bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

England lose: but surely Chelsea must be to blame somehow?

England’s fortunate 2-1 loss to a rejuvenated French side last night saw another file added to the international side’s library of underwhelming performances. The collection has started to overflow of late.

But it’s all a bit confusing. Normally when England disappoint it’s because John Terry has sown disharmony throughout the squad (through any number of tried and tested egotistical tactics) or is an over-rated Sunday league footballer. Alternatively, it’s because Frank Lampard is an average and slightly overweight footballer with a propensity to miss the target (20 international goals notwithstanding). Sometimes defeat has even been because Ashley Cole is an unreliable, conniving and money-grabbing love rat.

England fans leaving the stadium yesterday must have stared blankly at each other, queuing silently and solemnly as they meandered up towards Wembley Park tube to make their way home. With none of the devil’s own footballers on the pitch, for what possible reason can mighty England have succumbed to the old enemy, pretty much the only team to have put in a more under-par performance in South Africa?

It’s too much to hope for that Terry, Lampard and Cole will have been missed by England fans, but maybe it will beg the question elsewhere. Most likely they will be missed by other members of the squad, who suddenly found themselves the target of the England boo-boys due to the normal candidates being unavailable.

I write this post mostly in jest of course. Regardless however, perhaps it will sink it that England has no god-given right to be good at football. Whether or not Capello is worth £6m a year is another debate (I can’t point to much he’s done right over the last six months), but the simple truth is that he can only work with what he’s given. Chelsea players or no, he hasn’t got much to work with.

You might also like to read:

• Some thoughts on how England could spend Capello’s wages

No silver bullet for England, but here's how the FA should spend Capello wages

If the reign of Fabio Capello has taught us anything, it surely must be that hiring an expensive foreign ‘master tactician’ is no silver bullet for success.

Not that Capello has proved himself the ‘Professor of Football’ that many proclaimed him to be. During the World Cup qualifying campaign he proved himself a sensible manager, ready and willing to make rational decisions and follow through with them. Players were picked on form and fitness, a system was picked and, when successful, stuck with.

Come the eve of the World Cup proper however, the ‘sensible’ Capello went out the window and in its place England were rewarded with a desperate manager whose judgement had left him. Odd calls to Scholes and Carragher sent a message to squad members that the Italian had no faith in them, and the Capello index farce seemed entirely out of character. In places his squad selection beggared belief.

Worse still, he showed displayed no tactical acumen once the competition actually started. Who can explain him needlessly playing Lampard and Gerrard out of position throughout the tournament, ANY of his substitutions or why Wright-Phillips was twice given run-outs ahead of Joe Cole? Can any England fan pinpoint a time when Capello managed to successfully change the shape or style of an England performance during any of the four matches, or when he even tried to? For me, the like-for-like substitution of Defoe for Heskey towards the end of the Germany match was Capello’s lack of imagination and bravery as a World Cup manager in microcosm.

And then there was the Terry scandal. For all those for whom Terry is evil personified, Capello made no mistake. But for everyone else, the Italian’s hanging of the former captain out to dry only intensified any potential splits in the squad and emphasised his dictatorial grip on the team. In the modern age, fewer and fewer coaches manage in Capello’s distanced fashion, and a more hands-on, inclusive approach is normally the way forward.

Players, of course, should take their share of the blame too. But the nub of my argument is this: that managers you think are geniuses are often fallible, and a foreign coach in glasses that comes with a hefty price tag doesn’t necessarily present a better option than others closer to home.

And this is where, for me, the FA have got it all wrong. They assume that the team is good, and therefore hiring the best manager will help it progress. I’m a big believer in the finest managers being able to work wonders (look at Hiddink and Mourinho for recent Chelsea examples of just this), but those managers are few and far between. But generally playing big money – around £6m a year - for an international manager where the requirements are different from club level is a poor investment when you look a the wider problems with English football.

