So... Whats wrong with Chelsea?

Comment

So... Whats wrong with Chelsea?

There is obviously no easy way to answer this question but I will try to nonetheless. Numerous people have asked me whats wrong with Chelsea this season. 4 points from four games suggests there is more than one factor contributing to this phenomenon. Below are the various factors that, I believe, have lead to a below par Chelsea so far this season.

Preseason troubles.

From the title you might assume I am referring to Chelsea's preseason form, something people generally don't like reading too much into, but I'm not. Late last season, Mourinho and his staff decided that player fatigue due to his minimal rotation policy, and not competition, was the number one threat  to his side retaining the title. They believed that had Chelsea players not been as tired as they were towards the end of the 2014/15 season that Chelsea would have won the league even earlier than they did and with a great points total. Mourinho and his staff then decided that they should give the whole team an entire month off for the summer. This is an entire week later than any other premier league side. Chelsea taking this risk is supported by the fact that Mourinho thinks his team last season were ready to start the season a week early and as a result it would be okay to start preseason a week later. It was hoped that his decision might help various players that have been suffering from playing "too much football" over the last few years (Hazard, Ivanovic, Oscar etc.). While that might be true, this calculated risk has SEVERELY backfired. Not only do the players look sluggish, the look under prepared. The football has been reminiscent of the Scolari days, not in the style of football played but in the players genuinely looking clueless when in possession. Passes around the box aimlessly and backwards in a lack of ideas have happened far too often in Chelsea's opening fixtures, something that hasn't really happened at any point during Mourinho's second tenure or, indeed, the first.

Under-performing Backline.

Obviously it goes without saying that under-performing players are part and parcel of the game and that any manager should know how to deal with this issue when it arises. However, the reason this is key with Chelsea at the momoent is because it has been happening with key players in the Chelsea side and most notably in Chelsea's back 6 outfield players. Ivanovic has looked like a League 1 Right Back playing in the Premier League. Terry has looked exposed. Cahill looks panicky.  Matic's foul count per game is double his average from last year (a key indicator for the performance of a DM) and Fabregas' performances can only be described as casual. A lot of fans tend to analyze Chelsea's backline individually and talk about how good or bad each are as players. In recent years I've heard things such as "Terry is too slow", "Cahill is reckless" and the sorts. But these points are completely irrelevant when it comes to Chelsea because (although it is cliche to say) Chelsea's defense performs as a single unit. They function as a unit and all 6 players move and deal with the threat accordingly.Testament to this is the fact that we rarely see a player run at Terry directly or run at the heart of the defense unchallenged. In every single one of the Chelsea games so far, the incorrect positioning and general under-performance of numerous players in the defense have meant we have seen far too many players run at the Chelsea backline unchallenged thereby exposing their individual weaknesses. Basically, because various players in the unit are not doing their job, the weaknesses of each player (e.g. Terry's pace) are exposed and capitalized on. Nine goals conceded in the first four league games is Chelsea's worst in nearly 40 years. 

Fabregas.

Fabregas importance in the functioning of the side is so crucial it deserves a note in itself. The main difference between the 13/14 season (where Mourinho famously used the small horse analogy to describe his Chelsea side as not ready to compete) and the 14/15 season was not only the addition of a proven goalscorer in Costa, but also the addition of Fabregas. The ability to quickly and decisively turn defense into attack was a crucial characteristic Mourinho's Chelsea side was lacking and a deep play maker such as Fabregas was the perfect solution. If teams didn't mark Fabregas, he would provide the forward players with pin point passes and find their runs behind the defense. If they did mark him, the gaps left in the midfield or the wings as a result would prove to be very useful for the Attack Mid trio (Hazard loves having a bit of space to run into). However, an under performing Fabregas that is seemingly incapable of doing his job and thereby does not need to be marked leaves Chelsea where? It leaves Chelsea in exactly the same predicament they were in the 13/14 season, a team without the ability to break down a good defensive unit - A characteristic crucial in any side with aspirations to compete for the title.

Lack of competition

Although Mourinho  has repeatedly recognized that a number of his players throughout the entire team an not just the backline have been underperforming, he has repeatedly selected them to play in the next match. One can only assume that it's because he does not have the ability to make any other decision. This is particluarly true with the defensive line. The departure of players like Felipe Luiz and Cech who were more than capable players to be rotated with the side has meant Mourinho's side now more or less picks itself. Obviously these players have been replaced and the side has been beefed up as a whole but the additions were done so late in the day that they are not yet ready to be integrated into the squad. Being forced to keep picking underperforming players is something no manager likes to do and cannot be good for the side overall. Ironic that the depth of the squad last year was not needed last year, but this year. 

