Chelsea become Arsenal, woe is me!

Chelsea vs Wolverhampton Wanderers 1-1 

10 March 2019

Post-Match Reaction

Chelsea strike me as a team similar to Arsenal under Wenger - lovely football, excessive possession but no results. They will win most of their games (thereby competing for a top four finish), but any team that can defend well with sufficient quality in the counter-attack will succeed against them. How many times did we see Chelsea do exactly the same thing to Wenger's Arsenal? It bordered on the hilarious how obvious the gameplan was against that era's Arsenal team. That's why today's draw is so annoying - it's a sick parody of a method that clearly failed.

However, whereas this Chelsea team has disappointed in the same fashion as Wenger's Arsenal, it isn't for the same reason. Wenger had years to build a team which suited his style of play yet it was never good enough to win consistently against all types and levels of opposition. Sarri is miscarrying because his style of play does not suit this Chelsea squad. This fact was disguised by his initial undefeated streak. But where Conte employed a tactical sea-change to make a miraculous difference,  that trick with another Italian manager is not working. Conte the pragmatist won by innovating and adapting to the players available to him, Sarri the idealist needs players to adapt to him. This process takes time or money. One player who does not fit into Sarri's method is N'golo Kante.

Kante is not the only misfit in Sarri's 4-3-3, however his situation is emblematic of Chelsea's current problem. Sarri-ball requires a telepathic level of understanding between quick-thinking players who can pass the ball. This telepathy may develop over time, but turning the likes of Kante into an effective ball-player is highly unlikely. The amount of times Kante has received the ball and retarded Chelsea's momentum is sickening. He recovers and intercepts the ball like no one before him, but his imagination on the ball is non-existent. Frankly, this makes him next to useless on Sarri's teamsheet. Despite this, I suppose that his supreme defensive qualities must be included, even if out of position.

Nevertheless, this idea of square pegs and round holes is the only consistent theme in this Chelsea squad. If Kante is apparently irreplaceable on matchday, then the same is true of someone like 'David' Azpilicueta. David is another player defined by his defensive quality, but swinging in a few decent crosses does not make him suitable in Sarri's system. On the other side we have Marcos Alonso, who can be described as a wing-back who finishes. Neither of these players instinctively combine with their teammates with the requisite aplomb. In midfield, Sarri seems to think Kovacic is appropriate. He is good at retaining the ball personally, he makes runs with and without the ball, and he defends well, filling in for his comrades. But who can deny this favoured midfield trio outside of Jorginho is hopelessly unimaginative? For a team which dominates possession, it includes a lot of defensive players...

It seems then, that Sarri's first team is ultimately reliant upon defensive-minded players to play janitor whilst a talented front-four win the game. Unfortunately, Sarri-ball requires every team member to be confident on the ball. That is why he relies on Kepa - he can pass where Cabellero can't. That's why Jorginho is fundamental, he understands the system, retains the ball personally, and passes with imagination; and that's why Luiz is so important despite being well documented as a liability in a central defensive-two.

Therefore, the Chelsea heirarchy are faced with familiar circumstances: relatively poor results with a manager who clearly needs time to implement a strategy. History shows us that a Chelsea manager that fails to keep up with the Premier League's best is fired. Undisputably, this approach has reaped rewards thus far. But doesn't it feel different now? Chelsea may be able to hire the finest managers, but without expenditure comparable to the Manchester clubs, the squad will never compare and never compete. The way to overcome the odds, as demonstrated by Leicester and Conte, is to have a philosophy which gets value from every player by suiting their skills. Sarri has not had the chance to do that yet.

It is my hope then, like so many times in the past, that a manager gets the time to execute their manifesto. Because this time, it's obvious that it will take more than one man to make Chelsea great again.

A Blue Perspective on a Dark Vista

As I write this Chelsea are losing 1-0 away at Stoke in the League Cup with ten minutes to go. It's at times like these when a football fan needs to reassess exactly what is important about supporting their team. 

