That is why we watch football. Pure, unscripted drama. The game began a goal that made Tony Yeboah's strikes of old look like childs play, and ended with as well taken a shot as you will see under such immense pressure. In between was a fierce battle, dominated by Barcelona in terms of possession, but dominated by Chelsea in terms of clear-cut chances.
There can be no comparison between the two semi-finals. To conclude from them that Man Utd are leagues ahead of everyone is to neglect the task Man Utd faced after 10 minutes in the second leg - don't concede four goals against a dejected bunch of "babies". What's worse is that people are looking at Cristiano from that game, then looking at Messi against Chelsea and -- treating all things as being equal -- concluding that Ronaldo is the big game player, the best in the world, and so forth. Suffice to say, all things were not equal. In fact they couldn't have been anymore unequal.
To analyse yesterday's game is almost to do it an injustice, but there are a few noteworthy points to be made:
- Valdes didn't put a foot wrong over the two legs, and made some crucial saves that kept Barcelona in the tie. For that he should be applauded.
- Barcelona had a weakened team out yesterday. They were forced to play a world-class holding midfielder in central defense, and replace him with a novice. The absence of a hugely influential player (Henry) also forced their best midfielder out to a less prominent wide position, meaning Barcelona were short two of their usual three midfielders.
- For all the talk of Chelsea's aerial threat, they didn't really threaten in that department at all. Kudos to the Barcelona players for defending well against free-kicks and corners.
- Chelsea should have had one penalty, so should Barcelona (from the first leg). Just because they had four shouts for a penalty doesn't mean anything, and to use it as an excuse is a bit pathetic.
- Drogba cost Chelsea their place in the final. He missed two great chances, one in each leg, and I'm convinced that his pretending to be injured was what made Hiddink substitute him, and thus hand the initiative to the 10 men of Barcelona.
- Barcelona dominated possession even with 10 men. They probably would have done so with 9, such was Chelsea's inability to control this game in an attacking sense.
- Frank Lampard goes missing in big games.
- Chelsea defended brilliantly.
- Messi does not play the game of football for Messi's sake. In our Youtube generation it seems people are disappointed if he doesn't go by three players and slot the ball home in every game. Being tripled marked meant that all he could do was make sure he didn't lose the ball, and hope for some kind of opening. With the headless Eto'o alongside of him it was hard to put an incisive attack together, but the Argentine can claim an assist which put Barcelona through.
- As a mailbox contributor said, lets finally put the Ronaldo v Messi debate to bed. Clearly Iniesta is the best footballer in the world. Eamon Dunphy commented that this whole "best in the world " thing is a cod. He's right in a way. It seems to be a debate invented in the last few seasons, to cater for the ego of Ronaldo. When Zinidene Zidane was playing I don't remember hearing people describe games as Zidane v Pirlo or what have you. Do you ever remember a game where Zidane's reputation of "best in the world" was on the line, as if the sport we were watching was boxing? Football is a team game, and that's one of the reasons Ronaldo was good on Tuesday. He played that way. That's also one of the reasons Iniesta is so good. I couldn't have been happier to see the ghostly playmaker score such a fantastic goal, because his name deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as the other great players of the modern age.
- Eto'o is a liability. I said as much before the game, and he will continue to let the side down in Rome. Quite simply, he's brainless.
There so much more to be said about that one game, and so much to anticipate with regards to the final. As usual, feel free to leave comments below.
Showing posts with label chelsea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chelsea. Show all posts
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Non-Prediction Prediction
Before I move on to tonight's game, a word on last night. Much is being made of United's performance, but one has to take into account the effect of the two goals that should never have been. They ended the game as a contest, and left United playing a team with no belief, heart, or will to even go on. Needless to say, that is an easy team to look good against. Perhaps I'm being churlish, but surely the game must be put into context, with the context being that United were handed two goals. Don't get me wrong - they fully deserve to be in the final, but I don't think we can afford to read into this game too much.
As for tonight, well, it can't be any more disappointing than last night's effort. Given it was only interesting for 7 minutes that's not saying much, but still, I expect this one to go the distance. That said, what kind of game can we expect? Something similar to the first leg? In some ways yes, but in other ways, no, and in yet more ways I don't actually know.
One thing I can guarantee is that Barcelona will see more of the ball than Chelsea. Maybe not as much as in the Nou Camp, but not far off. They really do only know how to play one way, and that is to pass the ball ad infinitum. My query is whether Stamford Bridge will help or hinder them. It is approximately a tenth of the size of the Nou Camp, which has to make a difference one way or another. My gut feeling is that the smaller pitch will help Barcelona (and Chelsea for that matter). At the Nou Camp is is easy for Barcelona to stroke the ball around without getting near the opposition's goal. However, given a smaller pitch you simply can't help but get closer to the opposition's goal. A tighter pitch will require more accuracy, but if anyone can rise to the challenge it's this Barcelona team.
Another factor in Barcelona's favour is the win against Madrid. That game must have been playing on their minds in the first leg, and so with La Liga all but wrapped up Barcelona minds will be 100% focused on the job at hand. Confidence is huge in sport, and while Chelsea are a different animal than Madrid, Barcelona will be confident of playing the way they have done for most of the season and winning.
The deployment of Messi could also change the dynamic of this game. On Saturday he played as a deep lying centre-forward, and he was magnificent. I thought this might happen in the first leg against Chelsea (in fact I may even have written as much), and I think it should happen tonight. Eto'o needs to be kept out on the wing where he can be as irrelevant as possible, and leave Messi to run at Alex and Terry. But even if this doesn't happen, Messi can only improve from a week ago, right? In fact you could say that about a few key Barcelona players. Iniesta was good last week, but he can be better, more incisive. I don't rate Eto'o very highly, but he is still better than what he showed in the first leg.
The bottom line is that Barcelona were not at their best last week and yet they still completely dominated possession and had three great chances to score. I'm almost certain they will be better at the Bridge, which leaves me believing there will beblood goals tonight.
Unfortunately, while I can predict what Barcelona are going to do with a degree of success, I have no clue how Chelsea are going to line up. Will they play the same 11? Will Anelka start? Will they attempt to complete three passes in a row? Anything I write about Chelsea will be pure conjecture, but since they need to score at least one goal it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that they may be a bit more adventurous on their home turf, especially with Barcelona's defensive woes. I haven't seen much of Caceres, but the fact that he is roughly Barcelona's fifth choice central defender doesn't exactly inspire confidence given who is in front of him. Drogba has the ability to exploit weakness like no other striker, and so there are goals for the taking should Chelsea decide they actually want to win this game.
The smaller pitch will also help Chelsea, since they will be able to support Drogba much more quickly. I don't expect Lampard to be much more influential than he was in terms of keeping the ball, but I do expect him to get forward more and have a few speculative efforts that may or may not deflect goalwards. His freekicks and corners will also be of vital importance. Madrid scored two headed goals on Saturday, and so there is no reason why Chelsea can't do the same, provided they attack with enough impetus to actually get freekicks and corners.
This is the biggest match either of these teams have left. For Chelsea it is a chance for a second bite at the cherry. A chance to atone for that slip. For Barcelona it is the chance to keep the treble alive, and a chance to show that they can actually beat an English team or two. The pressure on both sets of players will be immense, and there can be no ignoring the effect of it. A 6-2 win at the Bernabeu indicates that Barcelona can handle it. Chelsea's recent success indicates that they can handle it. Honestly, this game is too hard to call, so I won't even try. I desperatly want Barcelona to win, but their defensive liability means they will probably have to do so the hard way. Whatever the case this will be an intriguing game, and one I can't wait to see (famous last words?).
As for tonight, well, it can't be any more disappointing than last night's effort. Given it was only interesting for 7 minutes that's not saying much, but still, I expect this one to go the distance. That said, what kind of game can we expect? Something similar to the first leg? In some ways yes, but in other ways, no, and in yet more ways I don't actually know.
