A couple of months ago I expressed some concerns over Chelsea's inability to produce on the big stage. Subsequent losses against Arsenal and Man Utd have confounded those concerns. However, it's not the defeats themselves that have knocked Chelsea back - it's the manner in which they lost. Against Arsenal they managed approximately two shots on target, and looked completely bereft of ideas on how to claw their way back into the game once going 2-1 behind. I mean they didn't even try lumping long balls up to an advanced John Terry. What was up with that? And on Sunday, against Man Utd, the barely registered a shot worthy of the name over the 90 minutes.
It's not that Chelsea were bad. It's that they were so bad, Ji Sung Park (or Park Ji Sung, or Sung Ji Park, or Ji Park Sung, or Sung Park Ji) was made to look a decent attacking threat. Heck, a midfield consisting of Darren Fletcher and 35 year old Ryan Giggs was made to look dynamic, which says alot more about Chelsea's haplessness than United's Scots/Welsh midfield duo.
United were deserving winners of course, but if truth be told, it was a low quality game. Man United were the far superior team, but collectively they never really rose above 6 out of 10. And what's more worrying from a Chelsea point of view, they never had to. Man Utd didn't necessarily out-pass Chelsea, or display more adroit technique. Their play was sloppy at times, and only when Chelsea were forced to open up did they really begin to look somewhat creative. What they did do different to Chelsea however was a) Defend set-pieces well, b) Run reasonably quickly, and c) Offer penetrative width.
Chelsea have become -- to use a favourite phrase of Dunphy -- "quite shocking" when it comes to set-pieces. A couple of weeks ago Mark Lawrenson said that Fulham's equaliser from a corner would never have happened if John Terry were playing. Well Mark, John Terry was playing today, and look what happened...twice. I'm not placing all of the blame on JT of course, but rather highlighting the fact that his presence -- or lack thereof -- has no bearing on how Chelsea defend set-pieces. They defend them poorly without him, and they defend them poorly with him.
Chelsea's average age has also been highlighted as a possible achilles heel, most notably by Ferguson before the season began, and as the games go on it seems the wily Scot had a point back in August. In Deco, Mikel, Lampard, Ballack and Cole, Chelsea most definitely possess one of the slowest midfield quintet ever to play top tier football. There is actually zero pace in that list of players, which is why a Man Utd midfield consisting of Fletcher and Giggs could appear dynamic and agile. Scolari says they don't need any new players. They do, and more specifically, they need new players who don't have the speed and agility of a turtle on Codeine, or less figuratively, Michael Ballack.
With regards to Chelsea's width, as I was reflecting on the game the following thought crossed my mind - Joe Cole is Chelsea's Shaun Wright Phiilps. Allow me to explain. In a previous post I said that Man City may have to bite the bullet and get rid of a good, but not great, winger if they are to become serious top 4 challangers. In Joe Cole, Chelsea have a good player, but not a great player. There's no doubting that he's off form at the moment, but in most of the big games I've seen him play, more often than not he disappoints. Even if Joe Cole comes into a big game in devastating form, you always hear from the commentator's during said big game that "Cole is not having one of his better days" or "Cole is not having a great game by his high standards". Generally speaking, he doesn't produce when it really matters. Maybe with a pacey winger on the opposite side he would find more opportunities to weave some magic, but even so I still think he's good but he's not the one. He's certainly not the one Chelsea need at the moment.
What Chelsea need is someone who can beat a man, or create something out of nothing. Man Utd have this kind of player in Ronaldo, Rooney, and Berbatov. Arsenal have this kind of player in van Persie, Cesc, and the recently impressive Nasri. Even dour Liverpool have this kind of player in Gerrard and Torres. An aging Deco looked like this player for a month, then it all came tumbling down. Lampard usually only looks like this player when everything is clicking...against Middlesborough or someone of their kind. Drogba has the ability to create something out of nothing, but does he have the desire? It's all looking a bit flat for Chelsea, and unless Abramovich decides to take an interest in Chelsea Football Club again by splashing out some cash, the Blues could find themselves empty handed once more come June. That said, it's far too early to write them off (of course). As poor as they have performed against big 4 opposition, they have looked like steamrolling through most of the other teams in the division. If they can avoid slipping up against lesser opposition -- something that should be their forte -- then the league is still there for the taking. Wins at home against Stoke and Boro must follow Sunday's defeat. But the 1st of February poses the next serious question to be asked of Chelsea. Can they defeat Liverpool at Anfield? Assuming United don't make any mistakes between now and then they may just have to in order to keep up. I wouldn't back them to do so however, that much is certain.
