₦airaland Forum

@Dayo,


This is what you do time and again. You find a way to twist the argument even in the face of compelling evidence. In one instance, you say Torres was badly positioned, I proved he wasn't and that the pass never arrived. Now you making excuses for the foot the midfielder needed for the pass. The Torres run was so perfectly timed, also the space behind the defenders was massive that even a right foot pass would have found Torres where he wanted. This is how Torres plays.


My second compilation did not show that Torres was already making the run, if anything, it showed that Anelka was poised to make that pass in the understanding as a striker himself, that Torres will make that run - a moment of telepathy. Instead, you have found a way to make seem as though these sort of passes come all the time, Torres just doesn't make the run.



Now you are saying "that's what you are talking about" . . . No that's WE are talking about.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the earlier analysis, this is what happened with Sturridge a few frames earlier. No matter how you twist it, Danny's left foot, right head, he had all the time in the world. I will put them all together so you don't miss it this time.


Study carefully. In the first pic, he was standing on his left foot. Torres had already covered 4 yards in a forward run. Instead second pic, Sturidge had taken two strides. Putting all the pics together, it is overwhelming evidence of Sturridge unwillingness to make that pass. Torres did the striker's basics. The pass never arrived.

Bang!

You know, it's amazing how they come up with so much bollocks. In-fact, there's never substantial back up for their claims. Torres is shit without explaining why. We are suppose to have their word for it.

Look at the second phase of analysis and savour the beauty of it. From the position Anelka receives the ball, Torres is going to make a run leftwards and score. How can someone claim that his positioning is bad or that he never makes the right run after watching this?

This is what Benitez means by Torres is one striker he knows who's capable of playing in between the lines. This is a scenario of smart passer meets right run. Anelka anticipates that Torres will make that run and he makes the pass "regardless" . . This is how we should play always! Make that pass regardless!


Anelka could have passed back to Meireles on his right but he chooses the early ball and bang Torres scores.

Dayo don't bother. This is the what happened in the build up to the first picture I posted. Don't be in a haste to judge until you've seen the true picture. Torres was always making the run. How Danny got to the point in the first picture is what Coogar and I mean by not releasing the ball early for Torres. Anything Danny chooses to do there will work for Torres. What did he do?

Tell me what's wrong again about Torres' positioning?

Typical example of what the pro-Torres camp tries to pass across. Utd V Chelsea. Sturridge picks up from his half and runs into space right into the heart of the Utd defence. Torres intelligently makes a run wide, expecting that pass as seen in the pic 1 here. I draw a line to emulate where we all think the pass should go. That pass should be released early. Check out Pic 2 and see what Danny chooses to do instead.



In pic 3, I draw the path the ball would follow if Arsenal or Utd were playing. The understanding of build-up play at Utd and Arsenal is sublime. They will attempt to make that pass across goal. At Danny position on pic 2, the chance to find Torres is not totally lost. Instead see pic 3 for what Danny chooses instead. At pic 3, the chance is lost. He turns, almost falling, finds Mata on the right who then shoots with his right foot but the point is, Torres could have been set free on goal but it never happen.

There are a hundreds of scenarios I can pick from.

Doesnt it worry you that in the last 2 years no midfielder has been able to understand Torres?

6months ago you and coogar assured us that whenever Mata is played behind Torres his issues would be solved, that has been done and he has failed again

Initially you told us Lampard and other mechanical players were the problem that once technical players like Hazard, oscar Mata were bought, the Torres of Liverpool might be back. Till now everything has been done and still failed.

This is the part that irks me. It is insufficient to argue that just by playing Mata behind Torres, he will get supply. Yes Coogar and I argued that playing craftier players behind Torres "is capable of creating chances", it still all relies on the method of build up which is the core of the discussion.

If Ronaldinho plays behind Torres but the method of attack is phased and slow then we are back to square one. So instead of just assuming that our suggestions have not works, you should instead analyse if by playing MaZaCar behind Torres, the passes have really come in numbers.

If you are half intelligent you should see that hernandez getting those balls are 1 Based on the delivery, 2 based on his anticipation. Hernandez would never get those balls if he is working counter to the midfielders, MAZACAR centers the ball but Torres is running to the wings, And you now end up blaming the midfielder?

You are ignoring the more important question, Was the pass made? There lies the crux of the argument. If a flurry of passes in anticipation of a Torres move happen time and again, it will be clear for everyone to see. Infact, Ibime will not need to post a still image to try to force an explanation, there will be live feeds.

Now post a gif of a flurry of passes towards Torres that continually eludes a proper Torres move. Only then can you match up with the incisive analysis that Coogar puts forward.

If Rafa believes that, "I think the team has to help Fernando and create more chances, and he will score goals. You cannot expect a striker scoring just on his own, so we have to create more and better chances for him with the players we have", are we suggesting he doesn't know what he is talking about as well?

