bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Ancelotti right to breathe calm at Chelsea as media and fans hit panic button

So – after a four game period without a win – who are we to believe? Carlo Ancelotti, who has been screaming ‘don’t panic’ at every opportunity since the Carling Cup elimination, or the media (and some other Chelsea bloggers), who are claiming Chelsea are in the midst of some form of meltdown? The truth is, Ancelotti is right to ease fears at Stamford Bridge, although a worrying trend does provide cause for concern.

Looking at each of the last four games in turn dispassionately it is hard to find huge cause for concern with an individual Chelsea performance.

Ancelotti fielded a below-strength team against Blackburn in the Carling Cup and the result could have very easily gone the other way. Yes, the makeshift defence did haemorrhage three goals in the game, but the team scored three at the other end and played the last 20 minutes, plus extra time, down to ten men. With a dubious recent record on penalties, Chelsea fans’ expectations wouldn’t have been sky high come spot-kicks and, once Ballack had missed (who knew that was even possible?), it clearly wasn’t to be.

The unexpected draw against Apoel can more or less be written off, too: you can’t read much into a game in which the result doesn’t matter. Regardless, in the end it was only Mikel’s error that gifted the opposition with an equaliser: up until that point Chelsea had been coasting towards a comfortable win having not broken sweat over 85 minutes.

Sunday’s game draw with Everton was similarly frustrating. Chelsea were clearly the superior side, having some 65% of possession and over double the number of shots on goal. Drogba and Anelka were on fire, but some shoddy defending of set pieces and, it must be said, terrible luck meant their work wouldn’t reap full reward. Sometimes things just don’t go your way.

Of the last four games, the match at Eastlands is the only anomaly - on the day Chelsea deserved to lose against City. Even then however the result could have been different: Drogba and Ivanovic both spurned great chances to score and Lampard missed from the spot.

Looking at the games individually then, other circumstances have contributed to imperfect results. And, from an attacking perspective, performances have remained consistent. A respectable nine goals were scored across those four games – almost exactly the same scoring rate as in Chelsea’s previous 21 matches this season.

In light of all that, Chelsea’s defensive ‘weakness’ from set pieces is comfortably the most worrying thing about the recent performances. But what is concerning isn’t that the weakness exists, or even that there seemed to be uncharacteristic panic in the penalty box against Everton on Saturday. This weakness first reared its head months ago (and arguably has its roots in Scolari-era Chelsea). Surely there can be no excuses for a defence packed-full of top class players and coached by an experienced manager not correcting the problem?

The real concern is therefore that this is an old problem and one that hasn’t been successfully addressed. Cech and the defence need to sweat blood and tears with Ancelotti now to get back on target. It’s worth saying as an aside that it is nonsense to believe, as some Chelsea fans have written elsewhere (including the otherwise excellent Chelsea blog at The Offside), that Terry, Carvalho or particularly Cech have become bad players overnight. Prior to the Blackburn game the Chelsea defence had conceded on average just a goal every two games – a very good record indeed.

Set pieces are often critical to the outcome of a match and need to be taken seriously. They cost Chelsea points on Saturday and, perhaps crucially, momentum in the title race. But whilst it’s no crisis now and the team is sure to come out of this poor spell sooner rather than later, allowing this weakness to perpetuate across the season will seriously damage Chelsea’s chances of silverware come May.

What do you think? Am I underestimating the problem? Post a comment…

Fabregas thinks Chelsea are average without Drogba - and he could be right

As if just to antagonise Chelsea fans, Fabregas was widely quoted yesterday as saying Chelsea would be merely an average side were it not for Didier Drogba.

Having watched his side’s defence get pummelled by the Ivorian just over a week ago, you can perhaps understand Fabregas’ comments. The Spaniard said: “Overall, I saw a Chelsea team that was normal but a team that probably has the best striker in the world. An average team that has the best striker in the world can always do something and Didier Drogba makes all the difference”.

At first I thought he was being more than a little bitter after Arsenal’s resounding loss, and that he was undermining the other ten players who started the game at the Emirates. It’s certainly doubtful many of Arsenal’s current players would find their way into Chelsea’s starting eleven, for example. A further argument against Fabregas’ theory would be that, in the four games Chelsea have played this season without their talismanic forward (three in the Champions League and one in the Carling Cup) Chelsea didn’t experience anything but victory.

But now I’ve thought more about it, perhaps Fabregas isn’t too far from the truth. Yes, Chelsea would be far from average with or without Drogba. But without him – this season at least – Ancelotti’s side would be a very different and far less threatening outfit. As attacking options go, you could easily argue that a Drogba-less Chelsea wouldn’t be far from ‘average’ when compared with immediate peers in the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A.

Drogba has been without peer at Chelsea, in the Premier League and probably European football so far this season. He is easily Chelsea’s top scorer with having scored 16 goals, as many as Anelka, Lampard and Kalou combined (Chelsea’s second, third and fourth highest scorers). He has single-handedly scored nearly one third of all Chelsea’s goals (29%).

Aside from goals his contribution has been immense. Making seven assists and winning four penalties means that Drogba has either scored or created 27 goals this term – pretty much half of all those Chelsea have scored. Can there be another striker with as a good a record?

And if that wasn’t enough testament to his effectiveness, Drogba has missed four of Chelsea’s 24 fixtures this season, been substituted off the field in six and come on as second half reinforcement in one. All that means it’s taken him just 1,650 minutes to rack up those 27 goals. On average, Drogba’s contribution can be summarised as having delivered Ancelotti a goal once every hour.

And all this says nothing of Drogba’s (underestimated) leadership qualities, his invaluable defensive work from corners and set pieces and how even his presence gives Chelsea the flexibility to play in different ways.

So yes, a Drogba-less Chelsea isn’t average and yes, it could still win games. But Drogba’s best form in a blue shirt has taken Chelsea to a new level this season and, as an unfortunate side effect, to a place where losing him could be catastrophic.

What do you think? Is there a striker in the world you’d rather have line up for Chelsea than Didier Drogba? Post a comment.

Chelsea season in stats: all or nothing football and the trouble with playing away

It’s that time again: the time when bridgeviews.co.uk takes a look back over the last month and what the stats tells us about Chelsea’s progress. This time, the focus is on all or nothing football, defence being king and a developing trend away from home…

It’s all or nothing
Into the fifth month of the Premier League season, it’s remarkable that Chelsea are yet to draw a game. While Ancelotti’s men have swept to wins in 80% of league matches so far, it seems the prospect of defeat isn’t having too much of an effect: all other games – against Wigan, Villa and latterly Man City – have ended in defeat. If it’s because Chelsea go gung-ho in the closing stages of matches when drawing, I’m all for it – what good is one point after all?

Defence is god
In last months’ stats post I said Chelsea’s defence was king, but I was wrong – it’s been better than that. John Terry’s back four has only conceded 15 goals in all competitions so far this season – that’s less than one goal for every two hours of football. The record at Stamford Bridge is even better, with the side not conceding a single goal since Hunt put one past Cech back in August. Conceding just one goal in 11 games is astounding, but away form is a slightly different story…

Home and away
Chelsea’s home record reads like a dream: played 11, won 11. In a surprising reversal of last season however, Chelsea’s Achilles heel has become games away from Stamford Bridge. Winning 58% of all away games is far from a dismal record, but losing a quarter of them isn’t quite so impressive. The difference between goals conceded home and away is even more marked, with Chelsea shipping nine goals on their travels.

With that in mind, you would be forgiven for thinking that Chelsea’s defence has gone to pieces when playing away from home – but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Looking at the three defeats Chelsea have suffered this season, three different main causes can be identified in each instance. Whilst defensive errors did cost Chelsea the points against Aston Villa, the back four actually had a good game against City last weekend – the fixture was lost because the midfield couldn’t gain a foothold in the game. Against Wigan it was Cech’s red card and the subsequent penalty that warped the final result.

Far from disaster – still on track?
Some fans and sections of the media – not least the atrociously biased Joe Royle – painted Chelsea’s loss to Man City as being almost apocalyptic for Ancelotti’s title challenge. Yes, the performance was concerning, but in reality we’re nowhere near crisis point yet. Overall Ancelotti has a 78% win record and Chelsea are scoring three and a half more goals than they are conceding (with goals coming from 12 players). In November Chelsea beat the two main rivals for the title, Man Utd and Arsenal, and are still on course to finish the season with more than 90 points.

It says something that, over the course of a season already 23 games old, Chelsea’s most unproductive run comprises just two games – a draw (Blackburn winning on penalties doesn’t count) and a loss. Draw seven games in a row (a la Man City) or win once in nine (a la Liverpool) – now that would be a real crisis.

Paying the penalty
It said a lot about the team’s weaknesses last season (or the number of referees who should have gone to Specsavers) that Chelsea rarely won penalties. With Joe Cole injured, there wasn’t a player who would naturally run at defenders and draw a foul in box. How many did Robben win for us, or Ronaldo for United? This season, it’s been different. An on-song Drogba has been felled in the box to win four penalties this season already – more than the total number won last year. Now to get Anelka and Lampard into the box more frequently…

Check out the updated 09/10 Chelsea stats page – more detailed information has been added today.

You might also be interested to read:

• Season in stats – the view in October
• Season in stats – the view in September

Biased and brash ESPN coverage of Chelsea game was embarrassing

As if watching Chelsea stumble to their third loss of the season against Man City at the weekend wasn’t frustrating enough, listening to Joe Royle’s attempt at commentary piled on the irritation for Chelsea fans. I feel compelled to write a few words on it.

I can’t have been the only Chelsea fan infuriated by Royle’s endless refusal to criticise any Man City player or ‘see’ any infringement they might have made. Borderline decisions going in City’s favour went unquestioned while contentious verdicts going the other way were errors of judgement from Howard Webb.

Meanwhile, Royle was desperate to paint a picture of Chelsea as ‘losing it’ and reacting badly to perceived injustice. He totally ignored the fact that, in general, Chelsea players reacted pretty well in the face of one or two poor refereeing decisions (one that went against Ivanovic was just laughable, and he ended up getting a yellow) and that John Terry did an admirable job in ensuring he was the only player in blue and black hoops remonstrating with Webb.

Supposedly Chelsea – top of the table and packed full of experienced players that have won trophies Royle himself could have only ever dreamed of – were ‘rattled’ as soon as Man City had scored their contested first goal (on 36 minutes). Meanwhile Man City – who in reality won the day through a well executed plan to stifle and harass Chelsea rather than excellent passing football – were portrayed as world beaters.

When Royle criticised Drogba for going down theatrically after Onuoha had nigh-on assaulted him in the box (resulting in a penalty) it was pretty much the last straw; and this was just minutes after he had castigated the Ivorian for staying down too long after a challenge when in fact he had immediately got back to his feet.

From the point of view of a fan who spends £14 a month for the privilege of watching ESPN, I thought it was appalling that Royle made no attempt to offer balanced, reasoned commentary or that the producers didn’t bring him into line. In fact it was only his co-commentator who acknowledged his blinkered viewpoint, reminding Royle that he had history with Man City.

Besides the commentary, I’ve been less than impressed with ESPN generally. They clearly feel the need to over-dramatise events (Saturday’s game had plenty of drama and excitement without endless hyperbole from the commentary team) and Kevin Keegan is in no way equipped to be an insightful or interesting pundit.

