donjazet:


How about posting the gifs on(from) your phone. ie local storage.

That won't work.

You're essentially streaming an animation when embed a gif so needless to say, the source of the gif needs to be constantly connected to the nairaland via internet.

nateevs:



And logic suggests that tutored by the grand master himself, its only matter of time before they master it. It will be a combination tactical training and transfer of the ideal players to get it right. When he does eventually, most people will come up with a new story.

Quality players and Money....And I thought only Jose needed those to win

Spy360:

You mentioned those he sold but forgot the ones he bought. Your argument is not balanced.

The good thing is that he is in the EPL and we are watching him. He better wins the league or you are fired!

WHo were the ones he bought when he won in his first season the treble?

bigkesh:


Quality players and Money....And I thought only Jose needed those to win

Ahahahaha touche

pamcode:
Of course bruyne isn't a novice but the whole team are novice at playing Pep style compared to Barca.

Controlling a ball and passing to an open Kolarov is Pep style, Or Fernandinho falling is Pep style or John Stones falling asleep and failing to receive a simple pass

Don't mind nateevs!! Sheer hate has blinded his analytical interpretation.
What a shame! his bias is sooo bad.

raumdeuter:


Controlling a ball and passing to an open Kolarov is Pep style, Or Fernandinho falling is Pep style or John Stones falling asleep and failing to receive a simple pass

Stop giving excuses

Man city's first goal against united was due to blind's ball watching(individual error)

Second goal, poor marking and ball watching(individual error)

I guess that is mourinho's style too

How many of you screamed "individual error" that day? When stoke equalized due to De gea's error, how many of you screamed individual error? Hypocrisy, individual errors my foot

dopeJemi:


Stop giving excuses

Man city's first goal against united was due to blind's ball watching(individual error)

Second goal, poor marking and ball watching(individual error)

I guess that is mourinho's style too

How many of you screamed "individual error" that day? Hypocrisy, individual errors my foot

First goal Debruyne beat Blind to the ball very different from Blind passing the ball to Debruyne like Gundogan and KDB did yesterday,
Second goal ball fal to KDB he cut to his left and shot hit the post and Iheanacho buried the rebound

raumdeuter:


Playing like Simeone is sweet when you are a serious underdog like Atletico is vs Barca and Madrid

Madrid, Bayern Barca City other top clubs wont accept Simeones type of football never

City side by side with Madrid, Bayern and barca....... Wtf dayo, what wont you type to save a face?

Smh.......

raumdeuter:


First goal Debruyne beat Blind to the ball very different from Blind passing the ball to Debruyne like Gundogan and KDB did yesterday,
Second goal ball fal to KDB he cut to his left and shot hit the post and Iheanacho buried the rebound

You can only beat a player to the ball when you have pace(running for the ball), blind was simply ball watching and that ball was his everyday of the week, he didn't even contend and that was an individual error, ask the pundits on that day too

Blind again gave him too much space and didn't put any single pressure on KDB which allowed him to cut to his left, individual error, ask the pundits


Did I see you yelling individual errors on that day? NO! Instead it was Pep's ingenuity

Did I see you talking about pep's defensive tactics in the second half? NO! Instead it was Pep's masterclass

Oga, enough with the excuses

diggz:
City side by side with Madrid, Bayern and barca....... Wtf dayo, what wont you type to save a face?

Smh.......

They are the financially buoyant clubs thats why I am comparing them not that their achievement are anywhere close

dopeJemi:


You can only beat a player to the ball when you have pace(running for the ball), blind was simply ball watching and that ball was his everyday of the week, he didn't even contend and that was an individual error, ask the pundits on that day too

Blind again gave him too much space and didn't put any single pressure on KDB which allowed him to cut to his left, individual error, ask the pundits


Did I see you yelling individual errors on that day? NO! Instead it was Pep's ingenuity

Did I see you talking about pep's defensive tactics in the second half? NO! Instead it was Pep's masterclass

Oga, enough with the excuses

The first goal was not in Blinds control and KdB beat him to it by stretching his leg. It wasnt like Blind was in total control of the ball and passed it to KDB like Gundogan did yesterday or Kdb did yesterday

raumdeuter:


The first goal was not in Blinds control and KdB beat him to it by stretching his leg. It wasnt like Blind was in total control of the ball and passed it to KDB like Gundogan did yesterday or Kdb did yesterday

KDB was able to beat him to it because blind was ball watching, now matter how you try to twist it, it's still due to blind's ball watching and it's an error in football

How is blind's ball watching pep's masterclass?