One thing I can guarantee is that Barcelona will see more of the ball than Chelsea. Maybe not as much as in the Nou Camp, but not far off. They really do only know how to play one way, and that is to pass the ball ad infinitum. My query is whether Stamford Bridge will help or hinder them. It is approximately a tenth of the size of the Nou Camp, which has to make a difference one way or another. My gut feeling is that the smaller pitch will help Barcelona (and Chelsea for that matter). At the Nou Camp is is easy for Barcelona to stroke the ball around without getting near the opposition's goal. However, given a smaller pitch you simply can't help but get closer to the opposition's goal. A tighter pitch will require more accuracy, but if anyone can rise to the challenge it's this Barcelona team.
Another factor in Barcelona's favour is the win against Madrid. That game must have been playing on their minds in the first leg, and so with La Liga all but wrapped up Barcelona minds will be 100% focused on the job at hand. Confidence is huge in sport, and while Chelsea are a different animal than Madrid, Barcelona will be confident of playing the way they have done for most of the season and winning.
The deployment of Messi could also change the dynamic of this game. On Saturday he played as a deep lying centre-forward, and he was magnificent. I thought this might happen in the first leg against Chelsea (in fact I may even have written as much), and I think it should happen tonight. Eto'o needs to be kept out on the wing where he can be as irrelevant as possible, and leave Messi to run at Alex and Terry. But even if this doesn't happen, Messi can only improve from a week ago, right? In fact you could say that about a few key Barcelona players. Iniesta was good last week, but he can be better, more incisive. I don't rate Eto'o very highly, but he is still better than what he showed in the first leg.
The bottom line is that Barcelona were not at their best last week and yet they still completely dominated possession and had three great chances to score. I'm almost certain they will be better at the Bridge, which leaves me believing there will be
Unfortunately, while I can predict what Barcelona are going to do with a degree of success, I have no clue how Chelsea are going to line up. Will they play the same 11? Will Anelka start? Will they attempt to complete three passes in a row? Anything I write about Chelsea will be pure conjecture, but since they need to score at least one goal it is surely not unreasonable to suggest that they may be a bit more adventurous on their home turf, especially with Barcelona's defensive woes. I haven't seen much of Caceres, but the fact that he is roughly Barcelona's fifth choice central defender doesn't exactly inspire confidence given who is in front of him. Drogba has the ability to exploit weakness like no other striker, and so there are goals for the taking should Chelsea decide they actually want to win this game.
The smaller pitch will also help Chelsea, since they will be able to support Drogba much more quickly. I don't expect Lampard to be much more influential than he was in terms of keeping the ball, but I do expect him to get forward more and have a few speculative efforts that may or may not deflect goalwards. His freekicks and corners will also be of vital importance. Madrid scored two headed goals on Saturday, and so there is no reason why Chelsea can't do the same, provided they attack with enough impetus to actually get freekicks and corners.
This is the biggest match either of these teams have left. For Chelsea it is a chance for a second bite at the cherry. A chance to atone for that slip. For Barcelona it is the chance to keep the treble alive, and a chance to show that they can actually beat an English team or two. The pressure on both sets of players will be immense, and there can be no ignoring the effect of it. A 6-2 win at the Bernabeu indicates that Barcelona can handle it. Chelsea's recent success indicates that they can handle it. Honestly, this game is too hard to call, so I won't even try. I desperatly want Barcelona to win, but their defensive liability means they will probably have to do so the hard way. Whatever the case this will be an intriguing game, and one I can't wait to see (famous last words?).
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Barcelona/Chelsea pt 4
Here is a rundown of the players likely to be playing tonight, and the influence they may have on the game.
Valdes: He is one of those goalkeepers who is called a "good shot-stopper", which tells you all you need to know. Dodgy on crosses, untrustworthy with the ball at his feet, and undoubtedly Barcelona's weakest link. Could end up costing them a regretful away goal or two.
Alves: I like my previous description so I'm going to stick with it - a defender who enters his own half reluctantly. I honestly don't know if Alves is a good defender, but he is excellent going forward. The finest crosser of a ball I've seen since Beckham, his is a threat that is difficult to stifle. Bosingwa may stick to Messi like glue, but that will only mean more room for Alves to scythe through Chelsea territory.
Marquez: An excellent distributor of the ball and a clean tackler, but severely lacking in pace. There was a foot race between him and Toni in the last round and I swear it looked like they were both going backwards. If Drogba, or even Malouda, can get a run at him then don't be surprised to see them breeze by him as if he wasn't there.
Pique: Reminds me a bit of Senderos. That's not a good thing, especially when Drogba is around.
Abidal: If ever a defender relied on his pace alone, it's Eric Abidal. He tends to stay back much more than he used to which works in Barcelona's favour for two reasons: 1. He was never much good going forward, and 2. Barcelona need his pace at the back.
Toure: Your standard holding player really, whose height is important when it comes to defending set pieces. His role in tonight's game may be more as creator however, because when it comes to Barcelona players being singled out by Chelsea for special attention, I expect Toure to be somewhere near the bottom of the list.
Xavi: If man-marked by Essien I expect him to be peripheral for much of the game. If not, then Chelsea will not be seeing much of the ball, whereas Alves and Messi will. How well Xavi plays is generally a good indication of how well Barcelona play. I will be extremely interested to see how Chelsea handle him.
Iniesta: May well be the difference maker tonight. With all the attention focused on stopping Messi, Eto'o and Henry, I expect Iniesta to have an influential game, and he is more than capable of producing the goods. If pitted against Essien then perhaps he can be shut down, but marking Iniesta is a whole different proposition to marking Gerrard. It's about time for people to cease from labeling Iniesta "under-rated" and to start labeling him for what he is - one of the best players in the world.
Messi: His decision making still isn't perfect, but almost everything else is. A joy to watch, and will cause the slow Chelsea centre-halves a world of pain when he cuts inside.
Henry: Some people say he is back to his best. I disagree. He has lost much of his speed, which for a player like Henry is crippling. He is of course still a threat, and he works hard for the team, but I expect him to have a quiet game tonight and to be the first to make way.
Eto'o: Unreliable at this level. His finishing is too erratic, and he gives the ball away cheaply far too often. I expect him to let Barcelona down, much like he did this time last season. And also, if he was as good as he thinks he is -- and as good as most people think he is -- why would Barcelona want to sell him? Simple - there are better options out there.
Cech: A great penalty save at the weekend aside, it is no secret that Cech has not been the same man after getting kneed in the head by Hunt. He is the better of the two goalkeepers on display tonight, but that's not exactly saying much. However, I don't think Barcelona play the kind of football that will cause Cech the maximum amount of difficulty. High punts into the box is not Barcelona's style, nor are they particularly threatening from set-pieces, and so Cech may prove to be a valuable asset for Chelsea when it comes to stopping Eto'o's hit and hope piledrivers.
Ivanovic: I haven't seen much of this guy, but two goals against Liverpool from corners suggests he's a threat in that department. Of the two Chelsea full-backs he will certainly have the easier task, although Iniesta does tend to stay on that side of the pitch, meaning Anelka may be forced to do things he isn't particularly good it. Don't be surprised if much of Barca's threat comes down Chelsea's right hand side.
Alex: Good in the air, but against Barcelona that will only count at the other end of the pitch.
Terry: See above. If I were a Chelsea fan I would be worried about the lack of pace at centre-half. Eto'o may not be a lot of things, but he is definitely quick and can get in behind quite easily. Messi will drift in field more often than not, and can even be the front man for Barcelona with Eto'o shifting right. Will Terry and Alex be able to deal with such movement and pace? I have my doubts.
Bosingwa: He says marking Messi is "no problem". I beg to differ. Keeping Messi quiet won't be sufficient for beating Barcelona, but it will be necessary. Bosingwa will need all the help he can get, and then some.
Essien: Perhaps Chelsea's most important player tonight. I don't know what Hiddink is going to do with him, but it is the effectiveness of Essien that will either swing this tie in Chelsea's favour or lead to an onslought of epic proportions at the hands of the mighty Catalans.
