bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Critics of Chelsea forward are Kalou-less

Those Chelsea fans who enjoy hurling abuse at Salomon Kalou must have been kicking themselves on Sunday as the Ivorian forward scored three goals and completed 96% of his passes.

While he's enjoyed a love/hate reception from some Chelsea fans, Kalou has come for a lot of criticism since he joined the club in 2006. The frustration largely comes from the widely held perception that he hasn't delivered on early promise. That perception is probably true - to an extent. 

He certainly hasn't come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years. Kalou is still inconsistent in front of goal, has an alarming tendency to drift offside and is prone to poor decision making. After a promising start at Chelsea, his lack of clear improvement suggests that Kalou is never going to be a world beater  - a Messi he will never be.

But oddly, not being Messi - or rather not being world class - is actually the criticism most frequently levelled at him. It is as if Chelsea fans are only prepared to accept a player if he is one of the best five players on the planet. There are exceptions to this - Joe Cole has enjoyed almost universal support, as has Beletti, who has now reached almost cult status. 

But any team's squad - whether you're Chelsea or Barcelona - can't consist entirely of world class players. Squads also need stand-ins who, in addition to being of a certain quality or offering something different to the starting eleven, are prepared to take their chances from the bench.

Kalou does all of those things.

His scoring record isn't bad. Aided by the hat-trick at the weekend, Kalou has now scored eleven goals this year (only Drogba, Lampard, Anelka and Malouda have scored more). These goals include four in the Premier League, three in the Champions League, one in the FA Cup and three in the League Cup. He has also made five assists.

Kalou is happy to sit on the bench, too. After the Stoke game, the Ivorian reiterated that he was happy to play his part from the bench, acknowledged that was his role but suggested that it was an important role. Top class football is in an age of the big squad, and arguably it is the quality of the deputies - and a club's' ability to keep them happy - that most determines success.

You can't fault Kalou's attitude, either. He is tireless in attack, never refusing to take responsibility to take the game forwards. Relentlessly positive, ready to attack the box or take a man on. With Joe Cole not in the side, Kalou's character traits are pretty unique at Chelsea.

And while he's not a world beater, he's not bad, either. He has genuine pace and trickery, and adds a youthful exuberance that Chelsea sometimes lack. I have often got the impression that he is only a hair's width away from away from making a genuine impact in the bigger games. Against Inter, when the team was flagging and making no impression on a resilient Inter defence, Kalou's impact as a second half substitute was instant. Chelsea immediately looked more threatening for having real pace and the will to try something.

Essentially, Kalou's critics are judging Kalou using the wrong yardstick. Yes, he isn't among the best in the world and yes, he can be frustrating. But he is a willing, able and positive deputy for first teamers, and part of a Chelsea second string that is probably superior to that of the club's closest rivals. Chelsea fans should set their expectations right - and let Kalou get on with his job. He has earned that.

What do you think - do you disagree and think Kalou should be sold in the summer? Post a comment...  

You might also be interested to read:

• A Trojan horse for Chelsea youth? John Obi Mikel 
• A new deal for Kalou - but is he worth it?

Chelsea threaten Man Utd's Premier League goals record: about the 93

Chelsea’s third seven-goal haul of the season against Stoke yesterday took the club within shooting distance of Man Utd’s Premier League record for number of goals scored in a season.

Man Utd scored 97 Premier League goals in the 99/00 season, winning the league by a staggering 18 points. Whilst it hadn’t hit the same heights as the previous season, this was still one of the great Utd attacking sides. Andy Cole and Dwight Yorke scored 39 goals between them. At the other end of the pitch however, they conceded 45 goals. Chelsea meanwhile finished 5th and won the FA Cup.

Chelsea, having now scored 93 goals this season, are just four goals away from equalling that record with just two games remaining. Equalling or surpassing the record is far from a certainty, but it is possible: on average this season Chelsea have scored over 2.5 goals a game.

This season, Chelsea have scored four goals or more in a Premier League game no less than eight times, and have ratcheted up seven goals three times and five goals twice. 

Critics will say that most of Chelsea’s goals have been scored against lower table opposition. I would argue that any high-scoring side has historically scored more goals against weaker opposition than against their closest rivals, and that the argument is at least a little simplistic. Look at the teams Chelsea have scored against this season however, and the stats tell a different story…

In total, 43% of all Chelsea’s goals so far have been scored against teams currently in the top half. Furthermore, Chelsea have scored nearly as many goals against the three other sides currently in Champions League qualification spots (12%) as against those in relegation positions (15%). 22% of all Chelsea goals have been scored against teams in European qualifying places, while 19% have been scored in derbies. The table opposite (click to enlarge) shows where goals against which team’s Chelsea’s goals have been scored.

And who’s scored all these goals? Drogba, with 25 league goals to his name, has accounted for 27% of them, and Lampard, Chelsea’s second highest top scorer, 22%. Chelsea’s four top scorers – Drogba, Lampard, Anelka and Malouda have scored 66 (71%) between them.

Together Lampard and Drogba have created a third of Chelsea’s league goals. Just 9% of the 93 have come from the penalty spot, and marginally more Chelsea goals have been scored in the second half of games (56%).

Regardless of whether Chelsea reach 97 – and the debate about the quality of the league that will inevitably follow the end of the season - the sheer number of goals scored has been unprecedented for Chelsea who, in recent memory, have typically lagged behind in the goal difference stakes.

Ancelotti has claimed Chelsea now have a new ‘identity’. I’m not absolutely sure I’m ready to believe him, or that Chelsea are suddenly playing like Brazil. But the final goals tally will certainly be impressive.

Chelsea overwhelm hapless Stoke to set up titanic Premier League finale

Over anxious Chelsea fans and over optimistic Man Utd fans read yesterday’s clash with Stoke all wrong. There were none of the nerves that saw Chelsea narrowly edge past Bolton two weeks ago, and none of the timidity that saw them outplayed by Spurs last Saturday.

This was as one sided as football gets. Chelsea had 72% of possession and had 25 attempts at goal to Stoke’s one (which was off target). Chelsea had seven corners, Stoke, none.

It was a hugely impressive performance, with the high-tempo, unfaltering commitment and positive attacking intent that was so absent against Spurs. This certainly wasn’t the ‘real’ Stoke who, shorn of anything to play for courtesy of a strong mid-table placing, weren’t their normal committed selves. But, following Man Utd’s win the previous day, this was a high-pressure game against a well-organised side with an excellent away record. To come away such comprehensive winners is remarkable.

Given far too much too much time on the ball, there were good performances across the pitch. The defence did everything it needed to, and Ashley Cole made an impressive attacking return to the team following a long injury. Sam Hutchinson did well too, making an appearance as a substitute, and provided an excellent cross for Lampard’s second. Kalou did well to temporarily silence his critics with a hat-trick and Sturridge showed again that he has an eye for goal.

Despite Kalou’s goals, Lampard would probably get most people’s vote for man of the match. He was everywhere, expertly setting the tempo for the game and creating no end of opportunities. He scored two himself, the first from the penalty spot (his ninth of the season) and the second a quite exquisite volleyed chip over the stand-in Stoke keeper. Had Messi scored that goal, the Sky pundits would have had no hesitation in proclaiming him the greatest player on the planet. Elsewhere, Lampard created Kalou’s second when Sorensen could only parry his low shot towards the left post and also Kalou’s third. It is inexplicable that somehow Lampard hasn’t been voted into the PFA Team of the season.

