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.

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. 

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

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

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.

Worrying signs for Essien recovery with no Chelsea return date in sight

Michael Essien hasn’t played for Chelsea since Tuesday 8^th December, and it is perhaps no coincidence that Chelsea have won just 58% of their games in the three and half months’ worth of football since he tore his hamstring (he subsequently injured his knee while at the African Cup of Nations).

He has been sorely missed. Without him, an ageing team starved of energy and dynamism threw away a sizeable lead in the title race and tamely limped out of the Champions league in the second round. Michael Essien-less Chelsea managed just eight clean sheets in 22 games and conceded on average one goal each match.

It therefore should have been encouraging to read a piece on the Ghanaian’s recovery on the Chelsea website today. Reading it first time around, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a piece on how well his recovery was going. Essien admits that he had hoped to return in time for the second leg against Inter, but wasn’t ready. 

In light of that revelation however, it’s astonishing that there is no mention throughout the piece of an expected return date. How could he have been hoping to be ready for that game and the club still not have an idea of a return date two weeks later?

It points to something being very wrong, either with Essien’s injury or Chelsea’s medical team’s diagnosis. Looking back over the rest of the article offers little comfort. It speaks of Essien being in a ‘positive mood as he works his way back to fitness’. Essien himself says ‘on a positive note I am feeling mentally strong and I try to stay philosophical about injuries. There are worse injuries than mine and there are people in the world suffering with far more serious problems’.

It could just be me, but they sound like the words of someone expecting – and coming to terms with – more time on the sidelines rather than focusing on an imminent return. Essien also reveals that, while the injury is ‘okay’ and he is ‘making ‘progress’, his training is still focused on healing rather than any kind of regime to build towards match fitness. With just weeks left in the season, the signs aren’t good.

Chelsea’s midfield may have been rampant against struggling Portsmouth last night, but sterner tests are to come - not least against Man Utd in little over a week’s time. Could it be that Chelsea are keeping their cards close to their chests on that one? Unlikely. It looks like Essien’s spell on the sidelines is set to continue.

You might be interested to read:

• How injuries will define Chelsea’s season
• How the African Cup of Nations could benefit Chelsea

Inter Champions League defeat for Chelsea: tactical vacuum or end of an era?

After a string of European successes over the last six years, Chelsea’s insipid exit from the Champions League yesterday feels like a disaster.

The fallout will continue to play out on newspaper back pages for days yet, but Chelsea’s ignominious defeat should be laid at one of two doors: one, a tactical vacuum or two, the ultimate decline of a squad that has been mismanaged for years.

Ancelotti is suffering. Suffering under the uncomfortable comparison with the former Chelsea manager, Jose Mourinho. In defeat, the marked contrasts between the two men are easy to exaggerate and use as a stick to beat the Italian with. Regardless of those contrasts however, Ancelotti’s Chelsea were obviously far less astutely prepared than the team brought by his Inter counterpart. 

This shone through on the pitch. Overcoming a 2-1 deficit required a positive, ambitious and energised Chelsea to emerge from the starting whistle. The Chelsea on show was nothing of the kind, looking a passive, pale imitation of an Inter team constructed in an image of Chelsea’s better days. Inter hassling and harrying shook Chelsea’s supposed playmakers out of performing to such an extent that the home side’s experience was not able to translate into the required patient possession.

Rather than a spirited start to the game, Chelsea’s football was dominated by an apparent fear of conceding. What else can explain – just for example - the strange, anxious conservatism of Terry and Alex in regularly clearing the ball up the field when picking a pass to a midfield player was a viable option? Surrendering possession was equally a problem at the back as it was in midfield last night.

Chelsea’s performance in the first half was characterised by needless loss of possession and aimless free kicks from distance when playing the percentages was the order of the day. The second half was worse, as patience disappeared entirely and the team resorted to mindlessly punting the ball up the pitch to Drogba, who was forced into shouldering too much responsibility.

In summary, Ancelotti failed on two counts. Firstly, by failing to instil confidence in his team to approach the game with the right attitude. Secondly, by being unable to affect change on the field. Why couldn’t Ancelotti spot his team’s waning performance and take steps to calm his side? What is more, Chelsea’s game plan – if there was one – didn’t appear to change from minute one to minute 90. Why, when playing through the middle wasn’t working (again), didn’t Ancelotti instruct Malouda to stick to the touchline? Instead the Frenchman repeatedly looked to move inside. Why were there no efforts to stretch the Inter defence wide right? It is a sad reality that Ancelotti was unable to halt what was a 90 minute continuum of Inter control and Chelsea impotency.

While the game did point to him being a good, rather than great, tactician, criticism of the Italian shouldn’t go too far however. He played his part in a tepid performance, but on the night his side were exposed by a good Inter side expertly prepared and drilled by Mourinho. That Chelsea were so comprehensively outclassed in every part of the pitch points to a deeper problem.

Chelsea’s form since the end of November makes unpleasant reading, and points to a serious decline in the squad. Far from a knee-jerk reaction, yesterday’s loss brings into focus issues that have been bubbling under the surface for weeks now: that there are great potholes of weakness emerging throughout the aging team.

Beating Stoke or West Ham is one thing, but at the highest level a team is as weak as its weakest player. Yes, Chelsea were shorn of the likes of Essien and Ashley Cole by injury, but it now looks certain that aging has brought about the decline of too many players at the same time. Chelsea’s midfield, once the powerhouse of Europe, was lifeless yesterday in the face of Inter’s persistent harrying and Sneijder’s guile. Lacking energy and dynamism from the off, Lampard and Ballack looked tired and off the pace and all too often weren’t able to get into the box to support Malouda or Drogba. Anelka hasn’t looked on good form for weeks.

And the decline isn’t just an age issue. Chelsea have allowed the squad to become unbalanced, failing to add creativity to its now traditional blend of strength and power. With no Ashley Cole or Bosingwa in the side Chelsea look dangerously short on pace, too.

Don’t get me wrong, Chelsea haven’t become a bad side overnight. But, if the aim is to compete at the very highest level, then allowing the squad to have aged together unchecked, and become so unbalanced, represents criminal mismanagement. Perhaps it is the result of so many managerial changes, but not one of the club’s many powerful figures can claim to have executed any kind of long-term strategy. The team needed gradual refreshing since 2007, and there has been next to none; youth players needed blooding, and they haven’t been given a chance.

There always seem to be ‘too many cooks’ at Chelsea, but they’re not even making any broth to spoil. As someone (he’ll remain nameless) once said, there are different classes of eggs, and class three eggs don’t make good omelettes. Ancelotti’s ‘cooking’ wasn’t up to his opponent’s standards last night, but what chance did his omelette stand when the best eggs are suddenly so short in supply?

The fight for the league isn’t over, but it is in the balance, while the summer will be interesting.

