Match Day Thread Everton at the Bridge

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

Classic Stan! Keep the reverse jinx going lad.

How will we ever get 3 points with 'cescy' starting.......Oh we just did and he scored the winner.

 

[Bodinki]

He is not good enough to play all games all 90 mins. No debate about that

Who has said they want Fabregas playing ALL games, ALL season for 90 minutes?
No one has said that.
He has an important role in our squad.
In certain situations he is the perfect tonic, he can make goals, he is a great passer of the ball.
He isn't a great mover, and doesnt have a lot of legs, but he never has been that sort of player, he isn't a runner. We knew that when we signed him.
Thats why Lampard was the perfect AM, because he had the vision and passing ability of Fabregas, and the legs and engine of Kante (not quite, but you know what I mean). But those sorts of players are rare as rocking horse ****.

Stop vilifying the man FFS, he is far from the worst player in our squad, in fact we just signed someone who is far worse, for more money than we paid for Fabregas.

 

[StanDMan]

Ffs I never called Cescy worst player. All I said was no point in pairing Kante with him given our suspect Defense.


I am good if Cescy plays up the pitch and has free role. I hate when he is chasing shadows along side Kante.


I never get the BS that he is efficient for deep balls. Against Toffees he played lot further up and was effective. 2nd half late on Baka paired with Kante. I like that. Never stick Cescy in front of our D against better opp.

That is all I have said FFS

 

[Bodinki]

Ffs I never called Cescy worst player. All I said was no point in pairing Kante with him given our suspect Defense.

No, what you said was and have said many times, is if Conte plays "Cescy" then we have no chance of getting 3 points.

Which is ridiculous and , as was proven, totally incorrect.

 

[StanDMan]

No, what you said was and have said many times, is if Conte plays "Cescy" then we have no chance of getting 3 points.

Which is ridiculous and , as was proven, totally incorrect.

When Tony picks him he pairs with Kante and in deeper role. We were always in trouble. Fact. Go check the stats.

For the record I would rather play Cahill as a striker week in week out than as a Defender. He might be better than LLorente if given opportunity.

 

[Bodinki]

For the record I would rather play Cahill as a striker week in week out than as a Defender. He might be better than LLorente if given opportunity.

Where do you get this ****?
Do you make it up on the spot or do you write it as material for some stand up routine?

I agree a midfield of Kante and Fabregas is not balanced, and it means Kante has to do too much of the running, and we needed someone in there with some legs (which hopefully is the role Bakayoko will fill), I just take exception to bat **** comments like "if [insert your hated player of the month here] plays then we have no chance, we may as well throw the title away now," etc etc.
Again, I am not a big Cahill fan, I think he can be inconsistent and unfocused, and there are better defenders out there, but remember we have won 2 league titles, a Champions League and a Europa League with him in the centre of our defence? He isn't what I would call "****" by any means.

 

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

When Tony picks him he pairs with Kante and in deeper role. We were always in trouble. Fact. Go check the stats.

For the record I would rather play Cahill as a striker week in week out than as a Defender. He might be better than LLorente if given opportunity.

No that's utter bollox. There were plenty of games last year when Cesc played and was effective. For instance he was great in that last home game v Sunderland in a deeper role putting so many good balls onto the back post. Yes it was only sunderland but the point being that it's horses for courses.

One game Cesc will be a good choice in that role, the next he might not be. It's a squad game and you pick the players to try and get 3 points against the given opposition. Sometimes he's more effective further up the pitch, sometimes further back. He's nowhere near as bad as you make out in the deeper role. Yes it puts more strain on us defensively but gives us a lot more going forward. Until they can make hybrid footballers, 99% of players will have weaknesses.

And Cahill as a striker? What the hell are you smoking? He's good from set plays, that's it.

 

[StanDMan]

Cahill's back to the goal and finishing in the box is better than his back to the goal defending.

Cescy against Sunderland isn't issue. But it was a dead rubber. That is.

 

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

Cahill's back to the goal and finishing in the box is better than his back to the goal defending.

Cescy against Sunderland isn't issue. But it was a dead rubber. That is.

So you expect Cahill to run the channels, link up with wingers, take balls on his chest out the sky with defenders up his backside and hold the ball up to bring the midfield into play, chase through balls and finish 50/50 chances?. Just because he banged a few in from set plays he's now capable of being a striker?! Should have put Terry up front years ago and benched Drogba....

 

[StanDMan]

So you expect Cahill to run the channels, link up with wingers, take balls on his chest out the sky with defenders up his backside and hold the ball up to bring the midfield into play, chase through balls and finish 50/50 chances?. Just because he banged a few in from set plays he's now capable of being a striker?! Should have put Terry up front years ago and benched Drogba....

And for all you guys who bleat about CL win, Drog played good chunk of time as false CB behind Mikel. Lets not forget that.

 

[chelsea - over 100 years of history]

And for all you guys who bleat about CL win, Drog played good chunk of time as false CB behind Mikel. Lets not forget that.

What exactly is your point? I'm sure it's nonsense but I have no idea.