In an otherwise immaculate game, there were only two travesties. One, that Drogba didn’t score. It was an odd day for the Ivorian, whose first touch seemed to alternate between the sublime and the ridiculous: his control in the lead up to the first goal approached genius. Secondly, that Malouda didn’t get more than one. One miss in the second half would probably qualify as the miss of the season and he forced a great save minutes later. He was probably a relieved man when he finally tucked a chance away in the match’s closing moments.

But what does this result mean? Well, it won’t mean much at all if Chelsea don’t also see off Liverpool next week. The Liverpool game – regardless of talk that Benitez’s players won’t give their all to prevent Utd winning their 19^th Championship – will be an entirely different prospect. Yesterday Ballack was given the time and space to set the pace of the game from deep – he and his teammates will have no such luxury next week. The Chelsea full backs won’t be able to be so carefree in attack, either.

Liverpool showed yesterday that they’re picking up some form and can score goals without Torres. They are technically still in the hunt for fourth, too. There’s no doubt that Ancelotti will be a little more conservative next week against a side with a fantastic recent home record. But a high-tempo, positive approach is still the order of the day: start the game as Chelsea did against Stoke, and a conflicted Liverpool distracted by the Europa League should be very beatable.

The results that follow will determine whether yesterday is deemed a high point or quickly forgotten. Chelsea are in the driving seat, but a stressful two weeks lie ahead.

You might also be interested to read:

• Why Chelsea fans needed to support Liverpool against Benfica
• The last 'season in stats' post, which looked compared Lampard's record with Paul Scholes 
  

Injuries and absences mount ahead of crucial Chelsea clash against bullish Stoke

Just when things feel like they can’t get any worse, they inevitably do. One nil down to Spurs last weekend and Mikel hobbled off injured, two nil down and three substitutions made, Drogba starts limping.

It’s been much the same this week. Initially reports suggested that Essien might be ready to make a comeback in this weekend’s vital game against Stoke, but the club later quashed that rumour by confirming he almost certainly won’t play again this season. Similarly the prognosis on Mikel looked promising initially, with the club suggesting he was just ‘a doubt’ for Sunday. Soon afterwards came the news that he may not play against this season either.

Chelsea now look alarmingly short of options in the defensive midfield role, but hopefully Ballack or Deco should be able to do more than a good enough job against a team who shouldn’t enjoy long spells of possession.

In defence there is mixed news, too. Ashley Cole, arguably Chelsea’s best player of the season until his untimely injury in early February, is fit to return and Ivanovic suffered no ill effects after his strong second half showing against Spurs. John Terry however, will of course miss the Stoke game.

And it is the Chelsea captain’s absence that Stoke are most pleased about. Potters’ coach Mark O’Connor is in a bullish mood, saying “I don’t think they’ve got other players of his (Terry’s) ability. They’ve got players coming in of a good standard but I’m hoping they’ll miss him and we can exploit that. There’s a belief within our squad that we can get something at Chelsea.”

If Chelsea play anything like they did against Spurs, he might just be right. But Chelsea have responded well to bad results over the last few months, and there is a marked difference between the team’s results home and away. At Stamford Bridge the Blues have won a massive 84% of games (albeit including some awkward performances, against Bolton for example) scoring nearly three goals a game on average. Away from home, Chelsea have won just 50% of their matches.

Utd will win against Spurs on Saturday (it’s telling that Spurs haven’t won away from home against a ‘big four’ side in 66 games – yes, 66 games), so a repeat of Chelsea’s two wins so far this season against Stoke is a must. If Chelsea don’t get a result, it won’t be because of the defence – Ivanovic is just as capable as Terry when countering long throws and balls into the box - it will be because the players put in another insipid performance. Chelsea need to give an explosive performance early on and set the tone for the match, to avoid the run-in jitters that will otherwise inevitably follow. 

Mourinho evokes Chelsea memories as he outwits Barcelona and exposes Catalan hypocrisy

Despite the media’s rampant love-in for Barcelona, which intensified in the UK after the Catalans’ destruction of Arsenal, last night’s Champions League semi final was predictable. Unlike Wenger, Mourinho had the nouse to come up with a sensible gameplan. His players carried it out perfectly, and gave themselves a realistic chance of progressing to the final.

I have acknowledged that Barcelona are a great team – almost certainly Europe’s best – but said after their 6-3 aggregate win over Arsenal that the London club made it too easy for them. Tactically Wenger and his players were naïve and it cost them. In contrast however, Mourinho sat his defence deep, hassled Barcelona all over the pitch and hit Barcelona on the break. It was a textbook European performance and a deserved win.

But if this was classic Mourinho tactically, it was classic Mourinho presentation too. After the game rumours circulated that Mourinho had clashed with Xavi in the tunnel, with the Spaniard complaining that Inter had got lucky to not concede a penalty. Sky reported that Mourinho had instantly responded by reminding the midfielder of Barcelona’s outrageous fortune against Chelsea last year.

Mourinho pointed to Overbo-gate in the press room too, accusing the whinging Barcelona players of having short memories. “It’s a pity” he said. “A year ago Chelsea were crying and Barca were laughing with the referee. They laughed because he denied my Chelsea boys their rightful place”.

Through his cantankerous reference to ‘my Chelsea’ The Special One revealed both a unique brand of arrogance and a lingering warmth for Chelsea that, along with a brilliant victory, recalled older days.

Some Chelsea fans resent bloggers such as myself writing about Jose’s greatness, as if showing any kind of nostalgia for the Mourinho years automatically constitutes not supporting the current team. But there’s nothing wrong with nostalgia; and the reality is Mourinho’s needless departure will continue to haunt Chelsea fans for as long as he remains in the game, or until Ancelotti mirrors his achievements.

Here’s to another Jose win at the Nou Camp.

What do you think about The Special One’s win over Barcelona? Would you take him back at Chelsea, and how does he compare to Ancelotti? Or are you one of those who would rather we try and forget about him? Post a comment…

You might also like to read:

• Mourinho coming back to the Premiership?
• UEFA’s attitude is the real ‘disgrace’
• Conspiracy theories linger as UEFA stick by Ovrebo

Ribery linked with prostitute scandal: suddenly only a Chelsea target

The Daily Telegraph today reported that Franck Ribery has been summoned before a judge to act as witness in a case examining allegations a Paris nightclub has employed underage girls. Allegedly at least one football star, many of whom are regulars at the club, had sex with a prostitute under the age of 18. The offence carries a potential three year prison term in France.

The article makes it clear that Ribery is acting solely as a witness, but nonetheless the Bayern Munich and France winger will appreciate that it hasn’t portrayed him in the greatest light.

Interestingly, the Telegraph chooses to mention that Ribery ‘has frequently been linked with a move to Chelsea’. It seems a strange decision to only link him to the West London club: rumours linking him with Chelsea have dried up of late while gossip linking him to Real Madrid (rampant last summer), Man Utd and Barcelona has continued unabated.

Could it be that the media feels more comfortable linking a player who attends suspect nightclubs with an anti-football club like Chelsea than other, more refined, football clubs? Far be it from me to suggest such a thing. It’s probably just a typo…

You might also be interested to read:

• Media obsession with Rooney leaves other award candidates ignored
• Barclay leads media in passing over Chelsea achievements

Tottenham 2 Chelsea 1: Blasé Blues display as Spurs canter to deserved win

Anyone wanting to understand why Chelsea have lost games this season need only watch the team’s limp display against Spurs on Saturday. This was the wrong kind of carefree.