On the Torres argument, Coogar endeavours always, to make granular as well as pictorial and interactive analysis where possible. The default state of an intelligent mind is to review his analysis and discuss if they are right or wrong. Instead, it is met by dogmatic, beer-parlour like counter-arguments like "sebi he was bought for £50m", "before it was Malouda and Lampard" and sometimes you just wonder what the point is. You cannot help but conclude, each time Coogar makes a case, he makes sense.

I have not seen anything on a consistent basis from the anti-Torres campaign that engages the mind on a intellectual level. Like Coogar states forever, if Hernandez was a Chelsea player, he won't come close to his tally for United.

Big phat phooolish clown. Look at you in all your contradiction. You said. . .

You are the fool who stuck his chest out to say dropping Lamps for Ramires would improve our defence. You were WRONG!!!

CAPITAL WRONG!!!

Really? I didn't know I was wrong. Wait a minute. . So RDM did exactly what I was wrong about "Dropping Lamps for Ramires" but suddenly,

There is no problem with RDM trying out his different combinations and RDM was not wrong to try it.

Do you see your problem in daylight? How eediotic must one be to fail to grasp simple things? Your boot-licking has reached the stratosphere. At this moment, I think you are going really mad. If you cannot see this clearly, I suggest you lie down. Every single post I come back and we trash this. You find a different way to put it but you end up looking even more phoolish than the previous time. Do you even know what intellectual dishonesty you banding about means? I will post it for you again.


How can you claim to be intellectually honest when you cannot answer a simple question put to you? In case you don't understand this, I will spell it out.


1. The Mikel/Ramires combo was wrong.
2. Therefore Nateevs was wrong.
3. However RDM did exactly what Ibime claims Nateevs was wrong about.
4. At the same time claims that RDM did nothing wrong


How can anyone continue to hold these same views, all at the same time? How?


_________________________________________________________________________________________________

You have not come back to concede that you were wrong for pointing fingers at Lampard.

Just incase there was a lot of fat tissues in your retina, I will post for you again.

RDM record for first 7 games playing Lamps alongside Mikel with Ramires and/or Bertrand in the side.

LWWWLDD


RDM's record immediately after dropping Lamps for Ramires and sticking with MaZaCar.

WWWWWW up into the Shaktar game.


What were you flipping saying again. If results started going down south, other things should be looked at. Topmost of which is the team's organization in defence which clearly was not there. How can you say I was "CAPITAL WRONG" when after dropping Lamps, we went 6 straight wins on a bounce? Including away games at Arsenal and Spurs?

Are you this shameless?

Intellectual Dishonesty! Within the same post!
Translation:
(1.) RDM's sacking proved I was right with my criticism
(2.) I dont believe RDM should have been sacked.

Your stoopidity displayed in a glass shop. Are you this dumb? Ninjah, let me remind you of what I said.

Everyone though, including me agrees that he should have been given a chance.

Dude, I never said I don't believe he should be sacked. Olodo. . In case you don't understand it, it means "I understand why he should be sacked but he also deserves a chance" Why has he been sacked, my criticism. However, does he deserve a right to prove what he can do?, Absolutely yes. Why? Because it was criticism, not condemnation you mug!

That's what it means you a phat, phocking, desperate, lying clown who invents shyte to back up a point. Do you know how many things you've invented now?

You don't have nothing on me dude. I have answered all your questions. You come back and attend to your multiple crap lines.

Hehehehe. I have come to know to know that when your posts become shorter, you are beginning to come to your sense. You really have no shame, clutching at straws and accuse me of flip flopping. Intellectual dishonesty my phucking foot. Deal with this:-


How can you claim to be intellectually honest when you cannot answer a simple question put to you? In case you don't understand this, I will spell it out.


1. The Mikel/Ramires combo was wrong.
2. Therefore Nateevs was wrong.
3. However RDM did exactly what Ibime claims Nateevs was wrong about.
4. At the same time claims that RDM did nothing wrong


How can anyone continue to hold these same views, all at the same time? How?

RDM knows nothing about organising a defence yet RDM organised the best defence in the UCL even with 10 men and even with Bosingwa plaing centre-back and Ramires playing right-back. Dont forget Ramires playing left wing to stop Zuniga and Dani Alves. God is watching!

You are a complete slowpoke if you think pack 11 men behind the ball for 300min of football is anything remotely close to organisation at the back. You are a disgrace.

It was working last week yet now it's not working. OK!

In case your fat ass is impeding your vision, I will post it for you again.

I said it was working last week because it was working dude. I am not running away from my assertions. I repeatedly stated that MaZaCar are a bunch of young boys who will only get better with time. I also stand by saying Mikel and Ramires worked and I am not stating, whether now or ever, that it didn't work.

Yesterday "I may have got it wrong on MaZaCar and Mikel/Ramires, why didn't RDM try other combinations like Malouda or Ferreira. " Today the story has changed to "I was absolutely right on MaZacar and Mikel/Ramires . Maybe they weren't properly organized to sit deep " . Yet "RDM only had good defence when winning UCL because he sat deep ".

