The Chelsea Thread

[Tyton]

I'd hesitate to call Torres either of those things,

Why not? It takes a versatile all-around player, which Torres undeniably is, or was anyway.

This is how someone like Lewandowski makes it work - certainly not world class at anything other than great balance and athleticism ,but expert enough in all things offensive to be very elusive.

but if that is the case then Di Matteo's tactics are badly flawed. Oscar, Mata and Hazard can score, but none of them can finish consistently enough to be able to replace the goals a proper striker would.

Well If he wants to channel all attacks through Torres, current tactics don't make sense either. Spain has the best midfield in the world and they still couldn't get Torres to score playing so narrow, so what does Roberto expect? I don't know why don't they play wider to spread the defense and give him a bit more space.

 

[zzeezzy]

Fernando Torres is toast - We Ain't Got No History

^ an interesting take on the situation from a Chelsea fan. He pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

I think RDM could make a big statement tomorrow, if he dropped Torres and played Sturridge for the Juventus game it would show he actually has some balls to drop Torres for the benefit of the team.

 

[Nick Chelsea]

I think RDM could make a big statement tomorrow, if he dropped Torres and played Sturridge for the Juventus game it would show he actually has some balls to drop Torres for the benefit of the team.

Benefit? What benefit?


DS is no benefit to the team.

 

[zzeezzy]

Benefit? What benefit?


DS is no benefit to the team.

Oh he is much more of a benefit to the team than Torres has been of late... lets face it Torres is only being picked lately because of two reasons:

1) You lack other options

2) Because of his reputation compared to Sturridge.



Edit: At least with Sturridge you will actually be playing with 11 men rather than most likely a non-showing Torres = 10 men.

Sturridge will at least make runs... take shots and try test the defender and goalkeeper.

Torres of late will merely just be a name on the team-sheet offering next to nothing.

So yes in comparison Sturridge will offer the team something and benefit more than Torres will. Not only that dropping Torres will be a statement of intent by RDM.

 

[Alcaraz]

Fernando Torres is toast - We Ain't Got No History

^ an interesting take on the situation from a Chelsea fan. He pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly.

Exactly....numerous excuses have been made for his poor performances and all of them can't be used now. Incidentally, why have you taken to frequenting the best Chelsea blog on the Internet GC?

 

[Mike.]

I'd hesitate to call Torres either of those things, but if that is the case then Di Matteo's tactics are badly flawed. Oscar, Mata and Hazard can score, but none of them can finish consistently enough to be able to replace the goals a proper striker would. When Arsenal had the RVP/Fabregas tandem, it worked because Fabregas was a legitimate goal threat. It works for Barca too, since the likes of Pedro and Villa are good finishers. At Chelsea, not so much.

We were discussing what's gone wrong with his head (because his inability to read the game like he used/finish seems to be purely a mental thing), but I've been reading all his interviews for the last few years tonight, and I cant help but come back to the question that some are thinking but I'm not sure people are asking. Is Torres depressed?

Torres' is not someone who looks like he has a happy attitude. Athletes are judged harshly, sometimes very harshly, because of their massive salaries. But they are just as human as anyone else (despite what people like to think), and suffer the same performance anxieties and insecurities as everybody else. If anything, I'd argue they'd be even more susceptible to it. Anyone have ever suffered from anxiety/depression, or have ever known anyone who has, will know exactly what I mean. Those who understand, understand.

I have no idea if he is, but what I do worry about is whether the question is being asked, because this goes beyond anything, and is far more important, than anything going on in the field.

 

[Tyton]

Exactly....numerous excuses have been made for his poor performances and all of them can't be used now. Incidentally, why have you taken to frequenting the best Chelsea blog on the Internet GC?

That blog post is just complete bs, how does anyone even attempt to trash Torres for WBA game without mentioning main playmakers were resting on the bench? If this is the best Chelsea blog, i don't want to see the **** ones.

