Did Samuel Eto'o deserve a two year deal at Everton?

Did Samuel Eto’o deserve a two year deal at Everton?

Having been classed as surplus to requirements at Stamford Bridge, Samuel Eto'o could now line up or at least take part in the game on Saturday evening for Everton against Chelsea! What do you think of this whole situation?

Chelsea have a rule for the over thirties at Stamford Bridge and that's a rolling one year contract that I believe is also performance related based on the previous season. John Terry after a good season last time around, signed a new one year deal this past summer for example.

However, in some cases, a player is deemed as surplus to requirements and leaves the club. We have seen that happen to Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard and Samuel Eto'o with Cole moving to Italy, Lampard to the MLS via Man City (not that he is going to feature much at all) and Eto'o staying in the Premier League and sign a two year contract with Everton.

So to this weekend at Goodison Park and Chelsea could come up against a player they decided would not be given another contract. Speaking today for the first time as an Everton player Eto'o was asked about facing Chelsea and he said:

"I'm not particularly concerned that it's against my [old] team [on Saturday]. The important thing is to integrate into my new team-mates' way of playing and get ready for that match. If I don't feature it's just important to get ready."

Samuel Eto'o did well enough at Chelsea to be given another deal if we are all being honest. He proved to be the difference in certain games last season and it will be interesting to see if he can find his form for Everton in the next two years.

I find it very strange that a player Roberto Martinez decides is worth a two year contract, was deemed as not good enough for a one year deal here? What do you people think of the situation with Eto'o in particular, him leaving Chelsea without being offered an extension and do you think he deserves a two year deal at Everton?