Terry's Absence

Obi wrote:

S4P wrote:

Obi wrote:Doesn't help that the first 2 games they had without him in the side were against Shithouse teams like Everton and to a lesser extent Wigan.

He's perfectly suited to the way they play aswell in a way which Boulahrouz isn't yet.



Still doesn't make him very good

the same shithouse team which beat you 3-0 earlier this season?

Yup. Using their shithouse tactics. Flukely mistake for the 3rd goal and fouls in the build up to the first 2.

All Everton do is lump it forward or pray for Arteta to do something out of the ordinary... like pass along the deck.

bit like liverpool last season then

Actim index imAs at: Tue 19 Dec 06 12:50

Name Index Score Overall Index Rank Team
1 edwin van der sar 260 14 Manchester United
2 david james 255 18 Portsmouth
3 jussi jaaskelainen 232 29 Bolton Wanderers
4 marcus hahnemann 230 32 Reading
5 jose reina 223 35 Liverpool

I don't understand all this "Since Gallas has gone, Chelsea have crumbled" theory.

Terry, this season has played 22 games, and in those 22 games Chelsea have conceded 13 goals.

In the 4 games that he hasn't played in, we have conceded 6 (1 of those was a clean sheet too).

Makelele hasn't played all the games which Terry hasn't played in too. Maka has only started in 15 of those 22 games.

I think it is the Chelsea team that needs John Terry more than John Terry needs the Chelsea team. His record for Chelsea and England in terms of the number of goals which are conceded whilst he is in the side is phenomenaly low.

I haven't watched Chelsea's games with him injured, but from the goal highlights, it seems to me that the main problem is the lack of organisation that Terry brought to the back 4 with his communication and leadership. No one else in Chelsea's back 4/5/6 is as vocal as he was.

Also, Carvalho likes to step up to the ball but doesn't always succeed with his tackles. Usually Terry is there to back him up, but with Boulahrouz and Ferreira and different partners always playing, they don't quite have the same understanding at the back.

I would have thought it's obvious - having spent 100 million pounds for three seasons running, Chelsea don't have enough cover in defence because they've bought very badly. Carvalho and Ferreira were, between them, 35 million pounds, yet both are limited in their abilities. 35 million quid. Two defenders.

Fucking ridiculous.

And now Mourinho's got the cheek to complain about the depth of the squad just because he's lost three players (two keepers and a centrehalf). If Chelsea's squad isn't deep enough then there's only one man to blame - Mourinho. He's been able to afford literally any player that has been available, yet his team lose a couple of key players and start looking weak.

Terrible transfer management.

santagoingmarching wrote:I would have thought it's obvious - having spent 100 million pounds for three seasons running,

Not quite sure where you get £100 million per summer from.

This summer: Shevchenko £30m, A Cole £5m exchange, Boulahrouz £5m, Mikel £16m, Ballack FREE, Kalou undisclosed (approximately £10m). TOTAL: £66m (only 2/3 of your estimated spending).

I think the most we ever spent was in Roman's first season (and that was about £80m)

santagoingmarching wrote:Chelsea don't have enough cover in defence because they've bought very badly. Carvalho and Ferreira were, between them, 35 million pounds, yet both are limited in their abilities. 35 million quid. Two defenders.

Fucking ridiculous.

Could be worse. We could've spent £30 million on just one defender. Other club(s) have.

santagoingmarching wrote:And now Mourinho's got the cheek to complain about the depth of the squad just because he's lost three players (two keepers and a centrehalf). If Chelsea's squad isn't deep enough then there's only one man to blame - Mourinho. He's been able to afford literally any player that has been available, yet his team lose a couple of key players and start looking weak.

He's also missing his 2 best wingers, and has a striker trying to adapt. That's 2 goalkeepers, 1 centre half and 2 wingers. Imagine if another club (Newcastle aside) had that many key injuries, they would be losing match after match. Credit to the team for still being able to pick up 3 points on a regular basis.

santagoingmarching wrote:Terrible transfer management.

Not really. He sold a CB who was kicking up a fuss, and after the transfer window closed lost 5 key players to injuries (admittedly one is a 2nd choice goalkeeper, but Carlo would've been playing right now of course).

But for 2 seasons whenever Man United, Arsenal or Liverpool had injury troubles and all 3 clubs had it very bad in that period, you always heard from general people or pundits the reason Chelsea never have these problems is because their squad is too strong.

Now Chelsea have injury troubles, its all Chelsea's squad isn't strong enough and we/they need better replacements.

You're not going to get much sympathy, like our clubs didn't and sorry to say it is bad management to sell one of the best central defenders in Europe and not replace him properly.