And, to complete the rant, their brash, mammoth graphics aren’t really my cup of tea. I guess it is their first season with rights to Premier League matches, but any channel that makes me yearn for Andy Gray is clearly doing something wrong…

This isn’t just bitterness – check out my match report where I acknowledge how Man City won their deserved victory. Anyone else watch the game agree with me about Royle though? Post a comment.

Chelsea post mortem: where the match was lost against Man City

Considering recent form, the professional gambler would have found himself out of pocket after Chelsea’s loss to Manchester City at the weekend. He certainly wouldn’t have laid money on Man City, with Mark Hughes’ side on a run of seven consecutive draws in the league. He wouldn’t have bet against Chelsea, either, with the Blues in a rich vein of league form defeating all-comers and not having lost to City for years.

Most obviously, the hardened gambler would never have put money on Frank Lampard – who last missed a penalty back in 2006 – not scoring from the spot just three days after resident German Michael Ballack had inexplicably made the same mistake.

But after the slightly fortunate opening goal nothing really went Chelsea’s way during their 2-1 loss to City on Saturday. It was a bad performance which, with a little help from an excellent display from City, questionable refereeing decisions and some infuriating inactivity from Ancelotti, hastened a deserved third defeat in the league.

Most interestingly, this wasn’t the first poor performance from Chelsea this season – but one of the first in which Chelsea weren’t able to turn a bad day at the office into a win. Looking back at the game, Chelsea’s patches of good play were few and far between and the team only really dominated during the first and last ten minutes of the game. Man City deserve a huge amount of credit for their work-rate – the endless hassling of Chelsea’s midfield prevented the likes of Lampard and Ballack from ever really getting a hold of the game and City were certainly the better side on the ball for most of the 90.

As it was, Chelsea still had chances to win it. Yes, Frank missed a penalty – but a miss was probably due. Drogba had two excellent chances to put the ball in the net, and his failure to score the second of those (which seemed easier to score) was the only blemish on what was otherwise another top-notch performance from the Ivorian. Ivanovic and Anelka both spurned good chances too.

Meanwhile, Ancelotti’s inability – or lack of will – to take action to change games when they aren’t going for him is a real concern. As against Aston Villa (and earlier in the season against Hull, a game in which Chelsea were lucky to pull off an injury time win), the team found themselves in a losing position and Ancelotti didn’t do enough to try and repair the situation. His solitary tactical move – replacing Carvalho and Ballack for Mikel and Beletti – did free Essien to play further up the pitch but looked more defensive than offensive. It wasn’t the positive substitution the team needed, nor the positive ‘let’s win this’ message that should have been delivered to the players already on the field.

Why not mix things up with a player who can add something genuinely different (Joe Cole)? Or, why not change the way the team is playing and go 4-3-3 to bring some much needed width (Malouda on for Deco, with Anelka moving right)?

Furthermore, in freeing Essien Ancelotti was relying on a player who was having the worst game of his season so far. Essien was struggling from the off, and looked well off the pace. De Jong is a good player but not in the Ghanain’s class, but on Saturday it was Essien who looked the apprentice, repeatedly giving the ball away or misplacing passes. The substitutions also left the only player having a worse game than Essien on the field. Once again, Deco proved that he is simply no longer good enough against the better teams or when time and space is at a premium. The sooner Ancelotti realises this (as I thought he had done last week when he fielded Joe Cole against Arsenal), the better.

Essien and Deco’s performances were just the worst of a bad lot, however. Saturday’s Chelsea looked to be lacking a yard of pace and there was a dearth of sharpness in what was a disjointed display full of scuffed shots and misplaced passes. Man City’s harrying certainly contributed to that outcome, but fans are entitled to expect more from the likes of Ballack, Deco and Anelka, and Cech has produced better displays. With Drogba not able to drag Chelsea out of the hole on this occasion, no-one else was ready to step up and into his shoes.

As Ballack has been quoted as saying today, the loss certainly isn’t the end of the world. Chelsea are still top of the table, and the midweek game against Apoel will hopefully provide a reasonable opportunity to get back into some form of rhythm. But in a very tightly-contested league, Chelsea can’t afford too many performances like Saturday’s.

Meanwhile, best of luck to Man City. Yes, Hughes has had bucket-loads to spend and his team isn’t quite there yet, but he has built a sensible squad well balanced with pace, strength and technical ability (Arsene Wenger should take note of the model). They have a good springboard now to push for fourth and, with Liverpool again struggling at the weekend, it looks like they might be fighting Spurs to be in pole position to take advantage.

What did you think of Saturday’s game – where do you think Chelsea came unstuck? Post a comment.

Sublime to ridiculous in four days: how good are Chelsea?

What an interesting week it’s been for Chelsea supporters.

First off, a Drogba-inspired Chelsea dismantle supposed title challengers Arsenal at the Emirates. Despite the home side bossing possession in the first twenty minutes of each half, Chelsea’s strength, discipline and experience gave them a cutting edge up front and a brick wall at the back. In the end, the performance was as impressive as the score line suggested.

Yesterday however was a different story. A much-changed Chelsea side travelled to Ewood Park to take on Blackburn in the quarter finals of the Carling Cup. With the score locked at two-all on ninety minutes, the game went to extra time. Two goals at either end meant the game would be decided on penalties, and it was no surprise that, once again, events didn’t go Chelsea’s way.

You could question the wisdom of Ancelotti’s decision to field a centre-half pairing of Ferreira and Ivanovic (especially bearing in mind full-backs Beletti and Zhirkov haven’t played much of late). You could also question making three substitutions at half time when Chelsea were only one nil down. Realistically though, the second half performance was much improved, Blackburn played well and Kalou’s injury – leaving Chelsea with just 10 men – was unlucky. It was a strange, end-to-end game that could have gone either way.

Disappointing as it was to go out of the Carling Cup (I’ve always maintained that it’s a good tournament to win) last night’s defeat wasn’t the end of the world. But it did get me thinking though – just how good are Chelsea?

In conversation with a friend of mine – a realistic Arsenal fan who was pretty downcast after the weekend result – he suggested that Chelsea were a good side in a league in decline. He went as far as to call the Premier League average, but his main argument was that Chelsea fall short of being a ‘great’ side.

I agree with him – partially at least. Liverpool have fallen apart and Man Utd lost Ronaldo, so the league isn’t what it was. But on the other hand Man City have become a force to be reckoned with and Spurs and Aston Villa have made great starts to the season. It is by no means an ‘average’ league, and certainly hasn’t become so over night.

And, for the moment at least, Chelsea are comfortably sitting atop that league. We’ve scored the  most goals (level with Arsenal) and conceded by far the least. On current form we have the best striker in league (perhaps Europe) in Didier Drogba, who has now scored 15 goals. We’ve dispatched each of the main challengers for the title. Our second team could (and perhaps should) have beaten a solid Blackburn team last night. And the amount of points Ancelotti’s side have scored up until the end of November (36) is greater than any other side has managed over the last five seasons.

But, despite all that, Chelsea still to me don’t seem consistently spectacular. True, there have been moments of scintillating football, but principally success this season has come via  moments of Mourinho-esque sledgehammer. Moving now into December, it is probably fair to say that Chelsea’s greatest strength is, by a margin, its defence.

For all the newspaper hyperbole about Chelsea now walking off into the sunset with the title, I think we all need a bit of a reality check: this Chelsea side is still short of being ‘great’. But we needn’t worry. There aren’t many ‘great’ sides out there and Chelsea have been extremely impressive under Ancelotti. 

Chelsea are good enough to win the league and challenge for other trophies, and that’s more than enough for me. But if Roman wants another ‘great’ side – like the teams of 04/05 and 05/06 - that can take on any side on the world with both flair and brute strength - he will need to open chequebook in January. 

You might also be interested to read:

• Who Chelsea should buy in January

Why Liverpool's Champions League elimination is good news for Chelsea

Following Fiorentina’s one nil defeat over Lyon last night, Liverpool were eliminated from the Champions League. There was public weeping on the Kings Road.

Whilst many Chelsea fans will take much amusement from Gerrard, Carragher and Torres being assigned to Europe’s second division this season, there is perhaps an even greater reason to celebrate Liverpool’s elimination: the guarantee that Chelsea won’t draw them in latter stages of the competition.

Liverpool fans can probably take this as a back-handed compliment – their team is probably the last Chelsea fans would want to play in the knockout stages of the Champions League. Chelsea have been drawn against Benitez’s side as a matter of course since 2005: four times in the knockout stages (each side winning through twice) and once in the group stages. The saying goes that familiarity breeds contempt and, as far and Chelsea and Liverpool are concerned, never a truer word has been spoken.

Earlier fixtures in this period were all drab affairs – low on goals, flair and attacking football (but high on referees awarding goals they shouldn’t). In contrast, ties over the last couple of seasons have been high octane thrillers pairing uncharacteristic bad defending with cut-throat finishing. Whichever brand of game the Chelsea and Liverpool Champions League fixtures have thrown up however, there has been one constant: almost unbearable tension. During last year’s quarter final second leg tie – which somehow finished 4-4 – I’m convinced I aged at least several years.

So this year I’m delighted that Liverpool took the matter in their own hands and considerately prevented us from having to through either epic tedium (as was the case when they’ve bested us) or agonising, stomach-turning stress. And it’s a relief also because we’re now presented with a much greater chance of at least playing a different team in Europe: of the 59 Champions League games Chelsea have contested since the 04/05 season, the Blues have faced either Liverpool or Barcelona 18 times. That’s nearly a third of all games. In that time, half of all the knockout ties Chelsea have contested have also been against those sides.

So it’s good that Liverpool are out – at least it could provide us with some variety. Knowing our luck, we’ll probably end up drawing Barcelona in the first knockout stages this year. Me though – I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a trip to the Bernabeu or the San Siro.

Or perhaps you’re starting to miss Liverpool already? For those of you who are disappointed that our annual angst-fest against the Scousers in the Champions League has been cancelled, console yourself with some memories from back in May below.

The real reason why Sturridge isn't getting a run out at Chelsea

Like many Chelsea fans I’ve wondered why Daniel Sturridge has been given so little time to prove his worth in a Chelsea shirt so far this season. When he joined in the summer from Man City I felt it was a very positive signing: not an exorbitantly priced player in the twilight of his career and a sign that Chelsea were genuinely looking to buy younger, but relatively established, talent.

Sturridge started his Chelsea career excellently with a well-taken goal against the Seattle Sounders – the first of Chelsea’s pre-season campaign – and I was fairly impressed with that first showing. Since then however he’s oscillated between either being on the bench for the first team but not making an appearance and not even making the bench at all. Aside for one or two fleeting appearances in the league and an ill-fated run-out in the Carling Cup (after which his performance was unfairly criticised, I thought), he hasn’t got a look in.

Gael Kakuta meanwhile was given an immediate 30 minute opportunity against Wolves at the weekend immediately after his ban was suspended by CAS, and has also been named in the squad for tomorrow’s game against Porto. Matic also got his first run-out against Wolves and Borini was awarded a further chance to impress the Stamford Bridge faithful.

