bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Chelsea player exodus to continue?

Ok, so perhaps calling the departure of Joe Cole, Michael Ballack and Juliano Belletti on free transfers, and the sale of Mirolsav Stoch, an ‘exodous’ is pushing it a bit far. But now – four weeks after those exits were announced – news of probably departures still outweighs any rumoured purchases at the Stamford Bridge club.

Sky Sports are just one of many outlets to write-up the expected transfer of Deco to Fluminense. Slightly more surprising are rumours that Ricardo Carvalho will be sold to Inter (who he supposedly came close to joining last summer), and thechelseablog.org’s contention that even John Terry might be up for sale.

Many Chelsea fans, including those who are ‘fans’ of this blog over on facebook, are starting to get concerned at the lack of transfer activity.

It is certainly too early to be concerned in my view, and on the whole it looks like a concerted effort from the club to bring down both the average age of the squad and it’s preposterously high wage bill. Better late than never...

After all, assuming those players rumoured to be leaving actually do end up elsewhere, the average age of departed players would be well over 29, and the wages saved almost certainly in excess of half a million pounds a week (or £27,300,000 a year). No small sum of cash.

Of course this is all speculation – whilst I’m certain Deco will leave, Carvalho exiting seems possible, but not certain. John Terry leaving might be well received in some quarters (not sure I’d be too bothered, to be honest), but it just won’t happen.

One thing is clear however – Chelsea are clearing the way for something. Whether that something is one or two choice, top-class signings, or the stream of 4-5 talented youth players coming through the ranks, is yet to be seen…

What do you think? Concerned about the lack of signings so far…or sure that the Chelsea management will give us something to get excited about come pre-season? Post a comment…

You might also be interested to read:

• Why Chelsea won’t splash the cash – an article from January this year that still holds true

No silver bullet for England, but here's how the FA should spend Capello wages

If the reign of Fabio Capello has taught us anything, it surely must be that hiring an expensive foreign ‘master tactician’ is no silver bullet for success.

Not that Capello has proved himself the ‘Professor of Football’ that many proclaimed him to be. During the World Cup qualifying campaign he proved himself a sensible manager, ready and willing to make rational decisions and follow through with them. Players were picked on form and fitness, a system was picked and, when successful, stuck with.

Come the eve of the World Cup proper however, the ‘sensible’ Capello went out the window and in its place England were rewarded with a desperate manager whose judgement had left him. Odd calls to Scholes and Carragher sent a message to squad members that the Italian had no faith in them, and the Capello index farce seemed entirely out of character. In places his squad selection beggared belief.

Worse still, he showed displayed no tactical acumen once the competition actually started. Who can explain him needlessly playing Lampard and Gerrard out of position throughout the tournament, ANY of his substitutions or why Wright-Phillips was twice given run-outs ahead of Joe Cole? Can any England fan pinpoint a time when Capello managed to successfully change the shape or style of an England performance during any of the four matches, or when he even tried to? For me, the like-for-like substitution of Defoe for Heskey towards the end of the Germany match was Capello’s lack of imagination and bravery as a World Cup manager in microcosm.

And then there was the Terry scandal. For all those for whom Terry is evil personified, Capello made no mistake. But for everyone else, the Italian’s hanging of the former captain out to dry only intensified any potential splits in the squad and emphasised his dictatorial grip on the team. In the modern age, fewer and fewer coaches manage in Capello’s distanced fashion, and a more hands-on, inclusive approach is normally the way forward.

Players, of course, should take their share of the blame too. But the nub of my argument is this: that managers you think are geniuses are often fallible, and a foreign coach in glasses that comes with a hefty price tag doesn’t necessarily present a better option than others closer to home.

And this is where, for me, the FA have got it all wrong. They assume that the team is good, and therefore hiring the best manager will help it progress. I’m a big believer in the finest managers being able to work wonders (look at Hiddink and Mourinho for recent Chelsea examples of just this), but those managers are few and far between. But generally playing big money – around £6m a year - for an international manager where the requirements are different from club level is a poor investment when you look a the wider problems with English football.

Yes, it’s just my thinking and not based on research or experience, but the better option is surely this. Find a competent English manager who will do the simple things that are needed at international level (ie. play players in their positions and make them feel good about themselves) and not cost the earth – say £2m a year.

