bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Ancelotti gossip: there's no smoke without fire at Chelsea

Another weekend, another loss. Three weekends in a row, now: is losing becoming a habit for the champions? Well, no. But things aren’t pretty on the pitch at the moment.

Off the pitch however, things are probably worse. Just as Chelsea seemed to be throwing a past of almost continual behind-the-scenes turmoil behind them, Ray Wilkins’ departure chucked a large, slightly rusting spanner in the Cobham works. Then the promotion of little-known Nigerian, Michael Emenalo, to the vacant position raised more eyebrows and further increased speculation that Abramovich was personally ringing the changes.

Ancelotti, of course, came out of all this looking like an increasingly powerless pawn in the Chelsea machine, and his comments over the weekend that he is nothing more than a ‘technician’ certainly fed into that. Rightly or wrongly, the media interpreted this as the frustration from a manager nearing the last straw.

On Sunday evening, rumours that Ancelotti had offered his resignation (rumours I first read on twitter) started flying around the internet, and bookies were inundated with bets that he would be the next manager – sorry technician – out of the door. All of this morning’s national newspapers carried the same story: Ancelotti’s days were numbered.

Chelsea have moved to dismiss the stories as mere newspaper gossip but, whilst papers are certainly prone to embellishment or the odd piece of fiction, this amount of smoke very rarely comes without a fire burning somewhere. It seems incredible to think that, just months after a historic double, and only weeks after Chelsea were being declared almost unbeatable, the manager could be close to the exit door.

We certainly only know a fraction of what is really going on, but don’t be surprised if it happens – either now or at the end of the season.

Chelsea: don't believe the hype

Part of the price ‘big clubs’ pay for their status is greater scrutiny of every win, loss, piece of individual genius and mistake.

Up until recently, Chelsea experienced a very specific type of scrutiny. A huge 2010 saw Chelsea not only win the double, but also become utterly ruthless in front of goal. A high scoring second half of 2009/10 continued into August.

Chelsea started getting uncommon praise from all comers: Ancelotti had added style to the substance. Chelsea could pass it like Arsenal, score more than Utd and rack up more points than anyone along the way. The squabbling and turmoil that had become the norm at Chelsea disappeared, and journalists discovered Chelsea as their new second favourite team. Chelsea had cut its mammoth and expensive squad to size but were even better than last season. Winning the league at a canter was a certainty, and younger players were finally getting their chance. Alex gave an interview in the Chelsea magazine saying the team played like Brazil.

Rumours that Chelsea were considering a big money move to a new stadium at Earl’s Court only fed a general belief that Chelsea were once again on an relentless forward march.

Us fans? Well we probably bought into the hype a little bit too. I think Chelsea fans, unlike maybe Utd supporters, still harbour a fundamental pessimism on the whole: we don’t typically consider ourselves heirs to every trophy or assume success. But, almost like never before, I reckon crowds at the Bridge started to expect big wins every time they turned up.

Even the disappointment at Eastlands didn’t dampen spirits. Man City played a negative game, Chelsea didn’t really turn up and Tevez did what he has it in him to do: win a game on his own. It wasn’t a fluke, but these things happen.

But the tide started to turn after the Liverpool match, with fans bemoaning a slothful first half showing and pretty much everyone picking up on some very inconsistent away form. Then, last week against Sunderland, a mauling reversed opinion entirely.

Now the hype has lurched from one extreme to another. Chelsea’s wheels are either falling off or, having fallen off somewhere between Liverpool and West London on 7^th November, are lying splintered in a roadside ditch somewhere between Birmingham and Watford. A very real injury crisis is fuelling a general expectation that the attempt to recover those wheels is doomed to failure.

Talk now isn’t of Ancelotti’s genius at having dominated the league, bringing youth through and cutting the wage bill. What was once a virtue is now a sin: the media – and fans - now attack the club for not spending money in the summer. Why wasn’t Carvalho replaced? Why was a recognised forward bought to supplement – or ultimately replace - Drogba or Anelka? Perhaps the ludicrous transfer gossip they spewed all over their back pages throughout the summer was less journalist gossip to sell papers, and more the media helpfully putting forward a strategic proposition to Abramovich and Gourlay.

And, as if on-the pitch issues weren’t enough, Ray Wilkins’ controversial departure fuelled a very Chelsea-like sense of behind-the-scenes turmoil (no crisis at this club would be complete without it), and Drogba’s malaria added to the sense of ludicrous melodrama that seems to follow Chelsea in its darker days.

