EPL Talk » stamford bridge

Ancelotti’s Honesty Is So Refreshing

Paul Bestall — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:57:55 +0000

Well, I had to check a couple of times that I’d read the paper right on Sunday morning such was the surprise that I viewed Carlo Ancelotti’s comments about Chelsea’s shock defeat at the D.W Stadium. Perhaps it was the shock at playing at one of the worst named grounds in England, but either way it was so refreshing to hear one of the big four managers actually not try and wash over the event.

There is one thing that incenses me when I listen to post match comments and that’s when a manager blames everyone else but themselves for a defeat. The prime example of this idiotic line of defensive commentary is Neil Warnock. I have never, ever heard him in a post match interview admit his side were beaten by a better team. Never. In nearly twenty years of listening to him whine, he has never lost a game to a better team.

He whined at Notts County, he whined at Huddersfield Town, at Oldham, at Plymouth and it was everyone else’s fault at Sheffield United. It was always the referee, or the opposition cheated or anything but face the fact that he’d got it wrong. Again, time after time and it became simply pathetic.The main reason Sheffield United were relegated was that the manager bought badly, played too defensively away from home and paid the price. Of course West Ham United cheated, but if he’d got anything about him, United wouldn’ t have been in that position.

Ferguson last season after Liverpool had absolutely ripped Manchester United to pieces at Old Trafford with a 4-1 win was in danger of being sectioned after his summary. “I thought the best team lost” he countered. Really? Honestly? Seriously? Liverpool absolutely tonked United that day, no question about it. To say anything else simply made Ferguson seem silly.

So thank you Carlo Ancelotti for coming out and saying it like it is. Wigan were immense on Saturday, they really were and Chelsea were completely out of sorts all match. It was like a performance under Phil Scolari rather than the exuberant style of play Ancelotti has managed to stamp on Chelsea so soon in his managerial career at Stamford Bridge. I doubt however that Chelsea fans need worry about a return to those days. It was simply a bad day at the office. Nothing more, nothing less and the manager recognised it as such.

By stating he didn’t know what had gone wrong, he showed a new side to the fans. He picked the best team, gave them the tactics and they couldn’t put it in to place. It happens. Of course the sending off didn’t help, even though I thought it was a little harsh, but it certainly was a penalty. He didn’t even dispute that decision. Astounding. Football managers do not do this kind of thing, but I wished more of them did. It gives them kudos for being honest rather than the usual defending terrible displays with criticism of the officials. It makes them seem more real, more unbiased and more like the viewer.

Sometimes post match comments are so insipid, so bland that it makes you want to throw something at the screen. The banality of some footballers and managers post match comment could put an insomniac to sleep. One former Premiership manager’s inability to talk without using the word yerknow every four words simply made him sound dreadful, but I doubt anyone will give him another chance for quite a while.

Ancelotti really has impressed me since he arrived at Stamford Bridge and Saturdays humble and erudite summary of the game coupled with his honesty makes me appreciate him even more. I won’t hold my breath for the others to follow suit though but more’s the shame because of it. It really makes a refreshing change and shows they are human after all.

Chelsea’s Punishment Shows UEFA Is Toothless

Paul Bestall — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:00:30 +0000

Now I’m certainly not going to start defending Chelsea’s players or the reactions of certain fans after the final whistle back on May 6th. Yes, the referee had a nightmare, yes Chelsea should have had two penalties at least and yes to some people it was easy to understand the reactions of some of the players after Tom Henning Ovrebo’s performance that night.It doesn’t excuse the behaviour of the players and fans after the game at all.

What I am astounded at is UEFA fining Chelsea £85,000 for failure to control their players and fans. Not because I disagree with it, but because UEFA continually ignore the issue of racism at football matches and issue a stream of pathetic, pointless little fines to teams who allow they’re fans to pollute football with their backward mentality towards non-white players. When you look at Chelsea’s punishment and then consider it in the scheme of failure to control players and fans, you’ll see what I mean.

In UEFA’s little world, racism isn’t an issue that warrants serious attention. They pretend it doesn’t happen and we’re all one big happy footballing family. Two years ago, England Under 21’s were fined £2000 for failure to control thier players after taking exception to Serbia’s players and fans who had racially abused the black members of the England Under 21 team throughout and after their European Championship match in 2007. Serbia were fined £16,500 and allowed to continue in the competition. This is UEFA’s zero tolerance approach to racism, paltry fines and allowing racist idiots to continue to perform.

