Chelsea players turn on Ballack - TalkSoccer

**russe||** · 07-01-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Unhappiness over Michael Ballack's contribution to the Chelsea cause this season has spread to the dressing-room with both Didier Drogba and Claude Makelele reportedly demanding that the German was demoted from the rank of Untouchable.

The Sunday Times claims that 'after last weekend's disappointing home draw with Fulham the striker Didier Drogba and midfielder Claude Makelele had to be prevented from confronting their manager Jose Mourinho over Ballack's lack of effectiveness.'

Leading players are said to have grown exasperated with the German's poor work-rate, his disinclination to aid the team's leaky defence and failure 'to mesh well with his new colleagues in attack.'

Although Ballack's form has been raised in team meetings, Mourinho has stubbornly refused to criticise his summer signing, whom he named as one of nine untouchables in December.

A section of the Stamford Bridge support heckled Ballack during the win over Newcastle in December, prompting an irate Mourinho to retort: "The fans don't make the team, I make the team.

"I don't select players because of the fans or comments in the press. I select players from my analysis of the team. I have analysis through scientific technology and, based on my vision and knowledge of the game, Ballack is still untouchable."

However, the Sunday Times cites Prozone figures which indicate that Ballack's contribution 'has been on par with the "benchmark" for a domestic central midfielder. He is nowhere near the elite Champions League level, which has been attained in England only by his teammate Frank Lampard, Manchester United's Paul Scholes and Gilberto Silva of Arsenal.'

Chelsea players turn on Ballack

If Robben and Cole were fit I wonder whether Ballack would still be 'untouchable'.

**Jager** · 07-01-2007, 11:19 AM

Ballack should of joined Inter, as opposed to Chelsea. I think he would of adapted better to Italian football, and we really could of used him.

However, this might still happen.

Veron, Crespo...now Ballack. I'll gladly take the German, I'm sure his form is temporary, because class is permenent.

**russe||** · 07-01-2007, 11:25 AM

I've say he should have joined United. He moans about there not being enough crosses at Chelsea and that the full backs don't get forward enough but if he'd actually looked at Chelsea's style of play before he accepted mega bucks from Roman he would have realised this without having to spend 6 months playing shit for them.

He would have fitted into our style of play better but to be perfectly honest if this story is true and considering his performances so far for Chelsea he may well have benefited us more by choosing Chelsea than he could have by coming to OT.

**Sven** · 07-01-2007, 11:26 AM

yawn , nothing in this but crap journalism. Didnt play yesterday because needed a rest.

is a liked person on the cobham.

**LAF** · 07-01-2007, 02:51 PM

This could or could not be true. Nobody here has inside contacts.

All I will say is that stories of unhappy team-mates always surface in the papers when teams aren't performing and most are bullshit.

Jose_Mourinho · 07-01-2007, 06:11 PM

He's doing better for us than people realise. He runs more than any other Chelsea player albeit not quickly he still does a hell of a lot of work. I was doubtful we needed him or he would do well in the premiership before he came but let's just say i'd much rather have him than carrick, both are strolling midfielders but ballack is in a different class to carrick

MUMUFMUFCOK! · 07-01-2007, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAF

This could or could not be true. Nobody here has inside contacts.

All I will say is that stories of unhappy team-mates always surface in the papers when teams aren't performing and most are bullshit.

Dunno about that.

I think feuds within teams are much more common than we seem to realise. It just isn't apparent because it should affect the team's on-pitch dynamic. (Andy Cole and Teddy Sheringham didn't speak for three years at United, but it didn't affect their performances when they played together.)

It's a fact of life that you aren't going to like everyone at your place of work, and footballers are no different in that respect. The story may well be true, but it's pretty irrelevant either way.

**LAF** · 07-01-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MUMUFMUFCOK!

Dunno about that.

I think feuds within teams are much more common than we seem to realise. It just isn't apparent because it should affect the team's on-pitch dynamic. (Andy Cole and Teddy Sheringham didn't speak for three years at United, but it didn't affect their performances when they played together.)

It's a fact of life that you aren't going to like everyone at your place of work, and footballers are no different in that respect. The story may well be true, but it's pretty irrelevant either way.

True but the papers are trying to make as much money out of the Chelsea crisis crap as possible. Saying they've fallen out gets people going.

We had this last season when Vieira and Zlatan had a training ground fight. We were going through a mini-crisis of not winning aswell.

oxfordblues · 10-01-2007, 08:38 AM

what a ,load of shite from a spurs hack,i get all my info from chelsea TV.ballack fine,why oh why do people read the sun etc,

**russe||** · 10-01-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oxfordblues

i get all my info from chelsea TV.ballack fine,why oh why do people read the sun etc,

Brilliant! You really believe everything you hear on Chelsea's own television channel? Next you'll be saying the Chelsea website gives an accurate and unbiased report on events.

What you read in the likes of the Sun is untrustworthy and you must remember the newspaper's motivation for publishing the story but the same must be said for the Chelsea website.

Scholes18 · 10-01-2007, 02:05 PM

I can confirm this is true.

**Sven** · 10-01-2007, 02:16 PM

I can confirm you are an idiot.

Ballack to play tonight, after seeing his Chelsea interview yesterday nothing seems wrong(but hay Chelsea tv is baised and wrong isint it? no truth whats so ever and we are fools who watch it, we should read the sun instead for the truth). Rumour mill was running low on fuel.

**russe||** · 10-01-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SvenD

(but hay Chelsea tv is baised and wrong isint it? no truth whats so ever and we are fools who watch it, we should read the sun instead for the truth).

All I was saying was it is foolish and naive to consider everything the Suns says to be a lie and everything Chelsea TV says to be true. I have read some of the match reports on Chelsea's website and some of them are so biased and bordering on propaganda Goebbels himself would be proud of them.

**Sven** · 10-01-2007, 04:51 PM

I know what you ment.

Chelsea website can post what they want at the end of day, being a Chelsea fan reading the crap what some newspaper post bores me, and I can rely on a place where theres not going to be propaganda against Chelsea.

obvious I shoudnt have to and its sad to only rely on one source.

but hay I rather read some positive then negative now and then yes?.

Scholes18 · 11-01-2007, 07:24 PM

He can't even perform against Wycombe.