CJACKO I was wondering if you see QPR as Chelsea's rivals as on other forums they have said they don't care about QPR and that Man U, Arsenal etc. are their rivals, this leads me to believe that they are 'new' fans who joined after you got money and think that they have always been their rivals but I think really that those big teams aren't really rivals, they're rivals in the sense of you want to beat them because they're near you in the league but surely with QPR, Fulham and maybe Brentford, they are your traditional rivals, just in recent years there has been a bit of a gap between QPR and Chelsea, for QPR fans, Chelsea our the main rivals as they are the closest club to us and this used to be the same with Chelsea fans until the last few years when they got taken over.
P.S Remember when we beat you 6-0
Lol we used to have a woeful time against QPR. I think your right, where Chelsea have much more new fans all they know is our rivarly with teams like Liverpool, Man Utd etc but with the fans pre 2003 (including me) there is still hatred towards QPR. I think we played you in the Carling Cup last season at the Bridge and there was some bad blood still. Personly i started supporting Chelsea in 1995/96 season so i dont remember much about QPR in the PL but i have researched Chelsea's history (because im sad) and i know so much about the clubs history etc etc and i have as much hatred towards QPR as i do to to Spurs and Fulham etc etc like most of the old timers.
Although i think the games next season will be heated and will be on Sky or ESPN without a dout, i think the hatred will lie more with QPR to Chelsea than Chelsea to QPR and its that same with Fulham too. Chelsea have a song about Fulham which goes "we dont hate you, we dont hate you, we dont hate you, coz your ****". And i think that explains that now days Chelsea have bigger fish to fry but the games will be heated towards the old guard dont worry about that mate. Its good to see them back in the top tier (even if they arnt mathmaticly there yet), the more London sides the better.
---------- Post added at 05:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------
I would keep Zhirkov cos he's more versatile
He is indeed, they both have pros and cons.
Zhirkov pros: Quicker, more versatile, younger, wins pens
Malouda pros: Makes more goals, scores more goals, better link up with players
Zhirkov cons: Injury prone, inconsistant form
Malouda cons: Older, inconsistant form
The underlined one says it all for the pair of them i think.