Damien Duff

Tellox

Costing a cool 17mil, Duff has been brilliant on the pitch for chelsea, and with 5 assists, is now the top assister in the premiership so far this season.

So why cant he get a full game in,and play in his natural position?

He's been getting 70min-matches with chelsea - if lucky - and has been playing on the right side of midfield a lot. He was also left out of the game against birmingham, and taken off in the game against arsenal - where arsenal afterwards went on to win 2-1, although duff couldnt have done a lot about that goal...

he's one of the most talented wingers in europe, perhaps the world, and he's not even getting a full 90min match for his club,or playing in his natural position.


I cant see him being too pleased about all this...

PHB

I think its the oppisite actually. Doesnt he have an injury problem that hits him late in games, hamstring I think? I think Chelsea value him so much that they are scared ****less he'll get injured.

What I always find interesting is watching him play for Chelsea and watching him play for Ireland. For Chelsea he constantly calls for the ball and get its, for Ireland he constantly calls for the ball and just gets a horse voice

eirebhoy

Originally posted by PHB
I think its the oppisite actually. Doesnt he have an injury problem that hits him late in games, hamstring I think? I think Chelsea value him so much that they are scared ****less he'll get injured.

Only a few weeks ago he was quoted in the papers about being unhappy at been taken off every match so it is not an injury problem. IMO Ranieri is a crap manager and he is getting a lot of praise for bairly winning matches. He bought so many midfielders when he doesn't need half of them. He bought Cole and wanted to loan him to a Russian club straight away and if it was his choice to buy Smertin it was a big mistake. Its not as if Smertin is a promising younster, he's 28 or something.

He obviously thinks Cole is a good replacement for Duff but you don't take your best player off in important matches unless the game is rapped up. Also, I never knew Cole could play on the left until he joined Chelsea. With Geremi not playing too well on the right, why not put Cole in there instead.

Xterminator

Originally posted by eireboy
IMO Ranieri is a crap manager and he is getting a lot of praise for bairly winning matches. .

Barely winning matches?

Are you a fool?

Remember the 'oul saying '1-0 to the arsenal!' Thats what it takes to win the league. , a team must be able to 'grind' out results, even when they are not at their very best.

If Raneri can pick up enough points now, while the team is still gelling, then they can put a real push on after christmas, when many other teams falter.

X

therecklessone

Originally posted by eireboy
Only a few weeks ago he was quoted in the papers about being unhappy at been taken off every match so it is not an injury problem. IMO Ranieri is a crap manager and he is getting a lot of praise for bairly winning matches. He bought so many midfielders when he doesn't need half of them. He bought Cole and wanted to loan him to a Russian club straight away and if it was his choice to buy Smertin it was a big mistake. Its not as if Smertin is a promising younster, he's 28 or something.

He obviously thinks Cole is a good replacement for Duff but you don't take your best player off in important matches unless the game is rapped up. Also, I never knew Cole could play on the left until he joined Chelsea. With Geremi not playing too well on the right, why not put Cole in there instead.

FFS, his achievement last year with NO MONEY to spend was nothing then, eh? 4th in the Prem and a Champions League place, without which Mr Abrihimovic may have looked elsewhere for a club to play with.

Smertin? Decision was the Russki's. There is a lot more going on behind the scenes at Chelsea than we know, Ranieri has done a remarkable job getting all those new players (many of whom he may not have chose to buy himself) to gel, and he's had to do it with a lot of speculation regarding his future.

To be honest, it will be a disgrace if they dump him in the near future for Sven Gordon.

SCULLY

Originally posted by therecklessone
FFS, his achievement last year with NO MONEY to spend was nothing then, eh? 4th in the Prem and a Champions League place, without which Mr Abrihimovic may have looked elsewhere for a club to play with.

Originally posted by therecklessone

To be honest, it will be a disgrace if they dump him in the near future for Sven Gordon.

Good post - I agree totally..

eirebhoy

Originally posted by therecklessone
FFS, his achievement last year with NO MONEY to spend was nothing then, eh? 4th in the Prem and a Champions League place, without which Mr Abrihimovic may have looked elsewhere for a club to play with.

He had no money but he had a bloody great team. Just as Arsenal had no money but they nearly won the league.