Ballack: A big man for the big occasion in the past, this could be Ballack's swansong, or more likely, it could be the night when it all comes crashing down for him. "His legs are gone" as Dunphy would say, and against Barcelona you could do with three or four well-functioning legs, not to mention two. I expect him to give away a lot of fouls and generally look off the pace, but as with most Chelsea players he poses a considerable threat in aerial confrontations.
Lampard: I'm not his biggest fan, but Lamps has been impressive all season...except in most of the big games. A question mark still looms large over his head when it comes to imposing himself on this kind of occasion. His habbit of scoring goals may come in handy, but if Chelsea are not to be overrun in midfield for 90 minutes they need Frank to put his foot on the ball once in a while and keep possession. I'm just not sure he's up to the task on nights like this.
Anelka: I don't like Anelka. I don't think he's much good, and I wouldn't be surprised to see either him or Malouda make way for Deco/Kalou of the grounds of them being a bit rubbish during the game.
Malouda: I don't like Malouda. I don't think he's much good...etc etc.
Drogba: An absolute beast of a player. If you were to swap Drogba for Eto'o I wouldn't think twice about selling all of my possessions and staking the money on a Barcelona win. Should Chelsea see enough of the ball then Drogba could come away with a brace. The Barcelona defense will simply not be able to handle him if they are on the back foot. He is Chelsea's match winner, and if they are going to get a result tonight I have little doubt that Drogba will be at the heart of that triumph.
With all of that said, here is my prediction: 3-3. I can't see anything but goals, goals, goals, and I honestly can't wait for this game.
Valdes: He is one of those goalkeepers who is called a "good shot-stopper", which tells you all you need to know. Dodgy on crosses, untrustworthy with the ball at his feet, and undoubtedly Barcelona's weakest link. Could end up costing them a regretful away goal or two.
Alves: I like my previous description so I'm going to stick with it - a defender who enters his own half reluctantly. I honestly don't know if Alves is a good defender, but he is excellent going forward. The finest crosser of a ball I've seen since Beckham, his is a threat that is difficult to stifle. Bosingwa may stick to Messi like glue, but that will only mean more room for Alves to scythe through Chelsea territory.
Marquez: An excellent distributor of the ball and a clean tackler, but severely lacking in pace. There was a foot race between him and Toni in the last round and I swear it looked like they were both going backwards. If Drogba, or even Malouda, can get a run at him then don't be surprised to see them breeze by him as if he wasn't there.
Pique: Reminds me a bit of Senderos. That's not a good thing, especially when Drogba is around.
Abidal: If ever a defender relied on his pace alone, it's Eric Abidal. He tends to stay back much more than he used to which works in Barcelona's favour for two reasons: 1. He was never much good going forward, and 2. Barcelona need his pace at the back.
Toure: Your standard holding player really, whose height is important when it comes to defending set pieces. His role in tonight's game may be more as creator however, because when it comes to Barcelona players being singled out by Chelsea for special attention, I expect Toure to be somewhere near the bottom of the list.
Xavi: If man-marked by Essien I expect him to be peripheral for much of the game. If not, then Chelsea will not be seeing much of the ball, whereas Alves and Messi will. How well Xavi plays is generally a good indication of how well Barcelona play. I will be extremely interested to see how Chelsea handle him.
Iniesta: May well be the difference maker tonight. With all the attention focused on stopping Messi, Eto'o and Henry, I expect Iniesta to have an influential game, and he is more than capable of producing the goods. If pitted against Essien then perhaps he can be shut down, but marking Iniesta is a whole different proposition to marking Gerrard. It's about time for people to cease from labeling Iniesta "under-rated" and to start labeling him for what he is - one of the best players in the world.
Messi: His decision making still isn't perfect, but almost everything else is. A joy to watch, and will cause the slow Chelsea centre-halves a world of pain when he cuts inside.
Henry: Some people say he is back to his best. I disagree. He has lost much of his speed, which for a player like Henry is crippling. He is of course still a threat, and he works hard for the team, but I expect him to have a quiet game tonight and to be the first to make way.
Eto'o: Unreliable at this level. His finishing is too erratic, and he gives the ball away cheaply far too often. I expect him to let Barcelona down, much like he did this time last season. And also, if he was as good as he thinks he is -- and as good as most people think he is -- why would Barcelona want to sell him? Simple - there are better options out there.
Cech: A great penalty save at the weekend aside, it is no secret that Cech has not been the same man after getting kneed in the head by Hunt. He is the better of the two goalkeepers on display tonight, but that's not exactly saying much. However, I don't think Barcelona play the kind of football that will cause Cech the maximum amount of difficulty. High punts into the box is not Barcelona's style, nor are they particularly threatening from set-pieces, and so Cech may prove to be a valuable asset for Chelsea when it comes to stopping Eto'o's hit and hope piledrivers.
Ivanovic: I haven't seen much of this guy, but two goals against Liverpool from corners suggests he's a threat in that department. Of the two Chelsea full-backs he will certainly have the easier task, although Iniesta does tend to stay on that side of the pitch, meaning Anelka may be forced to do things he isn't particularly good it. Don't be surprised if much of Barca's threat comes down Chelsea's right hand side.
Alex: Good in the air, but against Barcelona that will only count at the other end of the pitch.
Terry: See above. If I were a Chelsea fan I would be worried about the lack of pace at centre-half. Eto'o may not be a lot of things, but he is definitely quick and can get in behind quite easily. Messi will drift in field more often than not, and can even be the front man for Barcelona with Eto'o shifting right. Will Terry and Alex be able to deal with such movement and pace? I have my doubts.
Bosingwa: He says marking Messi is "no problem". I beg to differ. Keeping Messi quiet won't be sufficient for beating Barcelona, but it will be necessary. Bosingwa will need all the help he can get, and then some.
Essien: Perhaps Chelsea's most important player tonight. I don't know what Hiddink is going to do with him, but it is the effectiveness of Essien that will either swing this tie in Chelsea's favour or lead to an onslought of epic proportions at the hands of the mighty Catalans.
Ballack: A big man for the big occasion in the past, this could be Ballack's swansong, or more likely, it could be the night when it all comes crashing down for him. "His legs are gone" as Dunphy would say, and against Barcelona you could do with three or four well-functioning legs, not to mention two. I expect him to give away a lot of fouls and generally look off the pace, but as with most Chelsea players he poses a considerable threat in aerial confrontations.
Lampard: I'm not his biggest fan, but Lamps has been impressive all season...except in most of the big games. A question mark still looms large over his head when it comes to imposing himself on this kind of occasion. His habbit of scoring goals may come in handy, but if Chelsea are not to be overrun in midfield for 90 minutes they need Frank to put his foot on the ball once in a while and keep possession. I'm just not sure he's up to the task on nights like this.
Anelka: I don't like Anelka. I don't think he's much good, and I wouldn't be surprised to see either him or Malouda make way for Deco/Kalou of the grounds of them being a bit rubbish during the game.
Malouda: I don't like Malouda. I don't think he's much good...etc etc.
Drogba: An absolute beast of a player. If you were to swap Drogba for Eto'o I wouldn't think twice about selling all of my possessions and staking the money on a Barcelona win. Should Chelsea see enough of the ball then Drogba could come away with a brace. The Barcelona defense will simply not be able to handle him if they are on the back foot. He is Chelsea's match winner, and if they are going to get a result tonight I have little doubt that Drogba will be at the heart of that triumph.
With all of that said, here is my prediction: 3-3. I can't see anything but goals, goals, goals, and I honestly can't wait for this game.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Barcelona/Chelsea pt 3
The Barcelona attack is generally the headline grabber, but in order to neutralize the threat from the front if will be up to Chelsea to upset the source. This will mean that two important things need to be done: Drogba is going to have to work his socks off up front, constantly applying pressure on the Barcelona centre-halfs. It is these two players who initiate almost every Barcelona attack, and so if they can be got at then the supply to the midfield and forward line will be much more volatile than it usually is. Whether or not just one striker can apply sufficient pressure on two players is debatable, but I think it's safe to say that Hiddink won't be employing two up top so it will be down to Drogba alone to settle the debate.
