Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Chelsea' started by Brock Hannsen, Sep 19, 2019.
We're a month into the season. I really think we're over thinking this. It's worse on Twitter too.
good shout on Tomori, i think his performance isn't getting enough praise. his handling of salah at times was incredible.
it makes sense. it limits the field of view you have to deal with as youngsters are coming up to speed. it just also means that frank is putting mount's development ahead of having an actual positional priority at times.
Tomori did quite well against Salah.
Says it all that Pool's goals came against us on set pieces.
Nobody 'over here' is finding it 'questionable' though, it certainly shouldn't be 'troubling' either, if he sits on the bench for the whole season (which he won't) then you can all start panicking if you want to, but remember if he doesn't play it will have NOTHING to do with where he is from, there are FAR FAR more important things for a club to worry about than where it's players were born. By all accounts this boy is a good player and that is why he will NOT just sit on the bench all year. Ultimately the manager is going to pick what he thinks is his best team, Lampard won't care about anything but his players on field performances. Grimsby will be Pulisics next opponents and I expect he will run them ragged and therefore give Lampard the right kind of selection headache.
I don't know why the "American" thing is an issue. If Pulisic was German and we spent 72M on him, everybody would be pushing for him to play more
I don't know why people are surprised because this was always going to be the case as long as we have Willian, Pedro, CHO, Mount etc on the roster. I really wish we would have been able to move Willian or Pedro during the summer, but we couldn't because of the CHO injury so this is what it is
opinion is so fickle...what would the mood be if Pulisic's super cup goal wasn't offside and contributed to a win? Fine lines...
I think you've hit the nail on the head. I will add that my concern isn't him but rather all of the knee jerk shit people would come up at every instance we played. You do bring up a good point too about depth. Now. I think long term there isn't any reason to keep both Pedro and Willian. And ultimately it'll be their decision to stay or not. But this is still a position that has to be upgraded.
Isn't it the club's decision?
Willian's contract is up at the end of this season. He'll be 32 at the start of next season. As much as he's declined and not been convincing, he's still a Brazilian international and for any player to usurp him will be an uphill battle. I think we will re-sign him. It's down to the details in terms of players aged 30+. We broke our rule for Luiz and so I think it will be broken
Pedro's contract also runs out at the end of the season. He'll be 33. I don't think we'll re-sign him.
CHO: New five year deal
Pulisic: Contract until 2024.
i don't really think there is anyone here saying he should be playing because he's american. i'm not sure how that became part of it. the hot take is essentially he's a winger that has shown some really good flashes and should at least be considered for subbing on to that position because A)he hasn't looked out of place and B) we are playing Mount out of position there and also on a bum ankle and C)he gives us a more direct running threat when we are chasing a game or need to stretch it.
alternatively, i also don't think anyone is saying he should be first choice at this point either.
at the end of the day he'll get his chance, he should hopefully be picked or not picked on merit. by the end of the season i could see him essentially taking pedro's place in the squad if he does well.
Technically yes, but the players will absolutely have a say on whether or not they stay, similarly to Luiz. If Willian is offered a 1 year contract, or even a 2 year contract but he sees the writing on the wall, that say CHO, Pulisic, and let's say Havertz are ahead of him, he'll likely say ******** it, I'm out and go to Juve who sign everyone on a free.
We know this isn't the case already! Lampard's mission is not to maximize performances today, it's to maximize the roster going forward. In that context, playing Mason Mount on a bad ankle in an unfamiliar position when we have a forward for whom we paid 60mm on the bench is cause for concern.
Is there really any doubt that Lampard is playing Mount in part because Lampard is familiar with his skill set from their time at Derby? In which case, let's stop pretending Lampard has instituted some kind of pure meritocracy. If he had, Barkley wouldn't see the pitch.
We're all quick to believe that managers like Sarri or Conte have their "favorites" but with Lampard we're assuming he "won't care about anything but his players on field performances"? There is no manager like that!
mmmmmm sweet havertz.
isnt he more central tho?
You mean things like.......xG? Yeah, that suggests Mount is running hot.
But why put him in that position? Maybe if we had a fit player, that fit player might have been a lot more useful during the game! Mount did not have a good game. It's good that he got into position for a good scoring chance, but so did players like Dave (who scored the disallowed goal) and it was Mount's offside which ruled that goal out, in part because he's not used to playing in that position!
I think I need to make a longer post about how this is a criticism of Lampard's choices, not of Mount. Which I had thought was obvious.
But we were a lot more financially constrained in those days. Frank's not managing Mason Mount FC, he's managing Chelsea FC.
