In reply to Furlock Bones That's incredible.

This is what happens when you use them correctly.

Gonna be awesome when Milan kicks the **** out of Chelsea in the Champions league.

Oh wait.

So, the Hammers are going to the championship?

Lol Pickford

🚨🚨| GOAL: Pickford with a OWN GOAL!

Sheffield United 2-1 Everton pic.twitter.com/Jx25gbKLe1

— CentreGoals. (@centregoals) September 2, 2023

In reply to jeffk I almost felt bad for him…almost

In reply to Aston94 Not even a bit here.

Everton are snakebit this year… getting punished by the soccer gods for not going down like they were supposed to.

In reply to deadbq03

deadbq03 said:

---

Everton are snakebit this year… getting punished by the soccer gods for not going down like they were supposed to.

---

They have played like this for the last two seasons and each time magically pulled a rabbit out of the hat the last 3 weeks of the season.

In reply to Mathguy64 Everton's saving grace this year might be the relative weakness of the three promoted clubs. Sheffield United, Luton and Burnley all look poised to go straight back down.

In reply to Aston94 Luton and Burnley for sure.

In reply to Aston94

Aston94 said:

---

Everton's saving grace this year might be the relative weakness of the three promoted clubs. Sheffield United, Luton and Burnley all look poised to go straight back down.

---

Yeah Sheffield United seem like they could stay up, but Luton and Burnley are destined to go right back down

Wow Pickford saved the game there twice.

Well, they just struggled to draw one of those promoted sides and lost a key midfielder on deadline day who wasn't replaced. They'll probably avoid it yet again but there's not a whole lot to suggest thus far they are significantly better than the promoted sides.

Chelsea are playing: 3 CBs, 2 wing backs, 2 CDMs (i don't care where Gallagher is paying he is a CDM). So that is 7 defensive minded players... against the mighty prowess of Nott'n Forrest.

That isn't even taking into account that Fernandez isnt a real attacking forward.

Half a $Bn $1.3Bn and that is the best attack money can buy. Sheesh.

In reply to texagbeliever

texagbeliever said:

---

Half a $Bn and that is the best attack money can buy. Sheesh.

---

Don't short change them. Boehly is well over a billion at this point.

I think I saw yesterday he's spent $1.29B since May '22.

Hurr durr chelski bad

They deserve to get slated for their performance, but you sound like an absolute idiot.

3-5-2 is not an uncommon formation, nor is it inherently defensive. Chilwell and Gusto have very few defensive responsibilities. Enzo isn't a forward but he is a player capable of unlocking defenses from midfield.

Chelsea's attackers:

Jackson & Sterling started
Madueke and Mudryk returning from injury and not fit for a full 90
Palmer literally just signed and hardly trained with the team
Broja, Nkunku, Chuk out with injuries.

So what attackers do you think Chelsea should have started today?

In reply to Kampfers

Kampfers said:

---

Hurr durr chelski bad

They deserve to get slated for their performance, but you sound like an absolute idiot.

3-5-2 is not an uncommon formation, nor is it inherently defensive. Chilwell and Gusto have very few defensive responsibilities. Enzo isn't a forward but he is a player capable of unlocking defenses from midfield.

Chelsea's attackers:

Jackson & Sterling started
Madueke and Mudryk returning from injury and not fit for a full 90
Palmer literally just signed and hardly trained with the team
Broja, Nkunku, Chuk out with injuries.

So what attackers do you think Chelsea should have started today?

---

Let's look at other top clubs and their attacking weapons (didn't spend $1Bn +)
Arsenal attacking options: Odegaard, Saka, Martinelli, Jesus, Trussard and Eddie. I left off Kai because he sucks and I hate that we bought him. Note that 4 of those players typically start for Arsenal.
Man City attacking options: They are loaded. Duh.
Liverpool: Salah, Diaz, Nunez, Gakpo, Jota, Mac Allister (4 of these typically start a game)
Man U: Rashford, Martial, Fernandes, Antony (this is a weak attack but at least it didn't cost them much)
Spurs: Son, Maddison, Johnson, Kulu, Richarlison

I get injuries happen but that formation makes no sense with the players Chelsea has. Murdyk and Sterling are wide players and with wing backs they are pushed narrow. It is head scratching.

In reply to texagbeliever

texagbeliever said:

---

Kampfers said:

---

Hurr durr chelski bad

They deserve to get slated for their performance, but you sound like an absolute idiot.

3-5-2 is not an uncommon formation, nor is it inherently defensive. Chilwell and Gusto have very few defensive responsibilities. Enzo isn't a forward but he is a player capable of unlocking defenses from midfield.

Chelsea's attackers:

Jackson & Sterling started
Madueke and Mudryk returning from injury and not fit for a full 90
Palmer literally just signed and hardly trained with the team
Broja, Nkunku, Chuk out with injuries.

So what attackers do you think Chelsea should have started today?

---

Let's look at other top clubs and their attacking weapons (didn't spend $1Bn +)
Arsenal attacking options: Odegaard, Saka, Martinelli, Jesus, Trussard and Eddie. I left off Kai because he sucks and I hate that we bought him. Note that 4 of those players typically start for Arsenal.
Man City attacking options: They are loaded. Duh.
Liverpool: Salah, Diaz, Nunez, Gakpo, Jota, Mac Allister (4 of these typically start a game)
Man U: Rashford, Martial, Fernandes, Antony (this is a weak attack but at least it didn't cost them much)
Spurs: Son, Maddison, Johnson, Kulu, Richarlison

I get injuries happen but that formation makes no sense with the players Chelsea has. Murdyk and Sterling are wide players and with wing backs they are pushed narrow. It is head scratching.

---

"Didn't spend x amount of money"

Includes players purchased across 5+ windows

You're not making a fair comparison unless you count the purchase prices of all the players because Chelsea turned over the entire squad - of course it was expensive. Most teams do this over multiple years not 3 windows.

Also you keep throwing this total number out as if Chelsea didn't sign any midfielders, defenders, youth products.

Nah they only signed attackers.

After sales, this squad cost about 700m in total. Hardly seems an eye watering sum for a team of Chelsea's stature. It's not the total money spent - it's the time frame that makes it shocking.

In reply to Kampfers Its a joke. This is the trash talking thread. Lighten up! Arsenal blew a lead against Fulham up a man. Making fun of other teams' miseries makes the pain hurt a little less.

Chelsea cant understand that their problem is strikers. And for some reason they are recycling in supporting attacking players over and over and now most of them are worse than what they started with and they still have t fixed the striker problem.

Your trash talk is bad and you should feel bad

It's just the lowest tier of the low tier and it isn't even accurate

I'm just tired of reading the same tired talking points over and over again. Plenty of better reasons to criticize this Chelsea squad.

I don't think Chelsea spent enough. Maybe another 200-300 mil in January will do it.

Good early returns from Conceido, huh?

In reply to Thunder18

Thunder18 said:

---

Good early returns from Conceido, huh?

---

He fits right in with what they're trying to do tactically.

Tottenham sold their best player and appear to be much much better.

West Ham sold their best player and appear to be much much better.

This is the way.

In reply to Dre_00

Dre_00 said:

---

Tottenham sold their best player and appear to be much much better.

West Ham sold their best player and appear to be much much better.

This is the way.

---

BHA sold their best 2 players (or 2 of top 3) and appear to be just as good.

In reply to Aston94 If someone wants a former team captain and the leader of England's defense, call 1-800-MU-TAKE-5.