In light of the opportunities given to others the lack of opportunities for Sturridge – older and more experienced than those players, don’t forget - seems strange. Why hasn’t he been given more time?

He did suffer an injury earlier in the season, which perhaps hampered his chances to some extent. There also haven’t been huge numbers of games where, like against Wolves at the weekend, Chelsea were 3-0 up and out of sight after 20 minutes allowing Ancelotti to make more ‘risky’ substitutions.

Sturridge’s transfer fee hasn’t yet been set – the amount Chelsea need to pay City for his services is due to be decided by tribunal. Perhaps another reason why Chelsea are holding him back could be to prevent the panel lifting his fee beyond acceptable levels? Alternatively, perhaps Ancelotti feels Sturridge just isn’t good enough.

I’m just guessing. But, interestingly, Pat Nevin might have inadvertently given us a clue as to why the young Englishman hasn’t had more of an opportunity to make an impact at Chelsea – and it doesn’t bode well. Nevin’s weekly piece published on the Chelsea website today is worth a read – he talks about Kakuta’s performance at the weekend and the pressures faced by young players making their debuts. In addition however, he also wrote the following:

“His (Kakuta’s) breakthrough also gives hope and belief to any other young players trying to break into what is a world class team. One player who I hope has the right reaction is Daniel Sturridge. Nothing should spur him on more than the knowledge that if you do have the right attitude, the belief and the work ethic, success awaits. In simple terms it is up to him”.

I could well be reading too much into what is just a few words, but I suspect Nevin knows something we don’t. It sounds very much like Sturridge might have an attitude problem – Nevin’s statement is pretty challenging. He doesn’t say “if you have the talent, you’ll get a chance”, rather “if you work hard, you’ll get a chance”. Why single out the need for the right work ethic over pure ability if that isn’t a particular concern? I’m only speculating, but perhaps Sturridge expected more from his first few months at Chelsea and hasn’t reacted well to playing second fiddle to first Drogba and Anelka and then Borini.

Hopefully I am reading too much into it – before he joined Chelsea the consensus was that Sturridge was one of the brightest English prospects around. Here’s hoping he gets it together – the chances given to Kakuta, Matic, Borini, Hutchinson and Bruma this season offer encouraging signs that Ancelotti will reward him when he does.

What do you think of Sturridge - do you think he's deserved more of a chance? Any other reasons why he might not be getting a run out that I’ve missed? Post a comment.

Chelsea 4 Wolves 0 - Essien and Kakuta shine for imperious blues

Yesterday’s afternoon stroll saw Chelsea put four past a hapless Wolves, yet never get – or need to get - out of first gear. Essien was the driving force at the core of the Chelsea machine, but his fine showing was rivalled by the 30 minute outing for wonderkid Gael Kakuta.

The first five minutes of the ninety suggested we would witness a spirited performance from Wolves, and Mick McCarthy’s men did carve out two or three reasonable chances. But, in truth, Chelsea were by far the superior side at Stamford Bridge yesterday and rarely needed to break sweat.

In the absence of Drogba and Lampard and with Mikel holding, Essien was free to run the show and played superbly throughout. The Ghanaian was Chelsea’s engine, completing over 50 passes, interchanging well with Cole and Malouda and grabbing two goals along the way.

While Wolves look woefully short of quality at this level, yesterday’s game was an example of how Ancelotti’s diamond can function when at its best. While the holding player – whoever it may be – plays a disciplined, limited game, the three midfielders in front of him are free to interchange. As it was, Joe Cole and Essien yesterday drifted both left and right and Malouda did most of his damage through the middle. McCarthy will be unhappy that his players were often guilty of not closing Chelsea’s forwards down, but facing such a fluid midfield can’t have helped.

Despite all this and the hyperbole-filled newspaper headlines this morning about Chelsea’s game, this was far from a vintage performance. Despite a deluge of goals, it was merely a good performance against a side that will fight relegation – in fact, at least two of the goals could be put down to individual errors from Wolves players.

Most encouraging was Ancelotti’s decision to give three youth players good runs outs. Matic and Borini both came on and made good touches, but it was Katuka’s performance that was the most exciting. The young Frenchman – whose acquisition from Lens has come under such scrutiny – showed an exquisite first touch, uncommon imagination on the ball and the ambition to try something different. Whilst he clearly has all the tricks in the locker, he doesn’t look a show-pony and was more than willing to play the sensible pass.

It’s far too early too say really, but finally Chelsea look to have a youth prospect fans can get excited about. Borini, Hutchinson, Bruma and Matic don’t look too bad either.

We couldn’t ask any more of the team yesterday: an impressive performance despite injuries to some significant players. Before we all get too carried away with another comprehensive win however, Chelsea fans should remember that the real test comes next week. Chelsea will have to up their game, especially at the back, and the return of Drogba will be crucial. Taking points from Arsenal will ensure these wins against more lowly opposition aren’t for nothing, and put Chelsea in pole position for the title.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: Essien. Unstoppable.

You might also be interested to read:

• Kakuta plot thicken as case for Chelsea's defence grows
• Do over-promoted Arnesen's failures lie at heart of Chelsea's future?

Filtering through the gossip: the players Chelsea really need in the January sales

The papers are very entertaining. Over the last few weeks, not a day has gone by without another back page headline about Chelsea being ready to splash the cash in January either on some La Liga mega-star or a Brazilian wonderkid currently plying his trade in South America.

Last week I wrote an post on how Chelsea had – since the suspension of the transfer ban – been linked with 17 players. Someone posted a comment rightly pointing out that I’d missed the headlines about Pato, and actually the number was 18. Since then the rumours have continued to flow thick and fast, with names like Sergio Ramos, Andrea Pirlo, Lucas Piazon and Romelu Lukaku being linked with a move to the club.

Today an interview with John Terry has prompted more headlines, the Times’ reading ‘John Terry urges Chelsea to splash out on new players in January’. Reading through the article though, it’s clear Terry has ‘urged’ nothing of the sort – at least not explicitly. The Chelsea captain said:

“The suspension is good news as we lose four good players in January anyway. I’m sure the club and the manager are looking into that and having good talks with Roman. I wouldn’t be surprised if we do go out and buy because we don’t know what’s going to happen in the summer or the following summer. The manager has great experience and he knows what we need.”

So even the broadsheets like stirring things up. It’s a little surprising that Chelsea transfer gossip dwarfs that written about Man City, despite the latter being the wealthier club and the only one of the two with a recent record for splashing large sums of cash. For football journalists, Chelsea still represents the greatest opportunity to fill column inches and ultimately sell papers.

Regardless of the realities however, the gossip has certainly got me thinking. Do Chelsea need to sign players and, if so, who? An interesting post over at chelseadaft.org balanced both sides of the argument, but seemed to come down on the side of keeping the squad as it is. I see it differently.

Chelsea do need to strengthen in January – and not because of the African Cup of Nations, which neatly coincides with a run of not unwinnable fixtures in the Premier League. Chelsea’s squad is among the best on the planet, but it needs reinforcing for two reasons – one looking to the future, the other having been an issue since 2007.

On the one hand, the impending transfer ban – which will almost certainly prevent Chelsea signing players until January 2011 at the earliest – poses a problem that the club simply cannot afford to not tackle head on now. It is well documented that Chelsea’s squad is on the old side, and at the moment that doesn’t pose a problem (arguably it’s one of Chelsea’s key strengths). But players like Ballack, Drogba, Carvalho and even Lampard will need to be replaced within the next 2-5 years, and the club should be planning a smooth, gradual transition rather than buying mass replacements in one go. Buying younger players of the highest quality now would help achieve that and give those players the benefit of playing alongside some of the biggest names in the game before shouldering a higher burden of responsibility when they’re ready.

In addition to issues around replenishing the squad, Chelsea has had the same inherent weakness since summer 2007, when Arjen Robben left for Real Madrid. Malouda was brought in but was no substitute for the Dutchman and, with Joe Cole spending most of his time on the injury table, Chelsea have been almost entirely devoid of width, pace, trickery and players prepared and able to take a man on. Looking back to 04/05 and 05/06, it was the presence of either (or both) Robben or Duff that turned an excellent side into arguably the greatest team to have played Premier League football: uncompromising at the back and devastating going forward.

Edging towards the end of 2009, Chelsea still haven’t solved the problem created by Robben’s departure. And, good as the team is, it is still one player short of being a ‘great’ team. On the plus side, it is only one player. The club just needs to find him.

So in answer to the question - do Chelsea need to strengthen in January? – for me it’s a resounding yes. But I’m not talking about wholesale changes. Ancelotti and Roman need to make two or three shrewd purchases that solve the dual problems of a vulnerability to an ageing squad in the face of the transfer window and the lack of a genuinely frightening winger. And the latter need not cost the earth: after all, Robben and Ronaldo only cost £12m a piece.

Carlo, if you are heading into the market in January, my shopping list includes a mere basketful of goods: two 20 year-olds (ish), one striker and one playmaking midfielder, both with excellent prospects and experience in a strong league; and one pacey, tricky winger established at a top tier club. Miss the January sales however and one basket probably won’t be big enough come 2011…

What do you think? Post a comment.

You might also be interested to read:

• Chelsea need to abandon the off the shelf transfer policy

Neglectful FA cost Chelsea dear during latest pointless England excursion

How many international breaks have there been this season already? It seems like time and again the Premiership season has been disturbed by a string of international fixtures this year, many of which have been friendlies. The latest England jolly to Doha for a friendly with Brazil may have cost Chelsea a high price.

Reports this morning suggest that an injury suffered by Frank Lampard while on international duty, who flew home from the England training camp yesterday, may be worse than first thought. The prognosis is that he could be out for a few weeks at best, or until Christmas at worst.

It is frustrating that the injury has come about as a result of an arguably needless friendly. I’m sure most Chelsea fans would agree – according to research, over 80% of British football fans feel a stronger sense of allegiance to the team they support than they do for the national side. This particular friendly is further made redundant by the paucity of regular first team players making the trip. Perhaps more frustrating however, are reports that the FA flew the England squad all the way to Doha in economy class-style seats – that’s a seven hour flight - which contributed to Lampard’s eventual injury.

It would be very easy for some to have limited sympathy for the 22 millionaires having to fly economy. But the reality is that these are athletes finely tuned by their clubs to perform at the top of the game. Players like Lampard will run maybe seven miles in each game – at the season’s peak perhaps three times a week. And it’s not like running seven miles on the street: football combines the need for both endurance and explosive power, in addition to other physical rigours such as turning and tackling.

To mistreat and neglect such athletes after their clubs have made such considerable investment in them is outrageous. After all, those players when on England duty are essentially on loan with the goodwill of the owning clubs. It’s therefore unsurprising that Chelsea are reportedly livid at Lampard’s injury, and are preparing a compensation claim of just under £1m.

I’m livid too. When players get injured on international duty (like Essien last season), should football fans who have paid for tickets be compensated by the national associations? After all, we don’t get to see the players we paid to watch. Of course I’m not being serious, but the real point is the FA shouldn’t be so carefree with their scheduling of fixtures and their treatment of players: when injuries occur it impacts players, clubs and fans.