You phoolish fat clown. I said "I may" have got it wrong because I was challenging your point of view that was blaming everyone but RDM for the mess. I said "I may" because you were suggesting that RDM played MaZaCar because I suggested so. I never admitted to you that I was wrong. So you are evidently boxed into a corner. You have no defence, you talking trashing and now you have totally run out of lies. It was simply hypothetical. In other words, what if I got it wrong, does it mean RDM had to it? . . . Why are you not answering this?

My argument has been consistent since pre -season. Emenalo left an unbalanced squad wother little strikeforce or midfield options. This is is before any article came out on the matter. I maintained Lamps /Mikel is a poor combination but better than Ramires/Mikel. We do not have central midfield with the legs to provide platform for the type of play we are looking for and the playmakers we bought. I HAVE NEVER WAVERED IN MY ARGUMENT.

This is where you have no shame. You maintained that Lamps/Mikel is better Ramires/Mikel. I said the latter is better. RDM did what I thought was better. You think I am eediot for suggesting so, yet you think RDM did nothing wrong by doing what I suggested. How many times do I have to repeat this for you to get it? Where is your consistency? So much for not wavering. You are a shameless clown. You cannot even make a statement and defend it or even apologise. You are a phucking disgrace.

Now does anyone wonder why Nateevs is the only Chelsea fan quick to crucify RDM whilst we are all mourning his departure? Go back to last season and another argument Nateevs was thoroughly exposed at.

He has not come to apologise for his overblown gargantuan show of eediocy last season. He's come to make amends and win last season's argument which two trophies say he's already lost. The argument last season was [b]"RDM is too boring and defensive" . The argument this season is "RDM cannot defend ".

Flipflopping all over the place just BE RIGHT. Intellectual Dishonesty.
[/b]

Flip flopping? Are you phucking kidding me? Nobody is mourning RDM. I see only you on this forum. Most of the fans on here at best are embarrassed about the decision, keeping their opinions personal and a few others just sit on the fence like always. Everyone though, including me agrees that he should have been given a chance.

What I see with you is that you are the only shameful person who thinks no single thing that went wrong this season can be attributed to RDM, instead it's Roman, Emenalo, the pitch, the opposition and the funny one, Nateevs. No single person on here except you has this point of view. It's stoopid, pathetic and incredibly narrow minded.


I make assertions and I stand by them. I criticised RDM for the way we won the CL. I stood by it then and I will now. If anything mate, I am consistent. If I was not right about my criticisms then, why is RDM not manager now only 6 months after winning the lucrative CL?

If RDM won the CL playing free flowing attacking football, beating Barca and Bayern, Roman would have given him the job the next day. Flip flopping? You are high on dope.

Why should Ibime argue with you on what you are saying? How does Ibime know you are not chatting shyte like last time which you got wrong?

You said "it is working" last week. Now you say "it is not working" and RDM is to blame. Which one is it? What changed in a week?

What changed in a week is the reason I will not be drawn into your silly Benitez argument. What changed in a week is a result at Juventus.

Ibime will not be drawn into "how come Benitez was able to make it work" in the games left because Benitez will be not be tested against many teams capable of exposing the Chelsea midfield, and it will not be a terminal test like games against Juve and Shakhtar. Benitez could well win 80% of his PremierLeague games for the next two months till January. . . but RDM would have probably won those games anyway because Man City is the only big team left to play in the first half of this season. Ibime will not expose himself to such terms of argument against Intellectually Dishonest opponent.

My point is Benitez probably could not fashion a win away to Shakhtar and Juve with such midfield and strikeforce, but he could prolly be competitive in the Premierleague (which RDM was).

I said it was working last week because it was working dude. I am not running away from my assertions. I repeatedly stated that MaZaCar are a bunch of young boys who will only get better with time. I also stand by saying Mikel and Ramires worked and I am not stating, whether now or ever, that it didn't work. What RDM was, was a noob at organizing the defense. And RDM could not instruct Mikel and Ramires to sit deep. RDM could not drop David Luiz and played him game after game. RDM could not even teach him how not to defend, let alone how to defend. In a 4-2-3-1, there are 6 players defending, we should not concede goals like we did under RDM. So instead of blaming the partnership of Mikel/Ramires, Emenalo and the moon, I blame RDM who didn't know jack about organizing a defense just like it was at West Brom. Just before he was sacked, he won only 2 in 13 games. Simple.


Let's just get that straight and out of the way cos it looks like you keep using this as an escape for your ridiculous POV.




Now back to you. You have a massive problem here. You have dug yourself a hole by supporting RDM regardless. You are claiming I am wrong about Ramires/Mikel. That assertion is at best subjective. . So I ask you a simple question which I will ask over and over again. Is it wise to continue claiming that RDM did not nothing wrong when you claim that I was wrong about Mikel/Ramires when even RDM, the blameless guy, did the exact same thing I suggested?

How can you claim to be intellectually honest when you cannot answer a simple question put to you? In case you don't understand this, I will spell it out.


1. The Mikel/Ramires combo was wrong.
2. Therefore Nateevs was wrong.
3. However RDM did exactly what Ibime claims Nateevs was wrong about.
4. At the same time claims that RDM did nothing wrong


How can anyone continue to hold these same views, all at the same time? How? You annoying anorexic millepede (Sorry Coogar)

Because he has a mandate. I dont need to spell it out for you. You were the first to scream about the mandate, now an intellectually dishonest slimeball is coming to argue the point he previously opposed.

