bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Chelsea youth show promise as they blast into FA Youth Cup final

The second of two games against Blackburn inside of little over 24 hours had a rather different result than the first. Yesterday evening Chelsea’s youth took on Blackburn in the second leg of the FA Youth Cup semi final and ran out 4-0 winners (5-0 on aggregate).

It was an accomplished, confident display at Stamford Bridge from Chelsea who, aside an awkward ten minute period early in the first half, were dominant throughout. On the whole it was also a good display of heads-up, passing football.

The first two goals of the evening came via a fairly large slice of good luck. For the first, Jeffrey Bruma strode over the half way and unleashed a shot from 40 yards. Inexplicably the Blackburn keeper chose to try and control the ball – which was certainly heading wide of his left post - with his boot, but saw it pop forwards towards the edge of the penalty area. Chelsea forward Marko Mitrovic was the first to react and calmly guided the ball into the net. The second goal came in similar fashion, with the excellent Jacopo Sala expertly finishing from a tight angle following the keeper’s block of a curving shot from Josh McEachran.

The third was more a little more picturebook. Attacking from the right, Gokhan Tore shrugged off two defenders before laying the ball off to McEachran and continuing his run across the box. McEachran found Sala, who played a perfectly weighted pass into Tore who whipped a well-placed shot into the side netting with his left boot. Now that Blackburn were well out of the game, Chelsea’s fourth wasn’t a surprise: Tore caught Blackburn on the break and ran with the ball for 40 yards before unselfishly playing in Sala, who had the class to finish emphatically.

Four nil up and the tie won with twenty minutes to go, the Chelsea coach didn’t bring any older players on to give them a go. When are the over 30s going to get a chance at the club?!

Joking aside - are these the stars of the future? Well, law of averages sadly says many of them probably won’t make it. But a few did stand out. Sala, an 18 year-old from Italy, demonstrated uncommon calm and presence on the ball and his two finishes were excellent. Josh McEachran, who recently turned 17, has quick feet and pulled the strings excellently from an advanced position in midfield. Gokhan Tore, 18, moved to Chelsea from Leverkusen and seems to have prolific strength for someone his age. He showed occasional flashes of pace and flair, and if he can become a bit more consistent on the ball he’ll have a good chance. Captain Connor Clifford, who played for only 30 minutes yesterday because of injury, looks certain to be given a chance in the reserves.

Elsewhere, Bruma looked like a man amongst boys in defence (and during interviews after the game, too). He has of course already played with the senior team and comfortably looks the most likely to break through. He certainly shouldn’t be playing with the youth team next season. The entire back four deserve plaudits too however, having only conceded one goal in the competition so far and expertly keeping Blackburn out over 180 minutes of football in the semi final of the most important youth competition in the country.

If all goes to plan, hopefully a few of these promising players will graduate to the reserves next season, especially as the likes of Kakuta, Bruma, Hutchinson, Stoch and Borini get more opportunities with the first team. We’ll then get a far greater indication of who has a real chance of making the grade. Nothing is guaranteed but, in contrast to recent developments at Chelsea, the signs are certainly positive.

Chelsea will play either Newcastle or Aston Villa in a two-legged final.

Ihaven’t watched huge amounts of Chelsea’s youth team this season. If you have, I’m keen to hear who you think are the potential Chelsea stars of the future. Post a comment…

You might also be interested to read:

• Arnesen’s failings lie at the heart of Chelsea future
• A much needed chance for Chelsea youth to shine?
• Abandon the ‘off the shelf’ transfer policy

Chelsea's dismal showing at Blackburn poses serious questions on Ancelotti

Since 1 December, Chelsea’s record reads played 23, won 11, drawn 6, lost 6. That is a win ratio of just 47%.

Those 11 wins included three against Championship opposition and four teams from the current bottom five in the league. In that period, Ancelotti’s Chelsea have only been good enough to beat top half opposition three times: Fulham, Birmingham and Arsenal, all at home. Bad results have come against any kind of decent side – Inter (twice), Everton (twice), Man City – and Chelsea have also failed to beat lower profile sides like West Ham, Hull and Apoel. On Sunday, a well organised Blackburn defended well as a team and added themselves to that list.

Bar a brief revival in January, it has been a dismal three and a half months for Chelsea, a period in which the club has moved from title favourites to favourites for third place. But to what extent is Ancelotti to blame for this slump?

Every Chelsea fan has a view on where the current slump originates. Does it come from the serious mismanagement of the squad over the past few years, which has led to it becoming severely unbalanced and aged? Does it originate from too many managerial changes, which in turn led to that squad mismanagement? Alternatively, does the blame lie with the players themselves, who are failing to show the required drive and desire to challenge for the Premier League again? Or, finally, does it come down to Ancelotti’s own tactical ineptitude and inability to crush his players’ lack of desire?

These are huge debates, and I suspect the reality is a combination of all of the above. To the outsider, the club as a playing force has unravelled into a mess, the result of a negligence over the past three seasons. Whilst this means Ancelotti’s hands have been tied to an extent – he certainly can’t be blamed for the make-up of the squad he has inherited - that does not mean he should be beyond criticism.

Yesterday’s dismal performance against Blackburn – especially in the second half – reinforced question marks against Ancelotti tactically, and also his ability to influence and inspire his players. It was difficult to discern what the plan was to beat Blackburn, let alone what the plan B was. There were strange decisions from the off, too. Why was Malouda, who has been playing so well of late, played in such a withdrawn and central role? Whilst he wasn’t great defensively against Inter, why didn’t Zhirkov start at left back?

The Italian seemed incapable of changing the game once Blackburn had equalised, and the changes he did make were bewildering. Why starve the team of width and pace (which had created the goal, incidentally) by replacing Kalou with the usually ineffective Deco? The substitution narrowed Chelsea, playing into Blackburn’s hands. And why wait until the 90^th minute to bring on Sturridge? Quite aside from the idea that it puts too much pressure on a young player to have an instant impact – which I would resent, by the way – it was too little, too late. And why bring him on for Anelka rather than Mikel or a full back? By that point the game was being played in Blackburn’s half - did Ancelotti want to win?

As I wrote about after the Inter game, there was again no presence from Ancelotti on the sidelines. To repeat, I’m not saying good managers have to scream and shout. They do however need to do what they can to positively influence their players, and should any Chelsea player have glanced at their coach in the last twenty minutes yesterday they would have only seen a tired, idea-devoid looking man in a dark coat.

Like most Chelsea fans, I want to see some stability at the club. I’d like to see Ancelotti given the time to succeed, too – it’s desperately important that the club break the cycle of sacking managers as soon as something goes wrong. But, at the same time, keeping a manager for the long-term can’t be an end all on its own: keeping a good, able manager for the long-term should be. Hiddink’s run at the club last season proved how crucial a good manager can be, and how some managers can do vastly more with the same resources than others.

To make sure he gets the backing he needs, I’d like to see Ancelotti show he is capable of carving out winning gameplans (plural), making bolder substitutions from losing situations and dropping players that need to be dropped, whatever their profile. I’d like to see more inspiration from the sidelines and young players given real chances to show what they can do when the team is two or three nil up against lesser opposition. So far this season, I’d argue that there has been too little evidence, and yesterday Ancelotti wasn’t good enough.

The chase for the league isn’t over, but it is probably moving in that direction. As we get closer to that eventuality, attention will turn to what happens next or, more specifically, what Abramovich does next. An overhaul of the squad is required to correct what has gone before but, in addition to whether Abramovich has the will to do it, we will also find out whether he is willing to trust Ancelotti with the job (after all, if the manager doesn’t have a plan for 90 minutes, can he have a plan for five years?). Before the summer, the Italian will have to improve.

Ancelotti in danger of creating a Chelsea team too much in his own image

Tuesday’s Champions League encounter between Chelsea and Inter was rich in contrasts. One team dynamic, energetic; another lethargic. One side was patient and creative, the other artless. Two figures on the sidelines cut similarly different shapes: one Portuguese, involved and vocal; one Italian, calm and nonplussed.

Passionate fans – especially in the heat of the moment – are riled when their passion does not seem to be reflected in those that represent them on the pitch. If there’s one criticism that I’ve heard more often from Chelsea fans over the last few days than any other – either on this blog’s facebook page or on BBC’s 606 radio phone-in – it was of Ancelotti’s passionless demeanour as Inter shunted Chelsea out of the Champions League with minimum fuss.

Something Mourinho said just a few days ago is hugely relevant to that fan psyche. Speaking about the role of the manager come kick-off, he said that it is down to the players at that point to execute the gameplan. Crucially however, he also said that it is the role of the manager to do all he can – everything - to help his team from the touchline. At that point, it is all he can do.

It was precisely this attitude – his ongoing open-mindedness to helping his players during matches – that, for me, made him a great manager. Sometimes he might not get his first XI right, but his in-game interventions were almost always spot on. He was the master of ‘sending a message’ with a substitution, or changing a dying game with a change. He wasn’t above admitting he was wrong and screwing up the gameplan if it wasn’t working, either. His very presence would offer encouragement or admonishment, as required, to any player who happened to glance towards their bench.

Such was the efficacy of Inter’s original gameplan on Tuesday that such interventions weren’t needed. But nevertheless Jose was a typically ever-present figure on the touchline, ready to give instruction, encouragement or a warning to any players that needed it. Managers in Jose’s mould create a constant psychological and tactical hotline to their players from kick-off to full-time.

It is probably understandable that some Chelsea fans found Ancelotti’s expressionless attitude unnerving, especially when such a larger-than-life reminder of the manager they used to have was in such close proximity. Managers, of course, do have different and equally valid styles: Hiddink for example was universally loved by Chelsea fans without being a ‘Mourinho’ on the touchlines. Ferguson and Wenger combine calm with flashes of emotion and direction, while O’Neil seems on edge throughout.

Ancelotti on Tuesday night pushed the calm exterior too far until it resembled lifelessness, and the team’s performance closely mirrored that persona. Ancelotti was repeatedly pictured standing gormlessly, hands in pockets, staring across the Stamford Bridge pitch. And how often did he offer direction to his players during breaks in play?

I welcome Ancelotti’s calm persona generally, but his ageing Chelsea side typically play a slow, patient game and seem to need increasingly less excuses to put in a lax or flat performance these days. The Italian’s lack of dynamism was certainly a contributing factor to a performance that quickly went stale.

As the game ebbed away and Chelsea became increasingly desperate, the sight of Ancelotti motionless on the sidelines must have been far from inspirational. In fact, in contrast to Jose’s mantra of doing everything you can to support your players (including exuding a sense of energy and control) Chelsea players must have imagined their manager felt as lost, directionless and uninspired as they did.

The team was failing to find energy and ideas: Ancelotti did little to help them find it. As it was, Chelsea meandered towards the defeat without a solitary whimper.

We English have a habit of distrust in calm, considered managers – it certainly engendered a distrust in Sven-Goran Eriksson. We have an innate preference for loud, bullish managers, and we revere the ‘hairdryer’. It is certainly foolish to place so much faith in such a stereotype and exclude other styles, but surely the best managers should look to strike a balance? Ancelotti didn’t find that balance on Tuesday and, as Mourinho might say, his players deserved more help.

As I wrote the other day, Ancelotti hasn’t become a bad manager overnight and he’ll continue to get my support. But that doesn’t mean he’s beyond criticism. What do you think – post a comment…

Amidst the gloom, ten positives from Chelsea's Champions League Inter defeat

Since 9.40pm on Tuesday, everything written about Chelsea almost without exception has been doom and gloom. And it’s hardly surprising – after Chelsea were so comprehensively outplayed by Inter I agreed yesterday that all the evidence was pointing to the squad being in terminal decline.

So I thought I’d give us all a break and think about things a little differently (just for five minutes). What positives can Chelsea – the club and the fans – take from the defeat, if any? Put your mind to it, there are more than you think…

I’ll get back to the real business of picking apart the ramifications of the defeat later but, for now, here are the ten positives I can see. What do you think?

1) Jose is one of a kind
Chelsea and Ancelotti were outwitted on Tuesday night by one of the very best managers in the game. As they chase the Premier League and FA Cup, Chelsea should rest easier knowing that they won’t come up against such an astutely prepared team again this season.

2) Florent Malouda, Malouda, Malouda
I wrote an extended post on Malouda's excellent form earlier in the week and his performance against Inter showed he’s still got a lot to contribute. There is a real argument that, as the only player getting to defences in wide positions, he is on the current form the most influential player in the team. If only he had been better supported on Tuesday night, or had been instructed to stay wide by his manager…

3) The end of fixture congestion
It is easy to say that exiting the Champions League will mean Chelsea can devote their full attention to winning the title. Too easy, in fact – I worried earlier this week that an exit might see things fall apart between now and May. But the real benefit is the immediate easing of potential fixture congestion. Last week I looked at Chelsea’s dire (really dire) record during the busy periods of the season so far – going out to Inter means there will not be another similarly packed period before the end of the season. So important if the squad is ageing…

4) A wake-up call for Gourlay, Buck and Arnesen
Regardless of the level of investment that will follow (or needs to follow) in the summer, the Inter game has surely shattered the myth that this Chelsea team can stay competitive forever. Despite the best age-defying intentions of Chelsea’s new version of the MilanLab, hopefully this defeat will spur the management into formulating and executing some kind of plan to revitalise the squad and, crucially, starting to pay more attention to the long term.

5) We didn’t have the Bison, anyway
We lost, no complaints. But I said at the beginning of the season that injuries would determine Chelsea’s success, and who can say if Chelsea had been able to start with Essien rather than Ballack, that Tuesday’s result might not have been different. Essien has energy, dynamism and drive – all the things Chelsea were missing against Inter. He’ll be back to support the push for a trophy before the end of the season.

