debosky:

The mathematical analysis of the periods Hiddink and Grant were in charge is flawed at best.

I thunk as much. . . . .
Ibime's mathematical skills are playing tricks with his frail mind.

LOL
una don crase finish

Hell's kitchen you are crazy!!!

~Sauron~:

I thunk as much. . . . .
Ibime's mathematical skills are playing tricks with his frail mind.

Ibime, you have been found out. fowl y.ansh don blow. .

But me I like this.

ritchboy:

Ibime
it's apparent your mouth is in it's last gear but your brain is in reverse. . . end product = nonsense.

@Sauron, what's the scores now? All square?

Some interesting facts about Chelsea (culled from the net)

Chelsea
* Chelsea have won one of six games in all competitions since thwacking Arsenal 3-0 at the Emirates.  

* They have conceded more than double (15 to 7) last season's goals in their first 18 Premier League games.

* It's the first time since May 2003 that Chelsea have failed to win at Upton Park

Ritchboy, go and jump in Calabar river. I explicitly stated that I was talking about the league. Next time, look before you leap.


@ all others,

Whilst we cannot confidently extrapolate that GH would have won the league, we can confidently extrapolate that GH did not lose the league.

Hence, Scolari lost the league.

So do we all agree that we have never lost the league playing a 4-3-3 formation?

~Sauron~:

I agree 100% you have never lost the league playing your 4-3-3 formation

So whats all the extra argument about? 


Now, if the diamond and 4-3-3 are mutually exclusive, then we can agree that if 4-3-3 never lost the league, then the diamond formation always lost the league. The only possible exemption being Mourinho's flat 4-4-2 at the beginnning of 07/08.


Finally,

~Sauron~:

BUT Ancellotti won 2 European cups playing the diamond formation.

Ancelotti also won 1 league in 9 years (with Juve and Milan) playing the diamond formation.

Most would agree that the league is the most effective judge of a formation, as opposed to cups, which are subject to the vagaries of luck.

Well we can say the league is not lost yet. . It's only a matter of time before we know if the diamond lost the league again.

nateevs:

Well we can say the league is not lost yet. . It's only a matter of time before we know if the diamond lost the league again.

Yet is the operative word in your sentence.

Whilst it may yet produce, history is not on its side.

I did mean to use the YET. . because no one can deny there's a bit of truth in what you saying.
However, YET also means your theory could be expunged in a matter of months.

Ibime:

@ all others,

Whilst we cannot confidently extrapolate that GH would have won the league, we can confidently extrapolate that GH did not lose the league.

Hence, Scolari lost the league.

He didn't - if he was allowed to stay till the end, that's the only point we'd be able to say he lost the league. If Fergie was sacked in December 2008 then you'd say he lost the league no?

So do we all agree that we have never lost the league playing a 4-3-3 formation?

So whats all the extra argument about? 

That was not the ONLY reason you won the leagues in those years - you had players in their prime, a disciplined and highly organized defence among others. It is only by using a lazy, shallow, peripheral and superficial analysis that you'll arrive at 4-3-3 as being the prime reason behind the successes.

Now, if the diamond and 4-3-3 are mutually exclusive, then we can agree that if 4-3-3 never lost the league, then the diamond formation always lost the league. The only possible exemption being Mourinho's flat 4-4-2 at the beginnning of 07/08.

We can agree to that, but that is an irrelevant argument, IF the other factors involved made the difference and NOT formation.

Finally,

Ancelotti also won 1 league in 9 years (with Juve and Milan) playing the diamond formation.

Most would agree that the league is the most effective judge of a formation, as opposed to cups, which are subject to the vagaries of luck.

You don't get to 3 UCL finals without doing something VERY well, and this is inevitably going to affect league performance as well.

debosky:

He didn't - if he was allowed to stay till the end, that's the only point we'd be able to say he lost the league.

Thats being unnecessarily pedantic. GH had the[i] highest win percentage of any Chelsea manager in history[/i], and he still wasnt able to claw back the deficit that Scolari left. Scolari lost the league! Anyone saying otherwise is practising an exercise in pedantry.

debosky:

That was not the ONLY reason you won the leagues in those years - you had players in their prime, a disciplined and highly organized defence among others.

Even with players "out of their prime", the 4-3-3 has continued to show uptill 2009 that it is an effective formation for Chelsea. This is evidenced by GH and AG, whose statistics show that they performed to almost or exactly the same level as the much vaunted 2004-2006 squad.

debosky:

You don't get to 3 UCL finals without doing something VERY well, and this is inevitably going to affect league performance as well.

