bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Preposterous £140k wages make Liverpool's Glen Johnson a great miss for Chelsea

Rather hilariously, the Daily Mail have revealed that Liverpool are playing Glen Johnson a staggering £139,000 a week.

It was widely rumoured that – for some bizarre and unfathomable reason – Chelsea were also competing to re-sign Johnson back in June (along with 50 or so other players), continuing the club’s recent tradition of collecting right backs. The Mail seems convinced that, in order to ensure he wasn’t lured back to West London, Liverpool had to offer him wages of £139k a week, making him probably the highest paid full back in world football and at least on par with the likes of Fernando Torres at Liverpool.

Johnson hasn’t had a bad start at Liverpool (I realise their defence has leaked five goals in three games), and his attacking displays have started to point towards why Benitez was willing to pay Portsmouth £17m for his services. But this is a player who, despite what he has since said, had plenty of chances at Chelsea (50+ appearances) and did not impress defensively, especially when compared to the rock solid Ferreira. I’d wager that as the season progresses Liverpool fans will increasingly come to realise that Johnson is a little naïve at the back and probably not up to it against the very best opposition.

In light of all this, Chelsea ‘having’ to rely on the current meagre options in the squad – Bosingwa, Beletti, Ferreira, Ivanovic – seems to have worked out pretty well. Not only does £139k a week vastly overrate Johnson’s ability, paying him that much would surely have sent Ashley Cole into a new round of tantrums – apparently he’s just been offered only £120k a week…

Chelsea fans – am I wrong and should we have been in for our old right back? Liverpool fans, is he worth £139k a week? Post a comment... 

You might also be interested in reading:

• Chelsea need to abandon their ‘off the shelf’ transfer policy
• A preview of rival Liverpool's chances in 09/10

Hooliganism? Dead? It's alive, kicking and costing us our time, money and reputation

There are still countless morons out there using football as an excuse to relieve whatever primal urges tell them to fight, throw bricks, light fires and stab people (and most of them ‘support’ Millwall). Most of us will just be battling with the question ‘why?’, but when events like last night’s at West Ham occur, it’s not just legs, ribs and faces that get a kicking.

Historically of course Chelsea hardly have a clear bill of health when it comes to hooliganism. But aside from a bit of a skirmish outside Fulham Broadway after the 2008 Champions League Final, I’ve haven’t personally witnessed any sign of violence at Stamford Bridge this decade. I suspect the vast majority of fans up and down the country (including Hammers supporters) could say the same thing about their clubs.

The fact that hooliganism has pretty much been stamped out in the UK has probably made us all a little bit more sensitive to events like last night and the worrying eye-witness accounts all the more appealing to a gleeful media. But last night’s events at Upton Park – as has been widely reported in the papers – were genuinely a throwback to the 1980s, where rivalries between clubs far more regularly spilled into violent clashes on the streets.

Of course it is very possible that those causing most of the trouble last night weren’t ‘fans’ with match tickets, rather thugs with some form of club allegiance to Millwall or West Ham who made arrangements before the game to square up outside the ground. Apparently this is still fairly common across a lot of English clubs – that is ‘fans’ making arrangements with each other over the internet and mobile phones to meet up and fight each other – it just so happens that most of the time they manage to ‘miss’ each other, unintentionally or otherwise.

The obvious impact of last night’s violence is plain to see – reports of at least one man in hospital and bloody pictures splashed over our television screens and morning papers. Not to undermine any potential human cost (and there weren’t many of those involved last night), but actually the impact stretches wider than this, and beyond the FA’s knee-jerk reaction of worrying about their 2018 World Cup bid.

The hooliganism hangover from the 1980s means that there is still a large police presence at each Premier League game. Despite the relative lack of trouble, there are still probably 100+ police officers – some of them mounted police – at each home game at Stamford Bridge. And who foots that bill? The clubs - or rather the fans. The cost of policing games, like increasing player wages, is just another cost that gets passed on to fans in the form of higher ticket prices and more costly merchandise. And it’s the fans who have to queue longer to get into and out of the stadium when events like last night’s cause police forces to go into overdrive.

And memories of the 80s are longer than you think. Despite the fact that English football has a great recent record on violence, already this morning non-football fans (in my office at least) are remembering what they really think about football: that it’s a working class game watched by hooligans. It doesn’t matter who it’s watched by – and it’s truly a game for everyone – very quickly football supporters can get tarred with the same brush.

And, as the FA fear, it won’t take much for the worldwide football community to jump to the same conclusion either (English football being the flavour of the month with UEFA and FIFA ‘n’ all that). Despite the terrible records of Italian and German fans in particular, which go strangely overlooked, it will only take a couple of events like last night’s for English football’s reputation to be dragged back to the dark ages, where last night’s idiots belong.

Fulham 0 Chelsea 2 – a closer look at where the match was won

Chelsea’s away win against Fulham on Sunday was almost as impressive as the victory at Sunderland, but for very different reasons. Whilst the one-sided affair at Sunderland had been all about pass and move, Sunday’s two nil win was a masterclass in stifling, high-pressure football that simply didn’t allow Fulham time and space on the ball. Here we take a brief (but closer) look at how the game was won and the performances of some of the key players.

Whilst the character of the two wins varied greatly, both had their roots in strong defensive performances from the holding midfield player. Mikel certainly didn’t cover the same amount of ground as Essien did against Sunderland – sticking strictly to the middle third only - but defensively he was arguably more influential. Over the course of the 90 minutes Mikel made eight tackles and four interceptions and he was consistent on the ball too, completing a mammoth 94% of his 47 attempted passes. The holding player clearly isn’t a position in which Chelsea lack talent.

But Mikel was playing in a side that lined up differently than it had up in the North East. Ancelotti played no rigid structure on Sunday, but it frequently looked more like a 4-2-3-1 than a 4-3-2-1 formation, with Ballack playing alongside Mikel and Anelka moving out to the right (especially in the first half). Whatever the formation, this was a match that was characterised by Chelsea’s tenacity in midfield with far more tackles and interceptions being made than in the previous fixture (successful tackles: Malouda – 6; Ballack – 2). Fulham repeatedly took the ball into a swamped midfield and couldn’t retain possession, leaving Chelsea’s deeper-lying midfielders free to try and pick out passes to Drogba, Anelka and Lampard.

Interestingly though, the harrying of Fulham when in possession didn’t stop with the midfield. Statistically a huge proportion of goals are scored following mistakes by defenders in their own third, and Drogba and Anelka played a pivotal part in unsettling Fulham’s defence not only with intelligent running off the ball but also by applying pressure. Over the course of the match, Chelsea’s two strikers stole possession a combined total of five times in the final third.

Once again the full backs were very influential, but particularly Ashley Cole who had more touches of the ball than any other Chelsea player and regularly overlapped Malouda (who actually played a lot of the game playing inside) throughout the 90. As I mentioned in my match report yesterday though, we didn’t see the best of Frank Lampard who completed less passes than all of the starting line-up bar Didier Drogba. As someone pointed out in a comment on that post, this doesn’t necessarily matter – if Lampard is creating space for Drogba and Anelka to play in then he’s doing an important job. On the other hand however, it would seem profligate not to find a way to take advantage of his ability to both score and dictate the play. It will be fascinating to see how Ancelotti’s use of Lampard evolves over the next few games.

One final, nit-picking point is about shot accuracy. As against Sunderland, Chelsea arguably could have scored more at the weekend – but of the total 16 strikes on goal only 4 were on target (25%). It’s perhaps worth mentioning that in last season’s games when Chelsea scored four or more the shot accuracy was far higher – 40% on target against Middlesborough (0-5 win), 32% against Arsenal (1-4 win), 45% against Portsmouth (4-0 win) and 40% against Sunderland (5-0 win). I’m not concerned about not putting more past Fulham – and big scores often come with a huge slice of luck - but clearly greater accuracy in front of goal will help the team past the post against more talented sides where chances are at a premium.

Key player stats and facts:

Player	Passes completed	Pass success rate (%)	Successful tackles
Lampard	18	60	0
Ballack	36	86	2
Mikel	44	96	8
Malouda	46	75	6
A. Cole	53	88	6
Bosingwa	47	90	1

You might also be interested to read:

• The tactics that helped Chelsea defeat Sunderland

Ten things we’ve learned from the Premier League games so far

Three games gone and already it’s getting exciting. Most sides have only played 270 minutes of football (I appreciate that Liverpool didn’t bother to play for 90 of those last night), but what have we learned about this year’s Premier League season from these opening encounters?

The League hasn’t improved
For the first time in probably a decade, a summer has passed and the league hasn’t collectively improved. It’s lost the ‘best player in the world’ (all rights reserved) and Xabi Alonso, and none of the big clubs have made eye-catching additions. Man City predominantly buying players from English clubs has the effect of redistributing talent a little and meanwhile, established Premier League clubs like Middlesborough and Newcastle aren’t here anymore. It’s not time to hit the panic button yet, but a quick scan of the table and some of the strange early season results might give the ‘best league in the world’ (trademarked) cause for concern.

It’s still impossible for a Utd player to get sent off
Manchester United in preferential treatment from referees shocker. In Saturday’s game against Wigan, Vidic was very clearly seen to flick/ hit/ strike/ thump Rodallega, and yet the referee (the venerable Howard Webb) only decided to have a chat with the Wigan striker for daring to be a bit peeved. The Match of the Day presenters didn’t bother to mention Vidic’s behaviour either – despite reviewing the incident. Come to think of it, Utd’s players getting overly aggressive during the Charity Shield wasn’t mentioned either. I’m no conspiracy theorist (and apparently the FA might be looking at the incident), but if it were John Terry…

When Arsenal play well, they play very well
Unfortunately for them however, we all know what happens when they play badly and, trust me, it won’t be too long before they start to fall apart. For now though, you have to begrudgingly admit that they’re in scintillating form and will probably sit at the top of the table (ish) for the next couple of months.

And Spurs actually look quite good
There. I’ve said it. Yes, it’s actually something that’s been said at the beginning of many a season, but this time I think good ol’ Harry Redknapp might have actually built a squad that can challenge for a top six spot, if not top four. They have plentiful options up front and, with the addition of Palacios, a bit of steel in midfield. A massive shame for them that Man City are improving so rapidly at the same time…

The sides that we thought might challenge the big four, won’t
Everton and Villa improved so much last season that it was widely claimed that they might push for a top four slot this time around. The reality is that Villa – despite an immense win at Anfield last night – haven’t played well for months and Everton haven’t strengthened sufficiently over the summer. Meanwhile, Spurs have come up on the inside and Man City have leapfrogged everyone. Last season may well have been Villa and Everton’s only chance for a while.

It’s less than predictable at the bottom
There are a large number of teams that, on paper, look like they might struggle this season. Portsmouth will be lucky to win a point this side of Christmas and Wolves, Wigan and Bolton look average. Meanwhile, Burnley have started like a train and Birmingham don’t look awful. Early signs aren’t telling us anything much about who might be going down except that there’s a very real chance some more established names might be joining Boro and Newcastle in the Championship next season.

Early season internationals and European qualifiers are annoying
Why on earth arrange an England friendly – that’s right, a game that doesn’t matter – immediately before the first set of Premier League fixtures? It wouldn’t be the first time that pointless international games have disturbed the early parts of the season. Come on FA, save those games for later in the year. You know we care more about club football anyway.

