bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

A life without Abramovich - are Chelsea considering the potential fallout?

A life without Roman? It doesn’t bear thinking about. Or does it? Well, evidently Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck thinks about it at least once a year. According to quotes attributed to him in today’s Sun, Buck has said:

“I think we'd be in a reasonably good state if Mr Abramovich left. However, we are comfortable — the directors of Chelsea Football Club are comfortable — that he is here for the long haul. Every year we're required to look at that. We're comfortable and we don't see it as an issue at all.”

Very interesting. I can see why they might feel comfortable. Whilst the club has consistently been making losses over the past few years, the figures have been steadily improving. Had it not been for the odd bad appointment or decision here and there (for example hiring Scolari or giving Grant a four year deal), the club probably would be edging towards the holy grail of self sufficiency by now. With the huge investment in the academy over the past five years, Buck is probably hoping Chelsea’s younger players will eventually reduce the need for significant investment in the squad in coming years.

On the other hand, it is also hard to avoid the conclusion that all the success of the last six years is down to Abramovich and that his departure would certainly have far-reaching consequences. Perhaps that’s why Buck chose the words he did: ‘comfortable’, not ‘well off’; ‘reasonably good’, not ‘very good’. Roman leaving is clearly vaguely plausible too – Buck and his team consider the potential impact each year. But we shouldn’t read too much into that, it’s standard business practice to do this kind of contingency planning and likely just a part of how the club reports to the owner on its financial growth.

That Buck is even answering these questions however could re-open the debate around Roman’s commitment to the club. This is a debate that won’t just fade away, mainly because of the Russian’s ongoing determination to keep a low public profile. But the signs are all positive: earlier in the year he halved the debt Chelsea owe him, a move the club hailed as a symbol of his commitment (although it is a move that does him no financial harm whatsoever, so I’d argue it’s a slightly shallow move); he regularly attends games; he personally intervened to both fire Scolari and hire Ancelotti. Hardly the actions of a disengaged Oligarch.

So no cause for concern…probably.

Roman hasn’t been spending freely of late – even before the recession burned a huge hole in his pocket – so maybe we shouldn’t worry about him leaving anyway? Then again, even if he isn’t investing millions maybe his wealth is an important safety blanket for the club. Chelsea fans – what do you think? I’m sure like me you wouldn’t want him to walk away…

You might also be interested to read:

• Chelsea should abandon its ‘off the shelf’ transfer policy

New deal for Chelsea's Kalou - but is he worth it?

News reports today suggest that Saloman Kalou is about to agree a new deal at Chelsea. It’s easy to see why Chelsea might be marshalling him towards putting pen to paper, but there’s another side to the coin…

When Kalou joined Chelsea back in 2006, he looked a promising player. Perhaps a little inconsistent – especially in the final third – Kalou was at least dynamic, energetic and positive in possession.

Three years on, Kalou is still all of those things (and he’s chipped in with a fair number of goals in his those years too, scoring at a rate just under one goal in every four games). But, sadly, he’s still no more than that – a player that looks to have potential. At 24 years of age, is that enough?

Compared with Malouda, whose constant refusal to take responsibility on the pitch used to infuriate me before his renaissance under Hiddink, Kalou was a godsend. He has never lacked the will to take a man on, drive towards the byline or take on an ambitious shot at goal, and his work-rate is beyond question. But he looks the same player he did three years ago, scoring the same number of goals (seven in his first two seasons and six last), making the same kinds of runs and mistakes.

Most frustratingly, his three years of experience haven’t improved his decision making in the final third. In two recent appearances against Porto and Wigan his lack of either composure or top class footballing intelligence was clear to see, time and again letting down his own good approach play (and that of his team-mates) by attempting the wrong pass or, more often than not, taking on a shot at goal when it just wasn’t ‘on’.

Can this footballing intelligence be taught? Whilst I suspect that the clichéd ‘good football brain’ comes bundled with the best players, I do think it can be picked up or enhanced (for me Joe Cole’s immeasurable improvement under Mourinho is evidence of that). But after three years at Chelsea I have my concerns for Kalou – he just hasn’t added it to his game. The devil’s advocate might point the finger at Chelsea’s coaching: Arsenal have been rumoured to be interested in the Ivorian, and it isn’t hard to envisage Wenger making more of his talents.

As one of the only players in the Chelsea squad willing to run at defences with the ball at his feet, Kalou does bring value to the side. He also brings youth to a team full of 30+ year olds and, in the face of the FIFA transfer ban, the club can’t afford to haemorrhage players. Bearing all that in mind, Kalou signing a new deal is definitely the right move for the club, and we certainly wouldn’t want to see him move to a rival for free.

But, when he does sign up, both the Chelsea management and fans should demand improvements from Kalou that see him finally deliver on his potential.

What do you think of Kalou? Would you give him a new deal? Post a comment…

Chelsea 2 Liverpool 0 - league leaders ride luck but lay down title credentials

Are there more nerve-jangling games than against Liverpool? Whether the tightly-contested, tactical games of the Mourinho era or the goal-fests under Hiddink, games against Liverpool in the last few years have had that little something extra. Before heading to the game yesterday, I was surprised to learn  however that not only have Liverpool failed to score at Stamford Bridge in the league over the last five years (aside from last year’s winner, an own goal), Chelsea hadn’t managed a win over the reds at home in three years.

One of those records came to an end yesterday. Chelsea clinched an impressive, if slightly flattering, 2-0 victory. As always, I’ll leave you to read the paper reviews to recount the ebb and flow of the game in detail, but just a few thoughts in reaction follow… 

Liverpool, clearly feeling that they have a legitimate title challenge to make this season and wanting to make amends for a weak showing against Fiorentina earlier on Tuesday, came out of the blocks quickest and had the better of the play in the first ten minutes. Aside from that however, the only periods of dominance from Benitez’s side came in the opening minutes of the second half and in the closing twenty when Chelsea inexplicably seemed to go to sleep.

Outside of those moments however, Chelsea probably edged the game and deserved their win. What’s more, this was the kind of performance we have come to expect from Chelsea over the past five years. The likes of Drogba, Ballack, Essien and Terry were just too physically strong for Liverpool (and especially Carragher, who Drogba gave a torrid time), and Chelsea’s ruthless efficiency in front of goal was vintage Mourinho. That efficiency was the ace in the pack yesterday: this was a game in which both sides would only rarely let their guard down.

Chelsea’s back four were on top form – John Terry’s performance, in which he time and again out-thought or out-muscled Torres, should prove those cynical of his ability wrong – but Liverpool did carve out chances. Torres arguably could have done better with chances in both halves, and both Gerrard and Benayoun came close with second half efforts. But, unlike Chelsea’s, those chances weren’t taken and Liverpool were otherwise fairly well contained.

Gerrard (and Lampard too, if I’m honest) was largely anonymous, Torres dangerous only in fits and starts and Glen Johnson showed little of the attacking promise of recent weeks.

If Torres’ misses cost Liverpool a point, then Essien’s performance earned Chelsea all three. The Ghanaian was all-powerful in front of the back four, continually holding off opponents, breaking up Liverpool moves and building a platform for attacking play. Elsewhere, Ashley Cole was top class yet again, Ballack’s all round game was superb, Drogba gave a masterclass in leading the line (when he decided to stay on his feet) and Hilario was flawless between the posts. In the end, goals from Anelka and Malouda – both exquisitely created by Drogba - sealed the win. 

This wasn’t a free-flowing Chelsea performance by any means, especially in parts of the first half, but you wouldn’t expect that against a Liverpool side expert in nullifying opposition. Regardless, this was a performance that was good enough.

Looking for faults, you could point the finger at the side dropping too deep and not closing down quickly enough in the last twenty – which certainly contributed to Liverpool looking much more dangerous – but this performance was a far cry from Chelsea’s dire exploits against big four opposition under Scolari last season.  

It is perhaps a little ironic that, whilst Chelsea yesterday came through their second major test of the season with with a second win, it is only the inauspicious display at Wigan that now blights the Blues’ record. But let’s not kid ourselves: there are improvements to be made (possession football in the last twenty, anyone?) and yesterday’s result could have been different. Nevertheless, the result was well-deserved and things are looking good for top of the table Chelsea. Meanwhile, title-rivals Liverpool’s third loss in eight league games puts them just a couple of poor performances away from being out of the chase altogether. 

Is it worth all the nerve-jangling? With results like that, unquestionably yes.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: So many good performances to choose from, but for me Essien was a cut above. Dominating through his physicality alone, his distribution was top notch and he was a at times unplayable. A performance befitting of the ‘Bison’ moniker.

What the papers say

The Times
“Small details, according to Carlo Ancelotti and Rafael Benítez, are what decide football matches. It sounds like the ultimate truism, but, after two of the Barclays Premier League’s heavyweight teams had spent an hour trading punches at Stamford Bridge yesterday, one of them briefly let their guard down and, from that moment on, Chelsea and Liverpool seemed to be heading in opposite directions.

“Little wonder that John Terry and his Chelsea team-mates celebrated as joyously as they did at the end. It had been a tough slog, a serious test of their mettle after a week in which they had been soundly beaten by Wigan Athletic and unconvincing in victory over Apoel Nicosia in the Champions League, but they had emerged stronger, two points clear at the top of the table and six points clear of a Liverpool team whose title challenge is already faltering.”

The Guardian
“Predictability was a delight for Chelsea. The side must reduce their opponents to fatalism when they have this durability and efficiency about them. Liverpool, eager as they were in the hunt for revival in the Premier League, were well contained.

“It must, of course, be a pleasure to the manager, Carlo Ancelotti, that there is searing reliability to Didier Drogba these days. Once again he could not be denied and in this case he set up both goals. Liverpool's effort was great and they may therefore be all the more despondent that they have been defeated for the third time in the league, with October barely begun.”

The season in stats: mentally tough Chelsea start too slowly and over-rely on Drogba

Both this year and last much has been said about the age of Chelsea’s squad and how it will hinder the club’s charge for the title. Having kept detailed stats – on both the team’s performance and for individual players – since the Premier League began back in August I decided to take a look back at the records for the season so far to see what, if anything, they told us about the impact of an ageing squad.

While I was at it, the statto in me rose to the surface one again (it first came to the fore back in early June when I looked back at Hiddink’s incredible record at the club), and I found a number of other ‘interesting’ things…

Age isn’t affecting performance…so far
Far from fitness and stamina being a weakness, if anything Chelsea’s performance improves as time wears on and other teams tire. The vast majority of goals have been scored in the second half and two were scored after 90 minutes were up to steal last-gasp wins.

But Chelsea start too slowly
If age is affecting the team then its preventing Chelsea from sprinting out of the blocks. Chelsea haven’t scored in the first 30 minutes of any of the nine games they’ve played so far this season. Conversely two thirds of all goals conceded have been scored in the first half of matches, and two of those were scored before 20 minutes had passed.

The characteristic mental toughness is still there
All that experience is counting for something: surely there isn’t a more psychologically strong team in the league? In addition to the two goals that have been scored after 90 minutes, over a quarter of Chelsea’s goals (5) have been scored within five minutes of half time as other teams lose concentration. Chelsea have also won games having conceded first once in every three games they’ve played.

Drogba is the most important player on the pitch
The Ivorian has played a direct part in over half of all Chelsea’s goals, scoring six and contributing four assists. Take that away, what have you got? You get my point.

Three players are shouldering the goal-scoring burden
Together Drogba, Ballack and Anelka are scoring most of the goals – two thirds of them, actually. If one or two more players can chip in with a few more, the season will progress a whole lot more smoothly.

The goals scored to conceded ratio isn’t what it could be
Without scoring heavily, and despite the capitulation at Wigan on Saturday, Chelsea have still scored three times more goals than they have conceded. That’s not actually a bad ratio – better than both the season records for 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09, but not quite as good as 05/06 and far behind the stats for the record breaking season in 04/05 when Chelsea scored five times more goals than they conceded.

Lampard isn’t as deadly
Whether it’s down to diminished form or his new more advanced role is open to debate, but Lampard hasn’t been as effective this season. He’s only scored one goal so far – and that was from the penalty spot. He’s still made an important contribution, however, contributing four assists. Is his lower pass completion rate – just 60% against Fulham, for example – a problem, or just an indication that his more attacking role requires a more adventurous approach?

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.

Wigan 3 Chelsea 1 - too early to hit panic button as blogs lambast lack lustre Chelsea

Having not seen the game from beginning to end, I don’t feel 100% qualified to comment too much on Chelsea’s first defeat of the season. That said, I think I’ve seen enough to know that the doomsday-like pessimism from some Chelsea fans on message boards and forums is just as knee-jerk as the talk of Chelsea being shoo-ins for the title had been before Saturday’s loss.

There are certainly problems to overcome, namely how the team will break down stubborn opposition when it’s not playing at top form and doesn’t have the width to stretch defences. Without Joe Cole, the team also at times looks a little short of imagination on the ball. But every team has one or two problems to iron out: Utd have a shaky defence, are over reliant on Rooney and their central midfield looks a little lightweight; Liverpool won’t have enough goals if Torres gets injured and Carragher is on the wane; and Arsenal don’t have the strength, determination or experience to cut it at the highest level. Saturday’s loss just confirms what I have suspected for a while: the big four will drop more points this season than they have for a long while.

The truth of the matter is that three things went against Chelsea on Saturday: first and foremost Wigan played excellently with a very impressive attitude for a side that had never before beaten top four opposition; Chelsea were well below par; and, whilst Cech’s challenge on Rodallega was certainly a penalty, it was almost certainly not a red card. Once Wigan had scored from the spot past substitute keeper Hilario, the game was effectively over.

Perhaps Chelsea can use the defeat to its advantage. I’m not going to convince myself that the loss is a good thing, that it will flush out any latent complacency in the squad and encourage a backlash against Liverpool. Those things could be by-products, but I’d far rather we’d despatched Wigan as we should have done. This top of the table will be tight come May and, for Chelsea to still be vying for that top spot we’ll need a slice of luck, players to stay on top form and Ancelotti to have 100% sussed the Premier League. More importantly, we’ll need to have picked up the points against the weaker teams.

