The Home of European champions (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Saturday 19^th May was the greatest night in the history of Chelsea Football Club and gave all fans of the club the best day of their lives.

Five days later the glow burns as bright as ever and it is unlikely that this feeling will fade for months despite the legion of detractors queuing up to diminish the achievements of the new Champions of Europe. The manner of victory seems to have upset many who have bemoaned the fact that the defensive tactics adopted by Roberto Di Matteo ultimately prevailed over the fluid attacking football exhibited by Bayern Munich.

I can certainly sympathise with Bayern supporters on that score who will be bewildered and angry at how such a dominant display could not yield victory and whom will undoubtedly sling barbs as a way of finding some peace with the outcome. But for those not directly connected to the German club I have no such patience.

For starters, there has to be an argument that the tactics that win the game are the best available as long as they stay within the confines of the law. Had Chelsea opted to kick the likes of Arjen Robben and Franck Ribery off the pitch, it would be fair to pour scorn on negativity but instead the match was played in an excellent spirit with not a single bad challenge committed by either side. Nobody would advocate that their team should set their stall out so blatantly as Di Matteo did on a regular basis but surely when faced with the titanic task of defeating the mighty Bayern Munich on their own ground without your totemic captain and most dynamic midfield player it is acceptable to look towards protection rather than productivity.

Those that are unhappy that defensive football outwitted attacking football should perhaps take this into consideration: which was the most clinical team on the night? The one that had upwards of 30 attempts at goal and 20 corners or the one that had a handful of shots and won just a single corner? Chelsea combined the resilience of a dogged defence with a ruthless cutting edge whereas Bayern fielded a striker who didn’t know where the goal was and a Dutchman who lived up to his countrymen’s reputation for being useless at penalties.

With the trophy in the bag what difference does it make how it was won? As Alan Hansen revealed, Liverpool’s three-time European Cup winning manager Bob Paisley used to say: “win the game first, worry about how we played earlier”. Sound advice.

Sticking with Liverpool and it seems that as per usual much of the abuse that has followed Chelsea’s maiden Champions League win has come from the supporters of that club. Now I do not want to tar all the club’s fans with the same brush as I have received many congratulations from Reds in the aftermath of Saturday’s win but social media and fan sites have been ablaze with contempt and a large portion of that has stemmed from that particular half of Merseyside. Among the petty parochialism there has been the risible claim that Chelsea were still small time as they only had 80,000 at their homecoming parade (forgetting how many supporters were still in Germany and anyway since when did size decide which club should win a trophy); the familiar yet vacuous assertion that Chelsea still had no history has also been aired on several occasions. Perhaps Chelsea don’t have a history that can compare to Liverpool FC but they have a present and a future that has the club marked indelibly as European champions and as Champions League participants next season. Give me that over the faded glories of the 70s and 80s every day of the week.

I suppose it is too much to ask for objectivity from other club’s fans given the tribal nature of supporting your team in this country but it would be refreshing if credit could be given where it was due. When Manchester United beat Bayern Munich and Liverpool beat AC Milan, I was impressed by both victories despite neither being deserved on the balance of play. It would be nice if the same courtesy was extended towards the Blues on this occasion.

Still, whatever the nonsense slung from those who despise Roman Abramovich and his club at least it can be understood in the context of territorial rivalries that has grown more hateful over the decades. What is much harder to fathom is the criticism directed at John Terry for taking part in the post-match celebrations while wearing his full kit. The comical musings that have seen Photoshop used to devastating effect to place Terry at such occasions as the royal wedding, the moon landing and the release of Nelson Mandela have shown excellent humour but in addition there have been several ‘respected’ journalists voicing their displeasure at the suspended player’s presence.

Why? Has Terry not contributed to the team’s success this season? Did his goal against Napoli not have any bearing on the destination of the trophy? Did his almost flawless performance in the first leg of the semi-final against Barcelona automatically vanish from memory because he got sent off in the return match? Yes, he made a stupid mistake at Camp Nou but to suggest he is not worthy of celebrating a famous victory is utterly pathetic. In any case, I do not know of a single Chelsea fan who is even remotely bothered by it and I would be very suprised if any of the players were.

The justification given for this sanctimonious stance  from the anti-Terry brigade is the sullen reticence displayed by Roy Keane and Paul Scholes who found themselves in a similar situation in the 1999 final when they moped around rather than join in the revelry. Ask yourself this, would you prefer your suspended team mates to sulk in self-absorbed misery and disregard the massive achievement of your club or would you prefer them to put their personal disappointment to one side and get into the spirit of things?

Irrespective of any criticism and denigration, one fact remains. Chelsea ARE the Champions of Europe. Just let us enjoy it.

Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (Photo credit: ombrelle)

Just over two months ago when I started this blog I listed the three transfer targets that Chelsea should pursue in the summer if they were to continue in the vein of recent seasons and qualify for the Champions League.

