Modric would likely replace Essien (injured again FML), and Lampard looks set for another full season. Assuming a classic Chelsea and AVB 4-3-3; Torres upfront with Drogba wide right and Malouda left. Probably need a real winger, though.
I suppose if you only count based on trophies won since Mourinho took over, they are only second to Man U. However they still haven't won a European Cup/Champions League, Liverpool have 5. Liverpool still are better supported than Chelsea. Liverpool still have about 4 times as many league titles. More league cups, more FA cups, more UEFA Cups, etc. Same for Arsenal. They have more tropies in every department, and if you count since Wenger took over, they have just as many trophies as Chelsea in that time period. Though I will admit, if you are simply talking the ability to attract top players, Chelsea are at least number 2, and possibly number 1, as West London is far more attractive than Manchester, and Chelsea have more money to offer.
Drogba is done. If they consistently play Drogba and Torres together again this year, I retract my pick of Chelsea for the league. However if they are going to go with a 4-3-3. They need some one to play as a winger, as you said. Anelka and Drogba can't just be shoe-horned in.
Yeah, I'm sure so many want to rush off and join Leeds Utd.. even Juventus is having a hard time and they've WASTED over a hundred million on overpriced Italian crap. Chelsea are the most attractive club in England, Man Utd is a close second. Madrid and Barca are still the most attractive clubs in the world. I'd like to see a stronger Spurs, though. I like when they play, for some reason. Liverpool too, as much as their fans are losers. Arsenal, they can just get relegated..
Drogba is a better striker than Torres, by far. No doubt. But he's older; wouldn't be surprised to see him leave. He deserves to retire in dignity and on the pitch of some French club rather than the bench of Stamford Bridge. I would like Hulk, but that's not happening. So I'm not sure who AVB will be looking for.
Leeds aren't that successful. Chelsea are now just as successful as Leeds have been. However, Juventus is a good example. If you don't think people still want to play for Juventus, you are kidding yourself. Even if they officially haven't won a trophy in almost a decade(though they actually won a few that got stripped), they are still a massive club. Though if I were a footballer, I would never play for those racist/fascist ********s, but they are a big club none-the-less. PS. I usually don't inject politics into sports, but Juventus are a truly objectionable club!!
Juventus are having difficulty. They're the biggest Italian club; probably one of the most famous in Europe, and yet can't get anything but moderate Serie A players. I didn't think they were that politics, Milan or Roma/Lazio, perhaps...
They are very political, as is Italian football in general. For the most part, it isn't that important in England, Spain, or Germany. It is sort of important in France, where Marseille are seen as the left-wing club, and PSG the right-wing club, but even that is not what it used to be. Italy are more like Scotland, where politics play a large role. Juventus are like the poster boys for right-wing fascist/racist clubs!!
Yep, and they are constantly fighting with Juventus and Lazio supporters and used to fight wing verona supporters, but they are now down in like the 3rd or 4th division, so don't matter much any longer.
The Spanish Clasicos get serious. I remember reading an article about the most serious football rivalries; Old firm, Argentina clasico, Spain one, Turkish one, Serbian one. Lots of the "middle class club" vs "aristocracy club" like with Inter and Milan.
Ya, but that exists everywhere. Chelsea are, for example, seen as the club of the wealthy. It happens in American sports too, in Chicago the cubs are seen as the rich North side team, and the Sox the working class South Side team. River is for the wealthy, Boca for the working class. Fluminense for the aristocracy/rich Flamengo and Vasco for the working class. It is true all across the sporting world, but they don't have as clear political opinions as they do in Italy, where some clubs are overwhelmed by fascist Ultras. Juventus have had more than one occasion where they had to play in front of empty stadiums because of their racist scum supporters!! PS. Oh yeah, and Red Star v Partizan is crazy as well. So is Gala v Fenerbahce
they were in the serie a a couple of years ago wikipedia tells me they finished 7th in serie b last year I really wasn't aware of Juventus and their political standings though, I knew about lazio, roma, livorno, inter, ac milan guess i shouldn't be surprised they have a political element
Ya, I was talking about Verona being in the 3rd or 4th division, and not mattering any longer, not Livorno.
I still read it as the main clause of the sentence being about Livorno and thus the end of the sentence is still about Livorno, with Verona being a passing fragment. But hey, perhaps I didn't learn too much from my practical stylistics module last year, I only got a 2:1 for it after all Verona will be back in Serie B next year btw. So expect some fights between the Livorno fans and them.
I didn't say that was what I said, only that it is what I meant!! PS. I didn't know Verona got promoted. I just knew they had won Serie A in the 80s, and hit financial trouble, and got relegated down below Serie B. PPS. That actually happens a lot in Italy. Napoli folded completely. So did Fiorentina, and a few other major clubs. They have trouble with finances, fold, and then just restart a new club without all the debts and just buy back the rights to the old name and honors.
Mr. Money bags has come along to present Chelsea as a big club. Chelsea still have no major European silverware. Spurs have 2 UEFA Cups and although it was long ago, it is still a better record than Chelsea. Spurs still have more FA Cups than Chelsea as well. Chelsea were basically West Ham prior to the Russian coming along.
Leeds have 3 league titles, which was more than Chelsea for a long time. Leeds and Chelsea have similar records in Europe as well. Only very recently have Chelsea really surpassed Leeds as far as being the bigger club.
I know you are a young one, but read a bit about the history of football in England. Tottenham and Arsenal are historically the biggest clubs in London. Chelsea are writing their history currently, so I understand why you view them as a very big club. However, they have a long way to go before they are on the level of United or Liverpool.
Yeah, I know. But since I don't live in England or have much family loyalty or anything; I just choose clubs based on who I like. Plus I like the siege mentality that Mourinho brought to Stamford Bridge and that now Mancini is using at City. The whole 'we spend big and other clubs are jealous, they don't think we deserve things' argument.
Chile losing. Brazil miss 4 penalties and are out. Argentina out. Colombia out. 4 upsets in 4 matches.