No team will score 90+ points
Here’s one prediction for the season – the ‘big’ clubs won’t win as many games as before. Yes, there’s perhaps some fodder in there that will be despatched easier than ever before, but there’s a growing cluster of middle-tier clubs primed to take points off the big guys, and some ambitious smaller clubs too. Evidence: witness the three hilarious defeats suffered by United and Liverpool so far (and it’s only 25^th August).

This year’s Hull is Burnley
There’s always one ‘Hull’. In previous seasons it’s been Reading, Norwich…the list goes on. Expect Burnley to continue riding the crest of their wave for the next month or so but remember that, most of time, it almost always ends one way…

Chelsea’s diamond can work
But mostly when it’s actually a Christmas Tree. Or a 4-3-3. Or when we buy some wingers. Oh, and when Drogba tries and when Essien’s fit. There’s a point in there somewhere…

You might also be interested to read:

• 10 reasons why Chelsea will win the league
• Season previews of Chelsea’s main rivals – Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal and Man City

The top 50 Chelsea players of all time

The Times have recently re-published and updated their list of the top 50 Chelsea players of all time, which makes interesting reading over a lunch break. 

You can’t argue too much with their top three, or probably even their top ten (aside from the 22 stone+ Willie ‘Fatty’ Foulke, perhaps), and the article gets a little bit more credibility in my eyes for its description of Lampard (who comes in at number two):

“There is no argument here: Lampard is quite straightforwardly the best midfield player in England and has been since 2003. He has power, he has vision, he all but guarantees 20 goals per season and he is gifted with a copper constitution which means that he is always there. Steven Gerrard would be nearly this good if only he didn't snap something every time he sneezed.” 

It's well worth a read - they have some interesting things to say about some of the players that really help the memories come flooding back, including:

Ruud Gullit (29th): A toss of the dreadlocks, a quick look up and a 45-yard crossfield pass to the feet of a travelling forward, followed by a noise never before heard from a crowd at Stamford Bridge – a kind of low, approving sigh of contentment. The former World Player of the Year was at least 27 times more comfortable around a football than pretty much everyone else in the league. Eventually, as a manager, he was destined to reveal himself to be an insufferable egotist and lose all available plots.

Vialli (25th): The power, the shot, the shaven head, the V-neck sweaters, the smoking – what wasn’t to like? All together: ‘When the ball hits the back/of the Old Trafford net/that’s Vialli.’  

Pat Nevin (22nd): Able to ‘go mazy’ at the first hint of an opportunity. Heroically attempted to travel to home games on the tube until an encounter with a poorly adjusted Spurs fan convinced him that it might be wiser not to.

Ray Wilkins (21st): Classic, poised and intelligent midfielder and also, quite patently, a lovely bloke. Enjoyed going sideways but there’s nothing in the rules that says you can’t. Not only is Wilkins the only former Chelsea player to feature in a Tango ad, he is also one of only a very small number of Chelsea managers who can claim a 100 per cent record. As he would doubtless put it himself, ‘Super.’

Peter 'the cat' Bonetti (15th): The exquisitely agile goalkeeper was...a pioneer among goalkeepers and today’s proponents pretty much owe to Bonetti’s influence a) coming out for crosses, b) bowling the ball out rather than punting it and c) wearing gloves.

Claude Makalele (8th): This was Florentino Perez, the chairman of Real Madrid, when Makelele left for Chelsea in 2003: ‘We will not miss Makelele. His technique is average, he lacks the speed and skill to take the ball past opponents, and ninety per cent of his distribution either goes backwards or sideways. He wasn't a header of the ball and he rarely passed the ball more than three metres. Younger players will arrive who will cause Makelele to be forgotten.’

Gianfranco Zola (1st): Small but perfectly formed. Clearly a nice man, too. Many nurture a fond dream of Zola, having ironed out the lumps in his coaching style at West Ham, returning in glory to manage Chelsea through a sustained period of unprecedented success during which we are all hugging each other and laughing nearly all the time. But given that 99.9 per cent of managerial careers end in disappointment, perhaps it would be better if he didn’t and we were just left with the memories. Which are great, by the way.

There are a few interesting omissions though. No Frank Leboeuf? No Didier Drogba? Could have considered Poyet and Joe Cole, too. I may have been tempted to shift Gullit, Petrescu and Di Matteo up the list a little… Still, these things are always very subjective, as proved by the comments left by fans, many of whom bemoan the lack of Hughes, Myers, Ambrosetti, Hutchinson, Webb and Venables, among others in the top 50.

Oh, and kudos to the Times’ team for putting Winston Bogarde in at number 50. Nice.

The Times’ top ten Chelsea players:

10) Willie Foulke
9) Roy Bentley
8) Claude Makalele
7) George Hilsdon
6) Ron Harris
5) John Terry
4) Bobby Tambling
3) Peter Osgood
2) Frank Lampard
1) Gianfranco Zola

What do you think? Who would make your top 10? Post a comment…

Fulham 0 Chelsea 2 – match report and reaction to Chelsea’s stifling masterclass

England win the Ashes. Chelsea win with ease, showing only glimpses of the mesmerising play that they’re surely capable of. Could so easily be 2005, couldn’t it?

It’s far too early for Chelsea fans to be getting excited, but there are signs that perhaps this side is primed to compete for the top prize in English football as it did three years ago. If Tuesday’s game against Sunderland showcased Chelsea’s pass-and-move prowess, then yesterday’s cakewalk at Fulham was a demonstration of stifling, bruising and effective football.

Fulham could – and perhaps should – have scored through Dempsey as early as the second minute, but the striker fired well over from close range. From that point Chelsea’s midfield started to dictate the pace of the game, and Fulham didn’t get much closer over the next 88 minutes. The stats say that Chelsea had 62% of possession, but in the end it felt that the team in blue were far more dominant.

Ancelotti is willing to chop and change his side, and once again both the formation and starting XI were unpredictable. Mikel was reinstated at the cost of Essien (who was excellent at Sunderland) and Deco too found himself on the bench, and a starting 4-3-2-1 turned out to be a fluid formation that more regularly looked like a 4-2-3-1 or, particularly in the first half with Anelka drifting wide, a more familiar 4-3-3.

Whatever the formation, it worked. This was a functional, controlling performance from Chelsea. Whilst there was little flamboyance and the occasional poor finish in front of goal, there were moments of great quality – for example the build up to the first goal – and this was a thoroughly professional performance.

Mikel showed great character to recover from being substituted 45 minutes into the game against Hull and missing out against Sunderland to put in a much improved performance, Ballack was very consistent on the ball and Malouda put in his best attacking display of the season so far. It was Drogba and Anelka who were most impressive though, combining well to create goals for each other. Arguably it was their strength and pace respectively that did for Fulham in the end.

Perhaps the one surprise was Lampard’s relatively low influence on the game, and his substitution on 80 minutes (when did we last see that?!). Playing in a very advanced role (often ahead of Drogba and Anelka), he saw far less of the ball than you might expect and didn’t look at his best. It is perhaps ironic that his best contribution came on the one real occasion in the first half when he dropped deep to receive the ball and picked out an exquisite pass to Anelka who was then able to find Drogba for the first Chelsea goal. My thought is that playing him so high up the pitch not only doesn’t allow him to dictate the play as he would normally, but also makes his runs into the box easier for opponents to pick up. It has to be said too that, as Hull had done last weekend, Fulham’s defence did a good job of getting tight on Lampard as soon as he received the ball. They won’t be the only sides to employ this tactic when Frank plays in that more advanced role.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that this was of course Chelsea’s first clean sheet of the season (even if the goals conceded against Hull and Sunderland were a trifle unlucky) but, well marshalled as they were, Terry, Carvalho, Bosingwa and Cole were rarely troubled. Konchesky willingly got down the left and Dempsey did his utmost, but Fulham looked toothless and lethargic with and without the ball and the injured Johnson was a big miss. I’d expect that Hodgson would like to have funds available to add to his strikeforce to help complete what is otherwise a very good side on its day.

Regardless of how it was achieved, yesterday’s performance was very much job done for Chelsea. Three games, three wins, seven goals. Can’t complain. Next the real test: Burnley at Stamford Bridge…

What the managers said:

Carlo Ancelotti: "I was always sure they could play together. I don't know why previous managers have not had them doing so well. Drogba and Anelka are different players but they are both fantastic strikers. The first goal was a fantastic pass from Nic to Didier and the second goal was a fantastic pass from Didier to Nic. It is a great start for the team and now we have to maintain this."

Roy Hodgson: "We had to be much livelier than that to stand any chance of beating Chelsea. We didn't get close enough to disturb them and we deserved to lose. Technically, Chelsea are so good and Drogba is a top-class front player. You have to hope your defence is 100 per cent or that he has a bad day but Drogba doesn’t have bad days.”

What the papers said:

Times: “Under Carlo Ancelotti, they look like they mean business, building on the kind of firm foundations that his predecessor, now in charge of Bunyodkor, in Uzbekistan, did not begin to establish. This was not quite Chelsea at their marauding best, but they had some of the steamroller-like qualities that characterised their best moments when cruising to their first league title under José Mourinho in 2004-05.”

Telegraph: “Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka scored while John Terry and Ricardo Carvalho were so untroubled they could have got a barbecue going.”

Rob Kelly’s (rather harsh) Telegraph blog: “The season is barely two weeks old, and already Chelsea are looking ominous. Three games, three wins, the blue machine is already cranking through the gears. They possess great power and poise within their squad, magnificent athleticism and control, tangible self-belief and confidence. Yet despite all this, Chelsea leave me cold. I rate Chelsea as the most daunting side in the Premier League. Yet for all this, they do not entertain me, they do not move me to the edge of my seat. They are admirable in so many ways, but they do not excite.”

Guardian: “Ancelotti's influence is being felt in the details. Nicolas Anelka and Didier Drogba have looked disconnected in times gone by, but they dovetailed so well here that each set up a goal for the other. Potential conflicts were comprehensively addressed at Craven Cottage. Fulham were simply not permitted to put up a fight.”

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: Mikel was much-improved, Malouda was threatening throughout down the left and Drogba was again mountainous up top. But for his well taken second goal and his butterfly-like movement, Anelka steals it this time.

Check out Chelsea's season stats (the goals, games, scorers, assist-makers etc) here.

The tactics that helped Chelsea embarrass Sunderland

Chelsea and Liverpool were both hugely impressive midweek, convincingly beating Sunderland and Stoke respectively. Rather amusingly, a Ronaldo-less Man Utd stumbled to a one nil loss to mighty Burnley. Ahead of Sunday’s game at Fulham, I’m taking a more in-depth look at how the Sunderland game really was won, what players were most influential and briefly comparing the performance to those of Chelsea’s closest rivals.

Much has been made – and rightfully so for a one off performance – of the high standard of Chelsea’s passing game on Tuesday. In the second half especially the football was pleasing on the eye, the movement was great and the middle three of Ballack, Deco and Lampard appeared to be having a field day. 

The stats back that impression up, with 495 successful passes being made and an 86% passing success rate. But whilst it was the more forward thinking of Chelsea’s central midfield that caught the eye, it perhaps isn’t surprising that it was the deeper lying Essien that was Chelsea’s engine room. The Ghanaian attempted 82 passes over the 90 minutes and misplaced only three of them – a staggering 96% success rate – and he was rock on which Chelsea’s rapid use of the ball in the right areas of the pitch was built. Essien rarely made forays into the final third but covered pretty much every other blade of grass. Unsurprisingly, aside from Bosingwa he was also the player most likely to break up Sunderland attacks, making 5 successful tackles.