You must be speaking paradoxically, cos Milans cup form was hardly ever reflected in their league form.

FBS:

@Sauron, what's the scores now? All square?  

Ibime 20-18 Ritchboy.

Ibime:

So do we all agree that we have never lost the league playing a 4-3-3 formation?
So whats all the extra argument about? 

I don't think something as flimsy as formation can lose the league title for a club as massive as Chelsea.
There are various other factors that are common denominators when the league was lost --- injuries and the funds available are also factors.

Now, if the diamond and 4-3-3 are mutually exclusive, then we can agree that if 4-3-3 never lost the league, then the diamond formation always lost the league. The only possible exemption being Mourinho's flat 4-4-2 at the beginnning of 07/08.

Formation does not win matches/league titles. . . . . .Players do.

Ancelotti also won 1 league in 9 years (with Juve and Milan) playing the diamond formation.
Most would agree that the league is the most effective judge of a formation, as opposed to cups, which are subject to the vagaries of luck.

This one na poppycock
United did not use a static formation in all the 3 seasons they have won the league title.
4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1.

Ibime:

Thats being unnecessarily pedantic. GH had the[i] highest win percentage of any Chelsea manager in history[/i], and he still wasnt able to claw back the deficit that Scolari left. Scolari lost the league! Anyone saying otherwise is practising an exercise in pedantry.

What use is a run that was predestined to fail? A run when there is no chance to win the title is a run without pressure - it cannot be used as a basis for judgment. He did well, but according to you the battle was already lost so there wasn't anything at stake as it were.

Even with players "out of their prime", the 4-3-3 has continued to show uptill 2009 that it is an effective formation for Chelsea. This is evidenced by GH and AG, whose statistics show that they performed to almost or exactly the same level as the much vaunted 2004-2006 squad.

In the same light, the diamond formation has taken Chelski to the top of the league, 4 points ahead of the nearest rivals. That goes to show that the formation is NOT the issue, if not Carlo should've been sacked at this point as well.

You must be speaking paradoxically, cos Milans cup form was hardly ever reflected in their league form.

But they kept qualifying for the CL in each season - that tells you that the coach had something about him, if not the resources to get him over that last hurdle of league dominance.

Looking at the quality of the side he won those cups with, they pale in comparison to Juve's or Inter's.

debosky:

He did well, but according to you the battle was already lost so there wasn't anything at stake as it were.

This contradicts your earlier statement that Scolari hadnt lost the league.

debosky:

In the same light, the diamond formation has taken Chelski to the top of the league, 4 points ahead of the nearest rivals. That goes to show that the formation is NOT the issue, if not Carlo should've been sacked at this point as well. .

Scolari also started like a house on fire, and ran into the same problems we are seeing now. BTW, Man Utd have lost 5 games already and we are only halfway. Compare that to the 4 they lost last season. Where would Carlotti be on the table if Man Utd was the same as last season, without defensive crisis and with Ronaldo? 

This is why I've told FBS that heaven will not forgive Carlotti if he loses the league to this Man Utd team. We've never had it so good.

debosky:

But they kept qualifying for the CL in each season - that tells you that the coach had something about him, if not the resources to get him over that last hurdle of league dominance,

Merely qualifying for the CL may be a desirable outcome for Gaynners, but it is not acceptable for Chelsea! 

debosky:

Looking at the quality of the side he won those cups with, they pale in comparison to Juve's or Inter's.

Disagree!!!

Seedorf was one of the best trequartistas in his time.

Pirlo, Gattusso and Ambrosini are Italy WC winners and lynchpins.

Errr'one knows about Kaka.

Maldini, Nesta - best defenders in Italy.

Sheva was arguably the best striker in the world, and Inzaghi the most prolific poacher.

Dida at one point was a great goalie.

Not to mention other talents.

The side was brimming with quality. I would never put Juve or Inter players above AC players.

Ibime:

This contradicts your earlier statement that Scolari hadnt lost the league.

I decided to let go of that, but even then it shows the flaw in your argument.

Scolari also started like a house on fire, and ran into the same problems we are seeing now. BTW, Man Utd have lost 5 games already and we are only halfway. Compare that to the 4 they lost last season. Where would Carlotti be on the table if Man Utd was the same as last season, without defensive crisis and with Ronaldo?

