if you find it a bit boring to read heres a good song to go with the thread's calmness lol


Well Here I am Bored out, thinking about football, and asking myself hm i wonder how chelsea will do this season, and i just figured like i would spend 15 mins of my time to write down my opinion of chelsea and its future,problems etc.

it might be things that you consider boring, useless, or heard of already, but here it goes.

Bare In Mind I Found It necessary to talk about some of the major events in the club's last 5 years to help build a complex where you can understand where my opinions of AVB come from.

Now A club will always be alive at the top as long as it knows what it's doing, but last year it really showed that mentally internally chelsea is not complete yet.

Mourinho's Arrival at Stamford Bridge, was a special move and sign by the club, coincidental with the special one's arrival. His Arrival at the bridge, along with the arrival of Abramovich and a handful of world class players was not only a step forward but it was a sign that the club wanted to move higher up the table, higher up the tree, chelsea wanted to go to the big leagues of football and why not?

Mourinho as a coach and manager to the club would signify the arrival of an unprecedented combination of fluidity between the club and its manager ( in the beginning at least) in the club's history, and it showed.

Jose Mourinho was coming from Porto, a team where he had been able to work with a good selection of players and show what he could do by tactically and mentally leading them to glory. Chelsea to Mourinho was the PERFECT place to not only show to the whole world his power as a coach but to make chelsea his biggest tool to show off his powers as a manager as well. with the power of his tactics, mentality and etc he would be the perfect figure to lead the club into a growing phase.

Chelsea at that time had the perfect thing going for them, seemingly unstoppable funds of money, a great selection of young and experienced players and a great coach that with his attitude mentality and philosophies would lead Chelsea into a period of great success between 2004 and 2007.

Mourinho would lead his team to about 6 trophies in the space of 3 years taking Chelsea to 2 semi finals and a quarter final. Mourinho would lose out to Liverpool, Barcelona, Liverpool and with a bit of luck should have at least won 1 cl if not 2. Mourinho Seemed like a perfect system for them. he seemed like the guy who could not only bring a great image to the club but also trophies, stability and a GREAT PHILOSOPHY, but it didn't happen that way to its FULLEST.

In 2007 Jose Mourinho and Chelsea F.C Would come to a "MUTUAL" Agreement where chelsea would relieve Jose Mourinho of his duties. But Why? How and why was such a good figure for the club let go of like that.

Well There Were Many Reasons May They Be Right Or Wrong Here Are Some of them. 3 Main Reasons

1. Abramovich did not like the sometimes "unpleasant" football Mourinho's men played.
2. A Wide Variety of Disputes Between Abramovich and Mourinho.
3. Power Struggles between Mourinho, Abramovich, Fran Arnesen, And Piet De Visser

Now What Would The figures of Arnesen and De Visser mean to mourinho?

As The Coach of chelsea F.C i believe that Mourinho always wanted to have the power and roles of that of a complete football manager, he wanted to have control of the youth ranks, transfer policies, and other important footballing duties, and with those two men around and with some badly made decisions by Abramovich, mou's stay at the bridge would become only shorter.

Frank Arnesen's Move to chelsea was heavily influenced by de visser, and heavily opposed By JOSE MOURINHO, of course knowing that arnesen would only make mourinho's grip of power weaker in chelsea, mourinho would feel opposed to it. no arnesen as all of you probably know is no longer a part of chelsea football club but in his stay here he was quite influential in the purchase of players like kalou,malouda and mikel, but according to mourinho is one of the biggest reasons chelsea has a lack of talent in the youth ranks looking to buy expensive players rather than unearthing and developing young talent as hoped. (this comes from his own words.)