At the time of writing that piece, Andre Villas-Boas was still at the helm and the club sat in the hallowed yet precarious position of fourth place in the Premier League. As we know, times have changed quite considerably since then and with Roberto Di Matteo taking the wheel Chelsea find themselves looking upwards from sixth position having been overtaken by Arsenal and Newcastle with Spurs still sitting in the Champions League places.

The targets I outlined in the aforementioned piece would be reluctant – to say the least – to move to a club that is not playing in Europe’s premier club competition seeing as each is a young footballer with the world at his feet. Should Chelsea, as looks increasingly likely, fail to overhaul those immediately above them over the closing games of the campaign then more lower profile players will be sought when the transfer window reopens.

But just because these players might not quite be mentioned in the world superstar bracket, that does not mean that they lack the talent and ambition to drive Chelsea back to where they belong. Here are three that I believe could do just that.

Stephane Sessegnon – Sunderland

Steve Bruce has taken a lot of abuse from both the club’s supporters and the press for his tactics during his time in charge of Sunderland which saw them languishing in the lower reaches of England’s top division prior to his sacking at the end of November last year. But some of his moves in the transfer market while manager on Wearside have proved to be inspired. One of those is James McClean who was signed for the paltry sum of €400,000 from Derry City last August and whose rise to prominence has been startling under Bruce’s successor Martin O’Neill but the player who has excelled at the Stadium of Light under both regimes is Sessegnon. Principally an attacking midfielder, the Benin international can play in the middle or on either flank and is also capable of filling in as a support striker when called upon. A fountain of creativity and goals, he could provide the ammunition that has been sorely lacking at Chelsea this season.

At 27 years of age, his chances of playing for a big club are slowly receding and he would jump at the chance of a move to a club with genuine ambitions at the business end of the game. Competition from his former club PSG might have to be resisted but the big spending French outfit will probably have more eye-popping targets in mind. One argument against signing Sessegnon could be that his preferred role would be too similar to Juan Mata but the Spain international has looked jaded in the last few weeks due to playing almost every match this season and another playing option could help relieve his burden.

Iker Muniain – Athletic Bilbao

Two aspects that have been excruciatingly conspicuous by their absence at Stamford Bridge is pace and width – preferably combined within the same player. The fleet-footed Daniel Sturridge has been stationed on the flank but is a central striker at heart and it is time a true heir to Arjen Robben was installed in SW6. One possibility for this role is January signing Kevin De Bruyne but with the Belgian slated to spend next season on loan at Racing Genk another option has to be found and it doesn’t get much more exciting than Muniain.

The 19-year-old Spaniard bask possesses everything needed in a top class winger. He has a box of tricks at his disposal that could bamboozle any defender (just ask Manchester United) and a rapid turn of pace that can leave opponents trailing in his wake along with great vision and good passing accuracy. Muniain is predominantly right-footed but has been largely deployed on the left by his manager Marcelo Bielsa who has also instilled an impressive work ethic in the youngster, a crucial facet needed to win over demanding English spectators. One area that in which he could use some work on is his modest goal return but with his whole football career ahead of him that is something that can be improved upon with more games under his belt. There are rumours that Barcelona and Real Madrid are both sniffing around him but a concerted effort and the promise of regular action could persuade Muniain to join compatriots Fernando Torres, Oriol Romeu and Mata in west London.

Klass-Jan Huntelaar – Schalke

While creativity has certainly been an issue at Chelsea, putting the ball in the net has been just as problematic. To date just 56 goals have been scored from 33 Premier League matches, compare that to 84 at the same point during the title-winning campaign of 2009/10 and it is clear that the inability to kill teams off is proving costly. Torres may have flickered into some semblance of life in recent weeks but there is no guarantee he will be fully-restored to the goalscoring virtuoso that he once was. Nicolas Anelka has left for China with Didier Drogba likely to join him when his contract expires in the summer leaving striking options scarce especially as Sturridge – for some inexplicable reason – seems unlikely ever to be given a chance as the team’s main strike.

The answer to Chelsea’s prayers could be Huntelaar who is finally delivering on the promise of the early years of his career. A flurry of goals at Ajax dried up with big moves to Real Madrid and AC Milan but he has rediscovered his old cutting edge at Schalke. In his debut season in Gelsenkirchen, he only troubled the scoreboard on 8 occasions in the Bundesliga but has rectified that this campaign with an extraordinary 24 goals in 27 games. He is only denied top spot in the German marksmanship charts by Mario Gomez who himself is redefining the word ‘prolific’. All in all Huntelaar has netted a quite remarkable 43 goals from 43 games in all competitions this campaign and is exuding all the signs of confidence currently lacking in Chelsea’s £50m hitman. At 28 years old the Holland international might well be tempted to have one last crack at the big time though if Schalke qualify for the Champions League extricating him from Germany could be a little tricky. A glance at Roman Abramovich’s chequebook could prove pivotal as well with the chance to test himself in yet another top league being another added attraction.

Fabrice Muamba

The reaction of the football world to the stricken Fabrice Muamba’s fight for life on the White Hart Lane pitch has seen the sport and its followers united in sympathy and respect for the Bolton Wanderers player.

