Chelsea under Conte | Let's sign the next Hazard, literally.

Prometheus said:
We all can't talk about spending (United/City/Chelsea fans). First it was just us, but now we're all in the same boat. :devil:
Click to expand...

Nah, United used to spend shitloads before Roman came along. I remember transfers like Rio and Veron being 'OMG how much!' back then.
 
Kentonio said:
Nah, United used to spend shitloads before Roman came along. I remember transfers like Rio and Veron being 'OMG how much!' back then.
Click to expand...

I till think Roman's spending is more unique. The club was in a huge debt, but then almost the whole squad changed, most promising players purchased. Chelsea from 4th place to champions in 2 years. - YES, we had reached 4TH place to qualify Champions League football before Roman's arrival.

Of course people can talk sh!t about us but in modern world football seems to be such an attracting field to invest: City, Inter, PSG, Milan, Liverpool, United... - have all changed their ownership then. Among them, Roman has been one of the most (if not the most) successful owners.
 
Claude Makélélé said:
I till think Roman's spending is more unique. The club was in a huge debt, but then almost the whole squad changed, most promising players purchased. Chelsea from 4th place to champions in 2 years. - YES, we had reached 4TH place to qualify Champions League football before Roman's arrival.

Of course people can talk sh!t about us but in modern world football seems to be such an attracting field to invest: City, Inter, PSG, Milan, Liverpool, United... - have all changed their ownership then. Among them, Roman has been one of the most (if not the most) successful owners.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, we were the first of the big billionaire investor clubs of the modern era. I just like to remind people that we were far from being the first club to begin the big spending.
 
No one needs reminding United started the big spending. The club reinvested it's own profits and reaped the rewards of becoming the most successful English club in history and biggest brand in the world.

Not bad going really.
 
TheReligion said:
No one needs reminding United started the big spending. The club reinvested it's own profits and reaped the rewards of becoming the most successful English club in history and biggest brand in the world.

Not bad going really.
Click to expand...

I don't hold it against you. As long as I don't have to listen to people going on about Chelsea money. :)
 
roonster09 said:
There is lot of wrong. Putting Chelsea name next to Spurs or even Arsenal/Liverpool who didn't spend much. Chelsea are one of the biggest spenders in the league this season, so he is clearly wrong. Also Chelsea spent more than any club except Madrid in this decade, so taking shots at other clubs spending is not a wise thing to do, especially for a Chelsea manager.
Click to expand...
Arsenal spent a lot. It is Pool and Spurs who are in the sympathy box. All the others spent loads.
 
TheReligion said:
No one needs reminding United started the big spending. The club reinvested it's own profits and reaped the rewards of becoming the most successful English club in history and biggest brand in the world.

Not bad going really.
Click to expand...
Agree. I always respect Man United for that aspect.

The Roman way is not bad either: heavy investment in the first 10-15 years to boost the club to top level. And as a global brand is already established, Chelsea can step by step live with its own revenue then.
 
Ainu said:
If you're not leaving the decisions to him, that means working with a director of football. There's no middle ground here, non-football people should not be making any decisions in terms of which players to target. They can and should block transfers if it's not financially viable, but that's not an issue at Manchester United.



Chelsea's team does not have lots of holes in it, the notion itself is absurd. This is a team that will be champions for the second time in three years. Their first XI is very strong, just as it was 2 seasons back. As for your other points;

1) Absolutely ridiculous to state he is "by far the best manager" in a league that has, among others, a man who's won a Champions League with Porto, a treble with Inter and league titles everywhere he went. Let's see again in 10 years time. For now there's no point having this discussion. To be fair, the past record argument can be at times lazy. football moves quickly, typically in cycles of effectiveness. For example, Jose hasn't made a CL final in 7 years whilst his 1st 7 seasons, there were 2 CL victories. Capello has won more than anyone in this league but he isn't the best or even near it. He has a better record though. in Jose 1st 7 years he had won 6 league titles. in the last 7 years its 2. so from 2 CL victories and 6 league titles in the 1st half of your career to 0 CL and 2 league titles in the latter half. it is not unfeasible that Conte is currently, as in right now, the better coach tactically.
2) This is undoubtedly a massive factor.
3) Wasted money on average players? Such as Ibrahimovich who is among the top scorers in the league this season? Or Mkhitaryan who was a standout player in a strong Bundesliga team? Or Bailley who was relatively cheap and impressed early on before he started picking up some injuries? These transfers were absolutely necessary and have certainly made a difference, even if Mkhitaryan and to a certain extent Pogba have not really shown their true colours yet. Our squad was a mess, you can't solve that in a single transfer window. I'm more or less confident we're on the right track though.
Click to expand...
 