That’s £4m extra in the FA coffers. Imagine using that £4m to scour the country and the world for the finest youth coaches there are available, and paying them £40k a year to develop English youngsters up and through the ranks. That’s 100 new coaches funded through just one alternative hire.

Finding new ways to get the best coaches working with young players is the closest thing there is to a silver bullet, and actually it’s where England are most lacking. An article in the Guardian this morning suggested just how far England have fallen behind: while the country has produced a measly 2,769 coaches holding UEFA’s top coaching qualifications, Germany (after much soul searching after failures of the national team in 1998 and 2000) has produced over 12 times as many – 34,970. For the record, France has 17,588, Spain has 23,995 and Italy has 29,420.

In that context, 160 new coaches isn’t that many, but it would still represent a considerable uplift for England. A better idea though, would be to use the £4m to take existing coaches throughout the country and give them grants to get coaching certificates. Paying for each course up to the top UEFA qualification would cost around £5k (you wouldn’t need to go that far, but just for example) – so the money saved would buy you an absolute minimum of 800 top-trained coaches (and that’s if you were funding each course 100%). In this context, having to pay Capello £12m just to leave the post – because of another classic example of a monumental FA bungle - could be costing England as many as 2,400 newly-qualified coaches.

But I’m sure the FA have thought all this through. And dismissed it beacuse of footballing arguments. Or considerations relating to financial efficiency. Or because there's a better way to start catching up with our continental competitors. Of course they have. Probably…

More freedom for Chelsea's Lampard sees him play better for England

Even the most devout supporter of Chelsea’s free-scoring number eight would find it difficult to argue that Frank Lampard has been at his best for England over the past couple of years. Whilst never deserving of some of the criticism he has received from some ‘fans’ and journalists – and continuing to rack up the goals for his country – he certainly hasn’t replicated the excellent form he has so consistently delivered for his club.

There are surely a number of reasons behind this – not least that he seems to play better when alongside Chelsea’s superior personnel. Key to it though, I suspect, is the way that Fabio Capello has used him in recent years.

The success of England’s World Cup qualifying campaign was based on Lampard and Barry playing holding roles, leaving Gerrard and Rooney free to express themselves further up the pitch. It seemed that, unlike Gerrard, Lampard’s discipline and positional intelligence led Capello to the view that because he could play the role it was necessary to sacrifice his attacking instincts.

England cruised comfortably through qualifying, never really looking stretched, and Lampard’s form was acceptable without generally being scintillating. Certainly there was little evidence of Lampard running games or threatening in and around the box as he might for Chelsea.

But it is true to say he has been asked to play a very withdrawn role for England, and fans have misinterpreted his quiet stitching together of England’s play and absence of real attacking play as ‘going missing’. In reality, the best holding midfielders are usually those players supporters are most likely to ‘miss’, in every sense of the word.

The withdrawn role doesn’t play to any of Lampard’s strengths: getting box to box for 90 minutes and making late forays into the oppositions’ box. He isn’t a Pirlo either, able to rely on stellar passing ability to make it less of a holding role, and more of a quarterback one. Perhaps all this contributed to some average performances, and the occasional lapse in concentration leading to a misplaced pass.

On Wednesday against Slovenia however, Capello allowed Lampard a different role. In the first half in particular, Barry was left to hold on his own (surely one is enough?). We saw something more like the real Lampard, and if the finishing wasn’t quite there the creative passing, bursting runs into the box and tackling back were there in abundance. Not all viewers will agree, but whilst Gerrard, Milner and Defoe grabbed the headlines, for me Lampard was England’s engine room.

I understand the logic of playing Lampard in the holding role: if Capello wants two players there, he’s the only player in the squad aside from Barry who has the discipline to do it. But there’s a logic to counter that argument, too. Lampard is the most consistent performer England have, scoring goals and making important contributions for his club unabated for six years now. When he’s on form, he’s among the best there is.

I’m not arguing to hold Gerrard or any other player back Fabio, but go with a system that lets Frank play his game – to not is to sacrifice too much.

Chelsea exits: a look back at Juliano Belletti's blues career

Just about two weeks ago now Chelsea announced that three players – Juliano Belletti, Michael Ballack and Joe Cole – would not have their contracts renewed and would be leaving the club. Speculation suggests that, regardless of the amounts Chelsea are (or are not) willing to shell out on new players, it is going to be a summer of change at Stamford Bridge. We’ll write about each new announcement as and when they are made but, in the meantime, we’re taking a look at each of the three players we already know are leaving and the impact they’ve had at Stamford Bridge.

