The Chelsea Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ramires
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 35K
  • Views Views 3M
No he initially denied he said it, when the video first came to light. It probably did go against him in court, but the rest of the evidence was inconclusive. Remember he only needed to create reasonable doubt, not actually prove anything.

[video=youtube;H47GTMSXgaI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H47GTMSXgaI[/video]

this is from october

He never denies it in his statement, as i thought from day one he said he was repeating what he thought Anton said to him. For example

Anton "Did you call me a black c**t"
John "No i didn't call you a black c**t"

Something along them lines, it seems as if it was a misunderstanding which i believe it was. I believe Anton accused JT of saying something and JT thought he heard Anton accusing him of saying them words.
 
Because he would have lied that's why. Not only would he be a racist (which he is called now and will be forever) but he would have been a liar too. Would have been banned from playing for the country ever again and a lengthly ban for Chelsea.
Do you really think that he would get any less criticism for being an honest racist, if he just admitted it?
If he's guilty, then whether he's found out by his own admission or an investigation his reputation would hit rock bottom. Being shown to be a liar would hardly matter to him or anyone else.
 
Do you really think that he would get any less criticism for being an honest racist, if he just admitted it?
If he's guilty, then whether he's found out by his own admission or an investigation his reputation would hit rock bottom. Being shown to be a liar would hardly matter to him or anyone else.

It wouldn't have mattered either way! If he never even said them words he would still be called a racist so it was always going to be a lose lose situation for him.

Just spoke to someone who was part of his legal team and they are awaiting the decision by the FA today and if they decide to punish him then they will take action against them for "contempt of court". This will rumble on.
 
It wouldn't have mattered either way! If he never even said them words he would still be called a racist so it was always going to be a lose lose situation for him.

Just spoke to someone who was part of his legal team and they are awaiting the decision by the FA today and if they decide to punish him then they will take action against them for "contempt of court". This will rumble on.

They can take action. They will lose. None of this has anything to do with contempt of court, or a criminal case,whatsoever.

And he should know that, this is Law 101 here.

The FA isn't challenging the Law of the Land, its asking whether he broke the the FA's own laws under rule E1 and E1(2).

Carl, he said something stupid, and it was always going to catch up with him, merely delayed the inevitable. Funny thing is, had he immediately admitted so, and publicly apologised (or fronted up, as he is fond of saying), it probably would not have been so bad.
 
They can take action. They will lose. None of this has anything to do with contempt of court, or a criminal case,whatsoever.

And he should know that, this is Law 101 here.

The FA isn't challenging the Law of the Land, its asking whether he broke the the FA's own laws under rule E1 and E1(2).

Carl, he said something stupid, and it was always going to catch up with him, merely delayed the inevitable. Funny thing is, had he immediately admitted so, and publicly apologised (or fronted up, as he is fond of saying), it probably would not have been so bad.

From the FA's own rule book:

Paragraph 6.8: ‘Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.’
 
From the FA's own rule book:

Paragraph 6.8: ‘Where the subject matter of a complaint or matter before the Regulatory Commission has been the subject of previous civil or criminal proceedings, the result of such proceedings and the facts and matters upon which such result is based shall be presumed to be correct and the facts presumed to be true unless it is shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that this is not the case.’

But its not based on the results of the criminal case.

And again, he wasnt cleared that he didnt say it, the judge didnt believe him, rather than there was enough reasonable doubt, ie "we're pretty sure you said, there is just enough doubt there".

However the FA civil court, like all civil courts, has a balance of probability burden. Is it more likely than not he said it? And that's where he falls down.
 