I’m not advocating a squad revolution or spending big on ‘marquee’ signings – just a sensible, ongoing approach to refreshing the squad with good, young players before it’s too late. For more on what I think needs to happen at Chelsea, take a read of:

• The players Chelsea really need
• Arnesen’s failures lie at heart of Chelsea’s future

• Chelsea need to abandon the 'off the shelf' transfer policy

Premier League XI and player of the decade - Chelsea players make the grade

Another journalist – this time Henry Winter of the Daily Telegraph – put his head on the block this morning and risked the wrath of football fans across England by naming his Premier League team of the decade. Interesting to compare it with that of The Times’ Oliver Kay:

Henry Winter (4-4-2)
Given, G Neville, Ferdinand, Terry (C), A Cole, Ronaldo, Lampard, Gerrard, Giggs, Rooney, Henry

Oliver Kay (4-3-3)
Friedel, Gerrard, Ferdinand, Terry, A Cole, Vieira, Keane, Lampard, Ronaldo, Henry, Giggs

Kay also names either Henry, for quality, or Lampard, for consistency, as his player of the decade.

From my perspective, there are problems with each. Winter seems to have tried to name the best 11 players, without any regard to creating a viable team defensively. Kay on the other hand has paid more attention to creating a viable team but then bizarrely shoe-horns Gerrard in at right back (he’s had no more success there than Essien). If he isn’t good enough to make the midfield – where he has played for the last ten years – he shouldn’t make the decade’s XI. 

Winter disregards Vieira and Keane on the grounds that they haven’t played for half the decade (on those grounds I guess we can’t put the likes of Zola forward either who, like Keane, might have a greater claim in the 90s). I would also argue that, up until now, Rooney hasn’t scored enough goals to warrant a place up front. From a Chelsea perspective, the sheer quality of Makelele in the holding role should give him a shout at being named in any team of the decade. Drogba would have a shout too if he had perhaps had a better 07/08 or 08/09.

To suggest that Given is goalkeeper of the decade is ludicrous – yes, he’s always been a good keeper but the accolades have only really started coming over the past two or three years. Friedel has been consistently lauded but I still have question whether he’s worthy of the keeper of the decade tag. Petr Cech probably has an equal claim, if only through his performances 2004-06 on the basis of which he was widely labelled the best keeper in the world. At the end of the day, I doubt many football fans would take Given or Friedel over either Cech, Van der Saar or Reina at the their best.

To come up with a team of the decade you need to decide how important longevity is. Both Winter and Kay disregard Makelele – who had four seasons at the top of his game – but include Ronaldo, who only had two (albeit excellent) seasons at the top of his in the Premier League. So I’ve gone for a team of the decade that is based on considering the best players in each position at their peak but with half an eye on those players having made more than a fleeting impact on the Premier League in that time. I’ve also tried to put together a more balanced, viable side:

(4-4-2) Cech, G Neville, Terry, Ferdinand, A Cole, Makelele, Lampard, Ronaldo, Giggs, Van Nistelrooy, Henry

Certainly painful to admit, but Van Nistelrooy and Henry deserve their place in a Premier League team of the decade, regardless of how we Chelsea fans feel about them. Other players I’ve overlooked (Winter and Kay did as well, to be fair) but certainly worthy of a mention would probably include Pires and Ljungberg, who played a pivotal role in Arsenal’s successes earlier in the decade, Steven Gerrard, Arjen Robben and Paul Scholes. It must be said that there’s been a huge wealth of midfield talent on show in the Premier League that makes selecting just 4 players almost impossible.

And player of the decade? For all the recent hysteria about Giggs (one Man Utd blog suggests: ‘player of the decade is not really up for debate. He’s still running rings around players and his name is Ryan Giggs. End of story’) his recent accolades are now stretching the point. He has more of my respect than any player turning out for Chelsea’s current rivals for both his world-class quality and his attitude, but for me he doesn’t quite make the grade.

So I’d probably have to agree with Kay. As a biased Chelsea fan, I don’t think you can look further than Frank Lampard, who has consistently been the most influential player for a successful Chelsea side for five years. His record of having scored 20 goals a season from midfield (and actually midfield – anyone comparing Ronaldo’s record is missing the fact that he largely played up front) for four successive seasons – and 19 in the season before that run - is almost without equal in the modern game. Aside from that, like Giggs, Lampard’s tireless professionalism and work-rate make him the stand-out player for the noughties.

I’m prepared for the inevitable backlash from United, Liverpool and Arsenal fans, but what do you think? Who is your Premier League team and player of the decade?

Chelsea season in stats: all or nothing football and the trouble with playing away

It’s that time again: the time when bridgeviews.co.uk takes a look back over the last month and what the stats tells us about Chelsea’s progress. This time, the focus is on all or nothing football, defence being king and a developing trend away from home…

It’s all or nothing
Into the fifth month of the Premier League season, it’s remarkable that Chelsea are yet to draw a game. While Ancelotti’s men have swept to wins in 80% of league matches so far, it seems the prospect of defeat isn’t having too much of an effect: all other games – against Wigan, Villa and latterly Man City – have ended in defeat. If it’s because Chelsea go gung-ho in the closing stages of matches when drawing, I’m all for it – what good is one point after all?

Defence is god
In last months’ stats post I said Chelsea’s defence was king, but I was wrong – it’s been better than that. John Terry’s back four has only conceded 15 goals in all competitions so far this season – that’s less than one goal for every two hours of football. The record at Stamford Bridge is even better, with the side not conceding a single goal since Hunt put one past Cech back in August. Conceding just one goal in 11 games is astounding, but away form is a slightly different story…

Home and away
Chelsea’s home record reads like a dream: played 11, won 11. In a surprising reversal of last season however, Chelsea’s Achilles heel has become games away from Stamford Bridge. Winning 58% of all away games is far from a dismal record, but losing a quarter of them isn’t quite so impressive. The difference between goals conceded home and away is even more marked, with Chelsea shipping nine goals on their travels.

With that in mind, you would be forgiven for thinking that Chelsea’s defence has gone to pieces when playing away from home – but it’s a bit more complicated than that. Looking at the three defeats Chelsea have suffered this season, three different main causes can be identified in each instance. Whilst defensive errors did cost Chelsea the points against Aston Villa, the back four actually had a good game against City last weekend – the fixture was lost because the midfield couldn’t gain a foothold in the game. Against Wigan it was Cech’s red card and the subsequent penalty that warped the final result.

Far from disaster – still on track?
Some fans and sections of the media – not least the atrociously biased Joe Royle – painted Chelsea’s loss to Man City as being almost apocalyptic for Ancelotti’s title challenge. Yes, the performance was concerning, but in reality we’re nowhere near crisis point yet. Overall Ancelotti has a 78% win record and Chelsea are scoring three and a half more goals than they are conceding (with goals coming from 12 players). In November Chelsea beat the two main rivals for the title, Man Utd and Arsenal, and are still on course to finish the season with more than 90 points.

It says something that, over the course of a season already 23 games old, Chelsea’s most unproductive run comprises just two games – a draw (Blackburn winning on penalties doesn’t count) and a loss. Draw seven games in a row (a la Man City) or win once in nine (a la Liverpool) – now that would be a real crisis.