De Visser on the other hand was a big figure in bring frank arnesen to the club and also be influential in how the youth system works and over the purchase of mikel,alex, and kalou, ( this guy sounds like a puppet master to me).

evidently with these 2 figures blocking mourinho of his power over youth, transfers, and club organization, mourinho felt powerless and without support at times ( you might disagree but his exit only exemplifies that fact) and with abramovich making questionable decisions such as buying Mr. Shevchenko, and etc mourinho felt like his time at the bridge was over.

what caused him to make the decision?
1. He Felt He Lacked Support From The President And The Club. (Arnesen and De Visser key Figures)
2. Abramovich Did not like his style of play.
3. Lack of power in youth system
4. lack of power over transfers
5. lack of power he needed to mold the club and instill them with a great and modern philosophy and mentality which would take them on into years and years of success even after the current generation is gone,


and the fifth reason my friends is what has royally fcked chelsea recently.

mourinho wasnt able to inject chelsea completely with that modern and stable philosophy that a club like chelsea should have to be stable in europe and england.

mourinho was willing to give chelsea an opportunity to get a coach and manager that would inject the club with so many things that it would basically reshape every part of the club to make it into a world class power for a long time, stable and successful. (like man united which coincidentally has won so much over the years because of their stable mentality).

instead mourinho was sacked, no coach or manager was going to be bigger than the club, and in tern over 4 coaches have been made to try to play with what was left of mourinho's men make them play like they find suit, and find trophies.

but what substance does that contain? how will that leave them something they can thrive on for years?

Grant,Scolari,Hiddink,Ancelotti.

All Managers that came after mourinho. none with the same success or impact.

and afterall they have only been victims of their clubs own broken system. alot like what madrid suffered for more than half a decade from 2005-2010

What has happened since mourinho has arrived here at madrid? (bare in mind i list this so you can see his obvious brilliance as a coach, manager and what he could have done for chelsea)

1. He Gets Valdano out of his way for full power so that he can do what he wants with every aspect of out club, now he has had many effects in the youth policy, transfer policy, health, and internal organization, out is that galactico philosophy and he plans to leave us with something that we can live on for YEARS.

Now you might notice that it isnt the same scenario between chelsea and madrid, 2 different clubs with different histories, but oh so alike in mistakes. but what are mou's effects over the long run here be?

well for one that galactico mentality that we had, and that is oh so similar to yours at the moment is gone, he has changed the youth,transfer,power,and organizational areas so much, that i really see mourinho not only leaving us with a team for 10-15 years, but with a modern philosophy we can live with for years, to get our own old groove back, because afterall that won as more than 30 la ligas and 9 cls but also leave us with a modern look at the game, and the club with a modern look at how to deal with coaches, managers and football overall.

Mourinho is basically leaving a system for success, and thats the good thing about him he can leave that in both short term quantities (inter), long term quantities (madrid) and mid term unfinished quantities unfortuanatley (chelsea)


So I hope its clear why mourinho's exit was the biggest mistake in chelsea history, it stopped you from reaching the heights you could have all reached by now

of course you have reached a cl final and a cl and some success after his leaving, but all that you guys missed out on in the bigger picture is way harder to take in and understand for some i do understand but do try to judge this by looking at the bigger picture.

the clubs error in mentality showed off, when we look at all the managerial changes, some unnecessary, purchases and all of the wrong moves by chelsea, even thought it hasnt all been bad of course... you could be the best in the world right now, so please dont take offense to my opinions but just look at what im trying to explain here.

Now To Andre Villas Boas
his role imo will be to continue on what mou left here.

villas boas was in mou's crew when mou was in chelsea and im sure he learned much about philosophy and mentality during his time with mourinho.

now i also think comparing him to mourinho is not the best thing to do (ironic right..) chelsea still have some kind of mentality in there, all avb has to do is to continue on what mourinho was stopped on, maybe chelsea can give Andre the power to influence the transfer policies, youth policies, club ploicies in general.

give him the power that someone needs to make change and give him time, because if you do i do see you guys in the cl semis atleast and epl winners in the next 2 years.

but why andre? because i cant really think of any other coach out there more fit now to make change

why not ancelotti or hiddink?