The other similar thing that needs to be done from a Chelsea point of view is to mark Xavi out of the game - something that has been done already this season to great effect. It is no easy task, but a player like Michael Essien could well be up for the challenge. Barcelona's m.o. is to knock it around at the back until Xavi is in position, and then feed him. To disrupt this operation is to strike at the heart of Barcelona's game. It's not a sufficient condition for beating them, but it is most certainly a necessary one. Marquez may not be a great defender, but he is an excellent distributor of the ball, both short and long. This is generally not mentioned when it comes to talking about Barcelona's defense, but given how much ball possession they enojoy it is arguable that it is more important for a Barca defender to be a good passer than a good tackler or headerer [?] of the ball. Therefore task 1: Stop Marquez (and to a lesser extent, his partner) from doing what they want with the ball. Task 2: Pratically give Xavi a piggy-back ride for 90 minutes.
There are problems implimenting this strategy of course, none more so than the presence of Iniesta on the pitch. I sincerely doubt both Lampard and Ballack's ability to shut him out. Toure and Iniesta together will be able to initiate enough attacks should Xavi be "raped" by Essien, and so there is only so much Chelsea can do with hard work. A player like Iniesta is extremely difficult to mark. He has a rather unique blend of excellent close control, dribbling technique, speed, and vision. Barcelona will depend on him a lot, and Chelsea don't seem to have a say in the matter. Can Iniesta produce on the night? His outstanding form this season suggests he can, and so it will be intriguing to watch.
The other similar thing that needs to be done from a Chelsea point of view is to mark Xavi out of the game - something that has been done already this season to great effect. It is no easy task, but a player like Michael Essien could well be up for the challenge. Barcelona's m.o. is to knock it around at the back until Xavi is in position, and then feed him. To disrupt this operation is to strike at the heart of Barcelona's game. It's not a sufficient condition for beating them, but it is most certainly a necessary one. Marquez may not be a great defender, but he is an excellent distributor of the ball, both short and long. This is generally not mentioned when it comes to talking about Barcelona's defense, but given how much ball possession they enojoy it is arguable that it is more important for a Barca defender to be a good passer than a good tackler or headerer [?] of the ball. Therefore task 1: Stop Marquez (and to a lesser extent, his partner) from doing what they want with the ball. Task 2: Pratically give Xavi a piggy-back ride for 90 minutes.
There are problems implimenting this strategy of course, none more so than the presence of Iniesta on the pitch. I sincerely doubt both Lampard and Ballack's ability to shut him out. Toure and Iniesta together will be able to initiate enough attacks should Xavi be "raped" by Essien, and so there is only so much Chelsea can do with hard work. A player like Iniesta is extremely difficult to mark. He has a rather unique blend of excellent close control, dribbling technique, speed, and vision. Barcelona will depend on him a lot, and Chelsea don't seem to have a say in the matter. Can Iniesta produce on the night? His outstanding form this season suggests he can, and so it will be intriguing to watch.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Barcelona/Chelsea pt 2
The next part of my prolonged pre-match analysis can be summed up in the following well-thought-out bullet points:
- Florent Malouda is still crap
There have been vicious rumours spreading recently regarding Malouda. Some people are actually saying that he has finally gotten his act together. These people are proclaiming that at long lost we are seeing the Malouda of old, and how he is a changed man under Hiddink etc etc. What these people fail to realise is that the Malouda of old wasn't much good.
Football Focus are the masters of this kind of spur of the moment analysis. If you string two good games together then prepare for an interview where you will be asked about the "tough times", but also about the promising future which may include an England call up "provided I just keep my head down and keep doing what I'm doing". The name Darren Bent springs to mind. Harry came in, Bent got a couple of goals and was suddenly a great striker again, but before long he was back to being no better than Mrs Redknapp, which sadly is a fairer reflection of his limited abilities.
I don't envision Florent Malouda's story ending any differently. Like Bent he has never been a good player. We've seen the real Malouda in the Premier League. His latest performances are simply an abberation, so I don't expect them to last, and I certainly don't expect him to be a thorn in Barcelona's side. It's true that he may find some joy given that Alves has the unique characteristic of being a defender who enters his own half reluctantly, but of all the wingers Alves could have faced in the semi-finals surely Malouda is the most impotent.
However, the impotence of Malouda may prove to be of secondary importance to his defensive prowess. I expect Chelsea to do something of a Man Utd at the Nou Camp and sit back, basically playing with two full backs on either flank. Is Malouda disciplined enough to perform this task? Given that Theo Walcott was Arsenal's most dangerous player on Saturday it doesn't seem likely.
It may seem like I'm just saying this given the topic in question, but one of the sure ways to hurt Barcelona is to have a left winger who can run at people and who uses the ball cleverly. The threat of Ribery was negated in the first leg simply because Bayern were a shambles and could hardly touch the ball. In the second leg however he was a constant thorn in Barcelona's side. It's of course a little silly to base analysis on a meaningless game like that second leg, but I do think the possession of a decent left winger will cause Barcelona far more problems than he ordinarily should. Unfortunatley for Chelsea, Florent Malouda is not a decent winger, and so they will rely on him at their peril.
- Florent Malouda is still crap
There have been vicious rumours spreading recently regarding Malouda. Some people are actually saying that he has finally gotten his act together. These people are proclaiming that at long lost we are seeing the Malouda of old, and how he is a changed man under Hiddink etc etc. What these people fail to realise is that the Malouda of old wasn't much good.
Football Focus are the masters of this kind of spur of the moment analysis. If you string two good games together then prepare for an interview where you will be asked about the "tough times", but also about the promising future which may include an England call up "provided I just keep my head down and keep doing what I'm doing". The name Darren Bent springs to mind. Harry came in, Bent got a couple of goals and was suddenly a great striker again, but before long he was back to being no better than Mrs Redknapp, which sadly is a fairer reflection of his limited abilities.
I don't envision Florent Malouda's story ending any differently. Like Bent he has never been a good player. We've seen the real Malouda in the Premier League. His latest performances are simply an abberation, so I don't expect them to last, and I certainly don't expect him to be a thorn in Barcelona's side. It's true that he may find some joy given that Alves has the unique characteristic of being a defender who enters his own half reluctantly, but of all the wingers Alves could have faced in the semi-finals surely Malouda is the most impotent.
However, the impotence of Malouda may prove to be of secondary importance to his defensive prowess. I expect Chelsea to do something of a Man Utd at the Nou Camp and sit back, basically playing with two full backs on either flank. Is Malouda disciplined enough to perform this task? Given that Theo Walcott was Arsenal's most dangerous player on Saturday it doesn't seem likely.
It may seem like I'm just saying this given the topic in question, but one of the sure ways to hurt Barcelona is to have a left winger who can run at people and who uses the ball cleverly. The threat of Ribery was negated in the first leg simply because Bayern were a shambles and could hardly touch the ball. In the second leg however he was a constant thorn in Barcelona's side. It's of course a little silly to base analysis on a meaningless game like that second leg, but I do think the possession of a decent left winger will cause Barcelona far more problems than he ordinarily should. Unfortunatley for Chelsea, Florent Malouda is not a decent winger, and so they will rely on him at their peril.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Barcelona/Chelsea pt 1
The first of a series of previews leading up to the big game in under two weeks time.
One of the big talking points after Chelsea's farcical 4-4 draw with Liverpool was an incident which transported us two weeks into the future, looking at a Chelsea side facing the most in form player in football without their regular left-back. Ashley Cole received his third [?] yellow card, and so the Blues are left with two weeks of mulling over why they sold their only legitimate cover in that position, and more pressingly, just what the heck to do now.