As it turns out, the positions of the players in front of Essien – and the ground they were asked to cover – weren’t quite as we had anticipated before kick-off. Chelsea played in what looked like a 4-3-2-1 formation, with Ballack and Lampard playing slightly ahead of Essien and Kalou and Deco slotting in behind Drogba. It was a highly fluid formation, with regular interchanging of positions contributing to Sunderland’s struggle to pick up the runs of Deco and Lampard in particular, who both covered more square yardage than Ballack and Kalou who were more likely to stick to the inside right channel. 

It wasn’t until Malouda was introduced on 75 minutes however that any real width (save Bosingwa occasionally getting down the right) was brought into Chelsea’s play – the Frenchman completed only 8 passes but almost all of them were made within 5 yards of the touchline. It didn’t matter however – Chelsea’s neat passing in midfield was more than a match for Sunderland’s rearguard.

As I mentioned in the match report, the one negative to come from the game was perhaps the number of chances that were spurned by slightly off-key finishing. Of Chelsea’s 26 shots, only five were on target – in their game against Stoke, Liverpool managed to steer nine out of twenty goal-wards. Had Drogba had his shooting boots on, the score could have been embarrassing (as opposed to just the balance of play).

They’re only stats, but Chelsea’s stand up pretty well against those of recent Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal performances. Liverpool may have played very well to smash four past Stoke without reply, but they completed 50 less passes that the Blues. United’s pass completion rate was abysmal and, without Ronaldo, their usual source of countless free-kicks dried up (Stoke only gave away three). Most surprisingly, Arsenal may have scored six against Everton, but in that game they completed 30% less passes than Chelsea did against Sunderland. So much for the best passing football in the league, eh?

Formation-wise, maybe Ancelotti just plans to use the Christmas tree away from home, or perhaps he’s still experimenting to find the best formation. Either way, it’s encouraging to see the team be able to adapt to different tactics and different opponents. Fulham should present a very different threat on Sunday and will be harder to break down than Sunderland however, so – whatever formation Ancelotti chooses, Chelsea will need to pick up where they left off last Tuesday.

Key player stats and facts:

Player	Passes completed	Pass success rate (%)	Successful tackles
Lampard	43	78	3
Ballack	49	90	3
Essien	79	96	5
Deco	40	77	4
Terry	67	99	2
Bosingwa	61	84	7

Chelsea winger Zhirkov to return in one week

He barely figured in Chelsea's pre-season because of injury, but Yuri Zhirkov is convinced he's nearing his first competitive start for the team. The Russian moved to quash rumours that he needed surgery on his knee and suggested that he might be ready to play by the time Chelsea face Burnley on Saturday 29th August.

Zhirkov said: "I don't know who spread these rumours, but they don't correspond to reality. My condition has improved and the doctors say that in two or three days I will be able to return to training, although not fully. I'll work on an individual programme. All will be clear after an examination on Thursday. I was feeling pain and noticeably limping when running, but now that's behind me".

His return will be good news for Chelsea, providing a timely burst of speed and dribbling ability as the season starts to hot up and much needed cover for Ashley Cole at left back. For those of us who haven't seen much of Zhirkov play - or have simply forgotten what the Russian has supposedly been bought for - check out the video below of a stunning solo goal he scored for CKSA in last season's UEFA cup.

Loan watch: Chelsea's Sinclair and Mancienne get off to solid starts at Wigan and Wolves

I’ve posted quite a bit on Chelsea’s youth policy – and it’s results – over the past month or so, largely bemoaning the lack of both players breaking through and opportunities for those who are showing promise.

Despite my general negativity, there are a few younger players who are on the cusp of making the standard and a few of them have made loan moves to Premier League clubs this season: Di Santo (Blackburn), Sinclair (Wigan) and Mancienne (Wolves).

Both Sinclair and Mancienne have been out on loan before, but this is the first opportunity they both have to get Premier League football and I’d like to keep an eye on how they’re getting along. As Wigan and Wolves clashed at the JJB on Tuesday, it seemed an opportune moment.

Michael Mancienne

Having joined them on loan before, Wolves fans are very familiar with Mancienne and tend to be big admirers of the youngster. Word on the street is that he was a little nervy on his first Premier League outing with the club on Saturday as they crashed to a two nil home loss to Zola’s West Ham (he played 67 minutes before being substituted). The media’s opinion him was divided however, with the Sun rating his performance at a not-too-shabby 7/10 and the Times 5/10.

It went slightly better for Wolves against Wigan on Tuesday however as they ran out one nil winners. Again, the Sun was glowing about Mancienne’s performance, rating it at 8/10, and football fans rated him the second best player on the pitch (with a score of 7.3) on the Daily Telegraph website.

After the game, Wigan fans took the time to post on a popular Wolves forum on how impressed they were with Mancienne’s performance. Some of the comments included: “Mancienne and Craddock played very well, the few times we challenged them they came out on top every time” and “Mancienne looked very good I thought”.

Wolves fans on the forum were generally impressed with their loan signing too, despite one assertion that “he needs to get out of the superstar mentality asap…he had a bad game on Saturday”. One fan took a contrasting view, suggesting “he’s a young lad with his feet firmly on the ground, he did ok against the threat of Carlton Cole on Saturday, we got a good hour out of him”. Another supporter probably took it too far: “Mancienne is the new Beckenbauer! What was he doing at the end trying to beat Wigan on his own?”

Scott Sinclair

Sinclair hasn’t had the benefit as the same amount of game time as Mancienne, and as such probably hasn’t had the opportunity to make similar impact. In both of Wigan’s games so far – the opening day win over Aston Villa and the following loss to Wolves – he’s been brought on for 30 minutes as an impact substitute and the Sun rated both as 5/10 performances. Reportedly against Villa he looked good, taking players on with confidence. This was in the context of a two nil lead however, and he was less impressive against Wigan, even contriving to head wide a good chance to level the scores in the dying moments of the game.

All that said, Wigan fans’ early opinion seems to be optimistic. On one fans’ forum, Wiganer.net, produced gushing praise for the winger, including: “This lad looked good, a few times he seemed to just waltz past defenders. Do you think we have any hope of making his move permanent?” and “After yesterday he will defo be an awesome signing. Get this boy signed up”. Most encouraging – and I don’t know how much experience Wigan fans have of the world’s most talented players – one fan said: “he looks very promising and will develop to be a world class player”.

Of course, there’s a very long way to go and (hopefully) both Sinclair and Mancienne will get plenty more time to learn their trade at the top level and show us what they’re capable of. We’ll keep an eye on all the players out on loan and try and keep you updated at how they’re getting on.

Are you happy with these two going out on loan? Wolves and Wigan fans – how do you rate your loan signings?

You might also be interested to read:

• Chelsea struggling to attract best young talent as Jonjo Shelvey knocks the Blues back
• Arnesen’s failures lie at the heart of Chelsea’s future

Chelsea deal for Aguero off after Argentine plays in the Champions League?

Despite suggestions to the contrary on Monday, it looks likely that any deal bringing Sergio Aguero to Stamford Bridge won’t be happening this season after the forward played in a Champions League qualifier for Atletico Madrid last night. His appearance – in which he was apparently very impressive and scored a great goal - means he would be cup-tied in the Champions League should he move to another club.

The Sun seems convinced the chase is over, reporting this morning Aguero saying: "I've always said I wanted to stay at Atletico and this is what has happened.”

Interestingly however, the Daily Mail takes a slightly different tack suggesting that Aguero requested to be left out of the side so that a potential deal could be kept alive. Who can tell whether there’s any truth to the rumour, but if so it could be interpreted as both encouraging and concerning. On the one hand, perhaps we’ve actually got a top-quality player who wants to join Chelsea, but on the other, the club may have not moved quickly enough or put up enough cash to do a deal.

But it’s all speculation and, as the swelling list of supposed Chelsea summer targets touted by the media has shown, you really can’t read much into it. But here’s another piece of wanton speculation for you (source – me): perhaps because of the inflated market Chelsea have deliberately let him get cup tied so as they can drive the price down? Who knows…

The REAL reasons why having Bolton as Chelsea's feeder club is a bad idea

An interesting piece by Martin Samuel on Monday raised the realistic prospect of Premier League clubs making formal arrangements whereby the smaller outfit provides feeder club-like services to the bigger club.

According to Samuel, Karen Brady, Birmingham’s lippy Chief Executive, was heard talking about the idea following a recent meeting of Premier League clubs. Brady said: “There was a chat about feeder clubs inside the Premier League, so one day links between Chelsea and Bolton may be official”.

As you’d expect of Martin Samuel (but not necessarily of the Mail), his article does raise a number of intelligent points on why such arrangements would be a bad idea. He argues that it would set an alarming precedent and that the dependency created would, in theory, reduce the aspirations of the feeder club to zero and diminish the excitement of that club’s fans. He also points to the potential for corruption, along the way making the obvious point that the current loan system has exactly the same effect.

Now don’t get me wrong, I would very much be against the bigger clubs sealing these kind of arrangements with teams in the same league, and I really don’t think there’s a chance of it happening. The corruption point is the absolute killer, but I think the overt nature of the relationship would make concrete the sub-divisions within the league and would help perpetuate a situation where, in general, the bigger clubs are invulnerable to challenge from below. This can’t be good for the game, and is one of the reasons why Chelsea and Manchester City coming into money in recent years has to be a good thing.

But I also think Samuel’s reaction is a little disproportionate. Why should we be so much more happy with PSV (effectively), for example, being our feeder club than Bolton? How do PSV fans feel about that? Doesn’t that relegate them to perpetual footballing servitude to the Chelsea ‘man’? Yes, Chelsea play football in the English Premier League, but we are also part of a wider European (and global) game, and I suspect that what affects one club affects others further afield in a more direct way than ever before.

Samuel also assumes that becoming a feeder club is a one way street – an arrangement that only benefits the bigger partner. He neatly sidesteps the fact that smaller clubs aren’t forced into such deals – they operate in a market and make the decisions based on potential reward. Most frequently they receive lucrative financial reward, either in the form of cash payments or friendly games, and also first option on loaning players to provide them with short-term and cheap access to good players. One can only assume that, if Gartside really is in favour of a partnership with Chelsea, he believes Bolton would benefit. Otherwise he really wouldn’t be doing his job. 

Of course, there are other, Chelsea-focused arguments against the Bolton link-up though. For example, do we really think Bolton’s brand of – hardly samba-style – football is a suitable hotbed for creating Chelsea’s young talent of the future? And do they have any record of producing youngsters? I forget the last Bolton player to go on to play for Real Madrid…

And what happens to our arrangement with West Ham? Won’t they feel like their position as our (and England’s) primary feeder club is being undermined?

Finally, maybe there are better club partnerships Chelsea could consider? Now let me see, what would the criteria for a perfect feeder club be? We’re looking for a club with a good youth record. One with falling expectations as hopes of success fade. They should also play competitive-ish football and have a manager under no pressure to deliver success who is willing to give youth a chance. Methinks there’s an option closer to home…

Have an opinion on the potential for Premier League feeder clubs? Post a comment!

Sunderland 1 Chelsea 3 – match report and reaction

So it turned out that, in previewing yesterday’s game against Sunderland, I was wrong about the Chelsea line-up, the eventual scoreline and the probable formation.

Watching the highlights of the game yesterday, it looked like Chelsea put in a much improved display on the weekend’s slightly awkward start. Highlights can be deceptive, but it is clear that there were long spells of Chelsea possession and almost constant pressure on the Sunderland goal – certainly after Bent’s slightly fortunate opener. Passing in midfield looked slick, fast-paced and purposeful – three things that were only on show for fleeting moments on Saturday – and Sunderland were totally unable to deal with it. The one small criticism that could be levelled at the team could only be that they didn’t score more – but that’s nit-picking.

