I just hope that if we do go for Ballack (and a lot of "inside" sources seem to think we will), it doesn't turn out to be another Veron situation of a player not being able to adjust. I know there are a lot of differences between the two, but there are plenty of similarities too.
But how much time before Chelsea is a "big club?" They weren't exactly small before Abramovitch came. I'm one of those that maintains that, barring unforeseen circumstances, they'll crash as soon as Abramovitch leaves. And he won't stay forever. You can't keep depend on your international following forever - and I don't think they'll ever replace Liverpool, Man Utd, and Arsenal in England. But until Abramovitch leaves - they're a huge club. Maybe the biggest. Perhaps not the most storied, best, or significant - but definitely big.
There are numerous definitions of what is a truly big club: - Success in Europe - Worldwide knowledge of a club's history and past players - Gate attendances - The attraction players have to the club on name alone. - The legendary players who have passed through your doors. etc You don't just have prestige fall in your lap accompanied by a billionaire owner. As much as we may not like to admit it, the prestige heirachy has us in 3rd place at best. Players wet themselves and take pay cuts to run off and join Madrid and the same goes for Milan based on their legacies alone. We realistically expect to lose out to them in most head to heads in the transfer market no matter how much more we put down than them unless the player is young and Englsih or grew up watching the success of the 90's ala Rooney..it probabaly even extends to Ronaldo. Chelsea will reap true benefits from their newfound standing if they manage to win a CL or two and go on to dominate the league like we did - the next generation of elite players would then see them as a prestigious club with heros to look up to (adoring the likes of Lampard and Terry perhaps, just as many adored Cantona [Essien] Giggs, Beckham, Keane and so on) and would consider their offer on an equal footing with a Milan or Madrid, perhaps. But right now the very best players turn them down because of their standing in the game, imo. On a European level who are Chelsea? What have they won? What rich history do they have etc. It's not a knock on them but when you're talking about the very best players, things like these play their part in any potential signing,
Ballack's play is ideal for the Prem. Big, strong, rugged - all ideal attributes in the blood-and-thunder style of many Prem clubs. The guy can cover ground and is a threat on dead-ball situations. I've watched Batista play several times last season. I think he's talented, but I wonder if he will be able to adjust to the rigors of the Prem. My vote goes to Ballack.
Ten years ago Arsenal were no bigger than Spurs. One coaching change and voila - you think they're irreplaceable. All entities wane. As will ManUtd, and Liverpool and Arsenal. It is inevitable. Hell, Real Madrid wasn't always Real Madrid, you know. For all their talk of being.......Real Madrid, most people forget that they went through their "wilderness" period from the mid 60s to the mid 90s of not winning one CL, and not really having the top players in the world. Who's the most memorable Real Madrid player you can think of in the 70s? (Gento doesn't count.) And for all the hype Barca have won exactly 1 CL in their history, less than Nottingham Forrest. These things are far more malleable than you give them credit for. In the 70s, Borussia Moenchengladbach was arguably the best team in Germany. They were recently promoted to the Bundesliga.
You can't really define the success of a club by the number of Champions League trophies won. It took a while for Real Madrid to get one after their glory years, but it's not like they were in decline. Every club in the world would gladly accept that "wilderness" period, during which thy won over 30 trophies in 30 years. In the 70's they won 6 La Liga titles, 4 King's Cups, in the 80s they won a couple of UEFA cups, 5 straight La Liga titles, several King's Cups... So they were still very much the dominant force in most tournaments. As far as great players during that "wilderness" period - Santillana, Camacho, Juanito, later on - Butrageno, Hugo Sanchez, Michel...
Sevilla striker Julio Baptista could be considering a move to Spanish champions Barcelona. http://skysports.planetfootball.com...le=Beast+eyes+Barcelona&channel=football_home
Complete rubbish. Before 1995 Arsenal had won 10 league titles and 6 FA Cups. That is compared with mighty Chelsea who had won 1 league title and 1 FA cup in the same period. Tottenham managed 2 league titles and a pretty impressive 8 FA Cups. The fact is that the traditionally successful clubs for whatever reason tend to constantly manage to cycle back into success. Who are the best teams currently in their respective countries at the moment? Juve/Milan, Madrid/Barcelona, Chelsea/United/Arsenal. Now spot the odd one out in terms of managing previous era’s of success. Chelsea are a blip on the radar of the giant clubs, a fluke who have been thrust into competition with the real football success story’s by the chance that they were so mis-managed that they proved a cheaper take-over option to a Russian billionaire than their hated neighbours Tottenham. It takes a special brand of ignorance to make me defend Arsenal, it really does.
