Cole Palmer signs for Chelsea

[Ham]

9 minutes ago, thevelourfog said:

 

obviously isn't just on one player.

I'd say the lions share of blame for us not winning that game was down to one player, I really would. 

Had Mudryk missed those chances, CFCnet would have gone into meltdown.  

[east lower]

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

This is so wrong, for various reasons. 

1. he could have played Gallagher and Enzo centrally  if he had wanted to, with Palmer on the right. Like he has for most of the season. 

2. If Poch was picking players down to price tag, as you imply with the "fear of leaving Fernandez out" then explain why Chalobah, Silva, and Gallagher (combined transfer fee of zero pounds) played ahead of Disasi, Badishile, Mudryk or Sterling. It doesn't add up.

I find your statements all over the place, the point is that:

1. He didn't - Could've, should've, would've. He changed it from arguably one of the better performances of the season, to our detriment, we lost the match and never had control of it. And also because it was the correct thing to do for the TEAM and for our chances of winning that game.

2. That's because you've made the assumption what i said was on price, it was on based on what the coach (sic) might have believed the potential reaction of Fernandez and possibly the dynamic duo and the owners reaction to him leaving him out. Might not get too many brownie points from them? The fact that he did cost so much is a matter for the owners and their employees to mull over in the fullness of time.

1 hour ago, paulw66 said:

Gilchrist is a centre half.

Don't know what point you're trying to make, unless it's telling me what some words on a website states.

Firstly, and as said a few times already (you might have missed it) there was a full-back on the bench & secondly let me know where Gilchrist has played pretty much every time that this coach has put him on a competitive pitch for Chelsea Football Club - Clue: It ain't centre-half.

As I said never/rarely had control.

11

[Ham]

41 minutes ago, east lower said:

I find your statements all over the place, the point is that:

1. He didn't - Could've, should've, would've. He changed it from arguably one of the better performances of the season, to our detriment, we lost the match and never had control of it. And also because it was the correct thing to do for the TEAM and for our chances of winning that game.

2. That's because you've made the assumption what i said was on price, it was on based on what the coach (sic) might have believed the potential reaction of Fernandez and possibly the dynamic duo and the owners reaction to him leaving him out. Might not get too many brownie points from them? The fact that he did cost so much is a matter for the owners and their employees to mull over in the fullness of time.

Don't know what point you're trying to make, unless it's telling me what some words on a website states.

Firstly, and as said a few times already (you might have missed it) there was a full-back on the bench & secondly let me know where Gilchrist has played pretty much every time that this coach has put him on a competitive pitch for Chelsea Football Club - Clue: It ain't centre-half.

As I said never/rarely had control.

11

All this proves is how unreliable stats are.

Look at our chances versus theirs, plus the penalties not given.  

[east lower]

2 minutes ago, Ham said:

All this proves is how unreliable stats are.

Look at our chances versus theirs, plus the penalties not given.  

Our bloke went round the goalkeeper and didn’t score, so did theirs (Foden). We had a header we didn’t score, they had shots they didn’t score from. 

Was the header a ‘better’ chance than their shots that they didn’t score from, probably. They scored we didn’t, but there’s just no way we controlled the game, most of the time we couldn’t get the ball off them.

Reverse those penalty shouts and I’d have been pretty angry had either been given against us - 50/50’s unlike at least one of the Forest shouts. That would have been something really to moan about.

[boratsbrother]

5 hours ago, east lower said:

 

When you’re getting cut open by the same 1-2 passes for the whole first half, that’s the manager’s tactical setup failing andthe manager failing to adjust.

City have better players with better technical ability, better passing, better movement off the ball and possibly the best manager in the world. It's nigh on impossible to stop them from opening up a team numerous times. That's why they've been the best team for years and  hovered up trophies. I know itsvststing the bleeding obvious, but our only serious chance of beating them is to try and out score them by scoring 3 or 4, it's not to park the bus, hope to score a breakaway goal and hang on for dear life. Had our striker put away the guilt edge chances and the ref and VAR did their jobs, then we would have out scored them.  