Breaking it down though, like all of us football teams – however much their players are paid – have bad days at the office, and this result alone doesn’t need a post-mortem. Chelsea weren’t up to scratch against a good side on Saturday and the referee just helped ensure that we got what we deserved. It’s far too early to hit the panic button yet (although injuries to Mikel and particularly Ashley Cole are a concern), but let’s hope for a better day at the office against Liverpool next Sunday.

Chelsea’s best blogs have been pretty damning of the Chelsea showing, and justifiably full of praise for Wigan’s. Here’s what three of them had to say in the aftermath (click on the links to read their articles in full):

thechelseablog.org

“If you’re good enough to beat the opposition to start with, referees decisions don’t decide a game (Ovrebo aside obviously). And the harsh truth is, Wigan actually deserved to beat us – which makes it all the more embarrassing. Michael Ballack had been dropped from the side, to be replaced by John Obi Mikel. Personally I’d have preferred to see Joe Cole in the side – as I’m sure he would – and the longer the game wore on, the more I was convinced his omission was a mistake.

“As for the performance itself, there really isn’t all that much to say – we just weren’t good enough. Ok, so we started well enough and it looked like it might be a predictable game but inside 16 minutes we’d found ourselves a goal down to a Titus Bramble goal against the run of play. And whilst it’s not such an unusual position for us, having come back from behind three times already this season, we didn’t seem in any great hurry to do it this time. It was a nonchalant first half performance from us full of sloppy passing and sheer laziness which could have seen us go in 2-0 down at the break if it hadn’t been for Petr Cech.”

bluechampions.com

“Let’s give the credit where it’s due. Wigan absolutely deserved the win and also the margin to some extent. When I saw the match, Wigan looked more determined and stronger. They played good football. They induced errors from Chelsea. It was not just Chelsea playing, it was more of Wigan playing their match of the season. But teams like Chelsea get their moment of brilliance and quality and bail themselves out. That part did not happen yesterday.

“The red card did have a huge impact on the match. To play an away match with 10 players for 40 minutes is quite difficult. And if that missing man is Petr Cech, you’re going to be concerned. There are some discussions over the red card and the penalty. I think it was a penalty surely but to give a straight red was a bit tough on the keeper.

“This team under Carlo has been going through the cycles. They have now had a winning streak. They have won a match in the stoppage time. They have come back to win matches. They have completely dominated teams. The one thing they could not do is to show their resilience after losing a match. Now they’ve got that too.”

chelseainsider.co.uk

“His (Ancelotti’s) Blues side were humbled by Roberto Martinez’s Wigan at the DW stadium. Goals from Titus Bramble, Hugo Rodallega and Paul Scharner subjected ten man Chelsea to their first defeat of the season. Didier Drogba continued his fine form, grabbing his 100^th goal for the Blues but it wasn’t enough and in truth the better side ran out winners.

“In a week where Chelsea were branded “unbeatable” by the media Wigan showed the rest of the Premiership just how it’s done and knocked Chelsea off the top of the Premier League in the process. Chelsea were not at their best yesterday and can have no complaints about the result. A marked improvement will be needed for the Blues next league game, Liverpool at home next Sunday.”

Fans pose the question on dangerous queues at the Bridge but Chelsea chiefs give weak answer

After the Hull game back in August I wrote a brief post questioning why it takes so long to queue to get through the turnstiles at Stamford Bridge. That day it took me half an hour to get from the Britannia Gate to my seat, and I missed the first 12 minutes of the Spurs game on Sunday despite joining the one of the queues into the Matthew Harding Lower at 3.40pm. The queuing time is a huge frustration in itself, not to mention missing parts of games, but the situation is getting worse to such an extent that it is unfortunately easy to envisage a scenario where crowd surges could cause serious injury.

It’s a truly bizarre situation: bringing in new technology should make things faster. But the introduction of the season ticket card readers at Stamford Bridge hasn’t had the desired effect and, if anything, queues have got longer and potentially more dangerous. Some of the key problems are:

• Stewards are there to ensure people don’t touch their card too early and get ‘stuck’ – but they often get in the way
• Queues are a free-for all – there’s no order to them and it slows things down for most
• The queues aren’t managed well, which means that the limited space around the ground seriously restricts movement around the stadium
• Quite simply, there aren’t enough turnstiles

The issue was raised at the recent Chelsea Fans Forum – you can read the minutes from the meeting here – and the club gave its perspective on the issue. In short – they don’t seem to see it as an issue. The club’s response was as follows:

“The problem previously was that stewards couldn’t see what was happening to help fans who were stuck. In testing, we didn’t think there would be any effect in slowing down access by moving the readers. We had c.1,300 people who couldn’t operate the readers per match and got stuck. We are trying to speed up the process.

“About 50% of fans still arrive really late and we do want fans to change their habits to help us and themselves by arriving earlier. Queues for the Porto home match started at 7.20 but we are also fully aware that travel is not easy for fans, especially at night games. Against Hull less than half the total crowd figure was inside the stadium 15 minutes before kick-off, and there was no other match to watch on television so clearly fans expect to be able to get in late.”

cfcnet.co.uk, who attend the forum, added a little extra detail to what was discussed at the meeting on their website:

“Against Hull there were only 19k in at 12.30 – fifteen minutes before Kick Off, the club have looked at other clubs capacities and number of turnstyles they have, and believe we have more then more then most, and definitely more then enough for SB. Skidata technology can reload instantly, but the design is so that once the turnstile has rotated once the card reader then allows the next person to touch in. The club mentioned that there are some habits that won’t go away, the entry to East has improved significantly, but as it got to the point where being there ten minutes before kick off would guarantee entry on time, now people get in five minutes before KO.”

Sadly I think the club has its head in the sand on this one. Anyone who has been to the Emirates will know that there is nothing like the trouble getting into that Stadium. Yes, it’s a brand new stadium, but shouldn’t the club be aspiring to the same standards for Chelsea fans? It hasn’t been as bad when I’ve been to other London grounds, either. My first hand experience suggests that their assertion that arriving ten minutes before kick-off will guarantee entry on time is ludicrous. I now arrive 15 minutes before kick-off and am never in on time – I think it’s unreasonable to demand fans arrive earlier, especially for evening games. Besides which, in their earlier point Chelsea acknowledge that queues for the Porto game were starting at 7.20 – 25 minutes before kick-off.

Chelsea also failed to acknowledge that things are getting worse. I’m not convinced by their assumption – I don’t think they have evidence to prove it – that these problems have been caused by fans arriving later. In fact I now arrive earlier – pitching up five minutes before kick-off after a pint in the Pelican would previously have seen me in my seat just as the game kicked off.

As I said above, there isn’t a quick fix for this, and I really think the club isn’t taking this one seriously enough. But aside from building more turnstiles – which is the only real solution – there are other things that can be done that aren’t rocket science: namely to start managing the queues better.

I read a quote from Kenyon a couple of years ago that said he wanted to stop relying on the ask-no-questions loyalty of fans and start treating them more like customers, meaning treating them with the respect they deserve as people who pay money for tickets and merchandise. The queuing problems are a clear example of the club not following that mantra – can you imagine the uproar if paying customers couldn’t get to their seats on time at the Royal Opera House or the National Theatre? Unfortunately, football fans are a different breed and sometimes get treated as such.

Regardless of the arguments, this needs to change as quickly as possible – for both fans’ sanity and safety.

What have other Chelsea fans’ experiences been? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Post a comment! Posting a comment is easy to do – you don’t have to register a username if you don’t want to.

Chelsea 1 QPR 0 - match report and reaction as papers don't give youngsters full credit

Yes, we didn’t get to see any of Chelsea’s young talent beyond Borini and Hutchinson. Yes, Chelsea’s starting XI was filled with eight full internationals. Yes, it was only one nil and, to be fair to the hoops, Chelsea did need to bring on Lampard, Terry and Ashley Cole to make sure of the result. But yesterday’s 1-0 win against a solid QPR was a good result in which two young players made a significant contribution and two older hands got run-outs after long periods on the sidelines.

Chelsea had the best of the game and, whilst the papers tell a different story and QPR showed some threat on the counter, the Blues never really looked like conceding. In the first half Beletti, Borini, Joe Cole and Kalou all had good chances to give Chelsea the lead, and Hilario had very little to do in goal. The second half followed a similar course, but Kalou was able to break the deadlock on 53 minutes when Joe Cole put him through on goal. In a match where his decision making was a little off, it was good to see the Ivorian put the ball past the keeper. Borini only managed to find the keeper when he was put through on goal by Frank Lampard, who replaced the injured Malouda at half time.

This morning’s newspapers have suggested that Chelsea didn’t field enough young talent, and haven’t gone overboard with their praise for Borini or Hutchinson, either. One newspaper even said Chelsea’s line-up was ‘hardly the Arsenal approach’. I don’t quite get the criticism – we’re not Arsenal, we’re Chelsea. And our ‘approach’ wins things. Plus of course the verdict on Ancelotti’s team selection fails to recognise that, in previous Carling Cup fixtures, Chelsea have failed to even name two products of the youth system: last night was certainly a step forward.

It was a step forward for other reasons too. The instant impact of the likes of Macheda (has he played a game this season?!) at the end of the last year leads people – the media included – to expect young players to be an instant success as soon as they step on the pitch. In reality it’s not like that, and to make that kind of impact requires more than a large chunk of luck. As it was, Chelsea’s young players making their full debuts looked very good.

Borini played with a confidence and intelligence beyond his years. He made good decisions on the ball – could Kalou learn a thing or two? – and looks to have a good turn of pace. A first half header narrowly missed the target, and he would have hoped to have done better with his chance in the second half, but his performance was more than we could have expected. Hutchinson looked strong too, slotting in seamlessly alongside Ivanovic. Strong in the air and with a great reading of the game, it is testament to his ability that he was part of an entirely changed back four that was nevertheless able to keep a clean sheet (it’s also worth noting that Paulo Ferreira was back and had a predictably solid game). Chelsea’s first choice back four wasn’t able to stop Sunderland, Stoke or Hull scoring…

While Hutchinson and Borini have given themselves a great chance of getting more chances later in the season, the game also welcomed back Joe Cole and Yuri Zhirkov. The former understandably looked a little rusty at first, but soon started pulling the strings behind Borini and Kalou and showed a few glimpses of the Joe Cole of old with deft one-touch passing and the occasional jinking run. It was his ball that made Chelsea’s only goal of the game, but there’s more to come from Joe, who has the potential to really make the difference to a Chelsea side that can sometimes struggle to break down stubborn opposition.

Zhirkov looked rusty too, but this was his first game not only after injury but also on English soil. He was filling in for Ashley Cole at left back, and whilst I’ve no doubt he can play there, for me he looks more like a winger. He’s a relatively plain footballer – I don’t mean to do him a disservice at all – playing sensible passes and making good runs, but clearly also has the willingness to take a man on with a burst of pace. He may have shied away from one or two headers last night, but it was an encouraging display, not least because of a fantastic cross he whipped in from the left at pace that was narrowly headed wide by Borini. There’s more to come from the Russian, too.

All in all, it was a good enough performance and a win that sees Chelsea safely through the fourth round. We’d like to see more of Chelsea’s youth team make the grade at Chelsea, but early signs are if they’re good enough they’ll get their chance. Meanwhile Borini and Hutchinson have made solid starts, and Chelsea can welcome two outstanding talents to join a squad that is already flying high at the top of the Premier League. Dare I say it, things are looking up…

What the manager said

Ray Wilkins (stepping in for Carlo): “QPR gave us a tough game. It was a testimony to how well they played that we had to use all three substitutes. Frank is not a bad player to bring on at half-time and then Ashley and John to shore things up. Joe got 90 minutes, Yuri got a bit out of it and the two youngsters as well. It’s good for the young men to push themselves forward. It’s a competition we want to win. If we can blood a few youngsters along the way, all well and good.”

What the papers said

The Times:
“Until the arrival of Lampard, at half-time, Cole, midway through the second period, and Terry, towards the end, Chelsea had spluttered throughout the West London derby. However, once the big guns had been rolled out and got to work, they were stronger all round and always capable of nullifying a stirring late rally from QPR. Even if Ancelotti could be accused of not taking the competition seriously by fielding a weakened line-up, at least it gave the home fans a possible glimpse of the future.

“As expected, Chelsea exhibited the class. Joe Cole, the captain for the night, was everywhere, cutting in from the left flank and orchestrating all their best moves. He has been away a long time and it is nine months to the World Cup finals in South Africa, but his absence does not appear to have dulled his ambition or sense of adventure.”

The Telegraph:
“Its eight wins from eight for the Italian and 23 matches unbeaten - equalling the club record set by Jose Mourinho in early 2007 - for Chelsea. The sight - by the end - of John Terry, Ashley Cole and Frank Lampard all on the field would suggest that Chelsea made heavy weather of this tie. Although hardly fluent, they didn’t. The arrival of the substitutes came for various reasons with Lampard upping the tempo as a half-time replacement, Cole replacing the tiring £18 million debutant Yuri Zhirkov, also returning from injury, and Terry, well, it looked like he fancied a run out.

“There were full debuts for Fabio Borini - the technically-gifted 18-year-old Italian striker who has caught Ancelotti’s eye but who looked a little lightweight at times - and Sam Hutchinson, 20, but others, such as Jeffrey Bruma and Nemanja Matic remained on the bench.”

The Independent:
“The Italian might have thought that he could pick any XI from his mighty 29-man squad to dispose of their west London neighbours from the Championship but he was wrong. The fringe players were not good enough and by the end of the game Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole and John Terry were all on the pitch to steer Chelsea through to the fourth round of the competition.