[h=1]John Terry quits with a broken heart but he is no victim[/h]The FA has been pretty good to the former England captain, given the seriousness of the allegations against him, and it has a duty to convene its own inquiry


John-Terry-008.jpg
John Terry, who won 78 caps for England, says the FA has made his position 'untenable'. Photograph: Alexander Khudeteply/AFP/Getty Images

It all goes back to an October's day in west London when one footballer bumped into another and they both took exception. They came together, they argued, they eyeballed. One held his hand over his mouth to pretend the other guy had smelly breath and, from there, it quickly spiralled into the events that have led to an England manager resigning in protest and now, with carefully executed timing, John Terry saying he is doing the same.
Terry's announcement that he is ending his international career, three months short of turning 32, came on the eve of his disciplinary hearing for allegedly racially abusing Anton Ferdinand during that Chelsea game at QPR last season. His statement said the FA had made his position "untenable" by investigating what happened at Loftus Road when he had already been acquitted during a five-day trial at Westminster magistrates' court in July and that he is, in football parlance, absolutely gutted. "It breaks my heart to make this decision," are the exact words. Broken-hearted, and nursing a grudge. What he is saying, in essence, is that it is all the FA's fault.
There is no pleasure to take when a footballer who has, for the most part, played with distinction for England ends it all ? nine years, 78 caps and four major tournaments ? in the form of a grim-faced statement ticked off by his lawyers.
Yet Terry's argument is a tenuous one, undeserving of sympathy and badly undermined by the fact the FA has a duty, surely, to convene its own inquiry when a Premier League footballer ? at the time the England captain, no less ? is accused of calling an opponent a "******* black ****".
Terry denies the charge and his grievance seems to boil down to one thing: that the FA wants to make sure there was no wrongdoing within its own rules, rather than just letting it pass and doing, well, what would be best for him. Yet, of course, the FA was going to look into it. The organisation has a responsibility to investigate allegations of racial abuse and, just because the matter has already been in front of a magistrate, that does not obscure the fact that the people running the game, however flawed their judgment sometimes appears, are duty-bound to look into something this divisive, this huge, with all the ramifications and the anger and resentment that exist.
Terry, in short, has no right to depict himself as being victimised when the FA has actually been pretty good to him given the seriousness of the allegations. Previous England managers were not allowed to pick players who were facing criminal charges but the current FA regime never enforced that rule with Roy Hodgson.
On the contrary Terry was selected at the expense of Rio Ferdinand, when most observers concluded the Manchester United defender had been excluded simply for being Anton's older brother. Rio, who remains ostracised and deeply aggrieved, continued to miss out even when other defenders were injured, leading to a call-up for Martin Kelly, a reserve full-back at Liverpool. The FA has never intervened, or meddled, despite grave concerns among racism campaigners about the message this created. Terry played in Euro 2012 and the FA relieved him of media duties.
What his statement does not explain is why he has chosen now and, inevitably, there will be those who conclude he has jumped rather than run the risk of being made to walk the plank. Hypothetical, perhaps, but the FA has a conviction rate of roughly 99.5% when it comes to disciplinary cases held by an independent panel and, if it finds against him, the volume will be turned up so high that even a pro-Terry man such as Hodgson might have found it difficult to select him. We will never know this now but the decision might have been taken out of Hodgson's hands.
It is certainly strange Terry has waited so long when it was on 28 July that the FA announced it was opening a disciplinary case. That is eight weeks Terry has had to take this stance. He won his 78th cap against Moldova on 7 September and would have played against Ukraine four days later were it not for a twisted ankle. Why now rather than, say, after the Moldova game or even before? If he felt this strongly, surely it would have looked a lot more powerful that way.
Will there be sympathy? Terry being Terry, probably not a huge deal. The fact is that Terry, over time, has become firmly established as one of football's bad guys. There is a pretty thick file to corroborate why and it was his removal as captain that prompted Fabio Capello to resign, leaving England's preparations for Euro 2012 in chaos.
Yet this is essentially a sad story, nonetheless. He may have made some terrible mistakes and been guilty of a gross form of arrogance at other times, but what cannot be denied is that he was an exceptional player for England sometimes.
At his peak, before injuries started to take hold, he was nothing short of brilliant and, in different circumstances, he should have been remembered as one of the great England centre-backs. His sympathisers will argue that is still the case but this is a shabby way to end an international career and most people when thinking of Terry consider there is an acute difference between being a great footballer and a great football man. Above all, Terry needs to realise the FA is investigating this case because to sweep it under the carpet, or airbrush it from history, would be negligent in the extreme.
If Terry is saying that the FA should just have moved on to the next subject and ignored a case in which Kick It Out is firmly aligned to the Ferdinands, then the Chelsea captain sorely misses the point.