S4P wrote:

santagoingmarching wrote:I would have thought it's obvious - having spent 100 million pounds for three seasons running,

Not quite sure where you get £100 million per summer from.

This summer: Shevchenko £30m, A Cole £5m exchange, Boulahrouz £5m, Mikel £16m, Ballack FREE, Kalou undisclosed (approximately £10m). TOTAL: £66m (only 2/3 of your estimated spending).

I think the most we ever spent was in Roman's first season (and that was about £80m)

Well, this article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061224.wspt-chelsea24/BNStory/GlobeSportsFootball/
puts your total spending at 276 million pounds, so nearly 100 million pounds per season.

And this article, from before this summer puts the spending at 'nearly 265 million'.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4652672.stm

Now, you're right about the last summer, you only spent an obscene amount of money, rather than an inordinate amount. Still, you're running at about 200 million pounds loss per season, far far far far far more than any other club could manage, yet still have a problem when you lose a handful of players.

santagoingmarching wrote:Chelsea don't have enough cover in defence because they've bought very badly. Carvalho and Ferreira were, between them, 35 million pounds, yet both are limited in their abilities. 35 million quid. Two defenders.

Fucking ridiculous.

Could be worse. We could've spent £30 million on just one defender. Other club(s) have.

Man U bought Ferdinand (who has been exceptional for them) for 30 million at a time when transfers were at their peak and Ferdinand was very young for a centre-half.

Regardless, Man U have spent a net total of about 50 million quid since Abramovich took over. Chelsea have spent a net total of about 250 million in the same period, and their wage bill forces them into huge operating losses.

If that's 'worse' than Chelsea situation (spending five times as much yet having a less settled and less capable squad) then fine, you're entitled to your view.

I maintain, for the money spent, Chelsea have bought very badly (particularly compared to Man U, Liverpool and Arsenal in the same period).

santagoingmarching wrote:And now Mourinho's got the cheek to complain about the depth of the squad just because he's lost three players (two keepers and a centrehalf). If Chelsea's squad isn't deep enough then there's only one man to blame - Mourinho. He's been able to afford literally any player that has been available, yet his team lose a couple of key players and start looking weak.

He's also missing his 2 best wingers, and has a striker trying to adapt. That's 2 goalkeepers, 1 centre half and 2 wingers. Imagine if another club (Newcastle aside) had that many key injuries, they would be losing match after match. Credit to the team for still being able to pick up 3 points on a regular basis.

Well, Man U were missing two wingers (Park and Giggs), a striker (Smith), their best defender (Vidic), and Rooney and Scholes for a brief period at the start of the season, and they're four points ahead of you, showing excellent consistency.

So, credit to Chelsea for spending more money than God and managing to grind out results week after week without playing particularly well.

Yeah, maybe not.

santagoingmarching wrote:Terrible transfer management.

Not really. He sold a CB who was kicking up a fuss, and after the transfer window closed lost 5 key players to injuries (admittedly one is a 2nd choice goalkeeper, but Carlo would've been playing right now of course).

5 key players, in a squad that has supposedly been built to have two world class players in each position, should be no problem at all. The point is this: Robben and Cole out injured - Chelsea still have 30/35 million pounds worth of wingers to replace them, no other team could boast such resources. So, that should be absolutely NO problem for a squad of such resources, but it is, proving that Chelsea have bought badly.

Indeed. Also, nobody ever remembers injury problems when they recount past winners. Nobody ever seems to remember we were missing Rio for so long the season before last (I think? See? I can't remember) and we had TERRIBLE injury problems last year (see our teams against Chelsea, vs Liverpool in FA Cup...etc).

Chelsea are not gonna get any sympathy for getting injuries when they have a) Spent so much and b) Had such an injury free couple of years.

Got a Genuine LOL of the Evening Standard today:

"Such has been Drogba's all-round form this season, Mourinho admitted he has considered picking him to play in Terry's absence at the back. But he has been unable to take the risk due to his team's reliance on his great form in front of goal, with Andriy Shevchenko, Michael Ballack & Solomon Kalou still not contributing enough in attack."
--------------------------------------

All that money, and still they're a one man team

How much sympathy are the press and media giving Chelsea now they've lost fucking Terry!?!!?

Parks lives wrote:How much sympathy are the press and media giving Chelsea now they've lost fucking Terry!?!!?

He's the England captain, they've got to make out like he's the only player Chelsea have (despite spending 100 million per season)...

Just done an in depth peice on Sky Sorts news.

Is it full of comments about how Terry is a rough n ready defender and so he's likely to get these knocks as he puts his body on the line for the cause?