Let's look at the facts - Chelski is 4 points better than where they were at this same stage last season with a much higher goal difference. Utd on the other hand are three points worse off. In essence, even if this were last season, Carlo would still be above Utd right now.

2008:

Team P W D L TotF TotA Pts GD
Chelsea 17 10 6 1 28 9 36 +19

Man Utd 17 12 4 1 25 8 40 +17

2009

Chelsea 17 13 1 3 42 14 40 +28
Man Utd 17 12 1 4 37 14 37 +23

Carlo has won more games than at this same stage last season, despite losing more games. This just goes to show, as Sharon is always saying, that draws lose you significant points as well - losing games isn't the only measure.

Merely qualifying for the CL may be a desirable outcome for Gaynners, but it is not acceptable for Chelsea!

You miss the point - if he could do that repeatedly with such a depleted side, he'll do better with a stronger team like Chelski.

Disagree!!!

Seedorf was one of the best trequartistas in his time.

Pirlo, Gattusso and Ambrosini are Italy WC winners and lynchpins.

Errr'one knows about Kaka.

Maldini, Nesta - best defenders in Italy.

Sheva was the best striker in the world, and Inzaghi the most prolific poacher.

Dida at one point was a great goalie.

Not to mention other talents.

The side was brimming with quality. I would never put Juve or Inter players above AC players.

All those players bar Kaka were at/past their peak by 2006. Carlo continued drawing out quality performances from them for seasons afterwards which shows just how good the man is.

Ibime:

Scolari also started like a house on fire, and ran into the same problems we are seeing now. BTW, Man Utd have lost 5 games already and we are only halfway. Compare that to the 4 they lost last season. Where would Carlotti be on the table if Man Utd was the same as last season, without defensive crisis and with Ronaldo? 

This is why I've told FBS that heaven will not forgive Carlotti if he loses the league to this Man Utd team. We've never had it so good.

Ibime, stop talking like an amateur.
You cannot talk about the 5 games United have lost and ignore the number of games they have drawn.

Fact remains, after 18 league games. . . . .Chelsea had dropped 16 points last season.
After 18 games last season, United also dropped 16 points.
In the current season, United have dropped 17 points from 18 league games. . . . .It does not matter if those points dropped were losses or draws.

League titles are not won by the fewest number of losses a team can get. . . . .but the fewest number of points they drop.
5 losses, 12 losses  don't mean shit.

debosky:

Let's look at the facts - Chelski is 4 points better than where they were at this same stage last season with a much higher goal difference. Utd on the other hand are three points worse off. In essence, even if this were last season, Carlo would still be above Utd right now.

Carlo has won more games than at this same stage last season, despite losing more games.

This would hold water if you were not comparing Carlotti's regime to the disastrous diamond-formation regime of Scolari. 

At this stage last season, Man Utd already had their early season blip when Ronaldo was injured. Chelsea is ahead of where we were last season because Scolari's diamond was already 4 or 5 games into its capitulation. Carlotti's diamond is now starting to show the same signs of capitulation as Scolaris.

For clarity, it would be better to compare Carlotti's regime with a 4-3-3 regime over the same no of games. Bear in mind that these statistics were produced before the draw with West-Ham:

debosky:

You miss the point - if he could do that repeatedly with such a depleted side, he'll do better with a stronger team like Chelski.

With the same set of players minus Kaka, Leonardo has adopted a 4-3-3 formation and they are top of the form chart in Italy, lying second in the league. Ever since Leonardo switched formation from their decrepit diamond about 10 games into the season, they have been the form team in Italy.  Contrast with Carlotti's near-failure to qualify them for the CL last season.


Contrast with Juventus. 2nd in the league last season, they have now switched to a diamond formation, employing Nateevs favourite playmaker (Diego) as their trequartista. End result - Ciro Ferrara on the brink of the sack!!! 

debosky:

All those players bar Kaka were at/past their peak by 2006. Carlo continued drawing out quality performances from them for seasons afterwards which shows just how good the man is.

Carlotti was also their manager between 2001-2006 yielding a paltry league title in that 5 year period with such great players.

Ibime:

This would hold water if you were not comparing Carlotti's regime to the disastrous diamond-formation regime of Scolari. 

At this stage last season, Man Utd already had their early season blip when Ronaldo was injured. Chelsea is ahead of where we were last season because Scolari's diamond was already 4 or 5 games into its capitulation. Carlotti's diamond is now starting to show the same signs of capitulation as Scolaris.