andre's view at the game and mentality is more linked with mourinho's than anyone elses right now and at his age his effects as a manager and his time as a manager for chelsea could really be seen as a good contrast to what mourinho could have done. this could be a mourinho 2.0 for you guys, he can do what mou should have been able to do but with his own taste by playing his own type of game. a game that abramovich will probably find more to his desired taste, and it prob will be a 4-3-3, ideally, and there are many many reasons for that.

also i dont know if this might apply but i think that one of the reasons ancelotti's 4-3-3 was so successful even into leading them to a double was because the 4-3-3 works in the epl if you do it right, heres a short quote from mou that tells me that this could be chelsea's permanent look at the english game, and a good one if their managers pull it off correctly with their own ideas and style of course. here is the quote.

"Look, if I have a triangle in midfield – Claude Makelele behind and two others just in front – I will always have an advantage against a pure 4-4-2 where the central midfielders are side by side. That’s because I will always have an extra man. It starts with Makelele, who is between the lines. If nobody comes to him he can see the whole pitch and has time. If he gets closed down it means one of the two other central midfielders is open. If they are closed down and the other team’s wingers come inside to help, it means there is space now for us on the flank, either for our own wingers or for our full-backs. There is nothing a pure 4-4-2 can do to stop things’."

also before i leave a great sense here in this link into how mourinho was so tactically brilliant that he managed to create one of the greatest teams in and system in world football with his 4-3-3
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/25/teams-of-the-decade-13-chelsea-2004-06/

well those are my two cents into what i expect from avb, and why i expect that, i wish you the best and i can write more ideas, only that right now im tired. so ya.. enjoy.. i hope..

now again some might say oh but atm we are still at the top of the table, but if you look at it in the bigger picture you will see what i mean. youve missed out on many things and know that if you give the opportunity to someone good to actually manage your club for some time you will reach even better places.

you were burned out and looked like a shadow of your selves last season, aka 2004-2009, 2004-2006 being your best years imo.

imagine, this might be fantasy football here but, mou would have prob been able to take chelsea to the place where grant and hiddink couldnt had he stayed, and there would have been no such thing as mou's inter to stop you. 3 consecutive cl titles plus one of the best football philosophies in the world is what chelsea missed out on.

while we're all throwing our 2cents worth in heres mine

i think Carlo was still the right man for the job at chelsea, he was tacticly inflexible but still good but it was his desire not to play youth and a few cruel twists of fate that lead to his demise

Carlos desire not to play Bruma[/b]
vs sunderland at the bridge he played Paulo at CB over Bruma, Paulo clearly lacked the pace to contain Gyan and thus we got hammered

then couple weeks later vs villa he picks him (most likely due to the pressure on him to do so) and he gets monsters Hesky all game except for one header which Hesky dominates him which lead to a goal, Carlo pointed the funger at Bruma and he wasnt seen again all season

then for a month Alex played needing surgery cause Carlo prefered him over a fully fit Bruma

[b]Carlos insistance of playing a malaria ridled Drogba
Probably the worst thing that couldve happened to Carlo but instead of benching Drog while he recovered eh insisted on playing him, and full credit to Drog cause he gave 100% every game he was too under done, why he couldnt go with this front line, dont know
again i think it comes down to him not trusting the youth

Malouda is a better LB then PVA and Betrand
it was only one game, but it was 3 points we dropped, with Cashley and Zhirkov unfit Carlo decided malouda was a better choice at LB then PVA and Betrand

Injury is so cruel
injury smashed Carlo bad
imagine the squad that won the double, then take out the following players
Essien (injured)
Lamps (injured)
Zhirkov (injured)
Yossi (injured)
Ballack (sold)
Deco (sold
Belleti (sold)
Carvahlo (sold)
then add drogba and alex playing injured and that ramieries was playing eveyr week despite being way out of his depth as he was still adapting and that Carlo refused to play youth and look at how thin the squad is