Im not saying we actually played a great game because I don't think we did. Imho we played better in both our league games against them. I just don't agree that Poch got our tactics wrong and that the team was poorly set-up. 

Btw. You say other managers would have done better.

Jose's only tactic would be to park a fleet of buses. Screw that for tactic in 2024!

In Conte's second season we put in what imo was our worst performance since the early 1990'ds. A shameful surrender from the first whistle to the final whistle losing 6-0.

Under TT,  City were consistently able to stroll around like it was a warm up training session making it look like men against boys. Cowardly football by us completely devoid of belief and passion.

At least we are no longer scared of City and we can and do consistently cause them problems. Poch or no Poch, that is the way forward!  

 

 

 

[east lower]

21 minutes ago, boratsbrother said:

City have better players with better technical ability, better passing, better movement off the ball and possibly the best manager in the world. It's nigh on impossible to stop them from opening up a team numerous times. That's why they've been the best team for years and  hovered up trophies. I know itsvststing the bleeding obvious, but our only serious chance of beating them is to try and out score them by scoring 3 or 4, it's not to park the bus, hope to score a breakaway goal and hang on for dear life. Had our striker put away the guilt edge chances and the ref and VAR did their jobs, then we would have out scored them.  

Im not saying we actually played a great game because I don't think we did. Imho we played better in both our league games against them. I just don't agree that Poch got our tactics wrong and that the team was poorly set-up. 

Btw. You say other managers would have done better.

Jose's only tactic would be to park a fleet of buses. Screw that for tactic in 2024!

In Conte's second season we put in what imo was our worst performance since the early 1990'ds. A shameful surrender from the first whistle to the final whistle losing 6-0.

Under TT,  City were consistently able to stroll around like it was a warm up training session making it look like men against boys. Cowardly football by us completely devoid of belief and passion.

At least we are no longer scared of City and we can and do consistently cause them problems. Poch or no Poch, that is the way forward!  

 

 

 

I remember a Jose masterclass at their place, 1-0 I think and Ivanovic scoring if I recall.

Tuchel went three games with straight wins. 

We will differ, but I’m convinced one of those three would have put a well below their best Man City to the sword.

The 6-0 was under Sarri in 2019, I know as I was there and had my mug on Sky as I was the only fan left in the area of the stand for about an 8 metre radius and the phone went mad with people taking the p***.

So I think your wires might be crossed.

Edited April 22 by east lower

[Rob B]

7 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

City finally scored 5 minutes after Mudryk came on, and from shit defending he played a significant part in on his side of the pitch. In the hypothetical world he keeps Walker quiet, it's because City are 2-0 up at half time and spend the rest of the game knocking the ball about in their own half. 

Took a bit of a break from here but surely Mudryk's hand in some of our most ridiculous concessions over the last month didn't go missed? I get the theory that he keeps people honest with his attacking threat but the rapidly evidenced reality is he is one of the first involved in any turnover that leads to an oppo goal. He shouldn't be playing senior PL football.

He certainly needs a year away to play regular football.   I honestly don’t get it with Mudryk.

We have wingers in the academy that can defend and tackle better, find space more effectively,  retain the ball better,  achieve a higher attacking output.  The only difference is none of them can run 36 KM/H and were signed for £68m. 

[paulw66]

14 hours ago, east lower said:

I find your statements all over the place, the point is that:

1. He didn't - Could've, should've, would've. He changed it from arguably one of the better performances of the season, to our detriment, we lost the match and never had control of it. And also because it was the correct thing to do for the TEAM and for our chances of winning that game.

 

All I was saying here is IF he was trying to find a way of getting Enzo back in the team, he could easily have done so by playing all 3 in the middle. For the life of me, I have no idea why he didn't

14 hours ago, east lower said:

 

2. That's because you've made the assumption what i said was on price, it was on based on what the coach (sic) might have believed the potential reaction of Fernandez and possibly the dynamic duo and the owners reaction to him leaving him out. Might not get too many brownie points from them? The fact that he did cost so much is a matter for the owners and their employees to mull over in the fullness of time.