For clarity, it would be better to compare Carlotti's regime with a 4-3-3 regime over the same no of games. Bear in mind that these statistics were produced before the draw with West-Ham:

This Ibime is too stubborn. . . . . .What about the age factor?
Are your players growing backwards? How many of these players are over 30?

A paltry league title and 2 UCL titles - that is still an exceptional performance.

Ibime:

This would hold water if you were not comparing Carlotti's regime to the disastrous diamond-formation regime of Scolari. 

Not quite - the vagaries of the league this season with so many other capable teams taking points off the big boys shows that getting 41 points by now is an exceptional achievement.

At this stage last season, Man Utd already had their early season blip when Ronaldo was injured. Chelsea is ahead of where we were last season because Scolari's diamond was already 4 or 5 games into its capitulation. Carlotti's diamond is now starting to show the same signs of capitulation as Scolaris.

Wrong - Utd has performed better early on this season than previous, yet Carlo is ahead of them. Carlo is having some difficulty, BUT he is doing exceptionally well overall.

For clarity, it would be better to compare Carlotti's regime with a 4-3-3 regime over the same no of games. Bear in mind that these statistics were produced before the draw with West-Ham:

Maybe. . . .but Tottenham, Citeh and Villa were not as good as they are now in previous seasons. Chelski's players have aged as well.

With the same set of players minus Kaka, Leonardo has adopted a 4-3-3 formation and they are top of the form chart in Italy, lying second in the league. Ever since Leonardo switched formation from their decrepit diamond, they have been the form team in Italy.  Contrast with Carlotti's near-failure to qualify them for the CL last season.

No - there have been changes to AC's team and till the season ends, you can't tell how far Leonardo will take them. You are easily seduced by statistics which give a periodic snapshot and don't take into account the vagaries of a full season. 4-3-3 is not the solution to anything, it's simply AN option out of a multitude of choices.

Every new manager will have a decent spurt of form early on. . . . .it's their performance over the full season that will determine the final assessment, not some imaginary 25 game line in the sand.

How many players were bought when Carlotti was coming in compared to other coaches?

He was supposed to perform with players who are declining in form. Can you compare the form of Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Lampard and Ballack to what they were few seasons ago?

Infact almost every Chelsea player declined in form yet Carlo has managed to take them to the top. Thats commendable

debosky:

Chelski's players have aged as well.

~Sauron~:

This Ibime is too stubborn. . . . . .What about the age factor?

Thats why Guus Hiddink is so relevant to this conversation.

Last year when Scolari's diamond was in the midst of its capitulation, Nateevs used to blame the age of the players. The players are too old. . . . bla bla bla bla

Hiddink came, and the players suddenly looked young enough to compete. All that happened was that GH changed back to the formation these players were bought for - 4-3-3!

From Hiddink till now is only 6 months. Abi, are they ageing exponentially?  

Who is too old in Chelseas team?

Lampard at 31 is at the peak age for a midfielder (27-32). Essien, Obi, Malouda etc are all under 30.

Our whole defence is under 30, except Carvalho who is just 30 or 31.

Drogba is the only one slightly above the peak age for a striker (25-30) at 31.

Deco is above 30, but he's a rotation player.

Apart from Deco and Ballack, who exactly is too old in Chelsea's team?  

dayokanu:

He was supposed to perform with players who are declining in form. Can you compare the form of Cech, Terry, Carvalho, Lampard and Ballack to what they were few seasons ago?

Can you compare the form of the above mentioned to their form under GH? Question

Only Anelka, Drogba, Cole and Ivanovic have better form under Carlotti than under GH. Everyone else has dropped except Essien who has maintained. This is because the diamond formation gives the attacking freedom to the fullbacks and strikers, and puts the tactical burden on the midfielders and centre-backs.

Ibime:

Thats why Guus Hiddink is so relevant to this conversation.
Last year when Scolari's diamond was in the midst of its capitulation, Nateevs used to blame the age of the players. The players are too old. . . . bla bla bla bla

Players age everyday especially with the demands required in this league.
Besides, Chelsea don't have kids like United and Arsenal. Kids who can play games like Carling Cup/FA cup so get some perspective.

Hiddink came, and the players suddenly looked young enough to compete. All that happened was that GH changed back to the formation these players were bought for - 4-3-3!
From Hiddink till now is only 6 months. Abi, are they ageing exponentially?  

