Hey guys,

I've been a member here since the the CSR days but deleted in my account in a failed attempt to stop watching football 😂

My ego (i'm an opiniated a-hole) means I can't resist returning to share my thoughts with you "lucky people" 😇

I figured (if ok), i'd just share my opinions in a single thread rather than all over the place. Like anywhere else, please feel free to reply and critisize my (probably wrong) opinions

 

Qaz is back, all is good in chelseas world again....

We don't need no Zappacosta

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davide_Zappacosta#/media/File:Davide_Zappacosta_2019.jpg

Davide Zappacosta, remember him?, apparently he still plays (for Atalanta now https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davide_Zappacosta).

We signed him for around 28 million euros (so says wikipedia at least) and he barely played for us (26 appearances over several years mostly in the cups, again quoting wikipedia).

So why bring him up? To me he's a warning what happens when you spend a significant sum of money on mid-twenties back up option.

They come on a high fee because they are playing well at the previous club to "earn" the move and then proceed to not play regularly for us meaning their value goes down (buy high, sell low). They are already established and have limited upside. And they deny a spot to a youngster who could do with those back up and cup minutes.

It's not that just him, Chelsea's history is littered with a bunch of these players (Djilobodji, Begovich, Danny Drinkwater, and maybe Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall?). Could be soon to be Marc Guéhi,

I like Marc Guéhi, I think he's a good premier league footballer, and if the price really is right, then fine. But he does tick alot of these "Zappacosta" boxes. He wouldn't be first choice in Chelsea's best 11 with a fit Fofana and Colwill. He'd be coming into a squad with lots of centre backs already here (some like Acheampong) look promising and he definitely not old (24) but he's not likely to get significantly better at Chelsea if he's not first choice.

I hope with the huge amount of talented kids (both purchased and youth system) we have here now, we are past the days of buying expensive back ups. Hell, the fact we let Guéhi go in the first place without having played him at all is an indication that we aren't giving the youngsters at the club enough of a chance as is.

Edited January 11, 20251 yr by Qaz

I’ll have to disagree with you on Guehi.

IMO he would be our first choice centre back alongside Colwill. Fofana is never going to be consistently fit for us so he can be our squad player. Guehi is head & shoulders above Disasi and Badiashille, i would prefer to see us sign a world class centre back but we aren’t really there just yet. Why would a Van Dijk join us when he can go to Real Madrid, Liverpool or City?

Guehi will do and we can be patient for the opportunity to come up when it comes to signing a world class defender.

For example I never saw Kvara leaving Napoli this window and there’s an opportunity to sign an elite level winger, so it does happen.

Let’s build the squad with really high level players such as Guehi and focus on getting champions league.

Long time no see Qaz welcome back. 

3 hours ago, dansubrosa said:

I’ll have to disagree with you on Guehi.

IMO he would be our first choice centre back alongside Colwill. Fofana is never going to be consistently fit for us so he can be our squad player. Guehi is head & shoulders above Disasi and Badiashille, i would prefer to see us sign a world class centre back but we aren’t really there just yet. Why would a Van Dijk join us when he can go to Real Madrid, Liverpool or City?

Guehi will do and we can be patient for the opportunity to come up when it comes to signing a world class defender.

For example I never saw Kvara leaving Napoli this window and there’s an opportunity to sign an elite level winger, so it does happen.

Let’s build the squad with really high level players such as Guehi and focus on getting champions league.

Actually I think Guehi would only just be head and shoulders above Cucurella and Gusto.

Surely we have more ambition than signing another bang average defender.

14 hours ago, dansubrosa said:

I’ll have to disagree with you on Guehi.

IMO he would be our first choice centre back alongside Colwill. Fofana is never going to be consistently fit for us so he can be our squad player. Guehi is head & shoulders above Disasi and Badiashille, i would prefer to see us sign a world class centre back but we aren’t really there just yet. Why would a Van Dijk join us when he can go to Real Madrid, Liverpool or City?

Guehi will do and we can be patient for the opportunity to come up when it comes to signing a world class defender.

For example I never saw Kvara leaving Napoli this window and there’s an opportunity to sign an elite level winger, so it does happen.

