I don't agree. He has the pace and skill to be a major contributor. He was at Dortmund, which maybe isn't Chelsea but is pretty close (they're currently winning the Bundesliga).
It isn't like he's glued to the bench. There's only been 2 matches he hasn't gotten into and he's been in the Starting XI for half of Dortmund's matches.
RE: This has eventual loan to a bottom table team in 2020 Â
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
Yup, just like the other two dozen youngsters they have out on loan.
Still waiting for Tammy Abraham's big arrival.
Tammy Abraham never started for a major club like Puli has. Pulisic has already performed well in the Bundesliga and Champs league. Not a fair comparison at all.
Hell I am interested to see Pulisic play, I don’t think I’ve ever watched him in a live game. I don’t usually watch the US team outside of the World Cup and I don’t watch Bundesliga. A lot of hype and a huge transfer fee, let’s see how it goes.
As an LFC fan, I was kind of hoping for him to come to play for Klopp Â
but I think they are hoping for him to be the longterm successor to Willian as the RW opposite Hazard.
It would make no sense, commercially, to not develop him. They just overspent, $:current talent, and will only recoup that when he's playing and the American market is buying up Chelsea kits.
see Willian, Hazard and Pedro all leaving in the summer, so there certainly should be minutes available. I'm just worried that he's going to have an extremely short leash.
RE: As an LFC fan, I was kind of hoping for him to come to play for Klopp Â
But Sarri is just now constructing his roster: Willian and Pedro on the wrong side of 30, Fabregas likely out, Hazard could leave for Madrid. There will be room upfront for Pulisic.
Look at how Mertens and Insigne play at Napoli and it fits Pulisic's strengths.
Sarri will be out in a year or two more likely than not. Hell there are already rumors he’s under pressure. Chelsea is not the place for a manager to settle in.
Somewhat
Jon in NYC : 9:58 am : link : reply
related, but would like to see NYCFC make a play for Pedro.
So would I, Jon, but at the moment I have zero confidence in CFG. They haven't opened the checkbook in 4½ years for the team and I don't see them doing now.
RE: RE: This has eventual loan to a bottom table team in 2020 Â
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
It's not really laughable. It's not a slight on Pulisic to say that either as it really has nothing to do with his ability or potential. Chelsea are notorious for stashing players and loaning them out. I don't know if Sarri will even be there 2 years from now as they are also notorious for dumping managers. Conte won the league and was fired a year later. Even if he is still there, I think the higher likelihood for Pulisic at Chelsea is a 65+ minute sub every game and not a regular starter. And then at some point a loan to a championship club where he can be a regular starter.
It probably really isn't the best place for him to go to further his development.
The physical play of the EPL will be more beneficial for CONCACAF Â
Recent Chelsea transfer activity (post-Mourinho-2) have clearly come from above the manager. Additionally, and perhaps one of the reasons why Sarri was an attractive candidate for them, Sarri has spoken openly about how he dislikes the transfer market, and is much more interested in coaching-up the players available to him than being involved in club transfers - the obvious Jorginho concession aside. All that to say, I don't think that Pulisic is a choice made by Sarri.
Chelsea have yet to fill their "Director of Football" role following Michael Emenalo's departure, and transfer decisions now appear to be managed directly by Abramovich's right-hand-man (woman) Marina Granovskaia.
Abramovich has also long-talked about Chelsea becoming self sustaining (and finished with a $62m profit this year) and this move obviously has that goal all over it.
Not a football-first decision.
It's also why I think that they'll do whatever they can to keep Hazard, though that might be out of their hands.
My expectation is that they see Pulisic as the understudy and eventual successor to Willian, and hope that Hudson-Odoi can be the same for Hazard.
If this was purely a football move I imagine they would have pursued someone like Chiesa or Asensio for that AMR role.
They spent $25m on Zappacosta, $37.9m on Drinkwater, $40m on Bakayoko, and $66m on Morata. And none of them play and they are looking to either loan or sell off all of them. And that was just last year's purchases alone.
The price tag for Pulisic means little to Chelsea. If he's good enough he'll play. If not, he'll join the long list of wasted purchases that Chelsea loans out or sells off.
I think that (with the exception of Morata) the fact that you and I are sitting here talking about this transfer is an indicator as to why it is on a different tier from the Zapp/Drinky signings. They, along with Bakayoko, also always struck me as system-based signings, which were promptly abandoned with Conte's departure. I expect, maybe foolishly, more of a club commitment to the Pulisic experiment, simply because of the potential benefits. I think that this is made evident by the way in which the transfer is lined up, being completed in the January before a summer transfer.
They're still in need of an actual striker, as well. employing Hazard as a false-9 seems like the best of a bunch of bad options. What a bust Morata has turned out to be.
bylined a piece on ESPN that says this deal was basically agreed to over the summer and Pulisic is part of the Sarri plan as much as Chelsea's.