Cudicini

Gallas/Melchiot
Babayaro
Desailly
Terry

Zenden
Gronkjaer
Lampard
Petit

Gudjohnsen
Hasselbaink

Now, if they had come anywhere lower than 4th with that team it would have been a bad season. That team was probably the 3rd best team in the premiership last season and most managers would have got them to 3rd or 4th. The midfield above is a superb midfield and Ranieri goes and buys 6 more midfielders to make 10 world class midfielders in the squad which is only going to cause upset.

Also, another mistake that Ranners has made is not starting a left winger in both champions league games. They didn't play well in the first half against Prague so Duff was brought on at half time and changed the game. Then he does the same thing again against Besiktas. A lot of people want Houllier sacked and he gets critisized when he plays Kewell on the right, Duff has started on the right loads of times aswell for Chelsea and was unhappy and nothing is said about Ranieri.

SCULLY

Originally posted by eireboy


The midfield above is a superb midfield .

Superb? - The problem with Chelsea over the last few seasons is that they have been consistently over-run in midfield. Lampard being the obvious exception, the rest continuously failed to shine and the recent signings were much needed. And as for causing upset - Petit had been crap for Chelsea and yet was getting his game week in week out (barring the usual injuries). Now he is not guaranteed his place, he seems to be trying all the much harder when he does get a chance and has performed well this season - this comes from having to compete for you place.

BKtje

lot of people want Houllier sacked and he gets critisized when he plays Kewell on the right, Duff has started on the right loads of times aswell for Chelsea and was unhappy and nothing is said about Ranieri.

The difference is that Chelsea are still winning.

eirebhoy

Originally posted by B-K-DzR
The difference is that Chelsea are still winning.

If Houllier had all the money in the world I'm sure Liverpool would be winning.

BKtje

Yes but thats not what we discussing here and since they don't its silly to bring in that equation.

smuckers

Do people actually watch these matches? Petit has not been crap at all he was vital last year for us and played the remaining games with a desperate groin problem, yes he is injury prone and is not the same player as he was at Arse he was far more dynamic there, but labeling him crap is not a fair assessment on his performances for Chels. Struggled in his first season but in his second season him and Lamps were excellent.
This obsession with Duff not playing in his natural position this has been done to death he can play in 3 diff positions left, right and in the "hole" so stop getting your knickers in a twist, the reason he came off on Sat was simple he didn't play well please get that into your head, the reason he came off against Blackburn he had a poor first half. The guy is human like the rest of us.

SCULLY

Originally posted by smuckers
Do people actually watch these matches? Petit has not been crap at all he was vital last year for us and played the remaining games with a desperate groin problem, yes he is injury prone and is not the same player as he was at Arse he was far more dynamic there, but labeling him crap is not a fair assessment on his performances for Chels. Struggled in his first season but in his second season him and Lamps were excellent.
This obsession with Duff not playing in his natural position this has been done to death he can play in 3 diff positions left, right and in the "hole" so stop getting your knickers in a twist, the reason he came off on Sat was simple he didn't play well please get that into your head, the reason he came off against Blackburn he had a poor first half. The guy is human like the rest of us.

Well, I can only speak for myself, but yes I do watch these matches (having followed CFC since the mid seventies). Petit, IMHO, has been one of the greatest dispointments of the Chelsea signings in recent years. When he came to the club, we expected to see a player of the calibre of his Arsenal days, but he has failed , overall, to impress (that's not to say he hasn't had some good games). The midfield was an obvious place that needed strengthening, and CFC have done so. I agree with you about Duff - unlike the majority of todays players, he can play in different positions, and should be played where needs and taticts dictate. He was , however, poor on Saturday and deserved to be substituted - it happens to everyone at some stage.

eirebhoy

Petit came to Chelsea from Barcelona in 2001 where they tried to play him in a left back position so it would have took him a while to adjust to the midfield and he didn't do too well in his first season. But in the second season he was playing well and got his place back in the French squad. How could you say he wasn't good in his second season.

SCULLY

Originally posted by eireboy
Petit came to Chelsea from Barcelona in 2001 where they tried to play him in a left back position so it would have took him a while to adjust to the midfield and he didn't do too well in his first season. But in the second season he was playing well and got his place back in the French squad. How could you say he wasn't good in his second season. [/QUOTE

As I said previously , while he has had a few good performances last year, they seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, and when he wasn't injured, I think he has been poor value for money. As for him getting his place back in the French side - is this the same side that dazzeled us all last year in the World Cup?Similarly, Heskey gets his game on a regular basis for his national side - still doesn't mean I rate him.