When it wasn't working, what happened? RDM changed it by redrafting Lamps against Shakhtar. Lamps got injured. So. . . he changed the balance, it got some results, then it started flopping against Manure. He changed it the next game against Shakhtar, but one injury to Lamps caused Ramires to be redrafted back into the middle. . . . either that or play an obviously out-of-form Romeu. . . another damning indictment of the central midfield Emenalo built.

What mandate? How do you know about this mandate? You know phuck all mate. This is one of your numerous covers to continue with your stooopidity. RDM played with the supposed "balance" for the first 7 league games. . . So what, the memo with the mandate only arrived after the first 7 games? Is that what you are suggesting Ibime? How much shame can one man endure? Evidently you are making this up as you go along.


So Chelsea was 1st on the table. RDM played Lamps in midfield for the first 7 games but decided to undo what was working and deploy Mikel/Ramires in midfield. Something according to you, he already knew will not work? How do you sleep at night with all these lies you formulate by the minute?



More of your lies debunked. After seven games into the season of playing Ramires, on the right, Bertrand on the left, Lampard in midfield, RDM changed it. As opposed to your flipping lies, Lamps was available for the next two games. Infact, he was on the bench. He played in the third game because against Nordsjaelland because it was an easy opposition. Next two games against Norwich and Spurs, Lamps was available but RDM did not use him. Why not? Why did RDM change what was working to accommodate Ramires/Mikel and MaZaCar? Please don't lie to us, it wasn't because Lamps was injured.

Stoke - Lamps on bench
Arsenal - Lamps on bench
Nordsjaelland - Lamps played (easy opposition)
Norwich - Lamps on bench
Spurs - Lamps on bench
Sharktar - Lamps 18' Injury. (Lamps started, Hazard on the bench because United at the weekend)


Why did RDM change from a balanced approach to an unbalanced one? Imagine what you came back with . .

When it wasn't working, what happened? RDM changed it by redrafting Lamps against Shakhtar.

When what wasn't working? Liar.

Before RDM dumped the "balance", Chelsea LWWWLDD. . .
After RDM dumped the "balance", Chelsea WWWWWW into the Sharktar game.


Stop lying to us mate. Infact, many believe that not for the funny decisins in the Game at United, we would have won. If we did, the beautiful run would have continued even with Ramires/Mikel and MaZaCar and you are here telling us megedefegede.



Why did RDM change to Mikel/Ramires?

This quote just makes me laugh.

Sure. . . Rafa could balance the team. . . by playing low blocks, counterattacking footie and/or dropping MaZaCar for Bertrand type players etc. If RDM had taken that approach to the season, he wont have survived the first month of the season for playing "boring footie" and wasting Emenalo's summer expenditure. You would be the first to scream. . . infact. . . YOU DID!!!

You are suggesting that RDM did not take the approach of balance because Nateevs will be the first to scream? This is first class comedy. You are all over the place dude. Anything to support your view. Now you include lies. You claim that RDM won't have survived the first month of the season had he played with caution but below is the reality of things:-


Community Shield v ManCity
Ramires on the right, Lampard in midfield.



Chelsea v Wigan
Bertrand on the left, Lampard in midfield.



Chelsea v Reading
Ramires on the right, Lampard in midfield.



Chelsea v Newcastle
Ramires on the right, Lampard in midfield



Chelsea v Atletico
Ramires on the right, Bertrand on the left, Lampard in midfield



Chelsea v QPR
Ramires on the right, Bertrand on the left, Lampard in midfield


Chelsea v Juve
Ramires on the right, Lampard in midfield.



LWWWLDD.



Chelsea v Stoke was the very first time RDM played with MaZaCar and Ramires/Mikel in midfield. So you are evidently lying. RDM played with this "balance" for over the first month of football. What happened? It phucking did not work. So RDM changed it beginning with the first game at Stoke. Now you are claiming that RDM was coerced into play Emenalo's MaZaCar.


Why did RDM change the "balance"?

Hehehehe. Ibime is either a genius at twisting simple things or a total noob at grasping simple things. Maybe I should spell it out to you.


You have blamed Emanalo for issues in the squad.
You say RDM is not to blame.
You say therefore RDM has done nothing wrong.
You think there is no balance in the squad, yet you believe there is a solution to these same problems that RDM either did not see or did not bother to change.



So if Rafa finds balance in this squad, what will be RDM's excuse? The fact that Nateevs asked RDM to play Ramires and Mikel in midfield?
Do you know how ridiculous you sound?


You are telling me I was wrong over the Ramires and Mikel combination in midfield which the same decision the RDM took. So is RDM like me a complete eeediot and lacks intellectual honesty or was RDM was right to choose Ramires and Mikel in midfield (which makes me right) and the problems were else where? Please answer.