Listening to the match I begin thinking about ways in which I can rationalise, justify and excuse the disastrous run of results my club has suffered. You can talk about pre-season with its fitness and recruitment implications, you can talk about the Carneiro issue and its moral implications and you can blame the players and manager in equal measure. It's probably a combination of all those things. Never have I known such a dark period.

But so what? What does it matter if Chelsea can barely win a game this Season? What if Chelsea finish mid-table, woefully short of Champions League football? (Just heard Remy equalise!!!!) The only thing that matters to the individual fan is hard-nosed, unquestioning loyalty and unrelenting support. It doesn't matter how low things become I will still support my club. I will still bring hope to every match. Maybe we will have to remedy our expectations and maybe we will have to cope with a few Seasons of mediocrity. It doesn't matter, I will still feel the same emotions whatever happens and take victory and defeat in the same manner, whether stoic or elated. 

Let's take some perspective on things. Since 1997 we have won a trophy most years. Nearly every Season we have challenged for the Premier League title. Is a couple of fallow seasons so horrible? It reminds me of David Moyes at Manchester Utd. It was a total disaster for them and numerous records were broken with multiple teams breaking their Old Trafford duck. They finished outside the top four but are inevitably coming back. If there is any logic in the Chelsea Board, we will be able to bounce back with a Chelsea fan, Jose Mourinho, who is probably the best manager since Ferguson. With any luck the promising youngsters will get a full blooding over the course of the season and we will be able to watch them grow into their potential over the next five years. Chelsea fans have become so saturated with success that we have got to the point where we perhaps value the progress of our youths more than we do the space in our trophy cabinet. This miserable period is the best chance our impressive youngsters have of playing regular competitive football. Treasure it because there is no doubting that the relentless ambition for the biggest trophies is detrimental to their prospects. Take the positives and think of the future for once.

As extra-time winds down and penalties loom at Stoke let me finish by reiterating the point I am trying to make in this emotive ramble. Results are important for the League table and Cup competition progress; performances are important for assessing the progress and situation of the team; but for the fans their football club is an emotional investment which gives them either misery or joy on any given matchday. What happens on the pitch is a weekly opportunity, not a holy human right.

When assessing the Season thus far remember the fallow years between 1970 and 1997. Realise that their are Chelsea fans who experienced those years. Recall that history shows that every club goes through peaks and troughs. We are clearly in a trough but understand that troughs are only defined by the peaks which precede and proceed them. Things can always get worse for a football club (ask Leeds) but also know that we are almost at the point where things can only get better. But most of all support Chelsea, support Mourinho and support the tribe - that's all you can do.

The Autumn Champions

Chelsea FC's season has gone very well so far. It's even November and 'disaster' has yet to strike! We are top of the league by a meaningful gap and are undefeated in all competitions. We were slightly unfortunate to leave Manchester with only two points and have thoroughly punished the Liverpool clubs. We are playing scintillating football. Wenger has conceded us the title; the only difference being that he actually said it in good time.  Man City are in our eight-point wake and don't look like making it up any time soon. Any other supposed title-challenger is laughably off the pace. 

Bearing all this in mind it is unsurprising that every sports media contributor, whether it be a pundit or journalist, believe Chelsea are sewn-on champions. So obvious is this supposition that the same folk are now naturally wondering if Chelsea can go the League season unbeaten. The narrative is already building up to a cataclysmic crescendo. The storm will break when we lose a game. If this happens whilst there is still a chance that we won't be champions the ensuing media-frenzy might rival the Liverpool parade to the title earlier in the year (until we put a stop to that nonsense). 

Everyone is waiting for us to lose; either to give themselves a glimmer of hope in the League, or so they can start writing incredible trash about a 'crisis'. And frankly, so am I - waiting to lose I mean. I do this because: Firstly, the sooner we lose the sooner the media can take a more even-handed approach towards us. This will lessen the pressure. Secondly, earnestly believing that we will eventually lose is the most I can do to ensure that it does not happen. That's called superstition. The Manager thinking the same is the best surety against complacency (which is our only potential issue according to everyone.) 

