Quote:
ahaha how exactly does suggesting you could do with more creativity in your side sounding like Abramovich? Ballack is a great player and you know i rate him above your other midfielder. I was simply responding to the suggestion that Chelsea wouldn't need Kaka because 'we have an abundance of mids' when you have nobody of Kaka's creative ability.
With the money spent on your squad, you should have been winning 3 titles and the CL in that time. F**k creativity and flair? Really? In those crunch games against the best in the world? Miland and Barca say hi.
Mind you, sounding like a guy who literally never speaks and is the only reason you have any trophies now isn't the worst thing i guess.
|
Dismissing any creativity in our current midfield and demanding a playmaker sounds a bit like Abramovich wanting more exciting football
imo.
Of course we have nobody of Kaka's creative ability in midfield? Does any team in the world? I doubt it seeing as Kaka is the most creative player in the world right now, bar Cristiano Ronaldo maybe.
My point was that Chelsea wouldn't need Kaka at 100mil because we have one of the best midfields in football at the moment if we can actually keep them fit. Sure Kaka would improve the midfield, but you'd be hard pressed to find a central three better than Lampard, Essien and Ballack
imo. Of course Kaka, Essien and Ballack would be better, there's no debating that. £100m better? Not really.
We won 2 out of the three titles, and the third wasn't won due to some extremely unlucky circumstances. I'm not going into it because it will only start off the Man Utd fans with their 'injuries :*(' comments. Also would have won the CL 3 years
imo, ago if Ranieri wasn't so utterly incompetent against Monaco. We've gone out on a questionable goal to Liverpool, the eventual winners, and out on penalties to Liverpool too. Not exactly the massive underperformances you've painted.
Linear Mode