 

[Alcaraz]

He is not trying to trash Torres for the WBA game Christ. You completely missed the point of the article

 

[GodCubed]

Why not? It takes a versatile all-around player, which Torres undeniably is, or was anyway.

This is how someone like Lewandowski makes it work - certainly not world class at anything other than great balance and athleticism ,but expert enough in all things offensive to be very elusive.

Sure it takes a versatile all-round player, but just because a player is an all-rounder doesn't make them a false nine. Mario Mandzukic and Nikica Jelavic are both good all-rounders, but it doesn't mean they're false nines. It's just not their playstyle, and not the role they're comfortable playing.

Well If he wants to channel all attacks through Torres, current tactics don't make sense either. Spain has the best midfield in the world and they still couldn't get Torres to score playing so narrow, so what does Roberto expect? I don't know why don't they play wider to spread the defense and give him a bit more space.

I guess because they kinda can't. Their favoured attacking midfield trio do not like staying wide and offering width. As a result, they've got a chronic lack of natural width high up the field. I get the kind of feeling Victor Moses and perhaps Marko Marin could be critical later in the season, to say nothing of Azpilicueta offering width from RB.

Benefit? What benefit?


DS is no benefit to the team.

Goals do not benefit a team?

The whole 'goalscorers don't benefit a team' idea is a myth. Goals are the single most important commodity for a team, and those who deal in them are valuable, whether they cause others to score them or get them themselves. Sure, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar doesn't offer too much apart from goals, but the fact that he does offer them gives him a measurable worth to his team.

We were discussing what's gone wrong with his head (because his inability to read the game like he used/finish seems to be purely a mental thing), but I've been reading all his interviews for the last few years tonight, and I cant help but come back to the question that some are thinking but I'm not sure people are asking. Is Torres depressed?

Torres' is not someone who looks like he has a happy attitude. Athletes are judged harshly, sometimes very harshly, because of their massive salaries. But they are just as human as anyone else (despite what people like to think), and suffer the same performance anxieties and insecurities as everybody else. If anything, I'd argue they'd be even more susceptible to it. Anyone have ever suffered from anxiety/depression, or have ever known anyone who has, will know exactly what I mean. Those who understand, understand.

I have no idea if he is, but what I do worry about is whether the question is being asked, because this goes beyond anything, and is far more important, than anything going on in the field.

I have no idea, but it's really sad. This is why I have the kind of feeling a move to Atletico would suit him: go back home, get back to his boyhood club, and see if he can score in a slightly less pressured situation and in a lower-paced league.

That blog post is just complete bs, how does anyone even attempt to trash Torres for WBA game without mentioning main playmakers were resting on the bench? If this is the best Chelsea blog, i don't want to see the **** ones.

You're missing the point by several miles, I think. The author only mentions the WBA game twice, and both in relation to how Sturridge did better than Torres, even without those same playmakers on the pitch. The author was talking about Torres' poor form for a while now, and I think the WBA game was the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the one game that totally changed his view of Fernando.

 

[Nick Chelsea]

Goals do not benefit a team?

The whole 'goalscorers don't benefit a team' idea is a myth. Goals are the single most important commodity for a team, and those who deal in them are valuable, whether they cause others to score them or get them themselves. Sure, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar doesn't offer too much apart from goals, but the fact that he does offer them gives him a measurable worth to his team.

But what does DS offer? Shots from long distance? Every time he gets the ball he shoots (doesn't even look around), and rarely hits the target. Yes, he scored some good goals last season, but he is not a team player (that's why I underlined 'team'). They were scored out of greediness. Point is, we do not have a striker we can rely on.

And I completely agree with Mike:

No we've been watching Sturridge for years, certainly enough to draw conclusions; what you see is largely want you get, he will play that same way every time he gets on the pitch.......

 

[Alcaraz]

Anyone remember the last time Sturridge got a run of games for Chelsea? He went on to score 10-11 odd goals. Just putting it out there.

