bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might also be interested to read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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