So what issues do we have?

Let's talk about our defense. It has been lauded - after all it is the joint second best in the League. However, it sounds better than it is. Look below to see the plain truth:

Best Defensive Records - Goals conceded

1. Southampton - 5
2. Chelsea, Swansea - 11
3. Man City - 12
4. Arsenal, Stoke - 13
5. West Ham, Man Utd - 14

It's good but it's not the best is it? If you include other competitions you see that Chelsea have managed to concede at least one goal in most games. In 17 (undefeated) games we have kept only four clean sheets. They are:

• Leicester h 2-0
• Aston Villa h 3-0
• Arsenal h 2-0
• Maribor h 6-0

Those are all teams that we would expect to get clean sheets against. We also conceded against Strawberry Town. If we return to the former list, we see that Chelsea's defensive results are not dissimilar to that of Swansea, Man City, Arsenal and Stoke. West Ham and Man Utd aren't much worse than us. Southampton are much better than us defensively and they lost their best defender to Liverpool. We should note that what clean sheets we do have were all gained in home games. This means that invariably we have conceded when playing away. It's not a good trend and it will  eventually catch up with us.

Why is this?

Ivanovic has been awesome in attack this season. However, he has been doing so much attacking that he is inevitably doing less defending. This does not mean that he is any less the defender we know and love, it's just that he's not always there anymore. Aggressive full-backs are necessary to help break down parked buses which is great, but the space left behind is an obvious target for opponents. This brings us to one of the men who would fill that space - Gary Cahill.

I like Cahill. He is a humble fella and he was there in Munich. But that does not make him a world-class, or even a great centre-back. When we bought him back in January 2012 did we think we were getting the next great English centre-back? I don't recall feeling that. He hasn't done much wrong, but he is clearly limited and needs Terry next to him to be comfortable. His commitment, physicality and ability to make excellent blocks commend him highly. However, he does not read the game that well because otherwise he wouldn't have to make so many desperate, if incredible, blocks. Furthermore, he is strangely non-committal when an attacker dribbles at him.  A long-term concern would be what happens when Terry retires (which can't be long now). I don't think Cahill can lead our centre-defense, and neither can Happy Zouma. We will need an authoritative replacement for Terry.

Talking about Terry: If we were to lose him we would be in trouble so fingers-crossed for Varane.

Fabregas has been wonderful for us. How many assists already? But again he does come with drawbacks when played next to Matic. He just ain't a defensive-minded player. People ghost past him too easily and then they can confuse Cahill to score. Personally, I feel the trade-off is well worth the while - long may Fabregas play for Chelsea.

Negative though the above has been, I think it important to highlight the reality that our defense has room for improvement. Comparisons to our team that only lost one game 04/05 in the League are quite farcical. That team could win one nil easily. This team, as we saw in Manchester, can't. If we had avoided conceding in Manchester I might be here joining with, rather than disproving the hype.

The Attacking Side

We are playing the best 'anti-football' in the League. Bus to Bugatti? People forget how we played great football at the start of last season - but that only culminated in a 2-3 defeat away to Stoke. Assaidi who? Then we got pragmatic and almost won the League.

Honestly, I do not have many concerns regarding our attack. We have wonderful team goals and plenty of talented individuals who can change a game. We might even be able to suffer an absence of Hazard. What we can't afford to lose for any period of time is Costa. The goal-threat just isn't substantially there without him. For me, Drogba has lost his touch and pace so isn't much use apart from as a fire-fighter for stoppage-time corners. But I think Remy is a perfectly adequate stand-in when he gets fit again.

Champions elect are found in Spring, not Autumn. Let's count our trophies when they are in the cabinet, not the newspapers.

