Barclays Premier League 13/14 Thread Part 'x'

[GSC]

First topic message reminder :

Apparently we're after the prodigy that is Steve Clarke

[GSC]

He was very good going forward for City. It'd be a shame seeing that drilled out of him.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

The best full backs can defend a lot better than Richards. If he came to us, he'd still be encouraged to get up the park, our full backs have to, but his fundamentals need massive improvement

[Mat]

Put in one of the best individual performances I've ever seen playing for England against Germany at Wembley. Beckham's legs had totally gone, Richards did his and Becks' running/attacking/defending that night.

[mystiroakey]

So citeh are offering him an improved contract as well, yet he is still leaving. Good lad. With 3 other English players rumoured to be leaving citeh will have issues , as you need a certain amount in the squad.


They may be pushed into making huge offets for new English talents just to fill the quota and sideline them instead!!

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Chris Hughton "We were going to create history"

Yeah for most consecutive away defeats in the clubs history

Jokes jokes he's a nice chap and I wish him all the best, he just isn't up to the task of managing a Premier League side

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He doesn't need to be

[mystiroakey]

The more I think of these quotas - the more I actually think it’s a bad thing for English players playing. And could be having an adverse effect,.
 
Top sides are forced into buying and retaining good English(or home grown players) to side-line them , just to keep them in the 25 man squad.
 
If there was no limit- top clubs like citeh wouldn’t have bought certain players like richards, lescott, milner, rodwell etc anyway- and they could be playing at other lesser PL teams all the time anyway. Man citeh need to have decent cover so will naturally want decent English players- but they are only there as cover or the odd cup game.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Oh yeah, it is awful Mysti. City have been doing it and Chelsea did it. Rodwell and Johnson were bought for that specific reason. Adam Johnson left and Scott Sinclair got dragged in. Its depressing.

[GSC]

That really only applies to Rodwell Myst.

Richards was produced by the club pre Sheikh. Lescott was bought to play (and did until last season when Mancini decided he needed better ball players at CB). Milner gets plenty of gametime.

Hell Rodwell was a bright prospect for Everton a year or so before he was bought. He failed to make the grade sure but that doesn't mean City bought him to make up a quota. Teams will always be interested in British youth for work permit and commercial reasons.

[mystiroakey]

Milner plays - and plays well everytime he comes on the pitch- but how many minutes has he racked up.

He is the ideal sub at Citeh, but he would be starting in many other teams.. I would personally still rather him playing.

And although some were bought into play- they are know just sitting there keeping citehs quota at the right level

[GSC]

Lescott and Rodwell were going to move in Jan but their deals fell apart for reasons.

Milners an important squad player for City. You need more than 11 players to win a title. Understandably City weren't keen on selling.

Richards has been injured and is out of contract so thats really a non starter at this point.

[mystiroakey]

GSC the problem is they cant just get rid of home grown players unless they replace them with other home grown players..

Barry is off anyway- but he is a loanee so not part of the squard.

richards is off.

so that only allows one other home grown player allowed to leave unless they replace- and by the sounds of things - all the english want out.

[mystiroakey]

bar Hart and possibly milner that is.

[CFCNick]

Oh yeah, it is awful Mysti. City have been doing it and Chelsea did it. Rodwell and Johnson were bought for that specific reason. Adam Johnson left and Scott Sinclair got dragged in. Its depressing.

Yeah, I'd like an example of what exactly you think we did. We've never bought English players to sit on the bench.

Is Richard Wright still on the books at City?

[mystiroakey]

Chelsea do do other things though-You loan them out- but then they cant play against you!!

what is it 30 odd Loanees!!

[Geordie]

Rodwell should go back to Everton. Would they take him?

He looked a cracking prospect...as did Adam Johnson.

Surely these are actually examples for good young English players NOT to go to some of these foreign money built teams.

[mystiroakey]

I worry about shaw tbh.

I think Citeh will nab him and pay excess for him because they will need the quota. But there doesn't seem like a good british atmosphere at the club

[CFCNick]

Chelsea do do other things though-You loan them out- but then they cant play against you!!

what is it 30 odd Loanees!!

