Hugh Jars 99

Members_2012
  • Content count

    3,331
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Hugh Jars 99

  • Rank
    CFCnet XI Vice Captain
  • Birthday 05/18/1978

Previous Fields

  • Team
    Chelsea FC

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

1,616 profile views
  1. Another angle is that Mancini, Pellegrini and now Guardiola are possibly not as good as the City elite would have you believe. Fancy giving those managers a blank chequebook and then still coming up relatively short year on year? They'll do it again come the summer and I imagine they'll be there or thereabouts instead of being streets ahead like they ought to. That said, we do have to plough a fair wedge into the playing staff ourselves. Our own track record for that isn't good - not that we over spend and spend poorly (a la City) but that we don't spend enough. A constant challenge for all teams and boards.
  2. I don't agree with this as money spent on a player rarely reflects that players quality especially when it comes to City. They could coax Emile Heskey out of retirement for £50m but it doesn't accurately measure up against the likelihood of a title success. All it shows is that they have not spent well because had they then spent better then they might have won more. But had they spent well then probably they wouldn't have spent as much.
  3. You keep mentioning this concept of "if you are under 21 then you do not exist" codswallop - why is that? 2015/16 we used 24 players - hence 24 options. 2016/17 we have used (to date) 20 players - hence 20 options. I don't care what age they are they're all "options" to me. And with everything that I know to be true, 24 is more than 20. You know, I am not debating the "paper thin" angle here because I agree with you - it was paper thin last season. I'm saying that while it was paper thin, it still is paper thin but that it is performing better due in enormous parts to the manager and in smaller amounts due to no CL or EL football. You only seem willing to see what you want to see - JM had paper thin squad and because numbers were small, results were shite. Nothing to do with JM and what he did with those numbers - no - only just that because of small number. By Christmas in both seasons (where only a handful of additional games were played in the first season) why were results so starkly different? It must be assumed that a professional footballer cannot be blown out by having played 20 games so if you argument is that the squad was small and played too many games and were knackered then please use a smaller window with which to measure them and just go from August to December - like for like. What happened and what was different?
  4. http://forums.CFCnet.co.uk/topic/56939-liverpool-1-chelsea-1/?page=28#comment-1424337 Doesn't mess anything up for me Droy, quite the opposite in fact. My 'theory' that a smaller pot of players has done significantly better things this season than a larger pot did last season cannot be refuted. If you try then you are a person that believes that 24 is less than 20.
  5. Hahahahahahahahahaha Record. Broke.
  6. What has the way we have stormed to the top of the league got to do with Manchester United 2 Watford 0? His is a side that has scored 1.5 goals a game compared to our 2.08 so where were his comments mocking our defensive football when we smashed United all over the place in October? What did a 2-0 win over Watford on Saturday have to do with us? His comments were obvious only that they were a dig, plain and simple. Had the question been "how does your current team compare to your previous one defensively?" or something similar then fair enough but the question was "your team created a string of changes today didn't they?" and he rambled on about how other teams this and other teams that but they play the right attacking way for Manchester United. Ahh he is just so utterly suited to that horrible lot, thankfully the damage he caused to our club has been swiftly fixed. Let's see what his Manchester United brand of football gets them come the end of the season. Hopefully he'll be asked about it all then. Just a tad.
  7. Utter shite. We were not on the media agenda at all when Jose was being interviewed so why that cretin felt the need to bring us into it I have no idea. The only agenda was his one and that was to have a dig; any suggestion otherwise shows you didn't listen to his interview at all. With you he just can do no wrong but Droy, he is an odious man at an odious club and I think that exiledblue is right that JM is jealous that no one is talking about his side and their unbeaten run. Certainly nowhere near as much as they have been waxing lyrical about our lot this season and he doesn't like it. I saw a lot of the United vs Watford game and at no point from what I watched were they 'phenomenal'. But listening to Mourinho you'd have thunk they were perfection.
  8. I think that this is key but it is all hindsight. It clearly wasn't a mistake to sell Lukaku as we haven't done too badly since he left but there is nothing to say that keeping him wouldn't have resulted in the same successful period. His goalscoring record is similar to Costa over those three years so it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other for me. We had no guarantee that Costa would be as prolific as he has been and at the time we had no way of knowing - really - if keeping Lukaku would have yielded as much. The club made a decision, we have done relatively well so does it really matter?