“Unlike Arsene Wenger at Arsenal, Ancelotti does not have a team of brilliant academy players to play in the Carling Cup, although given the money his sporting director Frank Arnesen has spent, he really should. Instead, Chelsea have an enormous first-team squad who have to play at some point. For the likes of Paulo Ferreira and Juliano Belletti this is about as good as it gets.”

The Guardian:
“Much has been made of the lack of first-team progress of the club's youth players, who, until recently, were under the charge of the sporting director, Frank Arnesen. Yet, in some respects, the sight of two of them in the team was encouraging. Ancelotti may have discovered that it is no easy task telling John Terry, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole et al that they must start on the bench. Chelsea's leading stars always insist on playing.

“Rangers, mid-table in the Championship, were up for the fight. So were their supporters, who filled the Shed End. As a light rain fell, there was a real cup-tie derby under the floodlights. Chelsea…needed a spark in the second half and Lampard's introduction helped to provide it. Yet it was Cole who prised Rangers apart.”

Chelsea v QPR preview - finally, a chance for youth to shine

Another day, another London derby. This time it is QPR coming to the Bridge for what is an eagerly awaited clash, particularly for the Hoops.

I’m looking forward to the game particularly because it represents the best chance Chelsea’s younger players have of making an impression that we’ve seen for a long time. Too often over the last few years younger players have either been written about but never seen or made fleeting appearances of the bench only to disappear back into perpetual life in the reserves. You can read a critique of Arnesen's youth development that I posted earlier in the leauge here.

I’ve always appreciated that, so long as the pressure remains to win every game and compete to win trophies, the scope to blood younger, less experienced players is limited. Despite this I’ve also always argued that Chelsea need to focus less on bringing in established talent and that opportunities to field Chelsea’s existing younger players have presented themselves but haven’t been taken. Why hasn’t Sturridge – who played very well in pre-season - had a chance this season, for example? There have been at least two league games this season that have been won with twenty minutes still on the clock that would have provided a great opportunity to bring him on. Perhaps Chelsea have been saving him from first team duty to prevent his transfer fee – which is still to be decided by tribunal – increasing higher than expected.

Over the past few years Chelsea have taken the Carling Cup very seriously, playing pretty much full strength sides throughout. I’ve agreed with this approach as it has shown both the competition and paying fans respect. I’m also convinced by the argument that winning the Carling Cup in February can help take pressure off the team and provide a good platform to push for other honours.

But it’s a question of balance, and in terms of giving youngsters an opportunity to progress I don’t think Chelsea have always got it right. The noises coming out of Stamford Bridge suggest that tonight’s game against QPR may prove the exception to the rule however, and while we can welcome Joe Cole and Zhirkov back into the fray (two players that really could make a difference to a season that has already started well) I would expect them to be joined by only a few of their senior team-mates.

Borini came on against Spurs at the weekend, but didn’t really have much time to show what he can do – hopefully he’ll start tonight. Sturridge should also get a game, as should Hutchinson. Turnbull may well start in goal despite a couple of nervy performances in the reserves.

It’s a shame we won’t get to see Kakuta – I’m sure he’d have got some time this evening if it wasn’t for FIFA – but I’ll be fascinated to see how the rest of them get on as well as how Joe Cole and Zhirkov return from injury. Look out for the normal match report and reaction on www.bridgeviews.co.uk tomorrow.

It’s worth a quick word on our opponents – QPR are under the microscope at the moment because of the ongoing Briatore speculation, but I wouldn’t have thought Magilton will let this affect his players’ performance on the pitch. The injection of cash since the Ecclestone, Briatore and Mittal takeover back ion 2007-8 hasn’t paid off following a string of managerial changes. Our local West London rivals can only be said to have made a solid start in the Championship this season, winning just two games from seven. It’s worth pointing out that both of those wins have come away from home.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction: I admit that I don’t know too much about QPR but I would hope that, despite a changed starting XI, I would hope that Chelsea should still have enough to see off QPR. I reckon Chelsea will win 2-1, with Zhirkov scoring the first goal.

You might also be interested to read:

• thechelseablog.org’s take on this evening’s game, including a look at the pre-match comments coming out of each camp and recent results between the teams

Chelsea 3 Tottenham 0 - a closer look at how a flexible formation destroyed Spurs

Perhaps amplified by the stuttering performances of their closest rivals, Chelsea’s straightforward-looking defeat of Spurs at the weekend has received plenty of praise from fans and football journalists. It was an impressive display – here’s a brief but closer look at how the match was won.

It’s strange that commentators still refer to Ancelotti’s diamond when in reality that formation hasn’t made an appearance for weeks now. Talk of formations is a red herring: Chelsea in fact now play a system that, ontop of a solid defensive base, allows the attacking players a great deal of freedom when Chelsea have the ball. Against Spurs Chelsea almost played with two holding players when Spurs had the ball, with Ballack withdrawing to a deeper role. With Essien’s tendency to drive up the pitch and the renewed attacking instincts of the full backs, intelligent covering movement from Ballack and Lampard is essential.

In the first half Spurs had the better of the play and, in committing plenty of men forward, at times actually overran Chelsea’s midfield. Either Chelsea were being too gung-ho in getting forward or weren’t being disciplined enough in closing down the likes of Defoe, Keane and Jenas as they burst into the final third. Certainly Chelsea’s eventual success on Sunday owed at least a little to some fantastic last-ditch defending from Essien, Carvalho and Terry in the first half and some wayward finishing from Spurs (although they only managed 4 shots on goal all game to Chelsea’s 21). In the second half Chelsea tightened up, with Ballack and Essien consistently breaking up play (it was especially important to nullify the in-form Aaron Lennon), maintaining possession for the team and starting attacking moves. In total Essien’s pass completion rate was 89% and Ballack’s was 91%, and between them they made 6 successful tackles and an enormous 9 interceptions.

Given this platform, Chelsea were free to unlock the team’s shape when they had the ball, when the formation would more closely resemble a flexible 4-1-3-2 (albeit with the ‘1’ often finding himself in the final third too). Again talk of formation is probably a misnomer: the freedom granted to Chelsea’s attacking players was probably the cause of Spurs’ downfall. Anelka and Drogba – the former especially – didn’t play as traditional centre forwards, and both were happy to drift wide or deep to pick up the ball. This unpredictability made them difficult for the Spurs back four to pick up, and directly contributed to Chelsea’s first goal: as Drogba drifted wide to pick up the ball from Bosingwa, Spurs’ defence found themselves with new players to mark and completely missed Ashley Cole steaming in at the back post.

As it was, players didn’t play tightly defined roles: Ballack played both inside and wide on the right when Bosingwa broke down the line; Lampard popped up across the breadth of Spurs’ half (although was less involved than we might have expected last season); Anelka played mostly down both wide channels in behind Drogba; and Essien covered every blade of grass on the pitch.

Once the first goal had been scored, Tottenham’s legitimate penalty had been denied and Ledley King substituted through injury the game changed again, and Chelsea’s dominance was as much the result of Spurs’ desperation to draw level as Chelsea’s passing football. Pushing too high up the pitch, the Spurs defence gave Chelsea a further route to goal – the long ball over the top to Drogba, who by that point was running riot. In addition to Drogba scoring the third goal, Bassong should have been sent off for a rugby tackle on the Ivorian (ironically this would have saved him from injury) that was also the direct result of a long ball.

Injuries to King, Bassong and Drogba guaranteed a stop-start last twenty minutes to the game and, in turn, an end to both goals and edge-of-the-seat excitement. By that point however the damage was done: Chelsea had scored three without reply and the energy Spurs had shown in the first 30 minutes seemed a distant memory.

An excellent performance, yes - the extra freedom granted to our attacking players certainly makes Chelsea harder to contain and is probably responsible for the likes of Ballack and Cole chipping in with more goals this season. All the same, I think we’d all like to see a more defensively disciplined performance against Liverpool on Sunday 4^th October.

Chelsea winning run down to revival of three key men

Chelsea’s record breaking start to the season – including a rousing win over local rivals Spurs yesterday – has got fans, journalists and players alike talking up Chelsea’s chances of reclaiming the Premier League title.

At just six games in, it’s a bit early for that – Chelsea started similarly under Scolari last season – but it has been a very encouraging start. Not including the Community Shield, Chelsea have played seven competitive games and won all of them, scoring 16 goals and conceding only 3. Some teams, like local rivals Fulham, were stifled into submission while others, like Sunderland and Burnley, were passed out of the game. Characteristic Chelsea strength, spirit and resolve won the day against Hull and Stoke, while power and skill combined to beat Spurs yesterday.

Without wishing to go over the top, this is a side that has played in a number of different ways and drawn on varying resources to win football matches. The team has played well as a whole and there have been some excellent individual performances too. Carvalho has proved to be worth keeping, avoiding injury so far and putting in a great performance against Stoke, Bosingwa has started this season as he did last and Ballack has started scoring. But, from my perspective, it is the return to form of three key players has paved the way to six league wins out of six.

The most damning indictment on Luiz Felipe Scolari’s time at Stamford Bridge is the complete failure of the Brazilian to get Didier Drogba playing well – or even playing. Presumably due to some kind of personality clash, Scolari decided that the best way to ‘deal with’ what he perceived to be Drogba’s weaknesses was to drop him from the team. He fundamentally misread what Drogba needs to perform well: an ultra-supportive manager. Mourinho wrapped Drogba in cotton wool, told him he was the greatest and made the team revolve around him, and Hiddink’s approach wasn’t dissimilar.

It looks like Ancelotti has selected the right predecessors to emulate. If anything, Drogba has looked better than ever so far this season, scoring five goals from six league games and making five assists (quite exceptional for a striker). The odd drama aside his attitude has been impeccable, too – for me he’s shown far greater willingness to stay on his feet, not question referees and his defensive work has been exceptional (particularly in the Stoke game). On fire as he is now he is entirely unplayable, and provides so much more space for other marauding attacking players such as Anelka, Deco, Lampard and Ballack. I’m going to stick my neck out hugely here and say that, if Ancelotti wants to win silverware this season, the first and most important thing he has to do is keep Drogba fit and hungry.

The Ivorian isn’t the only player in blue to have been rejuvenated this season. Ashley Cole, who like Drogba was starting to come back to his best form under Hiddink, has looked like a world beater since the Hull game. Without setting a foot wrong in defence he has been insatiable in attack, getting forward as he used to with Arsenal. Again like Drogba, his attitude and commitment has been immense, and it’s no surprise that he’s scored three goals in his last seven Premier League games. Not bad for a left back. His constant willingness to bomb down the left has compensated for Chelsea’s lack of width down that side, and allowed Malouda to play a more involved role inside.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning Michael Essien. The Ghanaian returned from injury to great and immediate effect towards the end of last season, but I felt that his form deserted him a little in the last few games. Starting fresh this season however, Essien has added much-needed strength and energy into Chelsea’s often congested midfield, skilfully breaking up play, stealing ten yards and harassing opposition in their own half. He’s not as disciplined as Mikel in terms of protecting the back four, but given freedom to roam he’s a handful. If he’d made more than 11 appearances in the league last season, who knows where Chelsea might have finished.

Before Ancelotti joined Chelsea, there was plenty of paper talk suggesting that his main asset was as a man manager. Milan’s players were supposedly begging him not to leave, desperate not to lose a manager that they also considered a friend. I was somewhat sceptical of his record in Italy but if his defining achievement this season – there are surely other, more tricky problems to come in future years – is to get such improvements as we’ve seen from Drogba, Cole and Essien from the rest of the squad, he’ll have proved a very wise hire indeed.

Chelsea 3 Tottenham 0 - match report and reaction as Drogba crushes a good Spurs side

Yesterday’s game saw Chelsea set a new club record with 11 consecutive wins, retain top spot on top of the Premier League and become the only unbeaten side in England’s top division. This all came against a very able Tottenham side – who presented the sternest test Chelsea have faced so far this season – but the scoreline was the most comprehensive of the season’s victories thus far.

Chelsea’s stats so far this season are impressive but, having played the better football in the first half an hour (not that I saw the first 15 minutes of the game because I was queuing to get into the stadium for 25), losing two key defenders to injury and being denied what was certainly a penalty while the score was still at one nil, Tottenham fans will protest that the 3-0 result didn’t reflect the game. Regardless however, this was an outstanding showing of power, skill and ruthlessness from Chelsea and, in reality, the scoreline could have become embarrassing for Spurs had Kalou brought his shooting boots and the game hadn’t petered out in the last fifteen minutes.

Tottenham do play excellent attacking football at times (Redknapp will have to tighten things up if they want to progress further than 6^th or 7^th place) and both Defoe and Lennon in particular looked threatening in the first 30 minutes. Chelsea perhaps afforded Spurs’ attacking players a little too much time and space on the ball in the middle of the pitch and out wide, but in reality they were up against a confident and pacey side set up by Harry Redknapp to score goals. Beyond the first half an hour though, the game was Chelsea’s, with Ballack, Lampard and Essien pulling the strings whilst Anelka and Drogba constantly swapped centre and wide positions to pull the Spurs defence out of position, and subsequently out of the game.

Good performances were littered across the pitch. Essien was outstanding in the centre, constantly breaking up play and putting in one of the finest tackles (on Lennon) that I’ve seen in a long while. Bosingwa and Cole – the latter especially – were excellent from the full back positions, constantly overlapping to double up on their opposite numbers. Ballack is quietly getting amongst the goals this season, too. Once again Drogba maintained his imperious form and was completely unplayable for large portions of the game, and especially once Ledley King went off injured. Hopefully – ridiculous as they may sound – rumours emerging that the Ivorian’s injury was merely cramp are proved true, so reliant on him are Chelsea.

There’s plenty of match reports out there so I won’t go into any more detail but it’s worth saying that yesterday some form of marker was laid down. Man Utd have already lost one game and are leaking goals, Liverpool have lost two and aren’t in top gear yet, Arsenal can beat Wigan 4-0 but not a lot else and it’s too early for Man City. If – and it is certainly an ‘if’ – Chelsea can maintain anything like this kind of form then they have an excellent chance of bringing the title back to Stamford Bridge.