Maybe??? Not sure if we're 4231 or 433 in the future, but Havertz, from what I've watched (like 4 matches) was a wide mid on the right and I think that can translate to winger and even attacking mid on that side.
Basically, he was opposite Bailey with Brandt central and Aranguiz (spelling) that Chilean guy I think.
This has turned into a bit of a circular argument, so I'll finish my points with this:
1. I do not remotely care that Pulisic is American. Nor does any other Chelsea fan on this thread. If we bought an American player who was bad, I would suggest that's a bad idea and we shouldn't play him. The reason why I think Pulisic should be playing more has nothing to do with him being American.
2. The argument that "he'll get his shot at Grimsby" is terrible. That's when you play the kids if you have a settled side. We bought him for 60mm from a BuLi team for whom he was starting CL matches. But now we think he needs "seasoning" against Grimsby? Either he is vastly worse than our scouts and everyone else's scouts thought (which given Klopp's regard for him seems unlikely) or something else is going on. He did not look out of place when we played Liverpool the first time, so........what's the problem exactly? I'm not arguing he has set the world on fire, but how exactly will he get the chance to improve against similar opposition unless he plays? He wont improve unless he plays, and instead.........
3. We're running players into the ground, at times in the wrong positions. Mason Mount is a nice player, but he is not good enough that he is the default starter at every position despite his health. That's Messi level stuff! He's said he played through a swollen ankle joint against Liverpool, so why was that necessary?
4. This leads into the bigger question - what is the goal for the season? Is it to finish as high as we can? That seems doubtful - we're suffering from a transfer ban. Is it to develop the youth as much as we can while finishing 4th? That sure seems likely given that we sold Luiz, for instance. In that case, why aren't we playing all the youth more? Not just the academy youth. I've not seen anything from Pulisic's performances to suggest he's not good enough. Valencia was the perfect opportunity play him, given that it's the CL, a competition with which he's already familiar (unlike Mount).
5. Lampard is a club hero, and that's great. But he's also not a saint or a proven coaching commodity. The notion that he's going to put the best side on the pitch regardless of anything else is just weird - every manager has his favorites and his own opinions. I'm sure Frank does as well. Frank clearly, for instance, loves Mason Mount as a player. That almost certainly comes from Frank's time with him at Derby (and he may see himself in Mount to an extent). We're allowed to criticize that! Just because Lampard thinks Mount should play every minute at any position so long as he gets on the pitch, doesn't mean we have to agree. And the argument of "well, you don't see him at training" doesn't work - because then no managerial decision can ever be challenged. We had so many people here complain about Sarri and his tactics and style of play (which I understand), but we give Lampard every benefit of the doubt despite Lampard having all of one season of management. One! I have no doubt that he loves Chelsea. I have no idea if he's up to the job. So far.........eh? (Some have suggested that it could be much worse, like United. But United are level on points with us and beat us 4-0 because we played a crazy open system against them.)
I'm glad we're playing the youth, but I also don't know if that's a Lampard decision, especially since we purchased Pulisic (clearly with an eye toward youth) long before Frank arrived. Which reminds me - perhaps we should play Pulisic, who's part of that youth, instead of starting Willian 3 times in 8 days? Why else do we pay 60mm for players? It's certainly not to save them for Grimsby!
Lampard plays Mount because unlike Pulisic Mount has performed this season! I suggest YOU are the one who is biased and if you can't back pretty much the greatest Chelsea legend if all time then I suggest you p*ss off to the Madrid boards where you will fit in nicely.
so i guess we should all just shut up and never question anything this new chelsea manager does ever. welp, i guess we're done here.
the entirety of this discussion and why we are all here is because we all want chelsea to do well, having some questions around how we could do better isn't not backing the manager.
I support Chelsea FC not Frank Lampard FC.
No but the really annoying thing is that a 'certain' poster is stirring up **** that simply isn't there! Doesn't come across as an actual Chelsea supporter but rather a 'troll', the fact is everybody (that knows anything about football) can see what a fabulous job has been done (so far) and yet a certain poster has attacked Berkeley, Mount (who has been bloody superb) and even Lampard himself, but even worse than that (some) posters on here are even attacking the club itself with what are basically outrageous accusations on nepotism! We are supposed to be Chelsea supporters here!
Support? That's not what I am seeing.
I think he wants Chelsea to win and some of the things the manager is doing (legend or not) doesn't make sense from the point of view of someone trying to win or utilize his resources to the utmost. That's all.
I remember when I used to enjoy this place.
You weren't here for Teso.
OK, fair enough, I just don't like the way he's doing it, on a lighter note the Spurs result has just cheered me up!