Chelsea Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2014/15

kop77

^^^^

I'm starting to think your actually trying to be serious about this,

you post a picture to try prove your point while at the same time say " Anything taken in isolation can paint any picture "

very funny indeed!!

grumpymunster

kop77 wrote: »

^^^^

I'm starting to think your actually trying to be serious about this,

you post a picture to try prove your point while at the same time say " Anything taken in isolation can paint any picture "

very funny indeed!!

And you are quite deliberately missing the point (at least I assume you are missing the point deliberately) eyeline is the key so in this instance it is quite correct to use it in isolation. Everyone knows contact was made it is perspective you need to see if there is intent. Maybe your teachers are missing you at this stage?

kop77

play close attention to the fisrt few seconds of the clip and let that be the end of it!!

grumpymunster

kop77 wrote: »

play close attention to the fisrt few seconds of the clip and let that be the end of it!!

Your right proves my point entirely eye line never leaves the ball kudos.

kop77

your funny... :pac:

do I have to draw a diagram for you?

grumpymunster

kop77 wrote: »

your funny... :pac:

do I have to draw a diagram for you?

A diagram of what exactly, eyes never leave ball trajectory fully focused on getting ball back into play. Does not see the movement of the player on ground. So there are photographs showing that you yourself posted a video showing that what your scribbles with a crayon are going to bring to the table I don't know but you obviously don't have much time for facts.

gosplan

Jesus, this is delusional.

'Any single image can paint a false picture but OUR image taken 1 sec before is perfectly representative of the real story'

Do people seriously believe it was all accidental? Seriously?

monkey9

gosplan wrote: »

Jesus, this is delusional.

'Any single image can paint a false picture but OUR image taken 1 sec before is perfectly representative of the real story'

Do people seriously believe it was all accidental? Seriously?

I don't even know why he's putting up a photo 'a second before the incident'. The game was live on tv, everyone has seen the footage.

grumpymunster

gosplan wrote: »

Jesus, this is delusional.

'Any single image can paint a false picture but OUR image taken 1 sec before is perfectly representative of the real story'

Do people seriously believe it was all accidental? Seriously?

OUR image what are you at the computer together ganging up on the bad Chelsea man good Lord. Eyeline you obviously have little grasp of concept and perspective as well so read the posts and educate yourself, I don't get paid for that.

Do I believe it was accidental yes because quite clearly it was, I prefer to believe what I see rather than what I want to see.

hots

gosplan wrote: »

Jesus, this is delusional.

'Any single image can paint a false picture but OUR image taken 1 sec before is perfectly representative of the real story'

Do people seriously believe it was all accidental? Seriously?

The second one I definitely think was accidental. The first was a red card, certainly not the worst stamp we've seen before but he deliberately ran over him.

It's all semantics but when his foot goes down that's not him accelerating a stamp, it's him starting to run after the ball. It was still deliberate and will get a deserved 3 match ban I think.

grumpymunster

Tell you what do you a favour here is some background which may be useful.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/displacement
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perspective
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concept

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

gosplan

grumpymunster wrote: »

OUR image what are you at the computer together ganging up on the bad Chelsea man good Lord. Eyeline you obviously have little grasp of concept and perspective as well so read the posts and educate yourself, I don't get paid for that.

Do I believe it was accidental yes because quite clearly it was, I prefer to believe what I see rather than what I want to see.

And you have little concept of what it's like on a pitch. You see plenty without looking at it.

But that's getting into your little intractable argument in which you can never be wrong, isn't it? Stick to that and you'll win, don't worry.

kop77

grumpymunster wrote: »

eyes never leave ball trajectory fully focused on getting ball back into play. Does not see the movement of the player on ground. .

Ya, he came out of nowhere!!!

monkey9

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

The second one I definitely think was accidental. The first was a red card, certainly not the worst stamp we've seen before but he deliberately ran over him.

It's all semantics but when his foot goes down that's not him accelerating a stamp, it's him starting to run after the ball. It was still deliberate and will get a deserved 3 match ban I think.

I agree on the second one. That looks accidental, the first one would just put doubt in your mind. But you couldn't be sending him off for that. First one is a definite red.

monkey9

grumpymunster wrote: »

Tell you what do you a favour here is some background which may be useful.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/displacement
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/perspective
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/concept

Christ! He doesn't have to be looking straight at the ankle to know it's there.

This is all just bizarre.

gosplan

kop77 wrote: »

play close attention to the fisrt few seconds of the clip and let that be the end of it!!

The thing is that he even clearly has a glance in this one and then goes for it.

Even the second, I'd say that's a hell of a weird way to bring your foot down mid leap.

Surely this is trolling?

gosplan

Or did Costa just invent a new move...

The no-look stamp

kop77

gosplan wrote: »

Or did Costa just invent a new move...

