Carroll = great Championship player. average Premier League striker. £35m? youre havin' a larf.

NGONGE;705039 wrote: Lampard is a very good player but he's not in the Gerrard class and he does not have an Istanbul to fall back on (I mean the mean even played at RIGHT BACK in that game). you're right he's not in the Gerrard class...but that's because he's far better than Gerrard. Lampard is the thinking man's footballer, easily one of the finest players of his generation. had he been Brazilian or Spanish he'd be heralded as the best midfielder in the world. Gerrard, in comparison, is an overactive simpleton. a kick and rush merchant if you will. and if you're unwilling to use your eyes then the statistics back up the Lampard > Gerrard argument as well. 'he even played RIGHT BACK in that game'...so? his team were under the cosh for all but 6 minutes in that final, it's only right he helped to defend against Milan. funny that you define Gerrard's career on a total fluke. says it all.

N.O.R.F;701985 wrote: Think I will have to, begrudgingly, concede this one (don't get used to it though). why? seems like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about regarding Chelsea. for instance when he says Drogba has played 28 times it doesn't paint the real picture. Chelsea have such a small squad they have no option but to play him. he couldn't even get a rest when he was diagnosed with malaria. he's probably been fit half the time. only when they bought Torres have they been able to rotate and rest. Bosingwa, Mikel, Alex, Lampard, Benayoun, Zhirkov and Drogba have all been injured/ill for significant periods. that's 7 out of 16 available outfield players. at various points in the season Chelsea have had to fill the bench with kids that were never going to get a minute let alone contribute like a Jenas or Pavlychenko off the bench. and yet they're still above Spurs. his point seems to be all over the place. one minute it's 'tottenham have a better squad' the next minute it's 'if tottenham didn't suffer as many injuries as they have they'd be higher'. well you can't have it both ways, pick one and stick to it.

N.O.R.F;701514 wrote: Quality not quantity ya Rafa. maybe but Chelsea shot themselves in the foot with that sort of thinking. just 16 adult players to start the season is crazy, that isn't even a full match day squad.

NGONGE;701299 wrote: Chelsea on the other hand had less injuries and still struggled. thing is though, Chelsea have a smaller squad than Spurs. if you exclude the goalkeepers Chelsea started the season with just 16 adult players (excluding the kids here because they simply weren't ready and were all sent out on loan in January) if Chelsea had as many injuries as Spurs they'd be midtable. interesting fact that not many people know - Spurs have the most international players in their squad of any club in the world. they should be a lot higher than 5th. funny that theyre behind a Chelsea team with a much smaller squad that imploded mid-season and had their worst run of form in 14 years! Spurs are a joke lol can't wait to see them embarrassed in the next round of the CL.

Originally posted by N.O.R.F: ^There is a difference. Liverpool plsyers love the club. Chelsea player love the money liverpool players should play for free then. you know, money being tight and all.