Probably inaccurate seeing that Sarri said today, "I didn't know anything about Pulisic yesterday. The club asked my opinion about him one month ago. My opinion was positive and today I've known that the deal is done."
Pete in MD - the last rumor I read was that Porter turned down the LA job to take Berhalter's place in Columbus. If true, maybe Porter has a soft spot for Ohio from his Akron days?
On Pulisic, given their business model (turnover in coaches, changing styles of play, constantly buying and selling players), Chelsea wouldn't have been my first choice, but best of luck to the kid.
He really needs to keep playing. He’s not even starting anymore for Dortmund.
I don't agree. He has the pace and skill to be a major contributor. He was at Dortmund, which maybe isn't Chelsea but is pretty close (they're currently winning the Bundesliga).
It isn't like he's glued to the bench. There's only been 2 matches he hasn't gotten into and he's been in the Starting XI for half of Dortmund's matches.
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
Quote:
written all over it.
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
Yup, just like the other two dozen youngsters they have out on loan.
Still waiting for Tammy Abraham's big arrival.
Quote:
In comment 14243813 Default said:
Quote:
written all over it.
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
Yup, just like the other two dozen youngsters they have out on loan.
Still waiting for Tammy Abraham's big arrival.
Tammy Abraham never started for a major club like Puli has. Pulisic has already performed well in the Bundesliga and Champs league. Not a fair comparison at all.
Pulisic has shown he can excel at the top level and in big matches. That's the difference between him and Chelsea's other loans.
Agreed. More freedom of play in La Liga.
It’s a much more physical test in the EPL.
It would make no sense, commercially, to not develop him. They just overspent, $:current talent, and will only recoup that when he's playing and the American market is buying up Chelsea kits.
I think Pulisic would fit much better in the Klopp system. It’s a much more free-flowing, open paced approach.
Look at how Mertens and Insigne play at Napoli and it fits Pulisic's strengths.
Pete, that's right. It was always that he wouldn't move clubs until Summer.
Jon in NYC : 9:58 am : link : reply
related, but would like to see NYCFC make a play for Pedro.
So would I, Jon, but at the moment I have zero confidence in CFG. They haven't opened the checkbook in 4½ years for the team and I don't see them doing now.
Quote:
written all over it.
Laughable comment. Even if he comes off the bench the first year he's got starter all over him.
It's not really laughable. It's not a slight on Pulisic to say that either as it really has nothing to do with his ability or potential. Chelsea are notorious for stashing players and loaning them out. I don't know if Sarri will even be there 2 years from now as they are also notorious for dumping managers. Conte won the league and was fired a year later. Even if he is still there, I think the higher likelihood for Pulisic at Chelsea is a 65+ minute sub every game and not a regular starter. And then at some point a loan to a championship club where he can be a regular starter.
It probably really isn't the best place for him to go to further his development.
he would do well with his smaller frame and technical game
Chelsea have yet to fill their "Director of Football" role following Michael Emenalo's departure, and transfer decisions now appear to be managed directly by Abramovich's right-hand-man (woman) Marina Granovskaia.
Abramovich has also long-talked about Chelsea becoming self sustaining (and finished with a $62m profit this year) and this move obviously has that goal all over it.
Not a football-first decision.
It's also why I think that they'll do whatever they can to keep Hazard, though that might be out of their hands.
My expectation is that they see Pulisic as the understudy and eventual successor to Willian, and hope that Hudson-Odoi can be the same for Hazard.
If this was purely a football move I imagine they would have pursued someone like Chiesa or Asensio for that AMR role.
The price tag for Pulisic means little to Chelsea. If he's good enough he'll play. If not, he'll join the long list of wasted purchases that Chelsea loans out or sells off.
I think that (with the exception of Morata) the fact that you and I are sitting here talking about this transfer is an indicator as to why it is on a different tier from the Zapp/Drinky signings. They, along with Bakayoko, also always struck me as system-based signings, which were promptly abandoned with Conte's departure. I expect, maybe foolishly, more of a club commitment to the Pulisic experiment, simply because of the potential benefits. I think that this is made evident by the way in which the transfer is lined up, being completed in the January before a summer transfer.
They're still in need of an actual striker, as well. employing Hazard as a false-9 seems like the best of a bunch of bad options. What a bust Morata has turned out to be.
Probably inaccurate seeing that Sarri said today, "I didn't know anything about Pulisic yesterday. The club asked my opinion about him one month ago. My opinion was positive and today I've known that the deal is done."
On Pulisic, given their business model (turnover in coaches, changing styles of play, constantly buying and selling players), Chelsea wouldn't have been my first choice, but best of luck to the kid.