Punk77

Of course I rate Torres. Has been out of focus lately, but if he revives the form he had in Lpool, he's the best striker in the world. I think you're missing the picture..All I'm saying is that Chelsea didn't need Torres, they have good enough attackers. But their midfield is unbalanced. Essien, Malouda, Mikel, Ramires, Lampard are all good players. But they don't FIT TOGETHER. Except Lampard, where's the speed, movement (without ball) and creativity? And Lampard has not been himself this season. As a result Torres is not getting the through balls he likes. Instead of widening the play (again as Man U) Chelsea plays to narrow and more difficult. It's the same predicament England have with Gerrad and Lampard.. Isolated they're world class, but on the same team, they're too identical in their style of play.

Hence, he's not what he used to be..He has even said that his injury never will heal properly. As a result, he will not be as good as he was before..

I was in the process of disecting every little bit and responding in an intelligent manner like he requested, instead though, I just sighed and decided it wasn't worth the effort. He's right, though. His posts do hurt my brain. Your football intelligence is non-existing, that's for sure..

Yeah, but Lampard is not what he used to be, and that's one of the main reasons why Chelsea is struggling. Sewelly: Chelsea's movement without ball is not good enough. That's my main point. And they do not have a speedy player in the midfield that is able to run with the ball, putting the defenders under pressure, distributing the ball to the sides when the opponent have to push, ref Fabregas. They should have bought him instead of Torres.

It's probably hard for him to adjust. From brutes incapable of hitting a proper through ball to Xavi, Alonso and Iniesta. That transition got to hurt You talk some s**** sometimes, like. Yeah, that's real intelligent. Instead of labeling other views as s***, you could try to argument why you disagree. But I guess that hurts your brain too much. I know I'm right and this particular chelsea problem has also been mentioned by pundits. Why do you think Chelsea - with the best players on paper - have no chances on the title this year? They have too little mobility, the players want the ball in their feet, not in space. This stands in contrast to Man U where there's constant mobility and passing. That's why Man U performs better, with a weaker team. They play more effective football, while Chelsea run into problems when they meet teams that matches their physicality and defensive skills.

= http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2011/03/26/gervinho-indicates-interest-in-newcastle-move-61634-28405990/

That makes sense . Colo is not tough enough to play as a DM. Colo has two weaknesses: He sometimes forgets to mark his man, and he rarely tackles. He tries to win or protect the ball in the most righteous way: by standing on his feet. But that has periodically resulted in him being outmuscled leading us vulnerable for counterattacks. Sometimes you have to get dirty and tackle the ball in order to avoid such situations. And as a DM you're often attacked from both sides, while one as a defender more often than not have your back clear. Consequently, DM is probably the most physically demanding position on the pitch. That doesn't not suit Colo.

It's probably hard for him to adjust. From brutes incapable of hitting a proper through ball to Xavi, Alonso and Iniesta. That transition got to hurt

Chelsea's midfield is not giving him much help though. Their midfield has almost no creativity, speed or movement with the ball, just lot of muscles and box to box players.

At his best in Inter, Adriano was f***ing unbelievable though . The defenders that were up against him probably had 90 min of hell. He was big, strong and fast. But still the defenders had to mark him, regardless of the beating that led to, because they knew that if he was given enough space to release a shot in the vicinity of the box, it was almost like giving away a penalty.

He also was a master of ridiculing opponents. Standing still, just waiting for the opponent's move before making a fantastic dribble.

He was a fantastic player. Imo he's better then Messi. Best player of my lifetime. His touch and awareness was superhuman, even now I watch footage and I can't believe what I'm seeing. I don't think I ever saw him give the ball away. Agreed! Messi is all about speed and movement to the left and right. Thanks to his brilliant touch and low centre of gravity he's then impossible to stop. But Zidane on the other hand could pull of tricks that were astounding. He was more complete as a player imo.

yes..

I have my moments, but they're rare Dresden should specify what he's after. When I read the topic I immediately thought of the overall worst player. But if he's thinking of the least talented only, he should change his topic to exactly that: "The least talented player in recent club history. " That will leave little room for interpretation..

No way! Worst player is least talented - if you factor in fees or wages or reputation then you're not talking about worst player but worst signing... Wrong! You can pay top money but still the player could still be rubbish with little talent at all. But generally there's a connection between talent/skills on the pitch and money paid. But Boumsong, Luque, Xisco, and Owen are prime examples of the opposite. Those kind of players are the worst, because not only are they shit on the pitch, they also tie up enormous amount of capital which results in a club that cannot afford recruiting replacements. In other words there are two subjects that could be discussed. One: Who was the LEAST TALENTED player. Focus is on football SKILLS only. Two: Who was the worst player OVERALL. Focus will then be on salary, transfer sum, talent, performance on the pitch and behavior. A simple question that could be used as a primer is: Which player has hurt the club the most? Unless the nominator specify which one of these categories he has in mind, people will never agree. Anyways, I don't give a shit about players like Loven. yes he's inferior. But he's not the main causes of all our recent problems. He was free and is not paid much. In other words, I have category two in mind when I state that Owen is the biggest cunt ever to be associated with this club in modern times

I'm more annoyed at De Jong..CUNT!!!!!

His talent is unique, and I sometimes feel that some fans are not aware of his potential. Everton and Moeyes are masters when it comes to applying precise pressure and taking out specific opponents, but they had no chances on HBA. He eased past two players within seconds. It was when he went for the third and fourth he ran into trouble. If he learns when to pass/dribble, he'll go down as one of the greatest players in nufc's history.

Why complicate things.. Imo this set up will give us instant success: Forster

Barton has neither the presence nor close control to play CM. He's ten times the player in RM. Hilarious! On the on hand you say that Barton has not good enough control or presence to handle the CM--position. But on the other hand, you manage to defend Nolan, the incarnation of non-movement, who got no close control what so ever or a general presence in CM.

That could be a good lineup Skirge. But I'm uncertain about Sow. This is his first season he's scoring on a regular basis. He may be a one hit wonder.

He was a fantastic player. Imo he's better then Messi.

In fairness, wages and fee are irrelevant. Truth be told, i've seldom seen an NUFC striker be as ineffective on a consistent basis as Lovenkrands this season. Nicky Butt is a far, far more preposterous suggestion. In fairness, wages and fee are relevant: Normally, there's a correlation between money paid and quality received. One has higher expectations of a player that nets a coll £60 000 a week and that was bought for £10 mill than a Loven who was free and earns next to nothing compared to many others..

They won't drop Nolan. Rubbish

Sure he'll play. Have faith you pessimistic bastards!

Fletcher? The man is rubbish. His success can mainly be attributed to SAF's unique ability to put together a team that fits. Man U's play can be summed up in three words: pass and move. That suits a fairly limited player like Fletcher perfectly. On the other hand we have Chelsea who play the opposite kind of football. No coordination, no movement, and too much dribbling. If you put Fletcher on a team that doesn't have the exact movements of Man U, where it's expected that you create more on your own, his true shit nature is revealed..Although he's the star of Scotland, have you ever seen him play well for the national team?