6) Actually, there are some complaints
It’s standard Chelsea fare these days to blame the ref: let’s stick with it. He was shocking.

7) Drogba learned a lesson
Yes, he got sent off again. But it wasn’t a ‘stamp’ (as the papers appear to enjoy reporting it), and he didn’t deserve a straight red. He was given little support from his team-mates throughout the 90 on Tuesday, and less from his manager, who allowed Inter’s defence to focus their sole attentions on stopping the Ivorian by failing to exploit wide areas. Nevertheless, and despite being persistently got at by Lucio, Drogba stuck with it to the end. And when he was sent off? No swearing. No berating the referee. He ran straight off. After the warranted flack he took for his behaviour after last season’s misdemeanours, his correct behaviour deserves at least a shred of recognition.

8) Goalkeeper crisis? What crisis?
For all the worry, Chelsea’s 25 year-old third keeper did good. He didn’t have much to do, but what he did, he did well. He certainly saved further Chelsea blushes with a fine save in the closing minutes too. It’s not the Chelsea way to give younger players a chance, but I vote for Turnbull to replace Hilario as our second keeper.

9) The calmest head on the pitch
Whilst Lampard and Ballack floundered, Mikel stuck to his usual game. Some people dislike him, but he’s improving and is finding some consistency. I’ve written recently how, as a young player, it’s crucial that Mikel be given time at Chelsea not only for the good of the team now, but also to set a good precedent for the future. In an evening of few acceptable performances, I felt vindicated after the Nigerian did alright on Tuesday. And I enjoyed his sliding tackle in the last minute, too…

10) Being the underdog is the new persecution complex
Jose made the persecution complex work so well for Chelsea whilst he was at the club – perhaps now being the underdog can work for Ancelotti’s men in the same way. Chelsea have been written off in most quarters – can the players use this to their advantage, and will rivals’ attentions be diverted elsewhere?

Does it pay to think positive - what do you think about this attempt to look on the bright side? Post a comment!

Inter Champions League defeat for Chelsea: tactical vacuum or end of an era?

After a string of European successes over the last six years, Chelsea’s insipid exit from the Champions League yesterday feels like a disaster.

The fallout will continue to play out on newspaper back pages for days yet, but Chelsea’s ignominious defeat should be laid at one of two doors: one, a tactical vacuum or two, the ultimate decline of a squad that has been mismanaged for years.

Ancelotti is suffering. Suffering under the uncomfortable comparison with the former Chelsea manager, Jose Mourinho. In defeat, the marked contrasts between the two men are easy to exaggerate and use as a stick to beat the Italian with. Regardless of those contrasts however, Ancelotti’s Chelsea were obviously far less astutely prepared than the team brought by his Inter counterpart. 

This shone through on the pitch. Overcoming a 2-1 deficit required a positive, ambitious and energised Chelsea to emerge from the starting whistle. The Chelsea on show was nothing of the kind, looking a passive, pale imitation of an Inter team constructed in an image of Chelsea’s better days. Inter hassling and harrying shook Chelsea’s supposed playmakers out of performing to such an extent that the home side’s experience was not able to translate into the required patient possession.

Rather than a spirited start to the game, Chelsea’s football was dominated by an apparent fear of conceding. What else can explain – just for example - the strange, anxious conservatism of Terry and Alex in regularly clearing the ball up the field when picking a pass to a midfield player was a viable option? Surrendering possession was equally a problem at the back as it was in midfield last night.

Chelsea’s performance in the first half was characterised by needless loss of possession and aimless free kicks from distance when playing the percentages was the order of the day. The second half was worse, as patience disappeared entirely and the team resorted to mindlessly punting the ball up the pitch to Drogba, who was forced into shouldering too much responsibility.

In summary, Ancelotti failed on two counts. Firstly, by failing to instil confidence in his team to approach the game with the right attitude. Secondly, by being unable to affect change on the field. Why couldn’t Ancelotti spot his team’s waning performance and take steps to calm his side? What is more, Chelsea’s game plan – if there was one – didn’t appear to change from minute one to minute 90. Why, when playing through the middle wasn’t working (again), didn’t Ancelotti instruct Malouda to stick to the touchline? Instead the Frenchman repeatedly looked to move inside. Why were there no efforts to stretch the Inter defence wide right? It is a sad reality that Ancelotti was unable to halt what was a 90 minute continuum of Inter control and Chelsea impotency.

While the game did point to him being a good, rather than great, tactician, criticism of the Italian shouldn’t go too far however. He played his part in a tepid performance, but on the night his side were exposed by a good Inter side expertly prepared and drilled by Mourinho. That Chelsea were so comprehensively outclassed in every part of the pitch points to a deeper problem.

Chelsea’s form since the end of November makes unpleasant reading, and points to a serious decline in the squad. Far from a knee-jerk reaction, yesterday’s loss brings into focus issues that have been bubbling under the surface for weeks now: that there are great potholes of weakness emerging throughout the aging team.

Beating Stoke or West Ham is one thing, but at the highest level a team is as weak as its weakest player. Yes, Chelsea were shorn of the likes of Essien and Ashley Cole by injury, but it now looks certain that aging has brought about the decline of too many players at the same time. Chelsea’s midfield, once the powerhouse of Europe, was lifeless yesterday in the face of Inter’s persistent harrying and Sneijder’s guile. Lacking energy and dynamism from the off, Lampard and Ballack looked tired and off the pace and all too often weren’t able to get into the box to support Malouda or Drogba. Anelka hasn’t looked on good form for weeks.

And the decline isn’t just an age issue. Chelsea have allowed the squad to become unbalanced, failing to add creativity to its now traditional blend of strength and power. With no Ashley Cole or Bosingwa in the side Chelsea look dangerously short on pace, too.

Don’t get me wrong, Chelsea haven’t become a bad side overnight. But, if the aim is to compete at the very highest level, then allowing the squad to have aged together unchecked, and become so unbalanced, represents criminal mismanagement. Perhaps it is the result of so many managerial changes, but not one of the club’s many powerful figures can claim to have executed any kind of long-term strategy. The team needed gradual refreshing since 2007, and there has been next to none; youth players needed blooding, and they haven’t been given a chance.

There always seem to be ‘too many cooks’ at Chelsea, but they’re not even making any broth to spoil. As someone (he’ll remain nameless) once said, there are different classes of eggs, and class three eggs don’t make good omelettes. Ancelotti’s ‘cooking’ wasn’t up to his opponent’s standards last night, but what chance did his omelette stand when the best eggs are suddenly so short in supply?

The fight for the league isn’t over, but it is in the balance, while the summer will be interesting.

I’m not advocating a squad revolution or spending big on ‘marquee’ signings – just a sensible, ongoing approach to refreshing the squad with good, young players before it’s too late. For more on what I think needs to happen at Chelsea, take a read of:

• The players Chelsea really need
• Arnesen’s failures lie at heart of Chelsea’s future

• Chelsea need to abandon the 'off the shelf' transfer policy

Judgement day: how Inter clash will define Chelsea season

Edging through mid-march, many big games and telling moments are looming on the horizon, but tonight’s clash against Jose Mourinho’s Inter might just define what will follow. If Chelsea get past Inter at Stamford Bridge tonight they will feel they can beat anyone; if they don’t, April and May could become a very turgid slog indeed.

Ancelotti’s Chelsea is a side riddled with inconsistencies. On the one hand, it is a team still known for its miserly defence, but it is also the side that has conceded more goals this season than in any of the previous five. Elsewhere, Chelsea look to be on course to score a club record number of goals in the league, but have still looked devoid of creativity and attacking threat in many games. This is the team that have played some exquisite passing football in fits and starts, but also the team that have all too often relied on the Didier Drogba battering ram to get results. There are more: supreme at home, dire away; irrepressible against Arsenal, weak against Man City; big in spirit, unresponsive to adversity.

Sure, some of these ‘inconsistencies’ are also strengths, but on the whole they represent how a season so rich with promise has come to stutter of late as the momentum in the Premier League was gifted to Man Utd and Arsenal.

Tonight’s match could well determine which way the season will go, which side of Chelsea’s inconsistency will prosper. By rights, Chelsea should go through: they are the better team with the greater recent Champions League pedigree. Whilst Inter have struggled to get past the second round of the competition over the past half decade, Chelsea have suffered painful exits in four semi finals and one final. Italian clubs haven’t travelled well in Europe of late, either.

But Inter looked different in the first leg at the San Siro, and were more than good enough to beat a Chelsea side not firing on all cylinders. In Mourinho they have an already very adept manager given the added bonus of knowing his opposition’s players better than their own manager does. He knows how to beat Chelsea.

Inter will play it tight. They will pack the midfield, allow Chelsea the ball and look for Eto’o, Pandev and Milito to strike on the break. Chelsea will need to be patient and, above all, disciplined – Ancelotti can’t afford for his midfield to be so generous with possession as they were in Milan.

Progress to the next round by overturning a first leg deficit and Chelsea will look forward with confidence to upcoming tricky league games against Man Utd, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Spurs. The team will have proved to itself that it is still capable of winning the most meaningful games, and will still have crucial players to return from injury to energise the squad.

Go out and, with egos and hopes bruised at the passing of the last chance to win the trophy for many players, the remaining dozen games could become a very hard slog indeed.

Cause for optimism- Chelsea have won 87% of games at Stamford Bridge, scoring 68 goals in the process. Cause for concern – Chelsea have conceded 16 goals at home this season and have only come from behind to win four times in total. How do you think tonight will go? Post a comment.

You might also like to read:

• Chelsea v. Inter - remembering Jose Mourinho

Supreme showing from Chelsea's Malouda was no coincidence or surprise

Chelsea’s 4-1 victory over West Ham on Saturday was a game of two halves. A below-par first half from Ancelotti’s men saw most of Chelsea’s players put in undistinguished performances. The second half was an altogether different game, with Chelsea finally converting their dominance of possession into chances and goals.

Florent Malouda, however, stood apart from this otherwise schizophrenic performance, consistently causing West Ham problems down the left flank from the first minute. The Frenchman’s showing caused quite a bit of fuss in both the stands and the media but, in truth, no-one should have been surprised. On the one hand, Malouda ‘has previous’ when it comes to good form. On the other, more crucial, hand his performance – and the results of that performance - was testament to what he and Chelsea can achieve when a capable player gets chalk on his boots.

Malouda had stagnated under both Mourinho and Scolari to the point where Chelsea paying £13m for his services looked like money thrown away. Under Hiddink he vastly improved however, and his very respectable return of 11 goals last season was only one part of a vastly improved contribution to the team under the Dutchman. Back in May last year I wrote a piece praising Malouda’s improvement, and suggested it was largely down to a shift in attitude that saw him take more responsibility on the pitch. You can read that post here.

In the early months of Ancelotti’s tenure it looked like that improvement may have been a false dawn and the old, less effective Malouda was back. Frustration from the stands – and probably from the management, too - grew.

For the first half of the season however, the Frenchman was locked into playing a narrow and often withdrawn role in Ancelotti’s famous midfield diamond, rarely playing as a traditional, out-and-out winger. Whenever Chelsea’s creativity as a whole was stunted by crowded midfields and narrow back fours, Malouda was arguably the greatest individual victim of the formation’s attacking flaws.

The impact of the changed formation on Malouda’s contribution to the game is marked. The images below (courtesy of the Guardian’s chalkboards) show Chelsea’s Premier League games against West Ham this season. On the left, Malouda’s passes during the dour December 1-1 in which Chelsea’s diamond looked incapable of breaking down a disciplined Hammers’ defence - in the end, Chelsea were lucky to take a point. On the right, his passes during Saturday’s routing of the same opposition. 



The difference is clear – not only was Malouda far more involved on Saturday, but he was far more involved in wider and more advanced positions. How many crosses – or even attacking passes - did he deliver into the box during the December game? None. By spreading the play wider on Saturday, Malouda was given the space to either run at the full back or whip dangerous crosses into the box from the final third. He looked a different player, and the team benefitted from more space and better service.

The benefits of playing Malouda, probably Chelsea’s only senior naturally wide attacking player (an indictment on our transfer policy, if you ask me), haven’t been lost on Ancelotti who has played the Frenchman in the last nine consecutive Premier League matches. And Malouda’s stats are starting to profit from that run in the team. In scoring nine goals, he has only been bettered by Drogba, Anelka and Lampard (and if it weren’t for penalties he would have the same number as the Englishman). Along with Drogba he has made eleven assists this season, just one less than Lampard.

On average, Malouda has scored a goal every 2.5 games this season in the league, and made an assist every 2.8. Adding assists and goals together, he has contributed a goal every 1.3 games. Lampard – who receives universal praise from Chelsea fans every game – has contributed a goal every 1.2 games, and that includes scoring six penalties.

Malouda is on course for his best season to date in a Chelsea shirt and, if Ancelotti continues to instruct him to play wide, he can play a pivotal role in Chelsea’s stuttering push for silverware. Being the only player likely to be capable of recreating anything like the magic of Robben or Duff on the wing, Malouda may just have made himself invaluable to his manager.

A Trojan horse for Chelsea youth? A focus on John Obi Mikel

John Obi Mikel is a divisive figure: half the Chelsea fans I speak to appreciate the young Nigerian, others don’t. Fans of other clubs (who don’t watch Chelsea games in full) invariably don’t rate him. The truth is however that he’s a rapidly improving player with talent beyond his years. For the benefit of both his and the club’s long-term future, it’s crucial that he now receives the backing his talent deserves.

It’s not been the smoothest of rides for Obi Mikel (or is it Mikel Obi? Those I sit with at the Bridge often call him Obi Wan) since he joined Chelsea back in 2006. His transfer itself was controversial of course, but in his first three years at the club he was sent off four times and collected more yellow cards than the Special One had press conferences. His discipline was clearly an issue, and not just on the pitch – three fines came for arriving late for training – and he seemed to be suffering from over-confidence.