Messi in the Camp Nou is a frightening prospect for the best of defenders, not to mention an out-of-position Ivanovic, and yet it seems that this is the dual we will have on our hands. My question is this:
Will it actually work in Chelsea's favour to have a right-footed player playing a left back since he will be facing a left-footed player playing right wing?
I won't lie. I know little about defending so I could be way off here, but it seems to me that with Messi usually tucking in onto his preferred left foot, it could be advantage to say, Ivanovic, that Messi will also be moving into the area where he too is most comfortable. Of course said Chelsea defender is largely unproven, so even if being right-footed is an advantage he may just be too rubbish to make use of it, but still, I shall be intrigued to see how this match-up plays out.
The one thing that should not happen is that Hiddink plays Essien out there. I'm sure that's not in his thought process at all, but if for some reason it is then somebody needs to show him a tape of the fist half of last year's CL final. Other candidates for the job from hell are Carvalho (simply because he's a defender), Alex (for not disimilar reasons), Bosingwa (if he's fit) and Mancienne (but they wouldn't do that to him, would they?). As a rather lame Irish guy once said, "those aren't great options, are they?" Full-back is quite a "technical" position, if you believe the analysis of Eamonn Dunphy, and I can't think of any reason why you should. Still, he can't always be wrong, can he?
Whoever plays at left back will have one very difficult task on their hands (you heard it here first). However, whether it is an advantage or not to be a right-footed player facing a left footed player will be utterly irrelevent if that poor soul is left on his own. One against one Messi cannot be stopped. In a game of 90 minutes you are guaranteed to be chasing Messi's shadow at least once, if not several times, and when this happens goals are not far away. If the stand in left back is to do a job on Messi he will not have done it alone. Frank Lampard, Florent Malouda, and John Terry will have to swarm around the Argentine like bees around honey, and lets face it, they are going to have to give him a few kicks to the ankle for good measure too. Real Madrid spent a large portion of their pre-match prep for El Classico coming up with a schedule for whose turn it is to kick Messi. Chelsea must do likewise, or hope that Messi has an off-day.
If I know Hiddink like I think I do (I don't really know him at all, but for arguments sake lets pretend I do), he will try to make this blog post as irrelevent as possible, though I think I'm doing a pretty good job that myself. I image he will try as hard as possible to make this game not about Messi v Nominal left back. How might he achieve this? Find out in a later installment of this groundbreaking series.
One of the big talking points after Chelsea's farcical 4-4 draw with Liverpool was an incident which transported us two weeks into the future, looking at a Chelsea side facing the most in form player in football without their regular left-back. Ashley Cole received his third [?] yellow card, and so the Blues are left with two weeks of mulling over why they sold their only legitimate cover in that position, and more pressingly, just what the heck to do now.
Messi in the Camp Nou is a frightening prospect for the best of defenders, not to mention an out-of-position Ivanovic, and yet it seems that this is the dual we will have on our hands. My question is this:
Will it actually work in Chelsea's favour to have a right-footed player playing a left back since he will be facing a left-footed player playing right wing?
I won't lie. I know little about defending so I could be way off here, but it seems to me that with Messi usually tucking in onto his preferred left foot, it could be advantage to say, Ivanovic, that Messi will also be moving into the area where he too is most comfortable. Of course said Chelsea defender is largely unproven, so even if being right-footed is an advantage he may just be too rubbish to make use of it, but still, I shall be intrigued to see how this match-up plays out.
The one thing that should not happen is that Hiddink plays Essien out there. I'm sure that's not in his thought process at all, but if for some reason it is then somebody needs to show him a tape of the fist half of last year's CL final. Other candidates for the job from hell are Carvalho (simply because he's a defender), Alex (for not disimilar reasons), Bosingwa (if he's fit) and Mancienne (but they wouldn't do that to him, would they?). As a rather lame Irish guy once said, "those aren't great options, are they?" Full-back is quite a "technical" position, if you believe the analysis of Eamonn Dunphy, and I can't think of any reason why you should. Still, he can't always be wrong, can he?
Whoever plays at left back will have one very difficult task on their hands (you heard it here first). However, whether it is an advantage or not to be a right-footed player facing a left footed player will be utterly irrelevent if that poor soul is left on his own. One against one Messi cannot be stopped. In a game of 90 minutes you are guaranteed to be chasing Messi's shadow at least once, if not several times, and when this happens goals are not far away. If the stand in left back is to do a job on Messi he will not have done it alone. Frank Lampard, Florent Malouda, and John Terry will have to swarm around the Argentine like bees around honey, and lets face it, they are going to have to give him a few kicks to the ankle for good measure too. Real Madrid spent a large portion of their pre-match prep for El Classico coming up with a schedule for whose turn it is to kick Messi. Chelsea must do likewise, or hope that Messi has an off-day.
If I know Hiddink like I think I do (I don't really know him at all, but for arguments sake lets pretend I do), he will try to make this blog post as irrelevent as possible, though I think I'm doing a pretty good job that myself. I image he will try as hard as possible to make this game not about Messi v Nominal left back. How might he achieve this? Find out in a later installment of this groundbreaking series.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Cheap Thrills
This will sound like me being a Negative Nancy just for the sake of it, but I have to agree with Eamonn Dunphy - last night's game wasn't all that good. To use a television analogy, it was like an episode of Lost. It had no pattern, people were just making things up was they went along, and there were plot holes right left and centre. Was it entertaining? Sure, but only because it was a farce. People are describing this game as "epic", an historic encounter between two superpowers. I disagree.
Liverpool went 2-0 up without really playing all that well. A great freekick and a penalty probably flattered them, but then with the way Chelsea played you could say that they deserved to be 2-0 down. Chelsea came back into the game in the second half, but only thanks to an horrendous error by Reina. Their second was a freekick, which I think could have been stopped. So that's four goals, three of which came from set plays and one of which was extremely dodgey.
Liverpool looked bereft of ideas at this point, and Lampard put Chelsea 3-2 after a horrible pass by Alonso was punished by a good pass by Ballack and neat play by Drogba. Benitez then withdrew Torres, thus signalling the white flag. Then out of nothing -- aka Lucas Leiva -- the Reds clawed a goal back Frank Lampard style - a deflected hit and hope. A Dirk Kuyt header followed a couple of minutes later and quite remarkably Liverpool were within one goal of going through. Lampard squashed any hopes of a thrilling finish by netting the goal of the game, and that was that.
In short, if I wanted to watch this kind of football I'd tune into the Dutch League, where players of Kesman's quality get 103 goals in 7 matches. Lots of goals does not equal a good game. These kind of mistake-ridden matches may be fun to watch, but give me a high quality 0-0 any day of the week. A game of football should tell a story; a coherent story. As with a great footballer, a great football match should make sense. The true beauty and entertainment of football is not found in the cheap thrills of a-goal-a-minute. I can appreciate people enjoying the game last night. Heck, I used to enjoy Lost. But I cannot go so far as to call it a great game.
**************************
On another note, Ribery was quite brilliant last night. If Barcelona or United sign him they will be fearsome if he can perform like that week in week out.
Liverpool went 2-0 up without really playing all that well. A great freekick and a penalty probably flattered them, but then with the way Chelsea played you could say that they deserved to be 2-0 down. Chelsea came back into the game in the second half, but only thanks to an horrendous error by Reina. Their second was a freekick, which I think could have been stopped. So that's four goals, three of which came from set plays and one of which was extremely dodgey.
Liverpool looked bereft of ideas at this point, and Lampard put Chelsea 3-2 after a horrible pass by Alonso was punished by a good pass by Ballack and neat play by Drogba. Benitez then withdrew Torres, thus signalling the white flag. Then out of nothing -- aka Lucas Leiva -- the Reds clawed a goal back Frank Lampard style - a deflected hit and hope. A Dirk Kuyt header followed a couple of minutes later and quite remarkably Liverpool were within one goal of going through. Lampard squashed any hopes of a thrilling finish by netting the goal of the game, and that was that.