Let’s build the squad with really high level players such as Guehi and focus on getting champions league.

So you thesis is that Guehi would switch over to RCB away from the LCB role he (as far as im aware) been playing his whole career thus far?

It could work, but i'd really really want to be sure about it, otherwise we've just bought expensive backup to Colwill and maybe Cucurella.

Edited January 12, 20251 yr by Qaz

Just saying.....

 

Morecambe match thoughts

Firstly, before I start, if anyone knows how to insert pictures, would make this much easier as I rely (heavily) on sofa score for my analysis and just being like "hey, here's a picture of Cucurella's heat map" rather than trying to describe it would make a huge difference. Anyway.....

Starting with general match thoughts.

We started poorly, very sloppy with our passing. I think this was due to players like Disasi and Veiga (the primary ones responsible) feeling like they had to prove themselves and then making poor overly ambitious passes that gave the ball away when really just moving the ball on faster (but safer) would have been the better option. Blaming Veiga alone for the early defensive frailties is probably unfair but he really looked lost in the LB role first half. Combined with a lack of tempo in the first half, it's no surprise we pretty poor.
Second half, much better. Better tempo, better decision making, Cucurella (who I think is massively underrated) fixed the defensive frailties and offered a heap of energy going forward.

Match ratings (according to SofaScore not my personal ranking) and my thoughts

Jorgensen 7.4 - He looked shakey and had a few rough moments. I still like him as a player and think he could develop into a starter eventually but clearly isn't there yet. The sofascore rating is a bit high even though he did make a few good saves.

James 7.8 - The rating looks high (dragged up by the overall team rating), but he seemed solid in his 45 minute run out. I really hope he can stay fit, as while he will probably never be that bombing wing back he used to be, he absolutely has the strength, defensive ability and distribution to be a great inverted RB in Maresca's system. He was probably our best defender first half (with all the defensive issues coming down our left).

Tosin 9.5 - Morecambe dropped so deep when defending that i'm almost surprised he didn't shoot even more than he did.  He took his chances well, seemed solid defensively (in a game where there wasn't much to do in that sense). I think he's been a good signing for us, free transfer, minimal wages, doesn't expect to start every game.

Disasi - 8.1 - Another game where we are reminded clearly of Disasi's limitations as a footballer. Solid defensive, didn't make any mistakes this time (thankfully), but just offers so very little going forward. He's not a bad player, but he's just not Chelsea level and not the kind of footballer that fits the Maresca system. You could see with Tosin that he at least has the skill to make a pass and even shoot from range when the situation avails (as it did many times due to Morecambe's incredibly deep defence). I think some of the Acheampong hype has been a little over the top thus far, but I am still excited to give him a chance and patient with him to make mistakes and grow where I think Disasi is what he is and should be moved on in the off-season.

Veiga 7.8 - Really poor first half for me, Looked lost in the LB role. Much better second half when he Cucurella came on for Lavia and he took Lavia's role as the holding midfielder. 

Lavia 7.2 - I don't remember him doing much in his 45 minutes. Given the whole team looked lethargic first half I think he did too and probably wasn't ready for more than his 45 minutes of football.
 

George 8.1 - First half he was constantly being doubled up on 2v1 with no support from Veiga. Second half Cucurella's energy overlapping and underlapping him was transformative. 

Felix 9.5 - My most frustrating Chelsea player. Clearly creative, clearly our best attacker, scored twice, one was a screamer. But I still get frustrated by his tendency to take 5 touches when 1 or 2 will do (only for him to take those 5 touches and score that screamer making me look like an idiot). I really think he could be almost Palmer level if he had Palmer's mentality and directness. Anyway, he was still probably man of the match and I hope he do this against Premier League opposition.

Nkunku - 7.4 Really poor first half, but the whole team lacked energy and tempo meaning he and Giui were left super isolated. Second half showed again that he's got quality if you get him time and space which he just won't get a lot of in this Chelsea system.

Neto - 7.1 Like Tyrique George was constantly doubled up on first half and defended against super deep meaning his strengths were nullified. Sancho was a much better type of player for a game like this and the half time change made sense.