This was not the performance of champions. Giving a display that, in the first half especially was entirely devoid of energy, dynamism movement and pressing, I was reminded of the tame efforts away to Aston Villa and at home to Inter earlier in the season. Meanwhile Spurs, buoyed by a big win against Arsenal three days previous, were superior in every department and thoroughly deserved their win. Lampard’s late consolation meant the scoreline would eventually flatter his team.

It’s almost too hard to know where to start pointing the finger. John Terry had a largely terrible game, looking awkward from kick-off. His red card was thoroughly merited, and may indeed have come earlier. In the first half the excellent Gareth Bale terrorised Ferreira down the Spurs’ left, with the Portuguese suddenly looking out of his depth after a string of good performances. Deco was ineffectual and left Lampard far too much to do, and the front three of Malouda, Drogba and Cole (latterly Anelka) lacked the energy and inspiration to seriously trouble a Tottenham defence shorn of Ledley King. Attacking moves fizzled out with a litany of passing errors in the final third.

Petr Cech – who kept the scoreline respectable with a string of great saves – and Branislav Ivanovic were probably the only players in blue shirts to emerge with any credit from a lifeless display.

Harry Redknapp’s side deserve plenty of credit too. Almost a mirror image of Chelsea, they played positive, attacking football from the whistle with a blend of pace, commitment and quality. Dawson was excellent at the back, twice cutting out chances Chelsea did manage to create. While I’ve no doubt next week’s game against Man Utd will go differently for them, surely they will seal a deserved Champions League spot at the end of the season.

From a Chelsea perspective however, this was a loss worrying principally because of the complete lack of tempo and drive from the off. In the early stages it seemed like Scholes’ late winner against Man City earlier in the day had infected Chelsea with a torpor that was dulled their play from the start. Things improved a little in the second half, but Terry’s clumsiness and subsequent red card put paid to any optimistic hope that Chelsea might somehow find a way back into the game.

It is remarkable that Chelsea dominated possession – 61% to Spurs’ 39% – but were so much less effective with the ball. Most of the game was played in Chelsea’s half, pointing to the serenity and lack of urgency about Chelsea’s play. Spurs were much more threatening in front of goal too, making 17 shots at goal compared to just eight from the league leaders. Tottenham forced 13 corners to Chelsea’s four.

Chelsea aren’t good starters. The team seems to take a while to ‘warm up’, and that’s been the case all season – 59% of Chelsea goals have been scored in the second half of games. But in the biggest games being slow out of the blocks isn’t good enough. Giving the best sides – and Spurs will move into that category with more performances like Saturday’s - the run of the green in the first twenty minutes allows them to not only set the tempo for the game but also puts them psychologically on the front foot. As it was, it put Spurs 1-0 up, and it was a long way back from there.

After Utd’s slightly fortuitous win at Man City, this wasn’t the time for a half-hearted stroll around White Hart Lane. The manager sets the tone for this team, and the players need to execute on that. Both Ancelotti and the players are at fault for allowing such an abject performance to occur at such a critical stage in the season.

Can Chelsea respond to yet another set-back against Stoke next week? Yes – and they’ll have to. Hopefully the humbling in north London will remind Ancelotti’s men that, regardless of quality, wins aren’t automatic but rather the product of ability, commitment and attitude combined. Assuming they get past Stoke, Chelsea fans will look forward to a very different showing at Anfield on 2 May.

Media obsession with Man Utd's Wayne Rooney ignores valid Chelsea and Arsenal claims

As if the media hype surrounding Ryan Giggs last season – and him subsequently being given the PFA Player of the Year award – wasn’t bemusing enough, the media are attempting to contrive a one horse race for this year’s honour.

The benefit of being English and playing well in a World Cup year to Rooney is so insurmountable in the race to be given the PFA award that it may as well be re-branded the ‘Wayne Rooney award’, presumably doled out for being the outstanding candidate from a pre-selected pool of one. Absurdly, Rooney – aged 24 – has also been shortlisted for the young player of the year award.

I have no problem with Wayne Rooney being shortlisted for the award, which he was today, or indeed him actually winning the thing. He has had an excellent season, has carried Man Utd and even I’d be hard pushed to come up with a 100% concrete argument that any other player has bested him. He will be a deserving winner of any award. But I resent the overwhelming media circus that has come to surround him which now seems to be reaching a crescendo.

Want evidence of this media obsession? Look no further than the headline on the BBC website reporting the shortlist. The headline reads: ‘Man Utd striker Wayne Rooney shortlisted for PFA award’. Interesting – and what about the other players? Focusing on the Liverpudlian in the headline makes no sense – the announcement isn’t in the least surprising. Had Owen Hargreaves, Manuel Almunia or Robbie Savage been in the running, I would be less perturbed at the domination of their name in the headline. But that didn’t happen.

The media love-in for Wayne Rooney is everywhere. Commentators seem to want to talk about him even when Utd aren’t playing, and print journalists seem willing to forget his aggressive tantrums (which haven’t disappeared) and, particularly as Terry vacated morality over the last few months, as they laud Rooney as some kind of reformed character and perfect role model. Until they had their eyes opened by Messi’s performance against Arsenal last week, the journalist community were convinced Rooney was the best player on the planet.

Other players deserve a balanced appraisal from the media, especially in a year where – unlike last season – the top teams are far more evenly matched.

I’ve compared Drogba with Rooney before, but let’s remind ourselves of the figures. Rooney has scored 26 goals in the league (once every 95 minutes on average), Drogba 25 (once every 96 minutes). Rooney has made 5 assists, Drogba 11 – meaning that Rooney has ‘contributed’ a goal every 79 minutes to Drogba’s one every 67. And, while Utd fans won’t believe it, Drogba does just as much work tracking back as Rooney does, and shows just as much commitment. And he doesn’t take penalties. Who would have thought that the two were so closely matched and that there was at least one other convincing candidate (Fabregas has been outstanding too) for player of the year? Well, no-one reading a newspaper.

Journalists should bring balance first and foremost, in addition to opinion, and the BBC should in particular. Rooney will win the award next month, but in the meantime he needs no extra help.

Chelsea debate: Drogba, Anelka or both? Detailed stats that make the case

Following Chelsea’s narrow 1-0 win over Bolton on Tuesday, the Chelsea online chatrooms were awash with criticism of Ancelotti for fielding the wrong side. Some of the arguments focused on the omission of Cole and Malouda on the flanks, but on the whole the debate focused on one issue alone: should Chelsea start with just Drogba, just Anelka or both?

It’s an interesting debate: on the one hand, Chelsea seem to have scored more freely in recent months when Anelka has led the line alone, but on the other it seems implausible to leave out a striker who has already scored more than 30 goals this season. Equally, Chelsea seem to put in substandard performances when both are on the pitch at the same time.

But a lot of the argument focuses on how fans intuitively feel about how the team is working. And quite right too – football is far from an exact science. But do we have a real sense of how the team has really performed with just one of Drogba or Anelka, or with both together? Probably not beyond a superficial understanding.