Yes, it’s just my thinking and not based on research or experience, but the better option is surely this. Find a competent English manager who will do the simple things that are needed at international level (ie. play players in their positions and make them feel good about themselves) and not cost the earth – say £2m a year.

That’s £4m extra in the FA coffers. Imagine using that £4m to scour the country and the world for the finest youth coaches there are available, and paying them £40k a year to develop English youngsters up and through the ranks. That’s 100 new coaches funded through just one alternative hire.

Finding new ways to get the best coaches working with young players is the closest thing there is to a silver bullet, and actually it’s where England are most lacking. An article in the Guardian this morning suggested just how far England have fallen behind: while the country has produced a measly 2,769 coaches holding UEFA’s top coaching qualifications, Germany (after much soul searching after failures of the national team in 1998 and 2000) has produced over 12 times as many – 34,970. For the record, France has 17,588, Spain has 23,995 and Italy has 29,420.

In that context, 160 new coaches isn’t that many, but it would still represent a considerable uplift for England. A better idea though, would be to use the £4m to take existing coaches throughout the country and give them grants to get coaching certificates. Paying for each course up to the top UEFA qualification would cost around £5k (you wouldn’t need to go that far, but just for example) – so the money saved would buy you an absolute minimum of 800 top-trained coaches (and that’s if you were funding each course 100%). In this context, having to pay Capello £12m just to leave the post – because of another classic example of a monumental FA bungle - could be costing England as many as 2,400 newly-qualified coaches.

But I’m sure the FA have thought all this through. And dismissed it beacuse of footballing arguments. Or considerations relating to financial efficiency. Or because there's a better way to start catching up with our continental competitors. Of course they have. Probably…

More freedom for Chelsea's Lampard sees him play better for England

Even the most devout supporter of Chelsea’s free-scoring number eight would find it difficult to argue that Frank Lampard has been at his best for England over the past couple of years. Whilst never deserving of some of the criticism he has received from some ‘fans’ and journalists – and continuing to rack up the goals for his country – he certainly hasn’t replicated the excellent form he has so consistently delivered for his club.

There are surely a number of reasons behind this – not least that he seems to play better when alongside Chelsea’s superior personnel. Key to it though, I suspect, is the way that Fabio Capello has used him in recent years.

The success of England’s World Cup qualifying campaign was based on Lampard and Barry playing holding roles, leaving Gerrard and Rooney free to express themselves further up the pitch. It seemed that, unlike Gerrard, Lampard’s discipline and positional intelligence led Capello to the view that because he could play the role it was necessary to sacrifice his attacking instincts.

England cruised comfortably through qualifying, never really looking stretched, and Lampard’s form was acceptable without generally being scintillating. Certainly there was little evidence of Lampard running games or threatening in and around the box as he might for Chelsea.

But it is true to say he has been asked to play a very withdrawn role for England, and fans have misinterpreted his quiet stitching together of England’s play and absence of real attacking play as ‘going missing’. In reality, the best holding midfielders are usually those players supporters are most likely to ‘miss’, in every sense of the word.

The withdrawn role doesn’t play to any of Lampard’s strengths: getting box to box for 90 minutes and making late forays into the oppositions’ box. He isn’t a Pirlo either, able to rely on stellar passing ability to make it less of a holding role, and more of a quarterback one. Perhaps all this contributed to some average performances, and the occasional lapse in concentration leading to a misplaced pass.

On Wednesday against Slovenia however, Capello allowed Lampard a different role. In the first half in particular, Barry was left to hold on his own (surely one is enough?). We saw something more like the real Lampard, and if the finishing wasn’t quite there the creative passing, bursting runs into the box and tackling back were there in abundance. Not all viewers will agree, but whilst Gerrard, Milner and Defoe grabbed the headlines, for me Lampard was England’s engine room.

I understand the logic of playing Lampard in the holding role: if Capello wants two players there, he’s the only player in the squad aside from Barry who has the discipline to do it. But there’s a logic to counter that argument, too. Lampard is the most consistent performer England have, scoring goals and making important contributions for his club unabated for six years now. When he’s on form, he’s among the best there is.

