.verse
13 years ago
11 months ago
871
By chokosc | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 16:25 PM
But you rarely find these players that can easily score 15 goals a season for cheap. Sure, Torres only needs 13 goals to get to 20 but we are coming into the 21st game and he has 7 goals. So if it keeps like this, he should have around 14. Of course it doesn't work like but I can't see him scoring 13 goals in 17 games, because of the fact that if he does manage to score one goal, he usually fails to score another.

You find more strikers in the world who kick their 10-15 a season than those who get 30+ regularly, I assure you. Any striker who has consistently kicked 30+ a season is going to cost you ridiculous amounts of money, provided their not already at a top club as it is. Signing two strikers who can get you 10-15 goals a season to work with Torres is going to be both cheaper and also less riskier.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love either a Falcao or Cavani at Chelsea, both are top strikers. But I'd also be just as happy to see the club keep Torres and add some genuine competitive depth, which is lacking. Chelsea's track record on buying expensive strikers isn't good, so it makes just as much sense get two good players for the price of one superstar.

Chelsea were spoiled to have a player like Drogba, who was near on the complete striker.
jumberto
17 years ago
8 months ago
1,111
By chokosc | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 05:25 AM
But you rarely find these players that can easily score 15 goals a season for cheap. Sure, Torres only needs 13 goals to get to 20 but we are coming into the 21st game and he has 7 goals. So if it keeps like this, he should have around 14. Of course it doesn't work like but I can't see him scoring 13 goals in 17 games, because of the fact that if he does manage to score one goal, he usually fails to score another.

Chelsea have only played 19 league games.

I know you don't like him but at least beat him with facts.
K3V0
16 years ago
1 year ago
5,966
By jumberto | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 22:23 PM
Chelsea have only played 19 league games.

I know you don't like him but at least beat him with facts.



http://i1259.photobucket.com/albums/ii557/khronaldo89/Spurs/pumped_kid_zpse08905e2.gif







I just had to do it.
chokosc
15 years ago
8 months ago
1,041
By Verse | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 06:56 AM
You find more strikers in the world who kick their 10-15 a season than those who get 30+ regularly, I assure you. Any striker who has consistently kicked 30+ a season is going to cost you ridiculous amounts of money, provided their not already at a top club as it is. Signing two strikers who can get you 10-15 goals a season to work with Torres is going to be both cheaper and also less riskier.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love either a Falcao or Cavani at Chelsea, both are top strikers. But I'd also be just as happy to see the club keep Torres and add some genuine competitive depth, which is lacking. Chelsea's track record on buying expensive strikers isn't good, so it makes just as much sense get two good players for the price of one superstar.

Chelsea were spoiled to have a player like Drogba, who was near on the complete striker.


But if you get two strikers that can get 10-15, they wouldn't want to be played as a substitute... And we can't go with a 3 striker formation not with the players we have now and the players that we have. Can you really drop two of Mata, Oscar or Hazard? Not really. And last year proved that Torres can't handle competition. Now he has no competition, he doesn't have to play at his best because he is our only striker. But he didn't start very well and I don't believe that if we bring Ba now and when Lukaku comes back next season, that Torres will be able to do much.

Sadly, he just isn't the player we need. I admitted it a long time ago and I personally think we should have got rid of him last year. He was destroyed in 2010 and sadly he will never be back. Again, it was always hard for me to like Torres, just like it is hard for me to like Benitez. Both came from Liverpool and both had shit starts to their Chelsea career (Rafa got the hang of it faster). I will never feel like I am 100% behind Torres but he has to prove himself first. If he scores over 15, 20 goals, let him stay, maybe he will be able to keep that form... Sadly, I can't see it happening and I have a feeling that if Lampard doesn't leave in January, Torres, yet again, will score less goals than him in the league.

By jumberto | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 12:23 PM
Chelsea have only played 19 league games.

I know you don't like him but at least beat him with facts.


True, I forgot that we are one game behind! Steal, doesn't make it that much better.
Franck
18 years ago
1 week ago
4,255
Speaking of Lampard, apparently there is interest for him in Italy. Lazio have supposedly offered him a contract.
VP.
14 years ago
2 months ago
25,271
Arsenal have offered £10m for Atletico Madrid striker Adrian Lopez. This fails to meet the £14.7m release clause in the 24-year-old's contract though.

Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur will fight it out for the signature of Crystal Palace's £10m-rated forward Wilfried Zaha, 20.

Arsenal are expected to sound out Southampton over their 17-year-old defender Luke Shaw, with manager Arsene Wenger having identified the left-back as one of his transfer priorities for 2013.
hammer9
16 years ago
1 day ago
161,682
Nicola Anelka going to watch at Upton Park West Ham v Norwich today!!
Dutton
18 years ago
10 months ago
1,101
I'd have Lampard at United, especially as experience if Scholes and/or Giggs are leaving at the end of the season.
jumberto
17 years ago
8 months ago
1,111
By Dutton | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 13:46 PM
I'd have Lampard at United, especially as experience if Scholes and/or Giggs are leaving at the end of the season.

Me too.
Eric Portapotty
15 years ago
1 week ago
3,324
Premium
Will Roman be that daft?
K3V0
16 years ago
1 year ago
5,966
Depends how much Lampard is on and whether Abramovich sees him as useful...
chokosc
15 years ago
8 months ago
1,041
By Portaloo | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 14:02 PM
Will Lampard be that daft?
Flash.
18 years ago
1 year ago
677
Why would moving to utd be daft?
chokosc
15 years ago
8 months ago
1,041
For the same reason Ferdinand wouldn't move to Chelsea (if the whole Terry thing never happened).
Telegram Sam
16 years ago
3 months ago
5,082
Premium
By Flash. | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 14:06 PM
Why would moving to utd be daft?

He's a legend at Chelsea - moving to United would jeopardise that, obviously.
Dutton
18 years ago
10 months ago
1,101
We're hardly arch rivals, and I'm sure he'd stay at Chelsea if they were prepared to give him a new contract. It wouldn't be as if he's turning down Chelsea to come to us, ala Van Persie.

Can't see it happening anyway.
Telegram Sam
16 years ago
3 months ago
5,082
Premium
By Dutton | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 16:09 PM
We're hardly arch rivals, and I'm sure he'd stay at Chelsea if they were prepared to give him a new contract. It wouldn't be as if he's turning down Chelsea to come to us, ala Van Persie.

Can't see it happening anyway.

Hmm, I suppose. If were to move to United, it certainly wouldn't sever his ties with Chelsea in the same way van Persie has with Arsenal, but it would certainly lose him a few admirers. Can you imagine if next season United and Chelsea were neck and neck in the title race, and Lampard hit a rich vein of form that helped United to the title? I can't imagine Chelsea fans being so forgiving them. He's played for them for almost his entire career so I'm sure he'll be very wary not to damage his reputation with the fans.

I still think he'll end up in LA but it'd be nice to see him show some ambition and move to someone like Lazio.
chokosc
15 years ago
8 months ago
1,041
By Dutton | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 16:09 PM
We're hardly arch rivals, and I'm sure he'd stay at Chelsea if they were prepared to give him a new contract. It wouldn't be as if he's turning down Chelsea to come to us, ala Van Persie.

Can't see it happening anyway.


You are probably one of our biggest, if not the biggest. Whenever we play you it feels different to any other game against any of the top teams (Arsenal, Spurs, City, Everton, Liverpool...).

I don't understand why we are letting him go. He is already on 6 goals this season and probably on the way to a ninth consecutive season with over ten goals in the league. I think he should stay here.
Telegram Sam
16 years ago
3 months ago
5,082
Premium
I'm terrified that in the next few years Roman will identify Wilshere as the long-term replacement for Lampard and bid big for him. He seems fairly loyal but you can never be too sure.
om4ever
18 years ago
9 years ago
213
By Telegram Sam | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 16:13 PM
. Can you imagine if next season United and Chelsea were neck and neck in the title race, and Lampard hit a rich vein of form that helped United to the title? I can't imagine Chelsea fans being so forgiving them. He's played for them for almost his entire career so I'm sure he'll be very wary not to damage his reputation with the fans.


