How Good are Chelsea REALLY?

I mean they invest about twice as much as any club into their players and play thoroughly dull football.

Football is after all a spectator sport and for the price you pay you expect a bit of entertainment - and Chelsea's standard ticket prices are th highest in the league!

Yet entertainment-wise I'd rather go and watch Arsenal, Spurs, west Ham, Fulham, Man Utd, Man City, Newcastle, Middlesborough, Portsmouth - and i'm not joking either!

Chelsea play some seriously depressing football.

Do the fans not want their team to play more attractive football now? At first, ye the results matter most but there comes a point when you want a bit of flair! - look at AC and Barca - loved the World over for thei atttacking, falir-filled football, in contrast everyone HATES chelsea - Messi says he hates Chelsea more than Madrid!

Come on Chelsea! entertain us, don't kill us of boredom

exuse me why aren't liverpool on that list!?

Istanbul
Cardiff

saw in the guardian yesterday that for the first time in a long while chelsea tiks for man city are on gen sale at 4 per person, this says it all now they have the trophies they want good footy which they aren´t getting so they are staying away

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:exuse me why aren't liverpool on that list!?

I dont think you can generalise that of all Chelsea performances; Barca game at the Bridge just an example that Chelsea can play very good attacking football, also after Cruyff claimed Chelsea were dull they won the next four games by scoring four goals.

I think that this season will be very difficult because Mourinho will keep tinkering, and that will unsettle the attackers.

But if anyone one can do it, its Mourinho, and keeping the same nucleus for the past 2 seasons is very helpful.

Personally id rather watch Chelsea than Fulham, Citeh, and Portsmouth.

Prime example of quality is games Vs West Ham, second one most notable coming back from 10 men to win -- Champions Material.

Liverpool are generally pretty dull as well although this season I think they will be a bit better.

Their an efficient team rather than a team that will wow you with its skill, flair, verve and vision.

Aurelio looks very imaginative though, as does Gonzales and we all know about Bellamy and Pennant.

Chelsea only sold 15,000 of their allocated 25,000 for the Community shield,

ok it's not the biggest game but it's still against Liverpool

@ TM

Any team can play attractive football now and again (note of exception: Sunderland).

Chelsea 'function' but aren't spectacular.

They will win the EPL this season, i have no doubts, but for the money that has been invested, you expect a bit more of them - the stadium is very rarely filled - why is this? Its because their football isn't expressive and also because they're a small club

Tweedledum wrote:Liverpool are generally pretty dull as well although this season I think they will be a bit better.

Their an efficient team rather than a team that will wow you with its skill, flair, verve and vision.

Aurelio looks very imaginative though, as does Gonzales and we all know about Bellamy and Pennant.

Same could be argued about, Kalou, Sheva, Ballack They have been brought into to help Chelsea play more attacking football.

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:Chelsea only sold 15,000 of their allocated 25,000 for the Community shield,

ok it's not the biggest game but it's still against Liverpool

Yeh, as i said, its because they're team plays uninpsiring football and because they're a small club.

Their dull football is actually a term well overrated:
I've seen Chelsea games which are thoroughly entertaining, one springs to mine is when they demolished Liverpool 4-1 at Anfield.

I think its to do with creating a dynasty as quickly as possible- Mourinho had effectively ONE season to win Chelsea the title, and now to make them the most successful team in England.

In order to do that, with so many new players, you cant really expect them to play fluid attractive football like a team who has gelled together over a couple of years.

Mourinho is also a cautious manager- his treatment of Joe Cole and expressing a "no tricks" ethic of course adds to the fact that Chelsea are always going to be a tactically disciplined team who do not play much gung ho football.

I do agree that to go down in the annals of history, Chelsea need to expand their game now they have established a (kind of) side and their authority.

But certainly a lot of the anti-Chelsea predicament is pure jealousy in terms of how much money Chelsea are able to spend and their quick rise to the top. To hear United, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Munich etc. fans complain about Chelsea spending a lot of money is quite comical when you consider the sums of cash these clubs in the past had and spent in comparison with the competition..

@ Tweedle

I wouldn't be so sure that Chelsea will definately win the league this season, they weren't excellent last season but they were consistent, and they managed to grind out results at times.

Liverpool,Arsenal and United will push them all the way this season and i think all 4 have an equal chance of winning the league

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:Chelsea only sold 15,000 of their allocated 25,000 for the Community shield,

ok it's not the biggest game but it's still against Liverpool

It was a bit suprising, wouldnt be suprised if Chelsea wanted a load of money for the tickets, more over it was only the Charity Shield.

chelsea have the potential to be very very good as well as very very exciting.... it all hinges on mourinho dropping lampard... it is simply impossible to play free flowing football in every game if you are effectivly playing with ten men in terms of teamwork in midfield ...

in all seriousness though if i was a chelsea fan id be pretty happy with the football the team play...it's solid, effiecient, attacking and very very hard to beat...maybe this year they will move away from their battering ram system and start to build the team around their better players ie robben,ballack and shevchenko instead of setting everything up for lampard... if they do this they will be very very good to watch this year.. however with all the money they have spent i don't think the squad they have is anything near value for money especially when you look at barca's current squad

Drop Lamps? He set up Sheva tho' . Personallly i would put Ballack in drop Lamps.

