Okay. I disagree with that, but okay. imho the Pulisic obsession is an American one, just re-read all that has been said about him on here. Speaking with Chelsea folks in the UK and elsewhere and the P word doesn't come up too much. He is considered to be very promising and the fans like him for sure. They know he will get his chance soon and they expect a lot from him. But he is in a new country and he just turned 21 last week so there isn't the same level of urgency and Pulisic fever to fast track him to the Legend status. The game against Liverpool from a Chelsea point of view was about 1. injuries, 2. the brilliance of Tomoki, 3. the annoyingness of VAR 4. the failure of our zonal marking system and 5. the overall sense that we are playing well BUT we're not getting the points.
Obviously I’d rather see Pulisic ahead of Barkley in an attacking role too. At least let Pulisic acclimate to the league and the country; we already know what we have in Barkley, and it’s not good enough. What’s the point of trying it again? The real frustration to me was the Valencia game - that’s a CL tie in which Pulisic already has plenty of experience. We can’t even argue he hasn’t adapted to the league because that’s not the league. Odd choice not to start him there.
Yeah, fair point. I think in some games the position can be that an individual might not get the start and then, if someone gets crocked it gets more complicated who we should use to replace him... should it be the older, more experienced player like Pedro or the younger guy. In all honesty I don't know what I'd have done in that situation because I can see the arguments both ways. As it turned out it looks like it was the wrong call but I'm not clear it was that obvious at the time. Willian's an interesting one as well because, tbh, his form hasn't been too bad IMO. Not as good s it should be or has been in the past but he usually retains the ball well and brings it forward into advanced positions. I think we'll know more as we go forward who Franks sees as his better players because, thus far, he's been slightly hemmed in trying to integrate several guys into the side he thinks will be important in the coming years, (Mount and Tammy being the obvious ones), whereas others he's obviously not sure about yet, including Puli I'm guessing. However, that vid I linked to said that Puli had started 4 games in a row after the opener so it's not like he hasn't played. I just think people have a tendency to notice what they want to notice about certain players so, for example, there's a guy on the England boards who seems to think James Maddison is the next Pele/Maradona combined. Well, he's a good player, obviously, but he also makes some wayward passes and poor decisions. The thing is, it's quite possible to simply NOT SEE them if you're determined enough which this guy clearly is. With other players they notice every little mistake they make and NONE of the good stuff. That tends to make discussions rather difficult because people are genuinely seeing two different things. It's like the old chestnut about Frank where, we were told, he 'only scored deflected goals' Yeah, two hundred and thirty one 'deflected goals' During the games Puli has played he's done OK I suppose but not enough to guarantee him a place when there's other players who also want to be assured of some playing time, including some other new guys that Frank knows and some guys who are established CFC players who also want to know they'll get a chance to show what they can do.
I think we are not adding anything new to the Pulisic debate at this point. Let's just wait and see him play for Chels and judge him by his performances. btw - I had placed a bet that he would score the first goal in the Liverpool game yesterday
I'm afraid like ANY other player he is going to have to prove his worth, if he thinks he is 'too special' to play against Grimsby then he won't get very far. Fortunately unlike (some) posters he seems to have the right attitude! John Terrys first start came against Oldham Athletic in a cup game!
Before Sunday's game the Chelsea fans unfurled an Eden Hazard banner because the club inadvertently gave supporters the wrong banner by mistake.
IDK. Convo around Pulisic has been a lot more subdued than the conversation around CHO last year, even as it may be more justified. Seems like there is just more sensitivity about it because he’s American.
NO you are 'missing the point', seriously those that think he is treated differently because he is American need to 'get over' themselves!! The point is LIKE EVERY OTHER player he does NOT get a 'free pass' into the team, I don't care if he cost two hundred million quid or two quid he either performs or he doesn't, like every other Chelsea fan (apart from some on here) I couldn't give a sh*t whether he is English, American or Outer Mongolian. The fact is he has hardly set the place alight yet so this constant moaning about the fact he hasn't played for a handful of games is ridiculous! However he has NOT been discarded or forgotten, he is going to get PLENTY of opportunities, he will I'm sure end up part of this exciting young team.
I don't think anyone is arguing the American angle. I think we're arguing that the decision to not include him is questionable and troubling on several levels. If he sat the bench the rest of the season and we won games, that's fine.
