As the title says.
See the original arguments (about Lampard and about Drogba) before commenting.
Soccerlens Forum » General Discussion » Transfer Rumours
Should Chelsea sell Drogba and Lampard?
12 posts - Started 2 years ago by Ahmed Bilal - Latest reply from srizzel -
-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
Posted 2 years ago #
Why sell two of your best assets? Correct me if I'm wrong but I've always believed that the point to all this was to win. Was Drogba's and Lamps contribution not enough for Chelsea? I'm just so sick of the money. Dump players when they are clearly on the decline or if their is other circumstances that force your hand (for example SAF selling Beckham). van Nistelrooy was sold because he had started to display selfishness in the clubhouse as well, his on field play had declined compared to past seasons. People say it was a mistake only because he and Becks had a renaissance in the last third of the season in La Liga. I still think they were both past their prime for United. I do not feel that Lampard and Drogba are for Chelsea though. The Blues would behard pressed to find a better player than Drogba to be their striker. Did Sheva manage the feat? I love Ballack but he clearly isn't suited the style of play Chelsea utilize and Lampard clearly is. Chelsea should count their lucky stars that they have these players and as for Lampard, pay the man what he deserves. And lets face it Roman, he's worth a hell of a lot more than that lazy Ukrainian and Ballack at this time in all their careers.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
I think from a cool, calculating perspective it might be a sound decision. Take that money and buy someone who is on the upside of their career, but what about the whole idea of 'team' and 'loyalty?' Look at players like Paolo Maldini on AC Milan who are celebrated for their commitment to the club - these are the guys that become legends....
Besides, its not necessarily about having the youngest team, its about winning. If AC Milan can win the Champions League with Maldini, Seedorf, Ronaldo and Nesta, who's to say youth is really that necessary? I think Chelsea care a lot more about winning titles than saving money. -
Posted 2 years ago #
Are you out of your mind? The only goal scorer Chelsea has is DD and to get rid of him and the assist provider would be dummest thing JM could do. Plus I think Lampard will be getting on track again and Drogba is priceless.
"We win as a team, lose as a team and celebrate as a team."
Didier Drogba -
Posted 2 years ago #
Interesting article, but you must be really out of your mind. Unless they REALLY want to leave or Mourinho don't see them in their plans anymore, there won't be a chance would there? If they lost them both, it would be like MU losing Beckham and Ruud and now, Arsenal losing Vieira and Henry. You can't say that losing players of that calibre is good. MU went through a bad patch and Arsenal will continue theirs.
Secondly, Chelsea can find someone to replace them, but I don't think Mourinho will be given the time like Fergie or Wenger is. With Abramovich at the helm, you think Mourinho will be given the time like Wenger or Fergie? Impossible.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
And another question to you, Ahmed. If you were put in charge of MU and given the chance to sell Beckham and Ruud when their prices peaked, WOULD YOU?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
Admin, this is a very very stupid post.
Why would anyone sell the best striker and the best attacking midfielder in the league?
-
Posted 2 years ago #
Selling Drogba would be nothing but sheer madness. After all Chelsea don't have a proven goalscorer other than him. The assumption of the original article was that Villa would come into Chelsea and both he and Sheva would set the premier alight. Not only do these assumptions not make sense, they would in totality represent an immediate negative cash return for Chelsea (Age prolly implies Villa will be costlier than Drogba).
However Lampard Chelsea can afford to sell. They are well stocked in that department (Essien, Ballack, Obi Mikel). Their only concern would be that if one other striker does not shine the next season and Lampard has left where would the goals come from. The assumption that Lampard will not score as many next season seemed to grounded on law of averages rather than what we have seen of Lampard in the last few seasons
-
Posted 2 years ago #
If drogba left I think it would be very possible that Villa would come and be the best striker in the premiership but like Shevchenko last season he could take a long time to settle in at Chelsea. Then if Shevchenko doesn't play well they won't have any good strikers to score the goals. Ballack would score alot more if lampard left so it could turn out well, but listening to what mourinho's been saying they'll be playing a 4-3-3 so it seems unlikely Villa would be allowed to play with Shevchenko...(and since they'll be playing a 4-3-3 it will probably lead to drogba going back to how he was before scoring less regularly and having to work more for the team. And then he could leave after that and just like henry and Viera he would leave for alot less.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
Its just stupid to sell drogba and lampard.
Admin, mabe thats why football clubs will never be controlled by fans, otherwise ppl like you will have a say
-
Posted 2 years ago #
tzewee - Ruud, yes - I advocated selling Ruud in the summer 2005, when he would have fetched 20m easily. Becks - we could have kept him for one more year and sold him for as much, if not more.
Cheeseman - United lost 10m by not selling Ruud at the right time. Arsenal weren't all that happy after Vieira went cheaply (an year too late) and Henry went cheaply (an year too late). The basic idea that I'm trying to convey is that some stars stay too long at clubs.
Both of them will last at least another season at the top though.
-
Posted 2 years ago #
dont care where they go as long as they dont come to man utd!
Reply
You must log in to post.