The lack of a quick CB
Ricadro Carvahlo was THE most underated player of the Abromovich era, he was a fast ball playing CB who had no fear when dving into a tackle and so often covered up JTs mistakes, with him gone and not replaced (till Jan) chelseas starting CBs were alex and JT and although theyre both big, physical and good in the air, they lack the speed to carvahlo and DL and chelsea were caught out due to it (not sure is this was Carlos, Romans or Benficas fault but at the end of the day it hurt Carlo bad)

Loss of form of Key Players
taking inot account everything up there Carlo also had to deal with players like malouda dropping form who were key parts of the double team and being forced into starting ramieries who was still adapting to the PL plus an unfit drog upfront resulted in the hwole team loosing ints fludity, a few bad results lead from that which lead ot a big drop in confidence and hus when players like ess and lamps returned from injury they retuened to a completly different side and it showed in this pitch

Fernando Torres
wont go into it all, but instead of 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 why not try this

its not a great XI but given the no youth policy i think this wouldve been the bets way to get the goods out of torres early on in the season


long live King Carlo, the man who i rekon could save Juventus, if/when they sack Conte

fatman123 wrote:while we're all throwing our 2cents worth in heres mine

i think Carlo was still the right man for the job at chelsea, he was tacticly inflexible but still good but it was his desire not to play youth and a few cruel twists of fate that lead to his demise

Carlos desire not to play Bruma[/b]
vs sunderland at the bridge he played Paulo at CB over Bruma, Paulo clearly lacked the pace to contain Gyan and thus we got hammered

then couple weeks later vs villa he picks him (most likely due to the pressure on him to do so) and he gets monsters Hesky all game except for one header which Hesky dominates him which lead to a goal, Carlo pointed the funger at Bruma and he wasnt seen again all season

then for a month Alex played needing surgery cause Carlo prefered him over a fully fit Bruma

[b]Carlos insistance of playing a malaria ridled Drogba
Probably the worst thing that couldve happened to Carlo but instead of benching Drog while he recovered eh insisted on playing him, and full credit to Drog cause he gave 100% every game he was too under done, why he couldnt go with this front line, dont know

kalou/malouda-anelka-kakuta/sturidge

again i think it comes down to him not trusting the youth

Malouda is a better LB then PVA and Betrand
it was only one game, but it was 3 points we dropped, with Cashley and Zhirkov unfit Carlo decided malouda was a better choice at LB then PVA and Betrand

Injury is so cruel
injury smashed Carlo bad
imagine the squad that won the double, then take out the following players
Essien (injured)
Lamps (injured)
Zhirkov (injured)
Yossi (injured)
Ballack (sold)
Deco (sold
Belleti (sold)
Carvahlo (sold)
then add drogba and alex playing injured and that ramieries was playing eveyr week despite being way out of his depth as he was still adapting and that Carlo refused to play youth and look at how thin the squad is

The lack of a quick CB
Ricadro Carvahlo was THE most underated player of the Abromovich era, he was a fast ball playing CB who had no fear when dving into a tackle and so often covered up JTs mistakes, with him gone and not replaced (till Jan) chelseas starting CBs were alex and JT and although theyre both big, physical and good in the air, they lack the speed to carvahlo and DL and chelsea were caught out due to it (not sure is this was Carlos, Romans or Benficas fault but at the end of the day it hurt Carlo bad)

Loss of form of Key Players
taking inot account everything up there Carlo also had to deal with players like malouda dropping form who were key parts of the double team and being forced into starting ramieries who was still adapting to the PL plus an unfit drog upfront resulted in the hwole team loosing ints fludity, a few bad results lead from that which lead ot a big drop in confidence and hus when players like ess and lamps returned from injury they retuened to a completly different side and it showed in this pitch

Fernando Torres
wont go into it all, but instead of 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 why not try this

backline
mikel-ess/ramieries
malouda-lamps-kalou/anelka
drobga/torres

its not a great XI but given the no youth policy i think this wouldve been the bets way to get the goods out of torres early on in the season


long live King Carlo, the man who i rekon could save Juventus, if/when they sack Conte

well the club's decision to not even understand the difficult sitaution he had to face has to be frowned upon as well... not using youth is not enough of an excuse to justify kicking ancelotti which i dont really think was the man that was gonna build chelsea up anyways.