There has been much paper talk in recent weeks – particularly from Rafa Benitez and Liverpool – about how injuries affect club’s fortunes. Liverpool have had a number of injuries which have exposed the lack of depth in their squad. Having more luck than in recent years, it feels like Chelsea have had a relatively clean bill of health so far this season, although the papers have neglected to report that Deco, Alex, Ashley Cole, Zhirkov and Joe Cole have all had extended spells on the sidelines.

Lampard’s injury comes at a time when Chelsea are starting to make a real impact in the Premier League, and now a minor injury crisis is growing at Stamford Bridge with likely to sit out with him until Christmas and Bosingwa probably out for considerably longer. There is no sign of Zhirkov making an imminent return.

The depth of Chelsea’s squad is about to be tested – especially with crunch away games against Man City and Arsenal just around the corner. I fancy the squad will hold up far better than Liverpool’s however: provided Terry doesn’t get injured in Doha too, of course…

You might also be interested to read:

• Another international break? English fans don’t care about the national team

Chelsea target Ribery and 16 other players - or none at all?

Chelsea fans will already know that, last Friday, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) granted Chelsea a stay in relation to the transfer ban FIFA imposed back in September. Since then, the papers have been full of wild and wonderful reports on who Gourlay, Arnesen and Abramovich are plotting to bring to Stamford Bridge when the transfer window reopens in January.

From what I’ve read in the national newspapers over the last few weeks, Chelsea are looking at no less than seventeen players as potential recruits including: Van Der Vaart, Adam Johnson, Wanderson, Aguero, Villa, De Rossi, De Guzman, Rodwell, Ribery, Hamsik, Luis Suarez, Pazzini, Di Maria, Corchia, Garcia, Coentrao and Fabiano.

A not inconsiderable number of players to be linked with, especially bearing in mind the club was linked with just 39 over the summer.

Meanwhile the noises from Chelsea have been very different. Ancelotti has been quoted as saying: "I'm very happy with the squad and it's not necessary at the moment to take new players. I know we will lose four players in January, but if we maintain the players' fitness, we can have a good period also without the African players." Bruce Buck has also stopped mentioning the desire for Chelsea to make a ‘marquee’ signing, and Gourlay’s public appearances have so far centred around commercial considerations.

In the face of contrasting reports, who knows what Chelsea fans should expect: a quiet January, or the flouting of a £50m ‘warchest’ as touted by the press. Looking at it dispassionately however, there’s every reason to expect Chelsea to get the chequebook out. Whilst the transfer ban has been put back, it hasn’t yet been overturned. With an ageing squad, and despite Ancelotti’s talk about having previously managed players in their forties, the club needs to start preparing for the future and pick up players that can be the natural replacements for the likes of Drogba, Lampard, Ballack and Carvalho in the next few years. With the prospect of a two-window transfer ban still looming and younger players not yet breaking through, not entering the market in January would present a significant risk.

It makes sense for other, more practical reasons too. Real Madrid’s extravagant spending in the summer warped the market for everyone else – perhaps Chelsea believe that, six months down the line, the market will have now started to return to more normal levels meaning the likes of Ribery aren’t so outrageously priced? Perhaps they also believe that buying players like Villa, Ribery and Aguero – all playing for teams either not in or unlikely to play in the knockout stages of this year’s Champions League – can be purchased for a reduced fee.

Ancelotti's silence regarding new targets could also just be a smokescreen to avoid the inevitable inflated asking prices when selling clubs feel assured Chelsea are in the market for players.

Finally, the stay was granted by CAS at Chelsea’s request. Surely Chelsea wouldn’t request the stay unless they wanted to do business in January? Summer was a disappointment for Chelsea fans choosing to buy into the tabloid gossip train, but if I were a betting man I’d wager that this January might come slightly closer to meeting expectations.

What do you reckon - should Chelsea splash the cash? Post a comment…

Big match fallout - eight things we learned about Chelsea and Man Utd

This time yesterday Chelsea and Man Utd were heading onto the pitch for the second half at Stamford Bridge. Forty-five minutes later, a slightly anti-climatic encounter was over and a one nil win for Ancelotti’s men represented their most significant – if below par - display of the season.

Manchester United fans are choosing to take an awful lot of positives from the fact that their below strength side managed to play so well. Many are convinced that, based on that display, they are in good shape for the rest of the season. They’ll certainly be up there – of course they will. But I on the other hand think it works both ways: Chelsea played poorly against a slightly under-strength United side performing out of its skin, and still won.

Chelsea and United fans will disagree about plenty of aspects of yesterday’s game, but here are the things I took about each of the sides from the encounter:

Chelsea

A familiar grit and determination
Aston Villa and Wigan may disagree, but Ancelotti’s Chelsea has some similarities with that of Mourinho’s. Patient, disciplined, confident and tough to break down are expressions that could equally be said of Chelsea in November 2006 as in 2009. Pretty passing football works to a point, but the Chelsea we saw yesterday – full of those Mourinho-esque qualities – is the sort of side that can win the title.

Deco isn’t up to it
The Portuguese looked good against Bolton and almost had me convinced. But against Man Utd he reminded me of why I came to think that he wasn’t up to it last season, and probably why Hiddink wouldn’t pick him: against better sides who give him less time on the ball he goes missing. All game he completed only 26 passes and, with minimal ability or willingness to make passes or interceptions, the side were carrying him.

Ivanovic is much improved
Trusty Ivanovic is no Bosingwa – he’s not going to make roving, high paced runs down the right flank for 90 minutes. But he is…well…trusty. As a reserve, whether at centre half or right back, he’s an excellent option to be able to call upon and did a pretty good job in attack against United too, considering. Did he miss a header yesterday?

We’re not Barcelona
Top of the league? Check. Five points clear? Check? Best defence in the league and second highest scorers? Check. Many fans and a handful of the papers naively expected Chelsea to walk all over Man Utd yesterday, but a disciplined, containing performance from Man Utd put paid to some of the as yet unjustified hyperbole. A slick one-touch side capable of playing silky football isn’t born in three months: Chelsea aren’t Barcelona. We shouldn’t be ashamed of the fact that, whilst sometimes our ‘A’ game hasn’t always fired on all cylinders, it’s Chelsea’s superior plan B, C and D that’s made the side successful.

Man Utd

A one man team?
For the last two seasons, Man Utd were probably a one man team. Yesterday, they looked like a one man team again. Before the season started I suggested that, if Berbatov could up his game, he was the one that could make the difference for a re-jigged Utd. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. Now that Rooney has been given the freedom to play upfront however, the ex-Evertonian is in a position to make the difference himself. If Utd want to retain the title, he might just have to.

Less confident
It struck me that last year’s Man Utd – with Ronaldo – would never have come to Stamford Bridge with such a defensive mindset. And injuries probably aren’t to blame: last year’s Man Utd that visited SW6 had injuries too, with Jonny Evans doing well at the back in one of his first appearances in the senior team. How much less confident is Ferguson in his team’s ability to attack the biggest sides and win? Despite their marginally superior possession, Utd’s midfield lacked dynamism and incisiveness.

Strength and depth at the back
Jonny Evans’ tackle on Drogba was pretty appalling, but you have to give him some credit. It’s uncommon that someone of his age can be so accomplished at centre half and – albeit with a trio of holding midfielders in front of them – United’s back four wasn’t regularly troubled by Chelsea yesterday. Regardless of Ferdinand’s declining form and Vidic’s occasional injuries, United still have one of the best defences in the league.

They don’t like losing
We saw a little of the old Man Utd yesterday. Chelsea are certainly not whiter than white in this respect, but United’s players shouted, screamed, swore and kicked their way through the last twenty minutes of the game. I’m just speculating, but they haven’t experienced too much pressure over the last three years: maybe, without Ronaldo to bail them out and with Chelsea and Arsenal now setting the pace, Ferguson and his players suddenly foresee a much more difficult title chase.

Chelsea 1 Man Utd 0 - Blues grind out win as Utd lose their rag

I’ve made it clear in recent weeks that Chelsea’s November fixtures against Man Utd and Arsenal will give the clearest indication so far of the strength of Chelsea’s challenge this season. As it was, Chelsea came through the first of those tests yesterday – but without flying colours.
To have expected flying colours would have been wishful thinking however. Yes, Chelsea have played some good football over the last couple of months, but playing a very good Utd side adept in finding ways to win matches was always going to prove a more vigorous challenge than the likes of Bolton, Blackburn and Fulham.

This was largely an inconsistent grind of a performance from Chelsea in which we only saw glimpses of the team’s full ability. Whatever you might read about Man Utd being the better side (something I’m not sure is true) the game’s ebb and flow was dictated by the visiting side coming to Stamford Bridge with their primary aim being to contain the league leaders. I can’t remember a time when Manchester United – the Champions, remember – would come to Stamford Bridge and play three defensive or holding midfield players.

I don’t disagree with Ferguson’s strategy, however. With a depleted defence, the Scot needed to provide his backline with as much protection as possible from the on-form Didier Drogba by drying up the supply to the Chelsea frontman. And it worked. Fletcher, Anderson and Carrick put in very sound defensive performances, hassling and harrying Chelsea’s superior (on paper, at least) central midfield.

As a result, Deco was almost completely ineffectual for the sixty minutes he was on the field and Drogba – who was well marshalled by both Utd centre halves – was feeding off scraps. Under pressure, Lampard and Ballack were inconsistent on the ball. In contrast Essien was in great form throughout, excellent shielding the Chelsea back four and making numerous bison-like forays up the centre. Dropping deep, Anelka was by a margin Chelsea’s most dangerous player, although Ivanovic did exceed expectations down the right.

This wasn’t the one-touch Chelsea we had grown used to seeing over the last four or five games, and as such it was an underwhelming performance in which a chronic lack of width made the Blues very predictable. But this was in the context of playing against a team set-up to first contain and then try and hit Chelsea on the break. Utd did have some success with the latter through Rooney who was single-handedly trying to take the game to Chelsea.

Playing on his own, Rooney’s efforts wouldn’t come to much, although he was certainly denied a one-on-one with Cech when the linesman incorrectly flagged him offside in the first half. Chelsea’s defence didn’t put a foot wrong – with John Terry consistently denying Rooney throughout the first half in particular. Valencia looked unconvincing and Giggs, for me, was hopeless in the final third.

Titanic top-of-the-league clashes between well-matched sides are often decided by a slice of luck, and Ferguson would have you believe that’s what happened yesterday. But he’s only partially right.

The Chelsea goal came on 76 minutes after Fletcher had fouled Ashley Cole to the right of the Utd area. Whilst Fletcher got the ball, one could very easily argue that he needlessly went through Cole afterwards. Utd complained, and their defence didn’t organise itself as Lampard swung in a perfectly flighted ball into the box. When Terry (or was it Anelka?) headed the ball towards goal, Drogba was onside. The only complaint Man Utd can have with the goal is whether Drogba hauled Wes Brown down or not. I would suggest that, while there was certainly contact, it was contact not unlike anything we see week in week out and Brown should have been stronger.

One nil up, and stress levels for Chelsea fans suddenly went through the roof. But, if anything, the threat to the Chelsea goal actually subsided after that point, despite the introduction of Owen, and Man Utd fans looking to find reasons for the loss should look no further than the team’s toothlessness in the final third yesterday. 

