For those that wish we had done everything necessary to keep Palmer at City, I think it is also important to remember that there is no guarantee—even if he was given the same initial opportunity to play a lot of minutes for us—that Palmer would have been as productive with us as he has been with Chelsea.
Teams plays against Chelsea completely differently to the way they play against us. More often than not their opposition see them as vulnerable or inferior, and so tend to take a much more open, aggressive approach in their matches with Chelsea. That almost never happens with us.
Once more, our setup and tactics are completely different, made more starkly different by the low block and quick counter tactics of our opposition, placing a greater emphasis on control and defensive work rate when not in possession (neither of which are necessarily among Palmer’s strengths). That’s not even getting in to the fact that he was never going to be the main man if he stayed with us—as he has partly become at Chelsea—which from what I have been told was an issue that contributed to him leaving. It also means he wasn’t going to have the same freedom (and leeway in his non-attacking responsibilities) in his play with us as he does at Chelsea.
Couple all of that with practically every team we face treating the match as their cup final, and it is simply a drastically different experience (with a completely different set of expectations) playing for us.
And it should also be pointed out that although he has had very good individual performances (and his stats are good), he has played for them when they have had poor results, as well, and Chelsea currently sit 11th, a few points about Fulham and Bournemouth. Their dysfunction is obviously not down to him, but it is also not entirely independent of him (as he has deficiencies that they haven’t been able to adequately cover at times.
There is nothing to say Palmer would have done as well if he had stayed with us.