 

I have made the assumption, but the rest of the above is pure conjecture. Can you point to one single thing that suggests Poch selected him for any reason other than he wanted to?

why would he lose brownie points with the owner, if it isn't to do with the price tag? And if it was, then the same logic would apply to the other expensive signings who were on the bench whilst 3 players who cost nothing took the field. 

There is no foundation for any of this claim.

14 hours ago, east lower said:

 

Don't know what point you're trying to make, unless it's telling me what some words on a website states.

Firstly, and as said a few times already (you might have missed it) there was a full-back on the bench & secondly let me know where Gilchrist has played pretty much every time that this coach has put him on a competitive pitch for Chelsea Football Club - Clue: It ain't centre-half.

 

He played his entire youth career at centre half.

He's a centre half, who has been drip fed some minutes at right back, as we have one permanently injured, and another largely unable to complete 90 minutes. 

All of this is a bit by-the-by anyway. We didn't lose because Disasi came on. We failed to score at Wembley

14 hours ago, east lower said:

 

14 hours ago, east lower said:

 

Was the header a ‘better’ chance than their shots that they didn’t score from, probably. They scored we didn’t, but there’s just no way we controlled the game, most of the time we couldn’t get the ball off them.

 

I'm not sure anyone claimed we did. 

We certainly had the better chances though. We didn't take them. Which is why we lost. 

Edited April 23 by paulw66

[McCreadie]

13 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

 .If you want to argue that goals conceded aren't all on Mudryk, fine, but please do that with someone who suggested they are. If you want to argue that Mudryk doesn't cause significant defensive problems often, then please do that, open to challenge.

The mess we're in really obviously isn't just on one player.

 

Apologies, my mistake, I quoted the wrong post of yours, so it wasn’t particularly clear.

That wasn’t what I was arguing.

i was simply pointing out that, during the passage of play that led to the City goal (which you do seem to blame squarely on Mudryk), at one point after, we had 10 men behind the ball, organised (well ok, as much as we are ever organised) and all within 25m of our goal.  We were in a position to defend. From that point, I’d suggest the goal is on the collective, not the player that got turned over.

Every goal conceded starts with someone losing the ball. 

For clarity, I’m not suggesting Mudryk doesn’t lose the ball a lot. It would be much better if he didn’t. I just accept it as part of his job, to a degree.

[paulw66]

16 hours ago, thevelourfog said:

Eh? I'm not "posturing" over anything, or particularly moaning about having conceded 1 goal in 90 minutes to Man City. I'm responding specifically to the idea Mudryk helps with much of anything, let alone nullifying a City player, if he starts. 

I think the fairest thing for you to do when replying to posts would be to read them in context first.

Sorry, my response wasn't aimed at just yours, but there are several pointing the figure at the defending for their goal, when we failed to score any ourselves, which is the bigger problem

[east lower]

2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

I have made the assumption, but the rest of the above is pure conjecture. Can you point to one single thing that suggests Poch selected him for any reason other than he wanted to?

why would he lose brownie points with the owner, if it isn't to do with the price tag? And if it was, then the same logic would apply to the other expensive signings who were on the bench whilst 3 players who cost nothing took the field. 

There is no foundation for any of this claim.

 

I've no more factual reason to suggest what I have then any other person has when claims are made by others about this or that aspect of what a coach has done and why. If he wanted to then he's a bigger fraud than I believed him to be - and that's quite an achievement in itself.

As regards the other three on the bench, nowhere near as high a profile as Fernandez - He'd 'get-away' with dropping them/leaving them out - Which is what he did. Consistency? All that does is support the argument as to why he played Fernandez. We can call it whatever we want, if you want to refer to it as cost. But put in an analogy - the boss has just got in a new piece of kit. They think it's going to revolutionise the business and as such you use it. Turns out that it's not quite as good or effective as the boss thought it was. But, it's your job to use it and your outputs haven't grown, in fact they've stayed at about the same level. The boss is concerned, he might think you are not utilising this wonderful 'gift' he's given you. What do you do next then?

I think there's a good deal of foundation to the claim - Fernandez's recent performances, the fact he's carrying a hernia injury and the nature of the performance against Everton (lesser side admittedly), why change a winning side by putting in an injured player, being the basis for that foundation.