thats the thing about the epl imo, their success has to do with their managers, because epl doesnt thrive on good coaches only but it thrives on good managers.

mourinho,ferguson,wenger top 3 arguably when mou was there.

since united has had the most stable one (hes been then for 2 decades ffs) of course they are when they are now, mourinho is way better imo though. ancelotti was never gonna be that man.

wenger was once a great manager and coach but he lost the 2nd part of that a long time ago.

but yes ancelotti had a whole lot of jack shit to deal with, but if villas boas does his thing then i dont see why look back other than to not repeat mistakes.

also the thinness of the squad and the poor trust on the youth is down to the clubs poor management. chelsea's success after mou long thrived from the fact that the team he built was great, and some additions were added as years went by yes but not enough.

and as i mentioned in my op the youth sucks in many ways mou has said so him self, and it shows off on the apparent lack of faith in it from carlo.

Villas-Boas's role is to build a Post Roman II side by developing youngsters, not by buying superstars like Mourinho.

Also can't see how you can bizarrely claim that our youngsters suck when you haven't watched them play a single match, especially Sturridge and McEachran. You also haven't seen the youngsters we have bought so far, including the ones from the academy, because if you had you'll see that that is a ridiculous statement to make. I haven't seen Mourinho say that our current crop of youngsters suck, nor do I think you should be asking a guy like him about youngsters because he has said that he would not play Madrid's youngsters in most games because, like we all know, he prefers superstars over young players. A bit like Carlo which is a good enough reason to sack him since we can't afford to spend 100m every transfer market and need to survive the FFP. You cannot blame the management for Carlo not using any youths because the whole reason of selling some of the experienced players last summer was so that we could promote the youngsters, who at many times deserved to start, as they had enough quality to do so and out-perform the older players.

In addition why think of what would have happened if Mourinho had stayed? Why think of him at all when he is old news and with the fact that we have been successful since he left (should have gotten a CL)? Even if Roman hadn't gotten in an argument with Mourinho, he would have left after a while because he likes to change teams even if his team is successful like with Inter Milan. Having Mourinho has a long term manager is a bad decision because if you have a manager for the long term, that manager needs to know how to stay in business by buying cheap young players and developing them, because a club cannot keep spending loads of money.

Villas-Boas's role is different from other managers' roles because he has more power like control over his staff, transfer policy etc.

Mourinho and AVB maybe similar cos they both became successful through Porto and then came to Chelsea. But they are two different managers. If you are trying to compare the two of them its a big mistake. The times have changed, the club status's have changed. The fans have changed, its all changed.

AVB has a different policy than of Mou.

english_jewel wrote:Villas-Boas's role is to build a Post Roman II side by developing youngsters, not by buying superstars like Mourinho.

Also can't see how you can bizarrely claim that our youngsters suck when you haven't watched them play a single match, especially Sturridge and McEachran. You also haven't seen the youngsters we have bought so far, including the ones from the academy, because if you had you'll see that that is a ridiculous statement to make. I haven't seen Mourinho say that our current crop of youngsters suck, nor do I think you should be asking a guy like him about youngsters because he has said that he would not play Madrid's youngsters in most games because, like we all know, he prefers superstars over young players. A bit like Carlo which is a good enough reason to sack him since we can't afford to spend 100m every transfer market and need to survive the FFP. You cannot blame the management for Carlo not using any youths because the whole reason of selling some of the experienced players last summer was so that we could promote the youngsters, who at many times deserved to start, as they had enough quality to do so and out-perform the older players.