Paying the penalty
It said a lot about the team’s weaknesses last season (or the number of referees who should have gone to Specsavers) that Chelsea rarely won penalties. With Joe Cole injured, there wasn’t a player who would naturally run at defenders and draw a foul in box. How many did Robben win for us, or Ronaldo for United? This season, it’s been different. An on-song Drogba has been felled in the box to win four penalties this season already – more than the total number won last year. Now to get Anelka and Lampard into the box more frequently…

Check out the updated 09/10 Chelsea stats page – more detailed information has been added today.

You might also be interested to read:

• Season in stats – the view in October
• Season in stats – the view in September

Drogba, Torres or Rooney? Chelsea have the best striker in the league

Watching Match of the Day this weekend – something I don’t normally do these days – it was great not only to watch Chelsea coast to a four nil away win over Bolton but also to see Alans Shearer and Hansen giving Drogba the praise he deserves for recent good form.

I was therefore pretty surprised when, after being asked by host Gary Lineker who was the best striker in the league, Hansen said Torres and Shearer said Rooney. I half suspect the Scot was showing some form of Liverpool allegiance and Shearer some form of England allegiance, but nevertheless found their decisions a little strange – especially Shearer’s.

Now I’m not going to argue that Torres isn’t by a margin the better finisher, or that Rooney isn’t better with the ball at his feet and running into space. But Drogba is top class in both of those respects, and outguns both in every other aspect of the game. Looking at the impact of each player on the games in which they have featured so far this season there should be no doubt that, on current form, Drogba is the best striker in the Premier League. 

The stats don’t lie. So far this season Chelsea have scored 39 goals. 20 of those have either been scored by Drogba (10), laid on with an assist from the Ivorian (7) or scored from the penalty spot once he’s been brought down in the box (3). That means that 51% of the goals Chelsea have scored have come about at least because of Drogba’s direct involvement.

But you can go further than that. Drogba hasn’t played in the three Champions League games so far, or in one of the Carling Cup ties (against QPR). Chelsea have scored 32 goals in the games in which he has played (11 fixtures), and Drogba has scored or created 20 of them. That’s a staggering 63%, and he is contributing nearly two goals a game. That isn’t normal. In the past his behaviour has been indefensible, but he’s sharpened up on that this season too. Ish.

Torres on the other hand has played 12 games (10 league, 2 Champions League) and scored 10 goals. Having played just 30 minutes of the Carlin Cup tie against Bolton, Drogba actually has a better goals to minutes ratio, and Torres doesn’t make nearly so many assists (just one in the Premier League). Liverpool have scored 25 goals in the Premier League and, in scoring or making 11 of them, Torres has only contributed 44%.

Similarly Rooney has played 12 games (10 league, 2 Champions League), scoring seven goals. He’s made no assists in the Premier League – so his percentages are even smaller than Torres’. He has contributed just 30% of United’s 23 league goals.

Now I’m not naïve enough to believe that stats tell the whole story. And of course, one man’s assist is just a touch on the ball before a goal, and more meaningful contributions can go unrecorded. Plus, Torres has been playing in a struggling side and has suffered injury and his manager’s unpredictable approach to substitutions.

But the stats are indicative, and his this season are well beyond normal expectations. At the very least, they certainly support the argument that Drogba is probably having his best season at Stamford Bridge since 06/07 when he was similarly unplayable.

Ancelotti should rest Drogba for the Atletico game tomorrow – there’s no point risking him. With his strength, pace and eye for goal Chelsea are twice as dangerous and him being on the pitch against United on Sunday could just make the difference.

Chelsea fans – what do you think? Who would you swap Drogba for, if anyone? Fans of other clubs – do you disagree with my view? Do Drogba’s ‘antics’ detract too much from his football? Post a comment…

Chelsea season in stats: a water-tight defence, invaluable Ivorian and lucky streak

Here’s another monthly look at what at what the stats tell us about Chelsea’s progress: this time with revelations about Lampard’s scoring rate, Chelsea’s deceptively good defence and a continuing reliance on Drogba. My obsession with football stats continues…

At this rate Lampard won’t score 20
Such is the quality of Frank Lampard that scoring just one goal in 12 games was a crisis. Now that he’s scored three in the last two his rate looks a whole lot more impressive and firmly into the realm of respectability for a player of his ability. He still needs a couple of quick goals to get himself back on 20 a season form however: if he carries on scoring at his current rate (one goal every 3.5 games) he’ll need to play 70 games during 09/10 to make that total – which clearly won’t happen.

Are Chelsea getting lucky?
14 games played – two penalties won (and scored) and two own goals. But to what extent do teams make their own luck?

Defence is king
After some unfortunate slip ups against Wigan and Villa, the media would have us believe that Chelsea’s defence was in crisis, Carvalho was past his prime and John Terry was a bad player. But in contrast to the knee jerk reaction, Chelsea’s defence is pretty rock solid, conceding just 0.6 goals a game on average. Carry on at that rate and Chelsea will concede just 22 goals in the league this season – comfortably less than any team managed during 08/09. Other key facts: Chelsea have kept nine clean sheets – a staggering 64% of games played – and haven’t conceded in any of the Champions League or League Cup games played so far.

More players are scoring more goals
I suggested during the last stat-attack that, in order for Chelsea to be successful, more players would need to start chipping in with goals. This has happened: now five players have scored three or more in all competitions. While at the end of September Drogba had scored 30% of all Chelsea’s goals, he’s now scored just 25% - and not because he’s stopped scoring.

But Drogba’s still invaluable
Scoring 8 goals from 10 games is pretty spectacular record. But it’s half the story – if you include the two penalties he’s won for the team and his seven assists, Drogba has played a critical role in 17 of Chelsea’s 24 goals scored in Premier League games (the only competition he’s played in). That’s seven in ten goals the Ivorian is having a hand in. Torres might score a few more, but it’s Drogba’s other attributes that make him the more valuable player.

A ‘reasonable’ record against better sides
So far Chelsea have played six of the teams currently in the top half of the Premier League (Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland, Stoke, Wigan) winning four games, losing two, scoring 12 and conceding seven. It’s a very reasonable record, but those stats will come under threat once the games against Arsenal, United and Man City come around. Meanwhile, Chelsea have mopped up against more lowly opposition: four games against bottom half opponents have resulted in four wins with 12 goals scored and just 1 conceded.

For a full set of Chelsea team and player season stats broken down by competition, click here. If you think there’s any set of stats that would be useful or interesting to add to this page, let me know and I’ll start recording them.

The season in stats: mentally tough Chelsea start too slowly and over-rely on Drogba

Both this year and last much has been said about the age of Chelsea’s squad and how it will hinder the club’s charge for the title. Having kept detailed stats – on both the team’s performance and for individual players – since the Premier League began back in August I decided to take a look back at the records for the season so far to see what, if anything, they told us about the impact of an ageing squad.