2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

He played his entire youth career at centre half.

He's a centre half, who has been drip fed some minutes at right back, as we have one permanently injured, and another largely unable to complete 90 minutes. 

All of this is a bit by-the-by anyway. We didn't lose because Disasi came on. We failed to score at Wembley

I believe the question was what position/s  has he played his first-team appearances at? - And we both know the answer to that. When the coach has attempted to close out games or needs a full-back replacing he has called on Gilchrist a good number of times. He's also started him there too. An aside, but my belief is that he's not going to be big enough to be a centre-half in the PL - so a full-back or right-side in a three might be his best option.

We weren't asking the replacement to play 90 minutes, I believe the coach would have been asking the person coming on to prevent Doku influencing the game, which is exactly what transpired and yes we lost because we failed to prevent Doku cutting the ball across and failed to mark at the back post - Something that has been happening all season. Stop their goal and we might not have lost. Even if we had scored, who knows what may then have happened after that?

2 hours ago, paulw66 said:

I'm not sure anyone claimed we did. 

We certainly had the better chances though. We didn't take them. Which is why we lost. 

People are claiming we were the better side, no - we may have had a better chance (one) but the better side/had control of the game - Not a chance that we were.

Both teams had a one-on-one, both teams didn't take that chance to score.

[chara]

A bit puzzled...Cole was fit to play Saturday...over next two days becomes "ill" but a will he won't he scenario from The Poch muddies the waters.

Ill with what ?..a Christenson  "ill". ?..recently Raheem was "ill" but no details..stomuch bug? two day sick in the real World  is" I'm fed up at work and need a break" ill...not saying Cole is not ill but the "ill/injured" not available ploy has long been used to cover questionable situations..... any views?

Never seems to happen at Chelsea prior to a pointless England game/callup.........

[boratsbrother]

21 hours ago, east lower said:

 

The 6-0 was under Sarri in 2019, I know as I was there and had my mug on Sky as I was the only fan left in the area of the stand for about an 8 metre radius and the phone went mad with people taking the p***.

So I think your wires might be crossed.

I need to stay off the extra strong wine gums.🍺

[Sleeping Dave]

On 20/04/2024 at 22:58, paulw66 said:

Maths not your strong point?

Again I’m not sure what you are trying to say. If nine are from penalties and at least two (that I can remember) is from set pieces then that would mean a maximum of nine goals out of twenty from open play. 

Unless my math is whack and you know something I don’t, nine goals from open play is less than ten. 

[paulw66]

4 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Again I’m not sure what you are trying to say. If nine are from penalties and at least two (that I can remember) is from set pieces then that would mean a maximum of nine goals out of twenty from open play. 

Unless my math is whack and you know something I don’t, nine goals from open play is less than ten. 

what 2 set piece goals?

and you want to ignore all the assists as well?

I am not really sure what point, in the great scheme of things, you are trying to make. 

He has been bloody brilliant. To argue otherwise is just....... well, I don't even know a polite word. 

[Sleeping Dave]

16 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

what 2 set piece goals?

and you want to ignore all the assists as well?

I am not really sure what point, in the great scheme of things, you are trying to make. 

He has been bloody brilliant. To argue otherwise is just....... well, I don't even know a polite word. 

I think it is obvious.

That a player some claim is on the same level as prime-Hazard only scores 9 goals from open play is pretty much our biggest problem. We lack goals and still are - even with a Cole Palmer in the side. 

Im not ignoring his assists, but his many goals were brought up so I thought it would be fitting to have a bit more nuance to that number than simply say “he’s scored twenty goals”. Plus, I’ve never said he’s been poor. But bloody brilliant is a stretch too far imo and says more about the rest of the side than it does of Palmer. After all, we are talking about a player who was nowhere near being a regular at City and we all know a prime-Hazard would walk into their side. 

Just trying to keep it sensible, but you seem agitated I’m not jumping on the “Cole Palmer is a future ballon d’or winner bandwagon” so let’s leave it there. 

[martin1905]

3 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I think it is obvious.