Guiu - 6.7 Went missing pretty much all of the game. First half would get a bit of a pass due to the rest of the team being poor and giving him little supply. Second half the supply was there and he was still poor. Isn't ready for Premier League football.

Subs

Gusto - 7.2 Added some energy over James when he came on but also isn't technically as good. He was fine and solid enough. The 7.2 sofascore rating is about fair.

Cucurella 7.3 This is maybe the only rating I think is too low. Cucurella shows yet again just how absolutely vital he is to Chelsea, after Palmer (and maybe Jackson), arguably our most important player. Veiga looked poor defensively first half and didn't give much going forward. Cucurella comes on and in an instant our defensive issues down the left are solved and his energy and support for George transformed his performance second half. God he's a good player.

Sancho 7.2 On for Neto second half in a straight swap. He's much more suited to a game like this than Neto. 

Maresca - No sofascore rating for him, just my thoughts. I personally would have liked to have seen some more kids on the bench. I get it that if the game is going badly, you want the option to bring on Jackson and Palmer, but I feel like the FA cup isn't a priority compared to top 4 and we could have risked the bench with some youth. Veiga at left back didn't work and having both Lavia and James start might have been a mistake versus bringing them on from the bench. Still, it's hard to be too critical in a game like this given it's more about giving players a chance to play themselves into form than getting the 6th or 7th goal.

https://www.sofascore.com/football/match/morecambe-chelsea/NsGb#id:13189412

Edited January 12, 20251 yr by Qaz

Decent summary @Qaz, although those sofascore ratings are a crime and frankly embarrassing,  especially against a team second from bottom in the entire league system and were totally spent from an hour onwards.

MOTM for me was Cucurella simply because he applied a professional approach and treated Morecambe with respect throughout. As a European champion he had the right to look upon a team like Morecambe as beneath him. He could have strolled around as if it was all too much of an effort and the oppo wasn't worth his attention.  He could have been doing stupid flicks and backheels, Cruyff turns 40 yards from goal whilst being loosely marked by knackered midfielders.  But no, he worked hard, ran his socks off, made things happen and treated the opposition with respect by applying the same approach as he would in any other game. 

1 hour ago, WhiteWall said:

Decent summary @Qaz, although those sofascore ratings are a crime and frankly embarrassing,  especially against a team second from bottom in the entire league system and were totally spent from an hour onwards.

MOTM for me was Cucurella simply because he applied a professional approach and treated Morecambe with respect throughout. As a European champion he had the right to look upon a team like Morecambe as beneath him. He could have strolled around as if it was all too much of an effort and the oppo wasn't worth his attention.  He could have been doing stupid flicks and backheels, Cruyff turns 40 yards from goal whilst being loosely marked by knackered midfielders.  But no, he worked hard, ran his socks off, made things happen and treated the opposition with respect by applying the same approach as he would in any other game. 

I like sofascore ratings in general, mostly because they are objective (as in they are based on numbers not human interpretation). This is both a boon and negative and in extreme cases like today (a top 4 premier league vs a bottom 4 league 2 club) the model is stretched and the ratings are much less helpful. 

I was planning to make a longer term (season thus far) analysis post based on the sofascore ratings as they are actually quite interesting
 

Canberra is a sh*thole

FFP changes everything

 

I was reading some of the comments on the Stewart/Winstanley thread and on Veiga, and thought I should drop my 2cents in.

This is a very very basic (and limited) explanation of the FFP/PSR and what the "loophole" is that Chelsea are trying to exploit.

Say you were to buy a player for Chelsea for 50 million pounds and he was given a 5 million a year wage over a 5 year contract term.

He'd basically be costing (FFP/PSR wise) 10 million a year in ammortization + 5 million a year in wages, so 15 million pounds a year each year for 5 years, with his value being written down to zero at the end of his contract and can leave on a bosman.

But, when the player is sold, the whole transfer is booked at revenue (for FFP/PSR) immediately.

This is complicated and I bet there are others who can explain this better than me, but what this does is create an incentive for the club to churn players in and out in order to exploit the timing of payments to be able to spend more.

This probably doesn't sound like a big deal but this timing difference is actually pretty major and when done across a whole squad, is absolutely huge.