Target Man wrote:Drop Lamps? He set up Sheva tho' . Personallly i would put Ballack in drop Lamps.

yep it was a great pass... however id prefer a midfielder who won't be getting overrun in every game... i think every manager in the world would play ballack ahead of lamps in a 4-4-2 which i think is the direction jose is going to take chelsea this year

@ TRWP

I hear you - and its probably true.

But they're won the EPL twice now and the dynasty is being set in motion. Now IMO they need to start to entertain, as has been said on about 4 seperate occasions already in this thread, they need to attract the fans back - they no longer have a Zola type player to inspire the fans and IMO they desperately need one - a bit of continuity.

I'm also unsure as to how good Mourinho is for the club - sure he'll guarantee you results but he was brought in for the CL success and so far this hasn't happened at Chelsea.

A lot of managers could have won the EPL for Chelsea the past two seasons and could have had them playing a lot better football than they have been

1.Liverpool
2.Arsenal
3.Chelsea
4.United

i've said this the past few months and i'm sticking to it!

More Like:

1. Chelsea
2. Pool
3. MU
4. Arse/Spuds

i really thought chelsea were bankers before sunday but whilst you cannot read too much into the result or performance there were enough issues that need addressing if they are to win it, and it needs v strong management of superstars by mourinho to do it, and its an area which he has yet to prove hence he never really bought superstars until this season. eg drogba or sheva in a 3 pronged attack not both, lack of options out wide imho, SWP, Robben, Kalou (who looked like he´ll need a time to settle, nowt wrong with that but will limit options in short term, his decision to bring on kalou instead of mikel seemed odd) & Cole. Essien didn´t look a natural makelele and this may be ok v average opposition but if make gets an injury again they may struggle against the better teams. mourinho managerial strength will be tested as he may have unhappy drogba and robben who are both whingers and this may unsettle the so called team spirit. not a foregone conclusion but imho it rests with mourinho to resolve

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:1.Liverpool
2.Arsenal
3.Chelsea
4.United

i've said this the past few months and i'm sticking to it!

Manchester United will finish 4th this season...

yes

luisgarciahedrinkssangria wrote:yes

I was being sarcastic..

on what basis will they finish 4th and Arsenal 2nd?

The difference between Chelsea and Liverpool/Man Utd and Arsenal is the squad, not the first team.

Hence why Chelsea will again win the title this season, their squad is incomparable- look at their midfield- the one they played against Liverpool with had no Robben, Joe Cole, Makalele. these 3 on their own would walk into the United, Liverpool and Arsenal 1 st team. Then they have this Kalou character upfront who is hugely talented...

there is definitely the potential there for Chelsea to be very exciting this season whilst virtually unbeatable too.

I dont agree with this post anyway, i can watch chelsea matches for the full 90 minutes. They often play good stuff, sometimes put in a very good show. just not consistently exciting.
Chelsea fans dont turn up because it costs so much to go to there games. Not really the football if you are winning you dont really care how, anfield gets sold out every week for heaven sakes.

robben played against liverpool one trick

i also think liverpool proved how strong their squad was on sunday...

anyway liverpool get called boring by some and i absolutly love the football we play so i doubt chelsea fans care to much if people call them boring (which is also incorrect)

Maybe Ballack is the player they need.

Before him, they didn't really have a midfielder that could impose himself on the game - ie dictate speed and hold possession.

I'm still unsure as to whether Ballack is the right man though because he hardly is renowned for these things, although he is far better than Lampard.

COTR wrote:robben played against liverpool one trick

i also think liverpool proved how strong their squad was on sunday...

anyway liverpool get called boring by some and i absolutly love the football we play so i doubt chelsea fans care to much if people call them boring (which is also incorrect)

my bad. liverpool are better set up this season to take them all the way for sure- now with some genuine width you've been lacking.

I still think Chelsea will win it, but reckon Liverpool will be close as they've ever been

l r d wrote:I dont agree with this post anyway, i can watch chelsea matches for the full 90 minutes. They often play good stuff, sometimes put in a very good show. just not consistently exciting.
Chelsea fans dont turn up because it costs so much to go to there games. Not really the football if you are winning you dont really care how, anfield gets sold out every week for heaven sakes.

But Arsenal fan shave to pay as much and they sell out every week AND have an extra 17,000 seats and less chance of success - how do you explain that one?

Tweedledum wrote:Maybe Ballack is the player they need.

Before him, they didn't really have a midfielder that could impose himself on the game - ie dictate speed and hold possession.

I'm still unsure as to whether Ballack is the right man though because he hardly is renowned for these things, although he is far better than Lampard.

tweeds you kidding right, ballack is v versatile you forget his leverkusen performances