That a player some claim is on the same level as prime-Hazard only scores 9 goals from open play is pretty much our biggest problem. We lack goals and still are - even with a Cole Palmer in the side. 

Im not ignoring his assists, but his many goals were brought up so I thought it would be fitting to have a bit more nuance to that number than simply say “he’s scored twenty goals”. Plus, I’ve never said he’s been poor. But bloody brilliant is a stretch too far imo and says more about the rest of the side than it does of Palmer. After all, we are talking about a player who was nowhere near being a regular at City and we all know a prime-Hazard would walk into their side. 

Just trying to keep it sensible, but you seem agitated I’m not jumping on the “Cole Palmer is a future ballon d’or winner bandwagon” so let’s leave it there. 

23 goals and 13 assists in 34 starts.

Not even taking his completely outrageous stats into account he is a class act and levels above anyone we have seen here for quite some time. He is just quite simply a wonderful footballer.

He's absolutely, unequivocally been bloody brilliant for us. When you take into account he's 21 and playing his first year of men's football, in a team that is utter garbage then bloody brilliant is massively downplaying just how good he has been.

How the fuck are we debating how good Cole Plamer has been for us on a Chelsea forum?

[Sleeping Dave]

12 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

23 goals and 13 assists in 34 starts.

Not even taking his completely outrageous stats into account he is a class act and levels above anyone we have seen here for quite some time. He is just quite simply a wonderful footballer.

He's absolutely, unequivocally been bloody brilliant for us. When you take into account he's 21 and playing his first year of men's football, in a team that is utter garbage then bloody brilliant is massively downplaying just how good he has been.

How the fuck are we debating how good Cole Plamer has been for us on a Chelsea forum?

I think your post highlights why there is a need to nuance his performance. So yeah, thank you for making my point for me. 
 

Edit: in the league it’s 9 goals from open play and 9 assists. There are plenty of players with similar figures to that, many who plenty here would deem as being nowhere near “Chelsea standard”. It does highlight that Cole is the best performing AM out of a pretty poor bunch. But in a title-chasing side he isn’t a star, he’s one of many. But perhaps that is our standards now, standing tall in a side of midgets are hardly something to celebrate imo. You can bang on about 20+ goals all you want, but take away his penalties changes the picture drastically. 

Edited April 25 by Sleeping Dave

[martin1905]

Didn't Hazard take penalties?

Wonder how many of his 16 career best league goals were penalties?

[Sleeping Dave]

10 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Didn't Hazard take penalties?

Wonder how many of his 16 career best league goals were penalties?

Would a prime-Hazard play for City? Has Palmer ever? 

Next. 

[martin1905]

2 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

Would a prime-Hazard play for City? Has Palmer ever? 

Next. 

Well, yes he actually has.

Is Palmer in his prime?

Next

[martin1905]

Why are you comparing a 21 year old Cole Palmer to a prime Eden Hazard @Sleeping Dave?

 

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, Sleeping Dave said:

Would a prime-Hazard play for City? Has Palmer ever? 

Next. 

36 appearances for City in all competition including the Champions League 

They'd take him back tomorrow

[martin1905]

24 minutes ago, Sleeping Dave said:

I think your post highlights why there is a need to nuance his performance. So yeah, thank you for making my point for me. 
 

Edit: in the league it’s 9 goals from open play and 9 assists. There are plenty of players with similar figures to that, many who plenty here would deem as being nowhere near “Chelsea standard”. It does highlight that Cole is the best performing AM out of a pretty poor bunch. But in a title-chasing side he isn’t a star, he’s one of many. But perhaps that is our standards now, standing tall in a side of midgets are hardly something to celebrate imo. You can bang on about 20+ goals all you want, but take away his penalties changes the picture drastically. 

 

You can rip them apart to downplay them if you want but take away his penalties,  if you must and only look at the league then  he still has 11 goals and 9 assists in 23 starts which in itself is phenomenal. 

Maybe give him the remaining 6 games?

 

Edited April 25 by martin1905

[martin1905]

8 minutes ago, Mark Kelly said:

36 appearances for City in all competition including the Champions League 

They'd take him back tomorrow

There isn't a team in the world that wouldn't take him tomorrow.