Last season things worked better for Mikel however. Relied upon first by Scolari and then Hiddink – in no small part due to Essien’s horrendous injury – the Chelsea number 12 looked set to properly take the reins from Claude Makelele in the holding role, who had left the club the previous summer.

Strings of games followed and, to many at least, he was improving. Unfortunately a tendency towards inconsistency and the odd concentration lapse – from memory a couple of the goals in the 1-3 away defeat to Roma were down to his errors – came to characterise his ability for many looking to judge his progress. He was often – and is still – accused of being too negative, only able to pass sideways and a defensive liability.

It’s not hard to see why some Chelsea fans don’t rate Mikel. If the figures are to believed, Chelsea may have paid up to £16m for him (although the club’s recent exoneration in the deal to sign him might see some of that recouped), and such a high transfer fee brings greater expectation. He has been prone to lingering too long on the ball and he has had concentration lapses. Perhaps more than anything else, following the exemplary Makelele is very tall order indeed.

To judge Mikel by such standards however is neither fair nor realistic. He is just 22 years of age (he’s 23 next month), exceptionally young for a holding player, and actually shows uncommon discipline, reading of the game and awareness for someone of his age. How many players aged 22 have played 153 games in that position for such a high-profile club, all in just three and a half seasons? Not many.

And – it seems to me at least – parts of his game are starting to improve dramatically. Again because of an Essien injury, Ancelotti has given Mikel a sustained run in the first team and it is paying dividends. One or two errors aside (the header to Tevez in the Man City game, for example), he has been exceptionally consistent over the last couple of months, having a 94% pass completion rate over the four consecutive Premier League games he has played. A swashbuckling Essien he is not of course, but he has been more adventurous with his passing and is moving the ball far quicker. Perhaps this is Ancelotti’s influence – after all, we know that the Italian likes his deep-lying midfielders to operate as playmakers, hence his attempts to sign Pirlo last summer.

Above all, Mikel is starting to demonstrate an Essien-like self confidence in his own strength on the ball. Repeatedly over the past month we have seen him time and again receive the ball in close quarters in his own half, hold off two opposition players, emerge with the ball and move it forwards on to a blue shirt. Taking responsibility in such dangerous areas of the pitch certainly suggests a player growing in maturity.

Unfortunately, with that responsibility comes greater risk. Ultimately that greater risk will, occasionally, bring mistakes. And here lies the issue: are Chelsea – and not just the manager, but also the fans – ready to accept players, especially young players, making mistakes?

If we aren’t able have a little more patience to understand that young players need game time to improve, and if we can't accept that giving them time means mistakes might be made, the club will need to stick with its existing one-dimensional, limiting and expensive ‘off the shelf’ transfer strategy if it wants to stay competitive.

That will cost Chelsea not only money – money it probably doesn’t have - but also youthful drive and enthusiasm. For Chelsea’s management (and its fans), now is the time to recognise Mikel’s improvement and forgive his mistakes – the success of one young player could lead to the success of others. If they don’t though, it could reinforce the awkward precedent that youth doesn’t get a chance at the club, and present an almost insuperable barrier to rebuilding the squad for the future.

What do you think about Mikel? Please post a comment. And before I forget: bridgeviews.co.uk has been nominated for an award! Check out the nominees here - and drop the organisers a note about what Chelsea blog you like best and why...

Chelsea season in stats: an English team; ageing squad creaks and Lampard v. Scholes

After a slight break from posting at bridgeviews.co.uk the latest monthly stats article has come round extra quick, but here it is again. This time a look at the contribution of Chelsea’s English contingent, uncovering a worrying trend on Chelsea’s results during periods of congested fixtures, a close look at Lampard’s stats and why Chelsea’s league challenge has gone off the rails.

A very English team?
For years now Chelsea have been criticised for not fielding enough English players (which seems particularly galling when compared to Arsenal’s record, for example) but actually Chelsea’s English contingent form the backbone of the club’s success.

Of the 28 squad players who have made an appearance so far this season, seven (25%) have been English. Five of those players (Lampard, Sturridge, Ashley Cole, Joe Cole and Terry) have scored a total of 26 of the team’s 91 goals – nearly a third (29%). Similarly, those same players have contributed 35% of all assists. All going to plan, four over those players should travel to South Africa to represent England at the World Cup.

The ageing squad is creaking - Chelsea can’t cope with fixture congestion
Looking back over the season’s results, Chelsea’s worsening form neatly coincides with periods of particularly bad fixture congestion.

When totalling those games played in months where there have been six fixtures or less (and there have been four months – September, October, November and January) Chelsea have done well, winning 18 of 21 games (86%). Very respectable. In months where Chelsea have had seven fixtures or more (there have been two of those – December and February), performance has been decidedly worse, with Chelsea winning just five out of 15 games (33%). Not too good at all.

Make no mistake, it’s a very bad omen indeed. If Chelsea progress to the end of each competition (yes, I know that’s looking doubtful, especially in the Champions League), there are a possible 18 games remaining. With just over 10 weeks left until the last game of the season, that would mean Chelsea will be required to play an average of over 7 games a month in that time. And by way of a direct comparison, during December, when Chelsea played eight games, the record read won two, drew five, lost one. Eek. Perhaps our ageing squad is more of a problem than we think?

Lamps on target for 20
In more encouraging news, after a spate of goals over recent weeks Lampard now looks to be back on target to once again score 20 goals this season. He has currently scored 15 (albeit with six of them – 40% - coming from the penalty spot) from 37 appearances, averaging one every 2.5 games. If he continues scoring at this rate, he will need to play 49 games to go.

There are a guaranteed 12 games remaining (10 league games plus one Champions League, one FA Cup) which, coincidently, neatly adds up to 49. If Chelsea don’t progress in either cup, the pressure will be on Frank to maintain his current scoring rate if he wants to get 20 goals for an incredible fifth season in a row…

Lampard versus Scholes
Much was made of Paul Scholes scoring his 100 Premier League goal last week, joining a short list of esteemed players that includes Chelsea’s Frank Lampard. Scholes is rightly celebrated – he has been an excellent, world class player for Man Utd for many years. But it got me thinking…

In danger of going on (and on) about Frank Lampard, I thought it would be interesting to compare the scoring rate of both players. On the face of it, their records aren’t that different: Lampard made 100 Premier League goals in his 14^th season in the Premier League, Scholes in his 16^th.

Over the course of their careers, the picture changes slightly however. Lampard has a record of a goal every 3.8 games, Scholes one every 4.4. But six of Frank’s 15 seasons were at West Ham, where he only scored 24 goals over 148 appearances. In his nine seasons at Chelsea (including the current one), Lampard has scored 95 Premier League goals, averaging one every 3.3 games, over 90 minutes less than his Utd Counterpart. It took Lampard just nine seasons of top class football to reach pretty much the same total as Scholes has managed during his entire career.

Of course – before Utd fans get too irritated by the comparison – this is just one aspect of the game. There is certainly more to both Lampard and Scholes’ games than scoring goals, and potentially more so with the latter. But it is an interesting comparison nonetheless, and I suppose my argument is around how Lampard will hopefully be perceived in years to come. Like Scholes, he should be held in the highest esteem.

Terrible form since November points to failing title challenge
Why not end on a pessimistic point?

In the twelve league games since 1^st December, Chelsea have won seven games, drawn 3 and lost two, registering 24 points. That’s two points a game on average. If that rate was sustained over an entire season, Chelsea would only score 76 points, only enough to finish fourth in each of the last two seasons. Enough said.

Myopic "thin skinned" claims aimed at John Terry who spurs Chelsea to Stoke victory

“The way John Terry celebrated his goal”, began an apparently enraged caller to BBC’s 606 show on Five Live yesterday evening, “was a total disgrace. Pointing to his armband like that is an obvious insult to Fabio Capello, and he shouldn’t go to the World Cup”. As it turned out, the caller was a Stoke City supporter, whose credibility started low as he kicked-off his rant and plummeted further as he went on to assert that Chelsea were a “bad side” and that Stoke had deserved to win the game.

Spoony and Marcotti quickly put him in his place, but the bile he had already spewed about John Terry was as remarkable as it was unfounded. This morning’s papers seem confused, too.

Pretty much all of the broadsheets agree that the ongoing abuse from Stoke fans (some of it probably went a little too far) ‘got to’ John Terry, but there is some disagreement in their interpretation. Matt Hughes of the Times, for example, takes a negative view, suggesting that “the Chelsea Captain clearly remains bitter about being demoted” and that “others would have shrugged off such mindless abuse, but Terry’s skin is not the thickest”. Jason Burt of the Telegraph half agrees: “Terry can be forced into a reaction – as he was when fouling Fuller… He is not exactly on edge but there is a taughtness to his game”.

Dominic Fifield of the Guardian sees how the abuse ‘got to’ Terry differently, however. “John Terry has made his point, the visitors mustering themselves in pursuit of an equaliser, when Chelsea’s talisman barged himself into space at Frank Lampard’s corner to thump in the goal. His display for England was made to look more assured by…Matthew Upson…but he was more ruggedly impressive here”.

Which to believe? No-one can deny that John Terry ‘reacted’ yesterday – but do we characterise that reaction negatively? Personally, I can’t see how. He was markedly better than previous outings against Man City and Inter, and there was nothing uncontrolled, nothing ruffled, about his performance yesterday. Aside from his 10 second celebration at having scored Chelsea’s second, it was a calm, measured and professional showing from the Chelsea captain. If he was thin-skinned, as Hughes suggests, then a strong performance, culminating in a goal and an assist, surely wouldn’t have been the result.

In reality however, a vintage performance wasn’t required from Terry. Contrary to the assertions of the Stoke supporter on 606, Pullis’ men rarely troubled Chelsea outside of the first twenty minutes, the Blues having 62% possession and managing eight shots on goal to Stoke’s two. Alex and Ivanovic were excellent throughout, Ferreira showed he can cross with his left foot better than he can with his right and Mikel – who divides opinion – again showed that his distribution has greatly improved during his recent run in the first team. Lampard was excellent, dictating the play with ease and getting on the scoresheet in the process.

Chelsea’s form of late has been bad, and yesterday’s victory – against a team significantly less able away from home and via two deflections - isn’t enough to show that the team have even started to turn a corner. But it goes to show that, even out of form and in the face of a very significant injury list, when Chelsea manager to muster their now-characteristic defiant and professional mood they are still very hard to beat.

And as for John Terry: well, he of course remains very difficult to like – or respect – as a person. As a footballer however, he is a player with few equals (the recent headlines have granted carte blanche to his critics to lay into him unfairly on this front). Yesterday, against a good Stoke side whose brand of football is often misrepresented, he wasn’t man-of-the-match, but was a matchwinner. And if that means ‘thin-skinned’, then the definition of the phrase should be scrapped.

How did you rate John Terry's performance - and Chelsea's? Were you at the game - what did you think of the Stoke fans' berating of the Chelsea captain - too far or fair game? And Stoke fans - what did you think? Please post a comment... 

Odious Tevez adds to the farce with pointless outburst on Chelsea's John Terry

As if his behaviour during Saturday’s game wasn’t enough, Carlos Tevez has added further fuel to John Terry/ Wayne Bridge fire, a fire which had otherwise seemed to calm in recent days.

Denying that his squaring up to the Chelsea captain in the second half of Saturday’s clash had anything to do with Wayne Bridge (and who would doubt him?) the Argentine paragon of virtue went on to say in the Sun:

“It’s complicated to say something about what Terry did to Bridge. I don’t think you can do that with the wife of another player. In my opinion, Terry has no moral code for what he did.” He continued: “In my neighbourhood if you do that, you lose your legs, or more – you don’t survive”.

It’s interesting that Tevez places moral judgement on John Terry and the supposed brutal dearth of a moral code in his ‘neighbourhood’, all in one sentence. It is a pathetic, needless and rather childish attack.

The diminutive City player then turned his attention to Ballack and, unlike most footballers on the planet, didn’t shy away from revealing his hatred for another player. “I have always had problems with Ballack…it is just football, not personal issues between us. I don’t know, maybe he doesn’t like me, as I don’t like him. On the field, I have never understood what he is saying to me, but I am sure he didn’t understand me either”. He seems to have taken normal on-pitch banter – which I suspect Ballack is pretty good at - none too well.

So Tevez, you don’t like Terry or Ballack. Well we don’t like you either (I can be childish too). It’s a shame that Tevez has revealed himself as such an obnoxious, odious individual, both on the pitch – we remember the Champions League final - and off it, because in fits and starts he was quite brilliant against Chelsea on Saturday. 

As we have seen with some of Chelsea’s own (Drogba in previous years springs to mind), a player’s conduct is often more influential than their footballing ability when it comes to people forming an opinion of him. City fans won’t care – and why should they – but Tevez may just be getting it wrong.

A quick note: sorry to regular readers for bridgeviews.co.uk going under the radar over the last few weeks. All sorts of un-fun things have been going on has meant I haven’t been able to devote any time to it (I have kept the stats page up-to-date here, though). Anyway, hopefully there will be more times over the coming weeks. Anyone have any thoughts on either Tevez or the last few weeks? Please post a comment…

Chelsea season in stats: goals galore, effective Malouda and when they don't win

It’s been a funny old couple of months for Chelsea fans. A rich vein of form brought top of the league elation by the beginning of December, but turgid performances over the next few weeks saw new anxiety set in. January brought both the African Cup of Nations and some emphatic victories, but reviving fortunes were punctured by a dismal showing at Hull. In the very next game came a professional performance and a two nil win over Wenger’s Arsenal.

