per season?

Look at Arsenal's Midfield - they have scored more goals than all of our players

Edited April 12, 20233 yr by JJ8

8 minutes ago, Vialli96 said:

Won the super cup, Finished 3rd and made 2 domestic cup finals. Hence why I said we finish in the top 4 with a striker. Youve just proven my point you numpty.

If you cant value or see what a striker brings to the table you are someone who hasnt played the game, not even to a local level. 
 

‘Antonio’ without Costa Chelsea dont get anywhere winning the league in 16-17.

Numpty? Are you kidding me? you throw insults because I don't agree with your opinion . Grow a pair kiddo

2 minutes ago, JJ8 said:

When the football was different. 

Some people need to understand that the times when Titles, Cups were won with 50 goals and 20 wins per season are gone.

Plus in these days there is lack of proper striker . Besides of Haaland, Kane, is there someone else who can score more than 20 goals per season?

Perhaps you don't need an old-fashioned striker in every system. But in that case you still need a few players to chime in with goals. Lukaku managed to get into double figures last season despite missing a lot of games. Havertz and Mount were the only other attacking players to weigh in with a decent number. In Kai's case that was mostly from his extended run as the main striker. We relied increasingly on goals from defenders. This season Mount has lost form and been out of the goals. Kai has managed about the same as he did last year which wouldn't be terrible if he was a secondary striker. But we haven't even managed to find a player to replace Lukaku's goals . And worse than that. No other attacking players have managed to replace Mount's goals.

5 minutes ago, forbzy said:

Perhaps you don't need an old-fashioned striker in every system. But in that case you still need a few players to chime in with goals. Lukaku managed to get into double figures last season despite missing a lot of games. Havertz and Mount were the only other attacking players to weigh in with a decent number. In Kai's case that was mostly from his extended run as the main striker. We relied increasingly on goals from defenders. This season Mount has lost form and been out of the goals. Kai has managed about the same as he did last year which wouldn't be terrible if he was a secondary striker. But we haven't even managed to find a player to replace Lukaku's goals . And worse than that. No other attacking players have managed to replace Mount's goals.

I don't deny that we need a striker or two. But like as i added in my post , look at Arsenal's Midfield - they have scored more goals than all of our players.

That was my point, you can't have a striker these days who can score more than 20 goals per season. In that case you need others who can score too.

Even Haaland had games where he didn't score and others were there to score.

In modern football you can't rely on one or two people. Back at day Drogba also wasn't a player with many goals. So we have to find the balance, no to trough money for nothing.

3 minutes ago, JJ8 said:

I don't deny that we need a striker or two. But like as i added in my post , look at Arsenal's Midfield - they have scored more goals than all of our players.

That was my point, you can't have a striker these days who can score more than 20 goals per season. In that case you need others who can score too.

Even Haaland had games where he didn't score and others were there to score.

In modern football you can't rely on one or two people. Back at day Drogba also wasn't a player with many goals. So we have to find the balance, no to trough money for nothing.

Arsenal have a team, working together, they know each other and how each other play.

We have a hastily put together collection of individuals that, for the most part, don't have a clue what each other are doing and therefore cannot work together as a team.

1 minute ago, JJ8 said:

I don't deny that we need a striker or two. But like as i added in my post , look at Arsenal's Midfield - they have scored more goals than all of our players.

That was my point, you can't have a striker these days who can score more than 20 goals per season. In that case you need others who can score too.

Even Haaland had games where he didn't score and others were there to score.

In modern football you can't rely on one or two people. Back at day Drogba also wasn't a player with many goals. So we have to find the balance, no to trough money for nothing.

If you take Arsenal as an example Partey doesn't score many but Xhaka has weighed in with a few. Certainly more than our midfield. That being said it is their wide players like Saka and Martinelli, along with their attacking mid Odegaard, that have taken away the need for a natural CF. The equivalent players in our team just don't score enough. And that has even been a problem really since Hazard left. Mount has weighed with a decent number when in form. Pulisic had a couple of decent spells but that seems a long time ago. Beyond that though, it makes pretty dismal viewing. You have to go back to Tammy Abraham in Frank's first season for a player that came close to 20 goals in a season.

10 minutes ago, forbzy said:

If you take Arsenal as an example Partey doesn't score many but Xhaka has weighed in with a few. Certainly more than our midfield. That being said it is their wide players like Saka and Martinelli, along with their attacking mid Odegaard, that have taken away the need for a natural CF. The equivalent players in our team just don't score enough. And that has even been a problem really since Hazard left. Mount has weighed with a decent number when in form. Pulisic had a couple of decent spells but that seems a long time ago. Beyond that though, it makes pretty dismal viewing. You have to go back to Tammy Abraham in Frank's first season for a player that came close to 20 goals in a season.

14 minutes ago, Bebe1980 said:

Arsenal have a team, working together, they know each other and how each other play.

We have a hastily put together collection of individuals that, for the most part, don't have a clue what each other are doing and therefore cannot work together as a team.

Yes, i have said this a while ago. We brought players that we don't know they can fit at all. Whole strategy is to sneak what other clubs are looking and we to slip them with more money. That an American way of running a club-baseball, their football(rugby), basketball , just bring "stars" and let coach/es to deal with them.

Also just see the difference between Modric(37) and Kovacic(28)

Pulisic in his whole career has no more than 5-7 per season, except his first with us 9.

We know for what Hazar left. He just couldn't get anymore he to be one of the the few people who cares about the club and the game. 