Pep got served yesterday, he should take it and swallow it, same as you

dopeJemi:


KDB was able to beat him to it because blind was ball watching, now matter how you try to twist it, it's still due to blind's ball watching and it's an error in football

How is blind's ball watching pep's masterclass?

Pep got served yesterday, he should take it and swallow it, same as you

Watch and learn. I am showing you a graphical analysis of the game.

1 Barca vs CIty the E next to Gundogan name means Error leading to a goal

2 is United vs City. No E next to Blinds name rather its beside Bravo name for the error leading to the goal

I didnt write those articles hope you know

raumdeuter:


Watch and learn. I am showing you a graphical analysis of the game.

1 Barca vs CIty the E next to Gundogan name means Error leading to a goal

2 is United vs City. No E next to Blinds name rather its beside Bravo name for the error leading to the goal

I didnt write those articles hope you know

When a player is ball watching and that act leads to the opposition scoring a goal, whose fault is it?

Just answer simply abeg

donjazet:
Don't mind nateevs!! Sheer hate has blinded his analytical interpretation.
What a shame! his bias is sooo bad.

Haba! Which one be hate?

dopeJemi:
When a player is ball watching and that act leads to the opposition scoring a goal, whose fault is it?

Just answer simply abeg

So you saw those graphs and you are still asking me these questions

If I cant convince you, I posted graphs from a reputed site to back up my claims you are still asking me this question?

What can I say that will convince you when you are looking at graphs with analysis and still doing stronghead

Guys Abeg e Don do!!!! This argument has carried on far too long!! Only time will tell. It's as simple as that! But Mou and pep are now in the same league and both started together at the same time. Let's watch and see.
But for now, it has become quite boring and repetitive.

Nihilist:
first kuwait, now ipodo...something tells me that my path must have crossed ramuzaki's at least once in this life...

I know say na una dey disturb all the olosho for Page, Pekas and Options that year

raumdeuter:
WHo were the ones he bought when he won in his first season the treble?

Tell us... :|

[size=14pt]Know your history[/size].
The battle of Stamford Bridge

Chelsea are poised at the crossroads as acrimony between Ken Bates (right) and Matthew Harding (left) threatens their ambitions for the club.
David Hellier reports
David Hellier Saturday 11 November 1995

It was a comment from one of his friend's wives at a christening party over the weekend that is said to have finally persuaded Ken Bates, the chairman of Chelsea Football Club, to hit out against fellow director Matthew Harding, the would-be pretender to his throne.
"Isn't it time you said something back?" said the woman to Bates, who for months has, by his own standards, kept his counsel against the background of what he believes has been a Harding-inspired whispering campaign.

This week the long-awaited bust-up between the two men began in earnest. First Bates blasted Harding after Harding sent him a letter containing his resignation from Chelsea Village, the club that owns the assets of Chelsea Football Club: "This man isn't fit to run my club," Bates declared.

Yesterday Bates escalated the battle by writing to Harding, dramatically withdrawing his directors' privileges, barring him from the press lounge and players' bar and accusing him of causing the club embarrassment in the boardroom.


Harding, a lifelong supporter of the club who has spent the whole of this week away in New York on business, flew back, declaring that he was "amazed" by a series of vitriolic attacks from Bates.

"I wasn't aware it was a battle or a war. But I'm not going to pack up my kit and walk away," he said yesterday. Earlier in the week he admitted what many people have believed has been his intention ever since he lent the club pounds 5m for the building of its North stand two and a half years ago - he wants to be its chairman.

For anybody close to the action at Stamford Bridge, however, there has never been a question of if the two men fall out, but when.

Apart from a brief honeymoon period after Harding lent the first pounds 5m to the club for the development of the North stand, the two men have worked in growing disharmony.

Bates said yesterday: "He's been very nice to my face while at the same time courting young journalists, the ones who are impressed with being courted by a rich young man. What he hasn't realised is that almost step by step everything he's been doing has been reported back to me..."

When the North stand opened last November, Bates refused to acknowledge any debt to Harding in the club programme. He wrote that it would be wrong to thank one person alone for the new stand, that it had been the result of the efforts of everyone associated with the club.

More recently he used the programme to point out to supporters that the rent Chelsea now pays to Harding's company, Stardust, effectively puts pounds 3 on each person's ticket price.

Told that Harding was trying to win over the fans' support for his threatened challenge, Bates thought it prudent to let the fans know that Harding's assistance was not coming free.