In short, if I wanted to watch this kind of football I'd tune into the Dutch League, where players of Kesman's quality get 103 goals in 7 matches. Lots of goals does not equal a good game. These kind of mistake-ridden matches may be fun to watch, but give me a high quality 0-0 any day of the week. A game of football should tell a story; a coherent story. As with a great footballer, a great football match should make sense. The true beauty and entertainment of football is not found in the cheap thrills of a-goal-a-minute. I can appreciate people enjoying the game last night. Heck, I used to enjoy Lost. But I cannot go so far as to call it a great game.
**************************
On another note, Ribery was quite brilliant last night. If Barcelona or United sign him they will be fearsome if he can perform like that week in week out.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Back In White
This blog has never really been interested in discussing relegation-threatened teams -- or pretty much anyone outside the top 5 for that matter -- but in Spurs' case its willing to make an exception. There are three deadline-day deals that catch my eye, and many that I could not care less about. One of those eye catching deals involves the aforementioned Tottenham Hotspurs, with the other two involving Arsenal and Chelsea.
Much has been written about Robbie Keane in recent months. I jumped on the bandwagon back in December, saying that he should never have moved to Liverpool in the first place. Rafa Benitez just does not play the kind of football that suits the unpredictable Keane. The ever-present Dirk Kuyt is proof of this.
That's not to say that Robbie was merely the innocent victim of 'round peg in a square hole' syndrome. Yes he was that, but he was also a terribly inept round peg during his at times comical stint in Merseyside. There were one too many games where you wouldn't actually know that Robbie Keane was on the football pitch until you saw him either mis-kicking the ball or being hauled off after 68 minutes with a surprisingly puzzled look on his face. I'm sure all those times he brushed shoulders with Dirk Kuyt as he made his way to the bench did little to help his rapidly decreasing confidence, and it showed in his performances.
Did he try too hard? Is he just not good enough for a big 4 club? Did he need more time? Who knows? All we do know is that he had his shot and he blew it. He dubs the whole fiasco a "mistake", and I think he's right. For me, going to Liverpool under Benitez will always be a mistake. I'm willing to go on record and say that Chelsea will still be United's biggest threat, even though they themselves are looking a bit rubbish. I'd even give Arsenal and Villa a decent chance of finishing ahead of Liverpool, so little confidence do I have in the Reds' title challenge.
But that's beside the point. Keane is back at his old club, which I think was the only place for him to go, even though I still don't think he'll do very well. He needs a target man alongside him, and Defoe is quite clearly not that man. I know he's out injured, but he won't be gone forever, and so ultimately Harry has just added more confusion to an already confused squad. And what's more, Keane is not a like for like replacement for Defoe. If anything Keane is more Modric than Defoe, so it will be interesting to see the dynamic of the Spurs team this Sunday in the North London Derby. They'll probably have to play another striker alongside Keane, so there could be goals aplenty in White Heart Lane, with another 4-4 a definitely possibility if Arsenal can sort out their creative problems.
One man who may or may not sort those out is Andrei Arshavin, but I'll leave that discussion for another post.
In other news, Queresma has signed for Chelsea in a 6 month loan deal. Dunphy would call him "Ronaldo Lite", and I'd have to agree. He is something along the lines of what Chelsea need, but to be honest I don't really rate him at all. Can't be any worse than Malouda I suppose though. Against all reason I do have some sneaky feeling that he might do OK, at least in the short-term. He has some of the attributes that make a player effective, but he also has a large amount that make a player an idiot. Which of these attributes will win out is anyones guess, but I'm prediciting a success story. Just don't ask me why.
Much has been written about Robbie Keane in recent months. I jumped on the bandwagon back in December, saying that he should never have moved to Liverpool in the first place. Rafa Benitez just does not play the kind of football that suits the unpredictable Keane. The ever-present Dirk Kuyt is proof of this.
That's not to say that Robbie was merely the innocent victim of 'round peg in a square hole' syndrome. Yes he was that, but he was also a terribly inept round peg during his at times comical stint in Merseyside. There were one too many games where you wouldn't actually know that Robbie Keane was on the football pitch until you saw him either mis-kicking the ball or being hauled off after 68 minutes with a surprisingly puzzled look on his face. I'm sure all those times he brushed shoulders with Dirk Kuyt as he made his way to the bench did little to help his rapidly decreasing confidence, and it showed in his performances.
Did he try too hard? Is he just not good enough for a big 4 club? Did he need more time? Who knows? All we do know is that he had his shot and he blew it. He dubs the whole fiasco a "mistake", and I think he's right. For me, going to Liverpool under Benitez will always be a mistake. I'm willing to go on record and say that Chelsea will still be United's biggest threat, even though they themselves are looking a bit rubbish. I'd even give Arsenal and Villa a decent chance of finishing ahead of Liverpool, so little confidence do I have in the Reds' title challenge.
But that's beside the point. Keane is back at his old club, which I think was the only place for him to go, even though I still don't think he'll do very well. He needs a target man alongside him, and Defoe is quite clearly not that man. I know he's out injured, but he won't be gone forever, and so ultimately Harry has just added more confusion to an already confused squad. And what's more, Keane is not a like for like replacement for Defoe. If anything Keane is more Modric than Defoe, so it will be interesting to see the dynamic of the Spurs team this Sunday in the North London Derby. They'll probably have to play another striker alongside Keane, so there could be goals aplenty in White Heart Lane, with another 4-4 a definitely possibility if Arsenal can sort out their creative problems.
One man who may or may not sort those out is Andrei Arshavin, but I'll leave that discussion for another post.
In other news, Queresma has signed for Chelsea in a 6 month loan deal. Dunphy would call him "Ronaldo Lite", and I'd have to agree. He is something along the lines of what Chelsea need, but to be honest I don't really rate him at all. Can't be any worse than Malouda I suppose though. Against all reason I do have some sneaky feeling that he might do OK, at least in the short-term. He has some of the attributes that make a player effective, but he also has a large amount that make a player an idiot. Which of these attributes will win out is anyones guess, but I'm prediciting a success story. Just don't ask me why.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Football In Slow Motion
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The House That Dunphy Gambled
Eamonn Dunphy thinks that Chelsea are going to win four trophies this year, and if I know Eamonn Dunphy like I think I do, he's probably put a lot of money on said outcome, if not his house along with everything in it (although given the amount of times he's said "I'd put my house on it" in the past and been subsequently proved wrong to do so, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Eamonn Dunphy no longer had a house to put on anything - ah, the highs and lows of being a degenerate gambler).
Well, while Eamonn Dunphy's opinions on footballing matters are suspect at best -- except when it comes to La Liga, where he is known as (and I quote) "a student of the Spanish game" -- this is a sentiment that might well be shared by many, although maybe four trophies is pushing it. Still though, Chelsea appear to be everyone's favourite for everything, with Manchester United just behind. I used to agree with this, but now I'm not so sure.
This isn't necessarily backlash to their 3-1 loss to Roma last night, although natually enough that result does have a baring on my opinion. But take Chelsea's four hardest games so far this season (or at least the four hardest games one would have forcasted at the beginning of the season). For me, these games would have been the ones against Man Utd, Liverpool and Tottenham (all at home) and Roma away. Well, in those games Chelsea lost twice a drew twice (one of those draws being against a pitiful Spurs team under the not-so-magic Juande). I can confess to seeing only two of those games in full, and in both of those the flamboyant Chelsea who seem to beat most teams 5-0 looked void of ideas and penetration, eventually resorting to playing long balls up to er, well, John Terry in the end.
Don't get me wrong. I very much think Chelsea will be there or there abouts. However, they ain't all that in a bag of chips, or something. Take Frank Lampard for example. By the looks of those 5-0 victories he's been involved in, he's been phenomenal, showing poise and guile to go with his useful penchant for scoring goals. However, contrary to what Dunphy said last night, Lampard (like Gerrard) very much has a tendancy to going missing in games. Against both United and Liverpool he was largely ineffectual, offering none of the creativity that Chelsea so desperately craved. I don't say this to knock Lampard. I've been secretly impressed with some of what I've seen of him lately, but I still don't think he's capable of dominating a game when it really matters. He almost epitomises Chelsea this season - great against the weaker teams, not so great against the stronger teams.