It's not that Chelsea were bad. It's that they were so bad, Ji Sung Park (or Park Ji Sung, or Sung Ji Park, or Ji Park Sung, or Sung Park Ji) was made to look a decent attacking threat. Heck, a midfield consisting of Darren Fletcher and 35 year old Ryan Giggs was made to look dynamic, which says alot more about Chelsea's haplessness than United's Scots/Welsh midfield duo.
United were deserving winners of course, but if truth be told, it was a low quality game. Man United were the far superior team, but collectively they never really rose above 6 out of 10. And what's more worrying from a Chelsea point of view, they never had to. Man Utd didn't necessarily out-pass Chelsea, or display more adroit technique. Their play was sloppy at times, and only when Chelsea were forced to open up did they really begin to look somewhat creative. What they did do different to Chelsea however was a) Defend set-pieces well, b) Run reasonably quickly, and c) Offer penetrative width.
Chelsea have become -- to use a favourite phrase of Dunphy -- "quite shocking" when it comes to set-pieces. A couple of weeks ago Mark Lawrenson said that Fulham's equaliser from a corner would never have happened if John Terry were playing. Well Mark, John Terry was playing today, and look what happened...twice. I'm not placing all of the blame on JT of course, but rather highlighting the fact that his presence -- or lack thereof -- has no bearing on how Chelsea defend set-pieces. They defend them poorly without him, and they defend them poorly with him.
Chelsea's average age has also been highlighted as a possible achilles heel, most notably by Ferguson before the season began, and as the games go on it seems the wily Scot had a point back in August. In Deco, Mikel, Lampard, Ballack and Cole, Chelsea most definitely possess one of the slowest midfield quintet ever to play top tier football. There is actually zero pace in that list of players, which is why a Man Utd midfield consisting of Fletcher and Giggs could appear dynamic and agile. Scolari says they don't need any new players. They do, and more specifically, they need new players who don't have the speed and agility of a turtle on Codeine, or less figuratively, Michael Ballack.
With regards to Chelsea's width, as I was reflecting on the game the following thought crossed my mind - Joe Cole is Chelsea's Shaun Wright Phiilps. Allow me to explain. In a previous post I said that Man City may have to bite the bullet and get rid of a good, but not great, winger if they are to become serious top 4 challangers. In Joe Cole, Chelsea have a good player, but not a great player. There's no doubting that he's off form at the moment, but in most of the big games I've seen him play, more often than not he disappoints. Even if Joe Cole comes into a big game in devastating form, you always hear from the commentator's during said big game that "Cole is not having one of his better days" or "Cole is not having a great game by his high standards". Generally speaking, he doesn't produce when it really matters. Maybe with a pacey winger on the opposite side he would find more opportunities to weave some magic, but even so I still think he's good but he's not the one. He's certainly not the one Chelsea need at the moment.
What Chelsea need is someone who can beat a man, or create something out of nothing. Man Utd have this kind of player in Ronaldo, Rooney, and Berbatov. Arsenal have this kind of player in van Persie, Cesc, and the recently impressive Nasri. Even dour Liverpool have this kind of player in Gerrard and Torres. An aging Deco looked like this player for a month, then it all came tumbling down. Lampard usually only looks like this player when everything is clicking...against Middlesborough or someone of their kind. Drogba has the ability to create something out of nothing, but does he have the desire? It's all looking a bit flat for Chelsea, and unless Abramovich decides to take an interest in Chelsea Football Club again by splashing out some cash, the Blues could find themselves empty handed once more come June. That said, it's far too early to write them off (of course). As poor as they have performed against big 4 opposition, they have looked like steamrolling through most of the other teams in the division. If they can avoid slipping up against lesser opposition -- something that should be their forte -- then the league is still there for the taking. Wins at home against Stoke and Boro must follow Sunday's defeat. But the 1st of February poses the next serious question to be asked of Chelsea. Can they defeat Liverpool at Anfield? Assuming United don't make any mistakes between now and then they may just have to in order to keep up. I wouldn't back them to do so however, that much is certain.
2 comments:
I have to say I really do think that Chelsea, in my most humble of opinions are two players away from being the best team in the world. I still think Drogba is the best striker in the world, far, far better than Anelka who, while proficient at scoring when handed chances, creates little himself and is a passenger against any opposition of note. If Chelsea could get two wide creative men the whole team would look better, the middle men would be freed up. Possibly the most decisive moment in the title race occurred when City outbid Chelsea for Robinho. Flaurent Malouda... what a pile of cock!
Maybe so, but two wide creative men of high caliber are not easy to find unless you spend piles of money. In the modern game it could be argued that they are the most important attacking players on a team, so to not have good ones is a major debilitation.
Who would play in the centre if they got these two players by the way? Lamps, Essien and Mikel?
Also, it looks like Drogba may just be leaving, and so while I agree to some extent with your assessment of him, it may just be irrelevant.
Post a Comment