While I was at it, the statto in me rose to the surface one again (it first came to the fore back in early June when I looked back at Hiddink’s incredible record at the club), and I found a number of other ‘interesting’ things…

Age isn’t affecting performance…so far
Far from fitness and stamina being a weakness, if anything Chelsea’s performance improves as time wears on and other teams tire. The vast majority of goals have been scored in the second half and two were scored after 90 minutes were up to steal last-gasp wins.

But Chelsea start too slowly
If age is affecting the team then its preventing Chelsea from sprinting out of the blocks. Chelsea haven’t scored in the first 30 minutes of any of the nine games they’ve played so far this season. Conversely two thirds of all goals conceded have been scored in the first half of matches, and two of those were scored before 20 minutes had passed.

The characteristic mental toughness is still there
All that experience is counting for something: surely there isn’t a more psychologically strong team in the league? In addition to the two goals that have been scored after 90 minutes, over a quarter of Chelsea’s goals (5) have been scored within five minutes of half time as other teams lose concentration. Chelsea have also won games having conceded first once in every three games they’ve played.

Drogba is the most important player on the pitch
The Ivorian has played a direct part in over half of all Chelsea’s goals, scoring six and contributing four assists. Take that away, what have you got? You get my point.

Three players are shouldering the goal-scoring burden
Together Drogba, Ballack and Anelka are scoring most of the goals – two thirds of them, actually. If one or two more players can chip in with a few more, the season will progress a whole lot more smoothly.

The goals scored to conceded ratio isn’t what it could be
Without scoring heavily, and despite the capitulation at Wigan on Saturday, Chelsea have still scored three times more goals than they have conceded. That’s not actually a bad ratio – better than both the season records for 06/07, 07/08 and 08/09, but not quite as good as 05/06 and far behind the stats for the record breaking season in 04/05 when Chelsea scored five times more goals than they conceded.

Lampard isn’t as deadly
Whether it’s down to diminished form or his new more advanced role is open to debate, but Lampard hasn’t been as effective this season. He’s only scored one goal so far – and that was from the penalty spot. He’s still made an important contribution, however, contributing four assists. Is his lower pass completion rate – just 60% against Fulham, for example – a problem, or just an indication that his more attacking role requires a more adventurous approach?

For a full set of Chelsea team and player season stats broken down by competition, click here. If you think there’s any set of stats that would be useful or interesting to add to this page, let me know and I’ll start recording them.

Chelsea winning run down to revival of three key men

Chelsea’s record breaking start to the season – including a rousing win over local rivals Spurs yesterday – has got fans, journalists and players alike talking up Chelsea’s chances of reclaiming the Premier League title.

At just six games in, it’s a bit early for that – Chelsea started similarly under Scolari last season – but it has been a very encouraging start. Not including the Community Shield, Chelsea have played seven competitive games and won all of them, scoring 16 goals and conceding only 3. Some teams, like local rivals Fulham, were stifled into submission while others, like Sunderland and Burnley, were passed out of the game. Characteristic Chelsea strength, spirit and resolve won the day against Hull and Stoke, while power and skill combined to beat Spurs yesterday.

Without wishing to go over the top, this is a side that has played in a number of different ways and drawn on varying resources to win football matches. The team has played well as a whole and there have been some excellent individual performances too. Carvalho has proved to be worth keeping, avoiding injury so far and putting in a great performance against Stoke, Bosingwa has started this season as he did last and Ballack has started scoring. But, from my perspective, it is the return to form of three key players has paved the way to six league wins out of six.

The most damning indictment on Luiz Felipe Scolari’s time at Stamford Bridge is the complete failure of the Brazilian to get Didier Drogba playing well – or even playing. Presumably due to some kind of personality clash, Scolari decided that the best way to ‘deal with’ what he perceived to be Drogba’s weaknesses was to drop him from the team. He fundamentally misread what Drogba needs to perform well: an ultra-supportive manager. Mourinho wrapped Drogba in cotton wool, told him he was the greatest and made the team revolve around him, and Hiddink’s approach wasn’t dissimilar.

It looks like Ancelotti has selected the right predecessors to emulate. If anything, Drogba has looked better than ever so far this season, scoring five goals from six league games and making five assists (quite exceptional for a striker). The odd drama aside his attitude has been impeccable, too – for me he’s shown far greater willingness to stay on his feet, not question referees and his defensive work has been exceptional (particularly in the Stoke game). On fire as he is now he is entirely unplayable, and provides so much more space for other marauding attacking players such as Anelka, Deco, Lampard and Ballack. I’m going to stick my neck out hugely here and say that, if Ancelotti wants to win silverware this season, the first and most important thing he has to do is keep Drogba fit and hungry.

The Ivorian isn’t the only player in blue to have been rejuvenated this season. Ashley Cole, who like Drogba was starting to come back to his best form under Hiddink, has looked like a world beater since the Hull game. Without setting a foot wrong in defence he has been insatiable in attack, getting forward as he used to with Arsenal. Again like Drogba, his attitude and commitment has been immense, and it’s no surprise that he’s scored three goals in his last seven Premier League games. Not bad for a left back. His constant willingness to bomb down the left has compensated for Chelsea’s lack of width down that side, and allowed Malouda to play a more involved role inside.

Finally, it’s worth mentioning Michael Essien. The Ghanaian returned from injury to great and immediate effect towards the end of last season, but I felt that his form deserted him a little in the last few games. Starting fresh this season however, Essien has added much-needed strength and energy into Chelsea’s often congested midfield, skilfully breaking up play, stealing ten yards and harassing opposition in their own half. He’s not as disciplined as Mikel in terms of protecting the back four, but given freedom to roam he’s a handful. If he’d made more than 11 appearances in the league last season, who knows where Chelsea might have finished.

Before Ancelotti joined Chelsea, there was plenty of paper talk suggesting that his main asset was as a man manager. Milan’s players were supposedly begging him not to leave, desperate not to lose a manager that they also considered a friend. I was somewhat sceptical of his record in Italy but if his defining achievement this season – there are surely other, more tricky problems to come in future years – is to get such improvements as we’ve seen from Drogba, Cole and Essien from the rest of the squad, he’ll have proved a very wise hire indeed.

Preposterous £140k wages make Liverpool's Glen Johnson a great miss for Chelsea

Rather hilariously, the Daily Mail have revealed that Liverpool are playing Glen Johnson a staggering £139,000 a week.

It was widely rumoured that – for some bizarre and unfathomable reason – Chelsea were also competing to re-sign Johnson back in June (along with 50 or so other players), continuing the club’s recent tradition of collecting right backs. The Mail seems convinced that, in order to ensure he wasn’t lured back to West London, Liverpool had to offer him wages of £139k a week, making him probably the highest paid full back in world football and at least on par with the likes of Fernando Torres at Liverpool.

Johnson hasn’t had a bad start at Liverpool (I realise their defence has leaked five goals in three games), and his attacking displays have started to point towards why Benitez was willing to pay Portsmouth £17m for his services. But this is a player who, despite what he has since said, had plenty of chances at Chelsea (50+ appearances) and did not impress defensively, especially when compared to the rock solid Ferreira. I’d wager that as the season progresses Liverpool fans will increasingly come to realise that Johnson is a little naïve at the back and probably not up to it against the very best opposition.