In my opinion, Chelsea's utter dominance against the weaker teams will be enough to make them Premier Leauge Champions, although if I was to do a Dunphy and gamble my house (or at least my parent's house) on an outcome I'd go for United. However, when it comes to the trophy they seem to most covet - the Champions League - I think they will fall short. There are quite a few strong sides in Europe these days. They may not be as strong as the Premier League sides, but I think that on their day teams such as Real Madrid, Villarreal, Athletico Madrid, Inter Milan, and even Lyon can upset any one of the 'big four'. And then there is Barcelona, who are my tip to do the double (La Liga and CL). I don't make them as favourites because of their shakey defense, but they will take some beating, as they proved last season against United.
The bottom line is that if Chelsea are going to win four trophies, then they are going to have to start playing well against good opposition. Their next chance to do so comes against Arsenal on the 30th of November, although to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if Arsenal were all but out of the title race by then. I guess this Saturday will be a good indication of that. Regardless of Arsenal's form however, it will still be a test for Chelsea's new brand of football. It's all well and good to be able to mow teams like Sunderland down, but you need to be able to transfer that kind of football to the big stage as well. Last season, Arsenal proved that this can be done, overrunning Liverpool for 45 minutes, and Man United for 60 with some of the best football of the season. If Chelsea are to be the dominant force in world football then they need to start doing the same, except doing it for longer periods of time and without being completely abject and naive at the back (which was and still is Arsenal's downfall, but I've talked about that enough in this blog already).
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Ginger Ail
"Paul Scholes was the best player on the pitch before he went off" - Graham Souness - Premier Soccer Sunday
How someone can make such a claim is beyond me. I'm a big fan of Scholes, but it seems to me like the RTE panel are holding onto memories of yesteryear when analyzing his play. He did precious little in today's game against Chelsea, and he did even less against Liverpool last week. He still has something to offer this United team -- his performance against Portsmouth is proof of that -- but in the big games, I would honestly be more inclined to start Fletcher than Scholes, and that's saying something.
The RTE panel talk about him being the cool head and the guy who will keep hold of the ball when the chips are down. Against Chelsea, Scholes was anything but a cool head, basically wandering around the pitch looking to get sent off as quickly as possible by executing a series of vintage Scholes tackles. In fairness to him, he wasn't giving the ball away cheaply, but that's only because he rarely had the ball. He doesn't have the legs to get around the pitch when faced with a team like Chelsea, so the supply coming to him is extremely limited because he's never in enough space to receive a pass.
Against Liverpool and Chelsea, United regularly had to resort to the wings for attacking threat, and without Ronaldo (and even with him today), their wings aren't very threatening. When the big games come, they're finding it hard to go through the centre, and this is where United are most effective. Gone are the days of Becks whipping crosses into van Nistelrooy. Man Utd need the ball through the middle, and unfortunately Scholes doesn't seem to be able to provide that link when the big games come around. And even more unfortunately for Utd fans, they don't appear to have anyone who can serve that purpose.
Fletcher has been surprisingly competent this season, but he's not the solution. Neither is Carrick or Hargreaves or Anderson, good as they might be at various other things. What Man Utd basically need is Cesc Fabregas. I mean can you imagine their potency if the little Spaniard lined up in their midfield every week? He's exactly the kind of player that they need, because he's basically Paul Scholes minus 10 years or so. Until Ferguson finds a suitable replacement for the Ginger One, he's going to have to hope that Ronaldo scores another truck load of goals this season, otherwise United could be playing catch up to Chelsea for the rest of the campaign.
Before I go, I can't help but pass comment on Ronaldo today. Without wanting to sound biased, his presence cost Man Utd dearly. Fergie took a gamble, and it didn't pay off. Ronaldo left his teammates scratching their heads, with Rooney even coming over to the touchline to ask Ferguson just what they heck they're supposed to be doing in terms of positions. Ronaldo was just running all over the place, and of course doing very little tracking back, which gave Chelsea the chance to build things up from midfield.
And then there was the dive. Just shocking really. But, you know, he did score 42 goals last season so nothing else matters and we must all cherish him and welcome him back with open arms. Just wait until he leaves Man Utd. Then we'll see how much love they have for him and his greasy boots and his greasy hair (I meant to type 'green boots' but 'greasy boots' actually turned out better).
How someone can make such a claim is beyond me. I'm a big fan of Scholes, but it seems to me like the RTE panel are holding onto memories of yesteryear when analyzing his play. He did precious little in today's game against Chelsea, and he did even less against Liverpool last week. He still has something to offer this United team -- his performance against Portsmouth is proof of that -- but in the big games, I would honestly be more inclined to start Fletcher than Scholes, and that's saying something.
The RTE panel talk about him being the cool head and the guy who will keep hold of the ball when the chips are down. Against Chelsea, Scholes was anything but a cool head, basically wandering around the pitch looking to get sent off as quickly as possible by executing a series of vintage Scholes tackles. In fairness to him, he wasn't giving the ball away cheaply, but that's only because he rarely had the ball. He doesn't have the legs to get around the pitch when faced with a team like Chelsea, so the supply coming to him is extremely limited because he's never in enough space to receive a pass.
Against Liverpool and Chelsea, United regularly had to resort to the wings for attacking threat, and without Ronaldo (and even with him today), their wings aren't very threatening. When the big games come, they're finding it hard to go through the centre, and this is where United are most effective. Gone are the days of Becks whipping crosses into van Nistelrooy. Man Utd need the ball through the middle, and unfortunately Scholes doesn't seem to be able to provide that link when the big games come around. And even more unfortunately for Utd fans, they don't appear to have anyone who can serve that purpose.
Fletcher has been surprisingly competent this season, but he's not the solution. Neither is Carrick or Hargreaves or Anderson, good as they might be at various other things. What Man Utd basically need is Cesc Fabregas. I mean can you imagine their potency if the little Spaniard lined up in their midfield every week? He's exactly the kind of player that they need, because he's basically Paul Scholes minus 10 years or so. Until Ferguson finds a suitable replacement for the Ginger One, he's going to have to hope that Ronaldo scores another truck load of goals this season, otherwise United could be playing catch up to Chelsea for the rest of the campaign.
Before I go, I can't help but pass comment on Ronaldo today. Without wanting to sound biased, his presence cost Man Utd dearly. Fergie took a gamble, and it didn't pay off. Ronaldo left his teammates scratching their heads, with Rooney even coming over to the touchline to ask Ferguson just what they heck they're supposed to be doing in terms of positions. Ronaldo was just running all over the place, and of course doing very little tracking back, which gave Chelsea the chance to build things up from midfield.
And then there was the dive. Just shocking really. But, you know, he did score 42 goals last season so nothing else matters and we must all cherish him and welcome him back with open arms. Just wait until he leaves Man Utd. Then we'll see how much love they have for him and his greasy boots and his greasy hair (I meant to type 'green boots' but 'greasy boots' actually turned out better).
Monday, August 25, 2008
Hype
I watched both Tottenham and Chelsea play over the weekend, with neither team looking very impressive. Tottenham suffered the embarrassment of losing to a Djibril Cisse debut goal...for a second time (that's gotta hurt), while Chelsea just about scraped past Wigan, despite Frank Lampard's best efforts. First, to Tottenham.
Berbatov needs to be sold, and soon. This much is clear. What I don't understand is why a club managed by Alex Ferguson want to sign him. Yes he's a talented player, but he's got an abysmal attitude, and in my mind, he represents a big gamble. If Berbatov comes in, then in all likelihood that means Tevez gets relegated to the bench. Tevez isn't a genius, but he works as hard as anyone when United don't have the ball, and he chips in with his fair share of goals too. Think of all the time on the ball any backline will get if United are relying on Berbatov and Ronadlo to chase things down. Sure you might have a red-faced Rooney running around like a red card waiting to happen, but will that be enough given the sheer unwillingness of either Ronaldo or Berbatov to do any sort of defensive work? I think not.