I’ll write another post over the next 24 hours on what I think the answer is, but in the meantime I collected detailed stats on how the team has performed with either just one of Drogba or Anelka starting, or with both, in addition to basic stats about how two have performed over the last eight or nine months. I’ve looked at the team’s results, goals scored and conceded and how each player has performed under each of the systems.

My conclusions in full will follow in the next post but in the meantime, how do you think these figures add to the debate? Post a comment…

Drogba has ‘contributed’ more goals
Of course, this isn’t surprising. But Drogba has been far more effective than Anelka, scoring 32 goals and making 13 assists to the Frenchman’s 13 goals and 8 assists.

It’s easy to see the stark difference between the two when looking at their performances in the league. Both players have broadly had the same opportunity (allowing for the fact that when played together Anelka has often been pushed wide), Drogba having 2,411 minutes on the pitch, Anelka 2,388. In scoring 25 goals, Drogba has put the ball in the net on average once every 96 minutes. Add assists to that (and penalties won), the Ivorian has contributed a goal once every 60 minutes. Anelka lies far behind that, taking nearly three times longer to score a goal at an average of one every 265 minutes. Add assists and penalty wins into the mix, and he has contributed a goal every 140 minutes on average.

And Drogba’s goals are far more significant
It isn’t just that Drogba has scored more goals – he’s scored more important ones, too. 20% of Drogba’s 25 league goals this season have come against teams currently in the top four, and 40% against teams in the top half. In contrast, Anelka hasn’t scored against top four opposition, and 78% of his goals have come against teams in the bottom half of the table.

Just as I compared the effectiveness of Drogba and Rooney last month – giving a number of ‘points’ for each goal based on the league position of the team against which it was scored - I’ve done the same with Drogba and Anelka. I gave a range of points from 19 (for each goal scored against the team currently placed second in the table, Man Utd) to one (for each goal scored against the team currently 20th in the table, Portsmouth). The grid opposite – click to enlarge - shows where the Chelsea strikers have scored their goals, and how these ‘points’ were awarded. It isn’t unsurprising that Drogba is so far ahead, scoring 237 ‘points’ to Anelka’s 66 (he’s scored many more goals), but the difference is exaggerated by the higher calibre of opposition his goals have come against.

It isn’t just who goals have been scored against that have made Drogba’s goals more significant. In total Drogba has scored Chelsea’s first goal in 17 games, including against five sides currently in the top half of the league and twice against teams in the top four. On the other hand, Anelka has scored the first goal just ten times, but only once against a team in the top half of the table.

They’ve played together more than you think
Chelsea have played 50 games in total so far this season, and Drogba and Anelka have started together in exactly half of them. Drogba has led the line alone 10 times (20%), Anelka 11 times (22%). And for the record: neither Drogba nor Anelka have started in just three of those games (6%) and didn’t play at all in just one (2%).

Interestingly (and intuitively it makes sense), Ancelotti has been much more willing to play Drogba on his own away from home, with just 30% (3) of those games being played at Stamford Bridge. In contrast, of the games Anelka has started without Drogba, 64% (7) have been at home.

Chelsea win more when Anelka starts alone
Of the 25 matches Chelsea have started with both Drogba and Anelka, Chelsea have a fairly average win ratio of 60%. Worse still, they only drew three of those games (12%), losing seven (28%).

The record when Drogba starts alone is a little better. Chelsea have still won just 60% of those games (6), but are also unbeaten, drawing four during Chelsea’s December slump in form. In contrast, Chelsea’s results when Anelka have started alone are far more impressive, with Chelsea having won all of their games. It has to be said however that those games included just two sides currently in the top half of the Premier League in addition to two promoted sides, one relegated side and one team from the Championship.

Chelsea score more when just one starts
Ancelotti’s men have scored far more goals when either Drogba or Anelka have started upfront alone. When both have been selected together, Chelsea have scored just 1.96 goals per game, and when Drogba has started alone the rate increases to 2.5 goals per game. The record with Anelka starting without Drogba is far better again, averaging out at 3.2 goals per game, no doubt because of the seven-goal hauls against Sunderland and Aston Villa.

…and they concede more when Drogba starts alone
When Drogba has started alone, Chelsea have conceded at a rate of one goal per game. Chelsea are more effective defensively both when Anelka starts alone (conceding 0.55 goals per game) and when they both start (0.92 goals per game), but this isn’t surprising bearing in mind the greater number of away games played when Drogba has started alone, and the relatively more straightforward opposition faced when Anelka has.

Drogba scores under any system, Anelka doesn’t
Whether playing with or without Anelka, Drogba’s form has been such this season that he’s carried on scoring at pretty much the same rate. In games he’s started on his own, Drogba has scored nine goals (0.9 per game). With Anelka, he’s scored 21 goals (0.8 per game).

Anelka on the other hand doesn’t perform in front of goal when he’s played alongside Drogba and isn’t given a true centre-forward berth. When the Frenchman has started on his own he’s scored seven goals (0.6 per game), but when playing with Drogba he’s only scored six, his rate falling to a fairly miserable 0.24 goals per game.

For more football-related geekery:

• A statto’s homage to Hiddink
• Season in stats: the truth about the Chelsea fightback and the yellow card record

Chelsea overcome Bolton to show they have the luck of champions

For all Coyle’s bleating, his Bolton side were beaten by the better team yesterday. But his complaints – rather than his wider assertion that Bolton deserved to go home with something – weren’t entirely unrealistic.

The law of averages suggests that, of the two strong penalty shouts Bolton had last night, they would normally get at least one. The first, a Drogba handball in the box, was clear only on the second or third television replay. At first glance, it looked as though it was Davies’ head, not Drogba’s arm, that had deflected the ball clear. Coyle may have vigorously complained about it at half time, but surely only with the benefit of a changing room television, video recorder and large dose of hindsight.

If the rule is that a handball should be ‘intentional’, then a large question mark looms over whether it should have been a penalty even had the referee seen the incident clearly.

Bolton probably have much more cause for complaint for their second penalty shout, where John Terry clearly leans towards the path of the ball and either makes contact with his arm or shoulder. In the post-game ‘was it a penalty?’ show on ESPN (that’s all they talked about), Craig Burley was adamant it was a penalty, all the while admitting that their camera angles weren’t up to it. The linesman had the best view by far and, for whatever reason, clearly indicated it wasn’t a penalty. If I was a Bolton fan, I’d feel justifiably annoyed.

Who knows what the Chelsea reaction might have been if Bolton had scored a penalty anyway? But Bolton were certainly unlucky. Chelsea fans – who should be more sensitive to dismissed penalty shouts than most – would probably admit that. But Chelsea had partially self-created bad luck of their own: Lampard hit the post with his only shot of the game and Bolton were lucky to see Jääskeläinen’s parry of a fierce Drogba freekick bounce narrowly wide off Kalou. Both could have ended with very different results.

Besides which, teams should be careful about blaming referees for defeats based on not getting a penalty (not getting three or four is a different matter – we’re looking at you, Ovrebo). They need to take action to win games themselves rather than rely on a referee being sensible, and Bolton, for all their nerve-shredding possession and pressure in the second half, had not one shot on target all evening. Not the mark of a side deserving to leave one of the hardest away trips in the league with anything more than nothing.