Football fans are normally split along territorial, tribal lines with gloating and mocking frequently fermenting into insults and abuse yet the behaviour of the Tottenham fans on Saturday has been rightly commended. What is disturbing is that anyone is surprised. After all, each spectator was just a human being witnessing a fellow person struggling against the ultimate challenge and compassion, correctly and inevitably, supplanted cynicism among the 36,000 people present.

Followers of the beautiful game have rarely been painted in a good light with the routine hooliganism of the 1970s brought to a dreadful crescendo with the events at the Heysel Stadium in 1985 when 39 Juventus fans died before their European Cup final meeting with Liverpool. Since those dark days, the Taylor Report’s insistence on all-seater stadia in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster, the creation of the Premier League and  the nationwide positivity generated by the hosting of Euro 2006 have all helped to cleanse the game of this widespread problem though ugly elements persist.

The Muamba incident has seen most fans set aside their differences but for some it seems nothing is sacrosanct. Student Liam Stacey thought it appropriate to post racially abusive tweets mocking the midfielder’s condition. The quick response of the police – following up on a multitude of complaints – has ensured that this odious moron has already been brought before magistrates with the threat of a custodial sentence hanging over him.

Perhaps even more worrying than the actions of one drunken idiot is the stance taken by Manchester United’s controversial rag of a fanzine Red Issue, whose name you might recognise for being the publication seized during the recent clash between Liverpool and United for having a ‘jokey’ cut-out-and-keep Ku Klux Klan mask in response to Luis Suarez’s ban for racially abusing Patrice Evra. Twitter was once again the medium used to spout bile, this time in an attempt to compare Muamba’s plight with the Munich Air disaster of 1958. Here are a few examples of their myopic insensitivity issued via their @RedIssue account:

Compare & contrast: 2: Bolton games called off after player collapses 2: United games called off after 8 players die #dianafication

More stats for all our fans out there: 0 – Bolton games postponed when 33 supporters died 2 – Lpool games postponed when 95 supporters died

What’s the big deal about Muamba? Drogba goes down like that every game and gets up without needing to go to hospital.

The lack of compassion is quite extraordinary. In their defence, some might point to comedians such as Frankie Boyle who routinely make risqué tasteless jokes and command fortunes from a baying audience for doing so but while the Scot uses such comments to tickle the devil inside us, Red Issue’s motive seems to be sparked by some warped moral crusade against their hated opponents.

Clearly, these actions are objectionable and utterly misplaced but equally those that are appealing for a permanent continuation of the mutual respect that has suddenly blossomed between rival fans should be careful what they wish for. Many a journalist, commentator and player over the last couple of days has called for those who pay to watch the game to continue to act in a friendly and fraternal manner but to do so would be to strip the game of much of the spark that appeals about watching a football match, whether at the stadium or on the television.

It is the tribalism of the game and the raw passions it exudes that maintains the sport’s pre-eminence in this country. How often do you here commentators talk about a team winning the ‘bragging rights’ after emerging victorious after a local derby? What about the dreaded walk into the office on a Monday morning after your team has lost to the one supported by the colleague sat at the desk next to you?

It is these emotions that drive a fan to urge their team forward in no uncertain terms, to direct unsavoury songs to visiting players and to revel in the misfortune of the opposing team. Of course, there are boundaries that shouldn’t be crossed, most notably racism and homophobia but also the inexplicable glorying in death such as chants mocking those who perished at Sheffield and Munich. This aspect of football fandom should never be accepted and its eradication should be constantly pursued even if it can never be entirely wiped out.

The fact is that tribalism can never be squeaky clean. But do we want it to be? Going to a game, having a beer with your mates and singing some (occasionally) witty if disrespectful songs about the other team is one of the seductive elements of going to a game. Singing in unison with a common cause is a comforting thing. It is the chance to be part of something bigger, a way of identifying with others and being identified in kind. A chance to share in the pain and glory with like-minded souls and know there will always be someone to celebrate or commiserate with. It is what has drawn middle-class friends of mine to the game in the first place which strikes me as being rather ironic given the criticism of the slow gentrifying of the national game.

An even starker irony is that many of the same journalists and commentators that are imploring fans to be more respectful also decry the relative lack of passion and atmosphere of the modern game in comparison with the halcyon days of yore. Either they want the gentrification of football to continue or they want the return of the rousing ambience from when rows of seats were expanses of terrace. They can’t have it both ways.

While it is clear the love-in will not continue when the fervour of the Premier League erupts again in the middle of this week, in Fabrice Muamba’s case let’s hope we can all remain of one voice in wishing the 23-year-old a full and speedy recovery.

The soap opera continues at Chelsea as Andre Villas-Boas exits stage left.

Is there ever a dull season at Stamford Bridge? Even when the performances are drab and guileless the intrigue and subterfuge in the dressing room and corridors of power ensure that drama is at the heart of operations in SW6.

