SydneyChelsea

Sure, we can say that now with hindsight. No one was thinking that three games into 2004/05 while we limped to a 2-0 win against Crystal Palace. That was a far more established side who already finished second and should have made the CL final at a canter. I was disappointed about the lack of reaction but I can't help but notice the same critics (including Terry) were critical of our disciplinary issues under Maresca and Rosenior. So are we too aggressive or not?

I think we lost a lot of it when PR pulled the plug, and then more went in the move from the first incarnation of TSE to this one. Wayback Machine is limited because you needed to login to see the Chelsea areas

I agree, but Fernandez wasn't that player and Barco is virtually identical to Camara in play style so we had that option if we wanted it. I'm more concerned that Alonso doesn't see it as an option, or rather, has too much belief in his attackers rather than taking a whole of team approach.

I agree, but playing Enzo Fernandez or Lamine Camara instead of James/Lavia wouldn't have meaningfully changed anything against Arsenal defensively, possibly even making it worse. Camara is for some reason being hailed as a defensive behemoth when he is very clearly a deep-lying playmaker and has a similar athletic profile to Valentin Barco who people believe is 'too small'. Great partner to someone like Caicedo, but not the solution to the current problem. I can't help but think the persistence with a midfield two vs midfield 3s is at least part of the issue. Our team's shape means that someone has to drop out of position to track an AM like Odegaard, and Pascal Gross and Josh King showed we already had issues tracking runners from midfield. Ideally the midfield two defend the flanks and Palmer/Rogers drop back centrally to handle attacking midfielders but I'm not sure Alonso trusts them to do that yet. And while Rogers and Palmer have rightly come in for criticism for defensive lapses, Joao Pedro has to be way more involved in the press as long as he is on the pitch, otherwise we're just giving opponents time on the ball to pick their passes. Could switch to a 4-3-3 and bring in Estevao alongside Palmer. It's counter-intuitive, but anyone of Estevao/Rogers/Palmer can play in the that 8/10 role very well, and defensively can act as a bit of a destroyer. The second, and more important effect, is that it allows us to be more proactive with possession and get some control of games.

Garnacho an unused sub vs Brugge - he's coming back lads

Yes, which was said in the context of Camara being 22 years old and one of the better midfield prospects in France - it is pretty obvious he meant that if Chelsea doesn't sign him this season plenty of other big clubs will eventually be interested.

On the back of this season, fully agree with this. He's been disappointing in the last two games, an important cog but not crucial to Bournemouth. Rogers, Rice, Anderson were clearly the best player in their team. He could have taken the game by the scruff of the neck against Newcastle, but really didn't. Wharton also hasn't had the greatest start to the season.

I partially agree, but I don't agree that possession = control. In fact, the ability to deliberately cede possession is what stopped Fulham and Brighton from being able to defend deep and counter-attack in their preferred style, and against many (if not most) of the teams in the league it will solve our problem against low block defences. We need to be able to do both, and at will. PSG really set the standard for this last season. In our game they absorbed our best 20-30 minutes and then absolutely flattened us but crucially, they didn't give up any big chances in that 20-30min period. Half-chances and possession yes, but that made the killer blows from Kvaratskhelia et al worse.

Alonso is too conservative with his subs. Estevao needs to be coming on at 60/65 mins for whichever of Palmer, Pedro or Rogers is not performing. Pedro let the other two down today. Anonymous performance.

It does relate to us unfortunately, in the sense that Clearlake's non-Chelsea investments follow the same business model. Clearlake isn't investing in big name companies, it is investing in those smaller brands and trying to flip them to other PE for a (relatively) quick buck. It's a house of cards because it's built on the fallacy of perpetual growth. Chelsea is a different investment, it is relatively safe and it is likely an asset they can borrow against to fund other operations.

If that's his thinking then he is wrong, we are conceding chances at the back post not the centre.

He lacks acceleration. It's a big reason why he struggles to beat defenders on the dribble. He is very quick when running on to balls or covering ground but he lacks the quickness and sharpness of top level attackers.

Martin Odegaard keeps winning games for this sorry incarnation of an Arsenal team, and yet people here are doubting whether we should trust in a player of Reece James' calibre post-injury.

Some quality doomsaying going on in this thread! The only disappointing thing other than the result was the fact we have put in better performances against weaker Arsenal teams. The game reminds me of Liverpool beating Arsenal early last season, Arsenal played well but were outdone by the then-Champions and everyone proclaimed Liverpool as the inevitable back-to-back winners. The referee luck will turn against Arsenal at some point, maybe not this season but eventually things will no longer go their way. I don't buy the "defensive" issues seeing as if that were actually true, then Arsenal would have scored 5 or 6. I think back to Sarri's 6-1 loss to Man City for an embarassing, statement loss. An extra midfielder wouldn't solve this issue, certainly not a playmaker like Lamine Camara. Or "better" defenders. A change of attitude and a desire to win needs to happen. The team let Arsenal get away with murder in the way they treated Morgan Rogers.

Alaba, Brozovic, Zinchenko, Renato Sanches in that order.