 
im happy that hes retired, gives Cahill and Jagielka a chance
 
Oscar - a midfielder in the full sense of the word by Tim Vickery



Little more than a month into the season, new signing Oscar is already a Stamford Bridge sensation.

I must confess that I took a bit longer to be won over by him - before making up for lost time by coming to the conclusion that he could be the most important player Brazilian football has produced in a while.

I was at one of his very first matches for Internacional, a 3-0 defeat to Fluminense in the Maracana stadium in August 2010. He was brought on after 35 minutes, made a mess of everything he tried and was himself replaced after 57. It hardly matched the hype that was already surrounding him.

Three months later I saw him get a place in the starting line-up against Botafogo. He made little impression and was substituted once more. But before the game I talked to Inter's director Fernando Carvallo, one of the best talent spotters in the Brazilian game. Forget any early impressions, he said. This boy is the genuine article.

oscar_versus_belarus_empics595.jpg


If such a knowledgeable source had high hopes, then Oscar was clearly worth a third glance, a fourth and a fifth.

Early in 2011, he started to impress playing for Brazil in the South American Under-20 Championships. The individual plaudits went to Neymar and Lucas Moura, but it was noticeable that Oscar was at the heart of many of the good collective things his side were producing.

But could he cut it with the seniors? He quickly showed he could, scoring three times for Internacional in their Copa Libertadores campaign.

Then came his triumphant World Youth Cup campaign. With both Neymar and Lucas promoted to the full Brazil side, there was more responsibility for Oscar to carry. For all his frailty and sloped shoulders, he bore it well.

He scored all three goals in the final against Portugal. But at least as impressive was his all-round game - and as he has continued to progress over the subsequent year, it is his versatility which catches the eye as much as his ability to score goals - like the one against Juventus last week that sent the Stamford Bridge faithful crazy.

Oscar can drop back and mark. Stronger than he looks, he can win the ball, orchestrate possession from deep, feed the strikers and get beyond them to shoot at goal. Bright and mobile, two-footed and talented, he is a midfielder in the full sense of the word - and it is precisely that which makes him so interesting.

The glory days of Brazilian football - those three World Cup wins between 1958 and '70 - came after they had come up with the idea of the back four, dropping an extra player to the centre of the defence to provide extra security.

A football team is like one organic unit - making changes in one part will inevitably have an effect on another. In this case the burden was borne by the central midfielders. Since the initial idea was to retain two wingers and two strikers, the pair in the middle found themselves with acres of space to cover.

So both of them had to be all-rounders, able to attack and defend.

In 1958 and '62 the central midfield pairing was formed by Didi and Zito. 'The Ethiopian Prince,' Didi was the brains of the team, cutting opponents apart with his elegant passing. But he also had to work hard when Brazil lost possession, getting behind the line of the ball and closing down space.

Alongside him, Zito was the enforcer, the hard man who screened the centre-backs. But he could also make an attacking contribution, as he showed when scoring the goal that effectively won the 1962 World Cup.

Brazil and Czechoslovakia were level at 1-1 when he both started and ended the move that put his side ahead, running the length of the field to head home at the far post.

Eight years later in Mexico, it was a similar story, with Gerson and Clodoaldo in the roles of Didi and Zito.
Brazil were a goal down in the semi-final against Uruguay. Gerson, the latter day Didi, was not the greatest athlete - he was struggling to find space against the tight Uruguayan marking - so he took a decision.