I’m not arguing to hold Gerrard or any other player back Fabio, but go with a system that lets Frank play his game – to not is to sacrifice too much.

Media venom for John Terry confirms their bias against Chelsea captain

The media have shamelessly engineered a venomous deconstruction of John Terry over the last 24 hours, twisting his words in yesterday’s press conference to concoct stories of revenge and rebellion. In all likelihood, neither of those two words – more often found in Hollywood movie scripts than in football squads (aside from where the French are concerned, obviously) – can really apply to what’s gone on with England since the dismal showing against Algeria.

Admittedly, John Terry’s choice of words during the press conference yesterday morning occasionally hinted at more than a little insensitivity from the former England captain. He might have considered not repeating ‘sod it’ quite so many times for example, and after explaining how he still saw himself as a captain of sorts (for me he is the only one in the team who actually acts like a captain), he could have tacked “but Steven Gerrard is now doing a cracking job with the armband” on for good measure. Appearances are everything – especially when the media, desperate for a story for Monday’s papers, are circling like vultures over a rotting corpse.

But the core of what Terry said was in essence correct and sensible. Breaking the press conference down, he first expressed his and the team’s full backing for Capello, before re-stressing that Friday’s performance wasn’t good enough and that the team must do better.

Later, he talked of the need for the team to air their frustrations, and that if Capello – or anyone else in the team (a part of his quote the media have decided to omit) – doesn’t like it, they’ll have to deal with it. As at Chelsea, he was basically suggesting that it would be healthy for people to be able to get frustrations off their chests. It sounds sensible to me to create an adult culture in the squad that allows players to ask questions and contribute appropriately, while the manager maintains ultimate control. It also sounds sensible to have more frank conversations when things are going badly wrong.

Most importantly for me, what he very clearly wasn’t suggesting was that he or any other member of the team had a right to dictate to the manager how the team should play. Yes, he did say that Joe Cole could make a difference, either from the start or from the bench. Was he suggesting Joe Cole MUST play? No. Is what he said a crime? Of course not. And what was the alternative? To say that Cole couldn’t make a difference? Hardly sensible.

In the immediate aftermath of the interview, commentators on Sky Sports news were very positive about Terry’s conference, describing it as a rallying call and the kind of impassioned demand for improvement that was needed after so much fan dissatisfaction just 36 hours previous. That evening, after the Brazil-Ivory Coast game, BBC pundits Alan Shearer and Emmanuel Adebayor both joined Gary Lineker in universally praising John Terry, entirely backing his view that clear the air talks were needed. There was no suggestion that Terry was acting beyond his role or that he had spoken out of turn.

This morning however, journalists for pretty much all of the broadsheets and tabloids (who, unlike Shearer and Lineker, haven’t taken part in the pressure cooker of any international tournaments as far as I’m aware) painted a very different picture with their headlines. Words like ‘revenge’ against Capello (presumably for taking the captaincy away) were banded around, and despite some balance here and there it was pretty much universally agreed that Terry had launched some kind of coup against the manager, sowing disharmony as other ‘senior’ players distanced themselves from England’s number 6.

Other critics of Terry have reasoned that Terry somehow planned the whole thing by giving the interview, and then going off piste. Of course that theory forgets that all of these conferences, and all media interviews, are carefully marshalled by the FA’s press team. Terry would have been carefully selected above all the other players to deliver that specific press conference, and the press team will have surely rehearsed the majority of his answers. Furthermore, the press officer made no attempt to interrupt Terry at any point.

John Terry is no role model, and I very sincerely wish Chelsea had a captain with a cleaner image who it would be easier for me – or anyone - to respect. As it is however, it seems to me that it is the media who are sowing (or trying to sow) disharmony in the team, not Terry, working together to agree the angle they would pursue in this morning’s papers. After all, they had alternative ways of interpreting the press conference. After a strongly worded press interview, John Terry is being pilloried far more than Rooney was for insulting England’s long-suffering travelling support.