The top Premier League sides have been dropping more points and conceding more goals than in previous seasons, and it’s been a roller coaster ride. On the surface, however, it’s not looking bad for Chelsea who can boast a 72% win record under Ancelotti (Mourinho managed 71% in his three years), twenty clean sheets and having only failed to score once. What better time, then, for bridgeviews.co.uk’s monthly look back over the stats to look at what they can tell us about Chelsea’s progress?

Goals galore: and four players are getting all of them
In contrast to recent years, Chelsea have been prolific in front of goal this season, scoring 85 goals in total. Most have come at home, where the Stamford Bridge faithful have already celebrated 56 goals.

It’s in the league that the improvement in front of goal under Ancelotti is most marked. We are now two thirds (66%) of the way through the Premier League season and, having scored 60 goals, Chelsea are already 88% of the way towards matching the total number of goals scored last season, and 83% of the way to matching the club’s Premier League record (72). Scoring at rate of 2.4 goals per game, Chelsea are on target to score 92 over the course of the season, just five less than Man Utd’s current record of 97.

Perhaps even more surprising is that Chelsea are keeping up with their normally more attacking counterparts this season, having scored just one less than Man Utd and the same number as Arsenal. And they said our attack was ageing... 

 
Looking at the goals that have been scored however, it’s clear that the vast majority are being scored or created by four players: Drogba, Lampard, Anelka and Malouda. Between them they have scored 53 goals – 62% of all Chelsea’s goals – and made 31 assists. Drogba’s worth is clear for all to see, contributing (by way of scoring or providing an assist) a goal every 0.8 games, but Malouda’s effectiveness is perhaps more surprising. He’s made far less appearances than Drogba and Lampard (just 19, many from the subs bench) and has contributed a goal every 1.2 games. Lampard’s record stands at having contributed a goal every 1.3 games.

But a leaky defence is costing points
On the face of it, 20 clean sheets – that’s one in 56% of all the games Chelsea have played this season – looks a very good record.

If Chelsea don’t pick up any silverware this season however it will be because the defence is not what it once was. Petr Cech has been beaten 20 times in the league already this season – just four less than were conceded in all of last season combined. The club is comfortably on course for its worst defensive record in the league for five years, when 30 goals were conceded in 03/04.

A goal down? Chelsea probably won’t come back
Over the last five years Chelsea have earned a reputation for composure, resilience and mental toughness. But the stats suggest something a little different this season. In all of Chelsea’s 36 games so far this season, Ancelotti’s men have conceded the first goal 11 times (that’s nearly one in every three games). And in those games Chelsea have only come back to win four times, drawing six of them.

That might not seem so bad, but consider those stats in the face of Chelsea’s record against the so-called ‘big four’, which reads four games played, four wins, eight for zero against. Those eleven teams who have scored against Chelsea first aren’t typically the league’s best clubs, but mid to lower table opposition. The reason Chelsea aren’t further ahead of Man Utd is because of a worse than normal record against lower table opposition, and too many draws having conceded an early goal – the West Ham game being a case in point.

Playing away isn’t so easy
And no, I’m not referring to John Terry’s private life. Chelsea’s record at home – in contrast to last season – has been astonishing under Ancelotti, with 89% of all games played at Stamford Bridge ending in Chelsea victory. Chelsea have won 92% of all home league games, racking up an average of 2.9 points per game.

Away from the safety of SW6 however there is a very different picture. Chelsea have won just 50% of all away games in the league, and scored just 1.8 points per game in the process. Across all competitions, they have scored half as many goals away (21 compared to 39 at the Bridge) and concede more, too (12 compared with 8). Only a third of Chelsea’s clean sheets have come on their travels.

Many of the stats above can be rationalised – you can understand why they’re working out that way. Many, for example, have speculated that Drogba’s increased return is down to him being more consistently partnered with Anelka or Ancelotti understanding how to ‘man manage’ him. But the difference between home and away performance – such a dramatic change on last season’s form – is more difficult to explain. I’ll be posting on this later in the week. In the meantime, if you have any ideas why Chelsea’s luck is drying up away from home, please post a comment.

You might also be interested to read:

• How the stats looked in January: prolific scorers and losing form
• How the stats looked in December: all or nothing football and the trouble with playing away

No Mr Wenger, Chelsea did give Arsenal a 'football demonstration'

Wenger’s post-match comments yesterday seemed unfathomable following another defeat to Chelsea, but he gives himself little choice but to adopt such a stubborn demeanour. In the face of such a carbon-copy defeat in which Arsenal’s weaknesses were again so clinically exposed, the Frenchman really has nothing left to fall back on but a defence of footballing aesthetics.

Despite the scoreline – the second time this season his team have failed to score past Petr Cech – Wenger nevertheless insisted his team were ‘completely dominant’ at Stamford Bridge yesterday.

He said: “You have to congratulate Chelsea but we did not get a demonstration of football. But Chelsea were very efficient. We had mountains of possession and could not create it into a goal. We had 70 per cent of the possession. We were not running after the ball for 90 minutes. We were not in a position where we were dominated. We were always in an attacking position and had to risk things going wrong. Our spirit was great. I am completely happy with the performance and the spirit.”

Wenger also added: “They (Chelsea) are very experienced at the back. They make the foul at the right part of the pitch, in the middle of the pitch, to stop a counter-attack. A little push, not enough to be a yellow card. They have a lot of tricks and are very experienced. They do that very well. They got one or two decisions from the referee."

It is Wenger’s suggestion that Chelsea did not give a ‘demonstration of football’ that is, to me, most telling. To him there is only one definition for the game, one way in which it should be played. Whilst we should respect the football that his Arsenal side sometimes produce, the weaknesses in his team created by his single-mindedness should be met by derision in equal measure.

It’s often written about, but in contrast to their north London rivals Chelsea offer a far more complete brand of football. Ancelotti’s team – yes, to an extent courtesy of some very significant expenditure between 2003 and 2006 – have a rich blend of skill, pace, tactical maturity, composure and strength. Against the better teams, Arsenal seem only capable of bringing the first two to the table, and in those circumstances only a perfect performance is likely to yield results.

Chelsea certainly weren’t at their best yesterday, but their more complete brand of football – centred around a club ethos that values winning first - saw them through. That’s not to say of course that there weren’t glittering performances across the pitch: Lampard’s distribution was excellent, and his commitment in the tackle exemplary. Ballack’s radar was occasionally a little off, but he was tireless in midfield and must have covered more ground than any other player. Mikel’s first 45 minutes were probably his best for the club, and the defence – particularly Ashley Cole – were a picture of concentration and professionalism.

And, of course, it was a superlative performance from Drogba, who is surely the league’s best player this season despite Rooney’s reinvigorated showings.

Arsenal did dominate possession (although nothing like to the extent Wenger suggested at around 58%) and yes, they did show good spirit, but both are immaterial. Chelsea knew how to play them and set their stall out to render that possession and spirit redundant in the knowledge that if it didn’t work for Arsenal the game was there for the taking. Both teams had similar numbers of shots on goal yesterday, but it’s no coincidence that Chelsea managed four more inside the penalty box than Arsenal.

So actually – and contrary to Wenger’s assertions – it was Chelsea that gave the ‘footballing demonstration’ to Arsenal yesterday. It was a demonstration of football being all that it can be: a pass, a tackle, a driving run into the box, a steadfast concentration in defence or an intelligent ploy to break an opponent’s move down. Who knows, next time the teams line up against big four opposition it might all click for Arsenal and they’ll get the win they’re looking for - but it remains unlikely while Wenger refuses to play the percentages.

After yesterday’s elation at Stamford Bridge, long may his obduracy continue.

What Chelsea fans really think about John Terry scandal and England captaincy

Journalists have had their say on John Terry – both the allegations and the likely fallout – and so has Sports Minister Gerry Sutcliffe MP. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people have heard and been influenced by the views of these qualified individuals.

But what about the people who watch football week-in, week-out, people who have invested time and money in the game? What are their views? Over the weekend, I asked for the views of the more than 3,000 Chelsea fans this blog is connected with on facebook. There were more than 130 responses within just half an hour.

Broadly, and as you would expect from a group made up exclusively of Chelsea fans, there is support for John Terry. But the extent to which people are prepared to overlook his off-field misdemeanours varies wildly, with some feeling deeply ashamed of their captain’s actions while others are ready to ignore them.

Either side of the debate, it’s certainly an issue that kicks up some emotional responses. Here are the pick of them.

Terry supporters

“I still think he's a top man. He's just human”

“Chelsea are my team and passion. What happens off the pitch is no business of true fans”

“I can’t believe you’re disappointed in him. he's still our captain, leader and legend”

“So that stuff is actually true? I don't really believe it, JT has been attacked by the press numerous times since he became captain and I think it's just one of those times”

“Other players did the same thing. Why blamed only JT? Don't tell me it’s because he is captain of England”

“Blimey people, do we REALLY have a right to judge him and his personal life? and more importantly do we really know ALL THE FACTS to talk about him and insult him that way??”

Terry sceptics

“There’s been no real mention of what Wayne Bridge probably went though, he probably left Chelsea because of it and now I doubt he wants play for England when given the chance. Not only did JT ruin Bridge’s relationship, he also played a part in messing with his career. Terry has a highly questionable character and as soon as Chelsea fans realise that the better! You all seem to think the press has it in for him, but have a look at all the things he's ever done, not just this. He's a disgrace and I'm ashamed to call him the captain of my club and country”

“As shown here whatever JT does the majority of Chelsea fans will worship him, and we wonder why no one likes us - it has nothing to do with our recent success. Terry’s not even our best centre back for god’s sake! He's a good leader but who would really want him as their leader after hearing this and what he's done to a fellow teammate? Bring back the good old days of the 90s Chelsea”

“I don’t think these are just allegations. Yes I agree this doesn’t change his performance on the pitch and he’s still a great captain, but there are certain boundaries. It’s not like this is the first time he’s done something absolutely stupid. People all over look up to him and then he just goes and lets us down”

"Affairs are par for the course in life." Well that's ok then. Listen, I'm not suggesting we abandon JT. I wouldn't take the England captaincy from him either. But that's not to say we can't - or shouldn't - be disappointed with his behaviour. And, on a very practical level, he should be more savvy and realise that someone in his position is more vulnerable to their mistakes than you or I”

On the England captaincy

“Why sack him from being England captain? These things happen 100 times day in people’s lives. It’s just because he’s high profile - if he played for a lower league club it wouldn’t make the papers”

“He Should Stay As England Captain! He is The Best man For The Job tbh”

“This will not have any effect on John Terry's Chelsea career but probably does spell the end of his England captaincy. Despite the fact that he is the only natural leader in the England squad, many think that because of his past, his family, etc he's image is not what they want for England captain. Now he's done something that can genuinely effect the mood in the England dressing room, there will definitely be people pressing for him to go.”

“He is simply the best man to lead England to victory, don’t let his private life get in the way”

“Let’s Hope the captaincy goes to franky lamps! not Rooney, Gerrard or Rio.”

“As England/ Chelsea captain it’s about setting an example as he is a role model to youngsters. It’s a tough one, give Lamps the armband for England, Terry’s not even our best defender!!”

On the media

“There’s an appalling holier than thou article in the Telegraph saying that he must resign now. They should be critical of the witch-hunt the NotW are leading against him. Could the NotW not wait until after the world cup? I mean I admit his parents are clearly very dodgy and he's not the sharpest knife in the box when it comes to the people he surrounds himself with but why expect him a footballer to have a squeaky clean existence? He's immaculate on the field. A great player and a true pro. Surely the constant investigative rubbish is intrusive and ultimately counter productive?”

“The Media don't care if they kill his career. As long as they're getting paid for the stories the expose. Absolute roaches”

“They can't unsettle us on the field so will dig as much dirt as they can off it. Chelsea are offering their full support to JT and so should we. No-one is perfect. Should he be stripped of Chelsea and/or England captaincy over these allegations'? absolutely not. This goes on all the time and if everyone who did it lost their status in the workplace or their jobs, the dole payouts would be unaffordable”


What do you think – agree with any of the above? Post a comment.

You might also be interested to:

• Read why money, not morality will lose Terry the England captaincy
• Link up with www.bridgeviews.co.uk on facebook

Money not morality will cost Chelsea's John Terry the England captaincy

This one is going to rumble on and on. The papers are desperately trying to tell us that the pressure on Terry to resign the England captaincy is growing, almost oblivious to the fact that it is indeed they that are manufacturing the storm. The one real exception to that is Gerry Sutcliffe MP, the Sports Minister, who today inexplicably added to the squall by calling for the FA to take a stance on the Terry issue and suggesting Terry’s actions weren’t becoming of an England captain.

Why on earth is he getting involved? What has it got to do with him? Firm proof that the issue is spiralling far out of control, and may well end up costing John Terry his England captaincy.

Ironically however, for all the talk of John Terry’s leadership and command in the dressing room being called into question over his alleged dubious morality, the papers are largely missing the point. Surely the primary driver behind John Terry losing the England captaincy – rather than a loss of respect from team-mates or any sporting reasoning – will be a factor far more powerful than Fabio Capello’s opinion: money. 

Imagine you’re Umbro. Or Nationwide. Or whatever England sponsor the FA are wheeling out next week. How do you feel about your investment being tarnished in the eyes of your customers by association with a man of John Terry’s rapidly declining status? Would you want your brand associated with his image? In the case of Umbro for example, John Terry has always fronted the launch of all new England strips. To have John Terry leading an Umbro-sponsored launch would imply tacit support of John Terry – and his lifestyle - from Umbro, support they almost certainly wouldn’t want to give.

Tiger Woods sets the precedent here. After his similar fall from grace, arguably the world’s biggest sportsman was dropped by a myriad of the world’s largest brand names including Gillette, Accenture, Pepsi, Tag Heuer and AT & T within weeks of his misdemeanours hitting the headlines.