TheReligion said:
Providing you understand the difference between the two I don't think it's an issue.
Click to expand...

I don't think the difference actually makes any difference, its just bullshit we tell ourselves to feel better about having an unfair sporting advantage. At its heart, football is supposed to be about two fairly balanced teams playing each other over 90 minutes. Big money distorts and corrupts that, and realistically it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether its some Russian billionaire rocking up out of nowhere, or a club hiring a smart PR and branding team and making a fortune off merchandizing and sponsorships. Are Southampton supposed to feel better when the team that buys all their best players made their money from selling scarves and shirts in Asia instead of oil? Are the other fans when they watch the same small group of rich teams dominate year on year? That's why Leicester meant so much to people, because it wasn't just a small club winning, but a poor (relatively) team winning.

End of the day its a game and I follow my club because I enjoy football and Chelsea is a big part of my life. I sure as hell don't have any illusions about it though, and you shouldn't either.
 
Kentonio said:
I don't think the difference actually makes any difference, its just bullshit we tell ourselves to feel better about having an unfair sporting advantage. At its heart, football is supposed to be about two fairly balanced teams playing each other over 90 minutes. Big money distorts and corrupts that, and realistically it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether its some Russian billionaire rocking up out of nowhere, or a club hiring a smart PR and branding team and making a fortune off merchandizing and sponsorships. Are Southampton supposed to feel better when the team that buys all their best players made their money from selling scarves and shirts in Asia instead of oil? Are the other fans when they watch the same small group of rich teams dominate year on year? That's why Leicester meant so much to people, because it wasn't just a small club winning, but a poor (relatively) team winning.

End of the day its a game and I follow my club because I enjoy football and Chelsea is a big part of my life. I sure as hell don't have any illusions about it though, and you shouldn't either.
Click to expand...
Top post. What should be remembered also is this so called notion of "earning your money" needs some pretty strong mental gymnastics to pass as legitimate. One has to cherry pick the period in time and what passes as acceptable outside factors for it to ever to pass test. If you go far enough in the past of any club, there is some sort of help from an outside factor that launched them to success. Real had Franco who did as much for them as any Russia or Arab in modern times for any club and yet nobody seems to have a problem with considering them a historical club. The attitude that comes with what is essentially, deciding that after a specific period of time, outside factors helping a club are judged as unfair is at best naïve, and at worse, grossly snobbish.
 
Stacks said:
To be fair, the past record argument can be at times lazy. football moves quickly, typically in cycles of effectiveness. For example, Jose hasn't made a CL final in 7 years whilst his 1st 7 seasons, there were 2 CL victories. Capello has won more than anyone in this league but he isn't the best or even near it. He has a better record though. in Jose 1st 7 years he had won 6 league titles. in the last 7 years its 2. so from 2 CL victories and 6 league titles in the 1st half of your career to 0 CL and 2 league titles in the latter half. it is not unfeasible that Conte is currently, as in right now, the better coach tactically.
Click to expand...
How is it lazy? It's not as if Mourinho is some kind of past-it manager who hasn't won anything of note in years. He won the league with Chelsea just two years ago in just his second season at the club. Before that, he only had to contend with one of the greatest club sides in the history of football. He still won a title there despite that, claiming records for amount of points and goals in a season along the way. You have to take the context into account.

I guess if you really want, you could reject all of that and call Conte "by far the best manager" in this league simply because he's doing better this season. By that same logic though, you'd have to say that Mourinho was by far a better manager just less than a week ago, as he achieved a clear tactical victory at the weekend and after all, football moves quickly.
 