As it was, a little bit of luck was enough to help a marginally superior Chelsea over the line yesterday. Perhaps this luck is what champions need to become champions sometimes? Chelsea have certainly rode on a wave of luck recently. While the result at Old Trafford was fair and the refereeing errors perfectly balanced themselves out, it was certainly extremely lucky, and almost without precedent, that decisions didn’t go in Utd’s favour on their home ground. Chelsea were also lucky against Aston Villa at the weekend to keep eleven men on the pitch (Terry and Deco might have been sent off, the latter for two yellow cards) and another referee may have chosen to award a penalty to Villa after Agbonlahor tripped over Mikel’s leg.

One might even consider the seven own goals Chelsea have scored this season lucky, or the nine penalties awarded (six at Stamford Bridge, three away). Looking further back, the last minute winner against Hull on the first day of the season was fortunate after an uninspired performance from Chelsea and Ancelotti alike, while the last minute winner away against Stoke was slightly more deserved. There are, quite probably, more examples. 

But it isn’t that straightforward. Chelsea have had bad luck too, losing arguably their best central midfielder, Essien, for the lion’s share of the season (again) and almost the entire defence for the last couple of months. A certain penalty wasn’t given at the San Siro when another away goal might have made the difference against Inter in the Champions League. Cech might not have been sent off in the away loss to Wigan early in the season and for some reason Jonny Evans wasn’t sent off for kung-fu kicking Drogba at Stamford Bridge. And that’s just this season. There’s Ovrebo-gate and the goal that wasn’t at Anfield, remember…

Our rivals have had slices of luck, too. Man Utd’s recent penalty against Liverpool – which was neither a foul or inside the box – is an example that readily springs to mind.

You can’t argue that bad decisions even themselves out for everyone – that is patronising to sides like Bolton who are on the wrong end of such decisions. But some of the luck Chelsea have had – and teams like Utd – has probably been down to generally being the better team in most of the games they’ve played this season (some own goals, for example, are unlucky, while others are the result of dominance and pressure in the opponent’s penalty box). 

But none of that can mean that yesterday’s result didn’t reflect which side was better on the night. Luck might not even itself out for all teams, but the best side always wins the league. If Chelsea do clinch the title, it won’t be an accident.

Chelsea season in stats: the truth about the fightback and more yellows than rivals

What a difference a month makes. Since the last stats post, Chelsea have crashed out of the Champions League and come unstuck at Ewood Park, but also mounted an extraordinary comeback leaving the club in good shape for a double.

As always, here’s the monthly look at what the stats tell us about Chelsea’s progress. This time around: a look at Chelsea’s yellow card record in comparison with our closest rivals, the truth about the recent Chelsea fightback and the impact of a declining defence.

Evidence of anti-Chelsea referee bias?
Well, probably not, but a look at how yellow cards have been awarded to Chelsea and their main rivals this season is interesting nonetheless. In total this season in the Premier League, 15 Chelsea players have received 48 yellow cards. That is more yellow cards than both Man Utd and Arsenal who, as of Saturday 10 April, had both received 44 yellows each (divided across 16 Utd players and 17 Arsenal players).

Interestingly however, those same Chelsea players have committed 310 fouls to merit those yellow cards – less than both the carded players at Utd and Arsenal (322 and 323 fouls respectively). Averaging it out, it has taken just 7.3 fouls for Chelsea players to earn yellow cards, but 10.5 and 9.4 fouls for Man Utd and Arsenal players respectively.

Looking at individual players is interesting, too. Ashley Cole’s reputation evidently goes before him, with referees far less lenient with his mistimed tackles. While three Chelsea players have received more yellows than him this season, it has taken just 2.8 fouls to receive each of his four yellow cards, which have been awarded once every 471 minutes he has played on average. Zhirkov receives most yellow cards per minutes on the pitch, with his three being awarded once every 257 minutes. Just for interest: Paul Scholes has been given eight yellow cards at a rate of one every 190 minutes and every 3.1 fouls.

And for reference: the Chelsea players that make the most fouls are easily Didier Drogba (45) and Michael Ballack (41). The next closest is Ivanovic with 34.

The truth about the Chelsea fightback
When Chelsea limped to a pathetic 1-1 draw with Blackburn at Ewood Park back in March it looked almost like the season was over. Just four games and four wins later, the season has completely turned on its head.

In those four games Chelsea have scored 17 goals and conceded just two, keeping two clean sheets. Whilst Chelsea were dominant against Portsmouth and Villa in the league, the stats counter-intuitively suggest that the wins have been more the result of a typically-Chelsea brutal efficiency than playing opposition off the pitch.

In the three league games (Portsmouth away, Man Utd Away and Villa at home) Chelsea have cumulatively completed only 33% more passes than their opponents (1,108 to their 837) – including completing less passes than Man Utd at Old Trafford. Chelsea have been far more effective at creating chances however, forcing 58% more attempts at goal than opponents (46 to their 29). Drogba, Lampard and Malouda et al. have been excellent at taking those chances too, converting 37% of all shots on goal.

Leaking defence prevents stress-free season
If there’s one reason why Chelsea haven’t run away with the trophies this season it has been an uncharacteristic weakness in defence.

It all started so well – in the early months of the season (August – November) the team were conceding just 0.5 goals per game on average. It all changed from there however, and in the club’s worst months of the season the team were conceding three times as many goals – 1.6 per game in December and 1.4 in February. In December alone Chelsea conceded 13 goals, albeit in eight games. The chart opposite shows the number of goals conceded and the average number conceded per game in each month since August 2009.

It’s difficult to see why the defence has declined so emphatically, conceding 30 goals so far in the Premier League this season compared to 15 in 04/05 over 38 games. We can guess though: maybe it’s down to a more liberal approach going forward? Has the John Terry scandal impacted on the form of the Chelsea captain and those around him? Is the ageing Carvalho a declining force? Have injuries in the latter part of the season taken their toll?

It’s probably a combination of all of those factors but, as the decline began in December when the back-line was relatively unaffected by injury and the Terry affair hadn’t hit the headlines, we can safely assume that either a more attacking gameplan or a more general decline in Chelsea’s key defensive players, probably the captain included, are to blame.

What do you think of all this: interesting or irrelevant? Post a comment. For full Chelsea team and player stats (is there a more comprehensive set of exclusively Chelsea stats on the web?), click here.

Why Chelsea fans should support Liverpool this evening

It’s one of those counter-intuitive things that feels wrong; that just isn’t done. Like gravy with chips, wearing a hat indoors or not pointing fun at the French. Or maybe drinking red wine with fish, complementing another man on his appearance or publically admitting Cristiano Ronaldo is a half-decent footballer. Regardless of how it feels however, there is a good argument for Chelsea fans to support Liverpool tonight as Gerrard and Torres (and a few other players) look to overcome a 2-1 first leg deficit in their Europa League quarter final tie against Benfica.

Chelsea and Liverpool have had too many bitter clashes over the last few years for it to be a friendly rivalry. But a crucial game at Anfield awaits Ancelotti’s men on the weekend of 1 May – just 48 hours after the Europa League semi finals are currently scheduled. It’s a game that, going on current form, Chelsea should win, but we’ll take all the help we can.

Like Man Utd, Liverpool haven’t had the greatest of records so far this season in league games following European fixtures. Of those 11 league games, Liverpool have a record of winning just five, drawing three and losing three.

Admittedly, the fixture calendar hasn’t been kind to them. Of those eleven games immediately following European fixtures, five have been against current top four opposition (two against Utd, one against each of Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City) and obviously the forthcoming game against Chelsea also falls into this category. Of those games against top four opposition, Liverpool only won one – against Man Utd at Anfield.