Perhaps – perhaps - John Terry’s situation is slightly different – the likes of Umbro are sponsoring a team, not an individual. It is possible too that sponsors have very different expectations of footballers than golfers. But it’s very likely marketing chiefs at those organisations will err on the side of caution, and threaten to pull the plug if Terry is not removed. If that happens the FA will probably have no choice but to force Capello’s hand.

As each new John-Terry-love-rat headline appears, so the potential damage to sponsors’ brands – as they see it – grows. Far more than their efforts to suggest team-mates are turning against him, this is by a margin the greatest damage journalists can do to John Terry’s prospects of leading his country in South Africa. In my view, John Terry is the only man for the job. But all the speculation around when Capello will make his decision on the captaincy could well be a red herring.

In reality, the Italian might end up not even having a choice - in which case Terry might have to hang up his Umbro-endorsed England boots for good.

You might also be interested to read:

• Terry rescues Chelsea Ladies FC to prove he has a heart
• Remembering the good side of John Terry

Amidst the scandal, remembering the good side of Chelsea's John Terry

It's been a big weekend for John Terry. Since news that a High Court Injunction granted last week had been lifted broke on Friday afternoon, rumours and headlines about the Chelsea and England captain have been rife.

He has been castigated in all quarters as national newspapers, football pundits and pub-goers alike have all taken turns to pass judgement on the star's private life - qualified as they are to do so.

Like many Chelsea fans, I was certainly very disappointed to hear the stories as they emerged on Friday evening. It's saddening to see a player who you have supported and held in such high esteem supposedly make so great a mistake, and it is very easy to feel sympathy for Wayne Bridge, whose feelings have been entirely neglected by the newspapers so keen to get one over on John Terry.

Publicity disasters flow from Chelsea Football Club and its employees like water from a dripping tap.

At the end of the day though, this really is none of our business. Yes, the job of England captain does demand setting standards both on and off the pitch, but there are boundaries over which the media intrusion should not invade. The bottom line is that we - 'we' being either journalists or just the man on the street - are in no position to pass judgement on John Terry's private life.  
 
The debate over John Terry's actions is everywhere. There's relatively little I can usefully add to the mix (though I'm sure I'll try over the coming days). But, as the criticism reaches a crescendo, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the better side of John Terry: him as a professional, as a leader.

Despite the accusations of fans of other teams, Terry is a defender of unquestionable quality. He has twice been voted the best defender in the Champions League (2005 and 2008), and was considered the best player in the Premier League by his peers in 2005. He was also included in the FIFPro World XI for four consecutive seasons between 2005 and 2008, and his international exploits led to him being named in the all-star squad for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. 

Most recently Terry was named in the UEFA 2009 team of the year (the only Englishman to do so), a compilation of players put together by over four million fan votes. The Sun seemed pretty proud of our JT when they reported the news just last week. 

At club level, he has been by far Chelsea's most successful captain, winning two league titles (on the way being a crucial part of the best defence ever to grace the Premier League), two FA Cups and two League Cups. He's also steered the club to a seemingly endless number of Champions League semi finals and its first ever final. 

And in a footballing context he is a proven leader. Chelsea managers Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Hiddink and latterly Ancelotti - managers who have between them won untold numbers of league titles, four European Cups and one World Cup - all chose Terry as their captain without a moment's hesitation. England managers McLaren and Capello (himself a European Cup winning coach) all identified Terry as the man for the job. 

And those leadership skills are evident to see. Since he took the captaincy back in the summer of 2004, a truly special team spirit has emerged at Chelsea, and with it a never-say-die team spirit in the image of it's captain. He himself has had a number of hurdles to overcome - some of them self-inflicted, yes - but he has time and again overcome them on the pitch. 

Yesterday's performance against Burnley was one such example. At the moment it's is certainly difficult to 'admire' John Terry the man, but rather easier to admire him as a footballer. He wasn't called on to do much yesterday, but he didn't put a foot wrong. His goal was a classically John Terry - a powerful bullet header of the type we haven't actually seen from him for a long while, and a great response to adversity.

None of this takes away from what he has supposedly done, and most of all won't take anything away from how his alleged actions have hurt people around him. From that perspective, I guess that some of the outrage is understandable to a point. But the crucial thing is that John Terry is a footballer, and isn't it in that field that he should be judged? 

And, as it happens, he's rather good at it.

What do you think? Post a comment...  

Chelsea 3 Birmingham 0 - match report and analysis from the fans

One side came to Stamford Bridge last night with a fifteen match unbeaten record in the league – and it wasn’t Chelsea. Alex McLeish’s Birmingham have had a great season so far and many Chelsea fans – me included – felt yesterday’s must-win game would be a tough encounter for Chelsea.

As it was, Chelsea put three goals past their opponents without ever looking like getting out of second gear. Birmingham’s defence shot the team in its collective foot on six minutes by failing to pick up Malouda’s run into the box and, from that moment, the game never really looked in doubt save for a ten minute spell in the second half.

To shake things up, bridgeviews.co.uk has drawn together a virtual panel of football fans – of both Birmingham and Chelsea – to talk through last night’s game: where it was won (or lost, in Birmingham’s case); the managers’ tactics; the man and villain of the match; and the moment of the game.

Those submitting views included Joe and Chris of Eastern Blues, a club set up for Chelsea supporters in Norfolk; Josh, a member of Chelsea in America, who had to get up early Kentucky-time to get his thoughts over; Deirdrie, a long-time Chelsea fan I ‘met’ over on the bridgeviews.co.uk facebook page; Paul, a season ticket holder in the Matthew Harding upper; and Kev, a true gent and a writer over on the Birmingham City FC blog called Joys and Sorrows.

You can read all the match reports in the newspapers you like, but these are the views that really matter – those of the fans. We often know better anyway. Read and digest. And if you would like to read the views of fans more often drop a comment below – I’m considering setting up group of fans to regularly report back on matches on this site. Let me know if this is a good idea, how it could be improved and, if you’re a Chelsea regular, if you’d like to be involved…

Where was the game won?

“The quality of our possession seemed to be too much for Birmingham to handle tonight. But for five minute spells in each half, I thought we looked comfortable with Birmingham not really offering a threat. They've gained a reputation for being an extremely organised side this season, able to see out 1-0 victories like we did under Mourinho, but they're not as good at chasing the game yet. Being two up by half time gave us the confidence to see the rest of the game out.”
Chris, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Formidable might be the word to best describe the way we played. A great result made even better by Arsenal failing to win!”
Deirdrie, Chelsea fan since 1964

"Birmingham, for all their great results of late, haven't played away to a team of our strength during that run. Basically we were the better side and we made our quality count by doing what we do best: holding the ball for long periods, moving it around patiently but purposefully, making hte other team chase us and enforcing our tempo on the game. It's hard to imagine how demoralising that must be for opponents. Of course, we were afforded that luxury by the fact we scored early."
Paul, season ticket holder, Matthew Harding upper

“In the midfield. It’s good to see the Lampard of old—we’ve missed him. There’s no doubt he’s been a presence on the pitch all season, just not necessarily as a scoring machine. Well, no more. His two goals against Birmingham were absolute beauties. And let’s give Deco his due. I’ve never felt like he’s really fit in well at Chelsea, but last night he showed he’s still got it.”
Josh, Chelsea in America member, Kentucky USA

“Ball retention, Birmingham just could not get possession.”
Joe, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Last night’s match was a lesson in clinical football, you have to take your hat off to Chelsea, they were awesome. The strength they have through their side is frightening! I genuinely believe they will win this league. We did look tired, but I think that was more to do with the fact we were chasing blue shirts all over the pitch. To be honest, it could have been a lot worse, we could have had a Sunderland experience. We did battle hard in the 2nd half, and I thought it was credit to the side that we prevented Chelsea from scoring more than one goal.”
Kev, Writer for Joys and Sorrows, Birmingham City FC blog

Views on the managers’ tactics – starting XI, formation and substitutions

“I think Carlo made the right move in going with a Christmas tree for this game as it helped us to keep the ball away from Birmingham and give them minimal opportunity to catch us on the break. The fluidity of the formation is very impressive, and it's interesting to see Joe Cole drifting towards the right to give us the width on that side we miss slightly with Bosingwa still out injured. With our three specialist defensive midfielders missing, I was a little concerned about how Deco would deal with Birmingham's runs from deep; he did OK, but I hope Mikel is back in time for Arsenal.”
Chris, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Last night, I think it was more about how Chelsea passed the ball with clinical accuracy and the performance of key players. Their interplay was wonderful to watch to be honest – and they outplayed us all over the field. I thought Cole was brilliant and Lampard and Deco played really well too. It was a lesson of how to play with a fluid formation.”
Kev, Writer for Joys and Sorrows, Birmingham City FC blog

"Playing Deco in holding midfield rather than Ballack was an excellent move because of the way Birmingham play so deep. I would have liked to see Carlo give Matic 5-10 minutes, as it annoys me when we don't use all our subs, but I'm nit-picking."
Paul, season ticket holder, Matthew Harding upper

“He played a 4-3-3, which gave the team width and space, which against teams of a lower standard is always a good tactic, however Anelka was isolated. I was disappointed not to see Sturridge start as he has impressed recently.”
Joe, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“I’m loving the 4-3-3. Joe Cole has come alive out wide. Malouda is back in the mix—and on the score sheet. Lamps, Deco and Ballack are more comfortable, too. And with the added threat of Ashley Cole and Ivanovic, pushing forward, we not only look unstoppable—but beautiful, too. As happy as I am to have Drogba back for Burnley this weekend, I almost hate to see the 4-3-3 go away. Even though we won early in the season with the diamond, we rarely looked this dominating. I read somewhere after the Sunderland game that Roman had finally got his wish—a high scoring, free-flowing team that wins. Based on the last few results, I’d say it’s true.”
Josh, Chelsea in America member, Kentucky USA

Man of the match, villain of the match

“I thought Dann did well, and Michel looked promising when he came on. He looks like he will be a really good player. Hart pulled off a couple of very good saves too. Man of the match for Chelsea is a tough one, I'd struggle to choose between Cole, Lampard and Deco.”
Kev, Writer for Joys and Sorrows, Birmingham City FC blog

"Man of the match for Chelsea was a toss-up between Deco and Malouda for me. Two of our most heavily criticised players, but they were both excellent. Deco not only made us tick in midfield, but has been tenacious and committed defensively for the last two games, something Chelsea fans love to see. Malouda has fantastic ability and is starting to reach the levels he did under Hiddink. Villain for me was Joe Cole. I know, I know: he did fantastically for the first goal, but he again descended into a series of pointless flicks and wasted positions. If Deco played like he did then boy, would he get barracked".
Paul, season ticket holder, Matthew Harding upper

“I think all of our players played well tonight so it's difficult to pick a stand-out performer. If I had to, I'd give it to Lamps for his two goals - he's well on the way to his usual twenty for the season! No one on either side was a villain really, so I'll give it to Ivan for his Bond baddie henchman look!”
Chris, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“If I had to single anyone out, Malouda was immense and would get my Man of the Match, Joe Cole was involved here there and everywhere again which was great to see and as ever Lamps was instrumental in midfield. The whole team played well, fast-paced, flowing and attacking football. Just what Roman ordered!”
Deirdrie, Chelsea fan since 1964

“Man of the match for Chelsea was Lampard, 2 cracking strikes although no player particularly stood out. A Cole and Ivanovich had solid games, as did Ballack, and Anelka as usual never gave the ball away. Villain was Joe Cole, started well and went downhill. 9 times out of 10 tries the difficult option when the simple one would have been more affective and as a result keeps loosing possession. Man of the match for Birmingham, Joe Hart. Looks like a great prospect for England and needs to be in the World Cup squad. Villain, James Mcfadden, had a poor game and miss Birmingham’s only real opening by a long way.”
Joe, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Until the last few minutes of the match, I would have given it to Joe Cole. First half he looked great. He simply outpaced Bowyer for the assist to Malouda, and his hard work on the ball and off for the first 45 was great to see. He did look fatigued going into the last 30 minutes—something you can’t say about Lampard. Frankie’s run that led to his second goal was the epitome of heart and desire. He wanted that goal. For him. For the team. For the Bridge. And he got it. For that, he’s my MoM. As for Villain of the Match, it was a pretty civil game. Very few fouls. The reffing was pretty spot on. I guess I’d give it to the whole Chelsea team—for ruining a pretty impressive unbeaten streak by Birmingham, a team no one gave much of a chance at the start of the season. Don’t get me wrong, I was well pleased to see Chelsea take the win, but it’s always nice to see a smaller club work hard and get results. Heck, it wasn’t too awfully long ago that smaller team was Chelsea.”
Josh, Chelsea in America member, Kentucky USA

Moment of the match?

“Frankie’s second goal. Beautifully executed from the get go, plus it put the game away. It showed our pace and our team work, not to mention put Super Frank a goal closer to 20 this season.”
Josh, Chelsea in America member, Kentucky USA

“Undoubtedly Malouda's opening goal. If we hadn't scored early, Birmingham would have grown in confidence as the game stayed goalless, possibly thinking they could have come away with a draw, so that goal was vital in allowing us to settle down quickly and control the structure of the game.”
Chris, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Everyone will talk about the moments that decided yesterday’s match, but to sneak a negative in: we must stay focused at the back, one piece of over-confident play tonight ended up with Cech having to make a brilliant save, ok the game was won at that stage really but it was unnecessary.”
Deirdrie, Chelsea fan since 1964

"Malouda's goal set the tone for the evening, but the break for the 3rd goal was poetry in motion and epitomised everything we did well all night. Deco - tenacious, creative, deft; Malouda - driving, quick, powerful; Frank - well, he was Frank. Brilliant."
Paul, season ticket holder, Matthew Harding upper

“John Terry’s tackle and fantastic pass all in one motion midway through the first half to release Joe Cole, if he’d had pulled the ball back to Lampard, who was unmarked on the edge of the box, instead of crossing, it should have been a goal.”
Joe, member of Eastern Blues, supporters club for Chelsea fans in Norfolk

“Going a goal down was a killer to be honest, although we did have a decent 1st 10 minutes. Jerome had a decent effort that was deflected over and we had a shout for a penalty turned down. If we had scored, it might have made it interesting. Mind you, you can’t help but think that it would have only made Chelsea VERY cross!”
Kev, Writer for Joys and Sorrows, Birmingham City FC blog

Chelsea v Birmingham: an opposition fan's view on the game, the Bridge and Lampard

After Saturday’s FA Cup exploits – when Chelsea put in a professional performance to see off Preston North End – Chelsea are now nearing a return to the nitty-gritty of Premier League action. Wednesday’s visitors are Alex McLeish’s rapidly improving Birmingham.