In light of all this, Chelsea ‘having’ to rely on the current meagre options in the squad – Bosingwa, Beletti, Ferreira, Ivanovic – seems to have worked out pretty well. Not only does £139k a week vastly overrate Johnson’s ability, paying him that much would surely have sent Ashley Cole into a new round of tantrums – apparently he’s just been offered only £120k a week…

Chelsea fans – am I wrong and should we have been in for our old right back? Liverpool fans, is he worth £139k a week? Post a comment... 

You might also be interested in reading:

• Chelsea need to abandon their ‘off the shelf’ transfer policy
• A preview of rival Liverpool's chances in 09/10

Fulham 0 Chelsea 2 – a closer look at where the match was won

Chelsea’s away win against Fulham on Sunday was almost as impressive as the victory at Sunderland, but for very different reasons. Whilst the one-sided affair at Sunderland had been all about pass and move, Sunday’s two nil win was a masterclass in stifling, high-pressure football that simply didn’t allow Fulham time and space on the ball. Here we take a brief (but closer) look at how the game was won and the performances of some of the key players.

Whilst the character of the two wins varied greatly, both had their roots in strong defensive performances from the holding midfield player. Mikel certainly didn’t cover the same amount of ground as Essien did against Sunderland – sticking strictly to the middle third only - but defensively he was arguably more influential. Over the course of the 90 minutes Mikel made eight tackles and four interceptions and he was consistent on the ball too, completing a mammoth 94% of his 47 attempted passes. The holding player clearly isn’t a position in which Chelsea lack talent.

But Mikel was playing in a side that lined up differently than it had up in the North East. Ancelotti played no rigid structure on Sunday, but it frequently looked more like a 4-2-3-1 than a 4-3-2-1 formation, with Ballack playing alongside Mikel and Anelka moving out to the right (especially in the first half). Whatever the formation, this was a match that was characterised by Chelsea’s tenacity in midfield with far more tackles and interceptions being made than in the previous fixture (successful tackles: Malouda – 6; Ballack – 2). Fulham repeatedly took the ball into a swamped midfield and couldn’t retain possession, leaving Chelsea’s deeper-lying midfielders free to try and pick out passes to Drogba, Anelka and Lampard.

Interestingly though, the harrying of Fulham when in possession didn’t stop with the midfield. Statistically a huge proportion of goals are scored following mistakes by defenders in their own third, and Drogba and Anelka played a pivotal part in unsettling Fulham’s defence not only with intelligent running off the ball but also by applying pressure. Over the course of the match, Chelsea’s two strikers stole possession a combined total of five times in the final third.

Once again the full backs were very influential, but particularly Ashley Cole who had more touches of the ball than any other Chelsea player and regularly overlapped Malouda (who actually played a lot of the game playing inside) throughout the 90. As I mentioned in my match report yesterday though, we didn’t see the best of Frank Lampard who completed less passes than all of the starting line-up bar Didier Drogba. As someone pointed out in a comment on that post, this doesn’t necessarily matter – if Lampard is creating space for Drogba and Anelka to play in then he’s doing an important job. On the other hand however, it would seem profligate not to find a way to take advantage of his ability to both score and dictate the play. It will be fascinating to see how Ancelotti’s use of Lampard evolves over the next few games.

One final, nit-picking point is about shot accuracy. As against Sunderland, Chelsea arguably could have scored more at the weekend – but of the total 16 strikes on goal only 4 were on target (25%). It’s perhaps worth mentioning that in last season’s games when Chelsea scored four or more the shot accuracy was far higher – 40% on target against Middlesborough (0-5 win), 32% against Arsenal (1-4 win), 45% against Portsmouth (4-0 win) and 40% against Sunderland (5-0 win). I’m not concerned about not putting more past Fulham – and big scores often come with a huge slice of luck - but clearly greater accuracy in front of goal will help the team past the post against more talented sides where chances are at a premium.

Key player stats and facts:

Player	Passes completed	Pass success rate (%)	Successful tackles
Lampard	18	60	0
Ballack	36	86	2
Mikel	44	96	8
Malouda	46	75	6
A. Cole	53	88	6
Bosingwa	47	90	1

You might also be interested to read:

• The tactics that helped Chelsea defeat Sunderland

The top 50 Chelsea players of all time

The Times have recently re-published and updated their list of the top 50 Chelsea players of all time, which makes interesting reading over a lunch break. 

You can’t argue too much with their top three, or probably even their top ten (aside from the 22 stone+ Willie ‘Fatty’ Foulke, perhaps), and the article gets a little bit more credibility in my eyes for its description of Lampard (who comes in at number two):

“There is no argument here: Lampard is quite straightforwardly the best midfield player in England and has been since 2003. He has power, he has vision, he all but guarantees 20 goals per season and he is gifted with a copper constitution which means that he is always there. Steven Gerrard would be nearly this good if only he didn't snap something every time he sneezed.” 

It's well worth a read - they have some interesting things to say about some of the players that really help the memories come flooding back, including:

Ruud Gullit (29th): A toss of the dreadlocks, a quick look up and a 45-yard crossfield pass to the feet of a travelling forward, followed by a noise never before heard from a crowd at Stamford Bridge – a kind of low, approving sigh of contentment. The former World Player of the Year was at least 27 times more comfortable around a football than pretty much everyone else in the league. Eventually, as a manager, he was destined to reveal himself to be an insufferable egotist and lose all available plots.

Vialli (25th): The power, the shot, the shaven head, the V-neck sweaters, the smoking – what wasn’t to like? All together: ‘When the ball hits the back/of the Old Trafford net/that’s Vialli.’  

Pat Nevin (22nd): Able to ‘go mazy’ at the first hint of an opportunity. Heroically attempted to travel to home games on the tube until an encounter with a poorly adjusted Spurs fan convinced him that it might be wiser not to.

Ray Wilkins (21st): Classic, poised and intelligent midfielder and also, quite patently, a lovely bloke. Enjoyed going sideways but there’s nothing in the rules that says you can’t. Not only is Wilkins the only former Chelsea player to feature in a Tango ad, he is also one of only a very small number of Chelsea managers who can claim a 100 per cent record. As he would doubtless put it himself, ‘Super.’

Peter 'the cat' Bonetti (15th): The exquisitely agile goalkeeper was...a pioneer among goalkeepers and today’s proponents pretty much owe to Bonetti’s influence a) coming out for crosses, b) bowling the ball out rather than punting it and c) wearing gloves.

Claude Makalele (8th): This was Florentino Perez, the chairman of Real Madrid, when Makelele left for Chelsea in 2003: ‘We will not miss Makelele. His technique is average, he lacks the speed and skill to take the ball past opponents, and ninety per cent of his distribution either goes backwards or sideways. He wasn't a header of the ball and he rarely passed the ball more than three metres. Younger players will arrive who will cause Makelele to be forgotten.’