On Harding's part, he is said to have been briefing sections of the media about his difficulties with Bates. He has hinted that the manager, Glenn Hoddle, has an uneasy relationship with the man and that Hoddle would be unlikely to stay on when his current contract expires at the end of the year if Bates is still at the helm.

And at the recent Player of the Year Awards evening he was openly telling people that there was only one man holding Chelsea Football Club. There were no prizes for guessing who he meant.

Behind all the huff and puff of two men with big egos falling out lies the seemingly intractable problem facing both men: how to elevate Chelsea into the group of eight to 10 football clubs that have the wherewithal to dominate English football.

The two men line up like this: Bates, who does not appear to be a terribly wealthy man in his own right apart from his shareholding in Chelsea Village, saved the club from possible extinction in 1981 when he bought it for a nominal sum and took on its debts.

He fought and won an 11 year-old battle with property developers who owned the site at Stamford Bridge and wanted to turf the football club out and replace the stadium with a residential complex. Now he plans to raise new funds to build two new stands for the part of the stadium that have not yet been modernised and add to this a hotel complex, a car park and a residential block. He speaks for 100 million of the club's 102 million shares.

Harding is said to be worth around pounds 140m, most of which stems from his 30 per cent plus share-holding in Benfield, the London reinsurance group. He was paid a salary last year of pounds 3.25m and receives millions of pounds a year in shareholders' dividends.

A lifelong supporter, he responded to an advertisement in the Financial Times placed by Bates soon after the appointment of the current manager, Hoddle. He has so far lent the club the pounds 5m for the North stand - repayable in 2008 - and he has put up another loan of pounds 5m for the purchase of new players. Each time Chelsea sell a player, this goes down to reduce the money they owe to Harding.

In addition he recently acquired the freehold site at Stamford Bridge from the Royal Bank of Scotland for pounds 16.5m. Chelsea pay him a rent of pounds 1.5m a year.

Apart from obvious personality conflicts - Harding dislikes Bates' politics and does not have time for Bates' rather forthright manner - the two men differ in their approach to how Chelsea should go forward into the future.

Bates insists the club needs to reduce its reliance on the football side. Hence he wants an income stream that brings a greater percentage of revenue from merchandising, from catering, from selling flats and running a hotel.

Harding would rather build up the team further first, adding to the considerable sums Hoddle has already spent on new signings, a strategy Bates condemns as short-term.

So far Harding has not invested a single penny in the shares of Chelsea Village, considering the value Bates puts on the shares to be too high.

Bates reckons that the assets of Chelsea, which include the players' registrations, the goodwill of the club's name and merchandising opportunities, and the potential gate revenue and the potential for development value the company at around pounds 50-60m.

Some City bankers, and obviously Harding, dispute such a valuation. They point to the fact that Chelsea does well if it breaks even in a year on a revenue not much more than pounds 10m (Manchester United made a profit of pounds 20m on turnover of more than pounds 60m last year). They say the players' registrations might fetch a valuation of around pounds 15m and that the franchise as it now stands is probably not worth much more than that.

However, Harding's problem is that Bates has no intention of selling the club - unless he is offered a premium price. Bates says that Harding would have to offer him around pounds 60m for the company and be prepared to invest another pounds 40m in players and redeveloping the stadium. Put up or shut up, is the thrust of his message.

Harding may be rich, but he is not yet in the Jack Walker league. Walker, who has pumped millions into Blackburn Rovers and walked away from the sale of his steel company with cash of more than pounds 400m.
For Harding to buy Bates out he would have to sell his holding in Benfield - it is by no means certain how much he would get for it if he did, or how much the company would be worth without him - and then use most of his wealth to take control of Chelsea. Once he has paid out Bates there is no certainty there would be any money left for players, let alone the modernising of the ground.

Where Chelsea go from here remains unclear. It seems unlikely that the two men, after this latest spat, can continue working together. But it is also unlikely that Harding, Chelsea fanatic as he is, will or even can withdraw all his money (for one thing he can not call in his money on the North stand until 2008 anyway).

But if the worst happens and Harding tries to starve Chelsea of money for transfers, Bates' loyalists were yesterday suggesting that he is determined to carry on without Harding's financial assistance.

If the two can not resolve their differences, Chelsea may struggle to raise new funds, although Bates said yesterday he was in discussion with a number of financiers concerning the development of the new south stand.
Prior to Harding's involvement Bates, using the advice of Macarthur and Co, a small City merchant bank, toured the City in search of investors to assist him in getting his development plans on the road. There was no help forthcoming until Harding emerged.