One can’t complain about that performance or the scoreline and there were huge positives from both a team and individual perspective – it was great for the midfield trio of Ballack, Lampard and Deco to get on the scoresheet for example. In saying that however, I still maintain that I’d like to see a formation that delivers more width. For large portions of yesterday’s game, particularly in the first half, Chelsea were still playing up a narrow central channel. Bosingwa and Ballack did get some success down the right wing, and on those occasions Chelsea looked more dangerous, but it’s not something the side does naturally in its current form.

It wasn’t a problem last night – and with a formation that often looked more like a 4-3-2-1 than a diamond Chelsea genuinely outclassed Sunderland in every area – but against better opposition or on days when our midfield isn’t firing on the same number of cylinders we may need a more open-minded strategy in attack.

After last night’s very encouraging performance though, it’s really not a time for these kind of question marks. It's worth saying though that, just as it wasn't worth getting carried away with Chelsea's frustrating performance against Hull, we should certainly avoid getting over-excited by yesterday's, either. There's a long way to go...but long may it continue.

As I didn’t see all 90 minutes myself, perhaps the game is better surmised by some of those closer to the action.

What the managers said:

Carlo Ancelotti: "I am very happy because we played very well all match. In the first half, even though we were behind, we were in control of the match with good possession of the ball. Sunderland had a good first half and defended strongly, but in the second half, they were tired and it was more difficult for them."

Steve Bruce: "Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and accept you were beaten by a better team. I thought Chelsea were terrific. When I looked at the fixtures, the last thing I wanted was Chelsea at home. Whoever beats them will win the league. I haven’t seen them play better. At times it seemed as if we’d had a man sent off. That’s how good they were."

What the papers said:

The Times: “Chelsea exhibited patience, cunning and, most impressively, sheer force of will. It is the stuff of champions, although in terms of beauty, there is surely more to come.”

Telegraph: “Carlo Ancelotti’s side produced a dazzling reversal and, eventually, a dazzling performance. It showed the depths of belief they have, the talent and also, in fairness to Ancelotti, how good football can eventually wear down the most dogged of opponents, that Chelsea won so convincingly in the end.”

Guardian: “Carlo Ancelotti’s side fell behind fairly early on Wearside, huffed and puffed for a bit and then, bewitchingly, reminded everyone why they are so widely tipped to win the Premier League. Sunderland were…unable to assiduously close down the components of a newly dazzling diamond with Deco now glistening at its apex.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: Deco scored the pick of the goals and was constantly difficult for the Sunderland defence to pick up, but Lampard was arguably the side’s most consistent performer and was excellent, especially in the second half. For that reason, and the fact that he picked up his 138^th goal for the club (bringing him level with Jimmy Greaves), he gets the nod for me.

Must do better: no natural candidate for this from last night’s performance, but Drogba arguably should have done better with one of his two or three chances.

Keep an eye out for:

• We're keeping a detailed record of stats for the 09/10 season here. We'll continue to update it game by game and try and make it more comprehensive as we go.

Sunderland v. Chelsea preview: two changed sides will meet at the Stadium of Light

It's only 86 days since goals from Anelka, Kalou and Ashley Cole were enough to beat a stubborn Sunderland side fighting for Premiership survival back in May, but the sides that face each other this evening will line up very differently from last season's encounter.

Like Chelsea, Sunderland recruited a new manager over the summer with Steve 'loyalty's my middle name' Bruce joining from Wigan. A takeover brought with it new funds and new players, and three new signings in particular for the black cats helped Sunderland to an impressive 1-0 win against Bolton at the weekend. Chelsea's midfield will face an entirely different prospect to the side they met on 24th of May, with early signs suggesting that Cattermole and Cana will combine well.

As much as the fee Spurs paid for his services was a joke, Darren Bent is still a good player and he, along with the powerful Kenwyne Jones, will certainly provide a much sterner test for John Terry et al. than Hull's forwards managed on Saturday.

Sunderland aren't without injury problems however, and the likely loss of both Malbranque and Richardson could deprive them of the pace and guile they'll need to have firing on all cylinders if they're to pose anything but an intermittent threat to Chelsea's defence.

Unlike Sunderland, it won't be Chelsea's starting 11 that's changed from last season's encounter, but their formation. We can expect Chelsea to line-up in the increasingly familiar 4-4-2 diamond, and for me the only question mark on team selection is around who anchors the midfield. Early signs are that Ancelotti doesn't 100% trust Mikel in that position, and Chelsea did improve once Essien took over in the second half against Hull.

The only real injury news for Chelsea is that Zhirkov still isn't available to make his Premier League debut - his knee problem is causing trouble. Joe Cole is still a couple of weeks from a return and, whilst there's a chance Alex and Beletti may have recovered from injury I doubt they'll figure in the first team.

Most interesting about this evening's fixture for me - after being relatively scathing of his tactics after Saturday's game - will be whether Ancelotti asks the two players playing at the sides of the diamond to stretch the play wide. If the diamond is going to work, Chelsea simply can't afford to rely solely on Cole and Bosingwa to provide the width.

Look out for the match review later...

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted line-up: Cech, Cole, Terry, Carvalho, Bosingwa, Essien, Ballack, Malouda, Lampard, Anelka, Drogba
bridgeviews.co.uk predicted result: Sunderland haven't beaten Chelsea in the Premier League since 2001 and I wouldn't expect them to break that habit this evening. Sunderland 0 Chelsea 2, Drogba to score first 

Chelsea sign Serbian starlet - could there be life in youth development yet?

Chelsea have continued their pursuit of younger targets and finally wrapped up a deal for Serbian Nemanja Matic from MFK Kosice.

Earlier this summer I made a call for the club to embrace a more youth-focused transfer policy (bringing in bigger names where available and reasonably priced) and, like many other fans, was encouraged when the likes of Sturridge and Turnbull were brought to Stamford Bridge.

Since then, a series of younger players left Chelsea either on permenant or loan deals, including Di Santo, Sahar, Tejera, Stoch, Nouble and Mancienne. Whilst I completely accepted that the law of averages says that some players simply won't make it, as it became that each player wouldn't make an impact at Chelsea (or at least not this season) it increasingly seemed to me like Arnesen and Chelsea's youth policy were going well and truly down the drain. When Charlton's Jonjo Shelvey knocked us back to hold out for a potential move to West Ham, Chelsea's ability to attract the best young talent looked terminal.

Today however there's a bit of better news - MFK Kosice have announced that the long-rumoured transfer to Chelsea of their talented 21-year-old midfielder, Nemanja Matic, has gone through. Supposedly Chelsea have paid around £1.5m for the Serbian's services (not a huge monetary risk to take in this day and age) and he'll be ready to train and make appearances for the reserves once he fully recovers from a metatarsal injury sustained during this summer's European under-21 Championship.

Of course, one signing alone doesn't suggest Chelsea are suddenly a destination of choice for promising youngsters and I'd clearly like to see us take more of a chance on younger players. But it's an encouraging sign. Fingers crossed this one doesn't go the way of Sahar and Tejera.

I don't know much about Chelsea's new signing - only that he plays in central midfield, had a trial with Middlesborough last season, is over 6'4" and has made 74 appearances for Kosice (scoring 4 goals) and two appearances for the national side. Anyone seen him play?

You might be interested to read:

• JustChelsea.com posted an early look at Nemanja Matic in some detail here. Check it out - apparently he's the Serbian Vieira

Chelsea set to make another signing

Well, according to Didier Drogba, anyway. The Ivorian - who stands atop of the Premier League scorers table with Cesc Fabregas after the first weekend's fixtures - was today quoted saying:

"The manager knows better than us what kind of player he wants to bring here for the system he is playing. The squad is very strong. If there is a new player we will only get better".

It's only talk at this stage, but it sounds to me like Didier is fairly convinced someone new will be joining the squad. If someone does join, Chelsea will have left it late in the window again - but if it helps solve the creativity problem it will be well worth the wait.

Whilst we all wait for the Aguero signing to be announced (fingers crossed), don't be put off by rumours circulating that it's actually Seedorf that's now made it to Ancelotti's 'over the hill midfielder' most wanted list...

Let's hope we get the signing we need to mount a successful title challenge. Don't forget that you could be in with a chance of winning Chelsea books and a DVD simply by posting who you think will win the league here.

Who will win the Premier League? Cast your vote for the chance to win Chelsea books & DVDs

Contribute your opinion by posting a comment and be in with a chance of winning...

So, the first Premier League fixtures of the 09/10 campaign are over. Chelsea stole a 2-1 victory over last season's escape artists, Hull City. Similarly Manchester United were unremarkable as they defeated newly promoted Birmingham, whilst their local rivals were more impressive, despatching Blackburn 2-0. Liverpool were the least impressive, falling to a rather amusing 2-1 loss to Spurs. Arsenal outdid everyone with a very impressive 6-1 demolition of David Moyes' Everton.

What do the opening games of the season tell us that we didn't already know, if anything? Do Chelsea deserve their pre-season billing as favourites? Have we all underestimated Arsenal? Can Man City's new stars defy expectation and gel quickly enough to make an impact? 

Post a comment below suggesting who you (be honest!) think will win the title based on pre-season and this weekend's fixtures - I'll display the results on the blog next week. To add a bit of excitement, I'll randomly draw one of the comments and the winner will receive three products from the bridgeviews.co.uk store: 'Totally Frank' - Lamps' autobiography; 'Inverting the pyramid' - a fascinating look at the history of football tactics; and the 08/09 season review on DVD.

I'll make the draw this time next week - make sure you type your email address correctly into the form when you post your comment, else I won't be able to email you if you win! Don't worry, you don't need to register for a full account - just post your details, write your prediction and hit 'post'.

Even if you don't win, make sure you check out the store where I've recommended some (hopefully) interesting books and dvds about Chelsea and the beautiful game that you might not have seen before. 

Good luck...

Poor system at Stamford Bridge means queuing just got worse for Chelsea fans

Over the last few seasons various improvements have been made to Stamford Bridge. New picture boards on the walls by the Britannia Gate, a new look interior, new television screens, a redesigned Megastore and new electronic advertising hoardings have been just some of the improvements that have certainly led to a smarter looking stadium and a better matchday experience.

But at the beginning of last season Chelsea also introduced a new ticketing system, whereby oyster card style season tickets were swiped at the gate to gain entrance to the ground. The hope presumably was that fans would be able to get into the ground more quickly and fewer staff at the gate would be needed, but the reality was longer queues and frustrated fans not in their seats in time for kick off. It seemed bizarre that, despite the installation of new technology, stewards were still needed at each gate (both infront and behind it) to tell people when to swipe their card and generally get in the way. So frustrating was queuing that I named the system in my top five disappointments of 08/09.

Heading to Stamford Bridge on Saturday for the opener against Hull, I was foolishly hoping that something might have been done to improve the situation. Who knows - maybe some more gates might have been built? Any hope gradually faded however as I - along with thousands of other supporters walking through the Britannia gate at 12.30 - had to queue just to get past the huge queues of people trying to get into the West Stand. On finally making my way round to the Matthew Harding end, queues were clearly far longer than they had ever been before.