He dropped back to cover and sent Clodoaldo, Zito's replacement for club and country further forward. It was an inspired switch - just before half-time Clodoaldo scored the equaliser.

The classic 4-2-4 system did not last long. Even in 1958 Mario Zagallo was funnelling back from left wing to help out the overworked midfield duo. But for a while afterwards, 4-2-4 influenced the way that Brazilian midfielders developed.

The 1982 pairing of Falcao and Toninho Cerezo were also all-rounders.
Then it all changed. Brazil became increasingly dependent on attacking full-backs. Someone had to cover for them.

And having purely defensive midfielders in a 4-4-2 meant that there was also space for purely attacking ones. The age of the specialist was born.

For years Brazil's midfield included Gilberto Silva - now winding down his career where he started it, at centre-back - and Kaka, who in reality is a support striker.

Even while it was winning trophies, a midfield without midfielders could never capture hearts by producing the flowing football of old.

For all the frequent disappointing results Brazil have had over the last two years, and for all the jeers aimed at coach Mano Menezes, there are grounds for optimism.

The midfielder is back. Oscar is proof. So too is Romulo.

If Oscar is an attacking midfielder who can also defend, Romulo is the opposite. Both were on target last week in the Champions League - Oscar, of course, for Chelsea against Juventus, and Romulo for Spartak Moscow against Barcelona - on his 22nd birthday.

If this really is the rebirth of the all-round Brazilian midfielder, then we all have something to celebrate.
 
[video=youtube;0NDhCMQXNlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NDhCMQXNlM[/video]


I want to see them both in action against Wolves!
 
Sweet the site's fixed.

Turned down the chance to get tickets to last night's game because I was skint. Get offered 2 months of work this morning. God **** ¬.¬
 
Sweet the site's fixed.

Turned down the chance to get tickets to last night's game because I was skint. Get offered 2 months of work this morning. God **** ¬.¬

Judging by the highlights, you seemed to have missed a pretty sexy performance :P. Apparently Piazon had a great debut and RDM trolled Wolves when they were already down by a few goals by sending on Hazard and Oscar
 
Anyone watched the Watford game against Bristol? Apparently Nathaniel Chalobah was superb in the holding role and even received MOM. Already a fan favourite with the Watford fans who are tipping him to be a star. Extremely encouraging signs for a 17 year-old. Chelsea made the right decision to send him out on loan I think especially when he is playing under Zola :wub:
 
Seeing as a lot of you guys are fans of Mikel I thought I would post this draft for an article in here. It still needs a little bit of work but the idea is to look at Mikel's stats to try and establish why he doesn't work without a true partner and why this is a strength as well as a weakness.

(I know a bunch of words are stuck together. It happens every time I CRTL+V something here :-/)



Brace yourselves, we're about to dive into the terrifying world of stats! I have before me, stretched out like some gargantuan spreadsheet colossus, the statistics that MCFC very kindly published for freeduring the summer, and it certainly makes for some interesting reading. The scale and the level of detail are staggering and with it comes a whole new world of possibility. It may even be potent enoughto answer a question that has baffled mankind for what seems like anage: what on earth does Mikel John Obi actually do?


Nobody knows; when Chelsea first snatched him from United's fingertips, he was a promising young attacking midfielder but Mourinho decided thata change in position would help Mikel reach his full potential. So hewas deployed further back, as the holder in a 4-3-3, where he made a good impression on both the fans and the manager. Ever since that time, the debate has raged and no one seems to be able to quite decide whether Mikel is a brilliant holder who can pass, a passer forced to tackle or a jack of both trades but a master of none.


Thishas caused considerable headaches for various Chelsea managers andseems to have reached it's peak now as the club begins to employ a 4-2-3-1 as its regular tactic. Without the third central midfielder to help him, Mikel's performances have been... interesting...especially in the 2-2 draw with Juventus where he failed to nullify the runs of Vidal and Marchisio, arguably leading to both goals that his team conceded.


