Ballack: betrayal or sensible offloading?

Rez wrote:The worst thing for Chelseas rivals as ballack seriously weakens Chelsea team.



In all seriousness if they want to sell him, then it makes sense as the only clubs that could afford Ballack are CL clubs and they would not buy him if he was cup tied. Although I cant think of a top club that would be interested in Ballack.

Sheffield gunner wrote:

Rez wrote:The worst thing for Chelseas rivals as ballack seriously weakens Chelsea team.



In all seriousness if they want to sell him, then it makes sense as the only clubs that could afford Ballack are CL clubs and they would not buy him if he was cup tied. Although I cant think of a top club that would be interested in Ballack.

Well, Real Madrid were obviously interested in him. If he hadn't been demanding so much money he probably would be there now, if reports are to be believed.

L.r.d wrote:I don't believe he has been loyal to Chelsea at all, i think everyone realises he moved to Chelsea for money reasons.

• He's a grandad
  
• His wages/fee will be a $h!t load
  
• We have enough cover for AMF.
  

Batman wrote:Chelsea's Shevchenko: I don't know why I'm not playing

Andriy Shevchenko admits he doesn't know why he isn't being considered by Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho in the early weeks of the season.

Speaking to Italian reporters in Kiev, the Ukraine international striker said: "I do not know what's happening. I don't know why he doesn't play me. I do not understand him, but I am calm. I will wait for my chance."

TM wrote:
@ S4P
Why would you drop a players who's scored two goals in two matches? Schuster won't wait too long to bench Raul if he wasn't playing well.

S4P wrote:

TM wrote:
@ S4P
Why would you drop a players who's scored two goals in two matches? Schuster won't wait too long to bench Raul if he wasn't playing well.

Didn't Camacho walk because of the uprise from the board after he benched Raul?

TM wrote:

S4P wrote:

TM wrote:
@ S4P
Why would you drop a players who's scored two goals in two matches? Schuster won't wait too long to bench Raul if he wasn't playing well.

Didn't Camacho walk because of the uprise from the board after he benched Raul?

Camacho left because he's approach to management upset the Galactico's - Shouting, and they made his life hell.

So he left after a month, Camacho didn't drop Raul.


Not to mention losing 3-0 defeat to Bayer Leverkusen and a 1-0 defeat to Espanyol.

TM wrote:He also took of Zidane in that game for a Castilla player, which also didnt go down well.

(Bayern game)

Jaime wrote:There are lots of rumours surrounding Camacho's resignation. Nobody knows or sure what it was, probably was a combination. Dropping Raul was one aspect. Helguera, Salgado, Raul, Guti, and Morientes formed a major clique at the time and they had a lot of power (pesos pesados) in the dressing room. Roberto Carlos also had beef with Camacho because he and Ronaldo were lazy bastards in training and when Camacho yelled at them to run they didn't like it. Roberto Carlos' infamous "If you keep pounding your first, eventually the table will break" statement is what got him jeered. And if you believe the real consipracy theorists: Florentino gave him an ultimatum -- play Beckham or you'll get the sack. Both Beckham and Raul were on the bench for the match against Espanyol.

Camacho is a rubbish manager and a quitter. He is not welcome at Real Madrid as far as I'm concerned.

Leaving out Ballack just doesn't add up

Chelsea's failure to name a full squad for the Champions League is a sad indictment of the club's incompetence and the Premier League.