The thousand yard stare that AVB has developed over recent weeks has been the product of poor results coupled with the the insurrection of his players and the deafening silence from the man upstairs. He resembled a zombie from a George A Romero film and, like Claudio Ranieri and Carlo Ancelotti before him, he had become the latest ‘dead man walking’.

In fairness to the Portuguese, he was given a thankless task by Roman Abramovich. Offered a post at one of the biggest clubs in European football with a salary to match, it was one that nobody with any ambition could turn down but the job ahead of him was more than just the winning of matches.

He was required to maintain serious challenges for the Premier League and Champions League, as well as the domestic cup competitions, while simultaneously phasing out the older players and replacing them with his own men. That would be difficult at the best of times but when you have just a year and a half’s worth of managerial experience behind you and are faced with a dressing room in possession of power and influence unparalleled at any other club, the chances of success are all but impossible.

However, AVB did not make life easy for himself. He seemed desperate to put Frank Lampard in his place at any opportunity despite the lack of a viable alternative in midfield. He also decided to ship out the likes of Josh McEachran and January signing Kevin De Bruyne on loan despite the clear lack of creativity in first team squad. The persistence with Jose Bosingwa and Raul Meireles was also testing in the extreme.

His brutal honesty in interviews and press conferences can be commended when assessing his integrity but when you look at how figures such as Sir Alex Ferguson and Jose Mourinho conduct themselves in similar situations, it is their blind loyalty and refusal to accept alternatives to their own beliefs that characterises them, however unpalatable it can sometimes appear.

So it’s bye-bye to AVB and the very best of luck to the next sucker set for the Stamford Bridge hot seat.

Read more of my views at blogs.soccernet.com/chelsea

Villas-Boas Doing Himself No Favours

For some, Andre Villas-Boas’ team selection for Chelsea’s match against Napoli was a bold statement, an attempt to sweep out the rebellious stalwarts of a bygone era and replace them with the next wave of Chelsea stars who would recreate the club’s impressive record in the Champions League over the past decade.

After a 3-1 defeat littered with defensive errors and incohesion, nostalgia for the bygone era grew ever more palpable.

Stubbornness in a manager can be a valuable commodity as illustrated over the past three decades by Sir Alex Ferguson and his swathe of trophies. However, the recent travails of Arsene Wenger at Arsenal show the pitfalls of such intransigence and it is the Frenchman that the Portuguese is most emulating as he strains to enforce his will irrespective of the evidence in front of him.

Many independent commentators and journalists have defended AVB by crediting the tough job that he has been handed in overhauling a team in transition yet nobody could claim that he has handled the situation very well to this point. Ferguson is a past master at cutting away what he perceives to be dead wood while maintaining success in the process but he has had a generation’s worth of experience in the job in comparison to the two and a bit years that AVB has spent plying his trade. Ferguson also makes sure he has worthy replacements at hand before letting the axe fall, something that has not been the case at Stamford Bridge this season.

The decision to leave players of substantial European pedigree on the substitutes’ bench would have made more sense had AVB had others at his disposal of proven talent or potential. But Raul Meireles is no Michael Essien and the decision to field the horribly out of sorts Florent Malouda ahead of the calming influence of Frank Lampard is simply baffling. Not playing Ashley Cole could be forgiven by the fact that the veteran of two Champions League finals is only just returning from injury but when the hapless Jose Bosingwa is played in his stead, one is left with the impression that even a half fit Cole would be of more use.

Other excuses given in the manager’s defence is that the players themselves are under-performing. But while those on the pitch must clearly take their share of the blame for the mediocrity being displayed on a weekly basis, one must also ask why that is the case. Defensive organisation is a vital component of a successful team and the likes of Jose Mourinho and Guus Hiddink both oversaw periods in Chelsea’s history when the back line seemed almost impenetrable. Those days are long gone with uncertainty and positional ignorance plaguing those charged with such duties. The absence of John Terry hardly helps but surely intensive work on the training ground could instil a natural understanding amongst the players whoever is selected in those positions. Is such work being done? It appears not.

A porous defence would not be so much of a problem if Chelsea’s forwards were as rampant as Edinson Cavani and Ezequiel Lavezzi were on Tuesday night but the goals have dried up at the top end of the pitch. That places extra emphasis on defensive shape and rigidity but AVB seems to be blind to that timeless footballing fact.

While some elements of the dressing room are said to have fallen out with the manager over such an approach – Cole is reported to have openly slammed his tactics – others are said to be behind him, most notably the faction of players from Iberia. However, that might not be all that surprising seeing as all of them – with the notable exception of the magical Juan Mata – have struggled badly this campaign. Fernando Torres’ troubles have been well documented; Raul Meireles is yet to show the quality expected of Chelsea side during the Roman Abramovich era; Paolo Ferreira and Hilaro appear happy to pick up their pay cheques while going through the motions. Meanwhile the thought that Bosingwa commanded a fee of over £16m to prise him from FC Porto in 2008 now seems laughable. Having the support of those who should surely be nearing the exit door and will be desperate to hold on to their current employment status is hardly the kind of endorsement that AVB should be seeking or to which the owner should be paying any attention.