So what does this mean?

It means when we look at transfermarkt and see a transfer fee say Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall coming in for 35.4 million pounds and leaving for 28 million pounds that's a 7.4 million pound loss, but then your not taking into account the timing of the revenues/expenses (for FFP), or in KDH's case, the 5 million pounds we got for Golding the other way. This means that things that view one way on transfermarkt might view very differently on FFP.

Basically, the Chelsea directors are not looking at the same numbers we are and not making calculations the way we are.

The game has changed.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 20251 yr by Qaz

Chelsea's defenders are awesome, just not the ones actually at Chelsea

I was having a look through SofaScore premier league average ratings before. Our midfield 3 (Caceido, Enzo and Palmer) are all top or near top performers in their positions this year, but elsewhere (including defence) we've struggled.

Of players who have played more than 5 Premier League games so far this season (which rules Reece James out), none of the Chelsea defenders have acheived a 7 average rating (https://www.sofascore.com/tournament/football/england/premier-league/17#id:61627). 

But several other (former and loanee) Chelsea players have.

Both Guehi and Chalobah (yes I know he's been recalled but he earnt all the appearances he's made thus far this season away from the club) have 7.14 average ratings. Ola Aina has a 7.01 ave rating. And as for Lewis Hall, he's having a great season with a 7.30 (average rating) (see https://www.sofascore.com/tournament/football/england/premier-league/17#id:61627)
 

Edited January 19, 20251 yr by Qaz

4-2-3-what?

It's kind of funny how the TV, media and fans on here (myself included) put out Chelsea's formation as a 4-2-3-1 when in truth we don't play that formation neither defensively nor offensively.

In defence is a 4-4-2 (or maybe a 4-2-4) with generally (when it's our first choice 11), Enzo (Fernandez) dropping deep next to Caceido and Palmer forming the first line of defence next to Jackson.

In attack it's a 3-2-4-1 with either the RB or LB tucking in as a 3rd CB and the other tucking in as the second DM. The wingers hold the width and Enzo (Fernandez) pushes forward as a second 10.

So why do we call it a 4-2-3-1?.........Should we stop? Are people here getting confused into thinking the RAM and LAM in Maresca's system is the same as it was in Pochettino's (completely different roles)?

Edited January 19, 20251 yr by Qaz

2 hours ago, Qaz said:

4-2-3-what?

It's kind of funny how the TV, media and fans on here (myself included) put out Chelsea's formation as a 4-2-3-1 when in truth we don't play that formation neither defensively nor offensively.

In defence is a 4-4-2 (or maybe a 4-2-4) with generally (when it's our first choice 11), Enzo (Fernandez) dropping deep next to Caceido and Palmer forming the first line of defence next to Jackson.

In attack it's a 3-2-4-1 with either the RB or LB tucking in as a 3rd CB and the other tucking in as the second DM. The wingers hold the width and Enzo (Fernandez) pushes forward as a second 10.

So why do we call it a 4-2-3-1?.........Should we stop? Are people here getting confused into thinking the RAM and LAM in Maresca's system is the same as it was in Pochettino's (completely different roles)?

Defensively, typically when we concede,  I see us as more of a 2-1-3-4  LOL

Colwill and whoever is RCB looking nervously at 4 opposition forwards flying past Caicedo, with Enzo and our full backs losing the battle to sprint back in time to do any meaningful defending 🙂 

On 19/01/2025 at 02:14, Qaz said:

FFP changes everything

 

I was reading some of the comments on the Stewart/Winstanley thread and on Veiga, and thought I should drop my 2cents in.

This is a very very basic (and limited) explanation of the FFP/PSR and what the "loophole" is that Chelsea are trying to exploit.

Say you were to buy a player for Chelsea for 50 million pounds and he was given a 5 million a year wage over a 5 year contract term.

He'd basically be costing (FFP/PSR wise) 10 million a year in ammortization + 5 million a year in wages, so 15 million pounds a year each year for 5 years, with his value being written down to zero at the end of his contract and can leave on a bosman.

But, when the player is sold, the whole transfer is booked at revenue (for FFP/PSR) immediately.