Raphael Honigstein
September 5, 2007 1:04 PM

It's December 11, and Chelsea are 1-0 down at home to Valencia in the final group game of the Champions League. Michael Essien is suspended, Frank Lampard's got another muscle injury and Chelsea's makeshift central-midfield pairing of Claude Makélélé and Steve Sidwell are hopelessly outplayed. José Mourinho needs one more point from this game to qualify for the last 16 but his options are few. The camera zooms in on the sheepish face of Roman Abramovich in the VIP Box. Next to him, wearing the regulation club suit designed by Armani is Michael Ballack, who scored two important goals in this competition last year. The German's fit and ready to play. But of course he can't.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But whichever way you look at it, Chelsea's decision to leave Ballack out of the squad is plain ludicrous. Take the official explanation that it's all to do with his ankle problem. "Unfortunately Michael's current injury meant, at the time of the squad submission deadline, we could not guarantee his availability for the majority of the group phase games," explained a club statement on Monday. Interesting. Since when has the ability to play in the "majority" of group games ever been a defining criteria for making the squad list? What about three games, or two, or even one?

It seems inconceivable that any top club in Europe would leave out their best paid player if there was even the faint possibility he could take part in the competition (despite John Terry's recent pay-rise, Ballack's still earning more if you include Chelsea's very generous signing-on fee). Ballack has, by all accounts, a very decent chance to be back in full training by November at the very latest - just ahead of his crocked colleague Wayne Bridge, incidentally, who's eight weeks away from returning to action yet somehow did make the Champions League squad. Chelsea have yet to give a satisfactory explanation and it's doubtful that one will be provided. Chief Executive Peter Kenyon has, conveniently, gone on holiday this week.

If the omission of the Germany captain is a motivational message from Mourinho, it's also a very strange one. Assuming Ballack does come back and play well in the Premier League, he could still not be included in Europe.

The other suggestion is, of course, that Chelsea are trying to push him out in January. That could well be the case but again, there was no need to shoot themselves in the foot at the same time. Inclusion in the squad list alone does not make you cup-tied, only playing in the competition does. It would have been easy to bench Ballack and make up a story about his partner being scared of London's urban foxes in order to dress up a move. Instead, Chelsea are saying one of their most valuable players is out of commission just as the German FA say he's nearly ready to return. If they are trying to sell him, they have just made him a lot cheaper.

You might think that it's not a great loss. But there is another dimension to this story, one that Chelsea have been quite happy to leave largely unnoticed. It's a tale of gross incompetence and of dubious dealings in the transfer market. A quick count of Chelsea's Champions League list shows they have in fact nominated only 23 players, despite being allowed 25 by Uefa. None of the other 31 teams in the competition left any places open. Somebody at Stamford Bridge has obviously made a very serious blunder. They didn't simply forget to nominate two more players, they actually found themselves unable to. New Uefa regulations stipulate at least three members of a side's Champions League squad must be "association-trained players", who are affiliated to the domestic national association, and a further three "club-trained players", who have been registered with their club for three years between the ages of 15 and 21. Chelsea, however, only have one player who meets the latter criteria - captain John Terry - and thus had to leave two places open.

It's really quite unbelievable. The richest team in Europe are effectively going into the competition two men down. Remember that next time Mourinho bemoans his injury-list. None of their domestic or international rivals had any problems fulfilling the Uefa criteria. It does make you wonder about the Blues' forward-planning. Glen Johnson, one player who would have been classified as club-trained, was sold to Portsmouth just last Friday.

Most clubs with similar problems push up one or two youth players, though that would not have created additional space for Ballack. The other obvious solution however, and one that is hugely beneficial to local goalkeeping talents throughout Europe, is to include your youth keeper in the squad. If Chelsea had chosen Yves Kalambay, 21, instead of Hilario, 31, in their A list squad, it would have created space for Ballack or somebody else. Alas, they flogged him a few weeks ago too - to Hibernian.

Chelsea fans might just shrug their shoulders at their club's failure to think through the repercussions. But the situation is sadly indicative of a wider malaise in the English game. Unlike La Liga, Serie A and the Bundesliga, who produce an endless array of decent keepers, the Premier League is full of third-choice Hilarios who take up squad places ahead of local youngsters. Do Bolton, for example, really need an Omani as their third keeper? There are, of course, countless examples of imported outfield players who are useless too. Ask yourself who is benefiting from such arrangements.