The Anfield game – which would probably be rescheduled for the Sunday if Liverpool were to progress in the Europa Cup – could be pivotal in Chelsea’s challenge for the title. Just like Man Utd were a little jaded when we played them on Saturday, having a slightly off-colour Liverpool can only help when the penultimate game of the season comes round. For information, Chelsea face Stoke at Stamford Bridge the weekend before Liverpool.

And another thought has occurred: how much do you think Liverpool want Utd to win their 19^th league title, eclipsing their record? Hmmm. Maybe they’ll be rooting for us, too…

Intemperate, improper Alex Ferguson and Man Utd: good news for Chelsea?

When you’re beaten well, as Arsenal were on Tuesday, it’s almost easy to be gushing about the opposition. When you’re beaten by a hair’s width, it’s evidently not so easy.

Alex Ferguson proved that rule last night. In the aftermath of his side’s exit from the Champions League at the hands of Bayern Munich, he gave tetchy interview to ITV (or was it MUTV? It’s hard to tell the difference sometimes). His suggestion that Bayern players surrounding the referee was the behaviour of ‘typical Germans’ was well below the belt, and I suspect recriminations for that comment would have been far more severe had it been uttered by someone at Chelsea.

Half the Bayern side aren’t even German. Aside from anything else, Ferguson wasn’t aware of the clear irony: Utd have a tremendous and unrivalled record in harassing, cajoling and influencing referees.

Ferguson’s suggestion that Bayern players deliberately targeted Rooney’s ankle jars, too. And even if it were true – you took the risk playing him, Alex. If he wasn’t 100% fit and gets injured, the buck stops with you.

Ferguson’s poor sportsmanship – he also claimed that the better side hadn’t won – stretches wider at Old Trafford. As his interview progressed, several shouts of ‘cheats’ could be heard, presumably from Man Utd players or officials. Will we hear anything more of it?

But that’s by the by. It was a remarkable night of football, in which Man Utd were by a distance the better side during the first half. Nani looked something like the player his early potential promised, and I thought Valencia was again very effective down the right. ITV commentators remained largely oblivious to all that however: after all, Wayne Rooney was on the pitch. When the Evertonian got injured and it looked like his game was over, they suggested that ‘just him being present’ for ten minutes was worth the risk. Sickening sycophancy.

But by the time the second half was over, Bayern had worked their way back to 3-2 and put the tie beyond Utd on goal difference. As he ranted, Ferguson was unwilling – or unable – to see how his own side had been the architects of their own downfall. Da Silva had been brilliant against Ribery, but his two yellow-card challenges were silly in the extreme. Carrick was poor all night, and was culpable for the first Bayern goal - Vidic’s suspect positioning was also partly to blame. Finally, his chance made chances even with ten men, but couldn’t take them to kill the Germans off.

It’s not the first time we’ve seen top sides lose their rag after defeat in a big game. Utd have been famous for it – they certainly lost it at Stamford Bridge earlier in the season, and big-time the season before that. Chelsea have obviously been guilty of similar behaviour on more than one occasion – Ballack was certainly affected by impending defeat when he got sent off against Man City earlier in the season for example, and Drogba’s antics after the Barcelona defeat last year have been widely written about. Is it just the case that all the best sides struggle to accept defeat?

But Man Utd’s sense of injustice was manufactured (just as it was after Chelsea’s win on Saturday, where the referee was just poor all round). In reality, individual errors made Man Utd vulnerable to the sucker punch, which Robben duly delivered. How his pace, creativity and class are missed at Stamford Bridge.

But how does this relate to Chelsea’s fight for trophies? Man Utd now find themselves where we were three weeks ago, facing disappointment in the league and narrow exits from Europe. How well, and how quickly, Utd respond could well determine where the Premier League title ends up this season.

Reading between the lines of Ferguson’s interview, the Scot wasn’t feeling too confident. But don’t be fooled: he has proved a master of motivation over the years and I wouldn’t bet against a strong Utd reaction to this disappointment. There are five games to go, but I suspect plenty more twists and turns…

Remaining fixtures:

Chelsea (74 pts)	Man Utd (72 pts)
Bolton (h)	Blackburn (a)
Tottenham (a)	Man City (a)
Stoke (h)	Tottenham (h)
Liverpool (a)	Sunderland (a)
Wigan (h)	Stoke (h)

Thoughts on Wenger, Barcelona, Messi and Chelsea after Arsenal Champions League demise

Arsenal emerged from last night’s Nou Camp encounter looking more bruised than John Ruiz after his David Haye battering. Barcelona, powered by the seemingly unstoppable Messi, swept the north Londoners aside to make a mockery of Arsenal’s pre-match hopes.

From half time onwards, we have all been subjected to an unending Barcelona and Messi love-in on the television and in the newspapers. Largely, it is fair enough: Barcelona are the best team in the world, and Messi is the best player. But the big win – and Barcelona’s brilliance - has, I think, blinded many of us to a few realities and unnecessary Arsenal shortcomings. Far be it for a Chelsea fan to comment on Arsenal and a competition we went out of in the previous round, but I think it’s worth throwing a few thoughts into the mix.

Playing great football isn’t enough
Few would argue that, at times, Arsenal play some astounding passing football. It is right that they, with meagre resources (from a certain perspective) and their commitment to youth development, get plaudits for that.

But playing great football on its own isn’t enough. I’m sick of hearing pundits – like Gullit and Souness last night – saying things like ‘you have to applaud Arsenal for the way they approached the game’. No, we don’t. They are at worst the third best team in the English league and were humbled 4-1. Why should we applaud that?

How long will it be – how many defeats in big matches – before Wenger and his team are criticised for not taking a more practical approach? In the second half of last night’s game, Guardiola made tactical changes that made his side more defensive. 3-1 up at home against a side with multiple injuries (and a side against which his team had scored a goal every 27 minutes on average) – and he tried to close it out. Barcelona swamped the midfield, and Arsenal’s counter attacks dried up.

If the best attacking team on the planet understands that playing great football isn’t enough and is prepared to sometimes take a more practical approach to winning games, Wenger should too. I’m not talking just about last night’s game or suggesting they change the fundamental way they play – but if I were an Arsenal fan, I’d be disappointed that Wenger’s stubbornness consistently creates such a needless imbalance. Playing to win isn’t a crime, and defending is as much an art as attacking. The best teams find the right balance between the two. So far, and admittedly despite massive steps forward this season, Arsenal haven’t.

Tactical naivety at the back
It isn’t just that imbalance that causes Arsenal problems. I suspect that whatever Arsenal did they would have lost last night, but defensively they were a shambles. Whilst clearly the loss of at least one key defensive player has an impact, that can be no excuse for a naïve defensive performance.

To my mind, unless you are a superior attacking side to this Barcelona team, there is only one way to play them. Sit the back four deep, holding that line, with wingers joining as auxiliary full backs when needed. Shields the box, allow Barcelona to have the ball and close their players down in your half. To threaten at the other end, you play on the counter attack.

It needs huge amounts of discipline and probably a decent centre forward who can hold the ball up, but this was how Chelsea lined up against Barcelona last year and was a strategy that should have won the game, even putting aside the penalties not given. Barcelona only scored one goal in 186 minutes of football. Liverpool have had similar results against Barcelona (albeit a different Barcelona side) using a similar conservative strategy.