It won’t be an easy game – just a month ago Birmingham ground out a nil-nil draw with an uninspired Chelsea who, despite Lampard and Anelka missing good chances, never really looked like snatching all three points. Birmingham’s defence played astutely that day, effectively nullifying Chelsea’s narrow attack.

It’s almost a must-win game for Ancelotti’s Blues, who suddenly find themselves trailing both Man Utd (two more points, two games in hand) and Arsenal (same points, one game in hand). Winning against Birmingham could see Chelsea open up an important gap on Arsenal who might suffer during a patch of difficult games. 

In preparation for tomorrow’s game, we caught up with Mike from joysandsorrows.co.uk - a Birmingham City blog – to get the inside view on tomorrow night’s encounter from the perspective of the opposition. Feel free to take offence at his finely chosen words on Frank Lampard…

How do you think Chelsea are doing this season? Why?
I think Chelsea are doing exactly how they would have been expected to do. I tipped them to win the league at the start of the season and I've not changed my mind. It will be a good fight with Arsenal and United though which will go down to the wire. You could well end up with the league and cup double this year. I'm still tipping Barcelona for the Champions league though.

You weren't that impressive when you came to ours on Boxing Day but you've picked it up a bit since then.

Who would you see as Chelsea’s player(s) to watch for on Wednesday?
Nicolas Anelka has been in great form of late and will trouble us with his pace. As we will probably sit deep to counter this we will have to watch out for shots from distance which are of course Frank Lampard's speciality. You know if deflected shots were always given as own goals he would barely have scored any.

Where will Chelsea finish?
Top and FA Cup winners. Losing semi-finalists in the Champions League.

Have you been to Stamford Bridge before, and what was your experience?
I've only been there on a work function so have seen the ground but not when a match was on. I usually avoid it as it's the most expensive away day. This year you want £48 for a game on a Wednesday night...shocking.

Who's been Birmingham’s player of the season so far?
Bowyer and Ferguson in midfield have surprised a lot of people but our success has been built on our defence marshalled by Roger Johnson. He has been immense all season and has found a great partner in Scott Dann. I could see them both getting England call ups before too long.

Prediction for the game?
I think we will keep it competitive for about seventy minutes but then Lampard will score with a deflected shot or a dodgy penalty and the game will end 1-0.

If you’re ever interested in more of the latest news and views on Birmingham City FC, then visit Joys and Sorrows and get the fans’ perspective. Meanwhile, are you a Chelsea or Birmingham fan taking issue with Mike’s pre-match analysis? Post a comment…

Premier League prediction: Champions Chelsea 85 points, Man Utd 83, Arsenal 80

By virtue of the weather, Chelsea found themselves knocked off top spot in the Premier League last week as Arsenal swept Bolton aside at the Emirates. In turn, Manchester Utd scored four against a hapless Hull to secure the lead for themselves at the weekend whilst Chelsea and Arsenal concerned themselves with the FA Cup –with varying degrees of success.

Those football fans expecting a form of pass the parcel to kick-off at the top of the table – much as has been the case with fourth place – are likely to be disappointed as the season progresses. Games in hand should even themselves out in the next couple of weeks, by which point we’ll probably have a far greater idea of where the Premier League trophy will end up come May.

Well that’s my view at least. A disappointing December eroded the optimism I had uncharacteristically built up about Chelsea’s chances and, despite outstanding performances against Watford and Sunderland (and a professional one against Preston), I’m still harbouring concerns that Chelsea will have to be at their most consistent best to win the league this year. Unlike many, I refuse to write United off and still see them as the most likely destination for the trophy alongside Ancelotti’s Chelsea. Begrudgingly I also have to admit that, in addition to playing some quality football, Arsenal have looked more threatening this year.

But I decided to put this pessimism to the test – to try and find out where it was coming from. I looked up the BBC’s Premier League predictor – which allows you to input scores for each of the remaining games this season and calculate the final league table. Did my pessimism match what I thought each individual result would be?

As it turns out, I’m really not that pessimistic. After predicting who-knows-how-many results for forthcoming Premier League games, I was almost surprised to see that, at least subconsciously, I still expect to see John Terry lifting the title for Chelsea come the end of this season.

My predictions led to Chelsea finishing top of the table with 85 points, Man Utd finishing second with 83 and Arsenal third with 78. Liverpool get fourth place by virtue of finishing with 69 points, four points ahead of Villa. For those more concerned about the bottom of the table, I had Bolton, Portsmouth and Hull as the unlucky three due relegation.

Coincidentally, 85 points is pretty much the figure Chelsea are on course for at the moment (I keep a record of what Chelsea’s potential points total could be, based on results to date, on the Chelsea stats page here). It wouldn’t be the highest points total in history, but it’s been a strange season in the Premier League. 

There’s room for manoeuvre, too – the total figure includes only draws with Birmingham (home), Arsenal (home), Everton (away), Man United (away), Man City (home), Spurs (away) and Liverpool (away). It does however rely on beating Aston Villa at home and anticipates going the rest of the season unbeaten: on recent evidence, highly unlikely.

Of course my final tally also relies on Chelsea’s closest rivals dropping points, too. I supposed that Arsenal would drop points to Villa (away), Man United (home), Stoke (away), Birmingham (away), Spurs (away), Fulham (home) and Man City (home). I reckoned Utd would drop points to Villa (away), Everton (away), Liverpool (home), Arsenal (away) and Man City (away).

There are some fairly big assumptions in there, and it’s almost guaranteed that Arsenal and Man Utd won’t drop points in so many games. But nevertheless I still surprised myself with my own optimism – so who knows what the end result will be. But, with Chelsea temporarily (we hope) falling to third, the chase is most certainly on…

It’s obviously a flawed way of predicting who will claim the title, but no less than any other. I’m keen for Chelsea fans to fill out their own <honest> predictions for the rest of the season on the BBC predictor here. Come back here and post the top four as you predict it, with final points scores, below: let’s see how optimistic we are collectively…

To sign or not to sign? Chelsea's Joe Cole

There's been plenty of newspaper speculation over the past few weeks about Joe Cole, who is edging his way towards been out of contract. Whilst the club's senior representatives have pained themselves to make it clear that getting the attacking midfielder on a new contract is both a priority and a likelihood, this hasn't prevented the rumours from circling Stamford Bridge. But how keen should Ancelotti, Gourlay and Buck be to sign him up? 

The most common of all the rumours is that Joe Cole, now returning to (fairly) regular football for Chelsea, is demanding a payrise to £120,000 a week. You can't believe everything you read when it comes to reported wages - I remember Liverpool fans getting very hot under the collar a few months back when I commented on gossip suggesting Glen Johnson was on £140k a week - and the papers are only guessing half the time. Needless to say, the figures being touted around about the Chelsea favourite are proving divisive with fans. 

Each year, pretty much all of us want - and think we deserve - a payrise from our employer. We probably wouldn't expect a 20% payrise - the minimum figure which Cole is reportedly looking for - put a payrise nonetheless. Perhaps Joe is entitled to the same view?

As many Chelsea fans have pointed out on football chatboards and forums (and even over on this blog's facebook profile page), however much they appreciate him and his time at the club Joe Cole has hardly been a regular over the past couple of seasons. Bad luck with injuries has left him sidelined for long periods, and last season he only made 13 appearances in total. If anyone in regular employment had been unable to work for ten months out of twelve, they likely wouldn't be too hopeful of a decent payrise come the end of the year. 

Since his welcome return, Cole hasn't been at his scintillating best, either, contributing four assists and one goal - compared to six goals and seven assists for Malouda, five goals and four assists for Kalou or three goals and one assist for Deco. Those stats don't make spectacular reading, and intuitively I suspect his best performances this season have come when Chelsea have already put opposition out of the game.

On the other hand, Ancelotti has been easing Joe Cole back into the team gradually. Probably wise after such a serious injury, but building up form can't be easy under those circumstances.

Form aside however, there is another significant bargaining chip working in Cole's favour. Chelsea have a real dearth of players of his type - someone who will take a man on or play that extra creative, speculative pass. Through adding a little 'fantasy' to Chelsea's play, Cole has found himself one of a kind at the club, and therefore harder to part with. Abramovich's supposed desire for sexier football must also be making it difficult for the money men to make the argument for Cole's wages not deserving to elevate beyond their current level - especially with a range of other suitors lining up for his services.

Chelsea fans are divided on Joe Cole's contract. Most, if not all, see him as a quality player feeling his way back to form who Chelsea should work hard to ensure stays at the club. I for one see him as an infinitely preferable option to the likes of Deco, for example, and replacing him in today's market would surely be an expensive task. Perhaps more than anything else, Joe is Chelsea through-and-through, and has repeatedly stated how much he sees playing for the club as a priviledge - a kind of commitment not always found in today's game.

Many fans, me included, agree however that any new deal needs to represent value for money for the club and, regardless of his allegiance and poor fortune with injuries, his recent record doesn't warrant a significant payrise. 

Hopefully all the media chatter is just a result of his agent chancing his arm (it probably is), and we'll hear news of Joe signing a new, reasonable contract in the coming weeks. 

What do you think? Post a comment... 

Why the African Cup of Nations is the best thing to happen to Chelsea

Since the season began – and Chelsea made such a good start to their Premier League campaign – much has been made of the potential impact of this month’s African Cup of Nations on Ancelotti’s title hopes. The loss of the influential Drogba and Essien, who have scored 23 goals and made 8 assists for Chelsea so far this season between them, would surely spell disaster for Chelsea’s title charge. On top of that, the loss of key squad players Mikel and Kalou would – supposedly - weaken the Chelsea challenge further.

Those players are a significant loss - it’s unlikely that any side in the world could lose £74m of talent and not be affected. More significant of course, could be the news emerging over the last couple of days that Michael Essien has once again suffered a knee ligament injury while on international duty with Ghana and will not only miss the entire African Cup of Nations but very likely a minimum of 2-4 weeks for Chelsea.

In the midst of the prophecies of African Cup of Nations doom that have circled Stamford Bridge over the past weeks and months however, I’m hopeful that the competition could well be the best thing that’s happened to Chelsea all season, for one key reason.

Whilst giving Ancelotti credit for a fine start to his managerial career at Chelsea, I have also repeated my belief on this blog that a narrowly-executed 4-4-2 diamond isn’t doing Chelsea enough favours. Against well-organised, stubborn sides defending deep and narrow, Chelsea’s diamond has too often struggled to create clear-cut chances. Having to thread delicate passes through such defences – and especially when the Chelsea squad hasn’t been set up to play this way – is operating with too great a margin for error.

When the team isn’t 100% on song, the diamond doesn’t give Chelsea enough of a chance – just as against West Ham and Birmingham recently.

In my opinion, adding greater pace and trickery in wide areas – whether through a change of formation or encouraging players either side of the diamond to get chalk on their boots – will unlock better attacking performances against more defensively savvy sides. It’s not rocket science…

But, in taking Chelsea’s (and arguably the Premier League’s) most influential player – Didier Drogba - away for a month, the African Cup of Nations will force Ancelotti to view his side’s options differently. Without Drogba’s presence upfront, it seemed the Italian acknowledged the need to pose opponents a different threat immediately, and reverted to the familiar 4-3-3 against Sunderland.

Admittedly it’s only on the evidence of just one game, but the change has already been devastating. In the final third Chelsea played with far more width than in previous games and, coupled with the now-expected strong showing from central midfield, a depleted Sunderland side just couldn’t live with it. Take a look at the two pitch views here: the left shows the passes Chelsea made during the 1-1 draw with West Ham, the right shows the passes made during Saturday’s 7-2 thumping of Sunderland. These images were made using Guardian interactive chalkboards.



Not only does the sheer number of passes completed in the Sunderland game (159 more than against the Hammers) demonstrate the value of spreading the play, the image also shows how Chelsea’s wider formation allowed far more attacking play in wide areas of the final third (particularly down the right). For me, it’s no coincidence either that Frank scored two goals – only his fourth and fifth goals from open play this season – under this system. With Sunderland’s defence stretched to try and hold Chelsea’s wide players, he was afforded far more time and space to ghost into the box.

Hopefully the evidence of the attacking display against Sunderland will be enough to convince Ancelotti that a width-less attack doesn’t always cut it in the Premier League (I can’t believe it’s the best system anywhere, to be honest). It may well take an African tournament and the loss of some of Chelsea’s most influential players to make him realise, but if Ancelotti gives Chelsea flying wings it should pay dividends in the long run.

Lazy Daily Express story on John Terry designed to stir up trouble at Chelsea

Searching through this morning’s news in the search of some credible transfer gossip, I stumbled across a worrying headline that reinforced the view that John Terry – and others at Chelsea – are wielding too much power at the club.

The headline, in the Daily Express, unwaveringly says: “Terry: I run Chelsea with Lampard and Drogba”.

It seemed, or so one might be tempted to think having read the headline, that our esteemed captain had given another misguided press interview and made a statement that undermined not only Ancelotti but also Chelsea’s push for silverware. 