Clearly frustrated at either going one nil down or the perceived injustice of the referee’s decisions – or both – many of United’s players lost their cool. Fletcher, Evans, Anderson and Valencia were all guilty of bad, over-aggressive challenges (although Carvalho didn’t need to go down so theatrically following an off-the-ball incident with Evans). Rooney’s mouthing of ‘twelve men’ to the Sky Sports cameras after the whistle goes some way to showing how their team is accustomed to taking defeat.

Indeed even before the goal Utd’s frustration had been starting to show: Evans should have been given a red card for what could be described as a Kung-Fu kick to Drogba’s ribs. Drogba’s tendency to over-react might explain why the referee chose to ignore the incident.

It was hardly a classic, but the win left Chelsea five points clear at the top of the table (albeit with Arsenal having a game in hand) and early favourites to reclaim the Premier League title. This was an awkward performance however that, in all honesty, probably didn’t merit the win and was helped by a slice of luck. But, as the old cliché goes, good sides win while playing badly. Chelsea certainly did that yesterday and, as One Step Beyond sounded out at full time, it was clear that’s all the Chelsea faithful care about.

An amusing take on the CAS suspension of the Chelsea suspension

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) kindly announced today that they would grant Chelsea’s request for a stay in the club’s transfer ban, meaning Chelsea will now be free to flash the cash in January. Of course their final judgement over the club’s alleged wrong-doing over the signing of Gael Kakuta is still to come, but in the short-term Chelsea will be able to strengthen the squad if Ancelotti feels reinforcements are needed.

I’ll leave the debate about whether and how Chelsea should dip into the transfer market to another time (I have already suggested January isn’t the greatest time to be buying players) but though that the Guardian’s Fiver this afternoon – which reported on CAS’ latest decision – was particularly entertaining.

Worth a read with a conventionally-sized pinch of salt before you log-off your work computer and head to the pub. Enjoy.

With this in mind the Fiver can only applaud today's decision by the Court of Behind Closed Doors Stuffed Around a Groaning Buffet Table Back-Scratching Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to "suspend" Chelsea’s transfer ban. "The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has granted the request for a stay filed by Chelsea Football Club," CAS (CAS) said today, talking about itself in the third person in a manner usually reserved for overly self-important R'n'B singers with sculpted goatee beards. "Such sanctions are now stayed until the CAS renders its final decision in this matter."

A final decision that, what with assorted filings and ancient, leathery men in gowns leaning back behind their nicotine-riddled leather escritoires and saying things like "a fortiori caveat emptor", now seems likely to take place some time after January. Which would allow Roman Abramovich the whole of the upcoming winter transfer window to kick-start the global football economy by splashing out far too much on a single fashionable pet Russian that he can carry around in a small calf-skin shoulder bag.

This is of course barring the success of any further application to suspend the suspension of Chelsea's ban, which may in turn find itself counter-claimed leading to (a) a stay of the stay of the stay; and (b) everything just sort of carrying on as it always was going to anyway in a world where people with enough money to buy at least four very large yachts basically get to do whatever they want.

What's in a name? Chelsea selling Stamford Bridge naming rights no bad thing

Another day, another Chelsea controversy. Hot on the heels of the ‘noise’ surrounding Newcastle’s decision to sell naming rights to St. James’ Park, new Chelsea Chief Executive Ron Gourlay announced that Chelsea are considering something similar at Stamford Bridge.


And what outrage it has caused among many Chelsea fans. “Gourlay I swear to God you can get that idea out of your head RIGHT NOW!!!!!” was one message posted on a Chelsea facebook forum. “Sell history for money, just great”, was another. Others, including “id rather have kenyon back at least he never made a stupid comment like this” and “selling the right to the name stamford bridge is like selling john terry” sum up the widely held negative reaction to the announcement.

I expect I’ll incur the wrath of many Chelsea fans and that other well-renowned Chelsea blogs like thechelseablog might disagree with me, but I don’t share the outrage. What’s in a name, after all? Regardless of somehow appending Samsung or Adidas onto ‘Stamford Bridge’ I’ll still refer to the stadium as ‘The Bridge’ in the pub. All fans will. And will seeing the official name in the paper or on Match of the Day be that much of an embarrassment?

And I don’t buy the history argument, either. History, tradition, heritage – call it what you will – isn’t something superficial as Liverpool fans might have you believe. It’s the ‘story’ of a club, and tweaking the name of the Stadium does nothing to change that. Chelsea fans devalue our very real history by suggesting that somehow the name of the stadium defines the club’s existence.

And commercially it makes sense. Chelsea aren’t currently in a position to consider expanding Stamford Bridge or relocating, meanwhile Man Utd sell 30,000 more tickets each week, Arsenal 18,000. Spurs are probably just one of a few other clubs will have a new stadium in the next five years. Selling naming rights is just one way to help make up the shortfall and stay competitive, and it is sensible to consider it as an option. It’s not unrealistic to expect a £5m a year deal with the eventual sponsor – a sum that would very easily fund David Villa or Sergio Aguero’s wages. According to reports, Gourlay is hoping for double that figure. 

Encouragingly, in making the announcement Gourlay did at least recognise the sensitivities around the decision and how fans might respond: this is no heresy or treachery. It is good news too that ‘Stamford Bridge’ will still feature in the name. It’s not so much of a sacrifice – and if it means I get to continue to watch players of the quality of Drogba, Lampard and Terry, then it’s a sacrifice that is well worth making.

What do you think of the announcement? Post a comment.

A different kind of Chelsea fan? Not really. A view from America

Football has changed immeasurably over the past ten or twenty years and, with it, Chelsea Football Club. Fans no longer exclusively hail from the Kings Road, South West London or Surrey. Since Roman Abramovich bought the club in particular, Chelsea has drawn increased interest from all over the world with blue shirts appearing on pretty much every continent. This blog alone has readers in 175 countries.

When I wrote a post summing up what the 2009 pre-season tour of the United States had taught us back in August, one of the main things was the clear impact the club is having stateside. It’s no NFL, but (real!) football is increasing in popularity in over there and selling-out 75,000 seater stadiums – largely with loud and enthusiastic Chelsea supporters - for a friendly is a good sign that the club is at the forefront of the revolution.

But Chelsea fans in America – whether American or Brits who have moved over there – of course have a very different experience to those of us fortunate enough to live within spitting distance of Stamford Bridge. Games are often on at awkward times. They aren’t always on television. They’re in the minority watching a game that is far from being the national sport.

The official North American Chelsea supporters club – Chelsea in America, or, amusingly, CIA – publishes a regular newsletter for its members, who now stretch well into their hundreds. The latest issue of its wittily titled ‘Bluesletter’ (which you can read here) includes a short article by Josh Hampton, an American chap I ‘met’ over on the bridgeviews.co.uk facebook page (where I’ve also chatted with Chelsea supporters from as far afield as Norway, Malaysia, Egypt and Newcastle). Josh gives an interesting insight into what it means to be a Chelsea fan on the other side of the pond:

It’s a secret few people share. A club with very few members. It’s most times being the only guy cheering Chelsea at the pub, vastly outnumbered by those bandwagon-jumping muppets known ‘round the world as Man U supporters (there’s always one or two lurking in the shadows, it seems). It’s a knowing nod and a smile to the rare stranger on the street in a Blues shirt. It’s pride. Joy. Excitement. Walking on air after a win. Week-long bouts of depression when we lose. Wearing a jersey to work every day leading up to big games—and having said jersey occasionally mistaken for a NASCAR shirt (“Who in the hell is Lampard and why’s he got Dale Jr’s number?!”)

It’s sometimes waking up at 7:45 in the morning to watch the match in a postage-stamp-sized window on my computer. In Turkish. That cuts in and out every five seconds. But still being able to tell who’s who on the pitch because of how they run and move. It’s having the opening credits of Blue Revolution on my laptop dock so I can launch it anytime I feel the urge, which is probably way too often considering I’m usually at work when I use my laptop. It’s obsessively memorizing the fixtures so I know what days I can watch the match delayed, and when I’ll have to take a day off altogether to make sure I don’t miss anything—with all the dates kept on a color-coded calendar tacked up on the wall at my desk, just underneath my framed autographed photo of Super Frank (Thanks, Mick!).

It’s having more Chelsea gear than everyday clothes, including just about every home and away jersey from the past six years. It’s going beyond just buying both the Millenniums and the NUAs—it’s making sure every pair of sneakers I buy are Adidas and have some form of Chelsea blue in them so they match all those damn shirts and jackets. It’s teaching my kids the Chelsea chants and songs (with a few choice edits of course). Getting my wife to come along to a game, and watching her get so sucked into the atmosphere that she actually sings the “Celery Song.” About a hundred times. With a great big smile on her face.

From Stamford Bridge to Louisville, I’ll be keeping the blue flag flying high, don’t you worry. Now you’ll have to excuse me, I’m pretty sure there’s a Chelsea episode of Classic English League Soccer about to start that I’ve just got see again. Cheers!

It’s kind of comforting to know that the aspects of the Chelsea experience aren’t all that different, whatever part of the world you come from. Don’t worry Josh – there are United fans in every pub in London, too. Thankfully though, we don’t have the NASCAR thing to deal with, or the mildly irritating need to call the beautiful game ‘soccer’.

Having more Chelsea fans around the world can only be a good thing – so hopefully CIA will continue to grow each week. In the meantime, I’m keen to hear more from other Chelsea fans not living in England. How does matchday go for you, and have you been to the Bridge? Are you on your own, or are there other supporters’ clubs? What are your views on the season so far? And what do you want from a Chelsea blog?! Leave a comment below, or drop me an email here.

Living in the States? Chelsea in America was established last year when four clubs – Midwest Blues, Pacific Coast Blues, Southeast Blues and Texas Blues – combined and already has over 350 members. Aiming to try and grow the club’s presence Stateside, CIA holds events, updates its members with the latest news and its website has a chatboard that is visited by thousands. Check out becoming a member here.

Atletico Madrid 2 Chelsea 2 - newspapers revel in Drogba's titanic performances

Two more goals from Didier Drogba – who now has 12 goals from 13 appearances this season – were only slightly tarnished by Aguero’s injury time equaliser last night. Chelsea are safely through to the knockout stages of the Champions League, and a rusty performance at the Vicente Calderon will be forgotten should Chelsea up the ante against United at the weekend.

Measured against recent performances this was an average display from the weakened side fielded by Ancelotti, and some of the starting XI (Essien, for example) had an off day. But it was enough. Chelsea will have to be careful in the two remaining Group D fixtures to protect their status as group leaders, but that shouldn’t prevent them resting key players.

And Drogba should be one of those rested. Chelsea are showing remarkable form so far this season, but a serious challenge would be presented should the Ivorian be missing for any period of time. As I wrote back on Monday, Drogba’s contribution so far this season has been extraordinary and he has now scored 12 goals, made 7 assists and won three penalties in just 13 appearances. Having played 1,081 minutes of football this season, Drogba has created or scored a goal on average every 49 minutes: nearly twice a game.

The papers have been uncharacteristically gushing about Drogba’s performances in this morning’s papers, his less appealing traits temporarily forgotten. Here’s a run-down of how they viewed his and Chelsea’s performance.

