bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

The five games that really won Chelsea the Premier League

A few newspapers and websites have tried to identify the most influential matches in securing the title for Chelsea – here’s my attempt. There are some obvious suggestions, but a couple that the others haven’t thought of. And so, in reverse order…

5. Chelsea 2 Hull 1
Cast your mind back to a warm afternoon on Saturday 15 August. The dazzling sunshine seemed to somehow give credence to the idea that, under Ancelotti, there would be a new Chelsea with a bright future on show.

As it was, a lax display against Hull in this first game of the season at Stamford Bridge led to fans’ enthusiasm quickly being replaced with frustration. Hull actually went ahead, through the much-loved Stephen Hunt, and Chelsea laboured back into contention with Didier Drogba goal. As the game entered injury time – and just as it looked like Chelsea would drop their first points of the season against unfancied opposition - Drogba popped up again to score a fortunate winner.

I criticised Ancelotti for a lack of decisiveness and activity from the bench and bemoaned a performance that showed the worst of the old Chelsea. With retrospect however, it was an important opening day win. Chelsea won the next five Premier League games on the spin, scoring thirteen goals and conceding only one, establishing themselves as early favourites for the title.

4. Portsmouth 0 Chelsea 5
If the defeat at Stamford Bridge to Mourinho’s Inter was a kick in the teeth, Diouf’s equaliser only days later for Blackburn was a kick in the team’s collective ribs – and when they were down. It looked inevitable that the Champions League exit had precipitated a slide into end-of-season mediocrity.

The following game against struggling Portsmouth nipped that idea in the bud. An underwhelming first half performance – in which Chelsea still managed to finish with a lead due to a David James howler – was followed by a four-goal blitzkrieg in which Malouda was particularly effective.

The five nil win was a much-needed confidence boost as Chelsea entered the final furlong, and marked the beginning of a string of high-scoring matches. Most significantly, it was a sign that the Chelsea backbone was still intact and laid a marker for the Premier League run-in.

3. Arsenal 0 Chelsea 3
November 2009: Chelsea were comfortable leaders at the top of the table and looked on course to run away with the league. Aside from a tetchy encounter with Man Utd at Stamford Bridge however, Ancelotti’s men had been largely unchallenged and hadn’t played any of the so-called ‘big four’ away from home.

Many pundits thought that the visit to the Emirates would see the Chelsea juggernaut knocked off course: Arsenal were playing good football, Fabregas was on fire and Chelsea hadn’t been tested. Furthermore, Chelsea had showed signs of weakness away from home.

Those pundits were well wrong. This was as one-sided a contest as you’ll see between teams in the top four of the Premier League, with Chelsea’s men beating Arsenal’s boys with energy in reserve. Drogba, who according to Wenger ‘didn’t do much’, was imperious, and bullied the Arsenal defence into defeat with two immaculate goals. Chelsea looked unstoppable.

2. Chelsea 7 Sunderland 2
If August, September and November had been great, December was awful. Chelsea played a huge number of games and a string of draws and losses suggested the ageing team was creaking under the strain. First place in the league was under threat, and media soothsayers were circling with warnings of the famous post-Christmas Man Utd charge.

Adding to the anxiety was the forthcoming African Cup of Nations: the argument went that, shorn of Drogba, Essien, Kalou and Mikel, Chelsea would struggle to recapture title-winning form.

As it was, January went without a hitch, and Chelsea steamrollered all-comers. The win at Sunderland stood-out, with a seven goal haul sending a message to nay-sayers that there was the strength and depth required at Chelsea to manage without the African contingent.

Contrary to the prophecies of doom, the African Cup of Nations was arguably the best thing that happened to Chelsea all season. Chelsea were denied some of their best players, yes, but it was during a period of relatively easy games. More significantly, Drogba’s absence led to Ancelotti reverting to the tried and trusted 4-3-3 that would form the backbone of Chelsea’s goal-scoring title charge.

1. Manchester Utd 1 Chelsea 2
Both at the time and in hindsight this was a must-win game. With the stakes sky high, Ancelotti made the huge decision to leave top-scorer Drogba on the bench, and it paid off.

There was only one team in the game in the first half, and Chelsea opened the scoring through a delightful Joe Cole backheel. The second half saw a rejuvenated Man Utd rarely threaten the Chelsea net, although it was uncharacteristic good luck that refereeing errors (which were evenly spread across both sides) didn’t end up going Utd’s way.

The win gave Chelsea a four-point advantage, which turned out to be the deciding factor just a couple of weeks later when Spurs outclassed the Blues at White Hart Lane.

What do you think – have I missed a more important Chelsea result or performance? Or were there more pivotal results for rivals elsewhere that swung it in Chelsea’s favour? Post a comment…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Chelsea fans should support Liverpool this evening

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remaining fixtures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might also be interested to read:

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

Drogba v. Rooney: Chelsea's Ivorian still has edge over Man Utd striker

However this season’s Premier League finishes, people will look back over the year at how two of the best strikers in the world have dominated proceedings for their clubs.

Earlier in the season I debated what evidence there was for Drogba, Rooney or Torres being the best striker in the league, and praised Drogba for being the most effective. Since then, even the most biased Chelsea fan would have to admit that Rooney has been on an incredible run of form and has proved prolific in front of goal. He now has four more goals in the league than Drogba, and effectively rendering the loss of Ronaldo irrelevant has been no mean feat.

Looking at the stats though, the difference between the two is too close to call. On average Rooney has scored a league goal every 95 minutes, Drogba has taken five minutes longer (a goal every 100 minutes). If you take into account assists though (Drogba has made nine compared with Rooney’s five) Drogba ‘contributes’ a goal every 71 minutes compared with one every 80 for Rooney.

Stats like this, of course, tell only one part of the story. Man Utd fans will point to Rooney’s other contributions to the team – for example his all action style, leadership, tracking-back and tackling. Chelsea fans of course would do the same for their man: he has probably been Chelsea’s most reliable defender from set pieces, he is one of the team’s most vocal leaders, he plays his game in the middle and out wide and his strength creates invaluable space for the likes of Anelka and Malouda.

So whilst these stats point to both strikers being almost equally balanced, I looked for other ways to compare their performance. Looking back over Drogba’s four goals against Arsenal this season, it occurred to me to compare which player scores most frequently against higher quality opponents. In this comparison, Drogba comes out comfortably ahead.

Flat track bullies?
So far this season, just over half (55%)of all Drogba’s 22 league goals have come against teams currently in the bottom half of the table. By comparison, 69% - or 18 – of Rooney’s goals have come against teams currently placed 11^th or below. Elsewhere, just 14% (3) of the Ivorian’s goals have come against the bottom three, while well over a third of Rooney’s (38%) have come against those currently in the relegation places. In fact, nine of Rooney’s 26 goals have come in the four matches Man Utd have played against Portsmouth and Hull.

Making it tough at the top?
Drogba’s record so far against teams higher in the table is impressive: 23% of his goals have come against top four opposition. Rooney has only scored three goals against the top four (12%). In total, less than a third (31%) of Rooney’s goals have come against teams in the top half of the league. While Rooney still has an opportunity to score against Chelsea to come, Drogba will face both United and Liverpool before the season is through.

Looking more broadly than just the percentages – and trying to give some proportional value to scoring against teams of different ability – I looked at giving each goal scored a number of points based on the league position of the team against which it was scored. I’m no mathematician, but giving a range of points from 20 (for each goal scored against the team currently placed first in the table, Man Utd) to one (for each goal scored against the team currently 20^th in the table, Portsmouth), seemed the fairest way.

Allotting points in this way, Drogba comes out on top again by a significant margin, scoring 220 ‘points’ to Rooney’s 181 (see table – click to enlarge).

Of course, in pointing to which player has been the most effective this season all these stats are flawed in some way. Firstly, not all games have been played, so whilst Drogba might have more games against better opposition to come, Rooney could well score hatfuls more against mid-table opponents still on Utd’s fixture list. More significantly, form changes everything too: one team’s resistance against Man Utd or Chelsea could be entirely different from one end of the season to the other. That also means that teams may have been in vastly different league positions. Furthermore, both players play in different sides who rely on them to varying degrees. Finally, I haven’t been able to look at goals scored in competitions other than the Premier League.

Nevertheless, the stats are indicative, and tell a part of the story that anecdote and opinion can’t reach. At the very least, they demonstrate how the number of goals in the ‘scored’ column alone doesn’t necessarily give the whole picture. Rooney will almost certainly win the key player of the year awards in the weeks to come – and those awards will be well deserved. But Drogba has been similarly unplayable and deserves equal recognition: the pre-World Cup hype of the English media and Chelsea’s recent decline shouldn’t colour judgement of his season come May.

Who would you have had in your team this season? Chelsea fans – would you exchange this season’s Drogba for Rooney? Maybe you’d exchange Drogba’s goals for less red cards and aggro from UEFA… Post a comment!

Odious Tevez adds to the farce with pointless outburst on Chelsea's John Terry

As if his behaviour during Saturday’s game wasn’t enough, Carlos Tevez has added further fuel to John Terry/ Wayne Bridge fire, a fire which had otherwise seemed to calm in recent days.

Denying that his squaring up to the Chelsea captain in the second half of Saturday’s clash had anything to do with Wayne Bridge (and who would doubt him?) the Argentine paragon of virtue went on to say in the Sun:

“It’s complicated to say something about what Terry did to Bridge. I don’t think you can do that with the wife of another player. In my opinion, Terry has no moral code for what he did.” He continued: “In my neighbourhood if you do that, you lose your legs, or more – you don’t survive”.

It’s interesting that Tevez places moral judgement on John Terry and the supposed brutal dearth of a moral code in his ‘neighbourhood’, all in one sentence. It is a pathetic, needless and rather childish attack.

The diminutive City player then turned his attention to Ballack and, unlike most footballers on the planet, didn’t shy away from revealing his hatred for another player. “I have always had problems with Ballack…it is just football, not personal issues between us. I don’t know, maybe he doesn’t like me, as I don’t like him. On the field, I have never understood what he is saying to me, but I am sure he didn’t understand me either”. He seems to have taken normal on-pitch banter – which I suspect Ballack is pretty good at - none too well.

So Tevez, you don’t like Terry or Ballack. Well we don’t like you either (I can be childish too). It’s a shame that Tevez has revealed himself as such an obnoxious, odious individual, both on the pitch – we remember the Champions League final - and off it, because in fits and starts he was quite brilliant against Chelsea on Saturday. 

As we have seen with some of Chelsea’s own (Drogba in previous years springs to mind), a player’s conduct is often more influential than their footballing ability when it comes to people forming an opinion of him. City fans won’t care – and why should they – but Tevez may just be getting it wrong.

A quick note: sorry to regular readers for bridgeviews.co.uk going under the radar over the last few weeks. All sorts of un-fun things have been going on has meant I haven’t been able to devote any time to it (I have kept the stats page up-to-date here, though). Anyway, hopefully there will be more times over the coming weeks. Anyone have any thoughts on either Tevez or the last few weeks? Please post a comment…

No Mr Wenger, Chelsea did give Arsenal a 'football demonstration'

Wenger’s post-match comments yesterday seemed unfathomable following another defeat to Chelsea, but he gives himself little choice but to adopt such a stubborn demeanour. In the face of such a carbon-copy defeat in which Arsenal’s weaknesses were again so clinically exposed, the Frenchman really has nothing left to fall back on but a defence of footballing aesthetics.

Despite the scoreline – the second time this season his team have failed to score past Petr Cech – Wenger nevertheless insisted his team were ‘completely dominant’ at Stamford Bridge yesterday.

He said: “You have to congratulate Chelsea but we did not get a demonstration of football. But Chelsea were very efficient. We had mountains of possession and could not create it into a goal. We had 70 per cent of the possession. We were not running after the ball for 90 minutes. We were not in a position where we were dominated. We were always in an attacking position and had to risk things going wrong. Our spirit was great. I am completely happy with the performance and the spirit.”

Wenger also added: “They (Chelsea) are very experienced at the back. They make the foul at the right part of the pitch, in the middle of the pitch, to stop a counter-attack. A little push, not enough to be a yellow card. They have a lot of tricks and are very experienced. They do that very well. They got one or two decisions from the referee."

It is Wenger’s suggestion that Chelsea did not give a ‘demonstration of football’ that is, to me, most telling. To him there is only one definition for the game, one way in which it should be played. Whilst we should respect the football that his Arsenal side sometimes produce, the weaknesses in his team created by his single-mindedness should be met by derision in equal measure.

It’s often written about, but in contrast to their north London rivals Chelsea offer a far more complete brand of football. Ancelotti’s team – yes, to an extent courtesy of some very significant expenditure between 2003 and 2006 – have a rich blend of skill, pace, tactical maturity, composure and strength. Against the better teams, Arsenal seem only capable of bringing the first two to the table, and in those circumstances only a perfect performance is likely to yield results.

Chelsea certainly weren’t at their best yesterday, but their more complete brand of football – centred around a club ethos that values winning first - saw them through. That’s not to say of course that there weren’t glittering performances across the pitch: Lampard’s distribution was excellent, and his commitment in the tackle exemplary. Ballack’s radar was occasionally a little off, but he was tireless in midfield and must have covered more ground than any other player. Mikel’s first 45 minutes were probably his best for the club, and the defence – particularly Ashley Cole – were a picture of concentration and professionalism.

And, of course, it was a superlative performance from Drogba, who is surely the league’s best player this season despite Rooney’s reinvigorated showings.

Arsenal did dominate possession (although nothing like to the extent Wenger suggested at around 58%) and yes, they did show good spirit, but both are immaterial. Chelsea knew how to play them and set their stall out to render that possession and spirit redundant in the knowledge that if it didn’t work for Arsenal the game was there for the taking. Both teams had similar numbers of shots on goal yesterday, but it’s no coincidence that Chelsea managed four more inside the penalty box than Arsenal.

So actually – and contrary to Wenger’s assertions – it was Chelsea that gave the ‘footballing demonstration’ to Arsenal yesterday. It was a demonstration of football being all that it can be: a pass, a tackle, a driving run into the box, a steadfast concentration in defence or an intelligent ploy to break an opponent’s move down. Who knows, next time the teams line up against big four opposition it might all click for Arsenal and they’ll get the win they’re looking for - but it remains unlikely while Wenger refuses to play the percentages.

After yesterday’s elation at Stamford Bridge, long may his obduracy continue.

Premier League prediction: Champions Chelsea 85 points, Man Utd 83, Arsenal 80

By virtue of the weather, Chelsea found themselves knocked off top spot in the Premier League last week as Arsenal swept Bolton aside at the Emirates. In turn, Manchester Utd scored four against a hapless Hull to secure the lead for themselves at the weekend whilst Chelsea and Arsenal concerned themselves with the FA Cup –with varying degrees of success.

Those football fans expecting a form of pass the parcel to kick-off at the top of the table – much as has been the case with fourth place – are likely to be disappointed as the season progresses. Games in hand should even themselves out in the next couple of weeks, by which point we’ll probably have a far greater idea of where the Premier League trophy will end up come May.

Well that’s my view at least. A disappointing December eroded the optimism I had uncharacteristically built up about Chelsea’s chances and, despite outstanding performances against Watford and Sunderland (and a professional one against Preston), I’m still harbouring concerns that Chelsea will have to be at their most consistent best to win the league this year. Unlike many, I refuse to write United off and still see them as the most likely destination for the trophy alongside Ancelotti’s Chelsea. Begrudgingly I also have to admit that, in addition to playing some quality football, Arsenal have looked more threatening this year.

But I decided to put this pessimism to the test – to try and find out where it was coming from. I looked up the BBC’s Premier League predictor – which allows you to input scores for each of the remaining games this season and calculate the final league table. Did my pessimism match what I thought each individual result would be?

As it turns out, I’m really not that pessimistic. After predicting who-knows-how-many results for forthcoming Premier League games, I was almost surprised to see that, at least subconsciously, I still expect to see John Terry lifting the title for Chelsea come the end of this season.

My predictions led to Chelsea finishing top of the table with 85 points, Man Utd finishing second with 83 and Arsenal third with 78. Liverpool get fourth place by virtue of finishing with 69 points, four points ahead of Villa. For those more concerned about the bottom of the table, I had Bolton, Portsmouth and Hull as the unlucky three due relegation.

Coincidentally, 85 points is pretty much the figure Chelsea are on course for at the moment (I keep a record of what Chelsea’s potential points total could be, based on results to date, on the Chelsea stats page here). It wouldn’t be the highest points total in history, but it’s been a strange season in the Premier League. 

There’s room for manoeuvre, too – the total figure includes only draws with Birmingham (home), Arsenal (home), Everton (away), Man United (away), Man City (home), Spurs (away) and Liverpool (away). It does however rely on beating Aston Villa at home and anticipates going the rest of the season unbeaten: on recent evidence, highly unlikely.

Of course my final tally also relies on Chelsea’s closest rivals dropping points, too. I supposed that Arsenal would drop points to Villa (away), Man United (home), Stoke (away), Birmingham (away), Spurs (away), Fulham (home) and Man City (home). I reckoned Utd would drop points to Villa (away), Everton (away), Liverpool (home), Arsenal (away) and Man City (away).

There are some fairly big assumptions in there, and it’s almost guaranteed that Arsenal and Man Utd won’t drop points in so many games. But nevertheless I still surprised myself with my own optimism – so who knows what the end result will be. But, with Chelsea temporarily (we hope) falling to third, the chase is most certainly on…

It’s obviously a flawed way of predicting who will claim the title, but no less than any other. I’m keen for Chelsea fans to fill out their own <honest> predictions for the rest of the season on the BBC predictor here. Come back here and post the top four as you predict it, with final points scores, below: let’s see how optimistic we are collectively…

Chelsea the real winners on snowy Saturday

It seems like an age since Chelsea fans have enjoyed Premiership football but, without kicking a ball, Ancelotti’s team had their lead at the top of the table consolidated yesterday.

With no disrespect towards either Everton or Birmingham, nobody would have dreamed that both would get results against Arsenal and Man Utd respectively. 

Chelsea now have a one point lead over Utd with a game in hand and three points over Arsenal who, for the first time I can remember in months, have played the same number of games as the Stamford Bridge club.

Points in the bag is almost always preferable to games in hand, but a strong showing against Sunderland at Stamford Bridge next weekend – when Arsenal face a tricky trip to the Reebok – could help Chelsea reassert themselves as favourites for the title despite a turgid December.

Depending on when the Hull game is rescheduled for of course, Chelsea probably also garnered another benefit from the postponing of their own game – in all likelihood that’s one less fixture the Blues will have to contest without Drogba and the rest of the African contingent. Get the game rescheduled for February – but before the Champions League resumes – and it could have all worked out perfectly for Ancelotti’s men.

Of course, had the Hull game not been postponed on Saturday due to the weather conditions (nothing to do with the pitch, incidentally) Chelsea could have been sitting on a four point cushion today. Whether the weather was actually significant enough reason to put football on hold is a debate I’ll leave to one side, but at least the ‘elf and safety people got to have a field day…

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?

Why Liverpool's Champions League elimination is good news for Chelsea

Following Fiorentina’s one nil defeat over Lyon last night, Liverpool were eliminated from the Champions League. There was public weeping on the Kings Road.

Whilst many Chelsea fans will take much amusement from Gerrard, Carragher and Torres being assigned to Europe’s second division this season, there is perhaps an even greater reason to celebrate Liverpool’s elimination: the guarantee that Chelsea won’t draw them in latter stages of the competition.

Liverpool fans can probably take this as a back-handed compliment – their team is probably the last Chelsea fans would want to play in the knockout stages of the Champions League. Chelsea have been drawn against Benitez’s side as a matter of course since 2005: four times in the knockout stages (each side winning through twice) and once in the group stages. The saying goes that familiarity breeds contempt and, as far and Chelsea and Liverpool are concerned, never a truer word has been spoken.

Earlier fixtures in this period were all drab affairs – low on goals, flair and attacking football (but high on referees awarding goals they shouldn’t). In contrast, ties over the last couple of seasons have been high octane thrillers pairing uncharacteristic bad defending with cut-throat finishing. Whichever brand of game the Chelsea and Liverpool Champions League fixtures have thrown up however, there has been one constant: almost unbearable tension. During last year’s quarter final second leg tie – which somehow finished 4-4 – I’m convinced I aged at least several years.

So this year I’m delighted that Liverpool took the matter in their own hands and considerately prevented us from having to through either epic tedium (as was the case when they’ve bested us) or agonising, stomach-turning stress. And it’s a relief also because we’re now presented with a much greater chance of at least playing a different team in Europe: of the 59 Champions League games Chelsea have contested since the 04/05 season, the Blues have faced either Liverpool or Barcelona 18 times. That’s nearly a third of all games. In that time, half of all the knockout ties Chelsea have contested have also been against those sides.

So it’s good that Liverpool are out – at least it could provide us with some variety. Knowing our luck, we’ll probably end up drawing Barcelona in the first knockout stages this year. Me though – I’m keeping my fingers crossed for a trip to the Bernabeu or the San Siro.

Or perhaps you’re starting to miss Liverpool already? For those of you who are disappointed that our annual angst-fest against the Scousers in the Champions League has been cancelled, console yourself with some memories from back in May below.

Big match fallout - eight things we learned about Chelsea and Man Utd

This time yesterday Chelsea and Man Utd were heading onto the pitch for the second half at Stamford Bridge. Forty-five minutes later, a slightly anti-climatic encounter was over and a one nil win for Ancelotti’s men represented their most significant – if below par - display of the season.

Manchester United fans are choosing to take an awful lot of positives from the fact that their below strength side managed to play so well. Many are convinced that, based on that display, they are in good shape for the rest of the season. They’ll certainly be up there – of course they will. But I on the other hand think it works both ways: Chelsea played poorly against a slightly under-strength United side performing out of its skin, and still won.

Chelsea and United fans will disagree about plenty of aspects of yesterday’s game, but here are the things I took about each of the sides from the encounter:

Chelsea

A familiar grit and determination
Aston Villa and Wigan may disagree, but Ancelotti’s Chelsea has some similarities with that of Mourinho’s. Patient, disciplined, confident and tough to break down are expressions that could equally be said of Chelsea in November 2006 as in 2009. Pretty passing football works to a point, but the Chelsea we saw yesterday – full of those Mourinho-esque qualities – is the sort of side that can win the title.

Deco isn’t up to it
The Portuguese looked good against Bolton and almost had me convinced. But against Man Utd he reminded me of why I came to think that he wasn’t up to it last season, and probably why Hiddink wouldn’t pick him: against better sides who give him less time on the ball he goes missing. All game he completed only 26 passes and, with minimal ability or willingness to make passes or interceptions, the side were carrying him.

Ivanovic is much improved
Trusty Ivanovic is no Bosingwa – he’s not going to make roving, high paced runs down the right flank for 90 minutes. But he is…well…trusty. As a reserve, whether at centre half or right back, he’s an excellent option to be able to call upon and did a pretty good job in attack against United too, considering. Did he miss a header yesterday?

We’re not Barcelona
Top of the league? Check. Five points clear? Check? Best defence in the league and second highest scorers? Check. Many fans and a handful of the papers naively expected Chelsea to walk all over Man Utd yesterday, but a disciplined, containing performance from Man Utd put paid to some of the as yet unjustified hyperbole. A slick one-touch side capable of playing silky football isn’t born in three months: Chelsea aren’t Barcelona. We shouldn’t be ashamed of the fact that, whilst sometimes our ‘A’ game hasn’t always fired on all cylinders, it’s Chelsea’s superior plan B, C and D that’s made the side successful.

Man Utd

A one man team?
For the last two seasons, Man Utd were probably a one man team. Yesterday, they looked like a one man team again. Before the season started I suggested that, if Berbatov could up his game, he was the one that could make the difference for a re-jigged Utd. That doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. Now that Rooney has been given the freedom to play upfront however, the ex-Evertonian is in a position to make the difference himself. If Utd want to retain the title, he might just have to.

Less confident
It struck me that last year’s Man Utd – with Ronaldo – would never have come to Stamford Bridge with such a defensive mindset. And injuries probably aren’t to blame: last year’s Man Utd that visited SW6 had injuries too, with Jonny Evans doing well at the back in one of his first appearances in the senior team. How much less confident is Ferguson in his team’s ability to attack the biggest sides and win? Despite their marginally superior possession, Utd’s midfield lacked dynamism and incisiveness.

Strength and depth at the back
Jonny Evans’ tackle on Drogba was pretty appalling, but you have to give him some credit. It’s uncommon that someone of his age can be so accomplished at centre half and – albeit with a trio of holding midfielders in front of them – United’s back four wasn’t regularly troubled by Chelsea yesterday. Regardless of Ferdinand’s declining form and Vidic’s occasional injuries, United still have one of the best defences in the league.

They don’t like losing
We saw a little of the old Man Utd yesterday. Chelsea are certainly not whiter than white in this respect, but United’s players shouted, screamed, swore and kicked their way through the last twenty minutes of the game. I’m just speculating, but they haven’t experienced too much pressure over the last three years: maybe, without Ronaldo to bail them out and with Chelsea and Arsenal now setting the pace, Ferguson and his players suddenly foresee a much more difficult title chase.

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 master winning, Man City look good and Arsenal aren't up to it - 7 things we learned this weekend

What a weekend of football we’ve just been treated to. Ten games, no draws and shedloads of goals. Games between the Premier League’s leading sides have told us quite a bit about how the season might pan out – here’s bridgeviews.co.uk’s interpretation.

Chelsea are the masters of playing badly and winning

Ok, ok, so Saturday’s performance against Stoke can’t really be labelled ‘bad’, but the team did look jaded in the first half and was unable to create enough good chances in the second. That said, a team who had lost 20 players for one and half weeks to international duty still managed 75% of possession and edged out a dogged and well-organised Stoke - actually rather impressive.

If this side can improve again – and if the returning Joe Cole and Zhirkov can add some guile, trickery and pace to an already successful formula – it could spell worrying signs for the rest of the league.

Man City don’t look bad at all

In condemning Arsenal to a humiliating second defeat of the season, Man City showed there’s a chance this season won’t just be about transition for them.

In previewing their chances back in July I suggested that while Man City had enough in attack, a big question mark still remained over them as a defensive unit. But, in watching their performance against Arsenal (a team who can unquestionably attack), it would seem they have no problems in defence, either. Whilst they scored three goals in the second half, in many ways their first half performance was more impressive. The back four were flawless (is Micah Richards getting his form back?) and De Jong looked excellent in the holding role.

It’s too early to pass to full a judgement – this was just one performance. But England’s ‘big four’ might well be worrying that City’s development is ahead of schedule. That said, Saturday’s game was still against ‘bigger’ opposition for them: let’s see how the pressure of expectation affects them as they line up against United next week and Liverpool and Chelsea in future months. There’s a long way to go and I still suspect immediate success is too big an ask.

One in, one out – Arsenal now look in trouble

If City are looking upwards, Arsenal are certainly looking in the other direction. They can play very pretty football, but what is the point if its 90% ineffective?

Wenger has it all wrong. Many of his youngsters are good players, but in contrast to Chelsea his is a flappable side devoid of balance, steel, experience and the winning mentality. The risk of a 5^th place finish is very, very real.

Adebayor – he’s a fool, but a good footballer with it

Another pop at Wenger on the way – sorry Gooners. Whatever Arsenal fans say, Adebayor is a top class player. I’d argue that he was perfect for Arsenal (with their current squad) too, offering a genuinely different option up front if needed. How many times could City knock the ball long to the Togan when they needed to release the pressure valve or break quickly? And who could Arsenal look to up top?

Plus, he has good feet and scores goals. That he didn’t look interested at the Emirates last season is damning not only on Adebayor himself but also on Wenger’s man management. This is a player derided by Arsenal fans who still scored 15-odd goals last season - he shouldn’t have been sold. If Hughes can do what Wenger couldn’t (and I stress the ‘if’), £25m could end up being a very, very good deal indeed.

Worth saying however that nothing can excuse Adebayor’s behaviour on Saturday. The stamp on Van Persie (yes, we’ve all wanted to do it) was appalling and celebrating in front of opposition fans is never a good idea. Still, Thierry Henry was doing that for years and Arsenal fans never seemed to mind…

But Drogba is better

Five games, four goals, three assists. On song it is difficult to think of a better forward in world football than Didier Drogba - his goal against Stoke was utterly devastating.

Revitalised and renewed, Drogba was everywhere on Saturday – causing Stoke no end of problems at one end and heading countless crosses clear at the other. His attitude in the past has certainly been questionable (although flawless this season) but there’s no out-and-out striker I’d rather see in a blue shirt. Where Chelsea would be without the talismanic Ivorian who knows, but we’ll get a taste of it against Porto tomorrow and during July’s African Cup of Nations.

Man Utd could be there for the taking

A controversial one this, after a 1-3 win over confident, in-form opposition and having had a man sent off…but Man Utd could be there for the taking this season. United certainly have some very good players, but I fancy a half-competent performance from Spurs would have allowed the north Londoners to get something from Saturday’s game against the Champions.

As it was, fantastic counter-attacking and defensive performances from Rooney and Fletcher respectively let Man Utd win the day. United are still the team to beat this season – make no mistake about it – but they aren’t the same force as previous years and could be there for the taking if other teams are up to the challenge.

The top of the table will be shaken up

Last season the ‘big four’ lost just 17 games between them, the season before that, 15. In just five weekends of football (and 13% through the season), the ‘big four’ have already lost 5 games. We’re in the midst of change – the table will look very different come May 2010.

What did you make of this weekend’s games? Post a comment.

Chelsea come out on top: the transfer window winners and losers

In possibly the biggest anti-climax since history began, yesterday’s Sky Sports sponsored transfer window closed without even a whimper. Yes, a few players moved here and there, but it felt like business was down and there wasn’t the glamorous big move we (or the national newspapers) were hoping for.

Some doom-merchants already have it in for the Premier League, citing either the recession or La Liga as the catalyst for a near apocalyptic implosion of English football. They’re not right, of course – it will take more than a few players moving to La Liga to prove the Premier League isn’t still the strongest on the planet and English football has always struggled to attract the very biggest names in world football anyway. It is certainly true however that the window didn’t seem to have the excitement of previous years.

But however it ‘felt’, this summer’s window still saw £450m spent by Premier League clubs. But not everyone did well: here’s bridgeviews.co.uk’s transfer window winners and losers, and there are certainly more of the latter.

Winners

Chelsea
Keeping hold of John Terry was the major coup of the summer, single-handedly giving Chelsea a headstart over less fortunate rivals. Zhirkov is unproven in the Premier League but looks a sound addition and the type of player the squad needed, and Sturridge looks an enthusiastic and able deputy for Anelka and Drogba. Yes, there wasn’t the marquee signing some fans were hoping for (which no doubt I’ll whinge about in November when Chelsea go on a run of unconvincing draws), but on the plus side other key players signed new contracts and asking prices for new stars were too high anyway. Chelsea also got rid of Shevchenko and Pizarro shaped deadwood, probably saving the club £8m-odd a year. Bearing in mind what’s happened with our rivals, that’ll do.

Man City
It’s fairly easy to be transfer window winners when you have this much cash to spend – although getting the results on the pitch over the next eight months will prove a hell of a lot more difficult. My hunch is Man City won’t do a bad job of it though: he’s much derided by Arsenal fans but Adebayor is a good player (and already has three goals from as many appearances) and £12m for Barry is cheap for an English international. The addition of Toure and Lescott might just be the additions I claimed Man City needed in order to get consistent results when I analysed their chances back in July.

Stoke
Bear with me with this one. Battling promoted side do well in their first season playing functional football. Add experienced Premier League players Huth and Tuncay for cheap - sounds good to me. Avoiding relegation can sometimes be more difficult in the second season than the first – my bet is Stoke will manage it this year.

Losers

The rest of the ‘big four’
A no-brainer, really. It is impossible for United to replace Ronaldo (incidently we commented on what the Ronaldo transfer might mean for Chelsea and the league back in July - you can read it here). The only alternative open to Ferguson is rejigging the side and trying to play a different way. The signing of Owen is a good one and Valencia isn’t a bad player, but it isn’t quite enough and United look a whole lot less formidable this season. For me they could still be marginal favourites for the title though, despite how well Chelsea have started.

If I was a Gooner, I’d be tearing my hair out at the club's abject failure to address obvious shortcomings in the squad and the blind faith put in youngsters. The Man United game at the weekend showed not that Arsenal’s players aren’t good enough, but that the balance of youthful exuberance and experience is all wrong. It’s an argument that’s been made about Wenger’s side time and time again, but they’ll win nothing, and any Arsenal fans writing-off the losses of Adebayor and Toure to their would-be big four replacements from Manchester as unimportant are delusional. The result at Old Trafford notwithstanding, Arsenal have started well and will probably continue their good form in the short-term, but my hunch (and it’s just my hunch) is that a fifth place finish could be beckoning this year or next.

Like United, Liverpool have lost a very influential player in Alonso, but to hype the loss up to Ronaldo-like proportions is overstating his importance. That said, the Spaniard did make the scousers tick, and the fascist-loving crock Aquilani could be considered a gamble. Glen Johnson was expensive, is great going forward but weaker at the back and besides, full backs don’t win you the league. I suspect time will show that, aside from Chelsea, Liverpool did the best of the ‘big four’ clubs this summer.

Fulham
Did so well last season but were the lowest spenders in the league this summer. The game against Chelsea earlier this month showed that they’re entirely toothless upfront and desperately need a new goalscorer. A lack of goals this season could well undermine the great work Hodgson did last term.

Hull
Unlike Stoke, I’m not so convinced by Brown’s transfer dealings. The loss of Turner to Sunderland will be a big loss. I watched loan signing Altidore make an instant impact against Bolton, but unless the likes of him score 15 goals this season I think they might be in real danger of relegation.

Portsmouth
It’s been a bit of a mess down on the south coast this season, and Portsmouth have haemorrhaged good players (Johnson, Crouch and Distin). Fingers crossed for them that their replacements can step up to the task and look less like Championship players once Paul Hart has whipped them into a shape.

Everton
Prevailed over Villa to snatch fifth place last season, but I’m sure that Moyes will have been upset at the slow progress made in adding to the squad over the summer. Bilyatedinov, Distin and Heitinga may well prove sound acquisitions, but the loss of Lescott will probably only add to Everton’s sluggish start in the league. By comparison I’m more impressed with Villa’s acquisition of Premier League veterans Downing, Warnock, Beye and Dunne. It’s a precarious time for both sides however: a resurgent Spurs and Man City’s dramatic improvement could render their efforts last season redundant.

Who do you think made the greatest impact during this summer’s transfer window? Post a comment…

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

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part IV: Manchester City

So, I’ve got the crystal ball out again. On Monday, I looked at Man Utd’s challenge, on Tuesday Liverpool’s and yesterday’s Arsenal’s. Today we take a quick look the outsider’s bet for the title – Manchester City.

However threatened fans of the current ‘big four’ might feel, what has happened at Manchester City has got to be just about the most exciting thing that’s happened to the Premier League since Roman Abramovich. I’ll save the debate as to whether the vast investment that’s been made at Eastlands – which in my view exceeds what was happening at Chelsea in the first couple of years of Roman’s ownership – for another time, but it cannot be argued that City haven’t at least shaken things up a bit. The simple question is however: do you want a league where more or less sides are capable of winning the league? Everyone seems to want the former (at least they did when Chelsea started winning the league, anyway). But if that’s the case, only the injection of cash can break hegemonies.

It is fascinating to see what’s being pulled together up at Eastlands. They have certainly brought in some real quality, but for me there’s something a little ‘unplanned’ about it all – it seems more wanton than what happened under first Ranieri and then Mourinho at Chelsea. How much control does Mark Hughes have up there, or is some faceless figure going through FourFourTwo magazine’s list of the top 100 players in world football and systematically lodging massive bids for their services? If you throw enough coconuts…

And this is where City will come unstuck: not just the players that they are targeting (or haven’t targeted), but the sheer volume of new recruits in a short space of time. Don’t get me wrong - City will certainly be a force over the next few years, but 09/10 will come just a little bit too early.

Ins and outs
Manchester City have done a huge amount of business and spent a huge amount of money. But, so far, it’s been weighted towards the attack, with Santa Cruz, Tevez and Adebayor joining Robinho et al. Needless to say, Gareth Barry and Toure are both top-class in their positions – but I still feel they a couple of signings short of a quality defensive unit and the requisite leadership in the team.

Despite all these signings, I’d still say that only one of their players would get into the Chelsea side: Robinho. Man City fans will disagree and say Chelsea were after Adebayor and Tevez – but I’m not convinced, certainly regarding the former. Besides which, I’ve made my anti-Tevez feelings well known…

City haven’t been nearly so active with players moving in the other direction. I liked the look of Joe Hart, who’s moved on loan to Birmingham, when he was playing in this Summer’s U21 European Championships, but he won’t be a major miss for the team with Given between the posts. Likewise Jo – who’s also back out on loan – won’t be missed with the new array of attacking talent Hughes has brought in. I’ve been impressed by Sturridge’s energy and confidence in Chelsea blue during pre-season, but hand on heart I can’t say he’ll be missed at City, either.

All this said, you get the impression there will need to be more sales from Eastlands – not only is the squad ‘top heavy’ so to speak, if they are too build a genuinely competitive first team squad they’ll need eventually to get rid of some of the players that were bought for a side playing mid-table football.

If he steps up, they’ll win the league
As with Arsenal, scoring goals shouldn’t be a problem, even if it takes time for the new recruits to gel. But what City are missing is a defensive lynchpin, a foundation around which the rest of the team can be built. You can see why City were so desperate to land John Terry.

From that perspective it was interesting that, having lost out on Terry, City snapped up Toure immediately afterwards. Not exactly a like-for-like deal there. Lescott will probably still join City, but I’m not convinced he’s the answer either. If Man City are to learn consistency and defensive stinginess, one of these two may well need to step their game up a level – provided another signing isn’t made to fill that void.

Where they'll lose it
Remarkably like Arsenal this, isn’t it? As I’ve alluded to, City may well have problems at the back, and you get the feeling that’s there’s little leadership in the team, no-one to grab a poor game by the scruff of its neck. The only difference with Arsenal that I can see is that the club and manager have both the willingness and the resources to take a pragmatic approach and fix the problem. And that’s why Arsenal fans should be concerned for the club’s future as an automatic candidate for Champions League qualification.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
When Manchester City were bought in the final hours of last summer’s transfer window, it was genuinely a moment that changed English football, at least in the short term. Love it or loathe it, City will be a force in the next few years, and there’s another two ‘big’ games in the calendar. Deal with it. But this season they’ll narrowly fight off Aston Villa to finish 5^th.

What do you make of Man City’s summer dealings – will success come quickly or will they have to wait? What do you think it means for Chelsea? Post a comment…

Premier League preview – Chelsea rivals part III: Arsenal

On Monday, we looked at Man Utd’s challenge. Yesterday, Liverpool’s. Today it’s the turn of Arsene Wenger’s Arsenal, who sit on the edge of a precipice.

My first point must be: who on earth knows what we can expect from Arsenal this term? I change my mind daily, half expecting our much-loved north London rivals to fall away and out of the Champions League spots, half expecting Wenger’s kids to miraculously come good and challenge for the title. And it’s this dichotomy that is the essence of the problem.

Arsenal have half a good side. Going forward they are pretty much as good as anyone in the league, and obviously they play some very ‘pretty’ football. But, whether it be through lack of funds or Wenger’s stubbornness, time and again they have failed to strengthen where they need to (if I was a gooner I’d be tearing my hair out). There is a core fallibility in their side that consistently overshadows Arsenal’s fine passing game.

It wasn’t so long ago that Arsenal were in the Champions League final. Whilst they were badly shown up in each, they also reached the semi final stages of both the Champions League and FA cup last season, so there’s clearly potential there. But this is a side in a precarious position – Everton and Aston Villa are improving and for Man City buying a player for £25m really is petty cash. On the pitch there are worrying signs too – in last season’s home league table, Arsenal placed 5^th. Could this be the year when it all goes very wrong for them?

Ins and outs
Arsenal’s pre-season transfer dealings can be better characterised by players they haven’t signed than players they have.

It was fairly obvious by the end of last season that Arsenal desperately needed defensive reinforcements, both at the back and in midfield. Yes, they have signed Vermaelen, who looks a solid player (if unproven at the highest level), but they’ve also lost Toure. The one area where they needed to improve – strength, leadership and experience in their own half – hasn’t been sufficiently filled. I was surprised in almost equal measure when Wenger was first linked with a move for Vieira and then dismissed the option to re-sign the Frenchman. Surely he would have been a relatively cheap but effective short-term option? Not everything needs to be long-term thrift, Arsene…

Love him or loathe him, losing Adebayor is a bigger miss than most Arsenal fans make out. The laid-back Tongolese has played 143 games for Arsenal and scored 62 goals – that’s nearly one in every two games and a better rate than most premiership strikers. He supposedly had a bad season last year, but still scored 16 goals in 38 appearances. Not terrible by any means, and he’ll get goals at Eastlands.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
It says something that it’s so much more difficult to answer this question than it was for Liverpool or Man Utd.

Even with the loss of Adebayor, Arsenal have plenty of firepower upfront with Van Persie, Arhsavin, Bendtner and Walcott, and my feeling is they’ll get enough goals. So, if Arsenal’s youngsters are to kick on and challenge for trophies, it will be because someone has stood up defensively to shore up Arsenal’s soft centre. It’s not going to be Fabregas – if they are to succeed either Song or Denilson will need to mould themselves into the midfield general role or Vermaelen will need to prove a very astute signing indeed.

It’s going to be tough for any of them to do it.

Where they'll lose it
Unless Wenger makes one or two surprising signings over the next twenty days, Arsenal’s dual lack of experience and defensive strength (both physically and technically) will make them too vulnerable in defence. They’re just too easy to intimidate and score against: scenes like United’s humbling of them in the Champions League second leg or Drogba steamrollering through them need to become a distant memory if they’ve any chance of success.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
Arsenal really are on the cusp of something this season. Trick is, on the cusp of what – their youngsters coming of age, or it all falling to pieces? My view is that, barring Wenger waking up to reality, it will be the latter – but not until 10/11. Arsenal will hold on and scrape 4^th.

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part II: Liverpool

A series of posts this week will look at each of Chelsea's main rivals for the Premier League. Yesterday it was Man Utd's turn - today, it's Liverpool.

Liverpool's title challenge last season died only marginally after their fans' statements that it was 'their year' stopped reverberating around internet messageboards. In reality though, last year's Liverpool was a much improved side and one that, towards the end of the season at least, Benitez had finally let off the leash.

Scoring more goals than any other team in the league, it was only their lingering propensity to put in sub-standard performances against mediocre sides that prevented them from winning league (that said, arguably it was only a series of lucky escapes early in the season that put them in the running). Can they find the consistency they've been looking for and challenge this season? A stuttering pre-season and the loss of an important player indicates no...

Ins and outs
Whilst not the same as United losing Ronaldo, losing Xabi Alonso is a very significant blow for Liverpool's title challenge. An excellent holding midfield player with excellent passing range alongside the defensively almost-flawless Mascherano, Alonso formed one part of an excellent central midfield partnership rivalled only by Chelsea's options. As a reminder of his quality, look back at Liverpool's fourth goal against Chelsea in the second leg of the Champions League quarter final last season - his first time volleyed pass wide may not have been the last touch before Kuyt headed in, but it was the definitive one. He will be diffiuclt to replace, bringing one to wonder why Benitez was so keen to get rid of him last summer. There's no love lost with Chelsea, though...

New signing Aquilani's talents are less clear - I haven't seen too much of him play. But he is more defensive than Alonso, and if Benitez plans to pair him with Masherano it will surely result in Liverpool being less liberal attack than they had been in the second half of last season. Time will tell, but one thing's for sure: he'll need to tone down his public comments of respect for Mussolini (honestly look it up, it's appalling). He is a little injury prone, too - Liverpool fans will have to wait six weeks before he recovers from his current injury.

Other players have come and go - notably the hugely overpriced Glen Johnson coming in and Arbeloa and the long-serving Hyypia going the other way, but none will have either the impact of Alonso or his replacement on the title race.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
An easy one. Aside from Gerrard and Masherano, Liverpool only have one other top-quality player - Fernando Torres - and it's the Spaniard alone that has the ability to move Liverpool on a step. On song Torres is probably the best striker in the world, and he's scored hatfuls of goals for Liverpool in relatively few appearances. If they can keep him fit and provide him with the service, he could score enough goals to propel Liverpool towards the summit. My bet however is that they won't - his legs are made of glass.

Where they'll lose it
Liverpool aren't entirely unlike Chelsea - where they'll come unstuck is through a lack of truly top-drawer creative players. Once again I'd expect them to struggle intermittently against stubborn defences, and a squad lacking quality across the board will hamstring them.

That said, there's another weakness. Perhaps it's down to the fact that none of their squad have won the league before, but last season it could be argued that Liverpool never really performed when the pressure was on. Beginning of the season, too early for anything to be at stake - play well and win. Mid-season, top of the table with United and Chelsea stuttering - favourites for the title Liverpool fade out of the race as United respond. End of the season with the league almost decided - Liverpool start to play better again. Actually the Champions League quarter final second leg against Chelsea was like Liverpool's season in microcosm - when they were out of the tie they played well, when they were in it they came unstuck. It's yet to be proven that this Liverpool team has the unerring tenacity needed to win the league.

bridgeviews.co.uk prediction
Looking at their team sheet, I simply don't believe Liverpool have the quality to replicate last season's performance, let alone win the league. They'll start unconvincingly, pick up a little mid-season but not have enough to challenge, eventually finishing third.

Premier League preview - Chelsea rivals part I: Manchester United

Pre-season games are over, the Community Shield has been played and the Championship is underway. All that's left is for the Premier League to get started - and there are just five days to go. Chelsea have a new manager, a new formation and a new Russian winger, and it looks likely we're in for another rollercoaster season. But what about our rivals?

In the days running up to Saturday's big kick off, bridgeviews.co.uk will day-by-day take a look at each of Chelsea's biggest rivals - who they've signed, who they've sold and how they'll get along next season. First up, last season's Champions and this season's Community Shield runners up - Manchester United.

Up until yesterday afternoon most bookies had Man Utd as favourites to win the Premier League. Apparently a narrow win on penalties is enough for them to reconsider however, and Ladbrokes now have both United and Chelsea at 3-1, and William Hill have Chelsea as marginal favourites. A strange knee-jerk reaction, or a realistic prognosis for a declining force?

Ins and outs
Yes, £80m is a lot of money. But in reality, the money that Utd received for Ronaldo is almost useless, such is the scarcity of players of his ability. It's oft written that Chelsea are lacking that one creative player - that 'spark' that can make the team tick and dig it out of holes. But where is that spark in the United side now that Ronaldo's gone? Is it Valencia? Nani? Rooney? Berbatov? No, I'm not convinced either.

That said, there are plenty of goals left in that side. In Rooney and Berbatov they have two strikers the equal of any other in the league and Owen - provided he can stay relatively injury free - will score goals. His signing could well be a masterstroke - and a relatively cheap one at that, with his signing likely to cost only £5m over two years (click here to see what I said about Owen two months ago). A snip for one of England's highest goal scorers who has played at some of the biggest clubs in world football (no, not Newastle). Antonio Valencia is good young player, but goal shy, and won't make the difference - this season, at least.

I almost forgot - someone called Tevez left United too. I've made no secret of the fact that I don't think Tevez is worth £25m and that I wouldn't have been excited had he signed for Chelsea (read my article on the Argentine here). He's an expensive terrier who doesn't score enough goals. United won't miss him.

If he steps up, they'll win the league
I suspect United fans might not agree, but it's Dimitar Berbatov. When he signed for United last season, I was convinced he was the final part of their jigsaw. They had the defence, they had flying wingers and a solid midfield. But it didn't quite work out like that. Berbatov has an exquisite first touch and extraordinary imagination on the ball. Yes, he has a laissez-faire demeanour, but doesn't Drogba? Didn't Cantona? Berbatov was a 20+ goal a season man at Spurs - if United find out how to fit him in the side they can get more goals out of him. If they do, he and Rooney will play havoc with most Premier League defences.

But United's youth might also do the trick. A string of viable young players - Evans, Macheda and Gibson, for example - might arguably give United the edge in terms of squad strength and depth, especially when compared to Arnesen's youth debacle at Chelsea. Evans and the Silva brothers are pretty much proven now - but we'll need to see the the likes of Macheda for a longer period before we can make an informed judgement on their quality.

Where they'll lose it
There's no room for failure for Berbatov, Rooney and Owen. If these three don't chip in with their fair share of goals, a light-looking midfield will expose Man United. Park, Valencia and Anderson are relatively goal shy, Scholes and Giggs are <another> year older and I don't 'buy' Anderson. It's not just goals that will be missing, either - as last season's Champions League final proved - Fletcher and Carrick are very good players but certainly not world beaters. Furthermore, the likes of Park and Nani don't have that star quality. It didn't happen at Wembley yesterday, but United's midfield might find itself either undone or short of firepower a few too many times over the course of a long season.

bridgeviews.co.uk predicted finishing position
I've been as confused as the bookies over the last few weeks. Before the pre-season friendlies, I was convinced that Chelsea would be able to take advantage of the loss of Ronaldo and snatch the league. But Ancelotti's persistance with a 4-4-2 diamond - a formation I'm convinced matches neither Chelsea's squad nor the Premier League - gave me second thoughts. 

It should be close. Each side's defence is as good as the other and with the departure of Ronaldo the strikers aren't too much different either. Chelsea certainly  have the quality to win it, but a vaguely settled team at United coupled with them having a manager who is more familiar with English football than the back of his own hand, could (depressingly) mean that they're favourites to lift the trophy once again.

But, as a Chelsea fan desperate to be optimistic, my verdict is: United will finish second.


You might also be interested to read:

• A look back at what Chelsea's pre-season tour of the US tells us
• Who Man Utd are actually worrying about - could it be Man City?

Real Madrid Strike Again...

...Only this time it's not in the transfer market.  In a big weekend for sport (Wimbledon, Lions, Tour de France and Ashes warm-ups), Florentino Perez did his bit to keep football on the front pages of the sports pages by demanding a change to the current Champions League format.  He's asked for a new format that guarantees 16 big clubs a place in the competition - however they perform in their domestic league, and that ensures the big clubs will consistently play each other (rather than minnows from across Europe).  He has indicated he will push for a breakaway "closed shop competition" if UEFA refuse to consider his proposal, and has commented that he hopes his format can be implemented "without abandoning the national leagues".

To Perez's way of thinking, the big clubs that would quialify for this special treatment are: Madrid, Barcelona, Atletico Madrid, Manchester Utd, Chelsea (phew), Liverpool, Arsenal, Inter, AC Milan, Juventus, Bayern Munich, Lyons, Porto, Celtic, Rangers and Olympiakos.  In some ways a strange list - after all, Madrid have qualified for the CL in each of the past 12 seasons without any special favours, and Celtic and Rangers have rarely had to beat off strong Scottish competition for their places in the competition.  Are Madrid in such a bad financial place that they need guaranteed Champions League places, and guaranteed revenue from huge games?  And who made Perez God anyway?

It seems unlikely that this will go ahead so there's little need to worry about it right now, but my gut instinct is that this is truly terrible idea.  You can either view it as a pointless endeavour to set in stone something that's already pretty much set in stone, or much worse, as an attempt to maintain the current status quo into the future and forever more.  If we'd completed an exercise like this just ten years ago, Chelsea certainly wouldn't be in the list, and Ajax probably would be.  This wouldn't have been good for Chelsea, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be good for football either.  Whatever level you play at, football is about dreams.  The dream of beating your greatest rivals, winning a Cup, getting promoted, avoiding relegation, turning over the tournament favourites, or winning the league.  If we fix the list of those who get to play, without any room for change, we take away the chance to dream, and that would be the end of the football as we know it.

G-Owen to Man Utd

In The Times today Tony Cascarino describes Michael Owen as a strange signing for Manchester United.  His logic seems to be that Owen’s injured so often he’s a big risk – he might only play 25 games, and score just 15 goals.

We posted on the merits of Michael Owen last month (take a read here), but again, what’s the problem?!  Most clubs would love to have a player who scores more than one every two games.  So what if he can only play 25 in a season? Newcastle’s problem was that they were dependent on Owen, with no other reliable strikers to step up and score when he couldn’t play.  At Utd this won’t be the case – if he’s not fit many others can play and score (I’m sure they’re not finished with new signings either), and if he is fit he can start/ come on and take the chances he’s given.  There will be less pressure on him to score (arguably he was suffering under the strain at Newcastle), and being signed by a big club like Utd will no doubt give his confidence a much-needed boost.

On the money front, all the papers seem pretty clear that Owen’s taking a big drop in wages (in essence gambling some cash for the chance to make it back into the England side).  This isn’t a deal that’s going to cost Utd mega-bucks, and will certainly leave plenty of cash free to make some longer-term player investments.  

It might not be the step-down some are suggesting for Utd. I would say good luck to the bloke (he’s had a rough ride with injuries and doesn’t get the credit his record deserves), but given that would mean goals for Utd, I wouldn’t really mean it…

Is the Owen deal a bargain or footballing suicide? Does it strengthen our chances in the league? Post a comment.

It isn’t Chelsea failing to make ‘big’ signings, but English football

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post here that took issue with Paul Parker questioning Chelsea’s ability to sign the world’s best players.

Last Sunday, Rod Liddle published another of his weekly anti-Chelsea diatribes on the Times' website which skirted along a similar argument. To save you having to read the whole thing (and it is rather tedious), key extracts include:

“Carlo Ancelotti will be anxious to secure the services of a marquee striker, a superstar. But he is not likely to get one, because…the very top players do not wish to play for Chelsea. That small band of galacticos who can genuinely turn a game, while at the same time ensuring a rapid turnover in replica shirts…always seem to spurn the chance of playing at Stamford Bridge”

“The list of players who have decided against a move to west London is long and a little humiliating. No Kaka, no David Villa, no Ronaldinho, no Andrea Pirlo, no Steven Gerrard. Even Robinho preferred the dubious, perennially underachieving madhouse of Middle Eastlands”

“Those gilded moppets from the south of Europe and America complain about the weather in Britain, but it does not stop them signing for Man United and Liverpool”

Now, clearly Rod has an anti-Chelsea agenda, and we'll ignore the fact that he doesn’t seem to know that both Robinho and Gerrard weren’t allowed to join Chelsea, the first by Real and the second by his own death-threat-making fans. But it is hard to see how he fails to look beyond the most superficial arguments (if pushed I might guess it’s because such journalistic approach might stand in the way of his - self proclaimed - position of the ‘most controversial commentator on sport in the British media’).

His point that Chelsea have failed to sign the greatest players in the world at their peak is true enough. But he narrowly associates that failing with Chelsea and, through his insinuation that the (to borrow a Redknappism) top, top players might choose Liverpool or Utd, has completely missed the point. In reality, there are less than a handful of clubs that have made these kind of signings – perhaps Real, Barcelona, Milan, Juventus….and no English clubs. It isn’t Chelsea that is failing, but English football as a whole. I decided pick up what Liddle started and take a proper look.

Firstly I looked at the profile of the best players to have played for those two rival clubs. In the history of the European player of the year awards, Man Utd players have won the top prize four times (Charlton, Law, Best and Ronaldo). Charlton, Beckham, Best, Cantona, Edwards and Ronaldo all also experienced finishing second or third. None of these players were signed by Utd as ‘galaticos’ in high-profile transfers and while at the peak of their abilities. Liverpool have had but one winner of the award – Michael Owen – and Dalglish and Gerrard came second and third respectively. Again, none of those three were galatico-style signings.

It’s a similar story with the world player of the year awards, with Man Utd players placed in the top three including only Ronaldo and Beckham, and for Liverpool only Torres. High-profile transfer Torres was, but certainly not seen as a world beater when he arrived (though subsequently proved since).

After looking at the best players to have played for our greatest rivals, I took a look at the top transfers in footballing history. Of the current top ten list of football transfers (by value), three involve English clubs – Ferdinand and Veron to Utd, and Shevchenko to Chelsea. The latter deal would have by far the greatest claim to ‘galatico’ status, regardless of age or eventual success.

There’s a similar picture when you look at a list of the progress of British transfer fee records over the last 50 years (take a look at one here). A lot of the deals include players moving abroad. Significantly very few – or none – could be described as being among the world’s very best at the time of their signing for an English club. And Chelsea aren’t the only club to have tried to lure those kinds of players – we know Ferguson tried and failed to lure Ronaldinho, for example.

It was interesting to read Ray Wilkins’ comments last week that perhaps some European footballers are turning down the chance to play in the Premier League because of the challenges the game here presents. I think there is probably some truth in that: it is renowned for big tackles, low-space high-pace play and there’s no winter break. There’s also only one ‘glamorous’ city. Perhaps our historic reputation for hooliganism and our default admiration for graft over skill haunts us too.

So, Rod – if you’re reading this – I appreciate you’ve got your ‘controversial’ reputation to uphold, but perhaps you could think your arguments through a little further next time? Besides which, you wrote your article on June 21. There’s ten long weeks to go before the transfer window closes, and who knows what could happen before then…

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...