Runner-up

Johnny G are you worried about Chelseas apparent lack of dpeth at the moment ?

as you say only 20 outfield players with potetntially 2 leaving and one in ?


no doubt most of those players are top class but still seems a thin squad having looked into it a bit ?

Even Man Utd have a bigger squad (although less talented) a few injuries could really hamper yer season.

Man Utd
Van Der War
Neville - Vidic - Rio - Heinze
Ronaldo - Carrick - Scholes - giggs
Rooney
Saha

Foster
Bardsley - Brown - Silvestre - Evra
Park - O'shea - Fletcher - Richardson
Rossi
Smith

and sill a few promising youth players and the likes of Miller and Solskjaer who can do a job.

sure neither of those two teams looks as formidable as either chelsea team I put out earlieer but still shows a lot of depth to the squad with possibly one other player to come in ?

Chelsea last season had depth beyond depth, this season I'm starting to think they may be a little short. What do you think ?
 
memphisto said:
Johnny G are you worried about Chelseas apparent lack of dpeth at the moment ?
as you say only 20 outfield players with potetntially 2 leaving and one in ?
no doubt most of those players are top class but still seems a thin squad having looked into it a bit ?
sure neither of those two teams looks as formidable as either chelsea team I put out earlieer but still shows a lot of depth to the squad with possibly one other player to come in ?
Chelsea last season had depth beyond depth, this season I'm starting to think they may be a little short. What do you think ?
Click to expand...
A little worried, a few key injuries would mean people playing out of position & no-one can say for sure how the new signings will contribute.
Yep, so maybe an outfield squad of 19, that's small and Man.U. do seem to have depth & genuine cover. At least you've looked in to it;)
The loss of Eidur & Duff (can't blame either of them) has really changed the look of our squad if you ask me. Both could be relied on to do a great job (especially Eidur), whether it was up front, in the middle or out wide, there's little cover that you know can be relied on now:)
 
I don't think that Arsenal will even get close to 2nd next season. We struggled this season with what was a "young" side and now we have less experience then ever. Campbell Berkamp and Pires have all gone...boo.....
 
What's Chelsea's youth system like?

I think one of the reasons ManU (and Arsenal) get away with having larger squads than the likes of Chelsea is because they have a good youth setup, and a lot of the backup players for those teams are young players getting their chance to break through with the squad. Looking at memph's teams for instance, has Foster, Bardsley, Fletcher, Richardson and Rossi, players that are basically young enough not to mind not playing several first-team games at any one time. Same way Arsenal could fall back on the likes of Gilbert last season, then simply drop him without fuss when the better players recovered.

Chelsea, to me, don't seem to have many of those kinds of player, except for perhaps Huth. I guess it's not something you put in over night though, so I'd assume with all of Roman's money they must be looking in to really pushing a good system through in the near future?
 
Do you expect Chelsea to go into the season without adding to the squad, whether they get Cole or not?
 
Weebull said:
What's Chelsea's youth system like?
Click to expand...
Not that bad, we've just got a couple of promising lads from Leeds for nowt;)
It's never been that good to be honest but that's one of the things we're trying to change as it can save £££s long term. Frank Arnesen was stolen from Spurs to sort it out & Gwynn Williams has been replaced (he was there for at least 25yrs) & we've even done that Football Idol thing to find more talent, last years winner is doing ok by all accounts too.
There's a lot of Portugese lads at the moment, rather like Arsenal with their Frenchies but it's definitely something that has had more focus in the last 18 months or so:)
 
I didnt, now I cant see them not adding to the squad.

I think as it stands if they kepp the 20 and get cole I can still see them adding at least 2 players.

maybe on loan or somehting much like maniche etc, but I would say they are almost suicidally short at the back(in case of an injury or two), especially if Huth goes.

it would leave assuming they get cole

ferreira
gallas
terry
carvalho
Bridge
Cole

with geremi able to fill in as and when, I would think another Centre back who can play right back might well be in order.

In the middle of the park and upfront they arent too bad as they have a number of players ala Cole / Kalou who should be able to do a job in multiple postions, and again upfront with Sheva / Drogba / Crespo and again Kalou who suppsoedly can play winger or front man.

Upfront though if Crespo was to go then maybe they would need an out and out thrid striker ?


so to me that means a centreback who can play right back and a forward.

(given that huth and crespo leave)

however I could and probaly am wrong
 
Gilly said:
Do you expect Chelsea to go into the season without adding to the squad, whether they get Cole or not?
Click to expand...
I'll give my opinion on that question if it's ok.
The squad we have now will have no more additions other than Cole this season unless we get a few injuries then we'll get cover in the Winter window.
I think it's a bit of a gamble as it looks raw but I guess it had to be done as we were guilty of throwing money at sub standard players just because we needed someone in that position (Maniche, Smertin, Tiago, Jarosik, Kezman etc.) & that had to stop:)
 
JohnnyG said:
I'll give my opinion on that question if it's ok.
Click to expand...
It was actually aimed at you, Weebull snuck in.