He is being nothing but absolute class for Chelsea for over a decade. Hands down the greatest player in the modern history of the club.

He stood by every manager (even Scolari) bar AVB who was (and still is, see the GK mess earlier this season with Tottenham) atrocious at managing a group.

And now the club won't even OFFER him a contract ? How in hell could the fans be mad at him ? What is he supposed to do, stay with Chelsea without a contract ?

This is very different from the RVP situation. He was offered a new contract by Arsenal, which he refused

By chokosc | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 16:14 PM
He is already on 6 goals this season and probably on the way to a ninth consecutive season with over ten goals in the league.


Tenth

He just hit his SIXTEENTH consecutive season with 5+ goals in the league.
Telegram Sam
16 years ago
3 months ago
5,082
Premium
By om4ever | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 19:50 PM
This is very different from the RVP situation. He was offered a new contract by Arsenal, which he refused

I said it was different.
.verse
13 years ago
11 months ago
871
By chokosc | Permalink | On 01 January 2013 - 23:50 PM
But if you get two strikers that can get 10-15, they wouldn't want to be played as a substitute... And we can't go with a 3 striker formation not with the players we have now and the players that we have. Can you really drop two of Mata, Oscar or Hazard? Not really. And last year proved that Torres can't handle competition. Now he has no competition, he doesn't have to play at his best because he is our only striker. But he didn't start very well and I don't believe that if we bring Ba now and when Lukaku comes back next season, that Torres will be able to do much.

Sadly, he just isn't the player we need. I admitted it a long time ago and I personally think we should have got rid of him last year. He was destroyed in 2010 and sadly he will never be back. Again, it was always hard for me to like Torres, just like it is hard for me to like Benitez. Both came from Liverpool and both had shit starts to their Chelsea career (Rafa got the hang of it faster). I will never feel like I am 100% behind Torres but he has to prove himself first. If he scores over 15, 20 goals, let him stay, maybe he will be able to keep that form... Sadly, I can't see it happening and I have a feeling that if Lampard doesn't leave in January, Torres, yet again, will score less goals than him in the league.

That's completely untrue. It's all about rotation. Every top side has around 3-4 strikers, usually of decent quality. United don't seem to have problems keeping their strikers happy, etc. Chelsea don't need to play 3 strikers in the one side, it's about a good rotation policy and obtaining the right sort of player for the role required within the side. It has nothing to do with our attacking midfield options.

I have no issue with Torres or Benitez having Liverpool backgrounds, that's irrelevant to me now because they're both at Chelsea and I want both to do well for the club, it's also largely irrelevant to this discussion about needing more strikers. I'm all for signing Ba and another striker of a similar statue, even if it's a loan deal to cover the short term. Then come the summer the club decides what it wants to do. That said, I don't see Chelsea signing a big name striker in January. It makes absolutely no sense.
Number 1
16 years ago
1 year ago
3,650
Newcastle club statement has confirmed Chelsea have officially bid for Demba Ba, so he will be free to talk with them and will not be considered for selection against Everton this evening.

At least by moving quickly there's no threat of it being like the Andy Carroll farce.
Poe
18 years ago
2 weeks ago
3,675
Aye, means we have all January to get a replacement in.

Good luck to him, hope he actually gets his game and they don't ruin him as he's a real talent.
Number 1
16 years ago
1 year ago
3,650
If we lose tonight I'm guessing the "Ba move speculation disrupted our planning" excuse gets an airing.

As for new strikers, there's speculation that a deal for Loic Remy is going to be done after we complete the Debuchy move.
rossiheslopi
16 years ago
4 years ago
669
Hopefully might mean the Sturridge move gets finalised at some point today then
KEZ_7
18 years ago
2 weeks ago
1,883
King Luis
18 years ago
9 months ago
3,111
Sturridge move has been completed.
Dutton
18 years ago
10 months ago
1,101
Angelo Henriquez has completed his loan move to Wigan, looking forward to seeing if he gets some games. Martinez seems to suggest he will.
rossiheslopi
16 years ago
4 years ago
669
Delighted with Sturridge, he's proved before that with a proper run of games he can deliver so hopefully can thrive for us

You'll need to Login to comment