Of course, defensively Arsenal have very different resources to draw on than Chelsea or Liverpool, and with a totally different mindset at the club you couldn’t expect them to try and play the same game. But there is a middle ground. Arsenal’s defence played too high up the pitch and was prone to lapses of concentration. The third Barcelona goal just showed what kind of suicide the Arsenal defence was committing by holding such a high line: Vermaelen missed a header on the halfway line and Messi broke free with only Denilson – not a centre or full back – able to make any kind of ground on him. Insane.

Last night’s game entirely exonerated Hiddink’s approach to the semi-final last year (if that needed doing), which focused first on stopping the better team and then on trying to steal a goal. It worked, and should have seen Chelsea into a second consecutive Champions League final. It wasn’t to be, and in the end the best team won the tournament.

Winning a trophy might help
None of the players turning out for Arsenal last night, or any of their injured stars, have won anything. Wenger’s insistence on playing his (even) younger players in Carling Cup games might just be another unnecessary impediment. Surely winning a trophy like that – which has been well within the realms of possibility over the last few years - can breathe confidence and allow the team to gain an experience of winning together that will support them in the biggest games elsewhere? Just a thought.

‘Best player in the world’™
Messi is the best player in the world, and by a country mile. When you watch him finish pretty much every chance he gets, score a hat-trick in 21 minutes against a good Arsenal side and consistently take on and beat three men it’s difficult to hold the defeat against Arsenal.

But amidst Sky Sports’ endless Messi love-in after the game (Keys could barely contain himself), their constant referral to his ‘masterclass’ and being the greatest player in the world, you couldn’t help but see the irony. Just three days before, and for the preceding three months, the same people had been continually banging on about how Rooney was the best player in the world. Messi put that myth to rest.

But memories are short, and in a few weeks time we’ll all be swept up in Rooney-Engerland fever again. Is it too much to ask for pundits to be a bit more open-minded?

Oh, and you CAN stop him 
For all the talk that Messi is ‘unplayable’. Nonsense. Sure, the best players in the world can create a moment of magic and do almost anything. But generally speaking their defensive counterparts can achieve similar feats at the back. Did Messi have a kick over the two legs of last year’s semi-final? No. In the first leg, Jose Bosingwa, a right-back playing out of position on the left, marked him out of the game. And I can barely recall him playing at Stamford Bridge.

Yes, twelve months on and I’m still bitter…

Joe Cole debate: emotional attachment not enough to warrant bumper Chelsea contract

Joe Cole’s exquisite goal against Man Utd at the weekend re-awakened everyone to what he is capable of. On his day he is the exciting creative spark that Chelsea otherwise lack. Sadly however, that spark has been none too evident in recent months and, in light of that, is the club right to play hardball over his new contract?

Chelsea fans feel a certain emotional connection with Joe Cole, a connection that has probably intensified in recent months. It’s not difficult to see why: since joining the club in 2004 he has often spoken with pride about playing for the team he supports. He joined at a time when unprecedented success came to the club, and enjoyed individual success in Mourinho’s 4-3-3. Since Robben left the club, Cole has probably represented the last remnant of ‘fantasy’ in the Chelsea squad. He has a fantastic work ethic, has been unquestionably committed to the club and has had terrible luck with injury.

But a lot of rubbish has been spoken about Joe Cole and the supposed impasse with the club regarding his new contract. Some fans, probably because of their affinity with him, have become irrationally angered that he hasn’t automatically been handed a bumper contract. The club’s short-sighted and frivolous negotiations with John Terry (which resulted in a 29 year-old defender already on a long-term deal and with injury problems being given a five year, £160k a week contract) does help reinforce that view.

Perhaps most amusingly, Republik of Mancunia, one of the most popular Man Utd blogs out there, has weighed in on the issue amidst continued rumours that Cole could end up at Utd. On the whole it is a fantastic blog, but it’s difficult to agree with its criticism that Chelsea is only about money (in stark contrast to Utd, of course) and that the club is unprepared to reward loyalty. It speaks as if loyalty in itself should be rewarded, with no consideration of whether it is accompanied by performance.

I first wrote about the stalling contract negotiations back in January, and it seems to me that nothing much has changed. Chelsea can’t be expected to reward Cole regardless of performance or value to the team: goodwill and loyalty alone won’t do it. It would be ludicrous for any football club, or business, to act in that way. Moreover, Chelsea desperately need to rein in a previous overspending on player wages, which should be applauded. There is a real contradiction between the real criticism consistently aimed at Chelsea for not being financially prudent and the outright surprise that money hasn’t been thrown at Joe Cole.

In offering a new contract, Chelsea are therefore making a risk assessment. Will their investment pay off as Cole continues to improve? On the other side of the coin, will he consistently recapture his better form, and has he completely overcome his injury concerns? Would investment in a different player bring a greater return?

As it is, Cole’s performances are steadily improving, but he hasn’t contributed as much as you might expect of a player of his ability. Eleven players in the squad have scored more times than him this season, and five have contributed more assists. Combined with his injury record, it would seem like madness to offer him an improved contract.

I, like thechelseablog.org (a blog that has teamed up with Republik of Mancunia on numerous occasions), am very keen to see Joe Cole sign a new contract at Chelsea. But I can’t agree that he has been mistreated or undervalued by Chelsea over the years, or with the implied belief that somehow the club owe him something. Looking back, a combination of Chelsea and Mourinho made Joe Cole the successful player he was in his mid twenties, taking a highly talented player and adding a dose of discipline that made him a consistent starter for England and the country’s player of the tournament in the last World Cup.

Like most Chelsea fans I’m desperate for him to stay and succeed at the club, probably more than the vast majority of other players on the team. Regardless of that however, I understand that the club has to make their decisions based on different factors, and are holding out to make a more informed judgement on form and fitness before offering better terms. In the meantime, Ancelotti has offered unwavering support for Joe Cole in the form of press conference praise and chances on the pitch.

Joe Cole wants to stay at Chelsea, and I believe Ancelotti when he says the club wants him to stay too. But, just as we all have to earn our money, so Cole is having to earn his new contract. That is the right and proper way, and an entirely necessary message that should be more consistently sent to present and future Chelsea players looking to negotiate their contracts. If only the same approach had been taken with John Terry.

Unique to Chelsea both as a player and a person, I think Joe will prove he is worth a new contract. Here’s hoping that his tremendous backheel at the weekend really was a sign of him getting back to top form.

He who dares, wins? Bold Ancelotti tactics lead Chelsea to Man Utd victory

There have been times this season when Carlo Ancelotti has come into criticism from the media and Chelsea fans, me included. He was at least partly culpable for the tame defeat to Inter and, if we’re honest, some of his tactics and substitutions have bewildered.

But just as blame, in sensible measures, should be apportioned when things go wrong, credit should be doled out following success. As with all teams, Chelsea’s successes and failures so far this season have been fuelled by the actions of the players, the manager and the people behind the scenes, but Ancelotti certainly played his full part in Saturday’s crucial victory.

Just 48 hours before kick-off, I posed a question to followers of this blog on facebook: given the choice, would you start with Drogba against Man Utd? Most said they would. After all, how could you leave out the player who had scored 24 goals and torn the likes of Arsenal apart? Despite the media hyperbole surrounding the Englishman, many would still argue that Drogba has had a better season than Wayne Rooney. 