To all those who say Gallas is missed more than Terry:

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry 06/07 = 0.57

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry + Cech 06/07 = 0.42

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with no Terry or Cech = 1.00

Conclusion:

The team has coped very well, without Gallas (all the time Terry has been in the side), conceding an average of 1 goal every other game. When Cech and Terry have played together, it's been an even better record.

The defensive problems have arised when Terry has been injured/suspended.

@ saints

Sure, transfer prices were higher 4-5 years ago (still doesn't mean that other big clubs have the right to complain about Chelsea's spending), but no other club spent £30 million on a defender (I think Buffon was bought for a similar price, but the rest of the 'high profile' buys were all attacking players)

You would say Liverpool and Man Utd have spent well? They may not have spent as much, but with all due respect, both clubs have continuously been buying players who have turned out to be flops over recent years, which may contribute as to why the older generation (such as Scholes, Giggs, Neville) are still some of the most important players.

Liverpool were spending a lot of money (maybe not Chelsea's level of money), but still a lot on players who did not turn out to be successes.

Man Utd may have been spending less in recent years, but just how much money have they spent in the past 5-10 years.

Rio £30m, Rooney £28m, Veron £28m, RVN £20m, Carrick £18m etc. (I found these transfer values on United's website, in case you ask). Not exactly cheap buys.

You're right, Man Utd were missing Giggs and co. I believe in the 2-3 games Giggs was out, they dropped 5 points did they not? So far, Chelsea have dropped just 2 points in their injury crisis.

PS. Where do you get £35m of wingers from?

S4P wrote:@ saints

You would say Liverpool and Man Utd have spent well?

Not all that well, but considerably better than Chelsea.

Liverpool were spending a lot of money (maybe not Chelsea's level of money), but still a lot on players who did not turn out to be successes.

As does every club. My point is that Chelsea should be able to accommodate the loss of five players.

Man Utd may have been spending less in recent years, but just how much money have they spent in the past 5-10 years.

Rio £30m, Rooney £28m, Veron £28m, RVN £20m, Carrick £18m etc. (I found these transfer values on United's website, in case you ask). Not exactly cheap buys.

Those values are inaccurate. Ferdinand was 30 million, Van Nistelrooy 19, Veron 28, all in a period where fees were at a peak. Rooney, at about 24 million so far, and Carrick at 14, represent poor value for money but were exactly what Man U needed. Ronaldo at 12 million, Park Ji Sung at 4.5, Vidic at 7 million, Evra at 5 million, all represent good or very good value for money. To put it into context, Man U paid the same for Park, Evra and Ronaldo as Chelsea paid for Drogba.

PS. Where do you get £35m of wingers from?

SWP at 23+Kalou at 10/12 million = 30/35 million quids worth of wingers.

S4P wrote:To all those who say Gallas is missed more than Terry:

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry 06/07 = 0.57

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry + Cech 06/07 = 0.42

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with no Terry or Cech = 1.00

Conclusion:

The team has coped very well, without Gallas (all the time Terry has been in the side), conceding an average of 1 goal every other game. When Cech and Terry have played together, it's been an even better record.

The defensive problems have arised when Terry has been injured/suspended.

It's true Terry is a huge loss to chelsea but using those stats to come to that conclusion is ridculous. I can use this season's stats to prove flamini & gilberto are the most clinical arsenal players, we are better off without henry, barca don't need eto'o for goals etc but we all know the reality is different. You can make credible judgement based on stats over a long period of time not 3 matches or a month.

Agooner wrote:

S4P wrote:To all those who say Gallas is missed more than Terry:

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry 06/07 = 0.57

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with Terry + Cech 06/07 = 0.42

Average no. of goals conceded (per game) with no Terry or Cech = 1.00

Conclusion:

The team has coped very well, without Gallas (all the time Terry has been in the side), conceding an average of 1 goal every other game. When Cech and Terry have played together, it's been an even better record.

The defensive problems have arised when Terry has been injured/suspended.

It's true Terry is a huge loss to chelsea but using those stats to come to that conclusion is ridculous. I can use this season's stats to prove flamini & gilberto are the most clinical arsenal players, we are better off without henry, barca don't need eto'o for goals etc but we all know the reality is different. You can make credible judgement based on stats over a long period of time not 3 matches or a month.

It's bull for me - why don't they mention that it's a Brand-new defensive partnership, a left back who's only been there for 3 months, playing without a regular right back, and the 3rd choice 'keeper.

He's a big miss, because of the intangibles, - he's vocal, and Boulahrouz & carvalho are the same sort of quick, snappy defender, neither of them is going to do the "sit deep and head" role that Terry does to the same effect. I've long acknowledged that this type of player is a must for the EPL, hence Man U have Vidic, and Senderos will have his uses for Arsenal
- his impact in the 2nd half of the Watford game was a prime example of that.