Spurs are a good side but Chelsea being able to raise their game to win comfortably tells us more about their title challenge than any of the previous games this season. Liverpool visit in two weeks time – I suspect that game will tell us even more…

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match ­– Ashley Cole was again exceptional, but Drogba was unplayable. Put simply, Chelsea look a different side without him.

What the papers said

The Times
“Chelsea were ruthless to a degree that, to Tottenham, must have seemed almost vindictive. If Chelsea can sustain this form…they should regain the title that United have taken for the past three years. That is a big “if’’. But the pace, power and energy of this team of Carlo Ancelotti’s would put them ahead of all challengers at present even without the impressive compactness again displayed as they claimed a sixth win in as many league matches this season”

Guardian
“Chelsea’s serene progress under Carlo Ancelotti was maintained with a sixth consecutive victory that restored their three-point advantage at the top while most were still digesting events at Old Trafford. The Italian's perfect start almost feels as if it has slipped in under the radar.

“By the end they (Spurs) had been buried as Didier Drogba, liberated from his marker's shackles, bulldozed them into submission. The Ivorian still tumbles to the ground too easily, but he is simply devastating when he builds up a head of steam and stays on his feet. Spurs, wounded at the heart of their defence, parted for him as the game slipped away. The cramp that curtailed the striker's afternoon was a blessing, though Tottenham had long since been bloodied and bruised.”

What the managers said:

Carlo Ancelotti
“We are very happy because we won a difficult game. It was an important game because it was a derby and Tottenham was a very good opponent. They played very well in the first half and because they changed something in midfield, we had a little bit of difficulty to maitain control of the defensive positions. The second half was better for us because we did a very good job in the defensive positions and we won the ball in midfield. We did very good counter attacks for the second and third goals”.

Harry Redknapp
“In the first half-hour I was delighted and thought we could win it. If Robbie went down with the first contact, it’s a penalty, but he was too honest. With all the talk there’s been about diving, he tried to stay on his feet. As soon as Ledley King went off, I knew we were in trouble. We just couldn’t handle him (Drogba).”

Chelsea make new signing despite FIFA ban - signing young players isn't the devil's work

Well, well, well. Sepp Blatter will have been fuming yesterday as news emerged that not only have Chelsea signed a new young goalkeeper despite their ban from FIFA, but the selling club were actually very happy about it.

It was revealed yesterday that Chelsea have agreed a £2.5m (approximately) deal to bring 6’2” 17 year old goalkeeper Matej Delac to West London from Croatian side Inter Zapresic. Delac will join Jan Sebek, another young goalkeeper who recently moved to Chelsea, as soon as FIFA’s transfer ban has expired.

This is an interesting development even just on face value: the FIFA ban clearly won’t stop Chelsea dipping into the market to buy young players on agreements that bring them to the club on a future date. Arguably the ban might even help Chelsea purchase younger players as smaller clubs will be able to benefit from keeping their player in the short term.

More interesting however is the response of Zapresic’s Director, Branko Laljak, who said this of the deal:

“This transfer will save our club from bankruptcy. We are sure this transfer will help us, as now the whole world will know the name of our club. We are proud that we made a player for one of the biggest clubs in the world”.

Laljak’s comments are certainly a far cry from Lens’ finger-pointing that we heard a fortnight ago, and perfectly illustrate that there is a broader argument to the debate around the trade of younger players that is not currently being discussed in formal circles or the media. In a similar way that I argued two weeks ago that the transfer window is actually a serious restriction of smaller clubs’ ability to do vital pieces of business to protect themselves financially, Laljak’s comments suggest that most smaller clubs can benefit from doing business with giants of the game over their young talent (provided everything is above board, of course) both financially and reputationally. Indeed in Zapresic’s case, the Chelsea deal has saved them from liquidation.

In looking to stop the fair and legitimate movement of young players as has been mooted, FIFA not only delay the best young players from moving to get experience that matches their ability but also to some extent prevent smaller clubs from being completely free to take benefit from the players they have ‘created’. Putting a stop to young players being sold internationally would probably lead to the sort of deal that we have seen between Chelsea and Zapresic becoming commonplace, having far-reaching consequences for scouting and wasted transfer expenditure.

When and how young players can be bought and sold is a complex issue but, if Laljak’s comments prove anything, there’s more to the arguments supporting greater freedom of movement than meets the eye. One thing is certainly clear to me: stopping young players moving clubs isn’t necessarily a positive ambition on its own. 

In the meantime Chelsea have, in a way, defied FIFA. How do you like that, Blatter?

Universally disliked Kenyon wasn't all bad for Chelsea

Peter Kenyon has been pretty much universally disliked over the past decade, increasingly developing a reputation as football’s anti-christ. Much of this isn’t his fault, however – Kenyon’s skills as a deal-maker made him ‘famous’ just as football started to commercialise in the 90s and, ultimately, against a backdrop of an industry whose main players only pretend to behave like businesses.

Kenyon’s move from Man Utd to Chelsea didn’t help him, either. Almost as if he were a player or manager, fans of other clubs refused to see anything but a man making a big money move and jumping onto the blue band-wagon rather than pledging loyalty to one club. Meanwhile, many Chelsea fans have been unable to get past the red devil in him.

But he made mistakes, too. Kenyon played a major role in the Ashley Cole tapping up affair, and in Chelsea’s supposed courting of Sven-Goran Eriksson. He also pushed through the disastrous appointment of Scolari in 2008, and his tenure coincided with the complete disintegration of Chelsea’s relationships with UEFA and FIFA. Whether he could – or should – have prevented Kakuta-gate remains to be seen.

Kenyon also didn’t appreciate that Chief Executives of football clubs should be seen and not heard (or perhaps neither). Too often he played too vocal a role at the club – the infamous ‘the league will be won from a small group of one’ and his over confident posturing over the Robinho transfer spring to mind – and with a less than attractive character he did himself no favours.

Above all, Kenyon alone set the tone for Chelsea’s corporate behaviour over the last five years, and is responsible for Chelsea’s aggressive policy both in the transfer market and with the media. This aggressive approach laid the foundations for all of his mistakes, and certainly contributed to Chelsea rising as quickly up the ‘most hated’ league as it did the Premier League table.

But a lot of these faults – and those judged to exist by football fans – are failings of character, and aren’t necessarily behaviours that would be unsuccessful outside of football. Kenyon has certainly had successes too. As witnessed by the recent US tour, Chelsea have made real inroads into the North American market. The sponsorship deals with Samsung (among others) and have been of great benefit to the club. The club has in some areas become a force for good in his time too – under Kenyon, Chelsea became the first football club to clearly define its corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy and publish annual reports on its progress.

He didn’t do badly by the fans, either. Season ticket prices have been frozen for the past four years (I for one am very grateful for that) and cheap/ free train deals to away patches were also introduced while he was in charge. On the whole, Stamford Bridge looks a hell of a lot better, too.

On balance, I would agree that it’s a good thing that Kenyon has left, and would hope that incoming Chief Executive Ron Gourlay can swiftly set about patching up the relationship with UEFA and carving out a less aggressive character for the club. As he leaves however, it is important to remember that Kenyon is a businessman, not a celebrity – if we Chelsea fans are going to despise him, let’s do it for the right reasons.

Kenyon leaves Chelsea - did he fall or was he pushed?

Capping off a typically tumultuous month for Chelsea, breaking news from the club this afternoon (helpfully released just as we were all out to lunch): Peter Kenyon has left his role as Chief Executive.

Kenyon, who joined Chelsea back in 2003 from Manchester United, will for the time being remain at the Blues as non-executive director (meaning he will still have a role representing Chelsea on various European committees). The announcement was made in a typically pleasant and diplomatic style for this type of story in the last hour on the Chelsea website, but the information we’ve been given so far poses more questions than answers.

It’s tempting to believe that Kenyon was asked to leave – perhaps he has paid the price for Kakuta-gate and the various other public relations disasters that have followed the club over the past few years. Rumours have also suggested that Kenyon didn’t have Abramovich’s faith following the hiring of Scolari in 2008, who was supposedly the Chief Executive’s choice. It has also been suggested that Abramovich personally intervened to dismiss the Brazilian last February, neatly bypassing Kenyon who was on holiday at the time.

All that said, rumours of Kenyon’s departure first surfaced two or three months ago, which could suggest this was more of a mutual agreement. We may never know (I’m sure the papers will be full of speculation tomorrow). But looking forward, there are two more pressing questions to answer:

• Who will replace Kenyon as Chief Executive? Will Abramovich choose an external appointment to ensure someone with experience of the football industry joins the club, or will he opt to promote someone already at the club who he knows and trusts? Internet forums are already rife with speculation that Karen Brady could be on her way.
• What will Kenyon’s next move be? He says he’s got one more challenge left in him and people are already speculating that he’ll move to Man City. If he stays in football, surely he’ll have to resign is non-exec role as it would be a conflict of interest? Furthermore, what knowledge of Chelsea (eg. transfer targets, business plans, skeletons in the cupboard etc) will he take with him?

Look out for a forthcoming posts reviewing Kenyon’s time at Chelsea and what we can expect from the new CEO. In the meantime, what are your first reactions to the news of his departure?

Chelsea 1 FC Porto 0 - match report and reaction as Chelsea labour to win

Chelsea’s first Champions League game of the 09/10 campaign was certainly no walk in the park and, with the weather conditions being as they were in the first half, it was more akin to a hike through a rainforest monsoon. The wet weather and 105 minutes of football against a dogged Stoke probably did contribute to some degree, but this was a scrappy Chelsea performance that only just about merited the one nil score line.

Following a brief five minute spell of pressure from Porto, Chelsea dominated the first half. Whilst Chelsea had the lion’s share of possession and the territorial advantage in the first 45 however, the team’s play often lacked purpose, was far too narrow and seemed a little rushed in the final third. Whilst Chelsea were busy misplacing too many passes and struggling to create clear cut chances, Porto were showing signs of their strength on the break with Hulk looking particularly lively down the right.

The weather didn’t help, but at times Chelsea looked a little unstructured: Essien doesn’t have the same discipline as Makalele or even Mikel in holding back and at times it was difficult to pick out precisely what roles Lampard, Kalou and Anelka had been given. Chelsea did miss Drogba. At a fundamental level there was an obvious lack of presence in the Porto penalty box – both Kalou and Anelka both feel more comfortable drifting deep or wide to pick up the ball than receiving it in the box. It was telling that yesterday Lampard was consistently the most likely player to make an appearance in Porto’s area. 

The deadlock was finally broken just after the break however when, having hit another good opportunity straight at the keeper, Anelka reacted quickly to the resulting loose ball to place a powerful shot past both keeper and defender into the net. Things were looking up, but the game was quickly turned on its head as Porto finally started to impose themselves. The Portuguese champions enjoyed most of the possession from that point and could have easily stole an equaliser were it not for excellent defending and goalkeeping from Carvalho (who was excellent throughout the 90) and Cech respectively.

In the last twenty Ancelotti looked to shore up the one nil lead by substituting Kalou for Beletti. Beletti is a great utility player to have on the bench – a very safe pair of hands who doesn’t make mistakes – but whilst it may have been vindicated by the result I wasn’t convinced about the substitution. By that point the Chelsea defence was misguidedly dropping deeper each minute, effectively handing the impetus to Porto. Substitutions not only bring on someone who could change a game, they also send a message to those already playing – and the Beletti substitution did nothing to encourage the team to hold a more advanced line and look for opportunities to kill the game at the other end.

Despite a couple of nervy moments, Chelsea held onto their lead and won their first three points in group D. As I said in my match preview yesterday, the win is all that matters and the result in Madrid made the three points even more valuable. After just one game Chelsea have taken pole position in Group D, but expect and improvement on Sunday when Spurs come to town.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: Ricardo Carvalho. It was like the Ricky of old last night. Tremendous reading of the game, perfectly judged interceptions and breaking up Porto’s play time and time again. Cech played well too, but it was great to see the Portuguese back to top form against his old employers.

What the papers said:

The Times
“Chelsea’s latest crusade in the Champions League began with the first faltering steps on the long road to the final in Madrid next May. Faltering? Only in the sense that their performance dipped in the final half-hour, after Nicolas Anelka had put them ahead. (this was a) result that heightened the perception that his team, even when playing below their best, will be a force to be reckoned with once more this season”

The Telegraph
“Totally in keeping with the monsoon conditions, Chelsea made heavy weather of defeating Porto on Tuesday night. The Italian (Ancelotti) has been brought in by Chelsea’s owner, Roman Abramovich, to get the bridesmaids of the Champions League to the altar and they need to move more confidently up the aisle than this. Occasionally wasteful in possession, occasionally far too narrow, Chelsea were unimpressive. But never mind the quality, feel the quantity of points collected and Chelsea can also take heart from the welcome sight of Joe Cole on the bench, following his long absence with a knee injury.”

The Guardian
“This opening to Group D felt as if it belonged to a far more advanced date in the Champions League calendar. Domestic matches in this stadium seldom keep Cech so occupied. Last night Porto reminded you that they had run Manchester United very close in last season's quarter-final, when it took a goal from Cristiano Ronaldo at Estadio do Dragao to win the match.”

What the managers said:

Carlo Ancelotti
“I think that in the first half we found it difficult because we wanted to pass the ball in the centre and they were very close, in the second half after scoring we had some opportunities to score a second goal. At the end we were not able to keep the ball and control the game. They played very well, but it is normal to have a difficult game because these games have a lot of balance. We can play better, not always can we play our best.”

Jesualdo Ferreira
"It is very difficult for us to swallow this result. Chelsea controlled the game in the first half and were very attacking - but we reacted well. In the first half, the game was more balanced. The goal was a bit unfair on us, coming so soon after half-time. In the second half, we were unlucky not to have scored goals ourselves.”