The Times

“These contrasting strikers (Drogba and Aguero) — a raging bull and a nimble matador — illuminated a breathless finale to a bizarre match that left Chelsea assured of their place in the knockout stages, but needing to improve if they are to return to this city for the final in May.

“Agüero’s finishing is as good as anyone’s in the world, although Drogba’s physicality — and superior fitness — arguably set him apart from all his rivals, including Fernando Torres. The 31-year-old’s workrate is unparalleled for a front man and he offers as much in his own penalty area as at the other end of the pitch, with only John Terry his equal in the crucial area of clearing headers.

“The visiting team’s struggles could largely be attributed to being overrun in midfield and the poor quality of their passing, which lacked its usual crispness and clarity of thought.

Michael Essien was particularly culpable, giving away the ball with abandon, to leave Drogba and Salomon Kalou chasing lost causes up front. Michael Ballack’s strength and stamina were badly missed and he will definitely be back in the starting line-up against United.”

The Telegraph

“After the final whistle, the 2,500 Chelsea supporters sang long and loud for Didier Drogba. And well they might. The striker, returning from his three-match European ban, scored the goals, through strength and determination and the kind of totemic character that every successful team need, to propel Chelsea into the knockout stages.

“In truth it wasn’t the best of performances from Chelsea. After the champagne football of late this was more like a little cheap Cava as they struggled to find their rhythm. But they did enough. What matters is not a draw on a chilly November evening in Madrid – but what that draw may mean, bringing Chelsea that little bit closer to returning to the Spanish capital next May for the final.”

The Guardian

“Didier Drogba's scriptwriter should take a bow. The Ivory Coast striker set about restoring his reputation in European competition after the infamous histrionics against Barcelona after the semi-final back in May, and his late goals thrust Chelsea into the knockout phase.

“Indeed this game might have edged away from Chelsea only for Drogba's class to tell in the final eight minutes. "For sure I wouldn't want to swap him for any other striker in the world at the moment," said Ancelotti. "He is playing in a 'good moment' right now, and I hope that can continue."

“Chelsea departed mildly annoyed to have surrendered parity when Drogba's efforts should have earned a fourth consecutive victory in the group, though they will be heartened to extend their unbeaten, year-long Champions League run. In the grand scheme of things, that matters little. Drogba is back and Chelsea are in the knockout stage, with aspirations that they may return to Madrid and the Bernabéu in May very much intact.”

The Sun

“Now Didier Drogba is out and terrorising Europe once again. The man who was once UEFA's public enemy No 1 returned from his three-match Champions League ban with a point to prove. From reviled to revered, the only surprise of a breathtaking night was that it took Drogba 82 minutes to open his account.

“Since losing 3-1 to Roma on November 4 last year, Chelsea have now gone 11 Champions League games without tasting defeat, including those two controversial draws with Barcelona in last season's semi-finals.”

Drogba, Torres or Rooney? Chelsea have the best striker in the league

Watching Match of the Day this weekend – something I don’t normally do these days – it was great not only to watch Chelsea coast to a four nil away win over Bolton but also to see Alans Shearer and Hansen giving Drogba the praise he deserves for recent good form.

I was therefore pretty surprised when, after being asked by host Gary Lineker who was the best striker in the league, Hansen said Torres and Shearer said Rooney. I half suspect the Scot was showing some form of Liverpool allegiance and Shearer some form of England allegiance, but nevertheless found their decisions a little strange – especially Shearer’s.

Now I’m not going to argue that Torres isn’t by a margin the better finisher, or that Rooney isn’t better with the ball at his feet and running into space. But Drogba is top class in both of those respects, and outguns both in every other aspect of the game. Looking at the impact of each player on the games in which they have featured so far this season there should be no doubt that, on current form, Drogba is the best striker in the Premier League. 

The stats don’t lie. So far this season Chelsea have scored 39 goals. 20 of those have either been scored by Drogba (10), laid on with an assist from the Ivorian (7) or scored from the penalty spot once he’s been brought down in the box (3). That means that 51% of the goals Chelsea have scored have come about at least because of Drogba’s direct involvement.

But you can go further than that. Drogba hasn’t played in the three Champions League games so far, or in one of the Carling Cup ties (against QPR). Chelsea have scored 32 goals in the games in which he has played (11 fixtures), and Drogba has scored or created 20 of them. That’s a staggering 63%, and he is contributing nearly two goals a game. That isn’t normal. In the past his behaviour has been indefensible, but he’s sharpened up on that this season too. Ish.

Torres on the other hand has played 12 games (10 league, 2 Champions League) and scored 10 goals. Having played just 30 minutes of the Carlin Cup tie against Bolton, Drogba actually has a better goals to minutes ratio, and Torres doesn’t make nearly so many assists (just one in the Premier League). Liverpool have scored 25 goals in the Premier League and, in scoring or making 11 of them, Torres has only contributed 44%.

Similarly Rooney has played 12 games (10 league, 2 Champions League), scoring seven goals. He’s made no assists in the Premier League – so his percentages are even smaller than Torres’. He has contributed just 30% of United’s 23 league goals.

Now I’m not naïve enough to believe that stats tell the whole story. And of course, one man’s assist is just a touch on the ball before a goal, and more meaningful contributions can go unrecorded. Plus, Torres has been playing in a struggling side and has suffered injury and his manager’s unpredictable approach to substitutions.

But the stats are indicative, and his this season are well beyond normal expectations. At the very least, they certainly support the argument that Drogba is probably having his best season at Stamford Bridge since 06/07 when he was similarly unplayable.

Ancelotti should rest Drogba for the Atletico game tomorrow – there’s no point risking him. With his strength, pace and eye for goal Chelsea are twice as dangerous and him being on the pitch against United on Sunday could just make the difference.

Chelsea fans – what do you think? Who would you swap Drogba for, if anyone? Fans of other clubs – do you disagree with my view? Do Drogba’s ‘antics’ detract too much from his football? Post a comment…

Secret meditation room helping Chelsea players put mind over matter

In July I wrote a piece about Bruno Demichelis, a sports psychologist Ancelotti brought with him from Milan. Judging from his experience in setting up the venerated MilanLab, it seemed he had moved to London to help extend the careers of Chelsea’s older players. The latest from Cobham suggests that he’s turning to an unlikely source – meditation – to take the science much further.

A piece in today’s Daily Telegraph is well worth a read and shows just how far football has come since the days of black and white TV and orange slices at half time. Since Demichelis’ arrival Chelsea have set up what is called a ‘mind room’: a relaxing environment in which players can be placed into a meditative state. According to the Telegraph, the Chelsea mind room, the largest of its kind in Europe and a close relative of a similar facility Demichelis set up while at Milan, is being used to both reduce players’ fear of failure and help them conserve energy during matches.

Once in a meditative state, players are hooked up to a variety of sensors and shown video clips of themselves making mistakes. They are then trained to prevent their heart rate increasing as they watch themselves make those errors, in theory allowing them to have greater control when presented with similar situations in real life. The Telegraph article goes into more detail:

“The idea is that when the player then goes out onto the pitch and is presented with a chance to score, or to stop the opposition, he will be so focused and mentally-prepared that he will succeed. At the same time, the player will have been trained so well by Demichelis that he can bring down his heart rate when he does not have to run so that he can conserve energy. And he will also be able to this without thinking.”

Interestingly, the technique is expected to have a positive impact on players’ performances not just psychologically, but also physically. But Chelsea are keeping their mind room a closely guarded secret. Demichelis – who in typical Chelsea style has been nicknamed ‘BB’ or ‘Big Bruno’ by the players - has revealed that it is a ‘specially-constructed space’ that can accommodate six players at a time in ergonomically-designed loungers. Beyond that, we know very little, and the Telegraph can but assume that it follows a similar model to that in Milan.

But anyway, enough of the theory. It’s probably too early to say to what extent Demichelis’ techniques are working, and the ‘mind room’ is just one small part of the performance picture anyway. But the signs are good: so far Chelsea have scored 15 of their 26 goals in the last 40 minutes of games, compared with just 11 in the first 60, indicating improved stamina. Three games have been won from losing positions, indicating mental toughness. And Lampard hasn’t missed a penalty. But are these new traits for Chelsea?

In a football world dominated by machismo – on the terraces at least – the concept of meditation might seem a strange idea. But if it helps Drogba miss less chances, Lampard to keep scoring high-pressure penalties and Essien to stay injury free, it gets my backing. So far, the evidence largely points to it working…

You might also be interested to read:

• Training changes at Chelsea – including information on Demichelis’ MilanLab and what he brings to Chelsea
• Could injuries determine Chelsea’s success – how Demichelis is working to reduce injuries at the club, and how that will affect potential performances on the field

More swine flu? Bolton get excuses in early ahead of Chelsea clash

Sam Allardyce was quick to get his excuses in for his side’s 5-0 capitulation at Stamford Bridge on Sunday, revealing that two of his players contracted swine flu. Now, ahead of tomorrow’s Carling Cup fixture against the league leaders, Bolton manager Gary Megson has revealed that four of his players are now suffering from pig flu. I’m not normally so cynical, but could it be that is the excuses that are catching?

Megson said: “You are going to get one or two with swine flu and I think on the playing staff I think we have had five, four players and one member of staff. They are all okay at the moment, but it wouldn't be right to start giving you names.”

Clearly, whilst swine flu is relatively mild for most that catch it, it has had very serious consequences for many both in this country and around the world. I’m not trying to make light of the illness - it’s good news that evidently no-one is seriously ill. Saying all that, it has proved a handy post-thumping distraction for Allardyce, who has effectively shifted the spotlight away from his players. Perhaps Megson is similarly looking to play down the significance of tomorrow’s tie – although potentially for different reasons.

Meanwhile, Ancelotti has played down concerns that there might be a risk of spreading the illness to the Chelsea squad by the fixture going ahead. The Italian said: “The flu is not only on the pitch, it's everywhere. We take all the precautions and we want to think about playing, that's it. We are not worried about this problem because we've taken all the precautions.”

Amidst a freshly invigorated debate around spitting that has been stirred up by all the talk of swine flu, Ancelotti seems the voice of perspective and reason. And as it turns out, he has his own treatment for swine flu: “It's not a medical prescription. It's my grandmother's prescription - hot milk. Alcohol - red wine. Fantastic.”

Nice one Carlo. Perhaps the Italian is more fun than he lets on…

Chelsea linked with the world's top players again to prove silly season never ends

According to Fleet Street, Chelsea will launch an enormous transfer binge in January.

The FIFA transfer ban hasn’t had much, if any, impact on the Chelsea gossip train – I guess journalists just aren’t prepared to give up the stories that would fill hundreds of otherwise empty column inches every six months. Despite knowing nothing about the status or credibility of the appeal, the newspapers have ignored Chelsea’s recent thriftiness in the transfer market and would have us believe that the ban will definitely be overturned and Chelsea will be hunting down several big name signings come January 1^st.

The names supposedly on Ancelotti’s shortlist have been coming thick and fast over the past few days – apparently David Villa, Sergio Aguero, Daniele De Rossi, Adam Johnson, Jack Rodwell, Marek Hamsik and Rafael Van Der Vaart are just some of the names that will be heading to Stamford Bridge for exorbitant sums in early 2010. Check out the Mirror and the Telegraph for just a flavour of the rumours.