Ainu said:
How is it lazy? It's not as if Mourinho is some kind of past-it manager who hasn't won anything of note in years. He won the league with Chelsea just two years ago in just his second season at the club. Before that, he only had to contend with one of the greatest club sides in the history of football. He still won a title there despite that, claiming records for amount of points and goals in a season along the way. You have to take the context into account.

I guess if you really want, you could reject all of that and call Conte "by far the best manager" in this league simply because he's doing better this season. By that same logic though, you'd have to say that Mourinho was by far a better manager just less than a week ago, as he achieved a clear tactical victory at the weekend and after all, football moves quickly.
Click to expand...
Poor excuse. They were remembered as one of the greatest club sides because Real allowed them to be. Had Madrid pushed to some champions league finals (which strangely enough they did straight after he left) and managed to win more La Liga's, perhaps Madrid would've been remembered that way. from 2011 they were declining too so at the time he was there, they won ONE champions league title so all the talk of "greatest sides of all time" is a bit exagerrated. There was a period of dominance 2009-11, then they faded and teams like Chelsea and Bayern were winning CL. Fact is, Real, for whatever reason, were not as successful, under his reign, despite the massive amounts of money spent.

Nah, Conte is on a winning streak of, soon to be 4 league titles in 4 seasons. Before you say "but Italy is a 1 team league" notice that I haven't discreted any of Jose's title victories in Italy or Portugal, as far as I am concerned, it all counts to the managers talent. Also when Conte arrived at Serie A, Juve were off the back of a 7th place finish, and it were he that built the dynasty of dominance. He then went to National side and performed admirably with an average bunch of players. Has come to Chelsea and is on the verge of a season one double. I personally feel he should be a candidate for an OBE or next in the line of succession, if it were up to me.
 
Kentonio said:
I don't think the difference actually makes any difference, its just bullshit we tell ourselves to feel better about having an unfair sporting advantage. At its heart, football is supposed to be about two fairly balanced teams playing each other over 90 minutes. Big money distorts and corrupts that, and realistically it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether its some Russian billionaire rocking up out of nowhere, or a club hiring a smart PR and branding team and making a fortune off merchandizing and sponsorships. Are Southampton supposed to feel better when the team that buys all their best players made their money from selling scarves and shirts in Asia instead of oil? Are the other fans when they watch the same small group of rich teams dominate year on year? That's why Leicester meant so much to people, because it wasn't just a small club winning, but a poor (relatively) team winning.

End of the day its a game and I follow my club because I enjoy football and Chelsea is a big part of my life. I sure as hell don't have any illusions about it though, and you shouldn't either.
Click to expand...

I like this post too, I started supporting Chelsea in 88/89 the season they got relegated. Just loved the atmosphere.
I also recall Liverpool coming to the bridge and marvelling at their team and bench many of which were expensive purchases: John Barnes, Peter Beardsley, Mark Walters, Paul Stewart, Jamie Redknap
If we did not have money imbalances it is questionable whether we would see the top talent in the EPL. Is not also the imbalances that add to the thrill of the FA Cup?
Perhaps some financial restrictions could be imposed on the clubs winning the top honours that could thereby assist the nearly clubs or be reinvested to stop clubs going into administration.
 
Last edited:
Conte's performance doesn't make the like of Mourinho and Guardiola look all that great. He's improved the players who were already there and bought well (albeit I thought Luiz was a poor signing at the time). Good, imaginative coaching doesn't go out of fashion, regardless of system etc. He seems like a decent bloke too.
 
Being in the Europa league next season would represent a disastrous season. If it happens we have to give it a go. We should have the squad to deal with it.
 
Kentonio said:
You've got the manager for it now. I'm expecting you guys to be bloody dangerous next year.
Click to expand...
A Chelsea supporter in my office keeps saying this to me. I hope to God you're both right
 
Brophs said:
Conte's performance doesn't make the like of Mourinho and Guardiola look all that great. He's improved the players who were already there and bought well (albeit I thought Luiz was a poor signing at the time). Good, imaginative coaching doesn't go out of fashion, regardless of system etc. He seems like a decent bloke too.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can underestimate just how much easier it is not to have European football midweek. That said, he's hit the ground running brilliantly well.
 