Some of Terry’s words were ill-advised, of course. But the punishment doesn’t match the crime: and it might only be England that suffer.

Neglectful FA cost Chelsea dear during latest pointless England excursion

How many international breaks have there been this season already? It seems like time and again the Premiership season has been disturbed by a string of international fixtures this year, many of which have been friendlies. The latest England jolly to Doha for a friendly with Brazil may have cost Chelsea a high price.

Reports this morning suggest that an injury suffered by Frank Lampard while on international duty, who flew home from the England training camp yesterday, may be worse than first thought. The prognosis is that he could be out for a few weeks at best, or until Christmas at worst.

It is frustrating that the injury has come about as a result of an arguably needless friendly. I’m sure most Chelsea fans would agree – according to research, over 80% of British football fans feel a stronger sense of allegiance to the team they support than they do for the national side. This particular friendly is further made redundant by the paucity of regular first team players making the trip. Perhaps more frustrating however, are reports that the FA flew the England squad all the way to Doha in economy class-style seats – that’s a seven hour flight - which contributed to Lampard’s eventual injury.

It would be very easy for some to have limited sympathy for the 22 millionaires having to fly economy. But the reality is that these are athletes finely tuned by their clubs to perform at the top of the game. Players like Lampard will run maybe seven miles in each game – at the season’s peak perhaps three times a week. And it’s not like running seven miles on the street: football combines the need for both endurance and explosive power, in addition to other physical rigours such as turning and tackling.

To mistreat and neglect such athletes after their clubs have made such considerable investment in them is outrageous. After all, those players when on England duty are essentially on loan with the goodwill of the owning clubs. It’s therefore unsurprising that Chelsea are reportedly livid at Lampard’s injury, and are preparing a compensation claim of just under £1m.

I’m livid too. When players get injured on international duty (like Essien last season), should football fans who have paid for tickets be compensated by the national associations? After all, we don’t get to see the players we paid to watch. Of course I’m not being serious, but the real point is the FA shouldn’t be so carefree with their scheduling of fixtures and their treatment of players: when injuries occur it impacts players, clubs and fans.

There has been much paper talk in recent weeks – particularly from Rafa Benitez and Liverpool – about how injuries affect club’s fortunes. Liverpool have had a number of injuries which have exposed the lack of depth in their squad. Having more luck than in recent years, it feels like Chelsea have had a relatively clean bill of health so far this season, although the papers have neglected to report that Deco, Alex, Ashley Cole, Zhirkov and Joe Cole have all had extended spells on the sidelines.

Lampard’s injury comes at a time when Chelsea are starting to make a real impact in the Premier League, and now a minor injury crisis is growing at Stamford Bridge with likely to sit out with him until Christmas and Bosingwa probably out for considerably longer. There is no sign of Zhirkov making an imminent return.

The depth of Chelsea’s squad is about to be tested – especially with crunch away games against Man City and Arsenal just around the corner. I fancy the squad will hold up far better than Liverpool’s however: provided Terry doesn’t get injured in Doha too, of course…

You might also be interested to read:

• Another international break? English fans don’t care about the national team

Another international break but English football fans don't care about the national team

How many international breaks (interlull™) have there been this season already?

The game against Ukraine on Saturday – which I didn’t watch, incidentally – sounds like it was one of the more unconvincing England displays we have seen for a while. To be fair to Capello and the team however, it wouldn’t be the first time football sides have turned out sub-standard performances having previously completed the job at hand. Stupid defensive errors are concerning, but we shouldn’t whip ourselves up into a frenzy.

To be honest though, I rarely get into any kind of frenzy watching England these days. Yes, a major international tournament is among the more exciting events the game throws up, but these days watching the national side pales almost into insignificance in comparison with my club allegiance.