Every club does that when loaning within their league.

We have loanees all over the world. So what. The majority of them have never played above Championship level. It doesn't effect anyone else.

[Good Golly I'm Olly]

Oh yeah, it is awful Mysti. City have been doing it and Chelsea did it. Rodwell and Johnson were bought for that specific reason. Adam Johnson left and Scott Sinclair got dragged in. Its depressing.

Yeah, I'd like an example of what exactly you think we did. We've never bought English players to sit on the bench.

Is Richard Wright still on the books at City?

You was gonna buy John ruddy last summer to sit on the bench but he decided he didn't want to

[GSC]

[mystiroakey]

I would much rather they are playing than not CFC trust me.

I like the fact that mourinhio sold Mata as well. I like that attitude- but Chelsea are still utilising something as an advantage that others cant. But as I said I am not hyper critical of them. It really is citeh that i have the problem with

[GSC]

Oh yeah, it is awful Mysti. City have been doing it and Chelsea did it. Rodwell and Johnson were bought for that specific reason. Adam Johnson left and Scott Sinclair got dragged in. Its depressing.

Yeah, I'd like an example of what exactly you think we did. We've never bought English players to sit on the bench.

Is Richard Wright still on the books at City?

You was gonna buy John ruddy last summer to sit on the bench but he decided he didn't want to

Now Darlow

[CFCNick]

I would much rather they are playing than not CFC trust me.

I like the fact that mourinhio sold Mata as well. I like that attitude- but Chelsea are still utilising something as an advantage that others cant. But as I said I am not hyper critical of them. It really is citeh that i have the problem with

I'd say only 6 players loaned out would get in to Prem teams anyway.

Oh yeah, it is awful Mysti. City have been doing it and Chelsea did it. Rodwell and Johnson were bought for that specific reason. Adam Johnson left and Scott Sinclair got dragged in. Its depressing.

Yeah, I'd like an example of what exactly you think we did. We've never bought English players to sit on the bench.

Is Richard Wright still on the books at City?

You was gonna buy John ruddy last summer to sit on the bench but he decided he didn't want to

It's different with keepers though. Ruddy and Darlow aren't anywhere close to Cech's level.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Why is it different with keepers?

I'd argue that Sidwell and Parker were bought because they were English commodities to have at the club at little else. Different times (quota system not there) but same idea. Could afford to waste the money to stop other people buying them

[CFCNick]

Because there's only one spot for keepers and neither of those mentioned will usurped Cech that's for sure.

Parker played a lot for Ranieri. It was only when Jose took over that he found himself out of favour. Sidwell was bought on the chance he could develop into a better player at a bigger club. Obviously that didn't work. But they were given opportunities to succeed unlike the likes of Sinclair and Rodwell.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

I dont see how that makes it different? Surely it makes it worse?

[GSC]

Because its Chelsea, the real peoples club

[CFCNick]

At the time we tried to get Ruddy we didn't have a decent backup goalie. That's why it's different for keepers.

If we bought Joe Hart and never ever played then I'd agree.

There's a clear difference for keepers and outfield players.

[NickisBHAFC]

Danny Sturrridge was always a "Bit part" player as well for Chelsea, don't think he ever got a fair enough go.

[CFCNick]

Sturridge scored 13 goals in 43 games in 11/12. AVB loved him but he got cocky and fell out of favour under Di Matteo and Benitez.

In his four years he scored 24 goals in 96 games plus 8 goals in 12 games on loan at Bolton.

He had more than his fair share of game time considering he was unproven, not lighting the world on fire, and competing with Drogba and Anelka.

[mystiroakey]

goals per minutes is a much better gauge CFC

[CFCNick]

Oh sorry. I don't care to go through 96 games to see how many minutes a cocky 21 year old played.

[mystiroakey]

also and you should know this- he played on the right wing at chelsea in 2011-2012 and still was involved in over a goal every two games he started (25 games - scored 11 and assited 3)

[CFCNick]

I do know that. But he got too big for his boots and defenders started to figure him out. Then AVB got sacked.