Recently he has lunched merchant bankers in the City, but not with universal success. One banker said he would have worked for Bates if he was sure he would be paid up front. Bates insisted on a success-only fee and the business relationship broke down.

In the end this might be enough to secure a truce, however unlikely that may seem right now.
Hurt though he may be by Harding's supposed sniping campaign, Bates may yet come around to the fact that his aims at Chelsea could be badly affected by turning his nose up at Harding's cash and Harding, if he is to be taken at his word, is too big a fan of the club to do anything that will cause it long-term harm.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/the-battle-of-stamford-bridge-1581435.html

donjazet:
Guys Abeg e Don do!!!! This argument has carried on far too long!! Only time will tell. It's as simple as that! But Mou and pep are now in the same league and both started together at the same time. Let's watch and see.
But for now, it has become quite boring and repetitive.

Boring and repetitive Indeed. And some of us are now being quoted out of context, abused and accused of hatred.
Exactly why I have now left the discussion.


Time to discuss expectations for Sunday.

A40:

I know say na una dey disturb all the olosho for Page, Pekas and Options that year

Options!!!!

Club Page!

Mehn I never hear those names in a minute.

A40 you sef be dyed in the paint triple OG mack daddy. No wonder you and Dayo support a club by criminals. Una be the original sinners. Na people like you and Dayo make God use flood kill everybody during Noah's time...e be like say una ancestors tamo that ark last last.

Spy360:

Tell us... :|

Why cant you tell us?

raumdeuter:


So you saw those graphs and you are still asking me these questions

If I cant convince you, I posted graphs from a reputed site to back up my claims you are still asking me this question?

What can I say that will convince you when you are looking at graphs with analysis and still doing stronghead

I no dey find convincing, I don read your chat, whose fault is it that a player scores from another player's ball watching?

If you no fit answer am leave am

Giles Smith’s Thursday Thoughts

It is with a sense of history that columnist Giles Smith gives his Chelsea fan’s-eye view on the week’s events…

So much stuff in the media before and after the recent so-called ‘big match’ in the Premier League. You couldn’t move without bumping your head against it: about the opening of another chapter in the rivalry between two of the game’s biggest clubs - sides twinned in title-winning greatness. About the return of a former Chelsea manager to a ground where he has known both riotous happiness and bitter despair. On and on it went.
But I reckon we’ll always get that now, when Leicester meet Chelsea – or certainly while Claudio Ranieri is in charge, anyway, and probably beyond.

Incidentally, I notice the papers and the telly also found room to give a few mentions to Liverpool v Manchester United on the Monday night. Which, I suppose, was inevitable, too, up to a point. Then again, in the case of the game at Anfield, we were talking about a meeting between a team who last won the title four years ago and who haven’t looked like winning it since, and another team who last won it… well, you’re going to need a good memory here, because we’re casting back more than 26 years, or, in other words, before five members of our starting line-up against Leicester last Saturday were even born.

Did you know that Liverpool were once a dominant force in English football? If you’re young, the chances are you can’t imagine such a thing. And they never mention it, which doesn’t help in terms of keeping the sputtering candle of history alight for future generations.

Maybe somebody should make a television documentary about that whole era, talking to the people who were there and who witnessed it first-hand. You want to get to these people before the memories fade completely.

Meantime, though undoubtedly fun for all concerned, a match between Liverpool and Manchester United can’t help but feel, in 2016, like a clash between finished empires who are nobly adapting themselves to a new reality. It’s entertaining enough, obviously, if you’ve nothing better to do. But seeing Liverpool take on United at Anfield these days is a bit like visiting Portugal and thinking, ‘Wow, back in the 16th century, this place pretty much owned the world. And now it’s mostly about golf resorts.

I’m not saying Portugal isn’t a great place, by the way. I’m just saying that history marches on, power shifts and circumstances change, and Portugal isn’t what it used to be. A bit like Liverpool and Manchester United.

Anyway, at least the clash between the two most recent winners of the Premier League lived up to the hype, unlike the game at Anfield, although, in fairness, that one would have struggled to survive Sky Sports’ ‘Red Monday’ billing for it unless it had finished 14-13 with a last-minute appearance by Elvis.

Our match against Leicester, on the other hand, yielded what was surely the best performance by a Chelsea team in at least 18 months. For practically the entire 90 minutes our players exerted deeply gratifying levels of control, in every sense. Even the manager took one out of the air and trapped it stone dead at one point.