Unless you are going a step further by saying Emenalo went into RDM's office and put a gun to his head forcing him to play Ramires and Mikel in midfield. Then yes, it's all Emenalo's fault, RDM's hands were tied and was forced to deploy a tatical approach approved by Nateevs on NL after hours of consultation with Emenalo. Ibime stop this!




___________________________________________________________________________________________________


It is embarrassing that you even have the guts to quote and believe the caveats in the article, should Rafa succeed with the same squad . . . .

"As far as tactical acumen goes, the only upgrade I'm seeing on Roberto di Matteo is that the new manager will have more leeway to play pragmatic, balanced football rather than constantly being pushed into a suicidal attacking game."


. . even though we all know that you and your cohorts will be the first person to run down here and tell us that you told us so if Rafa does not succeed with the same squad.


It's like whether Rafa succeeds or not, RDM will have no blame as long as we can just blame Emenalo.


With that caveat, you and your cohorts have automatically assumed that:-

1. Rafa has not been asked to play attacking football.
2. Rafa has leeway to be more pragmatic
3. RDM was not allowed to play pragmatic football
4. RDM was "pushed" in playing attacking football.


How much more ridiculous can you and your articles get formulating stories and conjecture just to back up your point of view. Debo will remember quite clearly you calling RDM a common sense manager at the beginning of the season. Now he didn't succeed playing attacking footie and you are supporting the view that he was "constantly pushed" into playing attacking football.


___________________________________________________________________________________

Okay Ibime, I am completely lost on the focus of your argument. Let me get this straight. You claim the squad is unbalanced and that it is the fault of Emenalo. What if Benitez finds a formula for balance in this squad and wins games without buying a new player? Would that be seen as a indictment of the tactical and managerial approach of RDM and therefore an exoneration of Emenalo?

The only conclusions I can reach from your posts is that you are :-

1. Claiming that Emenalo left RDM with an unbalanced squad.
2. Therefore RDM's hands were tight and cannot be blamed.
3. Quoting an article that supports your point of view but at the same time,
4. Is providing solutions for this "unbalanced squad" - all solutions from within the squad.


It is impossible to hold these views all at the same time. The only outcome that can lay credence to your point of view is for Rafa to run into the exact same kind of problems that RDM had. If Rafa finds a solution, then all your argument sublimes. Do you agree with this?

Ibime: Is that good or bad news? They should take him.

Until he learns to pass the ball, I would not be scared of him going to our rivals.

Under the right management, he can be anything he wants to be.
I just cannot believe that a little kid like that has ego the size of the world.
Did you hear him 2 weeks ago saying he sees only Messi and Ronaldo as better players than he is?

I almost fell off my chair.

Jeez! City have paid £15m for Zaha.

Emenalo has caused massive wahala on here.

To release Torres early on goal means all players have to "ONLY" play in deep positions right? I have never heard so much codswallop in my life. Ninjahs try to make it seem like there's only one way of playing football or achieving the same tactic.

So because RB achieved the "releasing Torres early on goal" with Alonso playing in deep positions, means it's the only way it can be achieved. Therefore purchasing players who are not built in the mould of Alonso and Gerard is a technical error. Another load of absolute tosh.


There are two reasons why no one should entertain such stoopid points of view.

1. The tactic of releasing a player early on goal is as flexible as you want it to be. The key is training players to adapt to playing between the lines. I listened to Dietmar Hamann this morning on talksport and he talked about how Benitez was very hands-on and a massive proponent of playing between the lines. He teaches the players which position to occupy on the pitch. This is the ultimate tactic and it does not matter what position on the pitch the attack is initiated. Deep positions or not.

Therefore I watch in awe as some ninjahs create an illusion of tactical-inflexibility as though it is absolutely impossible to play in between the lines without Alonso.



In the last fortnight Rafa Benítez has described both Fernando Torres and Andriy Voronin as men who "play well between the lines".
Link


While it helps to have an Alonso in a team, playing in between the lines is not a rigid tactic that heavily depends on the likes of Alonso "only" for optimum execution. Therefore you cannot lay blame at the feet of Emenalo for buying players who cannot play behind Torres. If anything, Emenalo should be praised for buying the likes of Mata, Oscar and Hazard who if trained well, are able to adapt their games for the tactic of success. Torres or not.



2. Mata, Hazard, Oscar are technically adept players who can adapt their games to suit many attacking scenarios. As seen in the course of the season so far, Oscar, Hazard and Mata have played multiple positions. What they haven't done yet is tested the extent of their tactical adaptability. They are very young talented players and as such, anything is possible tactically.

My point is, if any manager isn't capable of making players adapt to a tactic for the good of the team, is Emenalo to blame for that? If anything, Emenalo should be praised for his work in the transfer window.

Hehehehe. You've just got to laugh at the catalogue of excuses from Ibime. I believe this pretty much expresses what we pro-Torres fellas have been talking about.

Di Matteo had run the analysis on Torres, asking the club’s technical team for a breakdown of the 81 goals he scored for Liverpool before his move south to London.

When Di Matteo went through the detail, a worrying pattern emerged that convinced him Chelsea did not have the personnel to accommodate his game.