Chelsea are not out of the Champions League yet and Napoli’s fragile defence gives the Blues some hope for the second leg. But if Stamford Bridge is to witness another great night in the competition, AVB will have to swallow his pride and show a willingness to adapt if he is not to lose the tenuous faith of the club’s supporters and ultimately his job.

Drogba The Key To Positive Result

Chelsea step into the lions den when they play SSC Napoli in the Stadio San Paolo on Tuesday night.

Waiting to pounce will be a formidable front three of Edinson Cavani, Ezequiel Lavezzi and Marek Hamsik roared on by 60,000 Neapolitans with the press pack waiting to pick over the bones of Andre Villas-Boas’ should the home side take a significant advantage from the first leg of this last 16 round of the Champions League.

The pressure has increased on the Chelsea boss not only due to a series of insipid displays against the likes of Birmingham City and Everton but also as a result of Arsenal’s 4-0 mauling by Italian opponents, AC Milan, in the same competition last week. With talk of the demise of the Premier League being whispered around the footballing landscape, neutrals are expecting defeat for the Blues and even loyal supporters are approaching the tie with trepidation.

Yet Chelsea have extensive experience at this level – substantially more than Napoli for whom this season is their first amongst Europe’s elite since the days of Diego Maradona – and perhaps this extra savvy could yet prove pivotal to the club’s fortunes. This season the Londoners have already faced a top continental opposition in Valencia with whom they were unlucky to only draw 1-1 at La Mestalla and whom they comprehensively dispatched 3-0 at Stamford Bridge.

And it is the second of these games from which AVB should draw his inspiration.

Tactically, the Portuguese got it spot on that day recognising the Spanish team’s strengths and accounting for them whilst also utilising the key weapons at his disposal. Recognising Valencia’s excellence in retaining possession and waiting for the moment to get behind the opposition, AVB set the team up to sit deep and strike decisively on the break using the formidable power of a certain Didier Drogba. The big man scored twice that day and was the architect for Ramires’ goal that night in a performance that rolled back the years and was reminiscent of his one man demolition job against Bayern Munich in April 2005.

On Tuesday. AVB must extract the same response from the Ivorian with the same game plan.

Napoli’s style is different to Valencia in that they operate mainly on the counter, using turnovers of possession to inflict maximum damage on their opponents. The telepathic understanding of Cavani, Lavezzi and Hamsik is the foundation of manager Walter Mazzarri’s approach. Chelsea must not be afraid to sit back, cede possession and deny them space to build attacks, taking this much-vaunted trio out of their comfort zone.

Drogba must be used in his favoured role of human battering ram. He must be allowed to puff out his chest and lead by example. His endeavour must be the focal point of Chelsea’s ambition.

He must must also be supplied with able and trusted deputies. Frank Lampard has proved it on this stage so many times it barely needs to be mentioned. A scorer in two semi-finals, a final as well as being successful in two penalty shootouts illustrates that fact. But it is his understanding with Drogba that is as important as his goals, the ability to release the striker with a quick look and early pass could be worth his weight in gold. The pace and guile of Daniel Sturridge and Juan Mata will also be a vital component of any positive result.

The team looks likely to be missing its heartbeat with the expected absence of John Terry but that only enhances the need for old heads to take the field in Naples. Michael Essien must surely start alongside Ramires whose dynamism has been sorely missed during his recent injury layoff. Ashley Cole will hopefully be fit enough to resume his duties at left back. Petr Cech will need to shrug off his troubles this season and perform to the level of which we all know he is capable.

All is not lost for Chelsea and hopefully we will see the professional pride of the old guard re-affirm the club’s status amongst Europe’s best. As long as AVB selects them.

WIll Abramovich back his manager or the players?

It’s February in a faltering season for Chelsea Football Club so that can only mean one thing.

Insurrection.

In 2009 a player revolt supposedly led by senior stars Didier Drogba, Michael Ballack and Petr Cech, who were said to have approached Roman Abramovich with their complaints, ultimately dethroned Luiz Felipe Scolari. The result? The appointment of Guus Hiddink, just one defeat from their remaining 18 league games, the lifting of the FA Cup and a refereeing howler (or four) away from reaching a second successive Champions League final.

This time last year, the players laid down the law again though not in a rebellion against manager Carlo Ancelotti for whom the players had a great deal of respect. Instead, no quarter was given as players were allowed to speak their minds in order to save a season in which a commanding lead at the top of the Premier League was thrown away. The result? The squad was galvanised and a string of positive results closed the gap on Manchester United despite falling short in the closing stages.

With Chelsea currently boasting a mere 43 points from their 25 league matches – the lowest at this point of the season since Abramovich arrived at the club – civil war is brewing in Cobham and Stamford Bridge once again. While Andre Villas-Boas might have denied that any open dissent was exhibited against his regime by his charges in the wake of what was a feeble, listless, even clueless defeat at Everton last weekend, it is seems wholly unlikely that the Portuguese is being fulsome with the truth on this matter. Although the maxim that ‘the manager is always right’ should underpin any dressing room, the players could possibly be forgiven for questioning that due to the plethora of legitimate gripes amongst his stars.

