Snarfalicious
Well-Known Member
- Jul 15, 2012
- 15,722
- 72,065
Willian to Chelsea
- Thread starter Blake Griffin
- Start date
- Oct 25, 2005
- 32,629
- 33,579
- Staff
- #4,122
Yid
Well Endowed Member
- Jul 5, 2013
- 1,254
- 1,366
I sure hope so, because it'd be a major letdown to me personally if we fail to get him yet again (especially after so many Yiddos were rubbing it in to the Scouse for the past several days).
Yid
Well Endowed Member
- Jul 5, 2013
- 1,254
- 1,366
Garyspurs
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2011
- 337
- 1,408
That was so cheesy it deserves a like.
Wick3d
Well-Known Member
- Aug 31, 2012
- 5,504
- 11,669
http://livetv.ru/en/showvideo/149513_jablonec_real_betis/Btw, serious question (I just can't locate the right forum to post this in) - does anyone know where I can find a replay (or at least the highlights of our Tbilisi 1st leg? Missed the 2nd half
Lilywhite Kane
Member
- Aug 21, 2013
- 35
- 51
if chelsea did bid for him it is out of spite since they do not need him they have better players in his position but i don't believe this i believe kia is messing us around we all know how he is. To be honest willian wasn't and isn't a priority and he was a opportunity that came up. if he doesn't come and goes to chelsea he can rot on the bench it isn't a problem won't stop us moving forward. so personally i'm not worried. lamela is our priority willian was a bonus simple as that
tiger666
Large Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 27,978
- 82,216
It isn't as "simple as that" at all. Lamela is a direct replacement for Bale. Even with Lamela, we still need a creative playmaker.
ItsBoris
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2011
- 7,900
- 9,304
Interesting perspective on the Chelsea forum: http://www.theshedend.com/topic/24381-willian-to-chelsea/page-3
They are negative about the transfer because they think it means they are losing Mata.
They are negative about the transfer because they think it means they are losing Mata.
EnfieldYiddo
Silence
- Aug 6, 2012
- 15,505
- 26,871
This x100
I can't think of a better player of his ilk than Willian who we could of got
E17yid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2013
- 17,088
- 30,884
Eriksen?
jimmy-jojo
Well-Known Member
- Jun 30, 2004
- 1,630
- 1,364
It's almost certainly done to screw us over more than improve them. If we got Willian we'd be serious contenders. They won't care if they've got several similar playmakers, they will offload a couple...not to us...and be no worse off while they also will know they have achieved the goal of making sure we are no better.
ItsBoris
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2011
- 7,900
- 9,304
He's not as good as Willian.
Snarfalicious
Well-Known Member
- Jul 15, 2012
- 15,722
- 72,065
Even if they were losing Mata, they still have Oscar who has been brilliant in the middle, De Bruyne (also been brilliant) can play there as well. Both those players have higher ceilings than Willian in my opinion. Out wide they still have Hazard, Schurrle, Moses and obviously De Bruyne can play out wide. It just doesn't add up even if they are losing Mata in my opinion.
tiger666
Large Member
- Jan 4, 2005
- 27,978
- 82,216
I honestly don't know why chelsea need him they have about 8 attacking midfielders already and have brought back de bruyne from loan and signed van ginkel and schurlle. It just doesn't add up to me. If roman is just doing it to get one over on us then it's pathetic and shouldn't be allowed. A lot of Chelsea fans don't want willian anyway.
Arthur Hucksake
Well-Known Member
- Aug 17, 2013
- 664
- 943
As a central playmaker behind the striker he is. Willian is a utility wide player. They both do different jobs.
spurs-r-us
Well-Known Member
- Aug 21, 2008
- 2,206
- 3,022
Just woken up in Melbourne to see he's off to Chelsea?
We don't need players like this at our club.
We don't need players like this at our club.
