http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,4284,1557536,00.html?gusrc
=rss
'Chelsea are penny plain or tuppence coloured according to the need'
David Lacey
Saturday August 27, 2005
It has taken Chelsea 11 days of the new season to resume their place at the top
of the Premier League. And even less time for criticism of their style and
approach to matches to be renewed.
In the wake of Arsenal's 1-0 defeat at Stamford Bridge on Sunday their manager
Arsene Wenger accused Jose Mourinho's team of not wanting to come out to play.
"Chelsea never open up, home or away," he said. "The back four plus Makelele
stay there."
Not that Wenger was criticising Chelsea; he made that quite clear. Nevertheless
the Arsenal manager surely had the champions in mind when he declared that "I
love football. It is important for the game that teams and coaches take the
initiative. Once a sport encourages teams who refuse to take the initiative
the sport is in danger."
When Manchester United arrived in Budapest for a Champions league qualifier
their manager Sir Alex Ferguson was harangued by a United supporter who accused
him for failing to speak up against the takeover by Malcolm Glazer. Bystanders
thought they heard Sir Alex respond by saying that if the man was so unhappy
with things at Old Trafford he could "go and watch Chelsea".
If Ferguson did say this he was obviously thinking about the high price of
watching Chelsea as opposed to what it costs to follow United, even under the
Glazers. However, Manchester United supporters in general may feel that,
takeover or no takeover, they get more entertainment for their money than do
the customers at Stamford Bridge.
In fact the latter were nearly a thousand fewer in number for Wednesday's game
against West Bromwich Albion compared with the attendance for the Arsenal match
three days earlier. Yet after watching their team rout Albion 4-0 with a
fraction of the effort taken to defeat Arsenal Chelsea's followers might feel
entitle to reject Wenger's remarks as sour grapes, as well as regarding the
entertainment potential of Mourinho's side as at least the equal of their two
main rivals.
The reality surely is that, with such a depth of playing strength, Chelsea can
be penny plain or tuppence coloured according to the occasion.
Wenger's description of Mourinho's tactical approach to Sunday's match was
accurate enough. Against Arsenal and Manchester United his back four will stay
put with Claude Makelele on sentry duty just in front. And when Chelsea renew
acquaintances with Liverpool in the Champions League the approach will be the
same.
Mourinho made six changes against West Bromwich which included starting with
Shaun Wright-Phillips on the right wing. Wright-Phillips had struggled as a
substitute against Arsenal but against Albion he thrived.
The Chelsea coach explained his selection policy by quipping that using the
Bentley and leaving the Aston Martin in the garage was not very clever.
Nevertheless the frequency of his team rotations will depend on the nature of
the opposition - Mercs, Jags or, in West Brom's case, Escorts.
It is not that under Mourinho Chelsea lack character but they have still to
acquire a strong persona to go with their new-found success. Roman Abramovich's
billions have bought them players of high quality and, eventually, a coach to
create a trophy-winning team. But they were never going to find a true identity
in the space of one season even if they did win the Premier League.
The same probably applied to Herbert Chapman's first title-winning Arsenal team
or Bill Shankly's initially successful Liverpool side. And though the arrival
mid-season of Eric Cantona undoubtedly contributed much to the first of
Ferguson's eight Premiership triumphs at Old Trafford it was not until David
Beckham and Paul Scholes became first-team regulars that his Manchester United
team achieved its own unique character.
In that sense Mourinho's Chelsea are still in their formative years. An aura of
lasting greatness has yet to emerge. For the moment they defend efficiently in
depth and pass the ball carefully, with Wright-Phillips, Arjen Robben and
Damien Duff assuring them of attacking width.
Frank Lampard and John Terry consistently feed this width with accurate long
passes from their own half and presumably it is because of this that some have
dismissed Chelsea as a long-ball team. The reality is that they play the ball
long or short according to circumstance.
Nearly 40 years ago Malcolm Allison wrote that on gaining possession a player
should follow the example of Hungary's Ferenc Puskas and "try to look for the
far man first. If a pass to him is not possible or accuracy cannot be
guaranteed, find someone nearer."
According to Allison "good football does not consist of playing 10-yard passes
up and down the pitch and then having shots blocked off in the penalty area.
Nor is it a matter of hitting long passes all the time. Assuming they never
reach perfection, teams will always play too much of one or the other."
Chelsea, however, usually get the balance right and tend to make fewer mistakes
than their opponents. This is probably why some, Wenger included, find them
tiresome. Mourinho can probably live with it.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.137.109.180