At Anfield, 56 of his goals (69 per cent) were engineered by defence-splitting passes, usually from Steven Gerrard or Xabi Alonso. At Chelsea, players like Juan Mata, Frank Lampard, Ramires and John Mikel Obi — together with new arrivals Oscar and Eden Hazard – preferred to pass their way through the opposition. They did not spring opposition defences and Di Matteo was already beginning to doubt whether Torres was committed to the Chelsea project.

It's a good thing this was found out by RDM himself. Which begs he question, when RDM knew this, why did he not formulate a system to get the best out of his "only striker"? Why couldn't he mandate his players to play a system that prevents the sack?

It's also a good thing to know that RDM agrees with Nateevs that Lampard is not exactly the kind of midfielder to play behind Torres. When I stated this, they said I was an eediot. I bet RDM is an eediot too.

debosky: Now it appears he also lost control of the dressing room. Who are we to blame for a coach losing control of the dressing room? Emenalo?

Haha! Quality!

Not new. JM was sacked after a row with Ballack, Cech and JT. He had to win against Rosenberg 3 days later. Crowds at SB were already dwindling and the boring footie was getting to everyone. 3 days later, 1-1 with Rosenberg, JM was fired.

A reporter on Talksports saying that he met Rafa in a bar yesterday in Dubai and he (Rafa) told him that the deal had been in place for 8 days.
He also says that Roman had been after him for a long time and was approached in the summer as well.

I am not a Rafa fan but I cannot knock what he is capable of. Very important to note is that unlike RDM, he is a coach who gets on the training ground and tells the players exactly what to do, how to move the ball what space to occupy on and off the ball etc. Just like Dayo stated as well, there are only a few managers who are better than Rafa at knock-out stages.

That said, Rafa is not a long term manager because:-

1. He will not work where he has no autonomy over transfers
2. He should not be allowed near a transfer discussion table



67 transfers in his time at Liverpool and still leaving them with crap does not speak well of his decisions in the market. Some say because he wasn't given autonomy, others think it's because he is piss poor.


He will not be my choice but hey, we got to get behind him.

Benitez is going to get it on Sunday. Listening to talksport and Chelsea fans are vexing like crazy over this appointment. I don't know of many Chelsea fans who are at peace with Benitez.

Meanwhile, Mancini is taking out Aguero for Milner in a game he needs to win. A less creative player and non-goal scorer for Aguero.

Official. Rafa Benitez. I cannot believe this.

Ibime: Benitez coming to Chelsea would end the Torres debate for good.

Dat mumu spent £50m on Torres, and he keeps chasing after Torres and throwing good money after bad to rescue a foolish decision he made on a drunken January 31st night.

Some peeps were so happy about the acquisition of Torres but I remember the wise ones who warned that everything Chelsea do for the next 3 years will be tied to this Torres deal and it will predictably go wrong cos Torres has lost form. Surprisingly, Nateevs was one of those who joined me in condemning the deal whilst some others were popping champagne. In short, we predicted that thanks to the money tied in this Torres deal, and the change of style needed to accomodate him, a lot of shyte will go wrong. . . and it did. . . but in the midst of that spiral, Roberto rescued the club. . . now Benitez is Torres last chance of slavation.

Benitez is not a good long term solution but he can provide discipline in the short term. Lets roll!

Ibime finds a good thing to say about Nateevs.


On Torres.
A part of me thinks Torres may find form with Benitez. After all, it's not about lack of ability. It's mental. The thought of working with someone who approves of him is enough to spur Torres on to great things. I will be in the camp keeping the belief alive albeit with an opportunity to escape because the scary part is if it doesn't work, the consequences will be far more painful and catastrophic. If Benitez is coming in, he better have a plan b.


However, I loathe Benitez with a passion and I don't want him anywhere near Chelsea.

Ibime: You dont get it. . .so lemme spell it out. . . RDM has done nothing wrong. . . he was sacked by a madman!

So claiming that you were wrong. . . but RDM shoulda been right. . . means nothing!!!

Theres a time and place for everything. Theres a time for MaZaCars and theres a time for Nigel De Jongs, Makeleles, Jonas Gutierrez's and Gilberto Silvas. RDM did not have the latter to call upon when he needed them and that is Emenalo's fault. All it takes is two away games in two fierce competitors grounds for the squad to be brutally overpowered and the man to lose his job. Ferreira, Malouda and such cannot have saved him.

Meanwhile do I get apologies for insults thrown my way when you made points which you now admit were wrong? Me, I never change. Im still RIGHT. Always have been, since pre-season!!!

Okay. I do apologize for all insults thrown at you at times you have been right. Although this is not an admittance that you "always have been" right. Far from it.


As I stated, RDM did all I asked for and if he wasn't wrong according to you, then I was never wrong as well. I deserve apologies for the insults hurled at times I was right. .

Deal?

Ibime: No actually you started clutching at straws and suggesting different decisions which RDM should have made which would have brought "success".

On every single point you made, I refenced back to earlier contradictory positions where you wanted RDM to do the opposite just to show that you are clutching at straws and looking for excuses. None of your suggestions are coherent with your previous comments all season long so you must be looking for evidence of crime after already executing the suspect!