Was yesterday’s performance good enough? Post a comment…

You might also be interested to read:

• Full competition-by-competition Chelsea 09/10 season stats

Chelsea v Porto match preview - Drogba's absence will mean a reshuffle for Ancelotti

It’s so easy to get distracted by referees, isn’t it? Yesterday it was Ovrebo’s over-quick return to the Champions League that got my goat, today it was a sanctimonious article by Graham Poll in the Daily Mail. He wanted all the attention while he was a referee – turns out he hasn’t changed in retirement. 

More important than all that though, thankfully there’s some football for us to watch today as the Champions League returns. It just goes to show how spoilt us Chelsea fans have become that I find it hard to ‘get into’ the Champions League until the knockout stages, but in reality this is because the group stages have largely become a formality for English sides over the past few years. The lack of excitement is probably a good thing.

Tonight Chelsea entertain the 2004 Champions of Europe, Porto, who currently sit at number 18 in Europe according to UEFA’s coefficient system. Not long ago this would have been a very big game indeed, but if fans or players don’t take this seriously they’ll be doing the fixture a disservice.

Chelsea have started well in the Premier League, but Porto haven’t started badly either. Despite once again being crowned Portuguese champions last year, they were relatively active in the transfer window spending around £20m and bringing in ten players. The turnover doesn’t seem to have hampered their performances on the pitch so far: Porto currently sit third in the Liga Sagres having won three and drawn one of their opening games, scoring eleven goals along the way. Their manager, Jesualdo Ferreira, has a reputation for being a little cautious so we can expect Chelsea to have the lion’s share of possession, but we can also expect Porto to be more effective on the counter than Stoke were on Saturday. With players like Hulk and Belluschi, Chelsea’s back four will need to be on their game. 

Ancelotti, however, has some decisions to make. Drogba of course is suspended following his outburst after last season’s semi-final and, with Kalou being almost anonymous up front against Stoke (I prefer him coming from wide positions as part of a front three), Ancelotti could choose to give Sturridge his competitive debut in Chelsea blue. The loss of Drogba presents more of a problem than purely personnel though: I’d argue that the recently successful (albeit very flexible) 4-3-2-1 formation won’t be as effective with Anelka or Sturridge at its tip and I’d expect Carlo to revert to something that allows the team to play with a more traditional looking front two.

Bosingwa is also banned, but Ancelotti has plenty of options at right back and either Beletti or Ivanovic will fill in. Having been rested at the weekend Essien will probably take Mikel’s place in the starting 11, but Joe Cole and Zhirkov are still not match fit and won’t make the bench. Youngsters Borini, Bruma and Hutchinson could find they get run outs should Chelsea find themselves comfortably ahead.

It will be an interesting game but, whilst an in form Porto will have some ‘spark’ up front, Chelsea should just about have enough to see off their challenge – even without Drogba. As with the Stoke game at the weekend, there really is only one objective – to take three points. There’s plenty of talk in the media about how Ancelotti is aiming to win the Champions League, but this is a competition that is neither won nor lost in September. Win the game, avoid injuries, and move as quickly as possible towards qualification – that’s the order of the day.

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted line up: Cech, Ashley Cole, Terry, Carvalho, Ivanovic, Essien, Ballack, Malouda, Lampard, Anelka, Sturridge
bridgeviews.co.uk predicted score: 2-1, Lampard to score first

One final point – anyone who feels like watching the Juventus v Bordeaux game this evening rather than the Chelsea game, please do get in touch to let us all know about how our pal Ovrebo gets on. Rumour has it that the Norwegian being given that game to referee and Platini being a Juve fan are entirely coincidental…

Chelsea conspiracy theories linger as UEFA stick by incompetent Ovrebo

The scandal of Tom Henning Ovrebo’s performance as referee in the second leg tie of last season’s Champions League semi final between Chelsea and Barcelona is now complete: he will referee tomorrow’s Juventus v. Bordeaux Champions League game. Hardly a small-time fixture: Ovrebo’s terrible performance back in May has clearly had no bearing on his career development whatsoever.

Ovrebo’s woeful performance at Stamford Bridge, in which he ignored at least three obvious penalties for the home team, could be interpreted in one of two ways: one, that the Norwegian is incompetent or two, that he was acting with some wider agenda.

Let’s remind ourselves how Matt Dickinson of the Times reported Ovrebo’s performance back in May:

“Conspiracy theories flew out of the Chelsea dressing-room faster than you could say Jose Mourinho last night, but there is one simple way of measuring if they are true. Should Tom Henning Ovrebo officiate a match above under-13 level outside his native Norway, then something is rotten at the heart of UEFAs headquarters."

He has a point and, regardless of the accuracy of any conspiracy theory (and they're just theories), something is rotten at UEFA's HQ. The loyalty UEFA have showed the referee in the face of his abject performance at Stamford Bridge serves only to reinforce the perception that UEFA is a corrupt organisation only too pleased to see Chelsea put out of that competition. What other way can its reaction to Ovrebo’s display – or to put it more accurately, its lack of reaction – be explained? We have heard nothing from UEFA to explain their actions – they have only been concerned with punishing Chelsea for the post-match reaction of the players and fans. If UEFA were to come out and say something, everyone would be better informed.

We shouldn’t be surprised. UEFA in no way can be said to represent the best interests of the game’s main stakeholders, the fans. No other business, organisation or governing body could so seriously ignore its customers and expect to survive. Back in June in a post on Ovrebo’s performance I wrote:

“Most crucially, UEFA’s lack of accountability spits in the face of football fans. When Chelsea went out of the Champions League to that late Iniesta goal, it was after a 12 game campaign that saw Blues fans watching 18 hours of football. Supporters going to all the home games would have paid at least £300 (plus programme, food and travel costs). It is an investment of time, money and emotion that was made redundant by a single inept performance of a referee. UEFA would do well to not take that so lightly.”

It seems no-one at UEFA reads this blog. UEFA have made no public recognition of the Ovrebo issue – even just to say that they thought his performance was good enough. Their complete lack of open comment is insulting to anyone who watched the game that night. They clearly feel they are an omnipotent organisation sitting far above reproach or question. Again, this is something I referred to back in June:

“Where am I going with this? If UEFA scrutinise clubs like Chelsea for their actions, they should accept a level of scrutiny themselves. They should be an accountable body, open and willing to look at failings and challenge itself to improve. Perhaps a UEFA statement on a review of Ovrebo’s performance will be forthcoming. But I wouldn’t bet on it.”

I also wrote:

“Drogba called Ovrebo’s performance ‘a disgrace’. It was. But turning to look at the bigger picture, the real disgrace is UEFA’s attitude in their running of the game. There has been no public admission that the referee’s performance was sub-standard and no hint that it has (or will) come under review. Which of us, in whatever walk of life, could make mistakes on that scale without serious repercussions?”

I dearly wish I could bank on the kind of support Ovrebo received from his employer should I make such a big mistake at work. UEFA are propagating a refereeing system that rewards incompetence (or competence at putting Chelsea out, either way). There is no way that Ovrebo should be allowed to referee another Champions League game this season – it’s an unfathomable decision.

I’ll be writing a letter to UEFA to request they let us know how they reviewed Ovrebo’s performance and what the result was. I will also be asking for an explanation as to how he can be back refereeing at the top level so quickly, and I’ll post the letter here for you all to read. I’ll also keep you updated on any response – although UEFA’s track record on supporter relations suggests I’ll receive no reply.

To be clear - my issue is with UEFA, its behaviour and how its lack of openness has a negative effect on football. How scandalous is Ovrebo's quick return to the Champions League?  Post a comment.

You might also be interested to read:

• UEFA's attitude is the real 'disgrace'

Chelsea master winning, Man City look good and Arsenal aren't up to it - 7 things we learned this weekend

What a weekend of football we’ve just been treated to. Ten games, no draws and shedloads of goals. Games between the Premier League’s leading sides have told us quite a bit about how the season might pan out – here’s bridgeviews.co.uk’s interpretation.

Chelsea are the masters of playing badly and winning

Ok, ok, so Saturday’s performance against Stoke can’t really be labelled ‘bad’, but the team did look jaded in the first half and was unable to create enough good chances in the second. That said, a team who had lost 20 players for one and half weeks to international duty still managed 75% of possession and edged out a dogged and well-organised Stoke - actually rather impressive.

If this side can improve again – and if the returning Joe Cole and Zhirkov can add some guile, trickery and pace to an already successful formula – it could spell worrying signs for the rest of the league.

Man City don’t look bad at all

In condemning Arsenal to a humiliating second defeat of the season, Man City showed there’s a chance this season won’t just be about transition for them.

In previewing their chances back in July I suggested that while Man City had enough in attack, a big question mark still remained over them as a defensive unit. But, in watching their performance against Arsenal (a team who can unquestionably attack), it would seem they have no problems in defence, either. Whilst they scored three goals in the second half, in many ways their first half performance was more impressive. The back four were flawless (is Micah Richards getting his form back?) and De Jong looked excellent in the holding role.

It’s too early to pass to full a judgement – this was just one performance. But England’s ‘big four’ might well be worrying that City’s development is ahead of schedule. That said, Saturday’s game was still against ‘bigger’ opposition for them: let’s see how the pressure of expectation affects them as they line up against United next week and Liverpool and Chelsea in future months. There’s a long way to go and I still suspect immediate success is too big an ask.

One in, one out – Arsenal now look in trouble

If City are looking upwards, Arsenal are certainly looking in the other direction. They can play very pretty football, but what is the point if its 90% ineffective?

Wenger has it all wrong. Many of his youngsters are good players, but in contrast to Chelsea his is a flappable side devoid of balance, steel, experience and the winning mentality. The risk of a 5^th place finish is very, very real.

Adebayor – he’s a fool, but a good footballer with it

Another pop at Wenger on the way – sorry Gooners. Whatever Arsenal fans say, Adebayor is a top class player. I’d argue that he was perfect for Arsenal (with their current squad) too, offering a genuinely different option up front if needed. How many times could City knock the ball long to the Togan when they needed to release the pressure valve or break quickly? And who could Arsenal look to up top?

Plus, he has good feet and scores goals. That he didn’t look interested at the Emirates last season is damning not only on Adebayor himself but also on Wenger’s man management. This is a player derided by Arsenal fans who still scored 15-odd goals last season - he shouldn’t have been sold. If Hughes can do what Wenger couldn’t (and I stress the ‘if’), £25m could end up being a very, very good deal indeed.

Worth saying however that nothing can excuse Adebayor’s behaviour on Saturday. The stamp on Van Persie (yes, we’ve all wanted to do it) was appalling and celebrating in front of opposition fans is never a good idea. Still, Thierry Henry was doing that for years and Arsenal fans never seemed to mind…

But Drogba is better

Five games, four goals, three assists. On song it is difficult to think of a better forward in world football than Didier Drogba - his goal against Stoke was utterly devastating.

Revitalised and renewed, Drogba was everywhere on Saturday – causing Stoke no end of problems at one end and heading countless crosses clear at the other. His attitude in the past has certainly been questionable (although flawless this season) but there’s no out-and-out striker I’d rather see in a blue shirt. Where Chelsea would be without the talismanic Ivorian who knows, but we’ll get a taste of it against Porto tomorrow and during July’s African Cup of Nations.

Man Utd could be there for the taking

A controversial one this, after a 1-3 win over confident, in-form opposition and having had a man sent off…but Man Utd could be there for the taking this season. United certainly have some very good players, but I fancy a half-competent performance from Spurs would have allowed the north Londoners to get something from Saturday’s game against the Champions.

As it was, fantastic counter-attacking and defensive performances from Rooney and Fletcher respectively let Man Utd win the day. United are still the team to beat this season – make no mistake about it – but they aren’t the same force as previous years and could be there for the taking if other teams are up to the challenge.

The top of the table will be shaken up

Last season the ‘big four’ lost just 17 games between them, the season before that, 15. In just five weekends of football (and 13% through the season), the ‘big four’ have already lost 5 games. We’re in the midst of change – the table will look very different come May 2010.

What did you make of this weekend’s games? Post a comment.

Stoke 1 Chelsea 2: match report and reaction as graft beats grind at the Britannia

Phew. Well, if there’s one thing to say about Chelsea – they keep fans on their toes.

Saturday’s game against Stoke was certainly a battle and, make no mistake, Chelsea were far from in top form. This was an understandably sluggish performance (probably because of the recent international fixtures), particularly in the first half, that was rescued by the dual virtues of determination and unwavering belief.

Once again, Stoke fans will have woken up the morning after a Chelsea game with a good claim to feeling aggrieved after their players worked so hard for over 100 minutes to try and hold a technically superior side and had two key players injured in the first half. They had managed to go ahead after thirty minutes, but in reality that goal had more than a slice of luck attached to it (after Cech had basically gifted them the one nil lead) and opportunities to add to their tally were few and far between. The first half’s only real moment of real quality came two minutes into extra time and probably defined the game – Lampard executing an exquisite reverse ball to Didier Drogba who expertly evaded his marker before lashing the ball over the keeper with his left boot. Certainly Chelsea’s goal of the season so far, but the game could have looked very different had Stoke kept their lead going into the second half.

As it was, the second 45 had an entirely different complexion to the first, and was almost exclusively played in Stoke’s penalty area as Chelsea took full control of the game. In total, Chelsea had 75% of possession – something not usually seen in the Premier League – but on the whole were unable to carve out good opportunities.

And if there is a lesson to be learned from the game this is it – on their off days Chelsea probably still have the quality (and determination) to outplay most Premier League sides, but outplaying them may not always be enough to win three points. Arsenal frequently have the same problem – having the ball is a pointless exercise if you don’t create a certain quantity of cast iron chances. Stoke lined up with five across the back who played very deep, making Chelsea play in front of them, knowing that Chelsea’s lack of natural width would probably mean the Blues would struggle as things got congested down the middle. They were entitled to do this – and they won’t be the last side to try such ‘negative’ tactics this season.