Eden Hazard and Victor Moses were on fire, N’Golo Kante tore recent, opportunistic reports of an energy-dip into strips, a back three entirely locked out Jamie Vardy, youth products flooded on from the bench in the later stages and, over and above everything, there was the unignorable sense of a project cohering. Plus there was David Luiz hitting the post at both ends, signalling a return to the kind of 24/7 entertainment value for which we celebrated his signing on Deadline Day.

An afternoon of gratifying rewards, all in all. People will say Leicester aren’t the side they were last season. They may be right. But neither, by the very promising looks of it, are we.

Next up, of course, Manchester United at home. Cue stuff in the media about the return of a former Chelsea manager to a ground where he has known both riotous happiness and bitter despair, and about another chapter in the vital tale of two storied clubs, twinned in (see rest of opening paragraph, above). History repeats itself so quickly, doesn’t it? You can barely keep up.[/size]

CLUB'S OFFICIAL SITE

dopeJemi:
I no dey find convincing, I don read your chat, whose fault is it that a player scores from another player's ball watching?

If you no fit answer am leave am

I said Gundogan made an error leading to the goal, whoscored agreed with me

You said it was similar to the error Blind made, whoscored disagreed with you

SO do you want me to to change the opinion of those who wrote the article that they should agree with CHief dopejemi?

Antonio Conte’s 3-4-3 formation – Is it here to stay?

As Chelsea prepare for Manchester United and Jose Mourinho this weekend, there has been plenty of debate over Antonio Conte’s decision to switch to a 3-4-3 formation. I ask the question, “Is it here to stay?”

Chelsea have only played two games against Hull City and Leicester City with the using the new approach but it’s been so far, so good with two wins, six points and two clean sheets. After a shaky start defensively and having been opened up by both Liverpool and Arsenal beforehand, those have been key in building confidence.

It’s clear that the players have adapted to the new formation and look to have settled into it quicker than expected but having made the decision to play with three centre backs it causes us a massive problem higher up the pitch?

You need natural width in the side if you play with a three at the back. The width comes from wingbacks and who pretty much pick themselves on a weekly basis with Marcos Alonso and Victor Moses performing well in both games so far.

It’s the key midfield and attacking areas that cause Conte a problem. I think we can all agree that N’Golo Kante, Eden Hazard and Diego Costa all pick themselves at the moment. That’s three of five positions if you include our wingbacks, which leaves just two places that are really to be contested between key members of our squad and that’s the position next to Kante in Midfield with the additional player in attacking areas alongside Costa and Hazard being the other.

In effect, Nemanja Matic, Mikel, Cesc Fabregas, Oscar, Ruben Loftus-Cheek, Pedro, Nathaniel Chalobah and Willian are all in contention for those places in the starting line-up and will be selected on a game-by-game basis. If anything, I still personally believe that Conte could alter the formation again to include Michy Batshuayi up front, which is another debate in itself with a 3-5-2 formation.

N'Golo Kante has been speaking to the Official Chelsea Website of the new formation this week and he believes it suits him and the team. He said:
"The new system is working well. We have been better with and without the ball, and we have conceded fewer chances."
One thing I am certain of is that the 4-2-3-1 formation that Chelsea had adopted for a number of seasons is dead in the water, as we do not have the players that fit into the formation. If ever you need an example of that, watch the first halves of the Liverpool and Arsenal game!

I still believe that we have an option to switch to 4-3-3 or 3-5-2 under Conte but it looks as though the 3-4-3 is going to be the way forward this season.

What do you think of the new formation and our performances in the last two games compared to earlier in the season?

http://www.chelseadaft.org/2016/10/antonio-contes-3-4-3-formation-is-it.html?m=0

raumdeuter:


I said Gundogan made an error leading to the goal, whoscored agreed with me

You said it was similar to the error Blind made, whoscored disagreed with you

SO do you want me to to change the opinion of those who wrote the article that they should agree with CHief dopejemi?

I never said it was similar, maybe that's where you are getting me wrong

I said KDB scored due to blind's ball watching which was a mistake on his path but nobody talked about that but rather praised Pep's ingenuity, now one or two city players made mistakes which led to goals but no, we must emphasize on the mistakes but not blind's

nateevs:



Boring and repetitive Indeed. And some of us are now being quoted out of context, abused and accused of hatred.
Exactly why I have now left the discussion.


Time to discuss expectations for Sunday.

Your statements reeked of massive dislike or hate for mourinho there is no doubt about that. I simply hope with time you realize that you were totally wrong in slandering him the way you are doing now.
Mourinho is the greatest manager Chelsea ever had.
Peace.