This is complicated and I bet there are others who can explain this better than me, but what this does is create an incentive for the club to churn players in and out in order to exploit the timing of payments to be able to spend more.

This probably doesn't sound like a big deal but this timing difference is actually pretty major and when done across a whole squad, is absolutely huge.

So what does this mean?

It means when we look at transfermarkt and see a transfer fee say Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall coming in for 35.4 million pounds and leaving for 28 million pounds that's a 7.4 million pound loss, but then your not taking into account the timing of the revenues/expenses (for FFP), or in KDH's case, the 5 million pounds we got for Golding the other way. This means that things that view one way on transfermarkt might view very differently on FFP.

Basically, the Chelsea directors are not looking at the same numbers we are and not making calculations the way we are.

The game has changed.

 

 

 

 

I don't think this is true nor that they are doing anything special or unique. Granovskaia in particular caused a lot of controversy when she leveraged FFP/PSR rules to finance the great splurge of 2020/21. The only difference between then and now is that Granovskaia's strategy was focused on the whole three-year reporting period, offsetting losses against previous years' transfer and income boons, whereas Stewart/Winstanley are content to wheel-and-deal on a yearly basis.

The latter strategy allows for slightly more spending power albeit with more risk, but without steady high-income revenue streams like Champions League football and commercial sponsorship it is arguably necessary.

 

 

Question, with Veiga gone (on loan) to Juventus, whose our back up left back to Cucurella now?

4 hours ago, Qaz said:

Question, with Veiga gone (on loan) to Juventus, whose our back up left back to Cucurella now?

5 hours ago, Qaz said:

Question, with Veiga gone (on loan) to Juventus, whose our back up left back to Cucurella now?

Gusto

5 hours ago, Qaz said:

Question, with Veiga gone (on loan) to Juventus, whose our back up left back to Cucurella now?

Maresca will pick Gusto, James, Colwill, possibly even Samuels-Smith, all ahead of poor old Chilly

I watched a video from Paul Jennings about his complaints on the Chelsea ownership
 

This is my personal opinion on it and the general situation

As always, I think my ideas are pretty solid and thought out but i'm really sh*t at explaining them like a professional writer or communicator would

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is a mismatch between the styles of Maresca and Stewart/Winstanley.

I think back to last season, with the huge injury crisis (statistically worst in the league). Pochettino never really had the luxury that Maresca has had of a stable lineup. He had to adapt, switch tactics, make do with what was available on the day and be flexible.

Maresca is the opposite, he's rigid, he's specific about which type of player is good for which role in his system. Specific role players (like Neto) fit whereas versatile attackers (like Nkunku) don't. It actually helped us settle down early season and was partly responsible for the strong start as every player knew their role well. But now we are seeing the problems with that rigidness.

If Maresca has Man City's like recruitment (finding players specific to his system), they'd (manager and sporting directors) would combine better. If Maresca had the flexibility and tactical adaptiveness (of a Pochettino), he'd probably be much better at working with the players that aren't exact fits for his specific system and they (management and sporting directors) would combine better. But it seems like you have a club that where the parts (manager and sporting directors) are pulling in different directions.

As for whose to blame for this mismatch, it's the sporting directors that chose to fire Pochetino and hire Maresca. I want to be clear, I don't think the idea of what the sporting directors are up is fundamentally bad. I think in many ways it's actually genius. The problem is that they've hired the wrong style of manager (rigid systematic as opposed to flexibile) for that style and they've just tried to do way too much too early, causing huge dead weight loss (with players like Chilwell doing nothing when they should be contributing) in the process.

Honestly I think we were better off under Pochetino. I really think he would have, given the new off-season signing and far better injury record, have taken this team further (perhaps after a slower start).

1 hour ago, Qaz said:

I watched a video from Paul Jennings about his complaints on the Chelsea ownership
 

This is my personal opinion on it and the general situation

As always, I think my ideas are pretty solid and thought out but i'm really sh*t at explaining them like a professional writer or communicator would

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think there is a mismatch between the styles of Maresca and Stewart/Winstanley.