In essence, the article claims Terry believes he, Lampard and Drogba literally control the club and are ‘bigger than any manager will ever be at Chelsea’. It states that Terry said it is those three players who should take sole credit for keeping the team going through managerial upheaval. The paper also claims that Terry thinks it doesn’t matter who the manager is – ‘with those three in the dressing room, Chelsea have a chance’.

But to come to all these conclusions, what do the Express actually quote Terry on? Well:

“It has been a test for me and not only for me, but Frank and Didier too. They deserve real credit because people hear about me, they don’t tend to hear about what they do behind the scenes”.

And that’s pretty much it. The Chelsea captain does add:

“I can tell people that Frank and Didier are great and it is really important I have got their backing, because we have had so many managers over the last few years. But it was important that not only myself, but Didier and Lamps kept everyone together and said listen, as long as we keep doing our job, the fans will be there supporting us. That is what matters, Chelsea Football Club, not the manager or the players”.

Perhaps it’s worth paraphrasing what he’s has actually said in those two quotes. They boil down to Terry saying there have been some tough times during managerial upheaval, but Lampard and Drogba have been great and deserve credit for their role in keeping the Chelsea effort on track. Regardless of all that at the end of the day, the football club itself – and its fans - are more important than either players or manager.

There is absolutely nothing about what he’s said that is controversial or could be misinterpreted as a suggestion that there are players who are more important than Ancelotti. What’s more, Terry is speaking about the past – how the club weathered managerial changes on the pitch – and his words are exactly what I would expect from a responsible captain of club or country. Going further, he has very deliberately singled out Lampard and Drogba for praise, which seems pretty sensible bearing in mind that the form of those two players over the coming months will probably be the most significant factor in Chelsea’s push for trophies this season.

It’s such an easy story to write – no thought or research required – but there is no story here (compare the Express article with the Guardian’s take and the contrast is telling). It’s lazy journalism, and there’s no excuse for it. There is plenty to write about on football at the moment, even without the endless transfer gossip. The African Cup of Nations, the re-emergence of Man City under Mancini, the supposed decline of the FA Cup, the war between the Liverpool board and the club’s fans...I could go on. The sensationalist article follows well-trodden (and equally nonsensical) lines and can only be designed to stir up trouble at Chelsea.

I shouldn’t get so wound up about it. It’s no conspiracy, and journalists write stories like this about the top clubs every week. I suspect the likes of John Terry are used to it, too. But there are a wealth of issues to debate about the beautiful game out there and, when football journalists have the ear of hundreds of thousands of fans, we deserve more from them.

You might also be interested to read:

• Does John Terry have too much influence at Chelsea?

The real reasons why Chelsea won't splash the cash in January

Following a rush of newspaper speculation in November, it all went very quiet on the Chelsea transfer gossip front.

Until Friday that was, when the Telegraph kick-started the Aguero gossip again with the suggestion that Chelsea have made a bid of £30m to Atletico for his services. The Daily Express joined the party yesterday, suggesting that the Argentine’s club had offered him to Chelsea for that figure under the proviso that he could stay with them on loan until the end of the season. The weekend has also seen rumours of a bid upwards of £30m for Wolfsburg striker Edin Dzeko.

But, despite a new round of gossip, I’m still unconvinced Chelsea will be making any major moves this month (I’m still convinced however that, if they can, they should - here's what my Chelsea transfer dealings might be). But what lies behind Chelsea’s reticence in the transfer market?

Shevchenko syndrome?

Big spending is no longer the Chelsea way. Having bought a number of players for figures over and above £20m – including Drogba, Essien and Wright-Phillips – Chelsea’s last major purchase was Shevchenko in the summer of 2006. Is the failure of the club’s record signing to make any form of impact at the club the reason behind Abramovich’s frugality?

Becoming financially stable

Three and a half years without a ‘major’ signing might indicate a Shevchenko syndrome (and sounds almost spoilt - oops). But it might go further than just feeling stung by Chelsea’s only real ‘marquee’ signing. There is a very real desire at Chelsea to become financially stable, as signified by ever-increasing reductions in annual loss figures and Abramovich’s writing-off of the club’s debt to him.

Spending figures - and indeed the amounts recovered through transfer fees - have only been going in one direction over the past three years:

 
As the table above (which shows money received/ spent from significant transfer dealings) shows, Chelsea transfer expenditure has been in almost continual decline since the summer of 2004. In contrast, the amount received from transfers has steadily increased in that period. In fact, during the 08/09 season, Chelsea actually made money through its dealings.

Whilst income and expenditure figures for transfer deals now appear to be converging, the real threat to Chelsea's stated aim to fund new purchases through player sales could well be the low transfer value of the club's current crop of ageing stars.

Will the ban stick?

Why appeal the FIFA transfer ban - off the back of the supposed wrongdoings over Kakuta's move from Lens - and request the decision be pushed back so the club is free to make transfers in the January window if there are no plans to actually do any deals?

Maybe it’s because Chelsea really don’t feel the deal will stick. We have heard nothing about the likely progression of the CAS verdict over the last month or so, but the last rumours suggested Chelsea may have been misinformed by the young Frenchman’s mother and that UEFA and the French/ English FA may have ratified the deal at the time. If any of this is true, Chelsea’s transfer ban could well be reduced or even rescinded altogether.

You can read my latest view on how Chelsea’s defence of their actions during Kakuta-gate might have grown here.

Focusing on young talent

As has regularly been stated by both Ancelotti and Chelsea’s senior management, the club is keen to see its young players start to make an impact at the club (presumably for both financial and footballing reasons). Given that Chelsea have invested at least £30m in young talent over the past few years however, it might not be as thrifty a solution as it first seems.

Changing the Chelsea name

Abramovich and Gourlay are tired of paying over the odds for players. Following the burst of wild spending between 2004 and 2006, the Chelsea name became synonymous with ‘money no object’ bids. Clubs saw them coming and took advantage.
As evidenced by the drawn-out attempt in the summer of 2008 to acquire Robinho, Chelsea no longer want to be held to ransom by clubs (or players) who look to make too much of the Stamford Bridge outfit’s wallet-size. Taking a deliberately harder line in negotiation is one part of a strategy to strengthen Chelsea’s position when dealing with other clubs.

I firmly believe deals do need to be done this January – although not necessarily for big name players. I’ve written about what deals I think Chelsea need to make here. Who knows what’s around the corner this month? But, even if a star name becomes available, don’t expect Chelsea to pay crazy money. Those days are behind us.

Chelsea the real winners on snowy Saturday

It seems like an age since Chelsea fans have enjoyed Premiership football but, without kicking a ball, Ancelotti’s team had their lead at the top of the table consolidated yesterday.

With no disrespect towards either Everton or Birmingham, nobody would have dreamed that both would get results against Arsenal and Man Utd respectively. 

Chelsea now have a one point lead over Utd with a game in hand and three points over Arsenal who, for the first time I can remember in months, have played the same number of games as the Stamford Bridge club.

Points in the bag is almost always preferable to games in hand, but a strong showing against Sunderland at Stamford Bridge next weekend – when Arsenal face a tricky trip to the Reebok – could help Chelsea reassert themselves as favourites for the title despite a turgid December.

Depending on when the Hull game is rescheduled for of course, Chelsea probably also garnered another benefit from the postponing of their own game – in all likelihood that’s one less fixture the Blues will have to contest without Drogba and the rest of the African contingent. Get the game rescheduled for February – but before the Champions League resumes – and it could have all worked out perfectly for Ancelotti’s men.

Of course, had the Hull game not been postponed on Saturday due to the weather conditions (nothing to do with the pitch, incidentally) Chelsea could have been sitting on a four point cushion today. Whether the weather was actually significant enough reason to put football on hold is a debate I’ll leave to one side, but at least the ‘elf and safety people got to have a field day…

Chelsea season in stats: prolific scorers, losing form and a stats-based betting tip

First of all, my apologies to regular readers: it’s been a long time since I’ve posted. Christmas, New Year and too much work have put paid to regular writing.

Without further ado however, it is suddenly that time again: the time to look back over the previous month and what the stats tell us about Chelsea’s progress this season. This month, a look at Chelsea’s alarming drop in form, fantastic scoring record and newly shaky defence. Oh, and a little tip on when to lay money on the next goal being scored…

Alarming drop in form putting title challenge in jeopardy?
It was all going so well – before December hit, that is. With the cold weather came some frozen performances from Ancelotti’s men, who have managed only two wins from the last six league matches. Extrapolating the rate at which points have been scored across the whole season, Chelsea have previously been on target for a mammoth points total: 93 at the end of October’s fixtures and 97 at the end of November. Ropey results in the twelfth month saw that projected total slide to just 85 points – a total that wouldn’t have been enough to win the league in any of the seasons since 02/03.

Goals still coming thick and fast
Despite the drop in form, Chelsea have scored a very respectable 45 goals in the league this season, behind only Arsenal (who have scored 51), and have failed to score only once. Scoring at a rate of 2.25 goals per game in the league, Chelsea are on target to score 85 over the full 38 games – 13 more than they managed in either of the title winning seasons last decade. It’s worth mentioning that the so-called ‘Invincibles’ scored just 73 goals during 03/04…

A psychological wobble?
While December form has been worrying, perhaps more concerning has been Chelsea’s recent and uncharacteristic failure to react to poor results. Following the loss to Man City (which itself came after misfortune at Ewood Park in the Carling Cup), Chelsea managed only two consecutive draws in response against Apoel and then Everton, and more poor results have followed. It’s very unlike Chelsea, who are normally mentally invulnerable: the team’s only two other losses this season were both followed up with good wins (wins over Apoel and Liverpool followed the loss to Wigan, and wins over Atletico, Bolton and Blackburn followed the loss to Villa). Across the season, Chelsea have gained positive results from losing positions on 9 occasions.

Scoring goals: it’s all about timing
As I picked up on earlier in the season, Chelsea frequently seem to ‘grow into’ games, becoming more effective as matches wear on. 60% of the 68 goals the Blues have scored this season have come in the second half of matches. If you’re watching Chelsea and looking to place an in-game bet on when the next goal will be scored, lump money on in the 50^th minute – 31% of all Chelsea’s goals (21) have come between the 51^st and 70^th minutes (the next most likely spell is between the 11^th and 30^th minutes, during which 20% of Chelsea’s goals have been scored). When he’s back from the African Cup of Nations, you’d be wise to bet on Drogba scoring too – in total he’s scored 28% of all Chelsea’s goals.

A defence gone to pieces?
In my previous two of my monthly ramblings on Chelsea stats I’ve lauded Chelsea’s watertight defence, and with good reason. Up to the Arsenal game, Ancelotti’s Chelsea had kept 14 clean sheets from 20 games and had conceded just 10 goals in that time – one every two games on average. Since the Arsenal game, Chelsea have only kept two clean sheets in eight games (against Watford and Birmingham) and have conceded at double the rate. Carlo has some work to do…

You might also be interested to: read what Chelsea’s stats looked like at the end of November, or look at Chelsea's stats in more detail.

Happy Christmas from bridgeviews.co.uk, the thinking fan's Chelsea blog

It’s late afternoon on 24th of December, and only hours before Christmas is upon us.

A busy Christmas fixture list for Chelsea is just around the corner too, with Ancelotti’s team due to face in-form Birmingham and then Fulham (without any strikers, it seems).

It’s been a busy run-up to Christmas so there hasn’t been much time to post over the past week or so – even on the events around John Terry’s burgeoning Cobham Tour enterprise. But I still wanted to make a quick post to wish everyone a happy Christmas.

bridgeviews.co.uk is now nearly seven months old, so I also wanted to say thanks to everyone’s who stopped by since June, and especially those that have posted comments: it’s great to see some healthy debate on these pages.

It’s certainly been an eventful half-year since this blog kicked off. In that time, I’ve blogged about Hiddink’s remarkable stats at Chelsea, Drogba’s selfless acts in the Ivory Coast and Ancelotti’s thriftiness.

I’ve also commented on rumours that Bolton could become Chelsea’s feeder club, and ridiculed suggestions that Chelsea alone are struggling to attract ‘big names’ to Stamford Bridge.

This blog hasn’t always had the same views as other Chelsea fans – including backing the club’s decision to sell the naming rights to Stamford Bridge if it makes financial sense. In between such rants I’ve written on hooliganism, how TV coverage could be damaging the game, Chelsea fans in America and the ridiculous and potentially dangerous queuing at Stamford Bridge.

More recently I’ve lambasted both Ian Wright and Joe Royle for their anti-Chelsea bias, all the while keeping up regular match reports and a detailed Chelsea stats page.

I’m glad some of these posts – and the 150-odd more – have been of interest. If anyone has any ideas for posts, features to include or figures to update the stats page with, please do drop a note here – I would love to hear from you.

In the meantime, have a great Christmas – and here’s to three points at Birmingham.

Russell @ bridgeviews.co.uk 

Lack lustre performance at West Ham spells alarm bells for Chelsea diamond

Normally being top of the table at Christmas with a record points lead would be seen as a good thing. And I guess it is. But things, especially in football, are rarely that simple, and widening chinks in Chelsea’s armour raise a real concern that a golden opportunity to reclaim the title might not come to fruition.

Yesterday Gianfranco Zola’s West Ham played the perfect game against Chelsea. Excellently harrying Ancelotti’s midfield diamond, the Irons defended deep and narrow, perfectly countering Chelsea’s width-less formation. Scott Parker looked back to his best – time and again breaking up Chelsea’s clumsy attacks – and their forward line did occasionally look like it might come up with something on the break.

Chelsea, and Ancelotti, had no real response, and a draw was probably a fair result. On balance, West Ham fans probably have more cause to complain that they didn’t walk back to Plaistow tube with all three points. As good as West Ham’s determined performance was however, Chelsea made it too easy for them.

