Maybe, but I always felt more comfortable when I saw his name on the team sheet. As opposed to Mikel for instance...he always makes me nervous.
I guess it depends on the opponents, there are some games where you need to stiffen up the midfield with the "terrier like" energy of someone like Ramires, in others you might want someone with a bit more finesse.

Yep, that's it.

Also, I'd feel more comfortable seeing Hilario in midfield than Mikel.

Been reading comments which Jose has made about the buying of Matic and the thinking behind it and how it came about, Some very worrying stuff I have to say as it sounds like we put some thought into it and the manager was a big part of the decison, We cannot have this sort of think going on at Chelsea

Another player whose place in the team should depend on the opposition is Willian. His work rate - which I never expected from him - is necessary in matches against the likes of City, but against other team he just doesn't do enough in an attacking sense.

I think in Willian case you got to remember he been playing a much poorer level of football just before coming to us and not only that his mindset would have not been at the level it needs to be when coming into a team like Chelsea, Next season with the striker and Oscar and Hazzard being even better (and he will improve as well) I dont think his slightly less abilty from a attacking point of view will be a major concern in fact I can see it being a massive plus point for us in that he will do alot more of the hard graft needed to get Hazzard/Oscar/Mr X into better goal-scoring opertunities

Yes, Willian has never been a prolific scorer. I thought after that fabulous goal against Norwich (?) we might see him improve in that department, but he appears to be a bit reluctant to try his luck. Theres no such problem with Schurrle, he's always looking to test the keeper.

Schurrle's really impressed recently. Deserves to keep his place in the team. At the moment I see Willian as a bit like Milner is to City. Useful for certain games but against most teams you'd want someone with more attacking guile.

Really ? I see Willian as better than that. I think his skill-set is right up there with some of the best. He just doesn't present the same kind of threat in front of goal. I would have said Milner is similar to Ramires..but I'd prefer Rambo.
To be honest, Schurrle always looks a bit awkward to me, but I suppose that's just his style..there have been plenty of great players who wouldn't have won marks for presentation.

Don't get me wrong I rate Willian higher than Milner (I should have clarified that before) but what I mean is they'd be utilised in a similar way in terms of when you'd select them.

Oh right, I see what you mean. Though I quite like Milner, he's another of those players who often doesn't get the credit he deserves.
Willian hasn't got the vision of someone like Hazard, or even Oscar or Mata, but he's a very busy player who isn't afraid to take opponents on. He's also capable of some lovely little touches, linking up with Hazard and Oscar. Mind you, at £32m he should be a bit special !

The 32 million for Willian was too much, but the free of eto'o was a bargain.

I think a deal was done for both.

Both Arsenal players cleared asI said would be the case, which leaves some of your recent arguments that the sending off was correct looking rather stupid to say the least.

I think a few of you are giving Willian a hard time, hes impressed me this season. He is by no means as good as Hazard but he has still proven to be a good buy so far. Extremely hard working and he is very skillful too, he is Brazilian after all. The one downside is his lack of goals. Hes been a better buy than Schrulle so far anyway. Its hard to pin point our first team at the moment but overall our squad is much stronger than it was in previous years, even with the departure of Mata who we really havent missed at all. Was getting rid of him actually very good business? Right now i have to agree, £40m in the bank and our squad looks much more settled and balanced than it was before Christmas. He has hardly shined for Utd as well.

My first team for now:

Cech
Ivan Cahill Terry Azpi
Matic Luiz
Hazard Oscar Willian
Eto'o


We are a top class striker away from having a very very strong team with Hazard as the jewel in the crown. Hazard isnt far away from being one of the best players in the world which is great for us. In a few years, who knows he could well be up their with Ronaldo and Messi, his potential is immense. Jose seems like the perfect coach to get the best out of him too, after Ibra and Ronaldo at Inter and Madrid(and i guess Drogba with us too).

Tommorow could be a very important game for us and we arent even involved. Actually praying for a Utd victory which is feeling very odd! Come on Mata and Moyes and co!

The weird thing about this season is that we could still yet win nothing, with the Premier league still very much in the balance and the CL a bit of a longshot still, whereas in previous seasons we still managed to win the Europa League, FA Cup, CL etc and got nowhere near the premiership title.

Jose's first season could still be seen as a bit of a failure, but to me its actually been very good, much more stable and feeling happy about the future than before under AVB, RDM, Benitez etc.

Does anyone feel embarrassed about being hopelessly wrong then?

Err..no, not me anyway.