[mystiroakey]

well it still shows serious potential , surely!

a young right winger scoring 11 in 25 starts

[mystiroakey]

As great as chelsea have been recently- and I do mean great!! winning back to back European cups, top 4 again this year. you have this thing about strikers..

There is something going wrong in that department, yet you have had serious talent- 

torres was a top 10 player in the world when he came, you had sturridge as well.

[CFCNick]

He would never be the player he is now if he was still at Chelsea. Getting sold was a wake up call for him. He was so frustrating. He would either score or assist a goal then spend the rest of the game believing he I superman. He was one of those types that believes the hype in the papers. He matured in getting moved to Liverpool.

Torres was not a top 10 player in the Prem never mind the world when we signed him. His decline started 9-12 months before that.

[mystiroakey]

Obviously to add to it all we know have the lukaka conundrum.

what are chelsea going to do with him!

Playing brilliantly at everton- challenging a top 4 pl spot themselves- a lot of that is to do with him as well.

But then I cant see him doing well at Chelsea and I doubt you can either.. 

Do you want to go down the road of buying another old timer- RVP?

Or like arsernal is it all about the midfield!

Hazard will allways score goals- maybe shurler could play up front?

[CFCNick]

So far there is nothing to suggest Lukaku will succeed at Chelsea. The problem stems from him being a childhood fan and Drogba being his childhood hero. Then he was dubbed the new Drogba at 16.

I want him to do well in a Chelsea shirt but it's hard to imagine that at this moment. But really. He's scored 30 goals in two seasons, if he was at Chelsea and had that return nobody would be talking him up like they currently are. That's not the return of a striker at a title challenging club.

[mystiroakey]

So all hopes lie on Costa?

[Champagne_Socialist]

If Chelsea managed to get rooney in the summer I have no doubt they would be the best team in Europe right now.

[CFCNick]

I don't know. It'd be nice to have Lukaku and Costa. Obviously as much as we need a striker we don't need one desperately.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

Although I am sure another apologist is going to come on and say Lukaku and Mourinho had problems in summer (sort em out then Jose?), Chelsea are not the first club to struggle to replace a legend. And Drogba was that. A better player Chelsea have never seen. Combine that with managers coming and going, it makes it even harder to pin down that new Drogba.

But I cant see where else the budget goes this summer, no other area really needs it. Although a new Terry is probably due soon.

[GSC]

If we're being fair, Drogba was hardly prolific. Topped 15 league goals twice so 30 goals in 2 seasons is nothing to slouch at.

The way he departed has led him to be somewhat overrated over his entire body of work tbh

[mystiroakey]

yep terry and a striker or two and you end up with one hell of a team.

Willian and shurler look like they could in a year or two become 35m plus world beaters. Cahill is getting better every game

the midfield is good and young enough

obviously luke shaw is on everyones wish list though

[mystiroakey]

If we're being fair, Drogba was hardly prolific. Topped 15 league goals twice so 30 goals in 2 seasons is nothing to slouch at.

The way he departed has led him to be somewhat overrated over his entire body of work tbh

Thats the point isnt it- Drogba was just a really good version of emile heskey!! and chelsea midfield have allways chipped in with 10 plus goals each

[GSC]

Aye Myst, just more I don't see how you can put him down compared to Drogba based on goals scored

[mystiroakey]

You cant

 Drogba wasn't about goals scored though- lamps was allways scoring the same if not more than him. But thats it isnt it. They haven't been set up for that striker and its telling. Drogba was the king of holding the ball up.

i suppose if lukaka was scoring at the same rate as hazard then you have to say - that's good enough i suppose

[CFCNick]

Drogba had a major injury in each of his first two seasons. He also had Malaria once too.

He was a legend before the Champions League final.

[Dolphin Ziggler]

He was insanely good, if you dont think so you are just wrong. I dont like Chelsea, but Drogba was one of the best strikers the Prem has seen.

[Sponsored content]