Although none of the newspapers have actually divulged any details from this alleged verbal fracas, here are some entirely made-up yet wholly believable complaints that might have been delivered in AVB’s direction

Frank Lampard: I realise you are trying to stamp your authority on the club but how can you leave me – the top goalscorer this season – on the bench in favour of that muppet Meireles? No offence Raul. Do I really deserve to be treated like a trainee after all that I have done for this club especially in a season when our patterns of play have a greater resemblance to Bolton than Barcelona?

Daniel Sturridge: Boss, I know think that I am an arrogant young upstart with an exaggerated sense of self-worth and you are largely correct My mum says I’m the best thing since sliced bread and I believe her. However, how can you persist in playing that knackered old cart-horse Torres – no offence Nando – through the middle very week without even once considering playing me there?Apart from Frank, I’m the only guy around here regularly getting on the scoresheet. Sure, I like to shoot from an impossible range while ignoring colleagues who are placed in far better positions and that lately my efforts largely end up nearer the corner of the pitch than the opposition goal but who else are you gonna play? Lukaku?!?!? No offence Romelu.

Gary Cahill: I may have only been here five minutes but even I can already see that Luiz is the defensive equivalent of David Bentley: looks great in patches but is as dependable as the British rail network in a blizzard – no offence David. I’m an England international don’t you know so if I’m good enough for Capello, I mean Redknapp, then I must be good enough for this two-bob outfit.

Ryan Bertrand: Please tell me what I have to do get a game? I have 16 caps at England U21 level in the left-back position and while I accept playing second fiddle to Ashley Cole, you prefer to play the bungling Bosingwa – no offence Jose – out of position rather than give me a shot.

John Terry: Andre. Simple solution. You can carry on squatting on the touchline and making housewives swoon with your swish raincoat but why not just hand the responsibility of picking the team, choosing the tactics and motivating the players over to me. I had the same arrangement with Avram and if it wasn’t for that pillock Drogba getting sent off – no offence Didier- and that bloody pitch in Moscow I would have led the club to their first ever European Cup. It worked a treat then so it must be worth another go, eh?

The statement by Argentina president Cristina Kirchner that her country will lodge an official complaint with the United Nations Security council over what she calls Britain’s “militarisation of the South Atlantic” is so breathtaking in irony and arrogance that it simply cannot be ignored.

Her words have been uttered in response to news that the UK is sending a warship to patrol the waters around the Falkand Islands, a practice that has been in effect ever since the war over the sovereignty of the sub-antarctic archipelago in 1982. Granted, the ship being sent to the area is the pride of the Royal Navy, HMS Dauntless, and it arrives as Prince William begins his six-week posting in the Falklands but it hardly constitutes “militarisation”.

Indeed, the recent escalation in tensions between the two countries has been entirely of Argentina’s making and any aggression has stemmed from Kirchner’s policies rather than those of the British government. Argentina has convinced its fellow members of the Mercosur trading bloc – Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay – not to allow any ships flying the Falklands flag to enter their ports. With the inhabitants of the islands largely dependent on imported goods for their survival this strikes a remarkable, if passive, resemblance to a blockade – an act that is generally perceived as an act of war. To compound this, the Argentina fisheries department recently decided to flout conservation laws in order to begin the season early for the catching of Illex squid, a breed that travel from the River Plate that separates Argentina from Uruguay to the waters of the Falklands. The squid constitute a a vital part of the Islands’ economy.

Kirchner would have you believe that her desire to annex the Falkland Islands is a moral imperative for her country. Interesting then, that she only started to get actively involved in the issue when it became clear that the UK were probing for reserves of gas and oil in the region. Greed disguised as morality, sound familiar? Leaving out any opinions on the motives behind the Iraq War for the benefit of brevity (and for fear of drifting off the subject), General Leopoldo Galtieri invaded the Islands in 1982 in a last ditch attempt to cling on to power as leader of the deeply unpopular military junta. His attempts proved to be ultimately futile as he deployed unenthusiastic teenage conscripts to fight his war for him and they proved to be no match for British forces. Nevertheless, he did succeed in whipping up nationalistic fervour over the issue, a ferment that survives to this day.

The Falkland Islands have been under total British control since 1833. Prior to then they had flitted between nominal British and Spanish control and were in the possession of the former at the time of the declaration of independence of Argentina in 1816. The first visitors from the newly-established nation arrived with permission from the British Consul, making all subsequent claims on the land tenuous to say the least, assuming precedence is the arbiter in such matters.

For almost a century and a half after these events, the issue of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was little more than a footnote in history until a desperate dictator embarked on an ill-fated military expedition. Any assertions about ‘Las Islas Malvinas’ (Argentina’s name for the territory) being the birthright of all Argentines – as Kirchner and her cronies would have you believe – is a modern affectation and not one felt by her forebears.