In addition why think of what would have happened if Mourinho had stayed? Why think of him at all when he is old news and with the fact that we have been successful since he left (should have gotten a CL)? Even if Roman hadn't gotten in an argument with Mourinho, he would have left after a while because he likes to change teams even if his team is successful like with Inter Milan. Having Mourinho has a long term manager is a bad decision because if you have a manager for the long term, that manager needs to know how to stay in business by buying cheap young players and developing them, because a club cannot keep spending loads of money.

Villas-Boas's role is different from other managers' roles because he has more power like control over his staff, transfer policy etc.

your first 2 paragraphs leave me with the impression that you dont know a thing about mou.

everything pointed that he was thinking long term, his leaving made it so that youth didnt produce as he wanted and squad aged and not dealt with like he wanted.

you cant possibly tell me i dont make a point here when its all well documented..

villas boas had the power that had to be given eventually, my thread covers all of that. your youth could be better and mou has said so.

iNFINITY9910 wrote:Mourinho and AVB maybe similar cos they both became successful through Porto and then came to Chelsea. But they are two different managers. If you are trying to compare the two of them its a big mistake. The times have changed, the club status's have changed. The fans have changed, its all changed.

AVB has a different policy than of Mou.

i said in the thread that it wasnt the best to compare them because they are different and play different but have similar mentality, avb is different than mou but as a manager is hopefully going to be given the powers and time that mou should have gotten.

This is hilarious already, Chelsea has no clue to how to attack. There good at building and bringing strikers to opposition box, but at the finishing they suck. Torres could have been in bench and Droga would have played, atleast he hasnt lost his final touch. From the defense I saw was great, only problem that needs fixing is those pensioners wingers and Ramires? Someone explain me wth is his job at midfield? I understand he is an box to box midfielder, but its not like hes very good at it. Shitty start from Chelsea.-

The Madrid One wrote:

iNFINITY9910 wrote:Mourinho and AVB maybe similar cos they both became successful through Porto and then came to Chelsea. But they are two different managers. If you are trying to compare the two of them its a big mistake. The times have changed, the club status's have changed. The fans have changed, its all changed.

AVB has a different policy than of Mou.

i said in the thread that it wasnt the best to compare them because they are different and play different but have similar mentality, avb is different than mou but as a manager is hopefully going to be given the powers and time that mou should have gotten.

No I dont think u got my point, i wasnt talkking about their playing styles. I'm saying that the background Chelsea had when Mou came was different from the background thats here now. The way we spend is different now for instance. The expectations are different. I can go through all the stuff explaining but FML im in a bad phase atm. So please be kind enough...

iNFINITY9910 wrote:

The Madrid One wrote:

iNFINITY9910 wrote:Mourinho and AVB maybe similar cos they both became successful through Porto and then came to Chelsea. But they are two different managers. If you are trying to compare the two of them its a big mistake. The times have changed, the club status's have changed. The fans have changed, its all changed.

AVB has a different policy than of Mou.

i said in the thread that it wasnt the best to compare them because they are different and play different but have similar mentality, avb is different than mou but as a manager is hopefully going to be given the powers and time that mou should have gotten.

No I dont think u got my point, i wasnt talkking about their playing styles. I'm saying that the background Chelsea had when Mou came was different from the background thats here now. The way we spend is different now for instance. The expectations are different. I can go through all the stuff explaining but FML im in a bad phase atm. So please be kind enough...

no i understand that as well, but overall im talking about managerial duties and as a MANAGER i expect avb to give chelsea that long term success sprout and mentality.

The Madrid One wrote:

english_jewel wrote:Villas-Boas's role is to build a Post Roman II side by developing youngsters, not by buying superstars like Mourinho.

Also can't see how you can bizarrely claim that our youngsters suck when you haven't watched them play a single match, especially Sturridge and McEachran. You also haven't seen the youngsters we have bought so far, including the ones from the academy, because if you had you'll see that that is a ridiculous statement to make. I haven't seen Mourinho say that our current crop of youngsters suck, nor do I think you should be asking a guy like him about youngsters because he has said that he would not play Madrid's youngsters in most games because, like we all know, he prefers superstars over young players. A bit like Carlo which is a good enough reason to sack him since we can't afford to spend 100m every transfer market and need to survive the FFP. You cannot blame the management for Carlo not using any youths because the whole reason of selling some of the experienced players last summer was so that we could promote the youngsters, who at many times deserved to start, as they had enough quality to do so and out-perform the older players.

