[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by furball

I'll be more explicit: Sutton is a deep-lying striker who relies on his other teammates to put him in situations to create or score goals. It's why he was so good alongside Shearer as part of the Premiership-winning Blackburn side. At Chelsea he was expected to fit into a completely different style of play - his position just didn't exist. The difference with Shevchenko is that the position of central striker will always exist - take ball on shoulder of defender, put in net, rinse and repeat.

that particular Chelsea squad had Zola, Poyet, Di Metteo, Deschamps, and Petrescu. It wasn't exactly bereft of quality players to give him chances. I believe if he had scored the two sitters he missed in the first game, he would have been a hero except an expensive flop who fell on his arse.

Shevchenko has been playing for the same team for seven years. that is a long time to move to another country and immediatly settle in. Chelsea now play a very defensive game. If they were more flowing it's possible Shevchano would play far better. But maybe he just can't adapt like Veron.

No, you'll find that it was ten games. As for the slow start, I have no problem at all with that - a certain Thierry Henry failed to score for his first eight games, but ended the season with 31 goals.

Well wiki says 10 games and 26 goals, so I don't know where those figures have come from. Different players take different amounts of time to adapt. Maybe he never will, but I'm not willing to write him off just yet.

Both were flops, Shevchenko a worse flop because of his price-tag.

Pound for pound, Shevchenko scored more goals.

That's a bit disappointing - I remember it pretty clearly. But here's an except from Wikipedia to jog your memory.

You claim that it wasn't a footballing issue. I disagree. He was an important football player for the club who as a member of the first team, affected how the team played its football. The decision to sack him meant that Chelsea automatically lost about £8m on a potential re-sale, as well as not having him around for the 2005/06 season. He didn't have to go - just look at how Paul Merson was treated when he confessed his problems. The FA would have sent him into rehabilitation as opposed to banning him as a result of the Chelsea sacking.

It really depends on what you mean by footballing issue. Having Nicholas Anelka in your squad might get you some goals, but if he's messing up the rest of the squad is it worth keeping him?

He was a brand-new player who didn't get on with the new manager. to keep him may have been detrimental the the rest of the squad and could have potentially have cost them the title.

Paul Merson had been with Arsenal for nearly 10 years so it's an entirely different set of circumstances. If it had been some new player who just flew over then the situation would have been completely different. to get rid of him would have had a worse impact than keeping him, I'm not sure if the same could be said about Mutu.

It's a different league but even harder to score. As I referred to with Henry earlier, I have no problem with a striker taking some time to bed in. It's when they never start producing that I criticise them.

Drogba wasn't too impressive in his first two seasons, but you wouldn't now say it would have been better for Chelsea to cut their losses. I say give him another chance, although it does depend on who they bring in in the summer.

I also wanted Kesman to stay as I liked him, though not Sutton. Not one bit.

Oh and any player has the potential to do wonderful things - just ask the Romford Pele.

If he finds his form again he can do that in every game.