The no-look stamp

No..... thats just silly, impossible even!!!

have you ever seen a player pass a ball to a teammate while looking the other way!!! ????

oh wait, Rosicky says hello .... :pac:

gosplan

kop77 wrote: »

No..... thats just silly, impossible even!!!

have you ever seen a player pass a ball to a teammate while looking the other way!!! ????

oh wait, Rosicky says hello .... :pac:

The question is if Rosicky did a no-look pass, and Costa gave him a no-look stamp for being fancy, would Phil Neville approve?

Lukker-

Can obviously put his leg there to try and get Costa sent off. Any reasonable person wouldn't leave their legs on the ground in the path of a sprinting footballer.

#justiceforcosta
#amnestyinternational

GavRedKing

#hashtagsarethefuture

#wherespogba

GavRedKing

Can we rename the ground to Stampford Bridge?

Be some craic :pac:

Whens the final decision going to be made on number of games, I'd expect some time soon

Johner

Cuadrado looks a done deal with Salah going the other way on loan for 6 months.

grumpymunster

gosplan wrote: »

Or did Costa just invent a new move...

The no-look stamp

Well if that argument is to be believed in order to gain momentum he would have to break the first law of thermodynamics, and even Homer Simpson abides by them

Soby

In other news Kasey Palmer scored a lovely solo goal last night. Worth checking out. Can only seeing it on Chelsea FB page thus cant link it

GavRedKing

Johner wrote: »

Cuadrado looks a done deal with Salah going the other way on loan for 6 months.

To Fiorentina?

Might be a good move for him, hopefully though theres a future transfer fee involved.

grumpymunster

Never really worked for Salah shame really has pace aplenty, end product a bit ammmmm erratic perhaps?

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

Never really worked for Salah shame really has pace aplenty, end product a bit ammmmm erratic perhaps?

Terrible, sh*te, ponderous, head scratching.

All words I'd use to describe his finishing.

Probably needed to play games too but he never pushed hard enough, IMO.

GavRedKing

If we've 2 out and 1 in, maybe one of the youngsters will be pushed futher into 1st team action.

GavRedKing

Cuadrado isnt UCL cup tied either as hes played in the Europa League, my take on it is you can play in one and transfer to a team in the other and be registered, could be wrong though.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

Cuadrado isnt UCL cup tied either as hes played in the Europa League, my take on it is you can play in one and transfer to a team in the other and be registered, could be wrong though.

Yea I believe that is the case remember reading if we got him and Costa II then Costa II would not be available but Cuadrado would be.

Really lovely still being in the cup with big ears isn't it

GavRedKing

grumpymunster wrote: »

Yea I believe that is the case remember reading if we got him and Costa II then Costa II would not be available but Cuadrado would be.

Really lovely still being in the cup with big ears isn't it

WE've the toughest tie of any of the group winners though which isnt good but you've to play the best if you want to get far in this competition.

Way I see it now

Win no cups : Disaster of a season
Win league cup, no other trophy : Poor season
Win EPL or UCL : Excellent season
Win EPL & UCL : Unthinkable
Win 3 trophies : See above answer, times x10

hots

GavRedKing wrote: »

WE've the toughest tie of any of the group winners though which isnt good but you've to play the best if you want to get far in this competition.

Way I see it now

Win no cups : Disaster of a season
Win league cup, no other trophy : Poor season
Win EPL or UCL : Excellent season
Win EPL & UCL : Unthinkable
Win 3 trophies : See above answer, times x10

That really is the crux of it, there's not much of a middle ground for us this year.

grumpymunster

GavRedKing wrote: »

WE've the toughest tie of any of the group winners though which isnt good but you've to play the best if you want to get far in this competition.

Way I see it now

Win no cups : Disaster of a season
Win league cup, no other trophy : Poor season
Win EPL or UCL : Excellent season
Win EPL & UCL : Unthinkable
Win 3 trophies : See above answer, times x10

Be us of City for the league still worried about our defence but do a job on Saturday and we should really do it.

Don't think we are good enough for the CL this year, PSG not having a great time of it so would be hopeful of doing them hard game though. Would say Barca are not jumping up and down with delight would fancy a full strength City to beat them.

GavRedKing

hobbit of the shire wrote: »

That really is the crux of it, there's not much of a middle ground for us this year.

Last year we should have done better and that was with a squad devoid of a CF, this year we've got 3 viable options and 1 of them is one of the best in the league so thats a huge help.

I do think any team thats spent a sh*t ton of cash should be closer to us and City though and theres a couple of clubs in that group.

grumpymunster wrote: »

Be us of City for the league still worried about our defence but do a job on Saturday and we should really do it.