Sadly, these antagonistic sentiments come as little surprise to me. Four years ago I spent two months in Argentina and totally fell in love with the place. It is a country of staggeringly contrasting beauty, featuring deserts and glaciers, mountains and jungle. The steak is sensational and the people are friendly, engaging and they absolutely adore their football – always a plus point. It is no exaggeration to say that the time I spent there was the most enjoyable and memorable time of my entire life and I would jump at the chance of returning if ever given the opportunity.

However, the issue of ‘Las Malvinas’ was never far away. The inflammatory graffiti daubed across the Plaza Fuerza Aerea Argentina (formerly the Plaza Britannica but renamed in honour of the Argentine Air Force – a replica of Big Ben that stands in the centre of Buenos Aires and given as a gift from Britain to mark a century of the country’s independence in 1916) were the first signs of ill-feeling that I noticed. Passions ran much higher further south and a conversation with an eloquent yet ardent member of the Argentine Navy in a bar in Ushuaia – the southern-most city in the world and a base for the 1982 conflict – revealed that any opinion that the Islands could belong to anyone other than Argentina was flatly rejected irrespective of the fact that  90% of the inhabitants (according to the 2006 census) are British and that they want to remain a dependency of the UK. No alternative was even considered, let alone debated.

But the most depressing element of this was the memorial in Ushuaia to those lost in 1982 (see title picture).  A striking stone monument with the outline of the disputed territory cut out of the rock, any attempt to truly honour the dead is undone by the rhetoric of the inscription below it.

It reads:  “The people of Ushuaia who, with their blood, irrigated the roots of our sovereignty over Las Malvinas. We will return!!!” (The exclamations marks really are there, they are not an embellishment on my part).

For me, and any right minded person, a war memorial should  project solemnity and humility. It should not glory in bloodshed, it should not advocate revenge. It should merely be.

With such warmongering icons adorning Argentina’s cities, it is unsurprising that young Argentines grow up with such an unshakeable attitude to the issue. Let’s hope it doesn’t cause yet more young lives to be lost in order to settle the debate once and for all.

Little Joy For England Fans

Being an England sports fan has been particularly trying over the past few days.

The never-ending saga surrounding John Terry and the fallout from the FA’s decision to remove him from the captaincy has been impossible to escape from and has totally overshadowed events taking pace on the field. Over the past couple of years, the malaise of our footballers has usually been offset by the triumphs of our cricket team but the last few weeks have forced the number one ranked team in the world to experience a sobering dose of reality.

While England losing a test series against a Pakistan team featuring the likes of Saeed Ajmal and Younis Khan might not be a shock in itself, the manner of defeat has certainly been alarming. The 3-0 defeat was the first time that a series whitewash had ever been suffered against this opposition and the fact that matches two and three were lost after England had assumed the upper hand in each was particularly disappointing.

Defeat in the series opener in Dubai could possibly be excused by England’s prolonged inactivity in the longer form of the game since dismantling India on home soil last summer and coach Andy Flower has admitted that preparations were not as good as they could have been, rightly shouldering responsibility for that error. However, a squad-wide inability to play spin bowling is a much more endemic concern. That lack of technique was exposed in the first test and then both highlighted and underlined in Abu Dhabi when England had dominated for three days and required just 145 to win on day four only to be dismissed for 72. If that defeat felt like it couldn’t be equalled, the loss within four days in the third test after bowling Pakistan out for 99 in the first innings was just as disturbing. Had Misbah-ul-Haq been able to call upon the services of banned seaming duo Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif, who knows how much worse the scenario might have looked?

No blame can be attributed to England’s bowlers who – with the notable exception of Graeme Swann, clearly usurped as the world’s best spinner by Ajmal – performed with huge determination and skill throughout. Instead, fingers have to be pointed at those that have excelled with the willow in their hands during the past 18 months, especially Ian Bell, Kevin Pietersen and (an innings of 94 in the second test aside) Alastair Cook.

But before demands are made for wholesale changes, the players that hauled the nation to summit of world cricket whilst inflicting three innings victories against Australia on their own patch and two more against India in a 4-0 whitewash must be afforded the opportunity to restore their momentarily dented reputations. Reality checks such as these can be valuable as they ensure players remain grounded as they strive for excellence. It dismisses complacency and focuses desire. Unlike their predecessors, this team has not been brought up on a diet of damaging defeats so self-doubt is unlikely to consume them. A team that can go to Australia and both out-perform and out-muscle their mortal enemy should be able to recover from this chastening experience and I efully xpect them to do so on their next excursion to Sri Lanka.

On the other end of the scale, the rugby union team is at the beginning of its journey having been purged of negativity following the disappointing showing at the World Cup. Stuart Lancaster’s fresh-faced team recorded an eye-opening victory over Scotland at Murrayfield that may have not been one for the purists but set a decent foundation for the bold new era ahead. A matchday squad of 22 featuring no less than eight uncapped players had almost every expert – bar the bookmakers, it must be noted – predicting a win for the Auld Enemy only for inexperience to triumph in adversity.