The Wheels on the Bus go round and round, round and round...

I didn't finish this one and then forgot to post it...

Sunday, 27th April, 2014, Anfield: Liverpool 0 - 2 Chelsea

The reaction to the above result has been the most grotesque, bitter and petty affair this Premier League (PL) season has seen so far. We have total fools like Shaka Hislop criticising Mourinho for being a hypocrite. We have nearly every journalist in the land calling Chelsea's victory 'anti-football' while labelling it a 'tactical masterclass'. We have vitriolic abuse from those of a Liverpool inclination, as well as the tacit outrage of apparently all the neutrals. Nearly everything I have read concerning the game has lambasted Chelsea for winning in the 'wrong' way. A true tragi-comedy. 

But the last straw was listening to the Guardian Football Weekly Podcast. Barry Glendenning, (a Sunderland fan) said the following:

'It's very difficult to play a football match when only one team wants to play; it's very difficult. A match is about two teams playing. But this match was only one team playing and another not, as a famous manager once said.'

I didn't know they stacked shit that wide you fat bastard.

Anyway I am here to challenge the pathetic opinions of all those too blinded by their hatred of CFC to draw reasonable conclusions.

Mourinho is a Hypocrite

Really? Does that count as news nowadays? If I wanted to be pedantic I would argue the difference between West Ham's and Chelsea's performance was that Chelsea actually wanted to score. (To think that Chelsea approached the game with a draw in mind is so preposterous it does not even bare discussion.) Everyone knows that Managers basically say anything whenever it suits them. They are either manipulating the media with worrying ease and/or sending a message to their players. Being consistent has absolutely nothing to do with it. Shut up Shaka you utter idiot - why does ESPN tolerate your inane utterances?

Chelsea's Approach was 'Anti-Football'

What does 'anti-football' even mean? Does it mean some kind of non-sport where you don't aim to put a ball in a net? Does it mean Rugby? Basketball? Wait I know what it means - it means any approach which stifles attacking football doesn't it. It's all part of that tired Catalonian narrative where if Guardiola, Wenger, and now Rodgers lose, they blame their opposition's defensiveness and not their own team's abject failure to score more than a team that doesn't 'attack' LMAO. 'Anti-football' is part of the terminology of losers and ideologues. 

    This is why Chelsea fans don't use this specious term. When Chelsea comes up against a 'parked bus', has all the possession, has loads of shots and loses the game (which has happened quite a few times this season btw), we don't complain about the perfectly logical approach of the opposition, we curse our lack of goals. If Chelsea had only got a measly three points from all the games lost against supposed 'lesser' teams then the story would be different right now. 

     Jamie Carragher recently said that he played exactly like Chelsea did, away at a big club in Europe, looking to do anything, including time-wasting, to keep a clean sheet. So let's just forget about time-wasting since every team does it whenever it is advantageous to them. Funny how time-wasting only now appears on the media's agenda.

    I have also read a lot opinion to the sum of: Chelsea have a responsibility to play attacking football because of all the talent they have. Wrong. The only responsibility Chelsea has is to its fans. If Chelsea has a responsibility to football due to its wealth of talented players it is this - to win every game. 

Who will win the 2014 Champions League?

A very long time ago I decided to write an article regarding the relationship between the winner of the Champions League and their respective league positions the previous and winning seasons. 

For example: Chelsea won the Champions League (CL) in 2012 after finishing 2nd in the Premier League (PL) the season before. In 2012, the year Chelsea won the CL, they finished 6th in the PL.

So anyway, I fortuitously discovered the research I did and realised that I had better get the revolutionary statistics I conjured published before they become obsolete!

So here goes...

- Only 47% of CL Winners won their domestic league the same year

- A substantial 72% of CL Winners won their domestic league the season before 

  (i.e. qualifying season)

So how is this reflected amongst the most prolific winners of the CL/European Cup?