Everything points to continued conservatism in Chelsea’s transfer policy: the club has continually spoken of the aim to break even; big money signings have been few and far between of late; and areas of the club have seen budget cuts – for example Chelsea Ladies (read here to find out how John Terry lent them a helping hand).

Plus of course, we’ve heard it all before. Over the summer Chelsea were linked with no less than 39 players – most of which being the biggest and brightest stars of the game. As it was, Chelsea signed four players: Zhirkov, Sturridge, Turnbull and Matic . And that was at a time when Chelsea were allowed to make signings.

What does this all mean? Well, just don’t believe all you read when it comes to Chelsea and transfers. Not until anything actually happens, at least…

Chelsea season in stats: a water-tight defence, invaluable Ivorian and lucky streak

Here’s another monthly look at what at what the stats tell us about Chelsea’s progress: this time with revelations about Lampard’s scoring rate, Chelsea’s deceptively good defence and a continuing reliance on Drogba. My obsession with football stats continues…

At this rate Lampard won’t score 20
Such is the quality of Frank Lampard that scoring just one goal in 12 games was a crisis. Now that he’s scored three in the last two his rate looks a whole lot more impressive and firmly into the realm of respectability for a player of his ability. He still needs a couple of quick goals to get himself back on 20 a season form however: if he carries on scoring at his current rate (one goal every 3.5 games) he’ll need to play 70 games during 09/10 to make that total – which clearly won’t happen.

Are Chelsea getting lucky?
14 games played – two penalties won (and scored) and two own goals. But to what extent do teams make their own luck?

Defence is king
After some unfortunate slip ups against Wigan and Villa, the media would have us believe that Chelsea’s defence was in crisis, Carvalho was past his prime and John Terry was a bad player. But in contrast to the knee jerk reaction, Chelsea’s defence is pretty rock solid, conceding just 0.6 goals a game on average. Carry on at that rate and Chelsea will concede just 22 goals in the league this season – comfortably less than any team managed during 08/09. Other key facts: Chelsea have kept nine clean sheets – a staggering 64% of games played – and haven’t conceded in any of the Champions League or League Cup games played so far.

More players are scoring more goals
I suggested during the last stat-attack that, in order for Chelsea to be successful, more players would need to start chipping in with goals. This has happened: now five players have scored three or more in all competitions. While at the end of September Drogba had scored 30% of all Chelsea’s goals, he’s now scored just 25% - and not because he’s stopped scoring.

But Drogba’s still invaluable
Scoring 8 goals from 10 games is pretty spectacular record. But it’s half the story – if you include the two penalties he’s won for the team and his seven assists, Drogba has played a critical role in 17 of Chelsea’s 24 goals scored in Premier League games (the only competition he’s played in). That’s seven in ten goals the Ivorian is having a hand in. Torres might score a few more, but it’s Drogba’s other attributes that make him the more valuable player.

A ‘reasonable’ record against better sides
So far Chelsea have played six of the teams currently in the top half of the Premier League (Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland, Stoke, Wigan) winning four games, losing two, scoring 12 and conceding seven. It’s a very reasonable record, but those stats will come under threat once the games against Arsenal, United and Man City come around. Meanwhile, Chelsea have mopped up against more lowly opposition: four games against bottom half opponents have resulted in four wins with 12 goals scored and just 1 conceded.

For a full set of Chelsea team and player season stats broken down by competition, click here. If you think there’s any set of stats that would be useful or interesting to add to this page, let me know and I’ll start recording them.

More goals, more wins - Chelsea goal glut part of a more exciting league season

It was a great weekend in the Premier League for Chelsea. Not only did the Blues finally hit top gear to crush Blackburn 5-0, Liverpool took three points off Manchester United while Man City and Arsenal both dropped points having surrendered two goal leads.

Chelsea now sit two points clear at the top of the table with the joint best goal difference and, whilst more difficult games are on the horizon (not least Man Utd next month), things are looking bright. It will probably be a season unlike any other we have seen for a while with the ‘big four’ sides all likely to drop more points along the way, but for now Chelsea fans can enjoy being back at the top.

Looking back over the 96 league games played so far this season, high scoring games like Saturday’s have been a fairly common occurrence (although not all so one sided). There have been 52 home wins and 29 away wins, meaning that just 15 per cent of games so far have ended in a draw. Of those, just three have failed to produce a goal.

In total 287 goals have been scored. That’s just under three per game on average, and approximately half a goal per game more than last season. To put that in context: that’s the equivalent of an extra five goals hitting the net every weekend.

So we might have lost the Best Player in the World™, but it looks like the Premiership has lost none of what has made it the most attractive league on the planet: swashbuckling football at its most exciting.

Sky must be loving it. Regardless, despite their reputation for functional football, Chelsea are certainly playing their part.

You might be interested to read:

• What does the Ronaldo transfer mean for Chelsea?

Chelsea 5 Blackburn 0 - Blues finally hit top gear to demolish Blackburn

Despite a woeful recent record away from home, you might have expected Allardyce’s Blackburn to have put up more of a fight against Chelsea yesterday. But this was a masterclass performance from the Ancelotti’s men who unleashed a second half blue-coloured blitzkrieg to put five past a hapless Blackburn Rovers.

It didn’t look like the final score would be so comprehensive after the first half, however. Dominating both possession and territory, Chelsea should have put two or three past a Blackburn side that looked dumbstruck in the face of some top class one-touch passing. Joe Cole, Anelka and Lampard each passed up opportunities that arguably they should have scored.

But it was nevertheless an impressive first 45 in which Joe Cole – making his first start in the Premier League for ten months – was at the heart of a side playing football that was on another level to anything Chelsea fans have seen so far this season. It was a half characterised by everything that has always been good about Chelsea for the last few years: strength and industry from Essien, exquisite long passing from Ballack, Lampard making dangerous late runs into the box and the front two causing havoc either through the middle or by pulling the defence down the channels.

But there was more than the normal yesterday. Spurred on by a confident and driven performance from Joe Cole, this was a Chelsea that had added tricks, flicks and sharp one touch passing to their game. Blackburn were chasing shadows, and the one nil half time scoreline (an own goal created by a fine first time cross from the left by Anelka) was no reflection of the balance of play. Had it not been for lax finishing and three world class saves from Paul Robinson, the scoreline might have already been embarrassing.

The second half saw Chelsea finally rewarded for the quality of their play as four goals were put past the ex-England keeper in the space of fifteen minutes. The first came from Lampard who broke his barren run in the Premiership with a driven shot after Drogba had cut the ball back from the byline. The next came from an Essien 30 yard strike – arguably Robinson should have done better. Next Drogba was brought down in the box to set up Lampard to score his second of the day from the spot. Drogba got in the act to head Chelsea’s fifth from a Ballack corner.

This was the footballing equivalent of blitzkrieg. As if spurred on by not making the most of their first half chances, Chelsea cut loose and hit top gear for the first time this season. Even having gone three nil up, Chelsea still played a high tempo, positive game of the like we don’t usually see at Stamford Bridge unless the side go behind.

The scoreline allowed Ancelotti some freedom from the bench, with Bruma getting an unexpected chance to show his ability at centre half. Sturridge was given 10-15 minutes – that he wasn’t given longer would be my only criticism of an otherwise excellent display from both players and manager.

A great performance all round – and one that finally shows just what Chelsea are capable of when the pedal is pushed to the metal.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: Lampard might be scoring again and Drogba might have scored his eighth goal in just 10 league games, but in bringing much needed creativity to a sometimes lifeless midfield Joe Cole was the difference yesterday. Quite simply, Chelsea looked a different side with him in it. He was the both the team’s metronome and its ‘fantasy’: the craft that put Blackburn out of the game. A very impressive comeback.

What the papers said

The Times
“Chelsea did all they could to soothe their manager, brutalising Blackburn, and Paul Robinson in particular, with their fluent, powerful and penetrative football. If all their games were at Stamford Bridge, Ancelotti’s side would be certainties for the Premier League.”

The Guardian
“During the second-half tornado, a blue force ripped through Blackburn, inhabitants of the Shed End jumped with enough vigour to test the stand's foundations, and there was a buzz in the air that made you wonder if Carlo Ancelotti had found the X-factor Roman Abramovich has long been after. This was a thrill-a-minute Chelsea, a forward-thinking Chelsea, a team brimming with goals and attacking intent.”

Telegraph
“With Cole playing as if he had never been away, Chelsea annihilated an inept Blackburn side to reclaim top spot in style. Frank Lampard, who has had an unusually quiet campaign in front of goal so far, was back to his menacing best, scoring twice. Chelsea…were rejuvenated by Cole. He instantly looked back to his effervescent best and should have scored.”

You might be interested to read:

• The Chelsea season in stats – goals, assists and results analysis

Chelsea to go on January spending spree - but is it a good time to buy?

Reports in this morning’s papers – most notably on the back page of the Times – suggest that Chelsea are pushing the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to suspend FIFA’s transfer ban while its appeal is being considered, freeing the club up to make purchases in January.

The Times’ report suggests that Chelsea are already drawing up a list of targets which includes David Villa, Daniele De Rossi, Middlesbrough’s Adam Johnson and, most worryingly, Emile Heskey. Surely not the latter?

Rumour has it that Ancelotti is concerned at the depth of the squad. Perhaps if he were ready to play some of the current second string – the likes of Joe Cole, Zhirkov, Sturridge etc for longer than ten minutes a month – he might gain a different understanding.

It’s all speculation at this point however as we know nothing of CAS’ intentions regarding a potential suspension of the transfer ban, or the appeal itself, although noises in newspapers suggest that Chelsea are at relatively confident that the ban will be at least reduced. But on the off chance that the full ban is upheld, January might prove the only chance the club has to renew the squad until 2011.

From that perspective, planning for January deals is probably a sensible move for the club. Generally speaking however, the January transfer window is far from an ideal time to be making purchases.

Typically players of the highest calibre are not realistic targets in January, mainly because ineligibility for the Champions League makes them a less appealing prospect. In addition, teams are often even more reluctant to sell their best players mid-season, leading to inflated prices. If David Villa (who incidentally has had a great season so far with Valencia) would have cost £25m in July, you can bet he’d cost closer to £40m on 1^st January.

Good deals have been made in the January transfer window – £15m for Anelka wasn’t too outrageous, for example. But let’s not get too excited. We’ve heard nothing from CAS yet and I find it hard to believe that there’s plenty of money in the Chelsea coffers now when the club adopted such a thrifty approach just a few months ago. If the transfer window is open to Chelsea in January, expect one or two shrewd purchases of younger players already starting to show potential in English football.

And yes, that would rule Heskey out.

John Terry rescues Chelsea Ladies to prove wealthy stars have a heart

A nice story for a Monday afternoon – Chelsea captain John Terry has reached into his sizeable pockets to help maintain the future of his club’s women’s football team.

According to a story in the Guardian, Chelsea Ladies – who have made good progress in the last few years – have suffered a cut in funding recently which threatened to overshadow their development. This perhaps isn’t surprising – over the last 24 months, and particularly since the recession took hold, the club have been openly looking for ways to cut costs and it seems that for the time being the Ladies aren’t top priority. It is the first time in five years that Chelsea Ladies have had their budget cut.