People can say what they want about being a team player etc. But GC is right. Goals are the most valuable commodity for a soccer team. Any player who can get you them is valuable. Which is why people are criticizing Torres so much. He is not doing the thing that is most needed of him- score goals

Look at Mario Gomez, he hardly offers anything in terms of build-up play or holding the ball up but he can score goals which is what matters at the end of the day.

 

[Alcaraz]

Woah he he didnt go and do the interview, Guillem Ballague went up to him (for the record they have a very good relationship, Torres' interviews with him are almost on the verge of theraputic outpouring) and if you actually remember it, he was talking about how conflicted he felt. Cant' ignore half the interview , hence my point about you being revisionist and biased.
And no justifying someone's off field behaviour by using their on field form is plain crazy, if you are going to tell me Torres's interview was worse than Terry's various off field issues because Torres isn't hitting the strides, then that is madness.

No we've been watching Sturridge for years, certainly enough to draw conclusions; what you see is largely want you get, he will play that same way every time he gets on the pitch, which is why he is on the bench most of the time. It speaks volumes of what Di Matteo wants when DS comes on, has a hatful of chances and takes none, and he says "It was not enough" Its clear what he wants from a leading man, neither Torres nor DS currently fit that, but Torres is possibly closer (not if he plays as badly as he did against West Brom though)

He could have chosen to say nothing. Its not like Balague forced him at gunpoint to give the interview. Torres should have known that certain parts of the interview he gave would frustrate supporters something he should not have done especially after the CL triumph. Things like saying how he wanted to take the penalty but RDM did not allow him or how he might move due to lack of minutes should be kept in the dressing room.

And no I am not trying to justify anything. All I said was that Torres is neither helping the club on or off the pitch. Other players despite their various off-field issues perform on the pitch which makes them more valuable players to me from behind my blue-eyed glasses. You would feel the same for Man Utd players as well.

Sturridge is still young enough to change his game. Plus when given a run of games, he gets goals which is what we need right now.

 

[GodCubed]

But what does DS offer? Shots from long distance? Every time he gets the ball he shoots (doesn't even look around), and rarely hits the target. Yes, he scored some good goals last season, but he is not a team player (that's why I underlined 'team'). They were scored out of greediness. Point is, we do not have a striker we can rely on.

DS offers goals. He scored 11 of them last year, nearly double Torres' tally. Saying 'every time he gets the ball he shoots' is ridiculous given that last year he not attempted more passes per game than Torres, but also overall, and his pass success % was far higher too (81.6% compared to 71.4% respectively).

Still, even if we ignore the figures, what is terribly wrong with greediness in a striker? Some argue it's a good thing. Strikers like Owen, Fowler and even now Zlatan and Ronaldo were selfish players purely because they backed themselves to score, and they did. So long as he gets the goals, then it's a slightly moot point.

I'll give you one thing the statistics do show, and that's that Sturridge often doesn't play the final, key pass. That might be a lack of technique and vision (not sure, but I don't think so given he has played in the hole successfully for England U-21s) or, more likely, bad decision making. And the single most effective way to improve bad decision making? Game time.

And I completely agree with Mike:

So how come nobody's castigating Hazard for his selfishness? He's had 11 more starts than Sturridge, scored one more goal, and has taken 29 shots to Sturridge's 9 (all league stats). Yet I don't see anyone saying Hazard's unnecessarily selfish with his shooting, and his job isn't even to score goals.

Okay, so maybe that's too small a sample size. Let's look at an in-depth analysis of the two from last year in the league. Sturridge made 30 apps, Torres 32. Sturridge scored 11 goals to Torres' 6. Crucially, Sturridge took 93 shots to Torres' 66. So Sturridge took about a third more shots to score nearly twice the amount of goals, many of them off the bench. I really don't think that having your centre forward take another third's worth of shots to score twice as many goals is such a great sacrifice, actually. It pays off pretty **** well, in my books.