In 2004, England’s black players were heckled throughout the 90 minutes of a “friendly” against Spain in Madrid at the Bernabeu Stadium. The Spanish FA were fined the crippling amount of £44,500 from a game that generated 4 million pounds. 1% of the revenue that match created for the Spanish F.A . Once again, UEFA showed zero tolerance. That’ll show them won’t it?

Of course some Croatia fans infamously formed a human swastika in 2006 during a game against Italy but were only fined £10,000 even though it was the third racist incident by their fans in 4 years. Once again, UEFA showed zero tolerance.

It astounds me that the UEFA continue to punish clubs and players so leniently and then wonder why incidents still happen in certain countries. When a club receives a bigger fine for showing petulance and anger towards a match official than teams that unfurl racist, anti-muslim or anti-semitic slogans and banners at games then it shows how scared to tackle the issue they really are.

Of course Chelsea didn’t do themselves any favours by their behaviour that night, but does it justify a fine of such a value when compared to far more unsavoury incidents? For UEFA to punish Chelsea so sternly in comparison is an easy decision by UEFA. It’s an easy way out for them as it was so widely publicised around the world but in the scheme of football what causes the game more damage? Racist morons or emotionally charged football fans?

Drogba though is rather lucky in my opinion to have only received a 4 game ban from European competition; though he does have the threat of a further two games that have been suspended if he oversteps the mark again. Boswinga, who rightly apologised after calling the referee a cheat in the Portuguese media, strangely received a 3 match ban. He withdrew his comments as quickly as he had made them and even rang Overbo to apologise, so can feel harshly done by in comparison to Drogba. Michael Ballack meanwhile is quite possibly the luckiest player at Stamford Bridge, as he’s got away scot free for his body checking and pulling of the referee. Perhaps they were impressed with his star jumps?

In UEFA’s mind, swearing at a referee or calling him a cheat is a worse offence than racially abusing someone and that for me is a sad indictment of the governing bodies attitude to the fight against racism in football. Until they get their priorities right and throw teams out of competitions or hit them with seven figure fines, the racists will continue to abuse and divide. Now that is the real disgrace about Chelsea’s fine.

Chelsea v. Liverpool: Not Over Yet…

Ethan Armstrong — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 16:16:41 +0000

Torres was visibly irritated when subbed off in the 74th minute with the scoreline still two-nil. He wanted his hat trick against Blackburn, but Rafa Benitez’s message was clear: save it for Chelsea.

As Liverpool visit Stamford Bridge needing to score at least three goals to survive in the Champions League (0-3 would mean a Liverpool win, 1-3 would push the match to extra time), they’ll have some fuel for the fires of confidence despite Chelsea’s first-leg 1-3 thrashing…

1. Beating United: Most important is Liverpool’s result from their visit to Old Trafford. Even the most optimistic Liverpool diehard must have been surprised when Liverpool scored four goals to Manchester United’s one. Liverpool’s second come-from-behind win against their arch-rivals was one of their greatest victories in recent times, more so since the Reds never beat United under Benitez until this season. If Liverpool can score four at Old Trafford, they’ll believe they can score enough goals to do the job at Stamford Bridge.

2. Goals, Goals, Goals: Liverpool’s impressive scorelines against Real Madrid, Aston Villa and Blackburn will also aid them in their belief. Five unanswered goals against Madrid over the course of two legs, five against Villa and four against Blackburn. While Blackburn’s performance was one of the worst I’ve seen this season, the momentum of finding the back of the net four times will be carried over for Liverpool as they strive to put the ball past Petr Cech.

3. John Terry’s Suspension: Terry’s collision Pepe Reina in the first leg led to the Chelsea captain’s fifth yellow and so he misses today’s match. While Chelsea have plenty of cover in the back, Terry is a leader and a lynchpin. In the last couple years when Terry has been out with injury, Chelsea have suffered for it, at times struggling with form and results. No Terry means a better chance for Liverpool attackers to break through and score.