It took me over 20 minutes to get into the ground from that point, and I missed one of Chelsea's best moves (which culminated in Drogba volleying a Michael Essien cross wide). Clearly someone at Chelsea thought the system wasn't good enough last season because the swipe card units have been moved just outside the gates. Despite this there was still a steward by each one and fans getting confused about when they could swipe their card without locking up the turnstile (perhaps some kind of instructions would be useful?). Walking to my seat ten minutes after kick off, I had already passed several very angry fans who had no-one to complain to save the bemused and undeserving stewards.

It was genuinely quicker and easier to get in with the orange booklets. Kenyon - if you're listening, tweaks here and there won't work - there are too many people trying to get into too few gates. Want to get people into the ground more quickly? Cut some more holes in the wall. We pay enough money each season not to have to queue for 20 minutes each game - and the team could do with 100% support from kick off.

Match report: Chelsea 2 Hull 1 - a worryingly familiar showing

After this fixture last year, which culminated in a nil nil draw, Luiz Felipe Scolari was sacked. Ancelotti’s Chelsea went slightly better to narrowly scrape a 2-1 win against Hull deep into injury time yesterday, but there were worryingly familiar signs before Drogba tucked the somewhat fortunate decisive goal away.

It was a certainly a rusty performance from Chelsea – midweek internationals could have contributed to that – and despite having the lion’s share of possession there was a lack of invention, sharpness in front of goal and accurate passing.

A turgid first half, in which Hull opened the scoring with a very fortuitous strike from Hunt (you’ll remember him as the man who caved in Petr Cech’s skull back in 2006), set the tone for the 90 minutes. The 4-4-2 diamond once again restricted Chelsea to playing entirely in a narrow channel up the centre of the pitch, trying to carve out opportunities through neat passing triangles in very limited space. There was the occasional good move, but this was a tactic that quite literally gave very little room to manouever.

As a result the job for a well organised and disciplined Hull was far too easy (they carved out some reasonable chances for themselves) and Chelsea’s passing moves regularly petered out through lax play or strong organisation from the northern visitors. Chelsea were in desperate need of someone to stretch the play wide – preferably at pace - but Malouda was clearly asked to play inside, it isn’t Essien or Ballack’s style and the full backs only made headway down their wings intermittently. Chelsea were just as slow and  predictable as they had been during some of the worse parts of last season, and if Hull managed to restrict them so easily better sides will inflict greater damage.

Watching a highlights package would convey a different impression of the game however, and it is true that there were a number of opportunities in each half that Drogba, Anelka and Essien should have put away that would have given the game a very different look. There were other positives too, notably Drogba’s beautifully-struck free kick for the first Chelsea goal and his general attitude throughout, the latter suggesting the Ivorian might have turned over a new leaf. Essien too was in good form in both halves, first on the right of the diamond and then replacing Mikel at its base.

But none of this should cover the worrying reality of yesterday’s game – that the formation, tactics and substitutions did nothing to create or shape a team that can be effective in the Premier League and only served to make Chelsea look extremely one dimensional. There was no plan B. I keep telling myself that we should give the diamond more time to prove its worth but I can’t avoid coming to the conclusion that such a narrowly-executed formation simply can’t work in the Premier League. Can it anywhere? 

More concerning for me was Ancelotti himself. Maybe his 4-4-2 will come good, and maybe he just needs more time to learn about his players and the league and create a system that works. But he made three substitutions yesterday – all of them at a time when the match was ebbing away – and not one of them sought to change anything more than personnel, smacking of Scolari’s most uninspired decisions. Bringing on Kalou for Anelka as a like-for-like change, for example, didn’t fundamentally change the way Chelsea played – it was basically a hopeful gamble that somehow one player would be more fortunate than another in the same position.

It is perhaps telling that Lampard, who had barely figured in the game, cut a disconsolate figure as he trudged off the pitch at full time. Ancelotti needs to start learning quickly. We need a formation that works and suits the players we have available (what the hell was wrong with 4-3-3?) and we need to be able to play in more than one way to mix things up when things aren’t going to plan. It is of course far too early to pass real judgement, but there was nothing from the bench yesterday to suggest any of this will be forthcoming in the near future.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: only one option really. Essien was impressive, but Drogba looked inspired. Scored two goals and could have had more and played the game with a flawless commitment. Nearing his best at which he is unplayable – more of the same please, Didier.

Must do better: Ancelotti clearly wasn’t happy with John Obi Mikel’s performance, and asked Essien to take over in the holding role in the second half. It was a choppy display from the Nigerian, but Ancelotti shouldn’t be happy with his own performance, either.

Ten reasons why Chelsea will win the title

I’ve posted about the lack of a big name signing. I’ve posted about Ancelotti’s modest league record and criticised his 4-4-2 diamond. I’ve worried about the impact of John Terry’s increasing influence at Chelsea.

But, despite all that, I’ve also talked through the chances of all our rivals and concluded that Chelsea are in pole position in the league. Now, just under two hours away from Chelsea opening the 09/10 Premier League campaign against Hull, the final preview: ten reasons why Chelsea will win the league. Can it be done?

1) Standing still is the new going forwards
Man Utd lost Ronaldo. Liverpool lost Alonso. Arsenal lost Adebayor and Toure. None of those three have signed like-for-like replacements, so will either be weaker or have to adapt. In contrast, Chelsea hung on to John Terry, have made a good addition in Zhirkhov and have the most settled squad of the newly formed ‘big five’.

2) Essien and Cole are like new signings
Provided they stay fit, of course. Between them Essien and Cole played only 24 league games last season - double that and that’s a huge resource that was missing last term.

3) The Mancs won’t do it
Manchester United have too many goals to replace in the wake of Ronaldo’s departure and it’s one season too early for Manchester City’s shiny new squad.

4) We’re in the winning habit
It’s been a winning pre-season, with only a poor performance at Reading blotting the record book. In July Chelsea despatched the best two teams in Italy over in America before lifting the first silverware of the season last weekend by beating United on penalties in the Community Shield. Old habits – they die hard.

5) Youth won’t win the day
Arsenal haven’t strengthened in the few areas they needed it – age, experience and defensive strength. United too are over-reliant on the youngsters – Macheda and Gibson look good, but won’t win them the league.

6) The greatest strength in depth
After the injury crises suffered over the last three seasons, that Chelsea have pushed so hard for trophies is testament to the squad’s strength in depth. Liverpool’s squad is paper thin and Arsenal and City are short of at least three or four defensive signings. Chelsea on the other hand have at least two quality players for each position – with the possible exception of a striker or attacking right winger. Having few injuries could win us the title, but we’re in a good position either way.

7) Rock solid at the back
Although Man Utd fans might argue the same thing, Chelsea have at least the best defence in the league - and the first job of any title winning side is to be hard to beat.

8) Playing two forwards
Two strikers on the pitch? At the same time? That’s just greedy. It’s been an unfamiliar time over the last few seasons, but Ancelotti really is going to give Drogba someone to play with upfront. Regardless of the lack of depth in the squad, Drogba and Anelka is as good a top two as any in the league, and the former has look invigorated of late.

9) Frank Lampard
The surest guarantee of goals short of bribing match officials.

10) We’ve done it all before 
There’s always a certain amount fan bravado at this time of year but those of us getting nervous it’s worth remembering that ten players in our squad have won the league before. Five have won the Champions League, and most have reached either the semi-final or the final of a major international tournament. In contrast, Liverpool’s current squad have won little domestically and Arsenal and City players are yet to experience the kind of pressure that comes with nearing success. When the pressure tells, we know Chelsea won’t crack.

Whether you’re going to the Bridge this afternoon (see you there) or watching on Sky Sports – enjoy the match. I fancy us to grab a rusty, early-season 2-0 win – look out for the match report later today. In the meantime, how do you think the league will be won? Post a comment.

Chelsea in focus: it's a big season for...?

Now that we’re less than 48 hours from the kick off of the 09/10 league season, thoughts are turning to Chelsea’s chances of regaining the Premier League trophy after three unfortunate years of Man Utd dominance.

It looks like another roller-coaster season is in the offing – but who at Chelsea has the most at stake over the next ten months? It’s going to be a big year for…

Joe Cole

The diminutive number 10 was a massive miss last season, his injury leaving a gaping hole in Chelsea’s creativity. But with a couple of injury-plagued years now behind him, he’s beginning to look at least a little injury prone. If he can get fit he is genuinely capable of making a big difference – although whether that’s possible in Ancelotti’s diamond midfield remains to be seen – but if he has another long spell on the sidelines Chelsea could again come up short on the creative stakes. In a World Cup year, Joe will be desperate to get some minutes on the pitch.

Ricardo Carvalho

Injuries last season meant Ricky fell below Alex in the Stamford Bridge pecking order, and he can count himself lucky that Ancelotti sees him as the ideal partner for John Terry. If he can recapture the form of two years ago everything will be hunky dory, but if things go to plan he might find himself permanently frozen out.

The full backs

I don’t like it, but it Ancelotti is going to persist with a width-less 4-4-2 diamond. If Chelsea are going to be an attacking force to be reckoned with, Cole and Bosingwa will need to play at their peak week in, week out. They’ll need to do a hell of a lot of running too. Doubts remain however about whether Bosingwa will even keep his first team place – Carlo has favoured Ivanovic in recent games. Perhaps he really is on his way to Bayern? Would seem a strange move, given our narrow formation.

John Obi Mikel

Personally, I think Mikel is a top-class holding midfield player, and a better player in that position than he should be at his age. But does Carlo like him? Why else would we be pursuing Pirlo or Di Rossi, or experimenting with Deco at the base of the diamond? The Nigerian has a new contract, but you get the feeling he’ll need to start the season in top gear to stay at the front of the manager’s plans.

Frank Arnesen

It’s been a bit of a struggle to keep my distaste for the least effective member of the Chelsea ‘team’ to myself over the last month (check out a recent post on Arnesen’s record here). He recently defended the lack of young players coming through by suggesting that he was never expected to bring any players through until 2010. You’ve got one year, Frank, I’ll hold back judgement until then.

Carlo Ancelotti

It’s all started so well for Ancelotti, hasn’t it? A good pre-season, improving English, jokes with the press…even a trophy. We need only whisper it, but it was exactly the same last year with Scolari, and look what happened there. Ancelotti has potentially staked his career on a move to Chelsea after success stopped flowing at the San Siro, but fingers crossed Abramovich won’t need Hiddink on speed dial again this year.

And the rest

In lieu of a real one, Zhirkov will have to be our marquee signing. Apparently he’s the Russian Ronaldinho, so it shouldn’t be a problem…it will also be a big season for John Terry, who will need to be at his best to help us all forget the months of speculation around his future…Essien may need to adapt his game if he’s going to be effective in the right berth of a 4-4-2 diamond…Sturridge is carrying the weight of expectation on Chelsea’s youngsters alone this year, but that brings an opportunity…while Di Santo, Sinclair and Mancienne have a real chance to prove themselves at other Premier League clubs.

What do you think? Who’s under the greatest pressure at the Bridge next season? Post a comment…

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part IV: Manchester City

So, I’ve got the crystal ball out again. On Monday, I looked at Man Utd’s challenge, on Tuesday Liverpool’s and yesterday’s Arsenal’s. Today we take a quick look the outsider’s bet for the title – Manchester City.

However threatened fans of the current ‘big four’ might feel, what has happened at Manchester City has got to be just about the most exciting thing that’s happened to the Premier League since Roman Abramovich. I’ll save the debate as to whether the vast investment that’s been made at Eastlands – which in my view exceeds what was happening at Chelsea in the first couple of years of Roman’s ownership – for another time, but it cannot be argued that City haven’t at least shaken things up a bit. The simple question is however: do you want a league where more or less sides are capable of winning the league? Everyone seems to want the former (at least they did when Chelsea started winning the league, anyway). But if that’s the case, only the injection of cash can break hegemonies.