Quite besides that, Sturridge is only 23. Players continue to change so drastically even at that age: I'll use the example of a player I watched in detail, Ashley Young. When he signed for Villa at the age of 22, he was raw, though effective. Over the next two years, he matured and became a far better player, even as teams realised his threat and attempted to double mark him out of games. My point is that with a run of Premiership-standard games at a club that realised his potential, Young progressed fantastically as a player.

At the end of the day, Sturridge has done enough and the man playing in his position hasn't performed enough that he ****** well deserves a chance. Whether or not Chelsea are going to invest in January, he deserves a shot and it should be given to him now, so that he can either sink or swim.

EDIT: Somewhat zoomed by Alcaraz, but only because I spent the time writing this.

 

[Mike.]

He could have chosen to say nothing. Its not like Balague forced him at gunpoint to give the interview. Torres should have known that certain parts of the interview he gave would frustrate supporters something he should not have done especially after the CL triumph. Things like saying how he wanted to take the penalty but RDM did not allow him or how he might move due to lack of minutes should be kept in the dressing room.

And no I am not trying to justify anything. All I said was that Torres is neither helping the club on or off the pitch. Other players despite their various off-field issues perform on the pitch which makes them more valuable players to me from behind my blue-eyed glasses. You would feel the same for Man Utd players as well.

Sturridge is still young enough to change his game. Plus when given a run of games, he gets goals which is what we need right now.

Read the interview again, its more like he needed to speak. As I pointed out to GC, Torres interviews are almost theraputic in what he says and the language he uses, constantly conflicted, almost tormented. there was no agenda, just an honest outpouring. Its not about supporters or club, or even making himself look better, it just is what it is.

And no, not at all. See my thoughts on Rio for example. No justification for certain behaviour, i dont care how much they have done for the club. Torres has hardly hurt the club off the pitch, so to even bring that up when compared to others is very off.

 

[Mike.]

Sure it takes a versatile all-round player, but just because a player is an all-rounder doesn't make them a false nine. Mario Mandzukic and Nikica Jelavic are both good all-rounders, but it doesn't mean they're false nines. It's just not their playstyle, and not the role they're comfortable playing.



I guess because they kinda can't. Their favoured attacking midfield trio do not like staying wide and offering width. As a result, they've got a chronic lack of natural width high up the field. I get the kind of feeling Victor Moses and perhaps Marko Marin could be critical later in the season, to say nothing of Azpilicueta offering width from RB.



Goals do not benefit a team?

The whole 'goalscorers don't benefit a team' idea is a myth. Goals are the single most important commodity for a team, and those who deal in them are valuable, whether they cause others to score them or get them themselves. Sure, Klaas-Jan Huntelaar doesn't offer too much apart from goals, but the fact that he does offer them gives him a measurable worth to his team.



I have no idea, but it's really sad. This is why I have the kind of feeling a move to Atletico would suit him: go back home, get back to his boyhood club, and see if he can score in a slightly less pressured situation and in a lower-paced league.



You're missing the point by several miles, I think. The author only mentions the WBA game twice, and both in relation to how Sturridge did better than Torres, even without those same playmakers on the pitch. The author was talking about Torres' poor form for a while now, and I think the WBA game was the straw that broke the camel's back rather than the one game that totally changed his view of Fernando.

But how could he return to Atletico with Falcao in his way, though I would love him to return and be happy, something with him is fundamentally broken, and its actually quite sad to watch.

 

[epic terrorist]

But how could he return to Atletico with Falcao in his way, though I would love him to return and be happy, something with him is fundamentally broken, and its actually quite sad to watch.

I can see some kind of swap deal in the offing IMO I know it don't happen to much but its a deal that would suit both clubs, also I agree with you in your earlier post about torres being depressed.