Only a striker or two will not resolve our problems. 

I don't know if this Nkuku will do anything different.

A typical Chelsea lose. Had some good moments, but never capitalized any to score a goal, always have those mistakes and gave teams opportunities to score, and not the standard GK to win against elite teams. Scoreline is kind to us, we are still in it with a slim chance. However, with No Chiwell and Real able to sit back and play on the counter, really difficult to imagine we over turn the tie.

1 hour ago, Vialli96 said:

Won the super cup, Finished 3rd and made 2 domestic cup finals. Hence why I said we finish in the top 4 with a striker. Youve just proven my point you numpty.

If you cant value or see what a striker brings to the table you are someone who hasnt played the game, not even to a local level. 
 

‘Antonio’ without Costa Chelsea dont get anywhere winning the league in 16-17.

We won the super cup before Lukaku arrived and yes got to two finals but if the striker is the be an and end all how do you explain we lost lost those finals to a team that was playing a winger up front on both occasions? One of which Lukaku played for 85 minutes and did the square root of f**k all.

We also won the UCL (and made top 4) without Lukaku the year before. City won the league without a out and out 9 twice (and now maybe surrending it despite having the best one around to a team that guess what? Don't usually play with an out and out 9), Liverpool won the league and UCL with attacking midfielder Firmino leading the line.

We made 3rd due to runs of form we had when Lukaku was injured (in the autumn) and finally benched (after his 7 touch masterclass vs Palace). Had we persisted with him all season we probably wouldn't have made it.

Let's get this season over with and regroup in the summer under a new manager, hopefully a top one. I will draw the conclusions this time next year when we will have come after a season out of Europe, playing one game a week with plenty of rest in between matches and a great squad. If we can't be competitive by then, well I am afraid we will never be again.

Football is a funny sport and a lot of things have happened before, this tie is not over yet, a goal in the first half w/o conceding would mean it's game on, but if you ask me both clubs play for nothing, whoever goes through is going to be destroyed by City. It took Guardiola a long time, but finally created the perfect monster there.

4 hours ago, The Don Antonio said:

That was the same logic with Lukakau last season and see how that panned out

The way tuchel setup his team last year, Haaland would have been terrible. 

But for the way we play right now, a st will be good. 

46 minutes ago, petre ispirescu said:

Let's get this season over with and regroup in the summer under a new manager, hopefully a top one. I will draw the conclusions this time next year when we will have come after a season out of Europe, playing one game a week with plenty of rest in between matches and a great squad. If we can't be competitive by then, well I am afraid we will never be again.

Football is a funny sport and a lot of things have happened before, this tie is not over yet, a goal in the first half w/o conceding would mean it's game on, but if you ask me both clubs play for nothing, whoever goes through is going to be destroyed by City. It took Guardiola a long time, but finally created the perfect monster there.

Guardiola won pl with City in his 2nd season. 

1 hour ago, Argo said:

We won the super cup before Lukaku arrived and yes got to two finals but if the striker is the be an and end all how do you explain we lost lost those finals to a team that was playing a winger up front on both occasions? One of which Lukaku played for 85 minutes and did the square root of f**k all.

We also won the UCL (and made top 4) without Lukaku the year before. City won the league without a out and out 9 twice (and now maybe surrending it despite having the best one around to a team that guess what? Don't usually play with an out and out 9), Liverpool won the league and UCL with attacking midfielder Firmino leading the line.

We made 3rd due to runs of form we had when Lukaku was injured (in the autumn) and finally benched (after his 7 touch masterclass vs Palace). Had we persisted with him all season we probably wouldn't have made it.

While Havertz scored the only goal in the final, and played as the number 9 in that game, we had both Abraham and Giroud the season we won UCL. In fact Giroud was our top scorer in the competition that season, largely due to his 4 goals against Sevilla. Still we did have that option when needed.

That's that then. Would rather lose respectably to Madrid than get humiliated by City in the semis. We've been woeful against them since the CL final.

6 hours ago, forbzy said:

First time we have gone 4 games without scoring since 1993 apparently. A 5th game would be the worst since our barren run under Geoff Hurst in 80-81 season.

It feels similar to watching that Hurst team. Of course this team is much worse than Geoff Hurst's team.

The team of 80-81 earned the right to be poor because they were poor players in comparison to others around. These are allegedly some if the best footballing talents in Europe so in no way should they be this poor as a team.

7 hours ago, forbzy said:

Agreed. I will always hope for the best but realistically I cannot see us turning this around. We are missing the right character to do that. Whether we like or not the new owners have decided that we need a major rebuild, and it may take a while before we see positive signs.

Assuming there will be positive signs at some point.

There is a developing symmetry with the disastrous US ownership of Liverpool by Hicks and Gillett just in the calamitous way we seem to lurch from crisis to crisis with Boehly apparently fanning the flames of media mockery rather than diffusing things or just keeping his bloody gob shut. Which is worrying. 

Next stage perhaps a major falling out between Boehly and Eghbali as the implications of financial mismanagement take a firmer grip of the club.

51 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

It feels similar to watching that Hurst team. Of course this team is much worse than Geoff Hurst's team.

The team of 80-81 earned the right to be poor because they were poor players in comparison to others around. These are allegedly some if the best footballing talents in Europe so in no way should they be this poor as a team.

Very good points.

Real Madrid played as a team and like a team should last night.

I felt we lost two soft goals. However, they could have scored a couple more goals.

We never really looked that confident or comfortable in possession and only really threatened them on a couple of occasions