Those fans – and I think I was one of them – were falling back to the trusted default position. Despite the great showing without Drogba against Villa the previous weekend and the Man Utd defence’s apparent weakness in the face of fast, mobile forwards, the urge to turn back to the Ivorian was preferential to most. Ancelotti saw it differently, and again started with Drogba on the bench, and surely not because of injury. 

The Italian nonetheless fielded a very attacking starting XI. When Man United came to Stamford Bridge back in November, they played with three deep-lying, ‘holding’ midfielders. Albeit under different circumstances, Chelsea started with an attacking 4-3-3 at Old Trafford, and took the game to the Champions in the first half. The plan paid off with a goal that showed off all that Chelsea’s brand of football can, at its very best, be: strength combined with audacity. Boring, boring Chelsea?

It was a must-win game, and Ancelotti went armed with a must-win strategy. Just as his inactivity and futile substitutions against Inter and Blackburn sent negative messages to his team psychologically, so his starting XI on Saturday sent a message. Chelsea’s players, from Cech to Anelka, must have felt empowered, able and trusted to take on the champions in their own back yard and win.

The in-game tactics were spot on, too. The formation was fluid, looking a threatening 4-3-3 in attack and a stable 4-2-3-1 when Utd had the ball. Chelsea dropped deep as Utd’s pressure grew in the second half and, whilst it might have increased the tension for Chelsea fans, it was largely successful in shutting a Rooney-deprived Utd attack out. United fashioned few – if any – clear cut chances.

Ancelotti’s substitutions worked perfectly. Just as United were taking the initiative and Chelsea were struggling to break out of their own half, Drogba and Kalou provided new and viable attacking options to keep the Utd defence occupied occasionally. The introduction of Ballack was just as vital too: Deco was increasingly a marginal figure, and the German added more bite in midfield, not to mention a calm head in the closing stages to either keep the ball or draw a foul.

In a closely fought match (Man Utd had 52% of possession and had ten shots on goal to Chelsea’s eight) between two relatively evenly matched sides, Ancelotti himself was decisive on the day. 

Once a match starts, players win or lose them, not managers, but this isn’t evidence that managers shouldn’t bear the brunt of criticism when things go wrong. They are – or should be – the pivotal person at the club, forming the foundation for how a team sets up ahead of kick-off. More than that, they have the opportunity to do any number of things during a game to help their players get a result. Great managers – the Mourinhos, Fergusons, Hiddinks and Wengers of this world – each have a unique mastery of both of these elements. In a game where at the top even the smallest margins can determine success or failure, the gap caused by having or not having one of these managers can be cavernous.

There remain question marks over Ancelotti, but his performance on Saturday went some way to dispelling them. The season is a long way from being over, and the Premier League nowhere near won. But regardless of how the season finishes, Ancelotti has raised hopes that he can stay at Chelsea for the long term. As the league’s top clubs pick themselves up after a strange and, in many cases, below par season, Chelsea fans can look forward hopefully to the Italian being given the opportunity to sculpt a new side of his own.

You might also be interested to read:

• First thoughts on the United win
• Ancelotti in danger of creating a Chelsea too much in his own image?
• What happened last time out: Chelsea 1 Man Utd 0

Man Utd 1 Chelsea 2: first half Blues performance enough to see off sedate Utd

It is a shame that much of the talk after Chelsea's victory over Man Utd today will probably be of refereeing mistakes. In truth, this was not a vintage clash, but one that nonetheless Chelsea ran out deserved winners.

The first sixty minutes were almost entirely Chelsea's, with Utd clearly suffering from both a post-European hangover and the absence of Wayne Rooney. Lampard, Deco and Mikel were handed the freedom of Old Trafford by a lack lustre Utd midfield and played with purpose throughout the first 45. While Van der Saar wasn't frequently tested, Chelsea opening the scoring inside twenty minutes wasn't particularly surprising. 

And a good goal it was too. Malouda - later voted man of the match - picked the ball up on the left touchline and made a driving run towards the box, showing strength to shrug off a rugged challenge from Fletcher and cut the ball back to Joe Cole, who played a deft backheel to flick the ball past the Utd keeper. 

It was a rare highlight in a pedestrian game that at times was being played at walking pace. Chelsea were dominant in both possession and chances, but never managed to seriously threaten the Van der Saar's net again. As an attacking force, Utd were rendered almost redundant by a (very nearly) second string Chelsea's defence.

Meanwhile referee Mike Dean, who had received so much attention in the papers this week for giving too many penalties, added an uncharacteristic brand of controversy. First, Park was felled in the box by a clumsy challenge from Zhirkov, but Dean somehow didn't see it as a penalty. Only minutes later Gary Neville bundled over Anelka at the other end - again a clear penalty - but Dean gave nothing. At least he was being equally inept at each end. 

Ancelotti's tactics - which included the surprise omission of Didier Drogba from the starting XI, supposedly because of injury - looked spot on. As against Villa, Deco and Mikel played deep, providing a solid foundation for Lampard to get forward through the middle and Cole and Malouda to pull wide. Malouda was a consistent threat down the left and, while Anelka's tendency to drift either wide and deep meant Chelsea weren't really playing with a conventional centre forward, the Blues' movement was getting the better of Utd.    

While Chelsea came close to doubling their lead through a Ferreira break into the Utd penalty box within seconds of the restart, the second half had a different complexion. Ferguson sent out a far more dynamic, energetic Man Utd side. Mikel, Deco and Lampard had far less time on the ball and United started to dominate possession. Chelsea's response was to drop deeper towards their own box, inviting pressure from Utd, who finally hit something like top gear around the sixty minute mark.

But for all their possession (and Chelsea's unwillingness to close down space), United weren't able to carve out a real chance, and it was Chelsea who next drew blood. Kalou found Drogba - who was at least one full yard offside - and the Ivorian slotted powerfully past Van der Saar. Glad as I was that Chelsea had scored, this was a goal that throws into sharp contrast the need for using technology to iron out human refereeing error, and the sheer ignorance of football's governing bodies in rejecting it altogether.

But in the biggest games Chelsea wins are rarely straightforward. Man Utd scored their goal within minutes of Drogba's and, on reflection, it was similarly controversial. Getting a hand to an Evra cross, Petr Cech palmed the ball into the path of the substitute Macheda, who clearly moved his hand towards the ball to push the ball over the line. The referee stood little chance of seeing it, but the goal shouldn't have stood. And even if it was unintentional - and I doubt that it was - gaining such huge advantage through even accidental use of the hand should not be allowed.

In the end, the two non-goals were irrelevant. This wasn't a vintage game, nor a vintage performance from Chelsea. But the first half performance was enough to win it, and even United fans wearing the most red-tinted glasses will probably concede that United didn't carve out clear-cut chances and that Chelsea's defence did a good job of keeping the likes of Giggs and Valencia quiet.

Chelsea fans - after the disappointments of early March - won't care how the result came to be. This is a result that doesn't guarantee the title for Ancelotti's men. While the fine performances against Portsmouth and Aston Villa got Chelsea back on track, it was always the Man Utd game that would determine whether they were really in the hunt. Now they lead the hunt, and stand every chance of navigating the inevitable remaining twists and turns to regain the Premier League title.

Keep an eye out for further posts on where the match was won. In the meantime: Chelsea or Man Utd fans - what are your thoughts on today's result? How does this affect the chase for the title? Post a comment...