This time around Malouda was able to score the winner in the fourth minute of second-half extra time. But, without a little more variety to the play, the next time a tired performance comes against such determined opposition that winning goal might not be forthcoming.

Chelsea just about had enough to take three points on Saturday - that’s what matters - and there’s an art to winning when you’re not playing at your peak of which Chelsea have proved to be masters. A far sterner test awaits at Stamford Bridge next week when Spurs come to town…

What the papers said:

The Times
“When players, coaches and the latest incumbent of the Stamford Bridge hot seat, Carlo Ancelotti, embraced on the touchline — were reminiscent of happier days under the charismatic Portuguese. Of course, it would be foolhardy to get carried away after five games. Chelsea may have won them all, but they have yet to face any opposition of real calibre and…the prospect of losing Drogba, Essien, Mikel and Kalou for a few weeks in January is a disconcerting thought.”

The Telegraph
“It is now or never for these players and the way in which they threw themselves into gaining these three points was something primal. Chelsea dug deep and then dug deeper. To equalise in the third minute of added time at the end of the first half was impressive, to score a winning goal in the fourth minute of added time at the end of this draining encounter was even more so.”

On Drogba’s first goal: “Chelsea scored a sublime goal. Lampard’s reverse pass was wonderful, Drogba rolled Faye and lashed a vicious left-footed cross shot which silenced a raucous stadium.”

Guardian
“The Ivory Coast international scored a fine equaliser here against a Stoke side who are hearty but short of quality. That moment was possible because of the excellent Frank Lampard's brilliant turn and deftly geometric pass into the striker's left channel. Drogba still had much to do. And he accomplished it with a flourish. Faye, whose opener came from a looping header over a culpable Petr Cech, was turned by Drogba. An instinctive finish followed, a sweetly vicious left-foot strike beyond Steve Simonsen.”

The Sun
“For this had been a Hard Day's Night as Stoke tried to out-muscle and out-tussle the Premier League leaders, chasing every ball, blocking every shot and generally getting on their nerves.”

What the managers said:

Ancelotti
“We showed character and heart and this is very important. We are at the top and we want to stay there for as long as possible. The manner of the way we won here showed great quality and character. We were worried about their long throws but we wanted to play football from the start. Yes, our winner came from a throw but we deserved it because of the football we played.”

Pulis
“They've scored in the 47th minute and 93rd minute, so there you go. They keep the ball so well and work you so hard. Teams work so hard against them, to stop them from playing, and you expend so much energy, that the last 10-15 minutes against these top teams are always very difficult. They've (Chelsea) a great chance. Their biggest problem will be in January when the African Nations Cup comes and they lose several of their players."

You may be interested to read:

• Full, up-to-date Chelsea stats for the 09/10 season – the games, goals and players

Stoke v. Chelsea match preview - a pleasant distraction from all the scandal

Chelsea will be looking to equal the club record of ten successive wins when they meet Stoke this weekend, but will be up against capable opposition with a fine home record.

What a fortnight it’s been. Following the impressive 3-0 win over Burnley, Chelsea have been banned from making transfers by FIFA (the guardians of football) and 20 players headed off for international duty. Lampard, Terry and Ashley Cole helped England to confirm their place in the 2010 World Cup with a convincing win over Croatia.

But this weekend, Premiership football is back. And thank god.

As good as it is to see England do will in big tournaments, games outside of the two-yearly affairs usually verge on the painfully dull, and balancing conflicting desires to see Rooney/ Gerrard (delete as appropriate) both break a leg and score a goal can be wearisome.

The senseless negative media coverage about Kakuta-gate has been difficult to handle, too. Where on earth has the term ‘child-trafficking’ come from?

On paper of course – despite Stoke’s strong start – Chelsea should be comfortable favourites for tomorrow’s clash at the Britannia Stadium. Chelsea are top of the league, the second highest scorers and were quite frankly unlucky to have conceded the two goals that have found their way past Petr Cech so far this season.

It might not be quite that simple however.

The vast majority of Chelsea’s squad has been involved in international fixtures (senior or U21 level) over the last week and there will only be two full days of training available to Ancelotti ahead of tomorrow’s 3pm kick-off. It wouldn’t be the first time if, following international matches, Chelsea put in a jaded Premier League performance.

In addition, Carlo’s options aren’t improving either. Joe Cole and Zhirkov seem to be competing with each other to win the award for most protracted recovery from injury, and Deco has himself been ruled out too.

Stoke on the other hand have made a great start to the season and currently lie 5^th in the table. Pullis’ men have a great defensive record and an even better one at home: since Chelsea beat them there last season they’ve only lost two games on their own patch. They are a well-organised side that should be given plaudits for the efficiency of their game – we should all remember that they were unlucky to succumb to a last minute Lampard goal to go down 2-1 to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last season.

Stoke will also be strengthened by the return of James Beattie – surely one of the signings of 2009’s January transfer window, and Robert Huth making his first appearance in red and white on his return to Stamford Bridge.

Of course, despite the potential problems, Chelsea should still have more than enough the quality to see off Stoke – and if I were a betting man that’s where I’d put my hard earned cash. Three points could be very significant this weekend too, with key clashes meaning that at least two of Chelsea’s current rivals Arsenal, Man City, Man Utd and Spurs will drop points (I’m assuming Liverpool will see off Burnley at Anfield). The Eastlands game looks particularly fascinating – well worth recording more than one of Saturday’s games on Sky Match Choice or watching Match of the Day.

With that in mind, a gritty, hard fought one nil will do nicely.

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted score: Stoke 0 Chelsea 1, Lampard to score

Kakuta plot thickens as the case for Chelsea's defence grows

Having had 24 hours to cool off, I’ve started to look more rationally at Kakuta-gate, and the FIFA transfer ban and fine that have followed. Increasingly it looks like a right old mess, and one from which FIFA themselves shouldn’t be able to extricate their greasy fingerprints. I’ll certainly admit here and now that the club has acted shamefully unethically, and that I’d really like to see it clean up its act. It does look however like Chelsea will be able to make a solid defence.

Roma were handed a two registration period ban for ‘poaching’ Mexes from Auxerre, and this has been cited by some as a fair precedent for FIFA’s punishment of Chelsea. But in reality the cases are very different, as the players had totally different forms of agreement with their previous clubs. It is in the nature of these ‘agreements’ that the rights and wrongs of Chelsea’s actions hinge.

Under French law, no player under 16 can sign a professional contract (this varies from country to country). As such, Kakuta did not have a professional contract with Lens, leading to a grey area in which Chelsea felt he was a free agent and Lens felt they had a valid form of pre-contract agreement. In contrast Mexes had signed a fully professional contract with Auxerre before he moved to Roma.

A quote from Francis Collado, a former Administrative Director at Lens who was involved with the Chelsea-Lens negotiations back in 2007 (I picked this up on the Times’ website), suggests to me that Lens are standing on a somewhat shaky legal footing. Collado is quoted to have said:

“He (Kakuta) wasn't free to go. At 14 we proposed a contract. In effect this was a pre-contract because in France you can't pay a player until he's 16. The contract was registered with the French FA and the French league. At a certain point last year I went to see Peter Kenyon and Frank Arnesen in London. I said to them: 'We cannot just let this player leave. We have a youth development centre to run. That costs money. We invest in it. This boy is a phenomenon. I took the contract to them. I gave them the figures and then they proposed a ridiculous figure. They said they thought they had the right to take him. I told them that I would go to FIFA, that they could be fined and banned from making transfers, but they thought they could get away with this. What has happened is a shame for Chelsea, but they were warned.”

This – along with other news slowly leaking out about the affair – suggests a number of things. Firstly that Chelsea firmly believe, and believed at the time, that they were free to take the player and that he was not under a legally binding contract with Lens as he was a minor. Furthermore, it is thought that Lens’ agreement with the player was actually a ‘training agreement’ – which probably isn’t worth much from a legal perspective. Secondly, Collado’s language itself suggests uncertainties. He flags that Kakuta had a contract registered with the French authorities – but how does that work in an international context? He also says Kakuta’s contract with Lens was a pre-contract ‘in effect’. ‘In effect’ doesn’t suggest faith that it was concrete.

In addition, Collado’s choice of words around having an expensive youth development centre to run and having made investment in a fine player smack of a desperate, emotion-driven bid to rescue some worth from a club product rather than a well-tuned legal argument for the illegality of Chelsea’s actions.

And there’s another twist in the tail. Collado refers in his quote to negotiations between the clubs that took place after Kakuta made his first appearance for Chelsea, during which Chelsea offered compensation that Lens considered ‘ridiculous’. That figure is said to have been around the £750k mark – it is perhaps ironic (and galling) that the fine opposed by FIFA yesterday is pretty much equal to that amount, suggesting that the governing body broadly agrees with Chelsea’s original valuation. It all suggests that Lens were over-reacting: tell-tale signs of a club understandably acting in desperation.

The job of the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) will be to distinguish the emotional, ethical arguments from the legal case and come up with a fair judgement based on the law. The differences in contractual law from country to country appear to be playing a key part in all of this, and it is FIFA’s responsibility to create a fair and transparent playing field upon which clubs across borders can do business with each other and players. As it is, they haven’t, and they therefore have a great deal of culpability for this mess. Their throwing the book at Chelsea stinks of hypocrisy, and shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

It’s also worth pointing out at this stage that Chelsea have made limited or no contribution to the ‘case’ thus far – FIFA processes don’t allow for it – so the official judgement could be a little skewed anyway. Furthermore, the FIFA committee looking at the case was supposedly made up of two French and no English officials. Hardly representative…but I’m not sure I’d expect any different.

Hopefully the CAS will throw out the ban, but uphold fair compensation due to Lens, who I have a great deal of empathy for. From my point of view, with the information currently out there (I stress I’m no expert!) it looks as if the club behaved terribly, but entirely within the law. If all this is proved to be true, this would seem fair punishment.

And here was me thinking the break for international fixtures would leave Chelsea blogs with nothing to talk about…

FIFA punishment is a disgrace, but poor management has just given them an excuse to hammer Chelsea

You will have all heard the news by now that FIFA have suspended Chelsea from making any new signings until January 2011 as punishment for inducing Gael Katuka to breach his contract when he signed for Chelsea back in 2007. Amazingly, they’ve also imposed a fine of over 700,000 euros on Katuka himself (albeit with Chelsea sharing liability).

Let’s be clear about this from the outset – as Chelsea say on the official website, the punishment to this level is entirely without precedent, draconian and completely disproportionate to the offence. European clubs are guilty of far more blatant infringements and yet are somehow beyond the reach of FIFA or UEFA’s judicial hand.

You have to wonder about the strength, leanings and principles of an organisation who decide to hit Chelsea so hard over this but take almost no stand against the disgrace of Spanish racism at football grounds or Italian or German fans’ violence. I can’t help but jump to the conclusion that this is an attempt by FIFA to make an example of a ‘big’ team and doubtless they, like UEFA, are revelling in the chance to take a swipe at their perceived public enemy number one – Chelsea football club – and, more broadly, the perceived threat of a dominant Premier League. As it happens, we posted on the atrocious record and hypocritical behaviour of FIFA’s president, Sepp Blatter, earlier this summer. It’s worth a read here.
 
This one will run and run, especially once Chelsea’s appeal is lodged, and I’ll certainly be posting on this again once I’ve calmed down a little. My suspicion is that Chelsea’s appeal will meet with success or some other route will be found around the ruling, but we’ll have to wait a while before the picture becomes any clearer.

Aside from my instant outrage at this absolute disgrace of a decision however, I’m also angry at the club itself. This is just the latest in a string of business and public relations disasters that have followed the club over the last few years, ranging from the clashes with UEFA during the Mourinho days and the Cole tapping up scandal through to the Mikel affair and the club’s poor response to the aftermath of last season’s Barcelona tie. Something is very seriously wrong with the way the club both handles and presents itself.

I made the point back in June that, when Chelsea heard of UEFA’s ruling on the club for failing to control its players after the Barcelona game, it missed an opportunity to start repairing the frayed relationships with the game’s international governing bodies. As it was, an aggressive reaction merely enhanced their view of the club as being the enemy of football - however wrong, misplaced and unfair this might be.

Now we are paying what could be a very, very high price indeed for that reputation. The club need to – and will – fight this punishment as far as is possible, but now is the time to look in the mirror long and hard and start taking steps to ensure this is the last time we’re on the wrong end of UEFA or FIFA’s witch hunts. It doesn’t feel right to pal up with them in the face of their behaviour and ineptitude – but it’s a necessary evil.

Look out for future posts on the potential success of the Chelsea appeal and the potential consequences should the club end up facing the ban in full. Come on Chelsea fans – what do you think?

It’s just transfer psychosis - why have a window anyway?

After three months of intense – and mostly insane - speculation (incidentally, by my calculations Chelsea were linked with buying 39 players this summer), the transfer window finally closed at 5pm on Tuesday. From my perspective Chelsea didn’t do too badly from this summer’s window, but Tuesday’s anticlimactic day of inactivity got me thinking – why have a transfer window anyway?

I can barely remember how transfers happened before the window system was introduced but, of what I do remember, there didn’t seem to be anything wrong with the way they were handled. I can half see the appeal of the window – it curtails the ability of the biggest and most wealthy teams from simply buying their way out of trouble and, by implication, prevents smaller clubs from losing their best players at inopportune moments. I suppose too that the window could create excitement and drama – Tuesday’s boredom certainly wasn’t the norm.

But this is, at most, half the story.

At a fundamental level, the transfer window represents a mountainous restriction of trade that would be terrible economic practice anywhere else (just another sign that, despite what we’re told, football isn’t run as a business in the normal sense of the word). I get the sense that – as Paul Fletcher discusses in an interesting piece over on the BBC website – whilst the transfer window helps prevent an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots within the Premier League, it serves no such purpose in lower league football

The transfer window prevents Football League clubs from selling players and raising what could be vitally needed funds. These clubs, who might not have the benefit of large and consistent income streams, can’t be fleet of foot in responding to changing financial circumstances, which could seriously restrict their ability to either make steps forward on the pitch or steer clear of emergencies. In his article Paul Fletcher quotes Peterborough Director of football Barry Fry as saying: “To me the inability to sell one of your assets is a restraint of trade. I think it is a disgrace.”