In addition why think of what would have happened if Mourinho had stayed? Why think of him at all when he is old news and with the fact that we have been successful since he left (should have gotten a CL)? Even if Roman hadn't gotten in an argument with Mourinho, he would have left after a while because he likes to change teams even if his team is successful like with Inter Milan. Having Mourinho has a long term manager is a bad decision because if you have a manager for the long term, that manager needs to know how to stay in business by buying cheap young players and developing them, because a club cannot keep spending loads of money.

Villas-Boas's role is different from other managers' roles because he has more power like control over his staff, transfer policy etc.

your first 2 paragraphs leave me with the impression that you dont know a thing about mou.

everything pointed that he was thinking long term, his leaving made it so that youth didnt produce as he wanted and squad aged and not dealt with like he wanted.

you cant possibly tell me i dont make a point here when its all well documented..

villas boas had the power that had to be given eventually, my thread covers all of that. your youth could be better and mou has said so.

I know nothing about Mourinho? You're crazy. What did I say wrong about him? When has Mouirnho created a great team by developing talent like the likes of Wenger and Ferguson have done? Never. He basically fixes the current squad you have, adds great signings and molds those two all together to create a fantastic squad. And after that squad wins the CL he goes away, how does that make a long term manager?

The reason why the squad was left aging was because they were all fantastic because Mou had created a great squad. Now it's time to replace them so we have bought Villas-Boas.

And what's the "you can't possibly tell me I dont make a point?" Assuming this is about youths, of course you don't make a clever point. You're basically saying that because of Mou no youth players have been created thus far, and that shows your knowledge about us really. We have great youths and have bought great youths, maybe you should start paying more attention and grow up from Mou. Mou would NEVER have allowed youths to develop, so much for the youth profession being stopped because of him leaving. It was good that he left because he gave us a fantastic squad and we were finished after that.

And now you're saying our youth could be better and Mou said that? Didn't you just contradict yourself when you said Mou said our youths sucked? Do you have any quotes or something?

again you left me with the same taste. seems you dont understand what mou would have done. and you never will.

2nd bit paragraph is just pure laughable

3rd paragraph.. NEVER? FINISHED? thats all your faults and youre kind of blaming mou for it.

stay delusioned with your thoughts about mourinho.

avb will prob do what i expect of him.

Mate how about you actually break my answer down to pieces and answer them with some logic and ideas instead of just saying "your 2nd paragraph is stupid", "your third paragraph is even stupider"??

It would actually help you prove your point because right now it seems like you are in denial since I keep backing my thoughts up while you don't even give a proper counter-argument.

look i posted my comments and then you posted yours, and i find your comments to demonstrate that you dont really UNDERSTAND many things, or that we would never come to an agreement, and since you wont understand i dont even bother to answer any of your useless points or questions.

1st paragraph just tells me that you find mourinho to be an impossible long term manager.

2nd paragraph doesnt tell me anything of worth

and 3rd paragraph you overeact in a bit and come out in a defensive way to defend the youth, when i think you should analyze it more.

in the end it seems like youre defending the stance of not choosing mourinho in the long run, and that tells me you don't clearly understand or we just dont think alike.

The Madrid One wrote:look i posted my comments and then you posted yours, and i find your comments to demonstrate that you dont really UNDERSTAND many things, or that we would never come to an agreement, and since you wont understand i dont even bother to answer any of your useless points or questions.

in the end it seems like youre defending the stance of not choosing mourinho in the long run, and that tells me you don't clearly understand or we just dont think alike.