International breaks are infuriating, breaking up the rhythm of an otherwise exciting league (or your best player’s cruciate ligaments, as in the case of Essien last year). More than that, I find it hard to rationalise hurling abuse at Wayne Rooney or Steven Gerrard in a red shirt one week while cheering them on when they play in white the next, in that I refuse to do the latter. Sad it may be, but watching England has often become merely an extended exercise in supporting Lampard, Terry and the Coles, and this from a not unpatriotic person.

But I’m not on my own.

An interesting piece of research called ‘Football Passions’ was conducted last year by The Social Issues Research Centre, commissioned by Canon. The report, which looked into a range of football-related sociological issues across Europe, claims that football fans almost universally favour their club side over the international team. It varies from nation to nation but, perhaps surprisingly, the British are among those who comparatively care the least about the fortunes of the national sides.

Over 80% of British football fans said they ‘feel a stronger sense of allegiance to the team that I support than I do for the national side’ - a fairly huge majority. That’s over the European average, and bested only by the Norwegians and the Swedish (around 92 and 87% respectively). Interestingly, those nationalities caring most about their national sides were the French (not at all surprising bearing in mind their domestic league may as well be the Conference and ships its best players abroad), Polish and Portuguese. But those three countries were out on their own.

In light of that, I’ll feel better about myself if long working hours means I don’t manage to tune in for tomorrow’s meaningless game against Belarus. It also means I feel much calmer about the disgraceful decision to allow Saturday’s game to only be shown on the internet. It’s just England – I’ll get over it. Until South Africa, that is…

What do you think? Club, or country – which is it for you?

Match Review: England 6 Andorra 0

"Who we playing again?"  Even Greavsie could beat this lot

What to say?  Always very difficult to evaluate England games against mediocre opposition.  A bundle of goals, and some pretty nice football, but ultimately a pretty meaningless performance that it's hard to draw any conclusions from.  The best part of the evening was seeing the squad members from the '66 England team pick up their medals.

Apparently there are only 11 national teams in the world worse than Andorra.  And tonight it showed.  The part-timers did their best, but frankly never got close to stopping England play, let alone stringing an attacking move together.  Half-way through the second half they'd only had 17% of the possession, a remarkable statistic in an international game.

England eventually won 6-0, a scoreline that could have been even more convincing without a purposeless 20 minute period in the first half, and some wasteful finishing from Defoe in the second.  Rooney got the first, and we'll give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he meant to head Johnson's cross into the goal.  The second was probably the best of the night: a beautifully weighted pass from Johnson through to Walcott, who pulled the ball back for Lampard to score from the edge of the box.  A second from Rooney rounded out the first half.

At half-time Defoe came on for Rooney and Young for the anonymous Stevie G.  After a long period of utterly dominant possession and wasteful finishing, the flood gates finally opened.  Defoe scored his first after being set-up by, yes - you guessed it, Glen Johnson (some sort of record surely?!).  The night was rounded up with a couple of sloppy goals - another from Defoe and one for Crouch.

A good performance, but through no fault of England, not a great game (I know, I know, some people are never satisfied).  We'll have to wait until this time next year to see what the team's really made of.

Chelsea player watch:

John Terry:  Was he even playing?  He won't have played an easier game in years.

Ashley Cole:  A nice attacking performance, particularly in the second half when supported by Young.  Later substituted for Bridge - poor Wayne, wherever he plays he's second string to Ashley.

Frank Lampard:  Good performance going forwards with a well-deserved goal.  Didn't forget his defensive duties either, tackling back on the couple of occasions it was called for.

Kazakhstan 0 England 4

Yet another mind-blowingly entertaining England game. Yes, England did score four goals without reply. Yes, the Kazakhs did put in a fine show of harrying football in the first 45 minutes. And yes, the pitch was woeful. But it was hardly entertaining stuff, and hardly top quality. The beautiful game it was not.

The first twenty-five seconds seemed to set the tone for the first half. Kazakhstan had clearly watched last week’s FA Cup final and Glen Johnson – who will apparently be moving back to Chelsea this month – was on hand to help them in their attempt to mimic Saha’s early goal. Gifting the ball to the Kazakhstan allowed them to burst down the left, cross and shoot, only for Terry to scramble the ball clear.