It is fascinating to see what’s being pulled together up at Eastlands. They have certainly brought in some real quality, but for me there’s something a little ‘unplanned’ about it all – it seems more wanton than what happened under first Ranieri and then Mourinho at Chelsea. How much control does Mark Hughes have up there, or is some faceless figure going through FourFourTwo magazine’s list of the top 100 players in world football and systematically lodging massive bids for their services? If you throw enough coconuts…

And this is where City will come unstuck: not just the players that they are targeting (or haven’t targeted), but the sheer volume of new recruits in a short space of time. Don’t get me wrong - City will certainly be a force over the next few years, but 09/10 will come just a little bit too early.

Ins and outs
Manchester City have done a huge amount of business and spent a huge amount of money. But, so far, it’s been weighted towards the attack, with Santa Cruz, Tevez and Adebayor joining Robinho et al. Needless to say, Gareth Barry and Toure are both top-class in their positions – but I still feel they a couple of signings short of a quality defensive unit and the requisite leadership in the team.

Despite all these signings, I’d still say that only one of their players would get into the Chelsea side: Robinho. Man City fans will disagree and say Chelsea were after Adebayor and Tevez – but I’m not convinced, certainly regarding the former. Besides which, I’ve made my anti-Tevez feelings well known…

City haven’t been nearly so active with players moving in the other direction. I liked the look of Joe Hart, who’s moved on loan to Birmingham, when he was playing in this Summer’s U21 European Championships, but he won’t be a major miss for the team with Given between the posts. Likewise Jo – who’s also back out on loan – won’t be missed with the new array of attacking talent Hughes has brought in. I’ve been impressed by Sturridge’s energy and confidence in Chelsea blue during pre-season, but hand on heart I can’t say he’ll be missed at City, either.

All this said, you get the impression there will need to be more sales from Eastlands – not only is the squad ‘top heavy’ so to speak, if they are too build a genuinely competitive first team squad they’ll need eventually to get rid of some of the players that were bought for a side playing mid-table football.

If he steps up, they’ll win the league
As with Arsenal, scoring goals shouldn’t be a problem, even if it takes time for the new recruits to gel. But what City are missing is a defensive lynchpin, a foundation around which the rest of the team can be built. You can see why City were so desperate to land John Terry.

From that perspective it was interesting that, having lost out on Terry, City snapped up Toure immediately afterwards. Not exactly a like-for-like deal there. Lescott will probably still join City, but I’m not convinced he’s the answer either. If Man City are to learn consistency and defensive stinginess, one of these two may well need to step their game up a level – provided another signing isn’t made to fill that void.

Where they'll lose it
Remarkably like Arsenal this, isn’t it? As I’ve alluded to, City may well have problems at the back, and you get the feeling that’s there’s little leadership in the team, no-one to grab a poor game by the scruff of its neck. The only difference with Arsenal that I can see is that the club and manager have both the willingness and the resources to take a pragmatic approach and fix the problem. And that’s why Arsenal fans should be concerned for the club’s future as an automatic candidate for Champions League qualification.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
When Manchester City were bought in the final hours of last summer’s transfer window, it was genuinely a moment that changed English football, at least in the short term. Love it or loathe it, City will be a force in the next few years, and there’s another two ‘big’ games in the calendar. Deal with it. But this season they’ll narrowly fight off Aston Villa to finish 5^th.

What do you make of Man City’s summer dealings – will success come quickly or will they have to wait? What do you think it means for Chelsea? Post a comment…

Premier League preview – Chelsea rivals part III: Arsenal

On Monday, we looked at Man Utd’s challenge. Yesterday, Liverpool’s. Today it’s the turn of Arsene Wenger’s Arsenal, who sit on the edge of a precipice.

My first point must be: who on earth knows what we can expect from Arsenal this term? I change my mind daily, half expecting our much-loved north London rivals to fall away and out of the Champions League spots, half expecting Wenger’s kids to miraculously come good and challenge for the title. And it’s this dichotomy that is the essence of the problem.

Arsenal have half a good side. Going forward they are pretty much as good as anyone in the league, and obviously they play some very ‘pretty’ football. But, whether it be through lack of funds or Wenger’s stubbornness, time and again they have failed to strengthen where they need to (if I was a gooner I’d be tearing my hair out). There is a core fallibility in their side that consistently overshadows Arsenal’s fine passing game.

It wasn’t so long ago that Arsenal were in the Champions League final. Whilst they were badly shown up in each, they also reached the semi final stages of both the Champions League and FA cup last season, so there’s clearly potential there. But this is a side in a precarious position – Everton and Aston Villa are improving and for Man City buying a player for £25m really is petty cash. On the pitch there are worrying signs too – in last season’s home league table, Arsenal placed 5^th. Could this be the year when it all goes very wrong for them?

Ins and outs
Arsenal’s pre-season transfer dealings can be better characterised by players they haven’t signed than players they have.

It was fairly obvious by the end of last season that Arsenal desperately needed defensive reinforcements, both at the back and in midfield. Yes, they have signed Vermaelen, who looks a solid player (if unproven at the highest level), but they’ve also lost Toure. The one area where they needed to improve – strength, leadership and experience in their own half – hasn’t been sufficiently filled. I was surprised in almost equal measure when Wenger was first linked with a move for Vieira and then dismissed the option to re-sign the Frenchman. Surely he would have been a relatively cheap but effective short-term option? Not everything needs to be long-term thrift, Arsene…

Love him or loathe him, losing Adebayor is a bigger miss than most Arsenal fans make out. The laid-back Tongolese has played 143 games for Arsenal and scored 62 goals – that’s nearly one in every two games and a better rate than most premiership strikers. He supposedly had a bad season last year, but still scored 16 goals in 38 appearances. Not terrible by any means, and he’ll get goals at Eastlands.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
It says something that it’s so much more difficult to answer this question than it was for Liverpool or Man Utd.

Even with the loss of Adebayor, Arsenal have plenty of firepower upfront with Van Persie, Arhsavin, Bendtner and Walcott, and my feeling is they’ll get enough goals. So, if Arsenal’s youngsters are to kick on and challenge for trophies, it will be because someone has stood up defensively to shore up Arsenal’s soft centre. It’s not going to be Fabregas – if they are to succeed either Song or Denilson will need to mould themselves into the midfield general role or Vermaelen will need to prove a very astute signing indeed.

It’s going to be tough for any of them to do it.

Where they'll lose it
Unless Wenger makes one or two surprising signings over the next twenty days, Arsenal’s dual lack of experience and defensive strength (both physically and technically) will make them too vulnerable in defence. They’re just too easy to intimidate and score against: scenes like United’s humbling of them in the Champions League second leg or Drogba steamrollering through them need to become a distant memory if they’ve any chance of success.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
Arsenal really are on the cusp of something this season. Trick is, on the cusp of what – their youngsters coming of age, or it all falling to pieces? My view is that, barring Wenger waking up to reality, it will be the latter – but not until 10/11. Arsenal will hold on and scrape 4^th.

He's pursued ageing targets but, like Arsenal’s Wenger, Ancelotti is Chelsea's king of thrift

Last night Chelsea were linked with a move for Roma’s Daniele De Rossi, the latest in a long line of puzzling rumours that has stretched from Pirlo to Beckham.

As Chelsea have continued to be linked with ageing central midfield players (not that De Rossi is ageing) this summer, I’ve become increasingly frustrated and critical of Ancelotti’s supposed transfer plans. Having always been slightly cynical of his record at Milan (you can read a little of what I thought of him back in June here) and the older players brought into the San Siro team in that time, I began to concern myself that our new manager never achieved what he should have done with the resources available to him.

Following a comment from a reader last week however, I thought I’d take a closer look at Ancelotti’s transfers while at Milan. At least my suspicions would be based on more than a hunch. What I found was actually a little surprising - there's another, entirely different, way to look at his record.

There’s a whole debate about what influence Ancelotti had over transfers at his former club. But the fact remains that Ancelotti had relatively meagre resources to deal with throughout his tenure at Milan, meaning his return of two European cups, one Serie A and one domestic cup trophy isn’t a bad haul.

Between 2002 and 2009 Milan spent around £128m on new signings, largely through buying or loaning older players supposedly past their prime (eg. Ronadinho, Zambrotta, or Beckham) or bringing in younger players with something to prove (eg. Flamini, Senderos or Borriello). In that time however, they also received nearly £90m in sales, meaning that the total investment required over that period totalled just £40m. Over seven seasons, that’s less than £6m a season. A pittance.

Compare that pittance to Chelsea’s spending record and the contrast is remarkable - £402m spent, £118m received meaning investment of £284m. It’s not a dissimilar picture at Man Utd either, whose total investment in that time came to £136m (£254m spent, £118m received). Liverpool’s total investment is marginally lower at around £120m. Most interestingly, the closest comparison to Ancelotti’s comparative thriftiness is Arsene Wenger at Arsenal, where the figures are almost identical to that of Milan (£129m spent, £91m received, total investment £38m).

The comparison with Arsenal doesn’t end there. Both are big clubs with big fanbases, on a limited budget and, in latter years, falling behind their biggest rivals. Where Arsenal went for youth however, Milan went for big names and experience – neither coming with a cheap wage bill attached. But no-one can argue that Milan haven’t had superior success to Arsenal over that period.

So in conclusion, Ancelotti had a low budget, limited control over transfers and various scandals to deal with at Milan, but still managed to mould a team that could pick up trophies. Perhaps that’s why the newly budget-conscious Chelsea (and an ‘involved’ Abramovich) saw so much potential in him. Regardless, hopefully the logic that follows is that, with the purse string loosened a little longer-term, he’ll be able to achieve at least similar success at Chelsea.

But who said logic had anything to do with football…

You might also be interested to read:

• Could steering clear of injuries be the biggest factor in success for Chelsea? A look at Dimichelis

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part II: Liverpool

A series of posts this week will look at each of Chelsea's main rivals for the Premier League. Yesterday it was Man Utd's turn - today, it's Liverpool.

Liverpool's title challenge last season died only marginally after their fans' statements that it was 'their year' stopped reverberating around internet messageboards. In reality though, last year's Liverpool was a much improved side and one that, towards the end of the season at least, Benitez had finally let off the leash.

Scoring more goals than any other team in the league, it was only their lingering propensity to put in sub-standard performances against mediocre sides that prevented them from winning league (that said, arguably it was only a series of lucky escapes early in the season that put them in the running). Can they find the consistency they've been looking for and challenge this season? A stuttering pre-season and the loss of an important player indicates no...

Ins and outs
Whilst not the same as United losing Ronaldo, losing Xabi Alonso is a very significant blow for Liverpool's title challenge. An excellent holding midfield player with excellent passing range alongside the defensively almost-flawless Mascherano, Alonso formed one part of an excellent central midfield partnership rivalled only by Chelsea's options. As a reminder of his quality, look back at Liverpool's fourth goal against Chelsea in the second leg of the Champions League quarter final last season - his first time volleyed pass wide may not have been the last touch before Kuyt headed in, but it was the definitive one. He will be diffiuclt to replace, bringing one to wonder why Benitez was so keen to get rid of him last summer. There's no love lost with Chelsea, though...