How can someone who screamed when Bertrand and Ramires were deployed on the wing to balance Hazard and Mata be talking about Malouda? RDM is not Nateevs,but Nateevs is clutching at straws!

By the way, RDM did not do anything wrong, nor has he failed except you want to tell me that Malouda, Ferreira, Moses, Marin and your "suggestions" can go to Juventus and Shakhtar and come home with a point. Strong midfield options were not available to him at all at all. This is where Emenalo comes in.

Mehn! I never said there was anything RDM could do to bring success. For the record, I do not think he should have been fired but I can understand why he has.

I am not clutching at straws mate. You chose to blame Emenalo for all that has happened. I choose otherwise to highlight all other decisions that RDM could have taken if truly Emenalo's decisions have been so poor.

Irrespective of my desires for the squad in the past and Emenalo's alike, RDM has no imperative to listen to us. Do not in anyway try to justify why RDM decisions are at par with our beliefs as an excuse for his failure.



So what if I thought Bertrand on the left or Ramires on the right was bad. I could have been wrong and just like many of us have been in the past. The sole decision of what works and will work is RDM's alone. He chose to do what I think is the right thing to do and he failed. Either he is stoopid like me and has no eye for optimum tactical decisions or he was right to follow what I thought, stand by it and like you said, "did nothing wrong" . . .



Let's look at this critically. This is all Nateevs on NL (with no connections to Chelsea by the way) asked for in the course of the season.

Discarding Malouda
Dropping Lamps way before Injury
Not playing Bertrand on the left of midfield.
Not playing Ramires on the right.
Playing Ramires in the double pivot.
Giving Torres more playing time.
Sticking with MaZaCar in midfield
Justifying why Sturridge should not play.
Then asking for Sturridge to play.
Not dropping Mikel.
Not parking the bus.


RDM did every single one of these. In fact, it's in total opposite of how he won the CL. In your last post, you said RDM did not nothing wrong and did not fail. Yet in the same vein, you think I am an 1d10t for suggesting all the things that RDM eventually did in his short spell?

Dude. . . .

Ibime: Whats the difference between Malouda and Bertrand.

Nateevs, dont make me go HAM on you. I will quote the nonsense tantrums you were throwing as to why RDM is playing Bertrand instead of all three musketeers.



It was Lampards fault before. . . I see. . . shifting sands. . .

I even remember Mikel complaining that "we cannot defend with only six players" so you may want to reassess how many players are needed to defend when the opposition fullbacks come calling.

Mikel CANNOT defend a highline and is NEVER to be classed as a defensive midfielder in any system that is not a half-pressing system. If Mikel is not camped in his half, he is not defending.

Take Juventus second goal yesterday. He does not even have the instinct of a defensive midfielder. He stepped up into nowhere in particular when Juve were taking the throw. I kept thinking of Gilberto Silva when I saw what he did cos Gilberto Silva would drop onto the 18 yard box first and ask questions later.

Ramires can never be an effective defensive midfielder cos he cannot keep the ball or make himself available for it. This would not show up against Stoke but against Juventus you would see it. The turnover of possession is too much for him to play that role consistently in the big games. Just puts more pressure on Chelsea when we cant keep the ball.




Last week, you were denigrating Sturridge when he came on against Liverpool. You wanted to extend Torres run in the team Im sure until his show of shame at West Brom. RDM had left Torres on pitch long enough for the "politicians" to be satisfied that their investment is wasted. This was the time to bring Sturridge in, but RDM never got the chance.

Moses got enough game time. And Im sure you would scream if one of your precious MaZaCar had to sacrifice any more minutes for him than they already did.



Yes, I agree with this except the part about Paulo Ferreira since Cesar can do the job. David Luiz is RDM's only failing I can point to so far.

Meanwhile Emenalo advised Roman to reject £30m bid for Luiz from Barcelona in summer.



No need to use Marin. He offers nothing superior to MazaCar except more defensive instability. More evidence of poor squad planning by Emenalo. Infact I wont blame Emenalo for this. Marin's face doesnt fit. He was bought for Europa League, then we suddenly found ourselves in Champions League and upgraded him to Hazard and Oscar.



But when he made decisions on team balance like playing Ramires and Bertrand out wide, you were the first to scream.

I don't understand. Let's say everything you are saying is right? Are you suggesting that RDM took all those decisions because he read my posts on NL.

Nateevs supported Ramires in midfield.
Nateevs would have complained if any of MaZaCar was dropped for Moses.
Nateevs didn't agree with Sturrdige against Liverpool
Nateevs wanted more playing time for Torres
Nateevs didn't agree with Ramires or Bertrand out-wide.

RDM did all Nateevs desired. Nateevs is Emenalo or what?

I am struggling to understand the focus of your argument. Either RDM was a brilliant manager and like me, thought the decisions about the playing squad were right (including the dropping of Lamps before he was injured) at the time they were made.

OR.