Real Madrid 

- 9 Wins_5 Domestic Championships to qualify

- 9 Wins_7 League Championship failures same season

AC Milan 

- 7 Wins_4 Domestic Championships to qualify

- 7 Wins_6 League Championship failures same season

Bayern Munich

- 5 Wins_3 Domestic Championships to qualify

- 5 Wins_2 League Championship failures same season

Liverpool

- 5 Wins_4 Domestic Championships to qualify

- 5 Wins_3 League Championship failures same season

Of course statistics like this are of dubious value and are highly unlikely to display anything other than the most negligible reflection of the future. However, it took a fucking long time to get these stats together and there are plenty more which I am not going to bother to reveal because they proved even less significant than the italicised stats above; so what can we glean from all this pointless effort anyway?

Here are some nonsensical and speculative implications:

- Bayern Munich definitely have a 60% chance of winning it

- Real Madrid have a 77% chance of winning it if they fail to win La Liga = Conundrum

- Athletico Madrid can improve their chance of winning to 37% if they win La Liga

- Chelsea will win it

KTBFFH

We Want The Cup, Not The Ball

UEFA's Technical Report of each year's Champions League is always an interesting read for football fans. Given that CFC won last year's competition, I thought I'd peruse the report and pick out any salient points relevant to CFC fans:-

UEFA think Drogba's goal against Napoli was the fourth best goal from open-play in the whole competition (125games).Check out the highlights of that most epic of matches and see what you think.

Furthermore, UEFA reckon Drogba's glorious headed goal against Bayern Munich in that wonderful final was the fifth best set-play goal. Check it out - it's awesome. 

When talking about the prevalence of midfield screens and the final:
 
"Chelsea's John Obi Mikel provided a classic example of a player who excelled at breaking up opposition attacks in a central area and initiating his team's response." Mikel is widely under-rated and sometimes over-rated - nice to see UEFA at least recognise his performance.

When talking about emotional intensity:

"Big games require big players, and the ability to master emotions becomes a major asset. The 2011/12 season confirmed that one of the basic requirements [of winners] is above-average mental strength... Chelsea, the 2012 champions, provided a graphic illustration that resilience and mental toughness can be vital ingredients in recipes for success."

UEFA's technical observers traditionally select a team a CL star squad of those players who they thought made outstanding contributions to their team's progress. Quite naturally, some CFC heroes feature:

• Petr 'Penalty-Save' Cech
• Ashley 'Goal-Line Clearance' Cole
• 'Run and Chip' Ramires
• Frank 'Legend of Chelsea' Lampard
• Didier 'Big Game' Drogba

 "Special credit is due to Frank Lampard, who has been a regular in the star squad since the 2005/6 season." Sign him up Roman!

So what were the defining characteristics of this mentally resilient team?

• 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1
• Highly mobile middle-to-front (Mata and Lampard)
• Top-quality crosses, usually by full-backs
• Very strong, aerially, on set-plays: deliveris by Mata and Lampard
• Breaks from the back, especially via David Luiz
• Zonal back-four with Terry the leader
• Imposing goalkeeper (Cech) with good distribution
• Very experienced group: mentally strong
• Slick combination play and incisive passes
• Excellent use of the flanks: goals from cut-backs

UEFA also noted that 10% of all the goals scored during the competition were scored in added-time at the end of both halves. All the three Chelsea goals which knocked out Barcelona were scored in added-time. Really hurt those ones.

CFC averaged 47%  possession (28% in both Barca matches) and 70% passing accuracy. Who cares? "... Chelsea's ultimate victory provided a reminder that dominating the ball offers no guarantee of success."

Gerard Houllier - 'Some teams keep the ball - some keep the result.'
Fabio Capello - 'This Chelsea team never gave up.'

LUVCFC

Post-Defeat Reflections

So. No FA Cup Final day for us. No five in seven - just four in seven. Still, that aint bad is it? And what's more, yesterday was our first defeat in open play in the FA Cup in 30 games. It has to come to and end at one point, so it might as well do so in what looks like being a genuine transition season. This is the point I am trying to make: Think of the context people. 
     