I think back to last season, with the huge injury crisis (statistically worst in the league). Pochettino never really had the luxury that Maresca has had of a stable lineup. He had to adapt, switch tactics, make do with what was available on the day and be flexible.

Maresca is the opposite, he's rigid, he's specific about which type of player is good for which role in his system. Specific role players (like Neto) fit whereas versatile attackers (like Nkunku) don't. It actually helped us settle down early season and was partly responsible for the strong start as every player knew their role well. But now we are seeing the problems with that rigidness.

If Maresca has Man City's like recruitment (finding players specific to his system), they'd (manager and sporting directors) would combine better. If Maresca had the flexibility and tactical adaptiveness (of a Pochettino), he'd probably be much better at working with the players that aren't exact fits for his specific system and they (management and sporting directors) would combine better. But it seems like you have a club that where the parts (manager and sporting directors) are pulling in different directions.

As for whose to blame for this mismatch, it's the sporting directors that chose to fire Pochetino and hire Maresca. I want to be clear, I don't think the idea of what the sporting directors are up is fundamentally bad. I think in many ways it's actually genius. The problem is that they've hired the wrong style of manager (rigid systematic as opposed to flexibile) for that style and they've just tried to do way too much too early, causing huge dead weight loss (with players like Chilwell doing nothing when they should be contributing) in the process.

Honestly I think we were better off under Pochetino. I really think he would have, given the new off-season signing and far better injury record, have taken this team further (perhaps after a slower start).

I don’t disagree about the inflexibility of Maresca - or have the same concerns about the sporting directors as many on here do.

I don’t agree about Poch. He was too passive. Too spursy. Not enough grit or apparent determination. To see him sat, seemingly without a care in the world, as the team shipped goal after goal, was hard to stomach. 
 

I quite like a lot about maresca. I like his candid public lines (at times). But the way he has mismanaged the squad, essentially separating it into 4 (untouchables, back ups, c team, bomb squad) is awful. The way he has treated certain players is disgusting. The way he has indulges others - despite no indication they are anywhere near good enough is sackable. 
 

He needs to change - urgently. That starts with picking his best players, and finding a system that suits the top talent we have (Enzo, Caicedo, James, Palmer and nkunku) and dropping those underperforming (Sanchez, Jackson).

 

Did the journalist really mistake Sancho for Mudryk? 🤣

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/soccer/chelsea-news-enzo-maresca-slams-mykhailo-mudryk-after-half-time-substitution/ar-AA1ppDmX?apiversion=v2&noservercache=1&domshim=1&renderwebcomponents=1&wcseo=1&batchservertelemetry=1&noservertelemetry=1

On 19/01/2025 at 02:14, Qaz said:

It means when we look at transfermarkt and see a transfer fee say Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall coming in for 35.4 million pounds and leaving for 28 million pounds that's a 7.4 million pound loss, but then your not taking into account the timing of the revenues/expenses (for FFP), or in KDH's case, the 5 million pounds we got for Golding the other way. This means that things that view one way on transfermarkt might view very differently on FFP.
 

Just another minor quibble with your calculations here @Qaz - players only count as a profit for FFP/PSR if their sale value exceeds their book value (amortised fee + yearly wage) at the time. He won't count as £28m to spend, if that's what you are thinking.

For KDH, he was reportedly signed for £35.4m + £4m/year in wages, meaning each year his book value reduces by £9m. It's important to know that the signing was effective 2 July 2024, meaning his value counts for the 2024-25 season onwards, In Year 1, the end of this season, his book value will be £26.4m, meaning we need at least that much to break-even for FFP/PSR purposes.

However, the £5m we received for Michael Golding further offsets KDH making his effective book value £21.4m until 30 June 2025.  Which means that as long as we get something north of £21.4m prior to 30 June, we can claim an FFP profit. If we sell after 1 July, we can't offset his fee by £5m, but his book value is only £17.4m at the end of the season meaning even more scope for an FFP "profit".

It's why selling clubs will want to do business prior to 30 June, to bank the whole fee and offset the last season's transfer spending; buying clubs will want deals to conclude post 1 July so that they only have to sell a player for their next year's book value if it doesn't work out.

Edited February 6, 20251 yr by SydneyChelsea