Unlike Ibime, RDM is just as stoopid as Nateevs and undid all the good decisions he took earlier for the sake of balance and those decisions did not work out.
--------------------------------

Either way, it's an indictment on RDM but that's a side point. What's more important is that you can only have one of these points of view. You cannot argue on point sides.

Ibime: So this is an admission that Emenalo has produced an unbalanced squad. No problem with me calling for his head then, manager's aside.

Those managers underperformed even the lowest of expectations. The reason why many hailed Roman is because their sackings were justified. No one is hailing Roman now. You are in the minority. I will leave it with quote from Independent: "Whatever it is that lies behind Di Matteo’s dismissal, though, it isn’t footballing sense, it isn’t managerial sense, and it is making me sad. All that remains to be said is “Ciao bello” – Roberto, you deserved better."

I never disagreed with the deficiencies in the squad. My problem with it though was about the depth and not about balance. I do not understand what this balance means. RDM could have played in the league (not CL) with Malouda. He sent him to the U21s. I hope you remember Malouda is still a Chelsea player.

RDM played with 2 defensive midfielders, making 6 players who can defend at any point in time. Yet we still conceded goals at an unprecedented level. Granted Ramires was not the best passer of the ball, he could defend. If RDM instructed Mikel to sit and defend, he would.

RDM failed to play Moses for long periods of time, never liked Danny Sturridge who could have come in for the out-of-form Torres. Yesterday, strangely, Danny had a hamstring injury and could not be on the bench. However, we didn't hear any news about Danny's injury until the team for Juve was announced.

RDM could have instructed David Luiz never to cross the centre line or drop him all together, move Ivanovic to CB pairing with Cahill and play Cesar Azpilicueta or Paulo Ferriera at RB. Do you remember Paulo Ferriera is still a Chelsea player?

RDM could have used Marin many times but never tried. Even though Marin returned from injury as far back as middle October.

All these decisions had absolutely nothing to do with squad balance.

------------------------------------------------------

The difference between our arguments is the difference between what Emenalo did and RDM could have done.
As much as you can ask for the head of Emenalo, there's no excusing all the options available to RDM.

If you can see this lack of balance, why couldn't RDM?

coogar: avram grant - john terry's slip away from winning the champions league against the most fearsome united side in 20 yrs. avram grant is the man to call on in the time of crisis. he's low profile as no one expects so much from him and he doesn't answer 90% of the questions thrown at him at pre-match conference. benitez would send chelsea to relegation!

Mate, I am not convinced by what I saw form Grant at West Ham. You think Rafa will take us to relegation and Grant wouldn't?

BlueDiva: Whichever way, the KEY factor is that he WON the CL.
WINNING matters to RA.

If RDM had gone on to qualify for the knockout and we were still leading the league table will he be sacked?
Isn't Chelsea playing good footie? We see very nice moves in almost every game don't we?

What i want you to realize is that some people live to WIN. It is all they know.

What RA wants is to win while adding his own inputs.
Disagree with him and you'll get sacked. Stop winning and you'll also get sacked.

For Christ sake, he is a cold, ruthless Russian billionaire.

I don't disagree that Roman wants to win and will not put up with consistent failure, what you have not explained though is after winning, why RDM was not given the job immediately. If all Roman loves is winning, why did he hesitate?

Jason Burt reporting that Roman is desperately trying to convince Pep to take over with immediate effect. However, Rafa and wait for this, Avram Grant, have been put on standby as contingency for a short spell if an agreement with Pep cannot be reached within the next few hours.

Avram Grant?

BlueDiva: And i maintained then that RA just wants to win and couldn't care less as long as the results come.
True that he wasn't so sure of RDM at first but the only reason he got sacked was because he started losing games.

RA is used to appointing high profile managers which RDM isn't.
That was why he was reluctant to give him the job even though he won the CL. RA wasn't convinced RDM could sustain the tempo as he is quite inexperienced but gave him a try all the same because he won the 'holy grail' just to compensate him.

In simpler words, i will disagree that RA is more concerned with beauty than winning.
Scolari played some fine football but got sacked when it started going downhill.

Even Pep will get sacked if he starts losing.
RA is an eccentric.

In the simplest of terms, it's only about winning.
It still however does not explain why there was delay in RDM's appointment.
By winning the CL and FA Cup, RDM in the eyes of many became "high profile"
According to many, what else would one have to do? It's all Jose did to get the job.
So why not offer him the job immediately?

Many reporters this morning are talking about how Roman chased Pep endlessly in the summer only a few minutes after RDM won the CL.
That should not happen, it's all abut winning as you claim and RDM just won, according to many, "Roman's holy grail".


The key to this which gets constantly ignored by many Chelsea fans is the manner in which the CL was won. He (RDM) was incredibly lucky.
That's the key. That's why RDM was not favoured, not because he wasn't high profile.

This Emenalo thing is just cover for a manager some of us like. Since Jose, there has not been a single Chelsea manager who signed who he wanted. When in the past I stood against sacking of managers, citing lack of managerial autonomy, many hailed Roman. Now Roman is wielding the same stick and we are complaining? I don't get the double standards.