New signing Aquilani's talents are less clear - I haven't seen too much of him play. But he is more defensive than Alonso, and if Benitez plans to pair him with Masherano it will surely result in Liverpool being less liberal attack than they had been in the second half of last season. Time will tell, but one thing's for sure: he'll need to tone down his public comments of respect for Mussolini (honestly look it up, it's appalling). He is a little injury prone, too - Liverpool fans will have to wait six weeks before he recovers from his current injury.

Other players have come and go - notably the hugely overpriced Glen Johnson coming in and Arbeloa and the long-serving Hyypia going the other way, but none will have either the impact of Alonso or his replacement on the title race.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
An easy one. Aside from Gerrard and Masherano, Liverpool only have one other top-quality player - Fernando Torres - and it's the Spaniard alone that has the ability to move Liverpool on a step. On song Torres is probably the best striker in the world, and he's scored hatfuls of goals for Liverpool in relatively few appearances. If they can keep him fit and provide him with the service, he could score enough goals to propel Liverpool towards the summit. My bet however is that they won't - his legs are made of glass.

Where they'll lose it
Liverpool aren't entirely unlike Chelsea - where they'll come unstuck is through a lack of truly top-drawer creative players. Once again I'd expect them to struggle intermittently against stubborn defences, and a squad lacking quality across the board will hamstring them.

That said, there's another weakness. Perhaps it's down to the fact that none of their squad have won the league before, but last season it could be argued that Liverpool never really performed when the pressure was on. Beginning of the season, too early for anything to be at stake - play well and win. Mid-season, top of the table with United and Chelsea stuttering - favourites for the title Liverpool fade out of the race as United respond. End of the season with the league almost decided - Liverpool start to play better again. Actually the Champions League quarter final second leg against Chelsea was like Liverpool's season in microcosm - when they were out of the tie they played well, when they were in it they came unstuck. It's yet to be proven that this Liverpool team has the unerring tenacity needed to win the league.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
Looking at their team sheet, I simply don't believe Liverpool have the quality to replicate last season's performance, let alone win the league. They'll start unconvincingly, pick up a little mid-season but not have enough to challenge, eventually finishing third.

Which was the ‘top’ team of the last 25 years?

It’s clearly a subjective question. Does ‘top’ mean the most attractive to watch? The most effective? The side that scored the most goals or won the most silverware? Reading an article on their website today, it seems the Times has its own definition.

Oliver Kay has Arsenal’s Invincibles (2001-04) as the ‘top’ team, followed by United’s side playing between 06 and 09. Chelsea’s back-to-back winning team of 04-09 (he misguidedly thinks we have the same team now) comes in just third.

But by my definition, the ‘top’ side means the best side. The side that was most adept at fulfilling the aims of football, namely to score goals, not concede any and win matches. And let’s remind ourselves that in the 03/04 season – the season of the so-called Invincibles, Arsenal won the league with 90 points having scored 73 goals and conceded 26. Just one year later, Chelsea won the league for only the second time in their history racking up five more points than Arsenal had while scoring only one less goal and conceding nine less at the other end. Just one solitary defeat – a rather unfortunate one nil loss to Man City, if I recall – blots the record book.

And let’s not forget the Champions League quarter-final either, in which the unbeatable Invincibles came a cropper.

Of course even I – a very blinkered Chelsea fan – can see that looking at the league table doesn’t show the whole story. That Arsenal side were obviously great to watch and Henry (however much we hate him) was at his very best. But the accusations of an over-efficient approach to football and buying the league hide the fact that there was plenty to marvel at in Mourinho’s 04/05 side. The defence was the greatest that has ever played the game in this country, Lampard was hitting the form that would see him win international accolades, and the combination of Duff and Robben was playing fast-paced – and very entertaining – havoc with all comers.

Arsenal’s side broke one record – albeit a massively impressive one. But the Chelsea side of 04/05 side ripped the record book up completely, and then cruised to the league title in second gear the next season, posting a points total only one other side has ever managed.

For me, there’s no competition. But defending well isn’t seen as an ‘art’ worthy of mention by most, and the way Chelsea burst onto the world scene with Abramovich’s money has counted against the blues in the reputation stakes. In twenty-five years time however – when the dust has settled and the heat of current anti-Chelsea rivalry has dimmed, perhaps memories will paint a different picture.

Which has been your 'top' side of the last 25 years? Post a comment…

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part I: Manchester United

Pre-season games are over, the Community Shield has been played and the Championship is underway. All that's left is for the Premier League to get started - and there are just five days to go. Chelsea have a new manager, a new formation and a new Russian winger, and it looks likely we're in for another rollercoaster season. But what about our rivals?

In the days running up to Saturday's big kick off, bridgeviews.co.uk will day-by-day take a look at each of Chelsea's biggest rivals - who they've signed, who they've sold and how they'll get along next season. First up, last season's Champions and this season's Community Shield runners up - Manchester United.

Up until yesterday afternoon most bookies had Man Utd as favourites to win the Premier League. Apparently a narrow win on penalties is enough for them to reconsider however, and Ladbrokes now have both United and Chelsea at 3-1, and William Hill have Chelsea as marginal favourites. A strange knee-jerk reaction, or a realistic prognosis for a declining force?

Ins and outs
Yes, £80m is a lot of money. But in reality, the money that Utd received for Ronaldo is almost useless, such is the scarcity of players of his ability. It's oft written that Chelsea are lacking that one creative player - that 'spark' that can make the team tick and dig it out of holes. But where is that spark in the United side now that Ronaldo's gone? Is it Valencia? Nani? Rooney? Berbatov? No, I'm not convinced either.

That said, there are plenty of goals left in that side. In Rooney and Berbatov they have two strikers the equal of any other in the league and Owen - provided he can stay relatively injury free - will score goals. His signing could well be a masterstroke - and a relatively cheap one at that, with his signing likely to cost only £5m over two years (click here to see what I said about Owen two months ago). A snip for one of England's highest goal scorers who has played at some of the biggest clubs in world football (no, not Newastle). Antonio Valencia is good young player, but goal shy, and won't make the difference - this season, at least.

I almost forgot - someone called Tevez left United too. I've made no secret of the fact that I don't think Tevez is worth £25m and that I wouldn't have been excited had he signed for Chelsea (read my article on the Argentine here). He's an expensive terrier who doesn't score enough goals. United won't miss him.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
I suspect United fans might not agree, but it's Dimitar Berbatov. When he signed for United last season, I was convinced he was the final part of their jigsaw. They had the defence, they had flying wingers and a solid midfield. But it didn't quite work out like that. Berbatov has an exquisite first touch and extraordinary imagination on the ball. Yes, he has a laissez-faire demeanour, but doesn't Drogba? Didn't Cantona? Berbatov was a 20+ goal a season man at Spurs - if United find out how to fit him in the side they can get more goals out of him. If they do, he and Rooney will play havoc with most Premier League defences.

But United's youth might also do the trick. A string of viable young players - Evans, Macheda and Gibson, for example - might arguably give United the edge in terms of squad strength and depth, especially when compared to Arnesen's youth debacle at Chelsea. Evans and the Silva brothers are pretty much proven now - but we'll need to see the the likes of Macheda for a longer period before we can make an informed judgement on their quality.

Where they'll lose it
There's no room for failure for Berbatov, Rooney and Owen. If these three don't chip in with their fair share of goals, a light-looking midfield will expose Man United. Park, Valencia and Anderson are relatively goal shy, Scholes and Giggs are <another> year older and I don't 'buy' Anderson. It's not just goals that will be missing, either - as last season's Champions League final proved - Fletcher and Carrick are very good players but certainly not world beaters. Furthermore, the likes of Park and Nani don't have that star quality. It didn't happen at Wembley yesterday, but United's midfield might find itself either undone or short of firepower a few too many times over the course of a long season.

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted finishing position
I've been as confused as the bookies over the last few weeks. Before the pre-season friendlies, I was convinced that Chelsea would be able to take advantage of the loss of Ronaldo and snatch the league. But Ancelotti's persistance with a 4-4-2 diamond - a formation I'm convinced matches neither Chelsea's squad nor the Premier League - gave me second thoughts. 

It should be close. Each side's defence is as good as the other and with the departure of Ronaldo the strikers aren't too much different either. Chelsea certainly  have the quality to win it, but a vaguely settled team at United coupled with them having a manager who is more familiar with English football than the back of his own hand, could (depressingly) mean that they're favourites to lift the trophy once again.

But, as a Chelsea fan desperate to be optimistic, my verdict is: United will finish second.


You might also be interested to read:

• A look back at what Chelsea's pre-season tour of the US tells us
• Who Man Utd are actually worrying about - could it be Man City?

Match report: Chelsea 2 Man Utd 2 (4-1 on penalties)

Terry and Ferdinand were in jovial mood shortly before the kick off of the game that has traditionally opened each top-flight season since 1908. That – and the sober minutes applause in honour of Bobby Robson – stood in stark contrast however to the lively and keenly contested match that followed. Remarkably, Chelsea won an even (and sometimes controversial) tie on penalties, but both sides have plenty of room for improvement this season.

Chelsea lined up as expected aside from in defence where Ivanovic and Carvalho were chosen over Bosingwa and Alex respectively. Similarly United had a changed back four (largely due to injury) with Evans and O’Shea joining stalwarts Ferdinand and Evra. On kick off I couldn’t help but think that their starting midfield of Nani, Fletcher, Park and Carrick wouldn’t scare too many top sides this season.

A non-eventful first five minutes – only punctuated only by a Drogba shot from 25 yards followed kick-off, but the game then exploded into life when Ivanovic got a toe to a corner, only to see his weak touch nodded onto the underside of the bar by Evra who had been waiting on the line.

The minutes that followed saw Essien regularly drawn into midfield and United finding space down their left. Just as I was about to criticise Nani for lacking a final product, he turned to buy himself a few yards on the left, took the ball inside and fired a shot from 20-odd yards. Confusion between the keeper and Terry probably didn’t help, but Cech should have done better and a good but not great shot found the net. Ten minutes gone, one nil United.

As the minutes slipped by Ivanovic was looking increasingly uncomfortable at right back and gave away two needless free kicks against  the tricky-looking combination of Evra and Nani, who were showing plenty of willingness to stretch the play wide down their left. United were already looking far more effective in possession and Chelsea’s superior midfield (on paper at least) was unable to get a hold of the game. The few attacks launched by the blues were ill-conceived, and the solid dual anchor of Carrick and Fletcher had no problem stifling the long ball.

United were starting to create the chances to match their superiority, and were regularly carving out space – for the first half an hour Chelsea seemed incapable of picking up runs from United’s deeper-lying players. Cech made good saves first from Park (under pressure from Mikel) and then Berbatov.

In strong contrast to United – who were often basking in space for the first 30 minutes - Chelsea were unable to get Lampard on the ball. With Man Utd’s midfield taking it in turn to mark the number 8 out of the game, Chelsea’s front three were unable to find any rhythm, and Ancelotti was starting to cut a frustrated figure on the sidelines as all to frequently his side wasted possession. Once again, the complete lack of width was severely hindering the team’s ability to cause the opposition problems.

The game started to become more balanced as chances to Malouda (who mistimed a volley on the left stick), Park and Essien followed. Inside of 35 minutes the biggest concern for Ferguson would have been Foster’s nervousness and inability to clear his lines twice when under pressure from Drogba.