Chelsea Ladies captain, Casey Stoney, explained how Terry got involved. “It was a blow when we were told what was happening. I mentioned it to a friend who's also a mate of JT's, and when he was told about it JT came to find me at the training ground to ask if he could help.”

Casey continues: “He ended up putting his hand in his pocket and persuading some of the other players to do the same, so now we can keep going on the same footing we had last year. We need that level of funding if we are going to compete at the top end of the Premier League and do well in the big cup competitions, so the help we've had from the guys has been invaluable. JT has also become president of the women's club and he's been with his family to see us play, so he's taking a real interest.”

Yes, it will be easy for some to dismiss John Terry’s generosity by pointing to his significant wealth. Nevertheless, this was something that he did not need to do. It is great to see these kind of stories make the national newspapers and a pleasant distraction from the stories of drunkenness about English footballers that more frequently make the headlines. Hopefully Chelsea Ladies can take advantage of the efforts of John Terry and the other players who put their hands in their pockets and continue their push up the table – currently they sit second.

I’m happy to admit that I don’t watch women’s football – and I’m unlikely to start in the near future – but I understand the importance of maintaining the game at this level. Regardless, this is another story that is testament not only to the extraordinary dedication of John Terry to Chelsea, but also to the existence of a wider sense of ‘community’ at the club, which stretches well beyond the senior squad alone.

You might also like to read:

• Does John Terry have too much influence?
• Devil’s advocate: should Chelsea have sold John Terry?

Aston Villa 2 Chelsea 1 - defence and Ancelotti give cause for concern

Another away match, another defeat. Overall, in losing to a good Aston Villa side, Chelsea didn’t actually put in a bad performance. But errors both in defence and attack, and a worrying lack of leadership from Ancelotti, were enough to get me concerned.

Even in deserved defeat, there were some positives. It might have been a tad lucky, but Drogba scored again to maintain an excellent goals to games ratio. It’s also worth pointing out that, coming on the fifteenth minute, the Ivorian’s goal was the earliest Chelsea have scored so far this season. At times on Saturday Chelsea played some nice football. Some slick passing from Deco and Lampard created two or three excellent chances to score. Overall, Chelsea had more shots on goal than the home side and dominated possession.

Unfortunately however, there really is only one stat that matters in football matches – goals scored and conceded – and Villa were ruthless in their exploitation of Chelsea’s weaknesses on the day. Indeed, had poor fortune struck Ancelotti’s side the losing margin could have been even greater, as Villa created more chances on the break.

Ancelotti has some work to do over the next couple of weeks on the training ground to urgently correct what appears to be an uncharacteristic weakness in defence. At times last season the same frailty from corners and crosses reared its head, but was quickly quashed once Hiddink took over. Now history seems to be repeating itself.

There have been suggestions that Carvalho is the weak link, and that replacing him with Alex when fit might resolve the problem. On Sky Sports commentary, Andy Gray suggested something similar – and that the Portuguese was too weak. I’m not in that school of thought: a central defensive pairing should be about a blend of talents and, on form, Carvalho offers the best possible foil for John Terry.

Conceding two goals from corners on Saturday was about poor discipline and concentration. What else could have got John Terry so riled? One would hope that, with world class defenders in the team, extra work on the training ground will go some way to solving the problem. Anelka and Deco both missed excellent chances to level the score, and I suspect that such profligacy might be harder to correct. As I pointed out earlier in the season, if Chelsea are to be successful this year, one or two players need to start chipping in with more goals. Drogba’s current form is outstanding, but can’t be relied on to win the league on its own.

But this was one defeat – not a disaster, especially bearing in mind Liverpool’s equally unfortunate and hilarious loss at Sunderland. In light of that, the most worrying aspect of the defeat at Villa isn’t the players’ performances at all, but the manager’s, which could have longer-term meaning.

As during the Hull game earlier in the season, I was at first startled and then livid at Ancelotti’s refusal to take positive action to change the game on Saturday. Chelsea fell behind Villa in the 51^st minute, and it wasn’t until the 83^rd that he made an attacking substitution. This represented an infuriating lack of leadership: essentially he was trusting to hope alone to get a result.

A loss is worth nothing – why not push for a goal? When Bosingwa got injured, why not take 60 seconds to consider whether there was a better option rather than the obvious straight swap for Ivanovic? Bringing on Cole and switching Essien to right back could have helped take advantage of a Villa side that would be on the back foot for half an hour, for example. What was giving Joe Cole – a player just coming back from injury – five minutes to try and turn a football match around going to do but undermine the player’s confidence?

We were spoilt with Mourinho. Whilst Jose may not have always got his starting XI right, he never failed to take action to change games that were ebbing away. Fans understood what he was doing, and players were able to respond to the ‘let’s win this’ message that his positive substitutions would send when they were a goal down. As it was, Ancelotti sent no message at all, and the game ebbed away rather than heated up with ten minutes to go. I suspect that I’ll get some flack for my criticism of Ancelotti from forummers, and perhaps other bloggers like thechelseablog.org and chelseadaft, but in my view if we’re happy to criticise our defence’s performance on Saturday, then we shouldn’t shy from criticising the manager’s, either.

All that said, Ancelotti must have had his reasons. This was just one game and next time that we’re a goal down he’ll – hopefully – do something different. We are far from a crisis, and the season thus far sits firmly in ‘going well’ territory – but Ancelotti has work to do to make sure it stays there.

What O’Neill said

“They’re (Chelsea) really good. I think they’re so strong and I don’t think they ever get the credit for being brilliant.”

What the papers said

The Times
“By the end of this fulminating spectacle it was Chelsea, if recent history is anything to go by, whose title hopes were grounded. His (Ancelotti’s) Chelsea, just like Luiz Felipe Scolari’s Chelsea last year, have a flaw that will surely prove fatal to their ambitions unless it is promptly addressed.”

Telegraph
“Chelsea are far from a crisis even if their second Premier League defeat of the season, the second in a row away from home, means they have ceded the leadership of the table. And Chelsea have never won the title after losing two of their first nine games. Ancelotti has the players, he has their support, he has the tactics, the structure and the temperament. But who can defend him when his team can’t defend?”

Guardian
“A second consecutive away defeat on the domestic front is a feeble sort of crisis since the new leaders Manchester United are merely a point clear of Chelsea. In contrast to the 3-1 loss at Wigan, Ancelotti's side produced some excellent football.”

No Chelsea 3pm kick-offs? Football has changed, but could it damage the game

Looking back over the matches Chelsea have played so far this season, one of the ways increasing television coverage has changed football over the last ten years is startlingly apparent.

Chelsea have played 12 games so far this season, including the Community Shield, and only four haven’t been shown live on television. Of the 28 games that the team is scheduled to play before 1st January 2010, only nine won’t be on Sky or ESPN: just one third of games aren’t being shown on TV.

This means that some of the footballing traditions are being eroded too (at least for the bigger sides): namely, the Saturday 3pm kick-off. Of the eight Premier League games Chelsea have played so far, only two have been standard Saturday afternoon affairs. We’ll have to wait until 21st November for the first home game Chelsea will play on a Saturday at 3 o’clock (our 13^th league game). In total, of the 20 Premier League games Chelsea will play before New Year’s Day, 70% won’t be 3pm starts.

So the game changes. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily. Yes, a 3pm Saturday kick-off does feel right somehow, offering just the right amount of time for fans to have a drink before the game and up the volume in the stadium. Conversely 12.45 kick-offs lead to quieter crowds and Sunday games often feel flat.

But Chelsea fans (or fans of other big sides) can’t complain too much either, as TV coverage forms the financial backbone of the club’s success on the pitch, and has been the driving force behind the modernisation of the game. Furthermore, fans of clubs lower down the table don’t have the same opportunities to watch their team, and their clubs don’t reap the same financial rewards.

But increased television coverage could have further reaching and more damaging consequences. Many argue that the current lull in Italian football – characterised by matches frequently being played in half-empty stadiums – has its roots in the massive expansion of pay-per-view coverage, where fans could pretty much watch every game on television.

Clubs like Manchester United are unlikely to be affected by increased television coverage - their huge fanbase means they won’t struggle to fill their stadium. Clubs with smaller fanbases – perhaps even Chelsea – are more susceptible to more games being shown on TV however, as fans’ decision to make the large financial outlay for tickets becomes unbalanced by the ability to watch games more cheaply at home. Whatever benefits television coverage brings, it shouldn’t be to the detriment of the stadium experience.

We’re certainly not at that tipping point yet however, and of course clubs lower down the table aren’t as fortunate as us and are more vulnerable to falling attendances. The Premier League probably has it just about right at the moment, but with broadcasters ready to throw ever-increasing resources at the game, football will need to fight off the temptation and look to its long-term future.

Chelsea season-tickets holders and members – do you care that matches aren’t 3pm Saturday kick-offs anymore? Post a comment.

You might also be interested to look at:

• Chelsea’s 09/10 fixture list, including kick-off times, television coverage and bridgeviews.co.uk match reports

Another international break but English football fans don't care about the national team

How many international breaks (interlull™) have there been this season already?

The game against Ukraine on Saturday – which I didn’t watch, incidentally – sounds like it was one of the more unconvincing England displays we have seen for a while. To be fair to Capello and the team however, it wouldn’t be the first time football sides have turned out sub-standard performances having previously completed the job at hand. Stupid defensive errors are concerning, but we shouldn’t whip ourselves up into a frenzy.

To be honest though, I rarely get into any kind of frenzy watching England these days. Yes, a major international tournament is among the more exciting events the game throws up, but these days watching the national side pales almost into insignificance in comparison with my club allegiance.

International breaks are infuriating, breaking up the rhythm of an otherwise exciting league (or your best player’s cruciate ligaments, as in the case of Essien last year). More than that, I find it hard to rationalise hurling abuse at Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard in a red shirt one week while cheering them on when they play in white the next, in that I refuse to do the latter. Sad it may be, but watching England has often become merely an extended exercise in supporting Lampard, Terry and the Coles, and this from a not unpatriotic person.

But I’m not on my own.

An interesting piece of research called ‘Football Passions’ was conducted last year by The Social Issues Research Centre, commissioned by Canon. The report, which looked into a range of football-related sociological issues across Europe, claims that football fans almost universally favour their club side over the international team. It varies from nation to nation but, perhaps surprisingly, the British are among those who comparatively care the least about the fortunes of the national sides.

Over 80% of British football fans said they ‘feel a stronger sense of allegiance to the team that I support than I do for the national side’ - a fairly huge majority. That’s over the European average, and bested only by the Norwegians and the Swedish (around 92 and 87% respectively). Interestingly, those nationalities caring most about their national sides were the French (not at all surprising bearing in mind their domestic league may as well be the Conference and ships its best players abroad), Polish and Portuguese. But those three countries were out on their own.

In light of that, I’ll feel better about myself if long working hours means I don’t manage to tune in for tomorrow’s meaningless game against Belarus. It also means I feel much calmer about the disgraceful decision to allow Saturday’s game to only be shown on the internet. It’s just England – I’ll get over it. Until South Africa, that is…

What do you think? Club, or country – which is it for you?