NSG Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Whether he's being brought in as a right-back or not, it doesn't matter, it'd be an excellent signing for a nominal fee. Right-back, right-wing, defensive-mid; all positions which we need another body for, and Geremi offers that. Plus, he's dead silky and a good, skilful player in general. Would be chuffed if we could bring him in. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. He was saying you said 30 games a season when really he's played 24 games just this season but not in previous ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. No hold on, 30 odd means 30+. And you said "30 odd games a season" - which implies more than one season, otherwise you'd have said "30 odd games last season" wouldn't you? He's been there four years and started 48 league games, 25 of them under Claudio on the right wing. He is nothing more than cover and Mourinho knows it. That's why he's letting him leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. He was saying you said 30 games a season when really he's played 24 games just this season but not in previous ones. Ok. He still plays a hell of a lot for a so called "back up". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. See what you're getting at but he was never bought to play RB. It just so happened they needed someone to play RB and Mourinho thought he was the best option when he looked at his squad to fill in 'til Ferreira was back. Had Ferreira not have gotten injured, Geremi would barely have played last season. He was very much a 'squad player' who filled in when asked. Hardly a cornerstone of their Title-winning teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. He was saying you said 30 games a season when really he's played 24 games just this season but not in previous ones. Ok. He still plays a hell of a lot for a so called "back up". If he played that much he'd fit into your criteria of playing in the double championship team wouldn't he. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario played a few games for them in his career whereas Geremi played 30 odd games a season. f****** hell Geremi has never ever played thirty games a season under Mourinho. 24 last season. No need to be petty over a few games, the point still stands. You just said he played 30 odd games a season! Last season, he started 15 league games - and that's the most he's ever played since Ranieiri was there. Your point doesn't stand. He was there to fill in because of a defensive crisis, same reason Michael Essien played at centre back. 30 odd, 24. A few games difference. considering Chelsea play roughly 60 a season I wasn't that far out. Chelsea play in more than the premiership as well. So I think my point is valid. Disagree if you like, it doesn't really bother me. No hold on, 30 odd means 30+. And you said "30 odd games a season" - which implies more than one season, otherwise you'd have said "30 odd games last season" wouldn't you? He's been there four years and started 48 league games, 25 of them under Claudio on the right wing. He is nothing more than cover and Mourinho knows it. That's why he's letting him leave. Wullie's got a bit of the PMT Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NSG Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Bloody hell it's like pick on NSG day in here. I made a point and I stand by it. If you disagree, fair enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Hilario's a good comparison because it shows shite can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alan Shearer 9 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Bloody hell it's like pick on NSG day in here. I made a point and I stand by it. If you disagree, fair enough. Silence! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Geremi Taylor Rozenhal New LB wouldn't be dissapointed if we lined up like that in August Still quite weak imo. Geremi isn't really in position, Rozy is an unknown quantity and it depends on who the LB is. Isnt Geremi naturally a right back? Certainly remember him playing there for Real Madrid on a regular basis when he did break into the Madrid side. What ahead of Salgado? I think you are mistaken. He played mainly in the centre for Madrid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? No but you said when Ferreira and Boularouz were fit, Cudicini and Cech weren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? No but you said when Ferreira and Boularouz were fit, Cudicini and Cech weren't. right, which is why Hilario is a bad comparison, are we going round in circles for the hell of it or what? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? No but you said when Ferreira and Boularouz were fit, Cudicini and Cech weren't. right, which is why Hilario is a bad comparison, are we going round in circles for the hell of it or what? So if Hilario is a bad comparison why did you use him as one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? No but you said when Ferreira and Boularouz were fit, Cudicini and Cech weren't. right, which is why Hilario is a bad comparison, are we going round in circles for the hell of it or what? So if Hilario is a bad comparison why did you use him as one? Wullie did, I think you need to read the thread, my point was he was a 'bad' comparison Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberto2005 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Hilario is a bad comparison considering he was third choice Geremi was considered good enough to start when Boularouz and ferreira were fit Contradicts your point then doesn't it. Hilario's a good comparison because it shows s**** can start for Chelsea if they have enough men out. Mourinho said at one point that we were well off with Edgar and Huntington, which tells you the extent of their defensive crisis. If Geremi was considered good enough to start ahead of those two, how come he only started 15 league games? because for the other 23 league games he was considered not good enough to start ahead of those two? Contradicts your point then doesn't it. not really, Hilario was never considered good enough to be first choice was he? No but you said when Ferreira and Boularouz were fit, Cudicini and Cech weren't. right, which is why Hilario is a bad comparison, are we going round in circles for the hell of it or what? So if Hilario is a bad comparison why did you use him as one? Wullie did, I think you need to read the thread, my point was he was a 'bad' comparison Yes i know, that's what baffles me as you used him as one shortly after unless it was undetected sarcasm? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Are people actually turning their noses up at Geremi or not, then? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 getting warmer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I mentioned Hilario because NSG seemed to think that someone playing for Chelsea meant they were good enough for the 'double champions', when that is not true, it meant they had a goalkeeping crisis in the same way they had a defensive one that meant Geremi had to play. Boularouz spent most of the season out injured, he's a centre back first and foremost and Mourinho clearly doesn't fancy him anyway, so you can pretty much discount him - and with that taken into account, Geremi STILL only managed 15 league starts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Are people actually turning their noses up at Geremi or not, then? it would appear so Huntington, Taylor, Solano, CARR, Ramage have played there for us in recent times, says it all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now