The window has a wider impact, too. Limiting clubs to just four months of buying per year results in a form of transfer psychosis, with periods of over-intensive transfer activity. Prices are forced up as negotiating timescales are so short (we can expect prices for English players to be inflated even further in the coming years as the dual impact of the window and new rules on domestic players come into force), and it breeds panic-buying. Of course, bigger spending means higher ticket prices.

And if, as is the impact of a transfer window system, clubs are worried about not being able to respond to an injury crisis? They buy too many players (again increasing spending which gets passed onto fans), meaning that more players who could potentially be getting minutes on the pitch at a more suitable club further down the chain are sitting warming the bench. Hardly good for football clubs, players or fans.

But I guess it works well for the media. What else would they have to talk about over the summer if not whipping up a frenzy of rumour, gossip and hearsay, emblazoning ‘deadline day’ over the back pages of their newspapers and displaying countdowns on their news channels. And this is just part of the problem - as the endless speculation just adds to the mad frenzy that clubs have to deal with.

Who says having a mid-October transfer sprung on you can’t be exciting anyway? Football needs to start thinking beyond the end of its nose – scrap the window.

Think the transfer window works, or should it be scrapped? Post a comment.

You might also be interested in reading:

• No marquee signing? It’s not Chelsea that’s failing, but English football

Chelsea come out on top: the transfer window winners and losers

In possibly the biggest anti-climax since history began, yesterday’s Sky Sports sponsored transfer window closed without even a whimper. Yes, a few players moved here and there, but it felt like business was down and there wasn’t the glamorous big move we (or the national newspapers) were hoping for.

Some doom-merchants already have it in for the Premier League, citing either the recession or La Liga as the catalyst for a near apocalyptic implosion of English football. They’re not right, of course – it will take more than a few players moving to La Liga to prove the Premier League isn’t still the strongest on the planet and English football has always struggled to attract the very biggest names in world football anyway. It is certainly true however that the window didn’t seem to have the excitement of previous years.

But however it ‘felt’, this summer’s window still saw £450m spent by Premier League clubs. But not everyone did well: here’s bridgeviews.co.uk’s transfer window winners and losers, and there are certainly more of the latter.

Winners

Chelsea
Keeping hold of John Terry was the major coup of the summer, single-handedly giving Chelsea a headstart over less fortunate rivals. Zhirkov is unproven in the Premier League but looks a sound addition and the type of player the squad needed, and Sturridge looks an enthusiastic and able deputy for Anelka and Drogba. Yes, there wasn’t the marquee signing some fans were hoping for (which no doubt I’ll whinge about in November when Chelsea go on a run of unconvincing draws), but on the plus side other key players signed new contracts and asking prices for new stars were too high anyway. Chelsea also got rid of Shevchenko and Pizarro shaped deadwood, probably saving the club £8m-odd a year. Bearing in mind what’s happened with our rivals, that’ll do.

Man City
It’s fairly easy to be transfer window winners when you have this much cash to spend – although getting the results on the pitch over the next eight months will prove a hell of a lot more difficult. My hunch is Man City won’t do a bad job of it though: he’s much derided by Arsenal fans but Adebayor is a good player (and already has three goals from as many appearances) and £12m for Barry is cheap for an English international. The addition of Toure and Lescott might just be the additions I claimed Man City needed in order to get consistent results when I analysed their chances back in July.

Stoke
Bear with me with this one. Battling promoted side do well in their first season playing functional football. Add experienced Premier League players Huth and Tuncay for cheap - sounds good to me. Avoiding relegation can sometimes be more difficult in the second season than the first – my bet is Stoke will manage it this year.

Losers

The rest of the ‘big four’
A no-brainer, really. It is impossible for United to replace Ronaldo (incidently we commented on what the Ronaldo transfer might mean for Chelsea and the league back in July - you can read it here). The only alternative open to Ferguson is rejigging the side and trying to play a different way. The signing of Owen is a good one and Valencia isn’t a bad player, but it isn’t quite enough and United look a whole lot less formidable this season. For me they could still be marginal favourites for the title though, despite how well Chelsea have started.

If I was a Gooner, I’d be tearing my hair out at the club's abject failure to address obvious shortcomings in the squad and the blind faith put in youngsters. The Man United game at the weekend showed not that Arsenal’s players aren’t good enough, but that the balance of youthful exuberance and experience is all wrong. It’s an argument that’s been made about Wenger’s side time and time again, but they’ll win nothing, and any Arsenal fans writing-off the losses of Adebayor and Toure to their would-be big four replacements from Manchester as unimportant are delusional. The result at Old Trafford notwithstanding, Arsenal have started well and will probably continue their good form in the short-term, but my hunch (and it’s just my hunch) is that a fifth place finish could be beckoning this year or next.

Like United, Liverpool have lost a very influential player in Alonso, but to hype the loss up to Ronaldo-like proportions is overstating his importance. That said, the Spaniard did make the scousers tick, and the fascist-loving crock Aquilani could be considered a gamble. Glen Johnson was expensive, is great going forward but weaker at the back and besides, full backs don’t win you the league. I suspect time will show that, aside from Chelsea, Liverpool did the best of the ‘big four’ clubs this summer.

Fulham
Did so well last season but were the lowest spenders in the league this summer. The game against Chelsea earlier this month showed that they’re entirely toothless upfront and desperately need a new goalscorer. A lack of goals this season could well undermine the great work Hodgson did last term.

Hull
Unlike Stoke, I’m not so convinced by Brown’s transfer dealings. The loss of Turner to Sunderland will be a big loss. I watched loan signing Altidore make an instant impact against Bolton, but unless the likes of him score 15 goals this season I think they might be in real danger of relegation.

Portsmouth
It’s been a bit of a mess down on the south coast this season, and Portsmouth have haemorrhaged good players (Johnson, Crouch and Distin). Fingers crossed for them that their replacements can step up to the task and look less like Championship players once Paul Hart has whipped them into a shape.

Everton
Prevailed over Villa to snatch fifth place last season, but I’m sure that Moyes will have been upset at the slow progress made in adding to the squad over the summer. Bilyatedinov, Distin and Heitinga may well prove sound acquisitions, but the loss of Lescott will probably only add to Everton’s sluggish start in the league. By comparison I’m more impressed with Villa’s acquisition of Premier League veterans Downing, Warnock, Beye and Dunne. It’s a precarious time for both sides however: a resurgent Spurs and Man City’s dramatic improvement could render their efforts last season redundant.

Who do you think made the greatest impact during this summer’s transfer window? Post a comment…

Devil's blogvocate: should Chelsea have sold John Terry?

Chelsea are now four games into the new Premier League season and things have started well for Ancelotti. As 09/10 gathers pace, bridgeviews.co.uk and thechelseablog.org have teamed up to look back on the biggest debate of the summer: should Chelsea have sold John Terry? Here at bridgeviews.co.uk we argue no, but click here for thechelseablog.org's arguments for selling our captain.

Well, well, well, what a surprise. Yesterday John Terry signed a new five year contract at Chelsea. It speaks volumes that, in contrast to the fanfare at Lampard’s signing this time last summer, the club chose to make the announcement only via two paragraphs on the official website.

The lack of celebration however is entirely a reaction to a month of rampant speculation about Terry’s future. Behind the scenes I’m sure there will have been a very real jubilation (and relief) that the captain reaffirmed his commitment to the club, and any reticence about upping his salary would have been short felt. Generally speaking, I think most Chelsea fans feel the same. I’m one of them: Terry staying can only be a good thing for the club. Here’s why.

His contribution

Technically, while he may not be playing quite at his 05/06 peak, John Terry is still very much at the top of his profession. And his peak is pretty impressive, anyway: this is a man who has won the PFA Player of the Year award twice, been named UEFA’s Best Defender three times (most recently last week), been named in the official 2006 FIFA World Cup Team of the Tournament and twice voted Chelsea fans’ Player of the Year.

Terry’s personal awards have not been handed over lightly. He is probably the world’s best defender in the air, but his reading of the game is of the highest quality and he’s also under-rated with the ball at his feet. Equally confident on either his left or right foot, he is more expansive with his passing than he is given credit for. 95% of his passes this season so far have found their intended target.

It’s telling that when Terry’s detractors criticise the centre half, they often try to paint him as someone who is made to look better by having a superior – and quicker – centre half alongside him, as if he should somehow be two men at once. Such are the expectations he has set for himself – no other English defender comes in for such unjust criticism (no-one questions Rio Ferdinand for not having Vidic’s strength or ability in the air, for example). In reality though, it is Terry that ‘makes’ the partnership, providing the defensive base on which the added talents of Carvalho, Gallas or Alex have helped to build the most successful defence in the country for the last five years.

Terry’s technical ability has directly translated to results on the pitch. Last season, John Terry played with three different partners in a central defence that was the most miserly in the league, conceding just 24 goals. In fact, in the 190 league games played since the beginning of the 04/05 season, Chelsea have on average conceded just 0.58 goals per game. By comparison Man Utd, who have won the last three leagues consecutively, have conceded 0.70 goals per game over the same period.

Having signed a new five year contract, one area of concern would be for Terry’s fitness. A number of niggling injuries – primarily to his back – seem to have more regularly affected him of late and there are question marks about whether his never-say-die attitude will cost him during the closing years of his career. Only time will tell, but it’s worth mentioning that last season Terry played 48 games – not a bad record. Of all John Terry’s rivals for a starting place in England’s defence, only Jamie Carragher played more, and at 28 years of age he could well be coming into his prime.

But to write only about his technical ability would be to sell Terry very short. Quite simply there isn’t another captain in the English game like him, and from that perspective he’s irreplaceable. On the pitch, he leads both by example (I doubt there’s been a more committed defender this decade) and as the tactical mouthpiece of the manager. Off it, he is the glue that binds the squad together and has represented the only shred of consistency the club has seen over the past five years. Sometimes I've thought that his influence has stretched too far, but fundamentally it isn’t only through clearances off the line or goal-saving tackles that John Terry has won points for his team.

At a time when the competition at the top of the league is looking more fierce than ever before, now is not the time to either weaken the highest-performing part of the team or rock the boat.

Finances

Reportedly Man City were ready to offer £40m for John Terry’s services, an absurd amount of money for any defender. It would be easy to say that such a huge sum of money would come in handy if trying to strengthen the side where it’s most needed: creativity in attack.

In reality though, I think this is probably a red herring. Real Madrid and Manchester City (£25m for Lescott? I ask you) have changed the transfer rules this summer, meaning the £40m Chelsea would have received for the club’s most successful captain ever wouldn’t stretch very far – potentially not even enough to buy one top class player. It feels wrong to trivialise it, but £40m isn’t very much to Roman Abramovich anyway. If he really wanted to bring in Aguero or Ribery for £50m, getting £40m for Terry wouldn’t need to be a deal-breaker.

It’s also speculated that Terry’s is now on around £160k a week, making him in all likelihood the league’s highest paid player. Leaving aside the argument about whether footballers are generally paid too much, I don’t think that sum is unreasonable. In addition to being one of the best players in his position, he’s also captain of both club and country. If wages are determined by one player’s relative ‘worth’ in comparison with others, I have no problem with him being at the top of the pile.

The club

It’s been written that keeping Terry in the face of Man City’s advances was an important statement for Chelsea to make, and it’s true. Terry staying was a clear sign that the club still has the financial and sporting ‘pull’ to keep the best players at the club, and bring new ones in. But this was a statement that was important not just for symbolic reasons.

I’ve written before about how the top of the league could be in line for a shake-up. Man Utd have lost The Best Player in the World™, Arsenal are still relying on youngsters and Liverpool have lost Alonso. In the meantime Man City are spending money like it’s going out of fashion and Spurs have started the season well. The ‘big four’ is very much on its last legs and each club will have to jostle for position to protect its standing.

In light of that, standing still is the new going forwards. Not losing Terry (or any of the best players) was this summer’s major coup for Chelsea, and absolutely essential if a realistic title challenge is to be made. Hopefully, whilst other top clubs are scrambling to rebuild their sides, Chelsea’s prevailing foundations provide the strongest possible base to build on for the future.

Look out for follow-up arguments to this debate on www.bridgeviews.co.uk and www.thechelseablog.org later this week. But what do you think? Happy to see our captain stay or want to see the back of him? Post a comment.

Chelsea v. Burnley preview: Carlo the tinkerman meets Coyle's giant killers

In the wake of last weekend’s 0-2 win over Fulham, Ancelotti explained why he’d shifted things around a bit. “Deco was out and Essien was out for this game. But it was a good line-up. Essien has played all the games so far, so I wanted to give him a rest. He will play the next game. We have to follow this line”.

So whilst we can assume that Essien will line up against Owen Coyle’s Burnley tomorrow (Stamford Bridge, 12.45pm) we can’t be quite sure what starting XI Ancelotti will field. He is clearly planning on rotating his squad throughout the season (lord knows why it’s needed so early on though – especially with a player like Essien) and so far only five players have featured in all three Premier League starting line-ups so far: Petr Cech, John Terry, Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba. I’m all in favour of a settled side, but such an approach is an interesting development out of keeping with what we’ve seen over the past few years. Perhaps putting less physical stress on the players will help prevent injuries?

We can’t be sure what formation he’ll play either, but my hunch is that Ancelotti will revert to the (narrow-looking) 4-4-2 diamond at home. If he does, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Essien come in for Mikel at the base of diamond, Lampard and Ballack to take the left and right roles respectively and Deco to play at the tip – the players that improved the diamond’s performance in the second half against Hull.