Comment

The 3 Managers you’ll meet in Football

1 Comment

The 3 Managers you’ll meet in Football

Football is a ritual like no other. It demands your attention on a daily basis throughout the season. It's Thursday? Europa League. Its Friday? Change the fantasy team. Saturday-Wednesday? Games are on. Throughout these years (felt like centuries) of watching football, most of it has changed - The teams have changed, the style of football has changed and the personnel has changed. Yet some things have remained very much the same.

Besides the club badges and certain songs for the terraces which one would hope would be around for a long time, football is a game of different characters and these characters within the game never seem to change or disappear. They take on different personalities as the managers come and go but the fact remains that as a football fan, there are three different types of Football Managers that you will come to meet. 

I want to preface a detailed breakdown of each type of manager by stating a few things. Firstly, it obviously goes without saying that not every manager within a manager type are the same. There are various subsets to each (that I am still building out) and that also the type of manager you are doesn't dictate how effective you are at doing it. Secondly, World Class managers have been excluded from the article. Their proficiency at multiple facets of the game means they do not really 'fit' into any of the types. Anyway, without further ado, the 3 different types of managers you will meet in Football:

1. The Tactician: "The Tactician" manager is a manager whose tactical astuteness and overall understanding of the game constitutes the vast majority of his effectiveness as a manager. Usually dull and uncharismatic, the media tend to despise such characters because they rarely get any 'hot quotes' from them (rarely but not never, #FAKHTS) and instead are forced to actually comment on the game they are watching. But anyway back to the football: Rarely outwitted tactically, these managers are very good at understanding the opposition's strong points and shaping his team to be less susceptible to it. Because of their strength in addressing the opposition's strong points, it leads to this type of manager being extremely risk averse. Examples of such managers include Mauricio Pochettino, Rafael Benitez & Sam Allardyce..

2. Mr. Keep it Simple: "Keep it Simple" Managers' strengths usually ly in their ability to manage personnel. They are very good at deciphering who’s up for the fight and who isn't as well as recognizing where the talent lies in the squad and enabling it. They keep it very simple tactically and allow for the players to ‘get on with it’. This represents a certain benefit particularly when the squad are fresh from dealing with a manager who is tactic heavy; Removal of those restrictions and inhibitions frees up the players and allows them to get back to enjoying their football and expressing themselves. This is why managers of this type tend to be very well fit for relegation struggling sides: They come in, get the players playing and the fighting spirit going and get the club moving on up. However, manager like this have a limit. Because of their sheer lack of tactical understanding and know how particularly relative to other managers, teams managed by KIS managers rarely beat better sides or the high-ups in the league. They simply stand a better chance at beating the sides they are expected to beat. As a result, KIS manager will never manage a side in the upper echelons of a league because his added value as a manager is far too limited to be of any use to the big sides who have aspirations of silverware on a regular basis. You’ll find that (unfortunately) a lot of the English managers fall under this category, and its quite reflective of the low level of tactical understanding within the English game. Very rarely has any tactical insights, instructions from the sidelines include ‘get at em’ and ‘get stuck in’, Tim Sherwood, Harry Redknapp, Alan Pardrew, most First Team Coaches doing an interim job..

3. Pass & Move: "Pass & Move" Managers are managers that embrace the football aspect of the game and like to get the ball down and move it around the pitch. These managers have a footballing philosophy that is proactive with the use of the football. Not to be confused with "The Tactician", the Pass & Move manager is tactically astute but use his tactics to dictate how to use the ball proactively, win the game with possession, flair and beautiful passes as opposed to tactically nullyfying the oppositions strong points.Ironically you will find that not many managers in this day and age, despite their job being a FOOTBALL MANAGER, tend to be Pass & Move managers. Despite being the favorable of the three manager types, these managers tend to, more often than not, not be attracted to the big money spending sides (Chelsea, Real Madrid, Manchester City). This is because these managers have a footballing philosophy to implement which takes time and big clubs don't have time for a project. Therefore, more often than not, they tend to be attracted to the top half sides that are just outside the top echelon of teams.  Examples include Roberto Martinez, Brendan Rodgers & Owen Coyle.

By: Faisal Bin Jamil

1 Comment

provident car insurance » i need a cheap car » can you have two car insurances » black box car insurance providers » liberty mutual eservice login » metlife proof of auto insurance » elephant auto insurance usa » direct line insurance claims » nissan juke insurance group