First up: Juliano Belletti. The man who scored the goal that sealed the Champions League for Barcelona against Arsenal in 2007, Belletti joined Chelsea in August that year, signing a three year contract. Mourinho, then the manager, gave him his Premier League debut against Portsmouth on 25 August. The Brazilian came on for Mikel in the 64^th minute, and Chelsea won the game one nil.

But all of Belletti’s first season at Chelsea wouldn’t run so smoothly. Chelsea stuttered in their first game of the season, and Mourinho left the club. He became a fairly regular starter under Avram Grant, and his reputation for scoring spectacular long range goals (in that first season against Wigan and Spurs) was cemented, leading to him become a cult hero among regulars at Stamford Bridge.

Belletti’s role changed the next season under Scolari as the arrival of Jose Bosingwa intensified competition for the right back berth. Scolari began using Belletti as a utility player, often in the holding role and sometimes out on the right side of midfield. Whilst I never had a problem with Belletti, I was never entirely convinced that he added enough to be used as frequently as Scolari did. This was more about Scolari’s unimaginative substitutions however, and Belletti continued to prove me wrong, making some important contributions across the season. A long range effort against Middlesborough, a goal against Spurs in front of the Matthew Harding end and the equaliser in the last minute comeback against Stoke at the Bridge stick in the mind.

Belletti’s appearances under Ancelotti were more sporadic, and he was eventually injured in Chelsea’s fourth round FA Cup tie against Preston North End. When he finally made his way back from injury, his appearances were less helpful. In February he was sent off against Man City for a unfathomably clumsy tackle on Gareth Barry to give away a penalty – Chelsea lost the game 4-2. He also managed to give away a penalty in the FA Cup final against Portsmouth, but thankfully Chelsea still went on to win the game.

On Wednesday 9^th June, Chelsea announced that he would be leaving the club, presumably as part of a drive to freshen up and bring down the average age of the squad. It could also mark the end of the era of Chelsea hoarding right backs.

Whilst never the finest player in the squad, Belletti was nonetheless a very capable right back who joined us in the twilight years of his career. Costing Chelsea probably only around £2m, he was actually a very good deal, his ultimate worth coming from his ability to slot in at various positions. Usually dependable, always very committed and with odd flashes of Brazilian brilliance, Belletti will better remembered by Chelsea fans than supporters of other teams who normally underrate him. He will probably end up finishing his career in Brazil – and good luck to him.

All together now: Juuuu-liano Belletti…

Joe Cole 'heartbroken' to leave Chelsea? Give me a break

All the recent media talk involving Joe Cole has been around how Capello should use him to inject some life into his almost paralytic England team. They are right. As he has done at Chelsea, Joe Cole has the potential to offer the ailing England team something it does not have without him – that flash of ‘fantasy’ that is a prized asset at even the best teams on the planet.

I was sad when I heard news in the final days of my recent holiday that Chelsea had decided to let Joe Cole go. He was, it seemed, a genuine Chelsea supporter who delighted in playing at Stamford Bridge, and at times he has been an incredible player for us. After a run of poor luck with injuries, I was desperate for him to come good. And, of course, it’s always good to see Chelsea’s English players do well. In an ideal world, I’d want Joe Cole at the club – no question.

At the same time however, I couldn’t help but agree with the decision Chelsea have made. All reports on the contract negotiations suggested that Cole was looking for a payrise. Unrealistic and unreasonable, in my view: his injury record and questionable form this season in no way add up to a valid argument for a payrise. If he had wanted to stay, he should have accepted the offer Chelsea made (supposedly at the same level of his existing contract), played his way back into form and then lobbied management for an improved contract further down the line. Isn’t that how someone who was a fan – as well as a professional – would behave?

Today however, the Mirror has reported that Joe Cole is apparently ‘devastated’ and ‘heartbroken’ to have been let go by Chelsea. The paper says that he is “struggling to come to terms with being shown the door” and that sources reckon “the ace has taken the news very badly as he desperately wanted to stay at Chelsea”.