Don't think we are good enough for the CL this year, PSG not having a great time of it so would be hopeful of doing them hard game though. Would say Barca are not jumping up and down with delight would fancy a full strength City to beat them.

Ya, its going to be a 2 horse race but in May, I wouldnt be surprised to see a club in 3rd being only 3-6 points off 2nd or top.

I'd agree about Barca v City too but it really depends on how City approach the game.

It could have been different, had PSG topped the group we'd be paying Barca and City v PSG.

grumpymunster

So - CONTAIN YOURSELF NOW GAV - Pogba will almost certainty leave Juve in the next 18 months with a sticker price of €100 m, wow that is a lot so only 6 or 7 clubs can be in the mix but 4 I would say. RM, United, PSG, City, Barca, Bayern and us. If FFP rules applied then PSG and City may struggle, not sure Barca have any money anymore but you never know. For me United, RM, Bayern and ourselves with RM hot favourites.

http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/chelsea-fc-transfer-rumours-news/2015/1/29/7942725/chelsea-fc-juventus-paul-pogba-transfer-rumors-mino-raiola

gosplan

grumpymunster wrote: »

Well if that argument is to be believed in order to gain momentum he would have to break the first law of thermodynamics, and even Homer Simpson abides by them

You are soooo intelligent. You must have gone to college and everything.

Tell me more

grumpymunster

gosplan wrote: »

You are soooo intelligent. You must have gone to college and everything.

Tell me more

Tell you more, can't really this is a thread devoted to all things Chelsea so sorry, but here's some news which no doubt will be unfamiliar to you

1 The world is not flat
2 The Earth is not the centre of the Universe

Hope you are not too shocked that, if you are read the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy and all will be explained........ 42.

grumpymunster

Is there any news on Luis and Cesc ahead of Saturday, not heard a word.

gosplan

grumpymunster wrote: »

Tell you more, can't really this is a thread devoted to all things Chelsea so sorry, but here's some news which no doubt will be unfamiliar to you

1 The world is not flat
2 The Earth is not the centre of the Universe

Hope you are not too shocked that, if you are read the Hitch-hikers Guide to the Galaxy and all will be explained........ 42.

After introducing the laws of thermodynamics, you now say it's Chelsea only? Why, can't scratch below the surface?


I know hitchhikers guide. That's the book based on the film right?

grumpymunster

gosplan wrote: »

After introducing the laws of thermodynamics, you now say it's Chelsea only? Why, can't scratch below the surface?


I know hitchhikers guide. That's the book based on the film right?

My God so close but no cigar it was a radio show first you know the broadcast medium without moving pictures before it was a book. Damn and you were so close, I feel your pain I really do.

Scratch below what surface? Conservation of energy? You know a little like Mr Micawber observed to Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield except energy not money actually a fairly straight forward concept (there's that word again). Costa is a powerful looking man but think he still needs this. Anyway he will get his ban (unjust) Liverpool blood lust will be satisfied all will be good in your world.

Anyway knocking off time for the professional classes so I will bid you adieu and as Dave Allen was want to say "may your God go with you".

hots

gosplan

grumpymunster wrote: »

My God so close but no cigar it was a radio show first you know the broadcast medium without moving pictures before it was a book. Damn and you were so close, I feel your pain I really do.

Scratch below what surface? Conservation of energy? You know a little like Mr Micawber observed to Charles Dickens’s David Copperfield except energy not money actually a fairly straight forward concept (there's that word again). Costa is a powerful looking man but think he still needs this. Anyway he will get his ban (unjust) Liverpool blood lust will be satisfied all will be good in your world.

Anyway knocking off time for the professional classes so I will bid you adieu and as Dave Allen was want to say "may your God go with you".

No, I'm a non-Liverpool fan saying Costa stamped and your case has been rediculous. We don't all operate on bias.

Seeing as how we're trying to sound clever, I'll leave you with my favourite Bertrand Russell quote

'The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.'

CSF

Reckon it was probably intentional myself, but not sure any panel should be confident enough to punish him for it.

Blatter

CSF wrote: »

Reckon it was probably intentional myself, but not sure any panel should be confident enough to punish him for it.

The FA work on the balance of probabilities though.

hullaballoo

CSF wrote: »

Reckon it was probably intentional myself, but not sure any panel should be confident enough to punish him for it.

He's a Chelsea player. He'll be punished.

CSF

Blatter wrote: »

The FA work on the balance of probabilities though.

Still, I think to punish for anyone for anything, you have to be reasonably sure they've done it, otherwise the system becomes a farce.

I certainly wouldn't be reasonably sure he intended to do it.

Blatter

I'd be more than reasonably sure considering that it happened twice in the one match.

CSF

Blatter wrote: »

I'd be more than reasonably sure considering that it happened twice in the one match.

If he's considered innocent of the 2nd one then it shouldn't really come into anything.