In good news for the blues, the squad could be significantly strengthened this weekend with the potential return of Joe Cole and Yuri Zhirkov (bridgeviews.co.uk previewed the Russian’s return here). Whilst it’s unlikely either will start, they could well make our options from the bench far stronger than they have in previous years (conceivably our bench could comprise: Turnbull, Beletti, Ivanovic, Mikel, Zhirkov, J Cole, Sturridge). Both Zhirkov and Cole offer something very different from other players in the squad and would give Ancelotti useful options should he need to change the game tomorrow.

Whilst things are looking up for Chelsea – not least because of a 100% start to the Premier League campaign – things aren’t looking too bad for Burnley either.

This is the club that came to Stamford Bridge last season and defeated Scolari’s Chelsea (albeit via penalties) and also kicked Fulham, Arsenal and Spurs out of domestic trophies last season. Their Premier League campaign got off to a shaky start with a 0-2 defeat to Stoke, but they played magnificently to pull off a shock 1-0 win over Man Utd last weekend. It seems they are the masters of upping their game for the big clubs however – reportedly they struggled to an extra time win against Hartlepool in their midweek Carling Cup fixture. Defender Eckersley was sent off in that game and he faces a one match suspension, meaning Burnley’s defence will be weakened at Stamford Bridge. Steven Caldwell is still unavailable with a groin injury.

Perhaps it’s also worth mentioning what our rivals are up to this weekend. Saturday sees the first ‘big four’ clash of the season as Arsenal take on Utd at Old Trafford. Contrasting opening games for the old rivals means we could be in for a classic game but, as impressive as Arsenal’s start has been I’m left wondering how Wenger’s youngsters will manage against a good defensive unit. Let’s hope for a draw… Meanwhile, struggling title rivals Liverpool travel to Bolton this weekend. In previous years you might hope for an organised Bolton side to take points from big four rivals but Megson’s side have had a woeful start to the season and there will surely be a backlash from Liverpool after Monday’s performance against Villa. Finally, Man City will beat Portsmouth on Sunday.

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted Chelsea line up: Cech, A Cole, Terry, Carvalho, Bosingwa, Essien, Lampard, Ballack, Deco, Anelka, Drogba
bridgeviews.co.uk prediction: whilst Burnley have a tradition of getting results against bigger sides, you would expect Chelsea have enough to see off Burnley on Saturday should they reach anything like their top form. Burnley will put up a good fight though and, unless Chelsea score an early goal, this could be closer than most imagine. Chelsea to win 2-0.

Platini bewilders again as his reaction to Eduardo punishment reveals an archaic UEFA

Platini yesterday confirmed that UEFA would be reviewing the Eduardo ‘incident’ from Wednesday’s Arsenal v. Celtic game, which could in theory result in a ban for the Croatian. But Platini’s quotes were confusing on many levels – on the one hand he advocates progress, while on the other he rejects it. Through all the confusion, it’s also massively puzzling why UEFA are responding to this one case anyway.

In general, I think retrospective punishments are a good thing. Clearly referees can’t get everything right, and looking back on incidents after matches gives the game a further means of stamping out its worst elements. Too many times bad tackles have gone unpunished, yellow cards that should have been red haven’t been upgraded or wrongful sendings off haven’t been rescinded. Net result – fans don’t get to watch the games they’ve paid to see, and nothing is done about it.

In addition however, football’s governing bodies need to be accountable for errors made by their referees, and retrospective punishments are a very easy way of doing that. Where possible, significant individual oversights (referees can’t see everything) should be ‘corrected’ after the event and refereeing errors should be publically acknowledged, but not vilified. This kind of transparency – so entirely lacking after the Ovrebo disaster back in May – would go some way to healing fans’ metaphorical wounds and improving their faith in the institutions that govern our game. As an aside, it UEFA or the FA want referees to get more respect, making them untouchable rather than answerable is just a rich source of frustration and agitation.

So normally I would be impressed with Platini/ UEFA saying they were prepared to take retrospective action. But the precedent that it sets in this instance, and the implied aim to start applying retrospective punishments for diving across the board, could well be problematic. Yes, if applied properly it would probably help stamp diving out, or at least minimise it, which would be a great thing for the sport. But diving is so common in the modern game that in the short term there would – or should – be huge amounts of bans handed out left, right and centre. Furthermore, it would be very difficult to apply fairly as I suspect that in a vast number of cases it would be hugely difficult to prove definite intent to deceive the referee. The grey areas around diving are more often defined by subjectivity than any other event on the pitch – I’d be interested to see what UEFA’s approach would be.

But there was another reason why Platini’s announcement was unimpressive. Having spoken positively about UEFA reviewing the incident, he then revealed that he had in fact sold us all a dummy. Backing the idea of having two additional assistant referees, one behind each goal-line (which will be trialled in the UEFA Cup), he said: “One day players will give up simulating because referees will see them. For years players have cheated because the referees were not of a good enough quality. I am convinced that if you have referees close by, that will prevent players from simulating and players will take the right decision. I have always said it is better to have more referees than a multiplication of disciplinary procedures”.

Why not more disciplinary procedures? Does it create too much work for a what is a lazy and overly-conservative organisation? I suspect it’s a bit of that, but also because it would be too open an admission that individual referees – as opposed to an off the cuff comment about them collectively - are fallible human beings (for some reason this is something UEFA generally find far too difficult to admit). Even if having more referees is a good idea, having the power to retrospectively give punishments or change decisions would still be a very useful tool in the armoury to make sure the game is played fairly. Why isn’t it a good idea to give yourself more options (or chances) to get the difficult decisions right rather than less?

Fundamentally, this all boils down to the best way to adjudicate the game and, incidentally, having more referees doesn’t necessarily mean all dives (or any other infringements) will be identified anyway. Referees make mistakes now: multiplying the numbers doesn’t rule out the possibility of them making them again. Furthermore, linesmen too often don’t take enough responsibility – does having two more mean they’re more likely to put their flag up? For me, it’s a negative and unimaginative move that avoids tackling the problems that come with the real answer. Combined with other tools – like retrospective rulings - finding a better way to use technology and video replays for fourth officials is the forward thinking option that UEFA really should be investing time and money in. I’ll sure I’ll post on that another time.

Of course, perhaps the strangest thing about all this however is why UEFA have reacted to the last night’s incident at all. What was it about Eduardo’s dive that makes it so much worse than the plethora of dives that we’ve witnessed over the years? What about, for example, the dives by the technique’s finest exponent and European Footballer of the Year, Cristiano Ronaldo, football’s very own Tom Daley? It seems strange that his dives (or those of any other footballer) weren’t deserving of special attention, but Eduardo’s own brand of Platoon mimicry was.

Perhaps it’s because it resulted in a penalty. But then dives have resulted in penalties before. Perhaps it’s because it’s an English club involved. But then that’s happened before. When it comes down to it, UEFA – and it’s esteemed President in particular – are just being as unpredictable and bewildering as ever.

Porto, Atletico and Nicosia: reaction to Chelsea's Champions League draw

Yesterday’s Champions League draw was a typically UEFA affair: overly long, self-congratulatory, over attended and somewhat vacuous. But we did find out who Chelsea will face in the group stages of the Champions League – Porto, Atletico Madrid and APOEL Nicosia.

Well, it could have been a hell of a lot worse. The media seem to be fairly convinced that Chelsea will progress to the knockout stages with ease but, whilst I think we’ll certainly qualify, I can’t see it being as straightforward as they make out.

Atletico are a good side going forward (turns out we will get to see Aguero at the Bridge after all) but are perhaps a little shaky at the back - they didn’t look too impressive when they played Arsenal in the pre-season Emirates Cup. We’ve met Porto twice in the last four years in the Champions League since they won it in 2004 and they’re obviously very familiar with the competition. That said, they’ve recently lost key players like Lopez and Gonzalez, and shouldn’t present the same threat as in previous years.

But what of the relatively unknown APOEL Nicosia? Like most, I know next to nothing about them. I can tell you however that this is the first time they have qualified for the Champions League proper (having put out EB Streymur, FK Partizan and FC Copenhagen en route), they play in bright yellow and were the first club in Cyprus to rack up 20 league wins. I’ll wait to see them play before I say anymore – but you can take nothing for granted in the Champions League and we can’t rule them out being this year’s FC Cluj. Saying that, it might be useful that our last group game will see Cypriots come to Stamford Bridge.

Most importantly, Chelsea avoided Europe’s big guns – Real, Milan etc., and the other English clubs had the same luck. Liverpool face tricky but probably beatable opponents in Lyon and Fiorentina, and can already chalk up six points having also been drawn against Debrecen. Arsenal were handed their annual bye to the knockout stages (having been grouped with AZ Alkmaar, Olympiakos and Standard Liege) whilst Man Utd will travel the length and breadth of Europe when they meet CSKA Moscow and Besiktas. Utd’s ties against German champions Wolfsburg, led by their in-demand striker Dzeko, could be far more interesting.

There are interesting groups elsewhere. Barcelona may have been fortunate to have drawn Rubin Kazan, but drawing Inter was considerably less lucky (it will be great to see Ibrahimovic and Eto’o come up against their former clubs) and Dinamo Kiev away could be a tough encounter. Group C probably has the most potential for great games however, with AC Milan and Real Madrid being joined by Marseille and FC Zurich.

Plenty to look forward to. Here’s to another successful Champions League campaign, but I have just one request: can we not play Liverpool this year please?

Chelsea’s group stage fixtures:
Tuesday 15^th September: FC Porto, home
Wednesday 30^th September: APOEL Nicosia, away
Wednesday 21^st October: Atletico Madrid, home
Tuesday 3^rd November: Atletico Madrid, away
Wednesday 25^th November: Porto, away
Tuesday 8^th December: APOEL Nicosia, home

What do you think of the draw? Post a comment…

Chelsea could face a tricky Champions League draw as 'big four' nears extinction

The last places in this year’s Champions League proper were confirmed last night (Arsenal ably assisted by Eduardo’s theatrics) and the final 32 teams – including Chelsea – are in the pot for the draw for the first group stage. The draw takes place today at 5pm.

Happily, Chelsea are once again ranked 2^nd in Europe according to UEFA’s coefficient system, comfortably inside the required top eight needed to qualify as a first seed. Thankfully this means it is impossible to draw the likes of Barcelona, Seville or Bayern Munich, along with the other English sides.

Less happily, the lower seed ‘pots’ somehow look far tougher than they have in previous years, meaning Chelsea could potentially face a very tough draw indeed. Chelsea could be drawn against any number of tricky second seed opponents including Real Madrid, Lyon, Mourinho’s Inter or Juventus and there are also difficult sides in pots three and four including Atletico, Wolfsburg and Bordeaux.

So the very possible worst case scenario could see Chelsea grouped with Real Madrid, Atletico and Wolfsburg, but a group including Inter, Bordeaux and either Standard Liege or Maccabai Haifa would be just as possible and likely just as tough. On the other side of the coin, a draw against AZ Alkmaar, Besiktas and Debreceni (no, I haven’t heard of them either) would go down very well…

Unlike some of our English rivals, we haven’t always had the luck of the draw in the early stages of the competition, so it would be a fairly safe bet to assume that Chelsea will draw Real and United will draw Debreceni. That said, football is a funny game and has a habit of throwing up the ‘interesting’ ties like United v. Ronaldo and Chelsea v. Inter. Look out for bridgeviews.co.uk’s take on the draw this evening.

With far-further reaching consequences than this year’s draw however, this season could conceivably be the last year of the so-called big four’s monopoly on the Champions League spots. The inevitable rise of Manchester City and the strong start by Spurs do suggest that the big four may finally come under siege this year. And, contrary to what many would have you believe, this wouldn’t be entirely without precedent – Everton broke into the top four in 2005 and Spurs really should have done back in 2006.

Other factors are combining to potentially reduce the big four’s chances. New rules at the qualifying stage mean the fourth placed team face a far harder route to the group stages than in previous years – hence Arsenal’s games against Celtic. Furthermore, if by chance Spain’s clubs do start to dominate and Italy’s somehow up their game, poor performances from one or two English sides could see the English Champions League contingent reduced from four to three within a few years.

We are, very probably, on the cusp of change at the top end of English football. The current elite – including Chelsea – will need to jockey for position over the next couple of years to make sure they’re not the ones left behind.

You might also be interested to read:

• It’s more competitive at the top – just one of ten things we have learned from the league games so far
• UEFA’s attitude is the real disgrace – the organisation’s lack of accountability spits in the face of fans and the game

Revived transfer gossip suggests there could yet be more signings at Chelsea this summer

Heaven forbid I should be foolish enough to believe what the papers say, but after a generally quiet month on the transfer gossip front Chelsea have now been linked with a number of new targets over the past few days.

Chelsea have been heavily linked with Benfica trio Coentrao, Luiz and Di Maria and the latter – a tricky right winger just breaking into the Argentina national side – especially after Arnesen supposedly went to watch him play this week. Chelsea were linked with Di Maria back in January so there’s history to this one, but apparently Mourinho is looking to bring him to Inter too.

Chelsea are also hotly tipped to sign Jonathan de Guzman, a 21 year-old Canadian born Dutchman currently playing for Feyenoord. Feyenoord have well-reported cash problems at the moment and may have to offload Guzman, who plays in an attacking midfielder for the Dutch side, and Dutch national daily newspaper De Telegraaf think Chelsea have entered the race at the last minute to potentially scupper a move to Valencia.

Clearly Chelsea have been linked with a huge number of players over the last few months, and there’s nothing new to suggest that these rumours are any more reliable than the others. However with the close of the transfer window approaching, and Ancelotti seemingly changing his tack regarding the potential for new signings each week, it looks at least a little more likely that we’ll see a last minute scramble for either the winger or the creative playmaker Carlo craves. Perhaps in an over-inflated market the strategy is to leave it late and try and force better prices?

Who knows. But next Tuesday just might be a whole lot more interesting than we previously thought…