Gianfranco Zola (1st): Small but perfectly formed. Clearly a nice man, too. Many nurture a fond dream of Zola, having ironed out the lumps in his coaching style at West Ham, returning in glory to manage Chelsea through a sustained period of unprecedented success during which we are all hugging each other and laughing nearly all the time. But given that 99.9 per cent of managerial careers end in disappointment, perhaps it would be better if he didn’t and we were just left with the memories. Which are great, by the way.

There are a few interesting omissions though. No Frank Leboeuf? No Didier Drogba? Could have considered Poyet and Joe Cole, too. I may have been tempted to shift Gullit, Petrescu and Di Matteo up the list a little… Still, these things are always very subjective, as proved by the comments left by fans, many of whom bemoan the lack of Hughes, Myers, Ambrosetti, Hutchinson, Webb and Venables, among others in the top 50.

Oh, and kudos to the Times’ team for putting Winston Bogarde in at number 50. Nice.

The Times’ top ten Chelsea players:

10) Willie Foulke
9) Roy Bentley
8) Claude Makalele
7) George Hilsdon
6) Ron Harris
5) John Terry
4) Bobby Tambling
3) Peter Osgood
2) Frank Lampard
1) Gianfranco Zola

What do you think? Who would make your top 10? Post a comment…

The tactics that helped Chelsea embarrass Sunderland

Chelsea and Liverpool were both hugely impressive midweek, convincingly beating Sunderland and Stoke respectively. Rather amusingly, a Ronaldo-less Man Utd stumbled to a one nil loss to mighty Burnley. Ahead of Sunday’s game at Fulham, I’m taking a more in-depth look at how the Sunderland game really was won, what players were most influential and briefly comparing the performance to those of Chelsea’s closest rivals.

Much has been made – and rightfully so for a one off performance – of the high standard of Chelsea’s passing game on Tuesday. In the second half especially the football was pleasing on the eye, the movement was great and the middle three of Ballack, Deco and Lampard appeared to be having a field day. 

The stats back that impression up, with 495 successful passes being made and an 86% passing success rate. But whilst it was the more forward thinking of Chelsea’s central midfield that caught the eye, it perhaps isn’t surprising that it was the deeper lying Essien that was Chelsea’s engine room. The Ghanaian attempted 82 passes over the 90 minutes and misplaced only three of them – a staggering 96% success rate – and he was rock on which Chelsea’s rapid use of the ball in the right areas of the pitch was built. Essien rarely made forays into the final third but covered pretty much every other blade of grass. Unsurprisingly, aside from Bosingwa he was also the player most likely to break up Sunderland attacks, making 5 successful tackles.

As it turns out, the positions of the players in front of Essien – and the ground they were asked to cover – weren’t quite as we had anticipated before kick-off. Chelsea played in what looked like a 4-3-2-1 formation, with Ballack and Lampard playing slightly ahead of Essien and Kalou and Deco slotting in behind Drogba. It was a highly fluid formation, with regular interchanging of positions contributing to Sunderland’s struggle to pick up the runs of Deco and Lampard in particular, who both covered more square yardage than Ballack and Kalou who were more likely to stick to the inside right channel. 

It wasn’t until Malouda was introduced on 75 minutes however that any real width (save Bosingwa occasionally getting down the right) was brought into Chelsea’s play – the Frenchman completed only 8 passes but almost all of them were made within 5 yards of the touchline. It didn’t matter however – Chelsea’s neat passing in midfield was more than a match for Sunderland’s rearguard.

As I mentioned in the match report, the one negative to come from the game was perhaps the number of chances that were spurned by slightly off-key finishing. Of Chelsea’s 26 shots, only five were on target – in their game against Stoke, Liverpool managed to steer nine out of twenty goal-wards. Had Drogba had his shooting boots on, the score could have been embarrassing (as opposed to just the balance of play).

They’re only stats, but Chelsea’s stand up pretty well against those of recent Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal performances. Liverpool may have played very well to smash four past Stoke without reply, but they completed 50 less passes that the Blues. United’s pass completion rate was abysmal and, without Ronaldo, their usual source of countless free-kicks dried up (Stoke only gave away three). Most surprisingly, Arsenal may have scored six against Everton, but in that game they completed 30% less passes than Chelsea did against Sunderland. So much for the best passing football in the league, eh?

Formation-wise, maybe Ancelotti just plans to use the Christmas tree away from home, or perhaps he’s still experimenting to find the best formation. Either way, it’s encouraging to see the team be able to adapt to different tactics and different opponents. Fulham should present a very different threat on Sunday and will be harder to break down than Sunderland however, so – whatever formation Ancelotti chooses, Chelsea will need to pick up where they left off last Tuesday.

Key player stats and facts:

Player	Passes completed	Pass success rate (%)	Successful tackles
Lampard	43	78	3
Ballack	49	90	3
Essien	79	96	5
Deco	40	77	4
Terry	67	99	2
Bosingwa	61	84	7

Loan watch: Chelsea's Sinclair and Mancienne get off to solid starts at Wigan and Wolves

I’ve posted quite a bit on Chelsea’s youth policy – and it’s results – over the past month or so, largely bemoaning the lack of both players breaking through and opportunities for those who are showing promise.

Despite my general negativity, there are a few younger players who are on the cusp of making the standard and a few of them have made loan moves to Premier League clubs this season: Di Santo (Blackburn), Sinclair (Wigan) and Mancienne (Wolves).

Both Sinclair and Mancienne have been out on loan before, but this is the first opportunity they both have to get Premier League football and I’d like to keep an eye on how they’re getting along. As Wigan and Wolves clashed at the JJB on Tuesday, it seemed an opportune moment.

Michael Mancienne

Having joined them on loan before, Wolves fans are very familiar with Mancienne and tend to be big admirers of the youngster. Word on the street is that he was a little nervy on his first Premier League outing with the club on Saturday as they crashed to a two nil home loss to Zola’s West Ham (he played 67 minutes before being substituted). The media’s opinion him was divided however, with the Sun rating his performance at a not-too-shabby 7/10 and the Times 5/10.

It went slightly better for Wolves against Wigan on Tuesday however as they ran out one nil winners. Again, the Sun was glowing about Mancienne’s performance, rating it at 8/10, and football fans rated him the second best player on the pitch (with a score of 7.3) on the Daily Telegraph website.

After the game, Wigan fans took the time to post on a popular Wolves forum on how impressed they were with Mancienne’s performance. Some of the comments included: “Mancienne and Craddock played very well, the few times we challenged them they came out on top every time” and “Mancienne looked very good I thought”.

Wolves fans on the forum were generally impressed with their loan signing too, despite one assertion that “he needs to get out of the superstar mentality asap…he had a bad game on Saturday”. One fan took a contrasting view, suggesting “he’s a young lad with his feet firmly on the ground, he did ok against the threat of Carlton Cole on Saturday, we got a good hour out of him”. Another supporter probably took it too far: “Mancienne is the new Beckenbauer! What was he doing at the end trying to beat Wigan on his own?”