We CFC fans were spoilt rotten last season. Did anybody truly expect that freaky magic to herald a new age of domination? Contest seven trophies this season? Surely, we must get a couple at least? Nonsense. With so many games we were always likely to fail in most if not all of them. 
     
But expectation isn't the only issue facing CFC's First Team: We have a much maligned 'interim' manager who is good at throwing games away, most of our best players are relatively new to the EPL, most of our viable players are still very young and consequently inexperienced, and we seem to be lumbered with a formation (4231) without the necessary players to make it work properly. Benitez, for all his apparent tactical nous, has totally failed to address the problems he inherited. Chelsea's defending is still poor.

Think of it - we played yesterday with another makeshift and novel central defensive partnership. Luiz is obviously no defender - he hasn't got the instinct for it. How he got tagged there God only knows. Ivan has been superb for us but he's probably not used to being in the middle given how well he's done at right-back. Those two are not the future in that position. Chaos reigned in that first-half.

And then we come to the much debated 'double-pivot', whatever that is. These two players are a lot more important than they are given credit for. They are supposed to provide protection to the back four, receive the ball from the back four, and subsequently initiate attacking passes forward. 

The thing is, these two players need to be awesome on the ball. They have to be able to receive and hold the ball in tight places and then make useful forward passes to Mazacar. Our contenders for those positions just can't hack it. City's second goal is the case in point: We start the second half, Mikel and Ramires get pressed, lose the ball, and before you know it Ivan has lost Aguero for the goal. Our holding players neither have the time or the skill to play their role successfully. 

Perhaps Mikel has hope given his strength and good feet, but his passing is way too slow and ineffectual. Ramires is only any good when he's charging about. Lampard is way too busy scoring goals, which is some consolation. (Just play him Benitez - if he gets to 203 it will be a good season!) I'm hoping Oscar and Luiz can make those positions their own if we must insist on 4231.

Other inherent weaknesses? No striker worthy of the name all season. One too many central playmakers behind the 'striker'. Little transitional discipline. No decent central defenders. Vulnerable to counter-attack down the wings. Unless the Amigo's run the show we are screwed. Too many managers LOL. So if we make the Top Four with these obvious problems then it'll be a great achievement.

Anyway. There's always the future. We have a young squad overflowing with talent. Once we get any kind of medium-term managerial stability we will threaten even more than we already have. KTBFFH