What CrestofStars said. Things are cyclical, but it's strange how certain teams always come up again. There are the anomalous teams, like Forest. But it's hardly due to a precipitous fall. Forest never really were a huge club. They were a very well managed team with enough support to get by at the top for a while. And then there are teams, like Wimbledon, that despite temporary success, never even manage to attract a decent following. Some people in England may switch their allegiance to Chelsea - but their domestic following isn't going to grow so massively as to support them once Roman leaves.
Ooh, don't know if I'd go that far. I mean back then you still had Spurs fans living off the '61 double. And even now they talk about the FA Cups of the 80s, and the Gazza final of '91. But no league titles since 1961 means its tough to make that claim in 1995. Maybe in 1985. Real Madrid didn't quite have the stars in the 70s, but they still won five Spanish championships that decade, plus six more from 1980-1990. The big clubs are generally consistent if nothing else. They won't always succeed in Europe, but they'll often bring home some kind of trophy. I can see Chelsea doing this, but it'd have to be over a period of several years. As it stands, Chelsea are more a nouveau riche team, with the potential to be consistently big.
So are you saying that Real Madrid one Their 9 champions league titles between the mid 90's (1995) and now? They had DiStefano, puskas, gento, Santamaria..... Real Madrid were great in 1955-1960
The "wilderness years" is actually a term the Spanish media uses. I didn't come up with it. Besides, if dominating your league was seen as enough, Celtic and Rangers certainly qualify. I never said Real stopped winning. And if you'll notice, I didn't put the 80s as I knwo full well who Butragueno and Hugo Sanchez are. But compared to their previous team of del Sol, Rial, DiStefano, Puskas, Gento, etc, or Ronaldo, Zidane, Figo now, the were no longer getting the top players in the world. Don't get me wrong, Camacho and Juanito are fine players, but...............
You possess it in spades. I don't recall arguing that Chelsea were a huge side and will always be, so your post is useless. As for Arsenal - Wenger himself admitted that when he arrived there were no particular advantages Arsenal had on Spurs. He was correct, too. Spurs do have quite a bit of support and they have a lot of money that they spend very unwisely. (Rebrov, anyone?) If Wenger had happened to take over at Spurs - who knows?
My mistake, They still won it once and were runners up four times, which is more appearances than anyone else in that time period.
That's because Wenger, for all of his vision problems and other issues, does show he can possess a bit of humility and class, unlike his current Chelsea counterpart.
But I didn't argue otherwise. My point is that there is nothing predetermined in what clubs are big. 35 years ago Bayern were in the second division in Germany. Liverpool were in the second division shortly before that, if I recall correctly. Big French clubs have come and gone. And ManUtd went decades without winning anything too. Because big clubs are successful now doesn't mean they always will be. And, of course, a period of short success is hardly a guarantee of being big in the future.
LOL. Congratulations, you've demonstrated you now hate Chelsea more than Arsenal. I'm sure there will be a nice tea time for both boards set up in the near future to fraternize over a newly found hatred of someone else. And while Wenger may be many things, humble isn't one of them.
At the moment, yes. You see, I've been forced to go to Fed Ex field by my wife to take her cousin to see the DC United/Chelski match. I'm brushing up on my Russian and Portugese swear words and have almost finished my "Euro Champion No More, Jose" banner....
Well at least you married someone sensible. For Russian swear words feel free to stop by the Russian boards. We'll help you out. Now pronouncing them - best of luck there.
My main point was just that Arsenal have been bigger than Spurs for some time now, and Real Madrid were quite successful even during the so-called wilderness. And that of course big teams come and go. Forty years ago, big English clubs included Portsmouth and Wolves. Man United were in the second division in the mid-70s, though our attendance never waned--were we still big then? The fact, however, is that barring a situation like Chelsea, the current financial state of football will make it hard for small teams to become big, or vice versa (except in the case of financial mismanagement). It's easy to see failures in all the teams that have tried to become big over the course of 3-4 seasons. I can see Chelsea becoming a truly big team if the financial support and management quality remains. But if the fanbase isn't built up and the long-term financial solvency isn't improved, it'll be difficult if/when Roman decides to call it quits. Chelsea fans should be happy to be where they are right now, they just aren't ready to be mentioned in the same category as Real Madrid, AC Milan, or Bayern Munich--yet.
Freudian slip? He mentioned the words "ex" and "wife" in the same sentence! And its only been a few weeks!