Scott Sinclair

Sinclair hasn’t had the benefit as the same amount of game time as Mancienne, and as such probably hasn’t had the opportunity to make similar impact. In both of Wigan’s games so far – the opening day win over Aston Villa and the following loss to Wolves – he’s been brought on for 30 minutes as an impact substitute and the Sun rated both as 5/10 performances. Reportedly against Villa he looked good, taking players on with confidence. This was in the context of a two nil lead however, and he was less impressive against Wigan, even contriving to head wide a good chance to level the scores in the dying moments of the game.

All that said, Wigan fans’ early opinion seems to be optimistic. On one fans’ forum, Wiganer.net, produced gushing praise for the winger, including: “This lad looked good, a few times he seemed to just waltz past defenders. Do you think we have any hope of making his move permanent?” and “After yesterday he will defo be an awesome signing. Get this boy signed up”. Most encouraging – and I don’t know how much experience Wigan fans have of the world’s most talented players – one fan said: “he looks very promising and will develop to be a world class player”.

Of course, there’s a very long way to go and (hopefully) both Sinclair and Mancienne will get plenty more time to learn their trade at the top level and show us what they’re capable of. We’ll keep an eye on all the players out on loan and try and keep you updated at how they’re getting on.

Are you happy with these two going out on loan? Wolves and Wigan fans – how do you rate your loan signings?

You might also be interested to read:

• Chelsea struggling to attract best young talent as Jonjo Shelvey knocks the Blues back
• Arnesen’s failures lie at the heart of Chelsea’s future

John Terry Update

We were all waiting for the rumours to start on the outcome of John Terry's discussions with the Club today.  So far nothing, but we'll keep you posted as soon as we hear anything.  Whatever the result, JT hasn't yet felt the need to reassure fans as to his future.  The Independent has an interesting take on Terry's position: they're attributing his departure to two factors - the first is money, but surprisingly the second is ambition.

"The England captain's restlessness is not just about the money on offer from City - though that undoubtedly plays a part - but also the ambition that Ambramovich is prepared to show in buying the kind of players who can seriously challenge again for the Premier League and Champions League...  Terry is understood to be doubtful about the potential of a club that has not come close to competing with City this summer, much less Real Madrid, in the acquisition of new players."

Really? If so, I'm stunned.  Terry should remember that we've come pretty close to winning the Premiership and Champions League for the past couple of years, missed penalties aside.  (Sorry, low blow, and I don't really mean it - I respect the man no-end for having the balls to stand up when needed.)  If The Independent's source is accurate, it seems likely that JT's conversations with the Club will be about our plans for the transfer window, as well as the size of his pay packet.  Terry's certainly got the power to influence club plans - I'm sure you'll all remember the furore caused by Makele's claim in his biography that Terry gave Ambramovich a Mourinho-or-me ultimatum - one that the Armani-clad manager lost (though it must be said that Terry has strongly denied these claims).

The talk coming from Chelsea implies that we're not going to willingly sell him, so if JT is to leave he will have to make continued life at the Bridge untenable, perhaps even putting in a transfer request.  My gut still says that this won't happen, and much of this is just paper talk.  But I'm starting to lose my faith.  Fingers crossed JT's around for long enough to help me believe again.

Chelsea FC: Transfer Gossip

Those of you who read yesterday's Fiver will already have seen the rather amusing commentary around Zhirkov's pre-destined arrival at the Bridge:

New Chelsea signing Yuri Zhirkov is worried his lack of English will hold him back at Stamford Bridge.  "Abramovich came to our [CSKA Moscow] dressing room to congratulate the team on winning the Russian Cup Final in May 2006.  Then, he suddenly turned to me and said, 'Yuri, start learning English'.  I didn't say anything, just smiled.  Unfortunately, I still have not learnt the language.  Now I know I should have taken his advice more seriously."

Perhaps he could take lessons with Carlo?

The Sun today reported that John Terry has demanded talks with Abramovich to discuss his contract.  Apparently his silence over Man City's bid is not so much because he's secretly planning a move north-wards, but instead because he intends to use City's interest as leverage to enhance his current £115k-a-week contract.  Rumour has it he's not happy that Frank's contract (signed last summer) is richer at £135k-a-week.  I love JT, and have always been a massive admirer, but he's fast becoming injury prone, is unlikely to age well given his back and lack-of-pace issues, and has always been dependent on a strong partner alongside him.  Given he hasn't come out to declare his loyalty to Chelsea, should we really be upping his contract by another £20/30k a week at this stage in his career?  If he's willing to call our bluff and go to Man City for a bit of extra cash, he may not be the man I thought he was...

And finally, The Times is reporting that we're still in the market for Ribery.  Given that Real Madrid have stated that they've been priced out of buying him, it seems crazy to suggest that we'll be prepared to splash enough cash.  But this is football, and stranger things have certainly happened...

Chelsea squad review 08/09: Part I

For all the talk of finances, managers and formations, football basically boils down to eleven men (uniformly dressed in a shade you'd never choose to wear in public) frantically shuffling a ball towards a net suspended between two posts and a bar.  The quality of these eleven players determines how frantically and with what frequency the ball is shuffled over the line.

Long-winded way of saying that football is about players.  So, as part of the series of posts looking back at the 08/09 season, here's the first part of bridgeviews' squad review - a focus on the defence.

Man Utd's impressive new record for most consecutive clean sheets, and the subsequent Van der Saar love-in, contrived to deflect from the fact that Chelsea's defence was the joint-best in the league.

Chelsea's defence was blighted by injury for the third season in a row, depriving us of any consistency at the back, and making the number of goals conceded all the more impressive.  The season also saw the sad departure of Wayne Bridge, the renaissance of Ashley Cole, and the emergence of Alex, alongside different but equally impressive contributions from Bosingwa and Ivanovic.  Terry, who has set such high standards, had his best season since Chelsea last won the league. 

Here's a brief look at each player in turn.

Cech: consistently high performer, a mid to late season blip caused undue scrutiny of his form.  It's difficult to imagine a signing Chelsea could make that would put his place in the side under threat.

Cole: best season in blue by a margin, defensively excellent and back to his attacking best under both Scolari and Hiddink.  With Wayne Bridge's departure his upcoming contract extension becomes all the more important.

Terry: some question marks were raised about Terry's performances last season as he lost some of the composure that had made him one of the best in the world.  Back to his combative best, a handful of his performances single-handedly kept Chelsea in games that we might have otherwise have lost.

Alex: while sometimes guilty of suspect judgement, Alex has been the biggest surprise in the defence this season.  Excellent in the air, a wicked shot, and his reading of the game is much improved.  A good bet to be first choice as Terry's partner in 09/10.

Carvalho: undoubted quality - on his day the best defender at the club.  Injuries have severely blighted his season however, and when coupled with Alex's improvement he must be a candidate for the transfer list.