It was not a pretty performance and there are certainly some key issues to sort out. The back row was as ineffective as it has been for some years though a degree of leeway can be afforded considering captain Chris Robshaw and number eight Phil Dowson boasted just one cap between them prior to kick off in Edinburgh. A lack of precision in key areas of the field – an unwanted legacy from Autumn’s debacle in New Zealand – was also a common frustration as was the scarcity of ball for speedsters Chris Ashton, Ben Foden and David Strettle.

On the plus side, centre Brad Barritt was huge in defence as was Mouritz Botha even if the South Africa-born lock caused more harm than good when England were on the front foot. Charlie Hodgson had an assured game at fly-half with his kicking from hand vastly superior to that of his opposite number, Dan Parks, and Alex Corbisiero’s performance ensured that Andrew Sheridan’s absence through injury would not be missed. Add absentees Manu Tuilagi, Toby Flood, Tom Wood and Courtney Lawes to the mix and the future looks bright

The visit of Italy to Twickenham this weekend provides another opportunity to take a forward step. As with their cricketing counterparts, let’s hope they take it.

But 24 hours is a long time in the mind of a football fan and, having slept on it, there are considerably more positives than negatives for Chelsea to take out of the game.

In the build up to the game, there was concern that a defence lacking its leader and world-class full-back could be swamped by the free-flowing triumvirate of Wayne Rooney, Danny Welbeck and Antonio Valencia. Injuries to our most consistent player in Ramires and our talismanic goalscorer in Frank Lampard suggested the team would be frail in midfield. Didier Drogba’s protracted participation at the African Cup of Nations – with the big man scoring two-goals in Ivory Coast’s quarter-final win over co-hosts Equatorial Guinea – meant our forward line would continue to struggle to find the net.

Except for the last point, those concerns proved to be entirely without foundation.

Gary Cahill performed admirably on his début especially as he was filling the shoes of John Terry. His positional sense and decision-making were generally excellent while his pace was a welcome safety net to any counter-attacks from the opposition. Had his rasping effort in injury-time eluded David De Gea’s fingertips and nestled in the back of the net, his first appearance in a Chelsea shirt would have been the stuff of dreams. His presence also seemed to rub off onto David Luiz who had a surprisingly assured game against the Premier League champions – a stark contrast to the last time he faced them at the back-end of last season when his cataclysmic error in the opening seconds effectively confirmed the title would return to Old Trafford. Sideshow David defended without causing too many hearts to flutter and he distributed the ball intelligently, creating attacking opportunities with defence-splitting passes for both Florent Malouda and Fernando Torres.

While it was disappointing that Ryan Bertrand was not afforded the chance to start at left-back in the absence of Ashley Cole – what exactly has the first choice England U21 left back have to do to get a game? – the error-prone Jose Bosingwa coped well, for the most part, with the threat of Valencia. Branislav Ivanovic, on the other flank, was nothing short of outstanding.

As you may have read in an earlier post, I am not the biggest fan of Raul Meireles but his performance on Sunday was by far his best since he came to the club. His passing was crisp and decisive and he took care of the ball when in possession. Playing as one of two in the middle of the park, he correctly picked when to sit and when to move into the space between United’s midfield and attack thereby helping to create forward momentum without abandoning his defensive responsibilities. All in all, a man of the match performance and a statement I thought that I would never see myself writing in conjunction with the Portuguese. Alongside him, Michael Essien showed exactly what we have missed so far this season with his physical dynamism disrupting the rhythm of Ryan Giggs and Michael Carrick.

Andre Villas-Boas must also be commended for the tactical switch to 4-4-2. The decision was a bold one but it paid off during the first 55 minutes. Unfortunately, he allowed dreams of absolutely thumping Sir Alex Ferguson’s men to defer the change back to a more defensive outlook until after the Red Devils had a foothold in the game with the first penalty of the day. Had he packed the midfield with the scoreline reading 3-0 in his favour, there is every chance that the game would have been ridden out without too much alarm. To compound the hesitancy, when the obvious change did take place, AVB curiously opted to withdraw the effervescent Daniel Sturridge rather than the hitherto and henceforth atrocious Malouda who, this season, appears to have zero imagination when in the attacking third. That in itself did not cost the Chelsea the victory but it certainly blunted our goal threat and dismayed supporters – and no doubt, Sturridge himself.

However, everything could still have come up roses had Fernando Torres shown a natural goalscorer’s instinct and pulled the trigger with his favoured right-foot after bamboozling the United defence to create as clear a sight of goal as you could hope to get. Choosing to cut back inside and thus spurn the opening further underlined his dearth of confidence and served to undermine what up till then had been a an excellent display of centre- forward hustle and bustle even if he failed to test De Gea at any point.

Still, when all is said and done, it feels like a point gained rather than two lost and with our next four league matches being against Everton, Bolton, West Brom and Stoke, we now have the opportunity to turn the positives into points and pull away from those pesky Gooners.