In the circumstances, I don't think the FA had any alternative. After the debacle on Saturday, with the referee sending off the wrong player, to punish Oxlade Chamberlain would have really looked like rubbing salt in the wound.
I still think they would have allowed the decision to stand in normal circumstances, they wouldn't even have debated whether the shot was going wide.

I'm not saying Oxlade Chamberlaine should have been given a straight red, but they don't use the technology available to show if a shot is on target or not. So, if the referee decided the player was handling the ball to prevent a goal being scored, the FA would normally have backed his decision.

^ Agree with that. I think you're right that the ban probably would have stood if the ref had sent off the correct player. For what it's worth I'm glad that the Ox isn't suspended, if it gives Arsenal a better chance of doing us a favour against City on the weekend.

Even more embarrassing now you cant accept you are incorrect producing statements most politicians would be proud of. I will not let you get away with the line it was only reviewed because the identity was wrong. I have never even brought mistaken identity into the discussion so that should not be confused with the technical merits of whether or not the sending off was correct. As such I have a right bee in my bonnet with those two posts above, I am afraid.

The final decision made plain everything I had said. The FA report quoted by the BBC confirms that (1) as the ball was going wide no opportunity was denied, (2) intent is irrelevant which I said all along and (3) the assessment was wholly independent of the players identity. So there is absolutely no way this would have been upheld had the mistaken identity not occurred.

Why can Chelsea fans not admit they are simply incorrect both now and previously?

People say it made no difference to the result, well I would suggest 6-0 was far less likely against 10 men, if nothing else. That is a matter of opinion of course. The referee getting it wrong is a matter of fact on not one but two counts.

Alan, now as you've brought my attention to the BBC article that goes into more detail on the matter I'm happy to revise my thoughts on it - it does support what you've said all along.

I'm not embarrassed at all though that what I thought would be the case hasn't proven to be. Plenty of other people, including non-Chelsea fans, were of the same belief. Logic would say that if you saved a shot that you believed was goalbound it is the same act of cheating as saving a shot that actually is goalbound, so should meet the same punishment. The fact it isn't is a flaw in the rules, in my opinion. With so much ambiguity around certain rules in the sport and the interpretations that can be applied to them, plus this particular scenario being a very unusual one we could only speculate on the matter.

I appreciate and respect you for saying that. I have had to defend my stance in a few other threads as well so I accept that it is not just Chelsea fans who had it incorrect.

I don't particularly expect the likes of codeblue to have your sense of appreciation.

Again i have to ask the same question over the denying of a goalscoring opportunity by bringing down a player running through on goal. By the same logic in the bit of your post I have highlighted that would always be a red card regardless of whether or not another defender could come through and cover because the intent of the player committing the foul is to prevent the goalscoring opportunity whether it turns out to be one or not. Of course this isnt the case and its only a red card when the reality is the denial of a goalscoring opportunity not the perception of the player fouling.

It's a very valid point you make Cantona, and quite possibly explains why the two handball scenarios aren't treated as being the same offence.

Actually thinking about this again, whilst you can draw a comparison in terms of the intent to stop a goal (which is what I did make reference to before, I appreciate), the fundamental difference between the scenarios is that the fouling defender in your example isn't necessarily the last man, whereas in the handball scenario Oxlade was. That combined with the intent is why i feel the handball scenario would merit a red card.

The law will have to changed to reference the player's intent. It is almost beyond doubt that AOC was trying to prevent a goal with his actions but the issue there is with whether the law was correct.

I have no strong view either way on amending the law but I would like to think I can work out when it is and isn't being applied correctly.

There is little comparison between bringing a player down before he has the chance to shoot and actually stopping a shot which is going wide. In the former case the opportunity is being denied, possibly a red card. In the latter case a clear goal is not being prevented and no opportunity denied, therefore no red card at all.

Last man is not relevant. The ball was not going in therefore its not the denying of a goalscoring opportunity, by definition the ball cannot be handled until after the attacker has taken the shot at which point its out of his control.

When you mentioned AOC you said that it was the same regardless of where the ball was going in reality because he thought it was a goalscoring opportunity. In my example the covering defender may also think it is a goalscoring opportunity too. In fact the only reason a player would ever be brought down in these circumstances is because the defending player thinks it a goalscoring opportunity - there would be no need to if you thought you could pass it on to another defender. Its also getting into the realms of total guesswork if you are trying to get refs to base their decisions on what they think a player is thinking!

As the law stands now though; deliberate handball, how do we know whether or not it is deliberate?!