Dubstepforum.com

southstar wrote:I used to rate Ramires

hubb wrote:Ramires is a completely unique player. Some of his abilities are worldclass.

hubb wrote:There's been a host of truly great midfielders that didn't work at chelsea.
Like Makellelle.

Makas didn't work at Chelsea

But yeah he is unique, a little like Andy Carroll is unique. Just how the fuck have you blagged top flight football?

hubb wrote:

Makas didn't work at Chelsea

You mean he was as good there as in the rest of his career ?


I think it's the way that chelsea want to play that is the problem, not so much Ramires, but ofcourse you're not interested in hearing that.
Ramires would fit perfectly in a club like United or Bayern Munich that has a more dynamic midfield.
It's ridiculous to think of him as a stabilizing player and that's what you get in a chelsea midfield apart from Lampard and recently Oscar, ofcourse.

Muncey wrote:Yeah Mikels a rock, just plays in such a boring role so people who watch MOTD think hes shit.

southstar wrote:

Muncey wrote:Yeah Mikels a rock, just plays in such a boring role so people who watch MOTD think hes shit.

No I'm not having it, he's a slightly better Lee Cattermole, great for parking the bus at Emirates but Chelsea can do much better

hubb wrote:

Makas didn't work at Chelsea

You mean he was as good there as in the rest of his career ?

hubb wrote:I think it's the way that chelsea want to play that is the problem, not so much Ramires, but ofcourse you're not interested in hearing that.

southstar wrote:

Muncey wrote:Yeah Mikels a rock, just plays in such a boring role so people who watch MOTD think hes shit.

No I'm not having it, he's a slightly better Lee Cattermole, great for parking the bus at Emirates but Chelsea can do much better

Muncey wrote:

hubb wrote:

Makas didn't work at Chelsea

You mean he was as good there as in the rest of his career ?

Definitely, the 'makelele role' was made famous during his Chelsea years. He was one of the most important players we had in the successful early years of the Roman era. He was first name on the sheet for years. Maybe he was better at Madrid but he wasn't as important to them as he was to us, hence why they sold him at the peak of his career.

It's maybe a bit unfair and a bad example, I thought he was worldclass in the french national team. He did have similar issues at madrid tbf

hubb wrote:I think it's the way that chelsea want to play that is the problem, not so much Ramires, but ofcourse you're not interested in hearing that.

Of course I'm not interested in hearing that. If he doesn't fit into the way we play how is that any different to me saying 'he brings very little to the team'? We aren't going to build a team around him, if he doesn't fit in how is that justification for playing him week in week out?

Only in the contex of what football is. But agreed - tho I would have enjoyed it if they had built a team around him. There is little and less and less justification for playing him now.

Like I said, yesterday he was really important.. but its not every week you're playing away to City so it doesn't make sense why he plays every week. Maybe he would fit in to Bayern or United but it doesn't make him any less shit for us.

Also my main criticism is that he loses the ball more times than not when he gets the ball at his feet and his decision making is shocking, that has nothing to do with the way Chelsea play.