Describing Chelsea's Season So Far

Post a moral victory over United, a description for the start of Chelsea’s season so far is an illusive substance. After nine games, we sit at the top of the league having suffered only one draw and defeat respectively. What’s there to complain about? After three games in the Champions League, we sit second in our group with our destiny in our own hands. Chelsea is comfortable and playing attractive football. Given the anticipated problems of integrating new players and forging a new approach, everything looks much better than expected.    
    Yet, however pleasing a positive result may be, don’t managers tend to reflect on the performance first and foremost? Winning a match because the referee sent off two of your opponent’s players is not nearly as constructive as winning a match through effervescent flair and determination. Losing a match because of a poor, potentially complacent performance in a distant second-world country is worse than losing because you were ‘Clattenburged’.
    The point is this: Chelsea have not won a game without playing well. Let’s not underrate Shakhtar, they are a formidable prospect for any team at the Donbass, where their record is nothing less than astonishing. Chelsea started poorly, were second best, and were consequently beaten. Against United, Chelsea started poorly and eventually suffered because of it, leaving aside the cloud of controversy which refuses to clear over Stamford Bridge these days. If winning without playing well is a mark of champions, than that is something we have not yet seen from Chelsea.
    But what about the ‘tests’ which Chelsea have overcome so far? Is that supposed to mean Arsenal away? Seriously, that wasn’t a test, that was a match against a team that sells its best players, buys dubious ones, and whose approach to any game is as predictable as Wenger is dogmatic and anachronistic. They suffer an inexplicable reverse, then are utterly hopeless for a period thereafter - probably finish in the top third nevertheless.
    And Tottenham away? If their inferiority complex had perhaps lifted given results in recent years, injecting a Chelsea-reject as manager and deploying one as captain can’t have been in the psychiatrist’s recommendations. Missing Bale and Dembele also meant that Chelsea were playing against a Spurs team bereft of their most dangerous components. We can say that Chelsea were tested, but it was not a test.
    Chelsea’s genuine examinations have come against United and Shakhtar and both games were lost. Apart from not turning up until halfway through the first-half in both games, Chelsea currently have an obvious tactical weakness. Their transition from attack to defence is shambolic. This is not necessarily the fault of the player’s, even though some of them might be a little too impetuous. It’s the system that is to blame and it was ruthlessly exposed in our two defeats. The full-backs have to provide width to Chelsea’s attacks, which leaves them exposed in two possible senses when Chelsea lose the ball (which happens far too cheaply and frequently): Firstly, they are often too high up the pitch to defend their nominal zones when teams counterattack; or secondly, are left outnumbered because there is no one to help in front of them. 
    Ferguson saw what happened in Ukraine and was inevitably going to exploit the evident weaknesses Chelsea have immediately after losing the ball. Other teams with effective wingers will have taken note. Teams which choose to play a counter-attacking game against Chelsea (probably most of them), know they will get some joy that way. We have seen in the past that a reliance on out-scoring your opponents is not a successful long-term strategy.
    So how would I describe Chelsea’s season so far? Too busy enjoying the beauty of it all to see the minefield. KTBFFH!

England Expects At Euro 2012

There's a funny paradox with England this year. It's thought that in the past, high expectations have been detrimental to England's performances. Now that we're supposed to have low expectations for England, we expect England will do better. The English media is apparentley in tune with 'reality' when it plays this song. 

What were the hopes for Group D? It wasn't the toughest group but it was tough nonetheless. France - the old enemy - conjures up all kinds of amusing glances into history: France and England were fighting each other on and off for more than a hundred years at one point; and Napoleon got beat. The result? We drew 1-1 against a team full of quality attacking players.

Sweden - The Bogey Team. This country just causes frustration. Sweden were undeafeated by England in seven competitive matches (I'm sure you already know that) before that date in Kiev. England had beaten them in a recent friendly however. Furthermore, no team had gone eight games unbeaten against England. One is caught thinking: Surely England will win? How long can a run last? And when England are 1-2 down, only to go on to win 3-2, it must be fate. The statistical storyline has come through.

Ukraine - U-who? An ancient star player, but that's it. A vociferous and numerous home crowd. Surely England will get enough at the Donbass to progress? But be careful! It is dangerous to play for a draw. England win 1-0. 

What was all the bother about? England came through the group stage undefeated. England nearly always gets through the group stage. Roy's boys are unbeaten in five matches. That's decent form going into a quarter-final. They say it wasn't aesthetically pleasing, but the prettiest thing in football is success. Would you rather win or play 'good' football, whatever that is? England definitely wants to win. 

So despite the conscious dampening down of expectations, we find ourselves believing England can defeat Italy and actually win a quarter-final! The last time we saw England win a quarter-final was in 1996. Even with that woeful record we would still be disappointed if England lost. Has everybody forgotten the possibility of defeat? We are giving them the chance that we would give most teams in the quarter-finals. It's 50-50 win or lose, and England does have the quality to make a game a 50-50 chance. It just seems everybody is betting on England. Write England off at your peril, because they have a chance like everyone else does.

If expectations were low before the tournament, then they have certainly risen now that England need only win two games to reach a final for the first time since you know when. This has completely defeated the point of maintaining low expectations. 