Sorry if this sounds rude but are you really 17? What many things don't I understand? How about being more specific? Or is it because you have no answer to the questions I asked in my previous post? Again you haven't even bothered to tell me anything and you just claim that my points are "useless". It's like when a child proposes something and then you tell him why he's wrong but then he claims that he isn't going to listen to you because he just doesn't want to. Classy. Just shows that you have absolutely no answer to my replies and you know that you're the one who doesn't understand a thing. Thank you for wasting my time.

The Madrid One wrote:1st paragraph just tells me that you find mourinho to be an impossible long term manager.

And? You have a reply to that? You said in the OP that if we had kept Mourinho we would have been very successful and I said that he wouldn't have stayed anyways because of the factors that I listed...so are you backing off from that or something?

The Madrid One wrote:2nd paragraph doesnt tell me anything of worth

So what was this article supposed to be about then? Because to me this thread doesn't tell anything of worth since all it's saying is that we shouldn't have sacked Mourinho because then according to you we would have been very successful, and then you talk about Villas-Boas and then the youths...Please tell me what I should put that has some worth in it according to you.

The Madrid One wrote:and 3rd paragraph you overeact in a bit and come out in a defensive way to defend the youth, when i think you should analyze it more.

I should analyze more? You're the one who claimed our youth sucked with absolutely no reason why they sucked. You should have been analyzing there and telling me why they sucked since you claimed it at first. All you did to back it up was say that Carlo didn't trust the youths (which doesn't prove our youths sucked, maybe it could prove that Carlo just didn't want to use them because of experience?) and that Mourinho supposedly said that our youth sucked. Then you contradicted yourself by saying that Mourinho said our youths have improved...do you have quotes or anything because I'm sure Mou would not contradict himself in such a stupid way.

To me it seems like you don't know what you are talking about because every time I contradict your points, you can't answer back to them and instead claim I don't know what I'm talking about.

Is this really what you do in real life?

exactly why i thought of whether posting it or not.

people like you dont understand and then turn it into some little argument that they think they can win, when there is nothing to win.

Is this really what you do in real life?

you are just trying to make argument here, you dont agree with my points then dont.

anyways if you think im wasting your time then stop reading, because if i want to express something i will, because believe me i have not "lost" anything, so dont get heated up or proud over the internet.

so stop reading if you want but im not going to answer any of your questions, because all of the answers are in the op, they are my opinions but you concentrate on nit picking to the point where you dont understand.

now its clear that you didnt like the part about the youths, go around google read posts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2512313.ece

im done here.

Link doesn't work.

So both your opinions on the matter are different. So?

Keep it cool.

OK thanks for making the link work.

Now I know where you got the idea to write an article such as this.

But you seemed not have noticed that the article was made right after Mourinho was sacked so many of the things listed in it now look hilarious, but unfortunately you didn't pay attention to those details when you wrote the article.

The article says that Chelsea will go backwards from Mou's sacking, but the author can be forgiven for saying that because, unlike you, he didn't know that Chelsea will continue to reach even greater heights than what was achieved by Mourinho. But surprisingly even though you wrote this article now you didn't bother to think that point will now look stupid and false. You also got the thing about the academy from that article, and whilst the academy progress was halted when Roman came because of his big spending, it has started to produce top talents again because of Roman's 40m investment in it and our much greater commitment to using it.

But again you didn't bother to see whether what was true in 2007 is true now in 2011 and therefore some of your points now look rather ridiculous.

Soul wrote:So both your opinions on the matter are different. So?

Keep it cool.

I have no problems with him having a different opinion than me. It's just that he keeps claiming that I don't know anything and whenever I challenge him to prove that he backs off and repeats the process again.

know im not claiming that you dont know anything, just that when you begin looking at my work from a certain point of view and then argue with me about it when in fact you didnt understand my point in the first place i regard it as useless discussion.

i talked about why mou left, i talked about what could have happened had he stayed (u really dont agree), and about how avb can become the first true manager since mourinho (i feel)


that is all