Winning the Premier League in his first season is as impressive as his hair evolution.

composite-conte-v2.jpg
 
Brophs said:
Conte's performance doesn't make the like of Mourinho and Guardiola look all that great. He's improved the players who were already there and bought well (albeit I thought Luiz was a poor signing at the time). Good, imaginative coaching doesn't go out of fashion, regardless of system etc. He seems like a decent bloke too.
Click to expand...
Yeah this is right. I do like Conte as well. Yes he goes over the top with his celebrations, but his press conferences are usually quite low keyed and he doesn't trash talk.
And he's very clever. I have no doubt whatsoever that he'll take them over the line to win the PL.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't think you can underestimate just how much easier it is not to have European football midweek. That said, he's hit the ground running brilliantly well.
Click to expand...
Agree to an extent - and I'm not suggesting he won't have it tougher next season - but Liverpool don't have European football and they're up and down too in terms of form. Conte was still looking for players in the last few days of the window and has had to make and mend with players like Moses.

IMHO, this weird narrative that has developed around Mourinho, Guardiola and to a lesser extent, Klopp, about all of these things that they need to happen before they start performing, isn't necessarily reflective of the reality. The way the story is being told, you'd think their teams' struggles were something that was happening to them, rather than something they're directly responsible for. The three teams I mentioned all having glaring weaknesses in the squad, of managerial failings that are detracting at least as much as the lack of European football is contributing to Chelsea.
 
Brophs said:
Conte's performance doesn't make the like of Mourinho and Guardiola look all that great. He's improved the players who were already there and bought well (albeit I thought Luiz was a poor signing at the time). Good, imaginative coaching doesn't go out of fashion, regardless of system etc. He seems like a decent bloke too.
Click to expand...
Indeed

Remember how pleased some were that we dodged the Pedro bullet last season

Turns out he is a cracking little player after all, under Conte


I also thought the Luiz resigning was crazy. Thought Pep was doing the right thing signing stones.

What do I know.
 
Randall Flagg said:
Indeed

Remember how pleased some were that we dodged the Pedro bullet last season

Turns out he is a cracking little player after all, under Conte


I also thought the Luiz resigning was crazy. Thought Pep was doing the right thing signing stones.

What do I know.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Well, I was saying Conte would be sacked within the season in the first few weeks, I thought they looked such a rabble. Nailed it.
 
I really think football fans should be more fact-bound pragmatists than club-hype lovers, but football is entertainment at the end of the day, so opinions will change wildly depending on the latest results.
 
They are ruthless in front of goal. I swear they only had like 3 or 4 shots on target today. When they shoot on target, its normally a goal.
 
Bepi said:
I really think football fans should be more fact-bound pragmatists than club-hype lovers, but football is entertainment at the end of the day, so opinions will change wildly depending on the latest results.
Click to expand...
It's more likely that the Catholic church will bust celibacy than football fans busting bias, double-standards and hype. :wenger:
 
TheReligion said:
1) that's very knee jerk and will come back to haunt you. By far the best manager in the PL? He started poorly and doesn't seem to have a plan B. Too early to make such ridiculous comments given the level of coaching we have in England.
Click to expand...

well that is my opinion of course and I think you will see this next year better than this one, after he will have 1 year experience under his belt and a transfer window where he will have more influence and money to invest. I do not see any other coach that has the same impact on teams and ability to get the best out of his players raising the bar of their performances. Next year we will be able to talk about it here.

Time will tell, so far since he has started coaching he has won ALL the leagues he has competed in when he coached the team from the start of the season, with the only 3 exceptions being at the start of his career when he took over teams after the season had already started as a sub coach. That means 5 out of 5 leagues won dominating them, sometimes against richer/stronger teams (in the other 3 seasons he only took over after the start of the season and also in 2 out of those 3 he got good results ). On top of it he managed one of the worst Italy national teams in terms of talent of the last 60 years, to a an excellent Euro 2016. We only lost to penalties against the WC, after having lost the only 2 decent players in midfield (verratti and Marchisio), and after having outplayed both Spain and Belgium with a very mediocre team with the exception of Juve defence of course
 
Last edited:
Does anybody think this Diego Costa Tianjin pre contract thing is legit?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.