However, you need not worry. England has not lost in the past because of the media and national expectation. England has lost football matches because that's football. Teams go on awful runs. In the case of international football, the cycles are biannual, so they are relatively rare occasions for a team to find some form. It's difficult out there people.

Plus, it is so very patronising to assume that the ramblings of the media have any real effect on England's players. If those players did not want to win they wouldn't be there. These guys are supposed to be highly paid professionals, whose job it is to play and win football matches. What would they be if a little bit of tabloid effrontery swayed them from the simple fundamentals of their profession? - Not very good professionals. Hopefully, we can assume Roy can tell the difference between the two.

So let's stop pretending to be clever when we profess lower expectations, but then predict England will reach a semi-final for the first time in sixteen years. England could win it next month, or in 2014, or in 2016 or whenever; as long as qualification and group stages are negotiatied as per usual. Let's be patient. Eventually, it will be England's turn, because that's football. 

And if England loses to Germany in the semi-finals then that's football as well.

The Roman Empire Strikes Back - AVB Sacked

So Abracadabra went and did it. After what has proven to be a torturous season so far for Chelsea fans, our man who was supposed to manage an inevitably painful transitory period, has been sacked. It has not come as a surprise, but it does leave the immediate question - WHAT NOW?!

     Well, for the meanwhile it seems we have Di Matteo in charge. Don't get me wrong, Chelsea fans will have time for Roberto 'That Goal' Di Matteo, since he has Blue Blood. However, are we really going to do any better under him than under AVB? It's difficult to make that assumption, which makes AVB's sacking all the more questionable. Often when a new manager comes in, it gives a brief boost to the club and translates into one or two good results. If this proves to be the case and we manage to blag our way through tough matches against Birmingham and Napoli then that would be nice. But then what? Can Roberto take us all the way? I hope so... More pertinently, Chelsea FC is again shaken by instability thanks to the meandering and dilatory approach of our lord, Roman Abracadbramovich.

     AVB did look out of his depth, and much that he did and said was imprudent in the extreme. But I had hoped that Abra would have learned some patience and allowed his toy to suffer a little in order to come out the other end stronger. Another manager has not been given a chance and now anyone available for the job will think very carefully before putting their neck under the Chelsea guillotine. Yes, the results were dire with AVB, but he's certainly not the only blameworthy figure amongst the shambles on Fulham Road. Many Chelsea players have not performed to their best abilities so far this season - we can all name a handful.

     So what now? I do not know. Let's just hope for some cup progress, a top four finish, and that Roberto plays some of those promising youths we've invested so heavily in. It can hardly get any worse can it? Good luck Chelsea fans, because we are going to need it.

Is Abramovich Doing More Damage Than Good?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What is it to be a Football Fan?

There is a double magic to being a Football Fan. Firstly, a fan has a love for the game. How many of you played football during break-time whilst the girls skipped; or played heads and volleys down the park or alley? How many of you would play a game right now if you had the chance and the company to do so? I would.

     This passion is transferred seamlessly into the watching of the game. We who have kicked a ball know how fantastic are the skills and talent of the professionals on display in the upper echelons of Europe's leagues. Good play entertains whilst bad play frustrates. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to tell the difference between the dire and the divine.

     Yet as satisfying as appreciating the game may be, the real drug of football lies in supporting a team. We do so through thick and thin, until the very end of our lives. Supporting a team represents a massive emotional investment. Every weekend we place our hopes in eleven men over whom we have no influence whatsoever.  If your team wins you are elated, if they lose, then you are miserable. Perhaps you follow a team that tends to win, but when they lose it's all the worse. Or you could support a team that tends to lose, so when they win it's all the more ecstatic. It's a weekly and unconditional gamble. Hardened football veterans take this in their stride, but let me make this point so that it can spread to those who do not follow football: You who do not support a team - you may avoid the catastrophic lows, but you'll never have the chance of the dizzying highs that make the tens of thousands jump to their feet and scream pure joy. 

     When my team wins the Champions League, you'll never get me down.