Bosingwa: such a shame the second half of his season didn't match the first.  Excellent attacking performances dwindled, but he still made an important contribution.  Defensively suspect at times, he's got a lot to learn in the Premier League, but it's only his first season...

Ivanovic: haven't seen much of the Serb, but his performances at right-back against Liverpool in the Champions League proved he has more than enough quality to remain an important squad player.  Versatility is a major asset.

Question marks for next season: a place in the squad for Belletti and Ferreira? Chelsea seem to be collecting right-backs and younger players need to be given an opportunity above ageing third string players.  Sad to see both leave, especially with Belletti's goals this season.  Cash in?

Look out for: Mancienne to make more appearances next season.  Could he be the next Chelsea youngster to make it through the ranks?

What do you think?  Post a comment.

What does Ronaldo going to Madrid mean for Chelsea?

As I sit in front of my tv watching South Africa take us apart in the cricket, I've begun to wonder about the effect that the sale of Ronaldo (assuming it goes ahead) will have on the rest of the league.  There's been a lot of chat about the impact on United, but it's pretty obvious that this is going to effect the rest of us as well.

Impact on Chelsea's chances in the league:
The Good:  Ronaldo leaving makes Utd a worse side.  In the 08/09 season he scored in the League, Cup and FA Cup at a staggering rate of more than one every two games.  Not such a great record in the Champions League, but four goals in 12 games is hardly disappointing.  And we all know the previous season was even better: he scored 31 goals in just 34 League appearances, and eight goals in 11 games in Europe.  This is a man who will be missed.  Replacing that many goals (not to mention those he creates) is going to be hugely difficult.  Beyond that Ronaldo is a remarkably versatile player to have in your squad - he can play upfront and on either wing. 
The Bad: Ronaldo just wasn't interested in playing for United any more.  And as Sir Alex has done so many times before, they're going to cash in at exactly the right time, and fill the transfer kitty for probably the next couple of seasons.  Just think of who you could buy for £80M.  Drogba, Anelka, Essien, Cech for instance.  Or, as one newspaper suggested, you could probably get yourself a 55,000 seater training ground in the north-east of England.  The cash is certainly going to help them shore up a couple of weak spots.
Result:  We're going to have to wait to see how this plays out.  For now it's a score-draw.

Impact on Chelsea's chances in the Champions League:
The Good: If United do end up a weaker side that obviously works in our favour, and Barcelona having to concentrate on the League at least occassionally is probably not bad news either.
The Bad:  To state the obvious, Chelsea (and every other side in the Champions League) is going to be facing a significantly improved Real Madrid next season.  We're going to have to see whether they stay true to form and neglect their defence, but no doubt they're going to get goals, and plenty of them.  Jose's going to start working his magic on Inter at some point too.  Good for the Champions League (and no doubt Platini will be thrilled that it's a proper club spending stupid money as opposed to unwanted upstarts like us), but it's gonna get a lot tougher for us to crack this nut
Result:  Uh-oh.  Definitely bad news.

Impact on the transfer market:
The Good:  Difficult to find a single reason for this move to go down as good.  Maybe (surely...) it runs down some of Madrid's cash.  Looking at the Premier League, the transfer might be good news if Utd spend the cash in England.  There are lots of clubs who could use the money if Utd identify one of their players as the next big thing.  Not sure how likely this is though, at the moment it looks like the money's much more likely to end up at Bayern Munich or Valencia. 
The Bad:  Where do I start?  Madrid are massively inflating prices this season.  Kaka's worth £56M?  Ronaldo's worth £80M?  Well in that case Ribery's worth £65M.  Any wonder we can't afford him?  They're totally pricing us out of the market for players that in the last couple of years (if Roman had wanted to splash the cash) we might have been able to entice.  Then there's the fact that United are now cash rich.  And with the last three Premier League titles and a Champions League trophy from 2008, they've got the pulling power too (unlike their cash-rich neighbours).  As I mentioned earlier, rumour has it that they're now chasing Ribery.  Can we compete?
Result:  Almost as bad as being an Andorran defender...

All in all, not sure this is looking like good news for us.  We can hope that Utd won't spend the money well (or won't spend the money at all), and that Real Madrid will play lovely attacking football every time they play, but always concede four.  But somehow it all seems a bit unlikely.  None of this has touched on the really good news though.  There's a lot we really won't miss about Ronaldo: his preening, spoilt-child imitations, play-acting, show-boating, and that ridiculous run-up for free kicks...  Funny that lots of Utd fans are saying the same thing now he's off...

One more goal for Frank, please

Frank Lampard was awarded the player of the year award last week, courtesy of the fans vote. In a year of uneven performances from the team, Frank has been the epitome of consistency. 

 

Surprisingly though, he currently sits one goal tantalisingly short of the 20 goal mark for the season - something he has achieved in each of the previous three. He looked like he was desperate to get that 20th goal in the game against Blackburn. Fingers crossed he gets it today - he deserves it.

 

Lampard's Chelsea record in goals:

 

01/02 - 7

02/03 - 8

03/04 - 15

04/05 - 19

05/06 - 20

06/07 - 21

07/08 - 20

Most improved Malouda?

To use the tired cliché, Florent has somewhat had a season of two halves.

 

It’s strange – back in 2007 he joined Chelsea and made an immediate impact in his first competitive game against Utd in the Charity Shield. He looked a typical Mourinho signing: a bit of pace and skill, but with strength as his defining attribute. I very distinctly remember him shrugging off one or two Man Utd defenders to reach the ball first and score his first goal for the club from a tight angle. See it here.

 

All that proved a false dawn – the rest of the 07/08 season saw him stumble into intense mediocrity and 08/09 under Scolari was no different. As a fan he was beyond infuriating, his stubborn refusal to take responsibility, try and beat a man or even just attempt positive play made him an almost entirely redundant member of the team. By comparison, Kalou’s always positive approach meant I overlooked his limitations.

Six months on, we’re approaching a close season in which we all expected Malouda to be shown the door. But after a reversal of epic proportions it would now be more surprising to see him leave. He hasn’t shown extra skill in my book: but it’s his attitude that’s made him a better player. Now he’ll look forward rather than backwards. Now he’ll make a driving run towards the byline or take a shot at goal. A rush of goals in the last couple of months mean he’s averaged a goal every four games over the season: respectable, and something Joe Cole hasn’t achieved since 05/06. He’s a nailed-on starter for tomorrow’s cup final.

 

Kalou, on the other hand, has turned suddenly from a player with potential to a player who hasn’t started to deliver on that promise.

 

Maybe Malouda’s revitalisation is down to Guus’ coaching, and there’s a potential worry that he’s only improved as the stakes have got higher on the pitch. Regardless, for me Malouda is the Chelsea player who has improved the most over the last 12 months. Do you agree? Let me know who else might deserve the accolade…

 

Oh, and Florent, if you’re reading this: no offence, but think the hair through again mate. Just a suggestion.

 

Malouda in stats:

07/08 – 36 appearances, 3 goals

08/09 – 43 appearances, 11 goals