So, the time seems right to try and answer the question once and for all and see what it is that Mikel offers Chelsea.


(note:I have vetted these statistics to give an accurate representation. Assuch, I have removed any games played by Mikel that were under 20 minutes in length as these often give false impressions, especially in an un-weighted system such as this


It should also be noted that changes in Chelsea's management, tactics and formation will have had an impact on these results. Whilst I will acknowledge these, the scale of linking them into Mikel's performances is an immense one which is way beyond the scope of thisarticle. Likewise, bear in mind that when Mikel's stats are compared to those of other players, other factors do have an impact)




We'll start with the defensive side of his game, as this is what most people would expect a holder to excel at. To give us a benchmark to work with, I'll compare these stats to those of Tiote, who is highly rated in the same role in the same league.


Mikel won 86 out of 159 duels last season, which works out at about 54%. Opta defines a duel as “a50-50 contest between two players” It's good news for Mikel here as Tiote can only manage a 42% win rate in duels, which is a rather marked difference. However, Mikel's average participation is duels isfar lower than Tiote's: the latter managing 15.4 per game, whilstMikel only manages 8.37. The result is rather startling so I crossreferenced it by looking at the stats of another acclaimed holding midfielder, although this one also has similar passing responsibilities as Mikel, which seems like an important factor given Tiote's more limited role. Song managed a 47.4% success rate but again attempted a lot more duels than Mikel at 12 per game.


That'sa rather mixed result for the Nigerian: despite his better successrate in duels, the statistics seems to indicate that he lacks the combative edge that allows Tiote to guard the Newcastle midfield soeffectively. This does rather tie into a common perception of Mikel as a technically excellent holder who lacks the gung-ho spirit needed to throw himself after the ball.


Neverthe less, this can be excused by a high number of interceptions,which would indicate that Mikel attempts to break up play indirectly. This was again apparent in the game against Juve where he recorded an astonishing 9 interceptions as he tried to break up the fluidity of the Marchisio/Vidal pairing. It turns out that this was a bit ofan anomaly for Mikel who averages a respectable 1.74 interceptions per game. Song got 2 and Tiote 2.5


So what to make of this? A trend is starting to emerge here, Mikel is losing heavily in terms of defensive contribution to Tiote. Now, thisisn't to say that Mikel is a bad holder or that Tiote is the new Makelele. What it does reflect is the roles that they are given are distinctly different and that Mikel's duties as the primary outlet from the back heavily impacts on his defensive role.


That impression is strengthened when you compare their tackling rates.Tiote won 67% of his tackles, Mikel a staggering 83%. However,Tiote attempted a solid 3.34 tackles a match whilst Mikel onlymanaged 1.9.


These results would suggest that Mikel lacks the necessary tenacity and combativeness to play as a sole holding midfielder but has excellent defensive technique. Of course he may be more impressive as a holder if allowed to play that role exclusively, as Tiote does, but the fact that many of his best performances have come alongside another midfielder who is willing to help defensively suggests that he is notable to run a midfield with the same tireless, aggressive energy others can.


So what alternatives are there? Well, assuming that Chelsea keep playinga 4-2-3-1, there's 2 real options. The first is to pair him with atireless box to box player like Ramires who would help to double upin midfield and keep the pivot strong without sacrificing too much going forward.


The second option is a little more controversial and before we can consider it fully we have to look at his passing statistics. If Mikel is excellent in terms of defensive technique and a good interceptorof the ball then perhaps he could be the regista of the pivot, the metronome of the side. To fill such a role, we would need to see creativity, vision, accuracy and versatility in his passing ability.


