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.
I thought Ballack was trash...Countless inaccurate long balls after another...
Posted by: ph0bolus | 24 August 2009 at 13:16
Hi Ph0bolus, thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog.
I've been frustrated with Ballack occasionally. On song I think he's still one of the best out there, but occasionally he seems to play 'blind' passes that stand almost no chance of finding another blue shirt.
Not sure he was that bad on Saturday though...
Posted by: Russell Saunders | 24 August 2009 at 15:17
If Lampard playing farther forward draws defenders off of Drogba and Anelka and allows them to score more goals, then it's all good.
It's a bit like Sheva's first year here - yes, he didn't score much, but it's no coincidence that Drogba finished with 30 goals.
Posted by: Kozemp | 24 August 2009 at 15:56
I agree Mikel played better. Much better in fact. I was impressed. My only issue is I want him to be more consistent week in and week out. If he is able to do that we have a chance in all competitions.
And as for Ralph Kelley's comments in the Telegraph, I am very happy to hear comments like that. I believe that is exactly what people said about Man U 2 years ago (European and Premier League championship season). They played winning football, not always beautiful but an efficient winning machine.
Posted by: Michael Hepp | 24 August 2009 at 22:59