I understand Chelsea hasn’t been themselves for a while and we like to banter them but it’s literally strange seeing teams getting points there like it’s nothing. I’m not even trying to banter but Arsenal have better record at Bridge in recent years than Chelsea themselves. It’s crazy when you deepen it. Like what has happened? Even when teams struggle, usually home games are a bit advantageous. Look at United, they are shit but they have decent record at home for most part.

  • ninjomat@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Chelsea are bad.

    This is compounded at home, because when the team plays bad the fans turn hostile and reduce the players confidence further. For teams with such a poor relationship with their fans playing in front of them at home can actually be a disadvantage

  • MRJSP@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Mercenaries now represent the club entirely. It’s not surprising.

    • MrSoul87@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      No doubt it does. Complete culture shock with all the people that fled the club (staff and players) after Roman had to sell.

  • Cocobon95@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    We got new owners and they have completely destroyed the club in 18 months.

    We spent over a billion pounds and our squad is absolutely shocking.

    We sold all of our senior players, leaving us with just Silva and Sterling as our experienced starters. Silva is almost forty and Sterling is absolutely not the player you want to lead a younger group.

    We overpaid on literally every player we bought, and I think Palmer is the only player we could get more than half our money back on if we were to sell him.

    It’s as if the owners think all you have to do is buy young players, and then when they play a certain amount of minutes they will be world class.

    We spent fortunes on players who had barely kicked a ball in senior football, and expect them to develop with absolutely no guidance. Some of the fees we spent were absolutely insane.

    And to top it all off, we went into the season without a top striker. Somehow the board thought Jackson and Broja were enough.

    Jackson had 12 senior league goals before joining, and 9 came in one 8 game purple patch. Broja had a year out through injury and would likely take 6 months to get to full fitness.

    Insanity.

    It’s not a coincidence that the only two times we won the league since 2010, Diego Costa was at the club. He’s the only striker signing since Anelka that I thought would work

    • 1bingchilling@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Amazingly everything you’ve said here is wrong.

      They’ve fixed the biggest issue with the club under Roman, cohesion.

      A billion pounds and the squad has young talents that other top clubs wanted and would kill for.

      Sterling and Silva were great players that can teach the young ones how to succeed.

      Overpaying doesn’t matter at all if you still sign every player you want/need, which they have.

      Palmer only played for 14 games for city and he’s looked like he’ll City’s biggest sell regret in a long time.

      Nkunku is a top striker, he got injured. And Broja looks like the real deal, he was also injured.

      That’s not to mention the best fullback pair in the world being injured to start the season as well.

    • Existing-Union-1004@alien.topB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      They’re running the team pretty much exactly like the Dodgers except there is no Premier League draft and there is relegation. Light years ahead.