6 months make a difference if we are talking about players who are 29+.

Who is too old in Chelseas team?

Almost everybody according to SAF.

Lampard at 31 is at the peak age for a midfielder (27-32). Essien, Obi, Malouda etc are all under 30.
Our whole defence is under 30, except Carvalho who is just 30 or 31.
Drogba is the only one slightly above the peak age for a striker (25-30) at 31.
Deco is above 30, but he's a rotation player.

Can you compare today's Lampard to the dynamic Lampard of 2004-2007?
Petr Cech is a shadow of himself. Chelsea's formation did not change that.
Carvalho, Terry, Ballack, Deco are all geriatric.

Apart from Deco and Ballack, who exactly is too old in Chelsea's team?  

Essien and Obi are closer to 30 than 20.
Don't mind their falsified ages.

Ibime:

Thats why Guus Hiddink is so relevant to this conversation.

Last year when Scolari's diamond was in the midst of its capitulation, Nateevs used to blame the age of the players. The players are too old. . . . bla bla bla bla

Hiddink came, and the players suddenly looked young enough to compete. All that happened was that GH changed back to the formation these players were bought for - 4-3-3!

It was NOT formation that led to that transformation, it was a deep felt respect for the coach and a determination on the side of the players to do him proud. The diamond didn't stop DD from running, neither did it stop Terry from doing his job. They became demotivated under Scolari and once that was fixed, their abilities came to light.

From Hiddink till now is only 6 months. Abi, are they ageing exponentially?  

You just don't get it - you CANNOT extrapolate a stretch of games where there was nothing at stake in the league compared to a full season. That Carlo hasn't done as well as Hiddink did in his own brief stint is not a clear indicator of anything - there are too many diffuse factors that are not revealed by such a cursory comparison.

Who is too old in Chelseas team?

Lampard at 31 is at the peak age for a midfielder (27-32). Essien, Obi, Malouda etc are all under 30.

Our whole defence is under 30, except Carvalho who is just 30 or 31.

Drogba is the only one slightly above the peak age for a striker (25-30) at 31.

Deco is above 30, but he's a rotation player.

Apart from Deco and Ballack, who exactly is too old in Chelsea's team?  

Who says players must reach 32 before declining?    Sheva was way past his best by 30, ditto with Vieira. It is clear to see that Terry is past his peak - only a stubborn Chelski fan would argue otherwise so is Lamps. When two players in your spine are in decline, it will affect the performance of the team.

Drogba on the other hand is still at his peak.

debosky:

Who says players must reach 32 before declining?    Sheva was way past his best by 30, ditto with Vieira. It is clear to see that Terry is past his peak - only a stubborn Chelski fan would argue otherwise so is Lamps. When two players in your spine are in decline, it will affect the performance of the team.

Terry is just as slow as he was around 2005/2006 when he had his back problem. What we have now is that he is not afforded the extra-protection of his fullbacks and is often exposed to one-on-one situations that expose his lack of pace. FFS, at one point in the game against West-Ham, both Terry and Carvalho were caught in the right back position, having come across to cover Ivanovic who had gone forward to attack, as is his remit in the diamond formation. Ashley Cole had to come across to centre-back to cover.

As for Lampard, see below:

~Sauron~:

Can you compare today's Lampard to the dynamic Lampard of 2004-2007?

Lampard had his best season last year, copping his routine 20 goals plus his greatest ever assists return.

How did Lamps drop so fast in 6 months? Answer below:

Ibime:

Only Anelka, Drogba, Cole and Ivanovic have better form under Carlotti than under GH. Everyone else has dropped except Essien who has maintained. This is because the diamond formation gives the attacking freedom to the fullbacks and strikers, and puts the tactical burden on the midfielders and centre-backs.

debosky:

It was NOT formation that led to that transformation, it was a deep felt respect for the coach and a determination on the side of the players to do him proud. The diamond didn't stop DD from running, neither did it stop Terry from doing his job. They became demotivated under Scolari and once that was fixed, their abilities came to light.

Debo, tell him.

You just don't get it - you CANNOT extrapolate a stretch of games where there was nothing at stake in the league compared to a full season. That Carlo hasn't done as well as Hiddink did in his own brief stint is not a clear indicator of anything - there are too many diffuse factors that are not revealed by such a cursory comparison.