It still doesn't alter my view as far as European & International competitions are concerned.

It still doesn't alter my view as far as European & International competitions are concerned

I doubt anything would T/S.. still great entertainment all the same.. once we make our views it is very very hard to shift from them.. the longer terry stays out the longer we have to analyse this as he has never been injured for any real length of time in the past few years.

Like you and Paul Scholes, eh?

I've never been remotely bothered by his Chelsea form. I've said tiime and again, that the EPL is never a good way to judge what's best for INt;. competitions - they're 2 different kettles of fish.

"JT- watch out for Robinho & Kaka', they're very combative in the air"

TeamTurtleDoves wrote:Like you and Paul Scholes, eh?

I've never been remotely bothered by his Chelsea form. I've said tiime and again, that the EPL is never a good way to judge what's best for INt;. competitions - they're 2 different kettles of fish.

"JT- watch out for Robinho & Kaka', they're very combative in the air"

scholes is just having a rare good run after 3 years of horrible inconsistency... had to happen sometime.. he'll be back to normal soon enough

As for your terry comments... can I apply the same to sir scholes while we are on the topic

@ TS/Agooner

What it shows is that the Chelsea defence has still coped despite the absence of Gallas. The only real problems have come in the last few games where Terry has been absent. That's what it shows.

In addition, this Chelsea defensive record has taken into account the fact that Chelsea have a make-shift right-back, a 3rd choice goalkeeper and a new left-back, with the record proving pretty good when Terry has played (including a clean sheet v Barcelona), whilst proving pretty poor without him. This highlights even more the importance of Terry.

European wise: Only Munich and Lyon conceded fewer goals, despite Chelsea being in the group named as the 'group of death', with some people wondering whether or not Chelsea would actually qualify. No goals conceded at home in the Champions League this season too.

It's no coincidence that Terry has also only ever lost 1 competitive match with England, whilst the last competitive game which did not feature Terry was the abysmal defensive performance versus Northern Ireland. The only competitive game England have lost with Terry was the last game against Croatia. Not bad for a guy who is "not international quality".

I don't know what the guy has to do to receive credability. Ever present in the side with the best defensive record at the World Cup, but that's still not good enough for some.

Abysmal defensive performance??

It was one mistake by Ashley Cole the abysmal ness was more the likes of Beckham, Lampard, Owen, Rooney and Gerrard who didn't do anything of note between them.

Parks lives wrote:Abysmal defensive performance??

It was one mistake by Ashley Cole the abysmal ness was more the likes of Beckham, Lampard, Owen, Rooney and Gerrard who didn't do anything of note between them.

Beat me to it - they had 1 clear sight of goal, and they scored.

Might've been something to do with Beckham in the holding role, Rooney wasted on the left, Lampard and Gerrard being their usual abysmal selves.
------------------------------------

How about Terry Letting a throw in bouncing over his head against Sweden.

Giving the ball to Parades vs. Paraguay

Letting Crespo beat him to the ball vs. Argentina.

Being out-jumped by Helder Facking Postiga.

Poor against Switzerland - Shaky throughout.

Weak defensive header that led to Poland hitting the crossbar. Backing down like a coward when faced by the Polish attacker - he gave the player the time & space to shoot, which led to James' error.

Identical mis-kicks against Azerbeijan & Jamaica.
--------------------------------------

If anything, it just highlights how many times we've been let off the hook, rather than anything great about Terry.

haha look what you started SP... every single error terry has ever commited for england is stored away in T/S' memory bank. it's a battle that is impossible to win (or lose ). there are no winners

@ COTR

Compare the Ferdinad/Campbell errors from the same period of time, and you'll think differently.

Oh, I do believe I missed out the back header against Ecuador (Lawro the cunt: "I think Robinson's to blame there" ) and when he lost the ball in Midfield in the 2nd half, and Carrick, like A.Cole earlier, saved his ar$e.

Every goal England seemed to concede in Euro 2004 from open play came from the right-central of defence (JT's zone - Campbell was on the left)... All of England's opponents best chances over the last couple of years generally seem to come from one of his "uncharacteristic" errors or from someone just plain attacking him. Part of me wishes that England's opponents were more ruthless.

the difference is you do not look for / remember / constantly repeat the other defenders mistakes. all you are looking to do is shift all blame onto terry. It's totally fine.. I happily do it with the flump. but it is an agenda and as such becomes incredibly bias in every debate whether you care to believe it or not.

Parks lives wrote:Abysmal defensive performance??

It was one mistake by Ashley Cole the abysmal ness was more the likes of Beckham, Lampard, Owen, Rooney and Gerrard who didn't do anything of note between them.

I didn't just mean the defense, I meant the whole team defensively (if you get what I mean)