Why Chelsea should have kept Eto'o

The Blues' search for a striker to complement Diego Costa is slowly grinding to a halt as they look set to stick with Demba Ba and Fernando Torres.

Both have also shown themselves to be consistent goalscorers, it hasn't really happened for them at Chelsea. They have chipped in with some key goals, but nothing substantial to warrant a stay ahead of someone like Samuel Eto'o.

Eto'o was only signed on a one-year contract, but he outperformed both Torres and Ba. But, despite this, the Blues decided not to extend Eto'o's contract and he is now a free agent.

Talksport is reporting that the Cameroon international wants to stay in the Premier League. The website have stated that Everton and Arsenal are monitoring him as they both look to add more depth to their attack.

If Chelsea is looking for depth, yet have kept hold of Torres and Ba and not Eto'o, then that is a poor decision from Jose Mourinho. Nine goals and five assists in 21 Premier League games is not a bad return.

Torres and Ba each scored just five times in the Premier League, so their combined goal tally only beat Eto'o's by one.

Eto'o was the far more clinical striker and, despite his age, I think it should have been him who remained at Chelsea. He would be a good back-up to Costa because he has maintained his pace, and also hasn't lost his awareness in the final third.