Right. Especially in the context of other decisions, like our clear imperative to play the youth and Mount playing on a swollen ankle.
I hadn't heard that, tbh. If that's the case it might have made more sense to have played someone else. Whether that would be Puli, however, is another matter. Whoever it was would need to have a goal threat. Does Puli score a lot of goals when played from a position where he's expected to? I don't know. That makes a difference, of course, because otherwise it's similar to people's criticism of Heskey for England where it was said he didn't score enough goals... rather forgetting about the fact that he played almost ALL his games on the wing and was just 'doing a job', as the phrase has it.
Well, except he was younger and hadn't had the history of play at a high level that Puli has. I mean, I take your point but that example isn't relevant in this case, is it.
Who else would you have played? The “but does he score goals” argument is starting to get went frustrating - Mount is not historically a particularly prolific goal scorer!
Two points, none of which have been discussed to my knowledge, however, apologies if they have. Frank is playing the style of football the academy has played for quite a few years. Mount playing is likely because of that. Caveat here is I agree that Mount should not have been risked because he is a good presser and he was on a bum ankle. However, if we're trying to implement a certain style that the academy plays, and that he played with him last season there is an over reliance on him. I think that's also why you're seeing so many youth play (from the academy play.)
there is certainly a point to be made that even though both Mount and Tomori are unproven at this level, they are certainly more of a known quantity to Frank himself than basically any other player since he managed both of them for the entirety of his managing career before this. (personally i think that argument only goes so far).
Well, tbf, that's largely because he hasn't that long a history, obviously but I'm guessing that frank's been watching the guy a lot more closely than you or I , obviously, and maybe he thinks the kid gets into good positions to score which others don't? IOW whether he does score is another matter but that he thinks he's more likely to. I'll be honest I haven't watched these young fellas enough to comment and these 'highlight reel' things don't give an accurate representation because it's about what they don't show as much as what they do. But, standing back from the decision a bit, if we're in a situation where people are complaining about their chance to play, (and I'm thinking that's always the case at a bigger club), if Puli started 4 games and then didn't start the next three it's because the manager wants to see more from him in some way, either in training or when he's played. If, as you say, Mount was playing on a swollen ankle, had struggled a bit all game and yet STILL managed to make the run and get a shot away in the dying minutes, that shows he was still trying to have an influence on the game, albeit failing on the occasion. That's going to impress most managers I'd think.
It seems pretty obvious to me that the fact he has a reasonable idea what he's going to get IS a substantial factor in the decision as to who plays. But I also agree, that can only take you so far.
i think one of the unknowns for me, specifically regarding how we are utilizing Mount is his favored and expected future position. i know that at vitesse, mount was used as an attacker pretty heavily and at derby he played more of an attacking 8 midfield more (though still played wide attacker at times as well). i think we need to know where his future is. there is certainly the case that you push younger players up because their mistakes are less costly happening in the opponents final third instead of closer to your own goal. but he does strike me as someone that can do a job, and fill in on the wing, but that's not his long term desired position. so it makes sense to put him out there to get experience, or play him as a central attacker in midfield (4-2-3-1), and the decision to put him there when pedro had a sudden injury in warm-ups and slide Barkley in to midfield all made sense. but sticking with him as a 3 man front line attacker when you have pedro and pulisic does seem odd, especially with CHO coming back. at some point, we'll have to see him in the midfield 3 to really know what we may have there, unless frank actually does seem him as a more industrious wing player. not to mention that RLC will have a say on all this when he's healthy. Franks desired roles seems to be putting quite a bit of depth a certain positions and threadbare at others.
The atmosphere at the Bridge on Sunday was really good, especially since we were loosing, the best since before Sarri I thought that Tomori was our best player he had Salah in his pocket for most of the game. I was expecting Pul to start given the high line that the dippers play and how he exploited that in the cup game. Last season I was contemplating giving up my season ticket but I now look forward to every game. I agree that we seem to be trying to play like the youngsters, maybe that is the influence of Jodie.
To your last point, yes, I imagine both Jody and Joe have a lot of say here. It's also not inconceivable that the club want this direction. It makes promotion easier. Also, it's what a handful of clubs do, Ajax and Barca to name a couple.
If you recall, Frank started on the wing's when he first arrived. Maybe that's colouring his thinking?