And then there's Berbatov's present attitude. I see no reason why he can't give his all for Tottenham right now and then move along to United should a deal go through. A real pro should concentrate on playing football for his present club, instead of talking about 'following his dream' and moving to Manchester. That sort of talk stinks of Cristiano Ronaldo, and I'm beginning to wonder why Ferguson is putting up with these heartless, soulless footballers who think of little else than money and fame. (Read this if you want to see how a proper player approaches the game). Maybe Ferguson just doesn't care enough anymore, which is certainly not good news for United. (My gut feeling is that they might struggle this year, but just like those damn Germans, you can never right them off).
Against Sunderland, Tottenham looked a bit all over the place. Not the good kind of all over the place that Barcelona exhibit so well, but the kind of all over the place that leaves Jermaine Jenas as your most attacking threat. Spurs, like Arsenal, lack any real bite in midfield, but unlike Arsenal, they also lack any real goal threat. A lot of people tipped Darren Bent to step up the the plate this season, but so far my prediction that 'a rubbish player is still a rubbish player no matter who plays behind him' stands. That may change, and he may start banging in goals (though I hope not, for fantasy football's sake), but if I were Juande I'd start looking to buy a new main striker, and soon.
Talk of Arshavin coming in has yet to cease, which perplexes me. Arshavin is a talented player no question, but is he what Spurs need? Maybe I'm wrong here, but to my knowledge he's basically the exact same player as Luka Modric. Now I do love the playmakers of this world, and if I had my way every starting 11 would be full of them, but I'm also well aware that that would not be a good idea, especially if you have ambitions of, you know, winning games and stuff. As intrigued as I would be to see Modric and Arshavin line up alongside each other, I don't think that would be the answer to Spurs' problem. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't.
Simply put, they need a defensive midfielder and a striker. If they get both then they may push for fourth place. If they don't, then mid-table mediocrity it will be, and the magic Juande could find himself conjuring up his tricks elsewhere. (Right now his record is actually worse than that of Martin Jol's. If you ask me, I think Ramos is just getting by on his looks, but that's neither here nor there).
As for Chelsea, it seemed like everyone just wanted to hand them the Premier League trophy after last weeks destruction of Portsmouth. I mean I wouldn't have been surprised to hear of a bookie paying out on Chelsea winning the league already, given that one bookie actually payed out on Stoke going down [!]. Funny stuff.
Admittedly, Chelsea were good. But they weren't that good. Two of their goals came directly from David James mistakes (England's number one people), and another from the penalty spot. In the second half, Chelsea really were average at best, and they continued that trend in Wigan over the weekend.
But for a sublime freekick from Deco (reminiscent to this one scored by the greatest player of our generation), Wigan would have secured at least a draw, and maybe even a deserved win. Chelsea looked their age in the middle of the park, and Anelka looked out of sorts, as he has done since he moved to Chelsea in January.
Frank Lampard continued where he left off for England in midweek by remaining a ghostly figure throughout this match, while Joe Cole was just very, very poor (though of course none of this was mentioned on MOTD 2). The Wigan midfield worked their socks off, no question, but against high quality opposition mere hard work shouldn't be enough to deter them. If Chelsea continue to play like this away from home, then while they may not concede many goals, they may not score many either.
That said, if you forced me to put money on a team to win the league, I'd probably back Chelsea, but only just. I certainly don't think they are invincible, and just like last season, I think things will be quite competitive at the top - provided Arsenal sort out those problems I mentioned previously, and Liverpool, um, eh...Ah who am I kidding? Liverpool really don't have a chance of winning the league, but that's another post for another day.
Berbatov needs to be sold, and soon. This much is clear. What I don't understand is why a club managed by Alex Ferguson want to sign him. Yes he's a talented player, but he's got an abysmal attitude, and in my mind, he represents a big gamble. If Berbatov comes in, then in all likelihood that means Tevez gets relegated to the bench. Tevez isn't a genius, but he works as hard as anyone when United don't have the ball, and he chips in with his fair share of goals too. Think of all the time on the ball any backline will get if United are relying on Berbatov and Ronadlo to chase things down. Sure you might have a red-faced Rooney running around like a red card waiting to happen, but will that be enough given the sheer unwillingness of either Ronaldo or Berbatov to do any sort of defensive work? I think not.
And then there's Berbatov's present attitude. I see no reason why he can't give his all for Tottenham right now and then move along to United should a deal go through. A real pro should concentrate on playing football for his present club, instead of talking about 'following his dream' and moving to Manchester. That sort of talk stinks of Cristiano Ronaldo, and I'm beginning to wonder why Ferguson is putting up with these heartless, soulless footballers who think of little else than money and fame. (Read this if you want to see how a proper player approaches the game). Maybe Ferguson just doesn't care enough anymore, which is certainly not good news for United. (My gut feeling is that they might struggle this year, but just like those damn Germans, you can never right them off).
Against Sunderland, Tottenham looked a bit all over the place. Not the good kind of all over the place that Barcelona exhibit so well, but the kind of all over the place that leaves Jermaine Jenas as your most attacking threat. Spurs, like Arsenal, lack any real bite in midfield, but unlike Arsenal, they also lack any real goal threat. A lot of people tipped Darren Bent to step up the the plate this season, but so far my prediction that 'a rubbish player is still a rubbish player no matter who plays behind him' stands. That may change, and he may start banging in goals (though I hope not, for fantasy football's sake), but if I were Juande I'd start looking to buy a new main striker, and soon.
Talk of Arshavin coming in has yet to cease, which perplexes me. Arshavin is a talented player no question, but is he what Spurs need? Maybe I'm wrong here, but to my knowledge he's basically the exact same player as Luka Modric. Now I do love the playmakers of this world, and if I had my way every starting 11 would be full of them, but I'm also well aware that that would not be a good idea, especially if you have ambitions of, you know, winning games and stuff. As intrigued as I would be to see Modric and Arshavin line up alongside each other, I don't think that would be the answer to Spurs' problem. In fact I'm sure it wouldn't.
Simply put, they need a defensive midfielder and a striker. If they get both then they may push for fourth place. If they don't, then mid-table mediocrity it will be, and the magic Juande could find himself conjuring up his tricks elsewhere. (Right now his record is actually worse than that of Martin Jol's. If you ask me, I think Ramos is just getting by on his looks, but that's neither here nor there).
As for Chelsea, it seemed like everyone just wanted to hand them the Premier League trophy after last weeks destruction of Portsmouth. I mean I wouldn't have been surprised to hear of a bookie paying out on Chelsea winning the league already, given that one bookie actually payed out on Stoke going down [!]. Funny stuff.
Admittedly, Chelsea were good. But they weren't that good. Two of their goals came directly from David James mistakes (England's number one people), and another from the penalty spot. In the second half, Chelsea really were average at best, and they continued that trend in Wigan over the weekend.
But for a sublime freekick from Deco (reminiscent to this one scored by the greatest player of our generation), Wigan would have secured at least a draw, and maybe even a deserved win. Chelsea looked their age in the middle of the park, and Anelka looked out of sorts, as he has done since he moved to Chelsea in January.
Frank Lampard continued where he left off for England in midweek by remaining a ghostly figure throughout this match, while Joe Cole was just very, very poor (though of course none of this was mentioned on MOTD 2). The Wigan midfield worked their socks off, no question, but against high quality opposition mere hard work shouldn't be enough to deter them. If Chelsea continue to play like this away from home, then while they may not concede many goals, they may not score many either.
That said, if you forced me to put money on a team to win the league, I'd probably back Chelsea, but only just. I certainly don't think they are invincible, and just like last season, I think things will be quite competitive at the top - provided Arsenal sort out those problems I mentioned previously, and Liverpool, um, eh...Ah who am I kidding? Liverpool really don't have a chance of winning the league, but that's another post for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