Honestly, give me a break. How can he have been desperate to stay – to the extent that he is apparently almost in mourning now that he’s leaving – but not accepted a reasonable contract? Maybe we haven’t got the whole picture, but Joe - we’re all sad to see you go, but it sounds like you had a choice. There’s no point crying now…

You might also be interested to read:

• Joe Cole: emotional attachment not enough to warrant bumper contract
• A word on Joe Cole’s loyalty

Media venom for John Terry confirms their bias against Chelsea captain

The media have shamelessly engineered a venomous deconstruction of John Terry over the last 24 hours, twisting his words in yesterday’s press conference to concoct stories of revenge and rebellion. In all likelihood, neither of those two words – more often found in Hollywood movie scripts than in football squads (aside from where the French are concerned, obviously) – can really apply to what’s gone on with England since the dismal showing against Algeria.

Admittedly, John Terry’s choice of words during the press conference yesterday morning occasionally hinted at more than a little insensitivity from the former England captain. He might have considered not repeating ‘sod it’ quite so many times for example, and after explaining how he still saw himself as a captain of sorts (for me he is the only one in the team who actually acts like a captain), he could have tacked “but Steven Gerrard is now doing a cracking job with the armband” on for good measure. Appearances are everything – especially when the media, desperate for a story for Monday’s papers, are circling like vultures over a rotting corpse.

But the core of what Terry said was in essence correct and sensible. Breaking the press conference down, he first expressed his and the team’s full backing for Capello, before re-stressing that Friday’s performance wasn’t good enough and that the team must do better.

Later, he talked of the need for the team to air their frustrations, and that if Capello – or anyone else in the team (a part of his quote the media have decided to omit) – doesn’t like it, they’ll have to deal with it. As at Chelsea, he was basically suggesting that it would be healthy for people to be able to get frustrations off their chests. It sounds sensible to me to create an adult culture in the squad that allows players to ask questions and contribute appropriately, while the manager maintains ultimate control. It also sounds sensible to have more frank conversations when things are going badly wrong.

Most importantly for me, what he very clearly wasn’t suggesting was that he or any other member of the team had a right to dictate to the manager how the team should play. Yes, he did say that Joe Cole could make a difference, either from the start or from the bench. Was he suggesting Joe Cole MUST play? No. Is what he said a crime? Of course not. And what was the alternative? To say that Cole couldn’t make a difference? Hardly sensible.

In the immediate aftermath of the interview, commentators on Sky Sports news were very positive about Terry’s conference, describing it as a rallying call and the kind of impassioned demand for improvement that was needed after so much fan dissatisfaction just 36 hours previous. That evening, after the Brazil-Ivory Coast game, BBC pundits Alan Shearer and Emmanuel Adebayor both joined Gary Lineker in universally praising John Terry, entirely backing his view that clear the air talks were needed. There was no suggestion that Terry was acting beyond his role or that he had spoken out of turn.

This morning however, journalists for pretty much all of the broadsheets and tabloids (who, unlike Shearer and Lineker, haven’t taken part in the pressure cooker of any international tournaments as far as I’m aware) painted a very different picture with their headlines. Words like ‘revenge’ against Capello (presumably for taking the captaincy away) were banded around, and despite some balance here and there it was pretty much universally agreed that Terry had launched some kind of coup against the manager, sowing disharmony as other ‘senior’ players distanced themselves from England’s number 6.

Other critics of Terry have reasoned that Terry somehow planned the whole thing by giving the interview, and then going off piste. Of course that theory forgets that all of these conferences, and all media interviews, are carefully marshalled by the FA’s press team. Terry would have been carefully selected above all the other players to deliver that specific press conference, and the press team will have surely rehearsed the majority of his answers. Furthermore, the press officer made no attempt to interrupt Terry at any point.

John Terry is no role model, and I very sincerely wish Chelsea had a captain with a cleaner image who it would be easier for me – or anyone - to respect. As it is however, it seems to me that it is the media who are sowing (or trying to sow) disharmony in the team, not Terry, working together to agree the angle they would pursue in this morning’s papers. After all, they had alternative ways of interpreting the press conference. After a strongly worded press interview, John Terry is being pilloried far more than Rooney was for insulting England’s long-suffering travelling support.

Some of Terry’s words were ill-advised, of course. But the punishment doesn’t match the crime: and it might only be England that suffer.