Two goals from Barry and Heskey towards the end of the first half broke up what was otherwise a perfect example of unblemished turgid football. England’s passing was woeful. Frank Lampard seemed to be sitting too deep, with Gerrard and Walcott hugging the left and right touchlines respectively, and passes were forced and not finding their targets. Amidst 11 average performances, Lampard perhaps just bested the performances of his team mates with a high passing success rate and a nice touch to set up a Heskey shot that struck the post in the 29th minute.

The performance certainly did improve in the second half, when passes started to find feet and Kazakhstan started to tire. The otherwise anonymous Rooney scored a good third before Lampard scored a penalty, striking the ball high into the Kazakh net.

All-in-all – a professional performance and a good win, but serious questions need to be asked of England’s attack. Against weak opposition, the axis of Rooney, Heskey and Gerrard rarely linked up, and it was difficult to see what the plan was. This evening Heskey regularly nodded the ball away from white shirts and there was a lack of presence down the England left. In my view there isn’t enough goals in those three alone anyway (combined they scored 49 goals from 122 premier league appearances last season). Fabio needs to work out a way to make the attack click – and more frequently releasing Lampard might be one route. Against better opposition, England certainly won’t score four.

England games against weaker opposition are typically drab affairs. One wonders if Spain v. Kazakhstan would prove so tedious...

Chelsea player watch

John Terry – solid performance at the back, but did look half a yard short a couple of times in the first half. Arguably might have done better from a free header in the Kazakh box following a drifted Lampard cross to score his seventh England goal

Frank Lampard – Setanta’s man of the match. Came more into the game in the second half and was easily England’s most consistent passer of the ball. Well taken penalty for England’s fourth

Ashley Cole – sound defensive performance but often looked frustrated on the ball when going forward by a lack of options. Having an in-form Joe Cole back in the team could help get more from Cole’s attacking talents. Good strike in the box just head of the award of England’s penalty

Terry and Lampard set to start for England

Chelsea transfer gossip rumbles on today with the blues again linked with a £40m move for David Villa. Meanwhile, John Terry, Frank Lampard and Ashley Cole are the only Chelsea players likely to figure in this afternoon's England fixture against Kazakhstan (1600 BST - you can watch it on Setanta).

 

Famous last words, but it should be a straightforward game for England, with the Kazakhstan coach bemoaning his players' lack of fitness earlier this week claiming they were some 10-15 years behind the rest of Europe. Expect an interesting second half.

 

Terry - who will probably be joined in defence by Matthew Upson in the absense of Rio Ferdinand, will be playing his 52nd game for his country. Capello has recently played Lampard in a more withdrawn role for England alongside Gareth Barry to allow Steven Gerrard a more attacking position, despite Frank's marginally superior international record (15 goals from 69 appearanes to Gerrard's 15 from 72). Perhaps Fabio feels Frank has greater ability to play a more disciplined role. Ashley Cole will play his 72 game for England, and is still looking for his first goal.

 

Look out for my report on the Chelsea players' peformances and any other talking points later today. I'll also be making regular updates to my twitter page throughout the game - check it out here.

 

bridgeviews prediction: Kazakhstan 0-4 England, 0-1 at half time

 

Pre-match in quotes:

 

Capello: "Tiredness isn't an excuse. It's a long trip but we must remember that they played well in the first half at Wembley. This is the problem, not the jet-lag and the flight"

 

Terry: "It's going to be a difficult game. They started the game well at Wembley and made it difficult for us. BUt we find as a country that wherever we go everyone raises their game and Kazakhstan are going to be no different. We know they're going to press us early on...they key is to be organised and keep our concentration".

 

Kazakhstan coach Bernd Storck: "Our problem is we play like children. The players are flat on their backs. We lost four goals in 10 minutes against Belarus. I've got big trouble with three big clubs because they don't want to do what we do - regular testing, taking blood. They train hard with no rest time. It's the old Russian system"