They’re in full “anti-Arsenal” mode, sparked by rage-watching Liverpool vs Arsenal and a Martinelli moment that, to them, perfectly sums up why Arsenal are so easy to hate. That energy carries into the Chelsea conversation: they’ll happily take the point at City, but they don’t kid themselves—Chelsea didn’t control it so much as survive it, and the result feels like something they got away with rather than earned.

The bigger takeaway is a vibe shift in how Chelsea are trying to play. They describe it as more aggressive, more direct, more willing to sling the ball into the box and let talent improvise instead of recycling possession and waiting for a perfect chance. Set pieces, in particular, feel less “designed” and more “cause chaos at the keeper and pounce,” which they actually like. The frustration is that the same aggression still tips into self-inflicted damage—especially the red card—and they frame that as a confidence problem: when the team doesn’t trust its plan or its ability to respond, one mistake starts to feel fatal.

They zoom out to what matters now: Champions League qualification is the line in the sand. Cups are fun, but unpredictable; missing the Champions League feels like the kind of failure that changes the whole project. They also kick around the “farm system” idea—promoting a coach from the club’s wider ownership ecosystem—and whether that creates real continuity or just bakes in the same style without fixing the missing spark.

And when the football talk gets too grim, they escape to the FA Cup, which they treat like pure joy: small grounds, strange angles, fans on roofs, and big clubs showing up in places that feel nothing like the Premier League. It’s the reminder that even when Chelsea are a mess, the sport is still fun—right up until they derail into a ridiculous Haaland bit and a debate over whether the two of them could take him in a fight.