The final ten minutes of the half was more encouraging for Chelsea who finally started to grasp a greater share of possession. Ancelotti will have also been pleased that Rooney hadn’t really got in the game. But in truth the players didn’t look comfortable with a 4-4-2 diamond that wasn’t releasing attacking players into any space in the final third (as it hadn’t against Reading last week). Under the diamond system, neither Essien nor Malouda provide any width, and the former’s attacking instincts are nullified by the constant need for him to support in defence. Ivanovic continued to disappoint, and Man Utd rounded off a half in which they had been the more impressive side with a well struck curving shot from Fletcher, which Cech narrowly tipped over.

The initial phases of the second half were a lot more promising for Chelsea who, with the unsurprising introduction of Bosingwa, started to look far more convincing with the ball. An equaliser – albeit a slightly fortuitous one - duly followed on 51 minutes. Coming off the left wing, Malouda darted into the box to combine with Lampard and dink a cross towards the Foster. Under pressure from Drogba, the young keeper didn’t get much of a touch on the ball which popped out to Carvalho who dived to nod the ball in at the near post. Certainly nothing pretty, but it was a goal that was earned by a triumvirate of Malouda trickery, Lampard persistence and Drogba brute force.

If anything the game increased in tempo from this point, and with Drogba, Essien and Lampard starting to fire, Chelsea were looking much more dangerous in the final third. For the first time in the match, Chelsea were starting to edge ahead in terms of possession.

Nani came off on 60 minutes with an ‘injury’ (he had played well in fairness, but his closest resemblance to Ronaldo is still his rolling around) to be replaced by Valencia, and shortly afterwards Ballack replaced Mikel, with Essien moving backwards into the holding role. The likes of Lampard were starting to find more space, and by and large Chelsea were controlling the game to the same extent United had in the first half.

Then came Chelsea’s second goal – and a contentious moment. Whilst his theatrics were questionable, Evra was unquestionably blocked by Ballack as he made a run down the left wing. Referee Chris Foy played advantage, and subsequently Carvalho hit a long clearance down the pitch towards Drogba. The Ivorian, largely unopposed by a United defence still in Chelsea’s half, took the ball forward twenty yards to pass square. Lampard arrived to smashed a powerful shot – via Foster’s hand – into the bottom left hand corner of the net. United’s players – lead by the usually-so-well behaved Rooney – were clearly unhappy and berated the referee. The truth was however that advantage had been played and, as the referee didn’t deem Evra’s theatrical rolling around of the floor as worthy of stopping the game, no blame can be placed on Chelsea for putting the ball away. Lots of players – Chelsea’s included – do it, but Evra clutching his head despite Ballack getting nowhere near it was embarrassing.

The game was starting to look a little scrappy, but thanks to a re-energised Drogba it was starting to be mostly played in United’s half. Ballack and Evra clashed once again, with the latter clattering the German with a tackle in which he initially got the ball. Chris Foy – rightfully in my view – saw intent in the challenge and awarded a yellow card – cue more surrounding of the referee by United players and more aggressive antics from Rooney. Handbags stuff really, but worth noting that Ballack was on his feet immediately. 

The game ebbed towards a close, and substitutions from both sides probably contributed towards a half generally lacking in real quality. Drogba forced a good save from Ben Foster and Owen nearly got his head to a cross into the Chelsea box, but in reality real chances were few and far between. Just as the game looked to be over however, United launched an attack at lightning speed, with Giggs finding Rooney (who may have been marginally offside). Credit where it’s due however: the Liverpudlian showed excellent strength and composure to tuck the ball past Cech and take the game to penalties.

Chelsea fans have had a terrible time of it over the past few years when it’s come to penalties – but hey, at least expectations are low to start with. So it was a massive (and pleasant) surprise when Lampard, Ballack, Drogba and Kalou all scored very well-taken penalties and Cech saved Giggs and Evra efforts. After his ‘performance’ in the second half –so different from his good attacking play in the first – it was particularly pleasing to see Evra hit a very lame penalty that Cech could have saved with his eyes closed.

The result won’t actually matter too much for either side – at this stage of the season games are all about fitness and the performance. On the one hand the toothless Chelsea of the first half and the lack of fluidity throughout is concerning, but on the other the improved display and fight showed in the second 45 was very encouraging indeed. On balance however, a 2-2 score line was a fair reflection of a game very much of two halves.

Two things are clear to me however. Firstly, the Chelsea that won today was the old Chelsea – a new Ancelotti brand of football is a long way from alive and kicking. Secondly – and very significantly – United may have lost Ronaldo, but their blend of remaining top-quality players and Ferguson’s unerring ability to get the best out of ‘solid’ players still make his the team to beat this season.

bridgeviews.co.uk man of the match: difficult one this. Nani, perhaps free from the burden of playing second (or third) fiddle to Ronaldo, looked good in the first half, as did Evra. Fletcher too was very impressive in the first 45, excellently anchoring their midfield. From a Chelsea perspective, Drogba looked very dangerous in the last 20. But for his almost flawless performance in defence and his well taken goal, the man of the match has to go to Ricardo Carvalho.

Disagree? Who was your man of the match, and what did you think of the course of events leading up to Chelsea’s second goal? Post a comment…

Chelsea vs Man Utd: Community Shield preview

The new season is upon us – earlier than ever it seems – and once again Chelsea are involved in the traditional curtain raiser: the Community Shield.

If we’re honest with ourselves, despite all the media and supporter talk of putting markers down, this is a quasi-friendly fixture whose winner will be forgotten once the week-to-week Premier League action gets underway. Nevertheless, it’s also a fixture against the team that will likely be Chelsea’s closest rivals for the title and our first real insight how the summer’s comings and goings have affected the hunt for trophies. Carlo will likely learn more about his Chelsea side in the 90 minutes at Wembley tomorrow than he did throughout all the pre-season games combined.

I’ve been serially cynical of Ancelotti’s 4-4-2 diamond formation over the past few weeks - it performed well against weaker and less match-fit opposition in America and just about coped against Reading last weekend, but tomorrow we’ll see how it shapes up against a top class side. I’m more than aware that I sound like a broken record, but if is left to the full backs to provide all of Chelsea’s width then the quality of Man Utd’s defence – and any other well organised one - will have little trouble stifling attacks.

Chelsea won’t be the only side with new tactics tomorrow though – Ferguson has been re-jigging his side as the club embraces the post-Ronaldo era. United’s gameplan has to be about maximising the goalscoring talents of Rooney and Berbatov – if they can do that they will be a very dangerous side indeed. 

That won’t be so easy for them tomorrow however as they have injury problems to contend with. Van der Saar’s recent broken hand means he will join Nemanja Vidic, Wes Brown, Gary Neville and Rafael Da Silva in the treatment room, while Zhirkov is Chelsea’s only injury doubt (aside from Joe Cole).

It sounds negative, but the key for tomorrow is for the side to put in a confidence-inducing solid performance, win if possible and avoid injuries. With a relatively easy set of opening fixtures it’s the sternest test Chelsea will have in a while – and a vital learning opportunity for Ancelotti before the pressure really steps up in October.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction - Chelsea 2 Man Utd 1, Drogba to score first

Look out for the bridgeviews.co.uk match report tomorrow.

No more signings for Chelsea, another tell-tale sign of a lack-lustre transfer policy

Now these quotes from Carlo Ancelotti today will get the journalists’ tongues wagging this weekend:

“I don’t want to take any more new players because the Chelsea squad is very competitive. I don’t want to sell Carvalho and Deco – they’re both important players”.

Quite a turnaround from the rumours earlier in this week that Chelsea were bidding £38m for Aguero, and a world away from the earlier this summer when the club was linked with moves for every top player in world football along with their wives, tennis partners and kitchen sinks.

Of course the speculation will be that this isn’t a decision that Ancelotti (or the club) have made, rather one that’s been made for them. It’s rather in vogue at the moment to suggest that Chelsea are unable to attract the best players in world football, even if indeed every other English club has traditionally had exactly the same problem.

That aside, I’m hugely disappointed, and maybe even angry, at this announcement. I’ve maintained for two or three summer transfer windows now that Chelsea are one – just one – quality player short of a guaranteed challenge across the board. That might sound like the moan of a spoilt Chelsea fan (and there is probably a bit of that) but from my perspective the club hasn’t made enough of an effort or, more specifically the right kind of effort, to find that player. It doesn’t have to be a ‘marquee’ signing – the club needed to make a concerted search to find a player in the right mould - the same way we found Robben and Man Utd found Ronaldo back in 2004.

It seems that instead Chelsea have an ‘eggs in one basket’ strategy. Last season, they chased Robinho for three months, playing chicken with Real Madrid over one or two million pounds, before the shirt-on-website deal finally destroyed the deal and Madrid refusing to deal. It was the last day of the transfer window, the club hadn’t built enough time in or pursued any back-up options and as a result the team lacked cutting edge up front, significantly damaging our challenge on all fronts.

This summer it’s not so clear what’s gone on. Regardless, if Ancelotti is speaking the truth, the net result will be the same (yes, Zhirkov looks a good player, but I’m sure he’s not what we or the club had in mind). Hopefully however, this is a ploy to help force prices down – after all, there’s been plenty of gossip to suggest that we’re unhappy with the prices quoted for the likes of Aguero and Ribery. But if that is the end goal, you have to question the wisdom of Bruce Buck saying we wanted to make a ‘marquee signing’ in the first place – an unwise move if you are on a budget.

For now, let’s tell ourselves this is just a PR move to give us a better position at the negotiating table. After all, you only have to look back a few months to find a precedent for Carlo taking a creative approach with the truth…

How disappointed are you at this news, and what does this mean for the club? Is this down to money or is Chelsea just not attractive enough for top players? Or do you still think we’ll make a signing? Post a comment…

Other posts you might like to read:

• With no younger signings, we’ll need to get more from our older players. Will injuries be key?
• Could the Real reason why Chelsea haven’t made that marquee signing be the Ronaldo transfer?

Today’s Chelsea transfer gossip: from the sublime to the ridiculous

There’s been plenty of transfer rumours – of varying degrees of ridiculousness – circling above Stamford Bridge ever since John Terry lifted the FA Cup back on 30 May. I think I’ve captured pretty much all of them here.

It has been a bit quieter of late however as the club has focused on pre-season games, renewing the contracts of important players (good news that Drogba is close to signing up) and the critical task of promoting Frank Arnesen.

But two rumours catch the eye today, if only because of their respective improbability and cause for concern.

Firstly, the Daily Mail have today claimed that Chelsea are offering £38m and Deco to Athletico Madrid in return for Aguero’s services. As much as I’d like to see this happen – the talk is that ‘El Kun’ is the best young attacking talent in world football – the cynic in me reckons this is paper talk and won’t happen. The Daily Mail do seem rather keen on the story though, having run something very similar on Monday. Aside from the astronomical fee, it would undoubtedly be the right move for the club though – exchanging a young player for one of our 30 year olds and bringing in some energy, pace and creativity up front.

Now onto the more worrying piece of gossip – The Sun speculates that Ancelotti is lining up a move for Beckham. This certainly isn’t a move I’d get excited about. I’d dismiss this as paper talk too, but apparently Dave and Vicky are buying a £10m property in Chelsea, just off the Kings Road. Does set the alarm bells ringing a little. Having said that, they wouldn’t be the first world stars to set up home in a prestigious SW postcode…

What do you think? Would you welcome either of these two with open arms? Who else should we be targeting? Post a comment!

Other posts you might be interested in:

• Transfer policy – Chelsea should abandon the ‘off the shelf’ approach
• Chelsea aren’t failing to make big signings – it’s English football