The truth, of course, is that neither sets of hype should be believed. Chelsea were in a rich vein of form, but that did not make them Brazil or Barcelona. The club is in a bit of a mess at the moment, but that doesn’t make them Bolton or Blackburn (or Liverpool). Injured players will return, results will improve – there’s too much talent in the squad for that not to happen.

Winning the league isn’t a foregone conclusion – but it never was. But neither the loss at Anfield or to Sunderland was terminal. More draws and losses will certainly follow, and probably in December – but that’s the nature of the beast.

I’m as pessimistic as the next fan (actually, more so) but this time, despite the obvious issues Carlo is undeniably facing, I’m preaching patience. Today, at least…

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.

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

Barclay leads media in passing over Chelsea and Lampard achievements

I read with interest a post on thechelseablog.org yesterday that argued Chelsea aren’t getting the credit they deserve. Looking back over Sunday’s papers and football TV shows, I think their argument might just have hit the nail on the head. Sadly however, it is nothing new.

The back pages of at least half the broadsheets and tabloids were full of either stories of Gianfranco Zola’s potential exit from West Ham or Man Utd’s all too easy victory over Bolton (certainly made easier by another own goal and Vidic’s overlooked elbow). The casual shopper scouring the newsagent paper rack could very easily have assumed the stand-out performance of the weekend – and potentially the season – occurred nowhere near SW6.

Sky Sports’ Soccer Supplement – usually relatively entertaining on a Sunday morning – was worse. Chelsea’s demolition of Aston Villa received no mention at all, save from the Times’ Patrick Barclay using the game as an opportunity to brand Chelsea as a ‘disgrace’, apparently for showing ‘no consistency whatsoever’ and not winning the title. As he continued to pile his unforgiving criticism onto the club (pausing only to inwardly reflect on the beauty of his own voice), Barclay’s anti-Chelsea tirade seemed increasingly out of keeping with the previous day’s results.

Barclay certainly didn’t recognise that Chelsea had scored seven goals in one game for the second time in the season. He also didn’t note that it was against the team that, at the start of the day, had the joint-best defence in the league and had defeated Chelsea comfortably at Villa Park. Although on a flat vein of form, Martin O’Neil’s men were enjoying a comfortable position in the table and were still talking of a potential challenge for the fourth spot.

Barclay didn’t seem to have a grasp of reality on the consistency point, either. Chelsea can only have been just as consistent as Utd and Arsenal (who have lost more games than Chelsea this season), hence the league table. He seemed to assume that Chelsea have some god-given duty to be top of the table because of its squad, neatly forgetting that investment in that ageing squad has certainly been matched – or exceeded – by Man Utd in recent years. Finally – and in such a contrast to the previous criticism Chelsea have endured for playing boring football at the hands of journalists such as Barclay – Ancelotti’s team have scored more goals than any other team in the league. And that was the case even before the game against Villa.

Bearing all that in mind, surely Chelsea’s 7-1 victory (and strong response to disappointments against Inter and Blackburn) would be worth at least a short mention?

But no. Barclay and his esteemed colleagues – including Martin Samuel, who usually talks a huge amount of sense in my opinion – used the opportunity to talk about Man Utd’s greatness at huge length, particularly as they had achieved a 4-0 win against Bolton (yes, Bolton) without either Rooney or Ferdinand. At that point, surely someone would mention that Drogba didn’t feature against Villa? Or Essien? Or Bosingwa? Or Ashley Cole? Or Ivanovic? Or Carvalho? All starting XI players. No, that was forgotten too.

And after jointly rejoicing in Man Utd’s brilliance, it was Arsenal’s turn. They play wonderful football, the way a club should be run, etc. You get the idea. This after a rather disappointing result against Birmingham. No discussion of the Villa game. No mention of Lampard’s achievements.

I sound bitter. I understand journalists aren’t duty bound to talk about Chelsea, and even less so to be positive. But we should expect some degree of objectivity and balance. Where Chelsea are concerned, that balance is sometimes missing.

Of course no-one can deny that Chelsea have actively contributed to that lack of balance over the last few years. Roman’s huge investment, player scandals, tapping-up stories, haranguing of referees, Kakuta-gate and a generally arrogant demeanour at all levels of the club have unsurprisingly made Chelsea’s positives very easy to overlook and created a media with a hostile position by default. You also get the sense though that this is a media populated with men brought up on the successes of Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool and more prone to these occasional bouts of selective amnesia.

If Chelsea beat Utd on Saturday however – obviously far from a given – even Barclay may need to readjust his position. Fingers crossed.

You might also be interested to read:

• Rod Liddle’s massacre of Chelsea for failing to lure a marquee signing is misleading and inaccurate