 

[GodCubed]

But how could he return to Atletico with Falcao in his way, though I would love him to return and be happy, something with him is fundamentally broken, and its actually quite sad to watch.

I meant in a swap deal.

Something with him is wrong, doesn't mean it's unfixable, and you'd assume back at Atletico would be the best place for him to try. I hope he gets better, either here or back in Spain.

 

[Nick Chelsea]

I do appreciate the time and effort.

So how come nobody's castigating Hazard for his selfishness? He's had 11 more starts than Sturridge, scored one more goal, and has taken 29 shots to Sturridge's 9 (all league stats). Yet I don't see anyone saying Hazard's unnecessarily selfish with his shooting, and his job isn't even to score goals.

But Hazard only shoots when he doesn't see more adequate way to end the attack. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Hazard, and all creative players look to assists first (or give the key pass) and then shoot when they don't see any other option. It's the opposite with Sturridge.


I can give you at least a dozen cases when Sturridge chose to shoot instead of passing to an unmarked Torres in the penalty area. That's what drives me crazy, and that's why I hate selfish players.

Still, even if we ignore the figures, what is terribly wrong with greediness in a striker? Some argue it's a good thing. Strikers like Owen, Fowler and even now Zlatan and Ronaldo were selfish players purely because they backed themselves to score.....

Well.. exactly.

Quite besides that, Sturridge is only 23. Players continue to change so drastically even at that age: I'll use the example of a player I watched in detail, Ashley Young. When he signed for Villa at the age of 22, he was raw, though effective. Over the next two years, he matured and became a far better player, even as teams realised his threat and attempted to double mark him out of games. My point is that with a run of Premiership-standard games at a club that realised his potential, Young progressed fantastically as a player.

Of course he can change. Thing is, he doesnt want to. I used to like him, but his decision making is beyond poor.

 

[GodCubed]

But Hazard only shoots when he doesn't see more adequate way to end the attack. That's the point I'm trying to make here. Hazard, and all creative players look to assists first (or give the key pass) and then shoot when they don't see any other option. It's the opposite with Sturridge.

Yes, because that's their job, to create. Creative players' job is to create for forwards. Sturridge's job is to score, and thus he shoots first and passes second, because he's meant to be the best goalscorer on his side. I don't see why this should be used against him.

I can give you at least a dozen cases when Sturridge chose to shoot instead of passing to an unmarked Torres in the penalty area. That's what drives me crazy, and that's why I hate selfish players.

I'd wager quite a few of those times he scored though. If he had passed, Torres would've muffed it completely, again. Quite besides that, you did notice my bit earlier about Sturridge's passing stats? He's nowhere near as selfish as everyone makes out.

Well.. exactly.

Right. They were selfish, backed themselves to score, and DID. Nobody accused them of being selfish because they did their job, and scored the goals.

Of course he can change. Thing is, he doesnt want to. I used to like him, but his decision making is beyond poor.

How do you know? He's young. Give him a chance, and he actually might change.

 

[Nick Chelsea]

Yes, because that's their job, to create. Creative players' job is to create for forwards. Sturridge's job is to score, and thus he shoots first and passes second, because he's meant to be the best goalscorer on his side. I don't see why this should be used against him.

That's not the point. No matter what your job is, when you see an unmarked team mate in the penalty area, the best thing you can do is pass the ball to him. Do you agree?

And to be fair, DS played most of his time (or all of it) out wide, so his main job wasn't shooting. Do you agree?

I'd wager quite a few of those times he scored though. If he had passed, Torres would've muffed it completely, again. Quite besides that, you did notice my bit earlier about Sturridge's passing stats? He's nowhere near as selfish as everyone makes out.

Well.. that is nonsense if you ask me. You don't know that. Maybe he would've scored 10 goals (if DS had decided to pass) and his confidence might have increased? We don't know what would have happened.


EDIT: anyway, I need to get out now, I'll be late for university. Will be happy to continue when I'm back.