4. Javier Mascherano’s Return: Mascherano was the missing link in the first leg. Lucas Leiva was not strong enough to hold down the midfield fort as well as Mascherano can. As a result Xabi Alonso and Steven Gerrard were not able to press forward as much as they like, as they had to hang back and help Lucas with defensive duties. Many say it was Essien who contained Gerrard, but Gerrard couldn’t enjoy his full role without a strong defensive midfielder behind him. With Mascherano back, not only will Gerrard and Alonso have a bit more freedom, but the Argentinian will be a great help in shutting down Drogba’s runs. Drogba was able to get through the Liverpool defense far to frequently in the first leg, largely because the back four were without the defensive insurance policy that is Javier Mascherano.

5. Bolton’s Three Goals: Bolton Wanderers nearly rescued a point after being 4-0 down at Stamford Bridge on Saturday, scoring three for a final scoreline of 4-3. If Bolton can score three away to Chelsea, Liverpool have as much of a chance as anyone. The Reds just have to make sure Chelsea don’t score four first! While the Bolton result may cause Chelsea to tighten up, it may just as easily have been enough to rattle the Blues the way Liverpool rattled United a week before Fulham beat them.

6. Fernando Torres: Torres is the king of creating a chance out nowhere. Give him a bit of space and an extra second on the ball and he can produce a wondergoal. Look at the first goal against Blackburn, he chested down Carragher’s long ball between two defenders, let it bounce once, and shot it into the far corner of the net. With Terry out, Torres may have more space than Chelsea normally allow. This may be enough to make all the difference. And he’s still hungry having been denied the third goal on Blackburn.

7. Liverpool Always Play Until The End: It may be a cliché: play until the final whistle. But no side has epitomized this like Liverpool this season. The equalizers and winners that have been scored in the dying minutes show that Liverpool will not give up until there is no more match to play. Right now it is halftime and Liverpool have ninety minutes to make something happen. That’s twice as much time as they had after going three down against AC Milan.

This is a mountain to climb. No doubt. And Chelsea may already be through to the semi-finals. But if Liverpool can score first and score early, it may just be enough to put the Blues off balance in their own stadium. If Liverpool can score two, it’s game on.

Three is a lot to ask, but stranger things have happened for Liverpool this season alone. Are we about to see a routine match for Chelsea? Or a legendary one for Liverpool?

We’ll know in a couple of hours.

Hull City To Go Down?

Michael Timbury — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:59:33 +0000

Can anyone remember the last time Hull City won a Premier League game? December 6th at home to Middlesbrough was the last time. Since then, they have been very much in freefall. When Hull first arrived in the Premiership, they were tipped to go straight back down but decided to tear up the script and go to well established top flight sides like Arsenal, Tottenham and Newcastle United and win. How dare they!

Since then however, Hull have had a bit of a reality check. Despite two very credible draws at Anfield and Stamford Bridge, a couple of resounding batterings from Manchester City and Sunderland, accompanied with some less humiliating defeats and the odd draw have seen Hull fall into thirteenth. By all means this is a respectable position but the worrying thing for Phil Brown’s side is that they are looking over their shoulder now, rather than towards the dizzy heights of Europe that their early season form suggested.

The run of form that they are in at the moment suggests only one thing; a relegation scrap. This is the last thing that they would have wanted or expected at the time of their last league win but have struggled to maintain the kind of form that shocked the world before Christmas. Credit to Brown, he acknowledged their slump and tried to shake things up by bringing in some new faces, most notably Manucho on loan from Manchester United (to replace the outgoing Marlon King) and record signing Jimmy Bullard from Fulham. The latter however seems to have backfired for the time being as Bullard required further surgery to his troublesome knee and is out for the remainder of the season having only made one substitute appearance for the Tigers.

A problem that is still rectifiable this season though is their home form. The KC Stadium has hardly been a fortress having picked up just three wins in the league there all season. Perhaps this is because it is a welcoming venue for travelling teams with nice facilities and doesn’t boast the most hostile of atmospheres. If a team is to avoid the drop, it is often their home form that will decide it. Stoke City are a good example of a side who are making the most of their home territory and in turn made themselves very difficult to beat there. Hull’s next three home games all come against sides who are in the relegation mix and the phrase ‘six pointer’ starts to take on some real meaning. Sunday’s match against a rejuvenated Blackburn Rovers is a crucial match and a win for Hull could spark a run that results in a comfortable finish to the season and doesn’t require the need for a positive result against Manchester United on the final day. Newcastle United and Portsmouth are the following home games for Hull while upcoming trips to Fulham, Wigan, Middlesbrough and Sunderland suggest that Hull should pick up enough points to survive.