It is a bit of a gamble, but with the cash you have nothing like the gamble it would be going into the season light, no?
 
Gilly said:
It was actually aimed at you, Weebull snuck in.
Click to expand...
In 7 minutes?! Your powers are weakening young Skywalker;)

Edit:
Gilly said:
It is a bit of a gamble, but with the cash you have nothing like the gamble it would be going into the season light, no?
Click to expand...
If you mean we are able to just buy enough players to cover all eventualities & not worry about the financial implications then I think those days are gone.
Chelsea's aim is still to become a profit making organisation in 3 years time so frugality & good marketing coupled with onfield success are the order of the day now:)
 
Last edited:
memphisto said:
sure neither of those two teams looks as formidable as either chelsea team I put out earlieer
Click to expand...

I think that's the real issue here, having a 'big squad' isn't everything, I mean Man City had something like 55 players on pro contracts a few years back, yet were plying their trade outside of the flight. Chelsea have genuine quality in reserve rather than dodgy players like Fletcher and Silvestre. So if a couple of players get injured/suspended, it doesn't really affect them that much, they simply slot in another class act.

Sure, if Chelsea had a pandemic and like 7 or 8 players were out, then they might be in a spot of bother. But even then, they've probably got a few good youth players they can stick on the bench if required, we simply haven't heard of them yet because they haven't been given a chance yet.
 
thats not the full issue though hangtime.

I'd take the man utd squad over the chelsea squad when it came to a game betwen the two.

reasoning and what some people seem to forget is passion and the will to win.

when Leeds won the premiership on paper they were probably no better than a top 10 team, but the players all played for each other, ran there hearts out and were the team to beat, not through skill or technique but through will to win and sheer attitude.

nobody and I mean nobidy in the world is going to beat chelsea based on technique / skill and on paper teams.

I think man utd will beat chelsea but I dont think we will win the league.

theres more to a team than big names and skillful players.

and if anyone wants to beat chelsea they got to get back the will toi win and passion for the club.
 
JohnnyG said:
If you mean we are able to just buy enough players to cover all eventualities & not worry about the financial implications then I think those days are gone.
Chelsea's aim is still to become a profit making organisation in 3 years time so frugality & good marketing coupled with onfield success are the order of the day now:)
Click to expand...
Not convinced about that myself. If that were the case then they would have accepted bids of £6.5m and £7m from Liverpool and Spurs for Duff, rather than sell him to Newcastle for £5m
 
BaZ87 said:
Not convinced about that myself. If that were the case then they would have accepted bids of £6.5m and £7m from Liverpool and Spurs for Duff, rather than sell him to Newcastle for £5m
Click to expand...
A one-off payment for a player isn't what sets a club up for future operating profits. Its wages and the amount of players on the books that would affect that.
 
Gilly said:
A one-off payment for a player isn't what sets a club up for future operating profits. Its wages and the amount of players on the books that would affect that.
Click to expand...
True, but why would they pay 5+ players £100k+ then?
As for the size of the squad, Liverpool, Man Utd and Spurs have shown that a club can afford to have squads of 22+ players with out causing financial problems, so Chelsea shouldn't have too much of a problem.
The Duff example was just one of many examples of Chelsea not taking care with finances.
 
You just answered your first question with your second point. Chelsea can afford pay their bigger players more because they have a smaller squad now.

And the key difference between Chelsea and the clubs you mentioned, as I mentioned above, is that those three teams are all 'global brands', in that people from foreign countries recognise them, like them, and often buy merchandise. Overseas merchandise is a massive source of profit for the big club, and it's something that Chelsea haven't really cracked yet, as it takes several years of being at the top to manage.
 
Weebull said:
You just answered your first question with your second point. Chelsea can afford pay their bigger players more because they have a smaller squad now.
Click to expand...
You can argue that, but a club that is supposidly taking care of its finances would not pay £100k+ on a player that is 30 and definantly wouldn't give them 4 year deals.

Weebull said:
And the key difference between Chelsea and the clubs you mentioned, as I mentioned above, is that those three teams are all 'global brands', in that people from foreign countries recognise them, like them, and often buy merchandise. Overseas merchandise is a massive source of profit for the big club, and it's something that Chelsea haven't really cracked yet, as it takes several years of being at the top to manage.
Click to expand...
Spurs are not any bigger than Chelsea as a brand and iirc Chelsea had a bigger turn over than both Liverpool and Spurs last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom