bridge views - the thinking fan's chelsea blog

Just who is Scolari trying to kid?

Yesterday quotes from our ex-manager – the venerable Mr. Scolari – appeared all over the web. Luiz alleged that it was player power, and specifically the power of Drogba, Cech and Ballack, that got him the elbow in February.

He goes on to say that it’s always the manager that gets fired first, not the players, because the directors and owners of European football clubs end up siding with the latter. You can read an overview of his comments in the Sun here.

Nice deflection, Scolari. The fact is that the best managers of the game don’t get fired before players. How many players, for example, have left Old Trafford in the last ten years because their actions led them to fall out of favour with the boss? And how many from Arsenal?

The difference with Scolari of course, was that he didn’t have the record of success to back him up when players (who have better records in European football than he does) started taking issue with his methods and, as a consequence, the board didn’t really have much choice.

So, wake up Scolari. Chelsea were sliding towards 5th in the table and out of the Champions League spots. Hiddink came in and scored more than a point per game more than you did (see here for the full statistical breakdown). Player power played a part in your demise, but wasn’t the primary factor – that was you.

Oh, and good luck with Bunyodkor.

Am I being too harsh on the big man? Post a comment.

Are Chelsea preparing for 6+5?

The transfer gossip linking Chelsea with the biggest players in world football has gone quiet over the past week or so. Dull, dull, dull.

We do need one or two choice additions but it’s not time to get worried just yet – the transfer window isn’t even formally open. Let’s see who Abramovich, Kenyon and Ancelotti rustle up in the next few weeks.

In the last week however, Chelsea have been linked with a few lower profile players. Firstly Sturridge, whose move on a free transfer (ish) from Manchester City seems to be all but done. Secondly we’ve been linked with Charlton playmaker Jonjo Shelvey – just 17 years of age and supposedly one of the hottest prospects in the country (see how Sky Sports reviewed him here). Finally, Ross Turnbull, the Middlesborough goalkeeper. From what I remember, Turnbull has been at a number of clubs (mostly on loan) before finally deciding to leave Middlesborough this summer. At 24, he’s still very young for a goalkeeper.

Clearly at least two of these deals are still to go through, but two thoughts immediately occur: one, that Chelsea do finally seem to be making their threat to buy for the future look genuine; and two, that they’re looking at English players.

New Champions League rules introduced last season placed new restrictions on the number of foreign players that could be named in each squad, so perhaps ‘buying English’ is merely the club’s attempt to give us as many options as possible in that competition. But the rumours also left me wondering if Chelsea are also preparing for the possibility that UEFA and FIFA will somehow get their way on 6+5, and are buying English players that could stay at the club whilst the new rules are being rolled out over the first half of the next decade. I’ll write more on the 6+5 debate over the next week or so, but fingers crossed these transfers aren’t being made now because the club know something we don’t on the issue.

On the other hand, many see having an English core as a desirable thing and the club might be looking ahead to a time when Terry, Lampard and the Coles have retired. Whatever the motivation though, I’m almost more encouraged that Chelsea are being linked with these type of players than I was a few weeks ago and the string of outside-bet, big money transfer rumours.

Know more about what we might expect from these three players if they joined than me? Have a different view on our supposed transfer targets? 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.

Chelsea make first signing of the summer

Chelsea has made its first signing of the summer, according to reports. No, not Aguero, nor Ribery or Maicon, but…Jan Sebek.

Rumours that the 18 year-old Czech goalkeeper is a distant relative of Sebek, the ancient Egyptian crocodile god, are wide of the mark, but here’s hoping he can build on a solid showing against Arsenal reserves during a trial last year.

Good to see us a) sign another keeper and b) look to youth.

If you’ve been on this blog before, you might have noticed that I’m keeping an updated list of all the players Chelsea are linked with this summer here. Looking at it you’ll see that, not only does Sebek not feature, but also that we so far haven’t yet signed anyone from the list, and two of the players have moved to other clubs (Kaka and Johnson).

Anyone know anything about Sebek? Post a comment.

Chelsea squad review 08/09: Part III - the forwards

It’s pretty much clear where Chelsea’s weakness – if it can be called that – lies: in attack. After parts one and two of bridgeviews’ squad review, now it’s the turn of Drogba et al to come under the spotlight.

With remarkable consistency, Chelsea scored 64, 65 and 68 in the 06/07, 07/08 and 08/07 seasons respectively. In those three seasons Chelsea scored first 19, then 15, and then 9 goals less than the leading goal scorers. So, in terms of putting the ball in the net, it looks like we’re improving. But are we, and from what base?

Aside from the 05/06 season, when Chelsea and Arsenal both scored 72, the club haven’t been Premier League top scorers in any of the last five years. Liverpool have now outscored Chelsea for two consecutive seasons (who would have thought it?).

To compound a general lack of goals over the past three seasons (and often against the most conservative teams), Chelsea have been overly dependent on the midfield for goals. In 06/07 Drogba and Shevchenko managed 24 (38%) and the next season they contributed even less, 13 (20%). Anelka and Drogba scored 24 (35%) in 08/09. Compare that return to the 01/02 season when Hasselbaink and Gudjohnsen scored a total of 37 league goals, 56% of Chelsea’s 66. Very good players both, but consider their comparatively meagre combined transfer fee of £19m to prices paid for Drogba, Anelka and Shevchenko…

It’s far from a new problem for Chelsea, but despite trying a number of options over the past couple of seasons the club has yet to hit upon the right combination up front, keep them fit when most needed or support them adequately with forwards playing off the wings. It’s been said on this blog before, but renewing our options in that area must be the priority for this summer if we are to continue to compete.

A quick look at each of the players in turn:

Drogba – there’s a little of the angel and the demon in our Didier, and we’ve seen a little of each this season. On form he’s the world’s most powerful lone striker. When not on form however, it’s hard to overlook his petulance, oft-awful first touch and inconsistency in front of goal. Regardless of all that he is probably (along with Lampard and Terry) Chelsea’s most important player. The team is built round him: he moves on, and Chelsea will need to rip up the rulebook and start again. Scored less goals in 08/09 than we might have the right to expect, but played a major part in Chelsea’s revival in the closing months of the season.

Anelka – One of the more successful big-money striker signings of recent years, Anelka ended 08/09 as Chelsea’s first golden boot winner since Hasselbaink. Technically an excellent player, his 19 league goals is an impressive return, especially having been played out wide for large parts of the season. Whilst an important part of the squad and a player that offers something genuinely different from Drogba, some question marks do remain however. Can he play in as part of a front two with Drogba? Does he spend enough of his time in the box? Does he score enough against top opposition?

 Kalou – I’ve always admired Salomon and defended him in debates with other fans. He chips in with a good number of goals and his attitude – both in defence and attack – is unquestionable. But my opinion is changing. Up until now he has been a good squad player that we hoped had the potential to develop into something more exciting. Unfortunately, he simply hasn’t improved enough over the last couple of seasons, and is still guilty of occasional profligacy in possession and in front of goal. His relative youth alone shouldn’t make him invulnerable and, as one of the few players in the squad who could command a £10m+ transfer fee, I’d consider cashing in to help fund a replacement.

Will be most intrigued to see – what happens with Pizarro and Shevchenko. Surely Pizarro doesn’t have it in him to return to England and be a success, but after such a strong season in Germany could Chelsea get a reasonable transfer fee for him? And where will Sheva end up? Last we heard even French clubs were turning him down. How the mighty have fallen.

Biggest disappointment – Ben Sahar’s recent transfer to Espanyol. Another youth prospect bites the dust.

Look out for – Di Santo. We didn’t get to see too much of our fuzzy-haired youngster this season, but he did look confident, fast and good in the air. Has scored plenty in the reserves too. Fingers crossed he’s good enough to get more time next season. 

These are my views – but what do you think? Post a comment.

John Terry named Dad of the year

Resolve, excellence in their position, courage in the face of adversity, dignity in defeat and exceptional leadership – all the qualities needed to be Chelsea and England captain. And, err…the world’s greatest Dad.

Well, this one is a surprise. John Terry has today been handed a ‘Dad of the year award’ following a public poll undertaken by daddies sauce. The Chelsea centre-half won the award having fought off a brave battle from second placed father, Peter Andre. You can get the full lowdown on the Story at the Independent’s website, here.

I guess the sight of him playing football with his kids after the Blackburn game last month really has captured the nation's imagination. Can it really be that the media are finally taking to something at Chelsea, are ready to lavish praise upon its captain, laud him as a role model for millions and, Diana like, clutch him to their hearts?

Expect the Sun headline tomorrow: “John Terry fails to win mum of the year award'”.

UEFA’s attitude is the real disgrace

In response to UEFA’s ruling yesterday, I posted on how the club should seek to turn the situation to its advantage.

This is all a very contentious issue. For all Chelsea fans – me included – the injustice of that evening still burns bright. Drogba called Ovrebo’s performance ‘a disgrace’. It was. But turning to look at the bigger picture, the real disgrace is UEFA’s attitude in their running of the game. There has been no public admission that the referee’s performance was sub-standard and no hint that it has (or will) come under review. Which of us, in whatever walk of life, could make mistakes on that scale without serious repercussions?

UEFA is a strange, confused kind of organisation. On the one hand, it seeks to be the stern ruling body of football. Trouble with this is, they accept no accountability for their (or their referees’) actions and punish anyone who dares to criticise them – a very dictatorial style of government.

On the other hand, UEFA sees itself as the ‘protector of the game’, as embodied by the ongoing public ramblings of Platini. But much of this they get wrong. For the UEFA chief to be publically backing teams ahead of the biggest games of the season is misplaced favouritism on an epic scale. Imagine what the reaction would be if, in recent times, Gordon Brown or Barack Obama had publically discussed a private hope that a certain bank would survive the recession because it employed the people wearing the most colour co-ordinated ties and working in the mot stylish offices? Any governing body – whether of a country, profession or sport – must first and foremost be objective if it is ever to gain lasting respect. Unfortunately, and unlike politicians and their governments, there is no comeback against UEFA.

Where am I going with this? In essence, it’s a simple point: there must be parity in football. If UEFA scrutinise clubs like Chelsea for their actions, they should accept a level of scrutiny of their own. They should be an accountable body, open and willing to look at failings and challenge itself to improve. Perhaps a UEFA statement on a review of Ovrebo’s performance will be forthcoming. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

As a final point: most crucially, UEFA’s lack of accountability spits in the face of football fans. When Chelsea went out of the Champions League to that late Iniesta goal, it was after a 12 game campaign that saw Blues fans watching 18 hours of football. Supporters going to all the home games would have paid at least £300 (plus programme, food and travel costs). It is an investment of time, money and emotion that was made redundant by a single inept performance of a referee. UEFA would do well to not take that so lightly.

Have a view on this? Post a comment.

UEFA’s punishment of Chelsea: is the club’s response the real issue now?

Much will be written today and tomorrow about the punishments doled out to Didier Drogba, Jose Bosingwa and Chelsea by UEFA following the second leg semi final tie against Barcelona in May.

For those that haven’t seen it yet, Drogba has been handed a six match ban (with two of those deferred for a probationary period of two years) and Bosingwa has been banned for two matches (with one of those deferred). Chelsea itself has been fined £85,000.

I suspect that journalists, commentators and fans of all clubs will be divided on whether the punishments are too severe or not severe enough. I’ll leave the intricacies of that debate to other blogs until tomorrow, but my initial reaction is that Drogba’s punishment could have been worse, Bosingwa’s is harsh and £85k is a drop in the ocean to Chelsea.

What I would like to raise briefly is a separate but related issue about Chelsea’s typical response to criticism or controversy. Whether you care about it or not, it our club has a poor external reputation - disliked by UEFA and the refereeing fraternity and seemingly lacking in admirers from other impartial football fans.

This poor reputation stems from Abramovich’s wealth, the club’s recent success, accusations of players diving, our behaviour in the transfer market and of course the antics of people like Didier Drogba. But it also comes from the club’s ‘voice’ – our official responses to developments such as which we’ve seen today – which is regularly aggressive and rarely showing sign of humility or remorse. We’ve seen it on the pitch, but off it too a poor reputation is costing the club.

Was today’s UEFA announcement an opportunity for Chelsea to start to rebuild our reputation with that organisation, to start providing reasons for Platini to embrace the club rather than shun it (as reprehensible as he is it would be useful to have him onside) and encourage them to stop including clips of Chelsea players diving as case studies on their referee training videos?

It most certainly was – and the club (or rather the club’s publicity machine) missed a trick. The statement issued on the website within twenty minutes of UEFA’s ruling merely suggested that the club is considering it’s response, nothing more. At the very least, the statement on the Chelsea adds absolutely nothing and was entirely needless. Surely anyway the club knew what to expect and could have planned it’s position ahead of time?

The game is lost, an appeal is unlikely to be successful and the reputational pay-off from an alternative response could pay dividends in the long run. Would it have hurt to have immediately reiterated our acknowledgement of some guilt over the whole affair, accepted the judgement and requested an opportunity to move on from the incident? Drogba could even offer 25% of his weekly salary for each game he misses to charity.

The result of such a response? UEFA don’t have any further ‘Chelsea headache’. The newspapers write entirely different headlines in tomorrow’s papers. Rival fans who criticised Drogba for his actions soften their view and perhaps even consider that those actions were rooted in a dire refereeing performance.

Longer term, improving our reputation could have far further reaching impact, helping us both win refereeing decisions on the pitch and fans off it. One can also imagine it would make us a more attractive club for the world’s top players to play for.

Don’t get me wrong: as a Chelsea fan I don’t actually condemn Drogba, Bosingwa or the fans’ actions that night. In the heat of the moment, a big part of me wanted Drogba to thump Ovrebo. There is a time to fight injustice, but what’s done is done, and now thoughts should turn to how we can make the best of a bad situation.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Chelsea squad review 08/09: Part II - the midfield

Following swiftly on from Saturday's first part of bridgeviews' squad review, here's a look at Chelsea's engine room: the midfield.

But has it been the engine room? Chelsea's midfield - from left to right - has for the past couple of seasons been a little bipolar: at once the team’s strongest suit and its Achilles heal.

Defensively, the central midfield is arguably second-to-none in world football - borne out by the low number of goals conceded in the league and the technical excellence displayed in stifling Barcelona for 184 minutes. It majors in controlling games, dominating possession and disrupting all-comers. In contrast however, has been its form going forward, perhaps partly due to Ballack's stuttering form, Deco's failure and Essien's injury. All-to-often it felt like Lampard was the only attack-minded player willing or able to attempt something different from the centre to try and unlock opposition defences, and free-flowing football has been rare.

Wide of the centre is a similar story. The sale of Arjen Robben and failure to sign Robinho, despite their questionable injury record and temperament respectively, have been the single most damaging developments to Chelsea's challenge for major trophies this year and last. Who can say how the season may have panned out had Malouda turned up between August 2008 and February 2009 or Joe Cole had played ten more games (Joe Cole’s injury against Southend was one of bridgeviews’ five most disappointing moments of 08/09)? Aside from perhaps Liverpool, Chelsea have the weakest wide players of any of England’s big four, and they don’t contribute enough goals. Despite Malouda’s renaissance and the return of Joe Cole for next season, the number one priority for the summer must be the signing of a creative player who can play off the wing, cross the ball, take a man on and shoot straight. Here’s a look at each of Chelsea’s midfield players 08/09 in turn.

Lampard – no real need to write anything new here: simply Chelsea’s most influential player with consistently excellent all-round performances. It’s easy to forget how close he came to signing for Inter – who can say where Chelsea would have finished if he hadn’t signed a new contract.

Essien – we almost forgot how important the Bison is to the team during his lengthy lay-off. Yes, after a 2-3 game burst of impeccable form following his return he did seem to suffer from a lack of sharpness, but his energy and dynamism is invaluable. His goal against Barcelona was worthy of winning any Champions League semi final.

Ballack – an excellent footballer who didn’t hit top form this season. Too often looked a yard short and sloppy in possession. Having signed a new one year deal, fingers crossed the big German’s form last season was more a blip than the impact of age.

Mikel – vastly underrated. At his age he has no right to play with the maturity and quality he has shown in the holding role this season. One of the best players in the squad for the first half of 08/09, his form improved again in the last month following a brief spell on the bench. His distribution could be better (not just sideways please, Obi), but towards the close of the season he started to show potential as a more distinguished passer of the ball. He was expensive, but has been one of the only young players bought by the club to have made it in recent years.

Malouda – you can read what we think of Malouda in-depth here, but suffice to say his renaissance during the latter half of the season was one of the more remarkable developments of the season. New attitude; new player – so that’s why Jose bought him. More of the same next season please, Florent.

Joe Cole – a genuinely massive loss to the side when injured against Huddersfield. A one-of-a-kind player in the squad, the variation he can add to Chelsea’s play really helps the midfield tick. Look forward to seeing him back next season.

For the transfer list – Deco. After a few good performances early in the season, he very soon descended into a period of dire form that saw him all but disappear from the Stamford Bridge scene. Look forward to seeing him play in blue and black stripes next season. Mineiro – who we perhaps saw 20 minutes from – should be shuffled off the wage bill too.

Look out for – Stoch next season. Small and quick, here’s hoping he gets more of a chance to show what he’s made of next year. Who can say if he’s good enough, but his showing against Stoke alone suggests he’s worth another shout. Apparently Katuka’s not had a bad season in the reserves either…

Disagree with any of the above? Post a comment.

Chelsea’s Premier League fixtures 09/10

So the fixture list for the 08/09 Premier League season is with us already (quite why it needed to be released so early is a bit of a mystery) and at first glance it looks like it has treated Chelsea fairly well.

Ancelotti will have the easiest start to life in English football he could have hoped for with early games against Hull, Sunderland, Burnley and Stoke punctuated only with a trip away to Fulham. Once again (and as with five of the last six seasons) our first game will be at home.

The first ‘big four’ encounter will come against our old chums Liverpool at Stamford Bridge on 3rd October, with home ties against Manchester United and Arsenal following in November. It’s worth noting that – like last year – all of our home games against our greatest rivals fall in the first half of the season. 

Christmas fixtures don’t look too challenging either, with fixtures against West Ham, Birmingham and Fulham falling on the 19th, 26th and 28th December respectively.

Three tough games against Man Utd, Liverpool and Spurs are scheduled for the last month or so of the season in what is an otherwise simple-looking run-in including games against Bolton, Stoke and Wigan.

What does all this mean? Clearly you can’t read too much into the impact of fixture timings. But the relatively straightforward start to the season is ideal for bedding in a manager new to the league. It’s also a good opportunity to start well and get our noses ahead (Man Utd play Arsenal and Man City before the end of September). 

Results against big four opposition at Stamford Bridge during 08/09 arguably cost Chelsea a title challenge. Once again these all-important games fall in the first half of the season and, coupled with a not-disastrous looking set of Christmas fixtures, we can expect to have a fairly good idea of the strength of Chelsea’s title challenge come 1 January 2010. 

Chelsea’s fixture list will be posted here soon.

The case against Chelsea buying Tevez

On Sunday it was Aguero, yesterday it was Gattuso and today we’re back to Tevez. Some of this morning’s papers, most notably the Sun, seem convinced that Chelsea are now favourites to land the Argentinean following a personal call made to the forward in Buenos Aires from Carlo Ancelotti. But should Chelsea really consider splashing at least £25m on him?

My gut reaction is no – if Tevez’s purchase would be intended to improve on Joe Cole, Malouda or Kalou we’d be better off keeping the money. He is unquestionably a good player – just not a great player, which is what teams like Chelsea and Man Utd need to improve on already good sides.

The clamour from Utd fans for their club to sign him, and the media’s bemusement at Ferguson’s stubborn refusal to do so (so far), seems to have amplified his supposed worth. The kind of figures being quoted for his signature are hugely disproportionate to his ability and certainly don’t befit someone who is essentially a Utd cast-off (in a normal marketplace – not the Man City/ Real Madrid parallel universe). If Utd aren’t prepared to spend that sort of money on a player they’ve retained for two years then we shouldn’t be either. 

Furthermore, he just isn’t the type of player Chelsea need at the moment: an attack-minded terrier who doesn’t score enough goals. Chelsea need inspiration off the wing, not another grafter.  

Looking over his performance in the league last season (and yes, he did have a better 07/08) the stats support the argument that he isn’t the man to replace players already at the club. Scoring 5 goals and making 3 assists in 1,858 minutes of football equates to a goal ever 372 minutes. Malouda has a superior scoring rate, scoring once every 337 minutes, and made 4 more assists than the Argentinean. Kalou – a candidate for the transfer list having seemingly reached the limit of his abilities - has a vastly superior scoring rate, with a goal every 214 minutes, and made 1 more assist. Joe Cole, who was obviously injured for the large part of the season, had a lower scoring rate than Tevez (1 every 480 minutes) but managed double the number of assists in that time. Hell, even Shaun Wright-Phillips, who Chelsea sold for £10m because he wasn’t good enough, had a scoring rate of one 1 every 487 minutes and managed 2 more assists than Tevez.

The numbers don’t stack up. Chelsea, leave him to Man City. That’s where he belongs. And let’s hope that’s where he does end up – another side rumoured to be interested in his services would be improved by him joining. They play in red…

nb. as a final point:  Tevez scored less points in the official Premier League ‘fantasy football’ competition than Bolton’s Kevin Davies, Fulham’s woeful Bobby Zamora and Aston Villa’s Emile Heskey. Not a perfect scientific measure, but interesting nonetheless…

Disagree and want to see him in Chelsea's blue next season? Post a comment.

Chelsea squad review 08/09: Part I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?  Post a comment.

Top five disappointments of 08/09

Hot on the heels of Monday's top five moments of Chelsea's 08/09 season (take a look at that list here), it's time to briefly abandon positivity. Here's bridgeviews' top five disappointments of 08/09.

5) The unbeaten home record coming to an end

All records come to an end, but at times during Chelsea's 86 game unbeaten run it felt almost impossible that we'd lose at home. Of course, the first defeat in four seasons of football would have to come against Liverpool - and a deflected goal at that - but the performance itself probably didn't warrant a loss.

4) Tickets

It promised so much. Back in June 2008, season ticket holders received a shiny new card in the post, complete with the technology for fans to scan their own card to get through the turnstiles. The big hope was that there was now a chance more time might be spent watching the game than queing to get through the three tiny gates at the centre of the Matthew Harding Lower. Net result: longer queues, more staff to get fans through turnstiles. Nice one Chels.

3) Michael Essien and Joe Cole's injuries

A lot has been said about Essien's injury - which saw him miss most of the season - and rightly so. On his return he scored two goals, one in each of his first two games, and his energy and dynamism was a pivotal part of the side's rejuvenation under Hiddink. Less is said about Joe Cole's injury however, but I would argue that his availability would have been just as vital as the Ghanain's in the closing months of the season. It's not just about Joe's quality - he also brings something to the side that was otherwise lacking: a different ball, run or trick to add another dimension to the side's play. With both Essien and Cole fit for longer periods, the premiership could have looked very different.

2) Man Utd 3 Chelsea 0

Chelsea hadn't played well for a while, but going into the game there was a realistic hope that our players were good enough to potentially pull off a win that could inspire a renewal of the club's title challenge. Unfortunately, Scolari's side put on one of their worst performances of the season, and Chelsea stumbled to a humiliating three nil loss with a limp display.

1) Ovrebo

I could talk about that Iniesta goal, which is undoubtedly the most heart-breaking moment in football I can remember in recent years. But I'd rather focus on the referee himself, whose performance was so shambolic it caused pandemonium both on the pitch and in the stands after the game. Potentially even more disappointing is UEFA's refusal once again to hold a referee publically accountable for their errors. Strangely quiet on that one, Plantini...

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...

Abandon 'off the shelf' approach: Chelsea's transfer policy

Everyone has a view on who Chelsea should be signing - or who they will sign (check out what the papers think here). Aside from a few token names, papers and fans alike almost exclusively seem to discuss the biggest names in football - Ribery, Aguero, Villa... This time last week we were buying Kaka for £73.5m.

If Abramovich is prepared to spend the kind of money needed to secure the services of these players, then that's all well and good, and of course exciting for the fans. But an 'off the shelf' transfer policy that revolves around looking for players that are established, world names shouldn't become the norm. We unearthed Robben in 2004. Man Utd found Ronaldo the same year. Barcelona found Messi when he was in his young teens. It can be done and not at such exorbitant cost. Much as been made of Chelsea's world class youth set up (by Chelsea it must be said) but - as Mourinho complained - it hasn't yet delivered. To become sustainable it has to, and the club need to show far greater nous in the transfer market.

The likes of Mancienne (who played and scored for England U21s on Monday), Sahar, Stoch and Katuka look promising, but in the push for honours the team hasn't been performing well enough to provide them with opportunities to play. Furthermore, the constant changing of managers over the past few years has left the club devoid of continuity and decidedly short-termist in approach, lessening the chances of these players breaking through further still.  Now rumours circulate that they are up for sale. All of this stands in stark contrast to Man Utd's purchase of Fabio and Rafael (the Brazilian twins) who have made an immediate impact in the first team at Old Trafford.

Of course, there is a balance to be struck - I'm not suggesting reverting to an Arsene Wenger-style policy of only blooding youngsters (which itself is inconsistent - compare the respective chances awarded to, say, Gibbs or Denilson over the past two or three seasons with Walcot, despite the potential of the latter). Some players of this ilk, like Kalou, have been given a chance, but Chelsea have been far less willing to take a risk on a player and have the prospect of a Nani or a Dos Santos on our hands than the rest of the so-called 'big four'.

This summer, Chelsea have been linked with younger, lower profile players - Sturridge and Arnautovic, for example - and perhaps this does suggest a desire to move  to redress the balance. Maybe Ancelotti will achieve success quickly enough to stay in the job and allow the club to follow a coherent transfer and youth policy. But therein lies the problem: purchasing these sorts of players presents risk, and if you set expectations sky high and won't countenance not meeting them, all risks become unnacceptable.

Match Review: England 6 Andorra 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chelsea player watch:

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

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

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

Paul Parker: Chelsea 'shown up' by Kaka signing

Some nonsense from that paragon of footballing excellence, Paul Parker, to update you on.

I stumbled across an article on Yahoo/ Eurosport online (read it in full here) in which England legend Paul Parker (he played for Chelsea don't you know - four times) suggests that Chelsea were 'shown up' by Real Madrid's signing of Kaka.

Flexing his intellectual muscle to bring his scintilating wit to bear on an otherwise flawless article, Parker also suggests that the deal represents 'another failure in the transfer market for Chelsea, who have really struggled to make the 'fantasy' signings Roman Abramovich wanted when he bought the club'.

Strangely enough, his wizard-like use of iambic pentameter and the pathetic fallacy almost had me believing him, until he amusingly went on to say 'I think most players would rather sign for Liverpool than Chelsea'. At this point I awoke from my daze and starting considering the number of levels on which he is entirely wrong. I settled on four:

1) Haven't we actually signed some mighty fine, top-billing players since Abramovich came to the club? Regardless of the extent of their success at Stamford Bridge, one can't argue that the likes of Shevchenko, Crespo, Ballack, Veron, Deco, Makelele - there are more - don't fall into the world class bracket. Yes, we haven't signed a Kaka, but these are 'fantasy' signings for 99.9% of football teams in the world.

2) In the same breath, Paul suggests that Chelsea don't have a hope of signing these sorts of players when up against Madrid. And he has a point - Madrid have a 50 year history of winning things, a prime location in a hot country, a 100,000 seater stadium and truckloads of cash. But if that's the case and we're not in the same league - as Paul argues - how can you also argue that we were 'shown up'? Surely if we'd have signed Kaka from under Madrid's noses then they would have been shown up, but it doesn't work the other way round. In fact, that we've signed the likes of Shevchenko and Ballack pays tribute the outstanding ability Chelsea has found to sign the biggest names in spite of its status.

3) We didn't try to sign Kaka anyway. Read the statement on the Chelsea website. Must be true.

4) Players would rather sign for Liverpool? Err...yes, that's why we were signing Ballack while they were signing Lucas. Or why we hired the services of Shevchenko while they were selling Keane and relying on N'gog (who?) at the close of last season. No top class player who isn't Spanish wants to play for Liverpool at the moment (don't tell me they wouldn't rather pick a nice club in Fulham). Don't believe me? Wait to see who the scousers sign this summer...

Parker's article is certainly nonsense. But there is something in there that is important - Chelsea do need to more generally rethink their transfer strategy, moving more towards uncovering promising talent. I'll post some thoughts on this tomorrow. In the meantime, if you see Paul Parker, don't hesistate to show him this article. I'm sure he'll be interested.

Or is it me talking nonsense? Post a comment

Devil’s advocate: is Owen really such a bad signing?

Now, I’m not suggesting Chelsea snap him up by any means. But Aston Villa’s recent distancing of themselves from Michael Owen’s signature throws me into confusion. Aside from the obvious, why aren’t clubs of that ilk coming in for him?

His scoring record – at all levels of the game – speaks for itself. At 204 goals from 418 appearances, he scores at one goal every two games, more than respectable for any striker. This includes 30 goals from 76 appearances at Newcastle (not far shy of one in two, and a lot of those appearances came from the bench), an underperforming team playing at the foot of the table. His England record is outstanding too – 40 goals from 89 appearances. Not to be sniffed at.

Of course, his injury record is the major sticking point, and a stretch of fitness problems has certainly taken the edge of his pace. But one could argue in his favour that he has successfully adapted his game from pacey forward playing on the shoulder of the last defender to more of a box player. And who knows, the extra motivation of playing for a team at the right end of the table (he hasn’t won anything for nearly six years) could potentially squeeze another few games a season out of him. Besides which, 31 appearances for each of the last two seasons consecutively is hardly abysmal– it’s as many as Robben managed for Chelsea in 04/05 and 06/07.

Finally – he’d come cheap. Even if he was on inflated weekly earnings, he’d arrive on a free transfer and awarding a short-term contract would minimise the financial risk. Plus of course, still being a big name in football, he’d sell shirts. Back in January I remember suggesting to a Chelsea-supporting friend that he’d be a good signing. Six months on, his horizons might have lowered a little but I’d be surprised if come the start of the season he’s not with a top 10 club. Villa, Everton, Fulham – step up.

Disagree? Post a comment.

The rights and wrongs of international football

Too good not to share. In the wake of Saturday’s fixture against Kazakhstan, the following appeared in yesterday’s Times (UK):

 
“Is it right, in this day and age, for players to be asked to fly 3,500 miles to perform on a pitch clearly unfit for international football, in a supposedly European country where corruption is of widespread concern and the people have no choice in their head of government? But enough of the problems Kazakhstan encountered when they lost 5-1 at Wembley.”

Poor stewards at Wembley put fans’ safety in jeopardy

The most exciting moment in England’s game against Kazakhstan last Saturday might well have been when an over-excited local rushed onto the pitch in the closing moments of the game. After a short, zigzagged burst for freedom, he was brought down with a thump by three rather large men in full camouflage army gear. He was dragged off and probably hasn’t been seen since.

We’ve seen similar incidences at Stamford Bridge (and other grounds around the country) in the stands. Many times over the years away supporters who have parked themselves in amongst Chelsea supporters have cheered away goals, only to find themselves escorted out of the stadium by stewards faster than you could say ‘I say, that was a bit of a foolish move old chap’.

Now of course the Stamford Bridge stewards aren’t dressed in fatigues or brandishing firearms (more typically they hang around looking sheepish in luminous vests) but, like their Kazakh counterparts, they seem to know how to deal with fans that step out of line. In the case of overzealous supporters sitting in the wrong places, these stewards act in the interests of everybody’s safety.

Watching the man getting walked off the pitch via military escort on Saturday, I cast my mind back to Wembley and 25 seconds into last weekend’s FA Cup final, when Saha’s goal sent small pockets of Everton fans sitting misguidedly in the Chelsea end into raptures. Clearly any plan to keep quiet had gone out the window half an hour before as these idiots downed their seventh pint of the afternoon before making a quick dash to be in their seats in time for Abide With Me.

Amidst the quiet as we reeled from conceding so early, we all looked round expecting these fans to be shunted out the ground in the normal fashion. But not one steward moved. A minute later – literally a minute – still no-one had moved. One minute later, tens of Chelsea fans – now obviously having had the time to feel affronted – made their way over to these fans to make their feelings known. Punches were thrown, blood spilt and kids were crying before finally the stewards got involved.

Not being a ground that exclusively hosts one sport or team, I assume the training and job spec for stewards at Wembley are very different from what the stewards and Stamford Bridge experience. But safety of both sets of fans (don’t get me wrong, I’m not condoning the stupidity of sitting in the wrong end or indeed violence against those people) is paramount and the security staff should act more decisively. The FA – sort it out next year, please.

Top five moments of 08/09

With Ancelotti joining the club and a plethora of transfer rumours filling the back sheets last week, posts over the last few days have mostly been looking to the future.

Time to take a deep breath and take a look back over last season. The full, month-by-month, blow-by-blow bridgeviews Chelsea 08/09 season review can be read here (settle down with a cup of tea).

In the meantime, we’re also pulling together a series of ‘top fives’. First up – the top five individual moments of Chelsea’s season. So, in reverse order:

5) Lampard’s winner against Stoke 

Approaching the 89th minute at home to Stoke and still one-nil down. Plenty of fans had left and the atmosphere had turned distinctly sour. Stealing a goal back to level the scores lifted the crowd but wasn't good enough. Then up stepped Frank to slam the ball into the net for the winner. Magic. Check out our link to Phil Thompson’s reaction to the goal in our season review here.

4) Scolari sacked 

Might seem a bit mean spirited, this (and it probably is), but quite simply results and performances hadn’t been good enough. The team looked rudderless,  we were sliding down the table towards fifth position and you think Clownio’s substitutions made no sense... Even on hearing the newsit seemed sudden, but of course in hindsight we know that Abramovich got it right.

3) That quarter final


Actually, maybe it should be the 3-1 win at Anfield…or maybe it should be Lampard’s second and Chelsea’s fourth at the Bridge. Who cares? Let’s defy convention and put the whole 180 minutes down as one moment. You’ve seen the goals a thousand times before – but take a look at Thompson and Hasselbaink reacting to the second leg’s events on Sky Sports News. We didn’t know you cared, Jimmy.

2) We want you stay… 

Football can be exciting, frustrating, heart-stopping and thrilling. But the Chelsea fans at final game of the season against Blackburn, and Hiddink’s reaction, showed that it can also occasionally be touching. Again, read more about this in our season review.

1) Lampard’s winner in the Cup final

As Lampard hit the back of the net from 25 yards with his ‘weaker’ foot to put Chelsea 2-1 up in the FA Cup Final, it felt like the fans’ excitement was almost balanced out with relief. After the disappointment in the Champions League and our terrible mid-season performances in the league, lifting the FA Cup was a fantastic consolation and a great send off for Hiddink.

What moments have I missed? Frank’s genius chipped goal against Hull? Beletti’s thunderbolt against Middlesborough? The moment when Malouda decided to become a footballer, or Zola’s refusal to celebrate a West Ham goal at the bridge? Post a comment.

Kazakhstan 0 England 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chelsea player watch

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

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

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

Terry and Lampard set to start for England

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Pre-match in quotes:

 

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

 

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

 

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

The Chelsea week that was

It might have petered out slightly, but what a week it's been at Chelsea football club. Expect more next week...

Saturday 30 May - Chelsea go behind thanks to a record-breaking Saha goal but fight back to win their fifth FA Cup. Frank Lampard scores the winning goal - his twentieth of the season. Highlights from the game can be seen here

Sunday 31 May – the plaudits roll in for Hiddink as the Dutchman leaves Chelsea. Speculation that Carlo Ancelotti will be named the new manager reaches a crescendo as it’s announced that he has left AC Milan after eight years. The club announce that Michael Ballack have signed a new contract

 

Monday 1 June – Carlo Ancelotti is named Chelsea manager

 

Tuesday 2 June – the transfer gossip starts. Chelsea are linked with a swathe of top European talent from Kaka and Pirlo through to Ribery and Villa

 

Wednesday 3 June – rumours fly that Chelsea have outbid Real Madrid with a massive offer of £73.5m to Milan for Kaka’s services. The club quickly moves to quash the rumour, denying they’ve ever made an offer for the player on chelseafc.com

 

Thursday 4 June – both John Terry and Frank Lampard are quoted discussing their excitement at the prospect of working with Ancelotti and the potential for new top-class signings

 

Friday 5 June - The transfer gossip dies down (Glen Johnson being the only name consistently linked with a move), Lampard suggests he’ll consider management when he retires from playing football. He and John Terry are expected to line up for England tomorrow

One Italian in England: Ancelotti lays into surly Capello

 Last week a series of quotes from the new Chelsea manager’s autobiography about his negotiations with the Abramovich hit the headlines – you can read what I thought about them here.

 

This morning – quite conveniently timed ahead of England’s World Cup qualifier tomorrow – more quotes from his autobiography have been plastered all over the back pages, this time about England Manager and compatriot Fabio Capello. A choice excerpt:

 

"Capello read games brilliantly that was his best quality. From that point of view, hats off to him. On a human level…he was surly, he didn't have a dialogue with the players, above all he didn't like to talk to us about technical issues. The discussion on certain questions was not relevant to him - it didn't exist."

 

An article on the Guardian website – published a week ago today, I might add - takes his quotes further, adding:

 

“Unsurprisingly, he fell out with many players. For example, I remember Ruud Gullit pinning him up against the wall”.

 

Nice one, Ruud. From a Chelsea fan’s point of view, it’s interesting that Ancelotti once again talks up the importance of man-management and ‘getting on’ with players – he spoke on Chelsea TV about the importance of creating a ‘group’. Turning back to the story though: the media love to stoke up a rivalry as it sells papers. But one thing looks certain: Ancelotti will be a bit more outspoken than we thought…

FA campaign launched: kick bullying out of Spurs

The web is awash with rumours that, following the success of the ‘Kick Racism Out of Football’ initiative, the FA is about to launch a new campaign targeting the elimination of all bullying at Tottenham Hotspur.

 

The news comes after Michael Dawson revealed that he has been on the wrong end of bullying on the White Hart Lane playground (I first read this story on the Off The Post blog). It is alleged that witty Spuds team-mates fooled recently-signed Dawson into making a presentation during a team talk ahead of a game against his old club Nottingham Forest, before laughing cruelly at him. Rumours that they also put drawing pins on his chair and called him names haven't been substantiated.

 

A source close to the club said: “Michael is a great sport but can’t take all this on his own – he’s only small. Just because he only gets in the team because the better players are never fit is no reason to call him names.”

Can Ancelotti emerge from Mourinho’s shadow?

I read a post on a Guardian blog recently that suggested Ancelotti ‘must’ step out from Mourinho’s shadow. It made some interesting points, but drifted somewhat to the conclusion that he stood more chance of succeeding in doing so than Grant and Scolari because he has increased backing in the transfer market from Abramovich. You can read it here.

 

The real, most immediate and interesting question however, is actually: should he try to?

 

This isn’t about whether Ancelotti will achieve the successes needed to make Chelsea fans loosen their talon-like grip on the Jose era. More pressing, is how Ancelotti will go will go about targeting success: rip up the rulebook and start again, or tinker at the edges of an already successful team? Everything starts with this question – transfers, sales, training and tactics.

 

Scolari tried to ‘emerge from Mourinho’s shadow’ with the new rule book approach. He adopted a more liberal style on the pitch and even his demeanour off it portrayed a more widely appealing image to non-Chelsea fans. But he failed.

Conversely, Grant and then Hiddink both achieved success, but they remained within the safe confines of Jose’s tactical shadow. Hiddink achieved success through upping fitness, organising the defence, employing tighter tactics and working with players to increase the team ethic. Credit is due to Hiddink for being so successful in these respects, but these are all hallmarks of Mourinho’s Chelsea.  

We have long been told that Roman wants his Chelsea to play more flamboyant football (though of course we’ve never heard it from the horse’s mouth – perhaps he just wants to win). But to rip up the rulebook and start again in the hope of creating a new team that wins while playing differently is risky. Rumours that Drogba will sign a new contract soon seem to suggest that upheaval isn’t in the offing. The way Chelsea play, their attacking style, mentality and approach the game, largely revolves around the Ivorian’s presence in the squad. Without him, Chelsea would need to set up completely differently in midfield and attack and that might take very significant investment in new players.

 

In my view, the club is actually still in a very similar position now as it was two or three seasons ago: being two or three quality signings short (in the right positions) of being full-time contenders on all fronts again. Having the equivalents of a 2006 Robben and Duff in the squad would see the team take on an entirely new dimension and allow it to play differently – without disturbing the team through too much change.

 

The only way for Ancelotti to ‘emerge from Mourinho’s shadow’ – in the eyes of fans – will be through renewed success on the pitch. To do that though, Carlo would be best off sticking close to the shade.

 

Disagree and think more wholesale changes are needed? Post a comment.

How to sign Kaka in four, simple steps

1) Offer huge amounts of cash to AC Milan, Kaka's father, Kaka's Mr. 10%, his wife, brother-in-law and some bloke who works in the corner shop opposite the San Siro. And the player too? Go on then.

2) Appeal to his religious sensibilities. Perhaps get the Pope onboard? If not, stage a photoshoot at Stamford Bridge to photograph a prominent figure from the club meeting figures from the church. I don't know...some nuns perhaps.

3) Encourage the papers to say it's a done deal. If you tell a big enough lie loudly enough, it might just come true. Someone famous said something like that. Think it may have been Hitler.

4) Be Real Madrid.

Pavel Nedved - he knows

Whilst I have always known what a great player Pavel Nedved is (or was), only now have I realised what a great man he is. In a world that pours scorn on the greatest number 8 in football, old Pavel has taken the time to talk about how Frank is ‘the best midfielder in the world’. Just uncovered these quotes from a couple of months back and felt obliged to post them here:

 

“He really is a phenomenon. For years (Frank) Lampard I think has been the best midfielder in the world. His level of consistency for club and country is amazing and he scores many important goals in the big games. We will do well to take care of him because he is often like a ghost from the midfield."

 

I vote we appoint him new Chief Spokesperson at Stamford Bridge. Greenberg, sign him up, Greenberg Greenberg sign him up…

Some tasty-looking friendlies next month...

Chelsea have just announced a pre-season friendly game against the mighty Reading.  Exciting times.

But what had slightly gone under the radar (for me at least) is the two tasty looking friendly fixtures against Italian opposition in July...first Inter (22nd) and then AC Milan (24th). Its almost as if they knew Carlo was coming to Stamford Bridge...

I for one am looking forward to seeing Jose back on our screens for a day or two in and around the Inter game. Tickets to the States, anyone?