  9. One has nothing to do with the other so this is an irrelevant comment only designed to incite an argument. Typical Droy.
  10. The image of SFL running away after scoring (again) pointing to the sky is an incredibly powerful and iconic image in Chelsea's history. If there was ever going to be a statue erected in honour of any of our players in the 100+ years we have been in existence then it is this player that deserves it most. And by a long way too. A brand new stadium in however many years time with this at it's entrance? Yeah, I would probably become teary at seeing that each time I attended a game.
  11. I said this: "There can be little argument that the football wasn't as good towards the end of his first or second stints here so it could be argued that once he gets his feet under the table at a club then given a bit more time his influence is a negative on the aesthetics." So "towards the end" Dave. See that bit? The football with Robben and Duff and Crespo and Gudjohnsen and Lampard and Tiago and Drogba (to a point) from 2004/2005 was a tonne better than the football with Ramires and Oscar and Matic and Mikel and Hazard and Costa from 2014/15. But that first golden patch run it's course and so it did again more recently, so much so that we couldn't string 3 passes together nor buy a win and hence TSO was given the elbow. Again. I don't doubt his record Dave, and I'm certainly not debating his success. But I'm not blinded by it either and I don't see him as a special manager any more. I don't actually know if I can hand on heart say that he was "special" at all; very good - yes - and very lucky to inherit what he did, where he did - definitely - but "special" wouldn't have ruined it all in the way that he did in my opinion.
  12. I'll bite. 2015/2016 (total) Azpilicueta (49), Begovic (25), Cahill (37), Costa (41), Courtois (30), Fabregas (49), Falcao (12), Hazard (43), Ivanovic (43), Kenedy (20), Loftus-Cheek (17), Matic (43), Miazga (2), Mikel (33), Oscar (40), Pato (2), Pedro (38), Rahman (23), Ramires (21), Remy (20), Terry (33), Traore (16), Willian (49), Zouma (32) That's 24 players used (and appearances including subs in brackets). I didn't include Djilobodji although he made an appearance. 2016/2017 (to date) Alonso (19), Azpilicueta (28), Batshuayi (20), Begovic (5), Cahill (27), Chalobah (12), Costa (24), Courtois (23), Fabregas (18), Hazard (25), Ivanovic (15), Kante (24), Luiz (21), Matic (24), Moses (24), Oscar (11), Pedro (25), Terry (9), Willian (22), Zouma (2) That's 20 players used (and appearances including subs in brackets). Considering we have lost Ivanovic and Oscar and added no one in the window, how the eff can you maintain your argument that we have "many more choices to start PL games than we did last season"?
  13. I agree with this and we did play some scintillating stuff early on. But that was 10 years ago now and JM isn't that kind of manager any more - indeed he hasn't been that sort of manager since he left us the first time. His stuff is functional football and very one-dimensional. Kev is right to a degree, other teams have cottoned onto how his teams play. Much the same as Guardiola has been found wanting with his "I have no Plan B" football, JM is the same. It's not like he hasn't had an absolute plethora of attacking talent to field - it's easily been as much (and most probably more) than he had at Chelsea in your 2004 to 2006 bracket but hasn't recreated that brand since. So with that in mind then, was JM really the factor behind the 2004-2006 brand of football we played or was it more that the players played instinctively and freely when put together with the "money no object" manner of transfers? There can be little argument that the football wasn't as good towards the end of his first or second stints here so it could be argued that once he gets his feet under the table at a club then given a bit more time his influence is a negative on the aesthetics.
  14. What does having too few players have to do with a comparable number of games played? IF at the end of two seasons a similar size squad had to have played 60 games in one and 45 games in another then I'll concede that the argument of too few players would have some weight. However, at the time Christmas rolled around in both seasons a very similar number of games had been played but the results are shockingly different. Too few players (the same too few players) cannot be judged differently by themselves, a wider picture has to be looked at surely? What is that bigger picture, what are those other facets? How many other mitigating factors would you have to look at before you get to the single biggest denominator between the two seasons? I have no misunderstanding of this or last season thanks Droy. Others most certainly do but I am not one of them.
  15. Why jump back that far without mentioning the shite that was 15/16? Competing 2 years later was clearly probably because... of Kante only? What was the reason why we didn't compete last season, why was it not clearly probable that we'd at least put up some sort of showing in defence of our title?