There were two fundamental – but closely linked - problems with Chelsea’s performance yesterday, and neither had anything to do with the defence. Firstly, there was a real lack of sharpness and creativity in the pass, especially in midfield. As with other games over the last month, too many Chelsea players were on intensely average form resulting in the team struggling to exert any control over the game for any amount of time. Ancelotti described Chelsea’s first half performance as being ‘too slow’. He was right, but Chelsea’s failures ran deeper than that.

At times there is a real dearth of creativity in Chelsea’s midfield. With Lampard not on-song there simply isn’t another player in midfield consistently looking to play an unexpected (but intelligent), attacking pass to break through stubborn defences. Aside from Joe Cole, who in my opinion is better suited to playing wide than at the tip of the diamond, Chelsea also lack a player who can take a man on.

Secondly the chronic lack of width in the team has hamstrung performances, and especially in the last few weeks. Even players who have the potential to play wide – for example Malouda, are clearly instructed to play inside. It isn’t enough to rely on full-backs to provide all the width – not that Cole or Ivanovic got forward enough yesterday – and Chelsea are restricted into playing down a narrow central channel of the pitch. 

It isn’t rocket science: playing only down a central channel makes it far easier for savvy defences to counter Chelsea attacks: play deep and with two narrow banks of four, congesting play in the final third. Net result for a Chelsea side only prepared to try and pick passes through a web of opposition defenders: move after move breaks down as it’s too easy for the opposition to double up on Chelsea’s dangerous players.

All of this, of course, adds up to a predictability, and is an entirely self-perpetuating problem. As opposition cotton on to how to stop Chelsea, so Lampard, Ballack, Cole and Malouda (or whoever is playing) wade into more congested defences. Faced with limited space, build up play slows dramatically. The pressure to complete the ‘perfect pass’ increases, which mean more go astray. The whole thing breaks when, as yesterday, Drogba isn’t at 100% - you reach a situation where almost if Drogba doesn’t score, Chelsea won’t.

There have been a few performances with a real lack of dynamism from Chelsea in recent weeks, and I suspect that all the talk about a defence leaking goals at set pieces has, perhaps unhelpfully, diverted attention away from them. Whilst the lack of dynamism didn't matter earlier in the season when players were on top form and opposition were lining up differently, it's starting to cost the Chelsea points now. It’s Ancelotti’s job to bring that dynamism back: and the key to unlocking it, for me at least, is to bring width – or at least the occasional prospect of it to keep defences guessing – back into the team’s play.

Ancelotti may need to realise that perhaps diamonds aren’t always forever, or at least encourage Chelsea’s to play more expansively. If he doesn’t, more results like yesterday will almost certainly follow.

You might be interested to read:

• Five positives from Chelsea’s winless run
• Sublime to ridiculous: how good are Chelsea?

Ian Wright is way out of line as he blasts Chelsea fans

Just after the second half had kicked off on Saturday against Everton, and shortly before Drogba had scored his second of the game, a Chelsea supporter sitting 15 or so seats to my right in the Matthew Harding Lower piped up.

“Drogba you f*king c*nt, get onside”, were his wisely chosen words.

It didn’t get any better from there. “Drogba, you lazy w*nker”. He continued from there, abusing Chelsea players not meeting whatever arbitrary high standards he had set for the team. I can only assume he didn’t cheer Drogba’s goal.

Watching games, there are always fans making comments you don’t agree with. Likewise there is regularly someone who goes too far or is too critical of the players he or she is supposed to be supporting. I have no doubt that these characters exist at every football stadium across the country and, truth be told, you’re better just ignoring them.

Unlike during the dark days of Scolari early this year, there was no real cause for Chelsea fans to be booing the team following the unfortunate draw with Everton at the weekend. But, witnessing it first hand, I can assure everyone that it was a very small minority of fans who chose to voice their displeasure in that way. There was certainly no-one near me booing. If there was booing, it was very quiet indeed to the point where it is misrepresentative to suggest the players were booed off the pitch.

The media have picked up on it, and have been encouraged by Petr Cech’s expressions of surprise to hear booing. Now that it’s been blown out of all proportion, Ian Wright has chosen to take the opportunity to make a vicious, totally unwarranted and targeted attack on Chelsea fans in a double page article in The Sun.

“When my son Shaun played for Chelsea”, he starts, neatly forgetting that his son caused plenty of real frustration in the stands as he time and again spurned opportunities to put in a half-decent performance for the Blues, “I would go to Stamford Bridge regularly. After a while, I stopped. The amount of moaning and complaining coming from certain sections of the stands was unbelievable. I'd never heard anything like it.”

You’ve never heard anything like it, Ian? Really? In all your years of playing and watching football, you’ve never heard fans complaining about their own players? I don’t believe you (even if you did play half your games at Highbury, where in all likelihood you’d hear nothing at all). He continues: “My seat was near the players who were not involved. Just in front of us, there was one bloke who, win or lose, did not stop complaining. He was never happy, even with a convincing home win.”

As I said, there is always one person near you shouting nonsensical abuse. But the critical thing here is that Wright is talking about his experience of one person being unreasonable, not the 40-odd thousand people crammed into Stamford Bridge.

From this point however, Wright’s article become more unwarranted and even less considered. “Those fans who jeered are an absolute disgrace” – well, that’s debateable, but the next bit is outrageous. “They (the fans) might have plenty of money but, in football terms, they have no class whatsoever.” Such a sweeping and unfair judgement. Yes, Chelsea has more than its fair share of more wealthy supporters and has done for decades, but those fans aren’t close to being the majority. I have had season tickets in two separate parts of the Matthew Harding end and sat alongside a range of brilliant football fans from all walks of life: barmen to bankers; locksmiths to chefs; and removal men to PR consultants.

To suggest that ‘many of’ Chelsea’s fans “saunter into hospitality areas in expensive suits and fancy shoes” is to ignore what really happens each week, and to suggest that fans of the club “have either forgotten where the club has come from or have no idea about Chelsea’s problems down the years” suggests that he simply has an anti-Chelsea agenda. Is he still feeling bitter that Shaun didn’t make it at Chelsea? Or perhaps it’s because of the years he spent at Arsenal?

Yes, we all get frustrated by fair-weather fans who can’t – or won’t – put things into perspective, and I did think booing on Saturday was harsh. But then again – and the point has been made brilliantly over on the Chelsea Daft blog – let’s not forget that paying fans are entitled to express dissatisfaction or frustration. Contrary to Wright’s assertion that fans who criticise their team are unintelligent (am I unintelligent because I’ve criticised Ancelotti at times this season?), it is certainly unintelligent to blindly put faith in your team, regardless of performance. 

When Wright concludes that Chelsea fans “should learn a few lessons from the fans up at Liverpool”, it is clear that it isn’t Chelsea fans who are classless, just Wright’s blinkered article. Disappointing. I wonder if Ian wrote an article about what a disgrace it was for Arsenal fans to leave the Emirates half an hour early when Chelsea and United played them last spring? I doubt it.

Ian, if you want to criticise Chelsea, condemn our youth policy or our footballing ethos - we can debate that. But lay off the fans with your mindless drivel.

You may also be interested to read:

• Five positives from Chelsea’s winless run

Premier League XI and player of the decade - Chelsea players make the grade

Another journalist – this time Henry Winter of the Daily Telegraph – put his head on the block this morning and risked the wrath of football fans across England by naming his Premier League team of the decade. Interesting to compare it with that of The Times’ Oliver Kay:

Henry Winter (4-4-2)
Given, G Neville, Ferdinand, Terry (C), A Cole, Ronaldo, Lampard, Gerrard, Giggs, Rooney, Henry

Oliver Kay (4-3-3)
Friedel, Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, A Cole, Vieira, Keane, Lampard, Ronaldo, Henry, Giggs

Kay also names either Henry, for quality, or Lampard, for consistency, as his player of the decade.

From my perspective, there are problems with each. Winter seems to have tried to name the best 11 players, without any regard to creating a viable team defensively. Kay on the other hand has paid more attention to creating a viable team but then bizarrely shoe-horns Gerrard in at right back (he’s had no more success there than Essien). If he isn’t good enough to make the midfield – where he has played for the last ten years – he shouldn’t make the decade’s XI. 

Winter disregards Vieira and Keane on the grounds that they haven’t played for half the decade (on those grounds I guess we can’t put the likes of Zola forward either who, like Keane, might have a greater claim in the 90s). I would also argue that, up until now, Rooney hasn’t scored enough goals to warrant a place up front. From a Chelsea perspective, the sheer quality of Makelele in the holding role should give him a shout at being named in any team of the decade. Drogba would have a shout too if he had perhaps had a better 07/08 or 08/09.

To suggest that Given is goalkeeper of the decade is ludicrous – yes, he’s always been a good keeper but the accolades have only really started coming over the past two or three years. Friedel has been consistently lauded but I still have question whether he’s worthy of the keeper of the decade tag. Petr Cech probably has an equal claim, if only through his performances 2004-06 on the basis of which he was widely labelled the best keeper in the world. At the end of the day, I doubt many football fans would take Given or Friedel over either Cech, Van der Saar or Reina at the their best.

To come up with a team of the decade you need to decide how important longevity is. Both Winter and Kay disregard Makelele – who had four seasons at the top of his game – but include Ronaldo, who only had two (albeit excellent) seasons at the top of his in the Premier League. So I’ve gone for a team of the decade that is based on considering the best players in each position at their peak but with half an eye on those players having made more than a fleeting impact on the Premier League in that time. I’ve also tried to put together a more balanced, viable side:

(4-4-2) Cech, G Neville, Terry, Ferdinand, A Cole, Makelele, Lampard, Ronaldo, Giggs, Van Nistelrooy, Henry

Certainly painful to admit, but Van Nistelrooy and Henry deserve their place in a Premier League team of the decade, regardless of how we Chelsea fans feel about them. Other players I’ve overlooked (Winter and Kay did as well, to be fair) but certainly worthy of a mention would probably include Pires and Ljungberg, who played a pivotal role in Arsenal’s successes earlier in the decade, Steven Gerrard, Arjen Robben and Paul Scholes. It must be said that there’s been a huge wealth of midfield talent on show in the Premier League that makes selecting just 4 players almost impossible.

And player of the decade? For all the recent hysteria about Giggs (one Man Utd blog suggests: ‘player of the decade is not really up for debate. He’s still running rings around players and his name is Ryan Giggs. End of story’) his recent accolades are now stretching the point. He has more of my respect than any player turning out for Chelsea’s current rivals for both his world-class quality and his attitude, but for me he doesn’t quite make the grade.

So I’d probably have to agree with Kay. As a biased Chelsea fan, I don’t think you can look further than Frank Lampard, who has consistently been the most influential player for a successful Chelsea side for five years. His record of having scored 20 goals a season from midfield (and actually midfield – anyone comparing Ronaldo’s record is missing the fact that he largely played up front) for four successive seasons – and 19 in the season before that run - is almost without equal in the modern game. Aside from that, like Giggs, Lampard’s tireless professionalism and work-rate make him the stand-out player for the noughties.

I’m prepared for the inevitable backlash from United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans, but what do you think? Who is your Premier League team and player of the decade?

One loss, two draws, missed penalties and five positives from Chelsea's poor run

While all the newspaper and blog talk about Chelsea’s recent run has suggested four games without a win is symptomatic of defensive meltdown, I’ve argued that things aren’t too far out of kilter at Stamford Bridge.

Bored of all the negative chat circulating on the forums, I’ve thought back over the four consecutive winless games and considered the positives Chelsea fans can take from the performances.

Chelsea are still scoring
Leaking goals is one thing, but if you don’t score them at the other end you’ve got no hope. Thankfully, whilst John Terry and Carvalho were busy looking confused as Everton swung multiple crosses into the box on Saturday, Drogba, Anelka and Lampard were wreaking havoc at the other end and notched up three top quality goals. Yes, there have been four winless games – but those games have still seen Chelsea score more than 2 goals each on average. Not too shabby.

Drogba’s still on fire
And if Chelsea are still scoring, perhaps it’s because Drogba’s on a one-man mission to conquer the Premier League. The Ivorian’s stats speak for themselves: 21 appearances, 18 goals, 7 assists, 4 penalties won. He has been without equal in the Premier League since August and his form hasn’t dropped over the last four games.

The bad luck can’t last
If Chelsea fans were honest, they would probably admit that over the last few months we’ve had a bit of good fortune. John Terry got away with what was probably a foul in the box against United and opposition have scored a welcome number of own goals: just a couple of pieces of luck that spring to mind. Perhaps the ridiculously unfortunate two goals conceded against Everton – and the lack of any decision going for Chelsea at the Eastlands – was just footballing karma. And if it was, we’ve probably paid our dues now…

Sort out defending set pieces, the rest will follow
Chelsea have a weakness at the back? Cue shock, horror and melodrama from the world’s media and Chelsea-despising football fans. The reality, of course, could be perceived as a rather more rosy picture. Ancelotti’s defence looks watertight in open play – sort out defending from corners and freekicks, the back four will be back to their stingy best and the wins should come…

The future looks bright
The future being Gael Kakuta, of course. Who knew that Chelsea could sign a young player who actually had some potential? Getting more and more game-time, the young Frenchman has been a breath of fresh air. Kakuta has a rich vein of confidence and the skills to back it up: quick feet, precocious vision and good pace over ten yards too. Kakuta’s display against Apoel deserved to contribute to a winning performance. It’s too early to get excited – he’s only 18 - but at the very least it’s encouraging to have a young player on the books a Chelsea manager is willing to give a chance to. Borini, Matic and Bruma are getting a chance too, and Mirolsav Stoch is scoring left, right and centre in Holland…