Ibime is hallucinating.
He has conveniently ignored the fact that Tottenham, Villa, Fulham and Man City have improved massively and beating em ain't easy any more.
Carlo's task is the most difficult. He has inherited geriatrics and he's supposed to compete in a league that is fast improving.

Who says players must reach 32 before declining?    Sheva was way past his best by 30, ditto with Vieira. It is clear to see that Terry is past his peak - only a stubborn Chelski fan would argue otherwise so is Lamps. When two players in your spine are in decline, it will affect the performance of the team.

You can add Petr Cech to that list too.

Drogba on the other hand is still at his peak.

He is on steroids.

Everybody STOP PRESS!!!. . . . lets come back to this conversation at the end of January.

If my theory that Carlotti's diamond is starting to exhibit it's inherent weakness is true, then I should have a lot more to say by the end of January.

I hope by then no one would tell me that the poor form is down to ANC!

At that point I will pull up Avram Grant's unbeaten run from mid-November to mid-February in 07/08! 

Ibime:

Everybody STOP PRESS!!!. . . . lets come back to this conversation at the end of January.

If my theory that Carlotti's diamond is starting to exhibit it's inherent weakness is true, then I should have a lot more to say by the end of January.

I hope by then no one would tell me that the poor form is down to ANC!

At that point I will pull up Avram Grant's unbeaten run from mid-November to mid-February in 07/08! 

It does not even matter if the run of games under Avram was much easier than what Carlo will play?
Ibime, where is your soccer-nous?
The first 10 games, the last 10 games, the first 25 games are just statistics. . . . .U can only compare if the same set of fixtures [/b]were played.

[b]Situation A
Chelsea vs Hull
Portsmouth vs Chelsea
Chelsea vs Wolves
Sunderland vs Chelsea

Situation B
Man Utd vs Chelsea
Chelsea vs Arsenal
Man City vs Chelsea
Chelsea vs Aston Villa.

The situations can be the 1st 4 matches under 2 different managers but the manager playing in situation A will do better than the one in situation B.
D'accord?

~Sauron~:

It does not even matter if the run of games under Avram was much easier than what Carlo will play?
Ibime, where is your soccer-nous?
The first 10 games, the last 10 games, the first 25 games are just statistics. . . . .U can only compare if the [b]same set of fixtures [/b]were played.

Chelseas run from now till the end of January is the easiest run we can hope to face. . . only Birmingham & Fulham are in the top half.


26 Sat 12:45 PREM A Birmingham City ESPN
28 Mon 15:00 PREM H Fulham CTV
January 2010 SCORE TV ATT
3 Sun 15:00 FACP H Watford
9 Sat 12:45 PREM A Hull City Sky
16 Sat 15:00 PREM H Sunderland
27 Wed 19:45 PREM H Birmingham City CTV
30 Sat 17:30 PREM A Burnley ESPN


I will be hoping for success, but if flops occur due to the deficiencies I have pointed out, I will be the first to say "I told you so".

Fair enough Ibime - we'll see what happens come end of January.

@Ibime

We didnt use the Diamond against west-ham, did we?

Nicolas Anelka will sit out Chelsea's matches against Birmingham and Fulham - leaving boss Carlo Ancelotti without his top three strikers for the London derby.

The France international is sidelined with a calf injury and while Didier Drogba and Salomon Kalou are likely to make the trip to St Andrew's on Boxing Day, the pair will join up with the Ivory Coast for the Africa Cup of Nations 24 hours later.

Fulham make the short trip to Stamford Bridge on December 28 but the earliest Anelka is expected to return is the FA Cup tie against Watford on January 3.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1237981/Nicolas-Anelka-adds-Chelsea-problems-striker-sidelined-just-Didier-Drogba-heads-Africa-Cup-Nations.html#ixzz0aWyOR7Pn


Those of you banking on these babies, Borini, Sturridge and Di Santo
Here is their chance, we will know if they'll cost us the league or not.

BlueDiva:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1237981/Nicolas-Anelka-adds-Chelsea-problems-striker-sidelined-just-Didier-Drogba-heads-Africa-Cup-Nations.html#ixzz0aWyOR7Pn


Those of you banking on these babies, Borini, Sturridge and Di Santo
Here is their chance, we will know if they'll cost us the league or not.

I dont think Di Santo is coming back. They're talking about extending his loan to end of season.


Dyabman,

Of course we played diamond against WH.

Ibime:

I dont think Di Santo is coming back. They're talking about extending his loan to end of season.

Oh, okay.