Most neutrals would like to see Hull stay up, purely because of the way they shook things up in the opening weeks of the season and think it would be a waste to then throw it all away. Hull have achieved a lot in a short space of time and sending them back to the drawing board now would be harsh. However, you only stay up if you’re good enough and time will tell.

Why Chelsea Needs to Move to Battersea Power Station

The Gaffer — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:04:11 +0000

Ever since The Observer newspaper reported that Chelsea were seriously contemplating a move from Stamford Bridge in west London to a new stadium site next to Battersea Power Station, executives at the Blues have been acting very fidgety.

First, some background. The distance between the two locations is exactly three miles, but psychologically the locations are worlds apart. Stamford Bridge is in the very affluent boroughs between Hammersmith and Fulham. Battersea is south of the Thames river in the borough of Wandsworth. Chelsea is synonymous with the fashionable shops of nearby King’s Road. Battersea is best known for the Battersea Power Station, made famous for being featured on the cover of Pink Floyd’s album, Animals (pictured above). While the power station is a London landmark, it is so for all of the wrong reasons — giant smokestacks that pierce the London skyline.

So how and why have Chelsea been acting weird about the whole situation? First, Chelsea were very quick to deny the story but they contradicted themselves in the first two sentences of the official statement. The first sentence read “This story is total nonsense.” The second sentence then read “Chelsea is not actively considering moving to this site in Battersea.” The emphasis on the words “not actively” were added by me, but the message is clear. Chelsea is not refuting that they’re examining Battersea as an option. They’re just using doublespeak to diffuse the situation before Chelsea supporters become enraged at the thought of leaving their sacred home where they’ve been since 1905.

Three miles may not seem like much, but it’s a one hour walk from Stamford Bridge to Battersea Power Station. But more importantly, it’s a big psychological difference. North of the River Thames is synonymous with riches. South of the river Thames signifies the working class. As you move further outside the city centre of London to the west and the east, the north south divide becomes less important. But near the heart of London, it’s a massive deal.

Don’t forget that Arsenal played their early part of their existence in Plumstead, nestled south of the River Thames before they moved to north London and Highbury in 1913. That was after property magnate and Fulham chairman Henry Norris tried to merge Fulham and Arsenal together, but failed. By moving Arsenal to north London, Norris rescued the club from certain bankruptcy and extinction.

Here’s a satellite image of London to show how close but far apart Stamford Bridge is to Battersea. Notice how the smokestacks from the power station cast a shadow over the Thames directly above and to the left of Battersea, identified by the letter B below.

Chelsea Chief Executive Peter Kenyon was interviewed yesterday on Sky Sports and was asked about the stadium move. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find a video of the interview, but you can tell from the following interview about Chelsea’s financial situation that Kenyon appears uncomfortable answering the question and is quite fidgety.

The potential move from west London to Battersea must be of huge interest to Roman Abramovich especially considering that the Russian billionaire holding’s have lost as much as $20 billion in paper value according to one source. The opportunity for Abramovich to redevelop Stamford Bridge into luxury apartments is immense. According to The Observer, “While Highbury is one of the more expensive areas of the capital in which to buy property, it is dwarfed by the value of land at Stamford Bridge’s west London location. While Arsenal were restricted to 711 apartments at Highbury, as the old stadium was a listed building, Stamford Bridge has no such limitations. With its far greater area, including the club’s Chelsea Village complex and extensive parking, at least 1,000 properties could be built.”

Despite Chelsea’s denials, the potential move from Stamford Bridge to the site next to Battersea Power Station makes economic sense. It would provide the Blues with a state-of-the-art stadium with a much larger capacity than the current Stamford Bridge (capacity 42,055), which doesn’t have much room – if any – for redevelopment. It would establish Chelsea as a much bigger Premier League heavyweight with a ground closer in size to the two biggest club stadiums, Manchester United’s Old Trafford (capacity 76,212) and Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium (capacity 60,000).

For Chelsea, it makes economic sense and is a move that the club and its fans seriously need to consider. Roman Abramovich won’t be around forever. Chelsea needs to start planning its financial future today to cope when Abramovich isn’t there to sustain the club. Battersea Power Station may be the answer.