In terms of accuracy, Mikel is pretty good. A 90.2% pass success rate is about what we would expect from a holding midfielder, simple accurate passing to retain possession. Breaking these numbers down further, wecan see a 92.1 success rate for short passes and a 73.9 success ratefor long passes. These are, again, pretty solid numbers and certainly show he has a decent passing range. The numbers are actually a little high for a holder, and hint at a deeper problem Chelsea face, which is that they use Mikel to simultaneously serve 2 roles in midfield, passer and destroyer. Given that, one would expect his key passes statistic to be a little higher: Song managed to play over double the number of key passes from a holding position despite being played alongside a dedicated passer.


Astatistic that will shock many fans is that Mikel made more than three times as many passes forward as he did backwards. He is often chastised for his lack of ambition but seeing as just 102/1022 of his passes were back towards his own line, this seems rather unfair. Despite this evidence of forward thinking however, it's fairly obvious that Mikel just doesn't seem to have the ability orchestrate play from deep in a manner which would suit him being the sole passing outlet in any formation.
This is the enigma that is Mikel. He suffers from a lack of specialisation, I would even go so far as to say that when he is played in a polarised role, he's not good enough to play for Chelsea. So should they jettison him and find a real destroyer?


No.


Mikelis not a bad player, in fact he is one of a rare breed of players,and his versatility can offer a team an incredible presence in midfield. He is the sort of player who would thrive at a club where hard work, well rounded, talented team players are respected. He is the sort of player that Arrigo Sacchi would have loved. What Chelsea need to do is to find a midfielder that can work with him, a creative passer who is also diligent in their defensive duties. That, incidentally, is exactly the type of player that they need to fully unlock the potency of their fluid band of three behind the striker. For Chelsea, unlocking the true potential of the 4-2-3-1 and allowing Mikel to shine are one and the same. The pieces of an exhilarating, young midfield five that can rival the best in Europe are all thereand it would be a great shame if both the club and its fans didn't realise that Mikel can be instrumental to Chelsea's return to greatness.





In mynext article, I'll be looking at Lampard's stats and performancessince he moved into a deeper role to show exactly why he isunsuitable to fill this role and why his time at the club appears tohave come to a natural end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice article Subtle...I believe Chelsea have bought Oscar with the view of moulding him into a creative passer who is dilligent defensively. However that is still some time way and any other alternatives would cost far too much money.

I have believed from the start that Moutinho is the best midfielder available for a reasonable price who would be a good partner to Mikel in the double pivot. There are rumblings of Fellaini as well although I am not too sure what Felli brings to the table in terms of playing in a double pivot
 
Nice article Subtle...I believe Chelsea have bought Oscar with the view of moulding him into a creative passer who is dilligent defensively. However that is still some time way and any other alternatives would cost far too much money.

I have believed from the start that Moutinho is the best midfielder available for a reasonable price who would be a good partner to Mikel in the double pivot. There are rumblings of Fellaini as well although I am not too sure what Felli brings to the table in terms of playing in a double pivot

Fellaini would be of no use for you alongside Mikel, really. And I'm not saying that because I don't want you to take Fellaini from us (which I don't) but because he's just not the type of player you're looking for.
 
He's the type of player that would bring out the best in Mikel but not the type of player we'd want for our overall formation.

@Alc: Thanks! It still needs some work (need to strengthen how the stats relate to the conclusions etc) but I wanted to be able to turn around to people who say "Mikel is ****" and show them in black and white that he's very technically able but sadly misused. Funny you should mention Moutinho though because that's exactly who Mike said when I talked to him about this.
 
Was actually a good peice in the Dail Mail today (shock horror) by Martin Samuel about this whole JT case.

When JT said the FA had made his place untenable Alex Horne (FA general secretary) released a statement saying this. "I don't see how we have made his place untenable, i'ts something which happened in a match between Chelsea and QPR. "That's a very different process from my perspective, from our England procedures".

Martin Samuel's response: In which case, why did the FA strip him of the England captaincy? At least pretend there is consistancy.

Thoughts?
 
Back
Top