Who's Untouchable now?

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. They send off Lampard, you pull a Ballack. That’s the Premier League way.

If there is an award for most ham-fisted segue into the concept of “Untouchable”, I'd like to claim my prize. But the point is an extremely important one. Just who is irreplaceable at Chelsea right now? Because it's sure as eggs is ova not the list José offered us back in December of 2006. If anyone needs a refresher course, here they are: Makelele, Essien, Lampard, Ballack, Terry, Carvalho, Drogba, Cech and Ashley Cole.

The team that mauled West Ham in the wake of the Carling Cup defeat still contains 7 out of those 9, in case you’re interested (and if you’re not, you’ve probably stopped reading now). Now, if I’d had to pick 2 of those 9 to be left out at the beginning of the season, I’d probably suggest that the great Claude Makelele could be doing with a little more time to stick plasters on his corns and Michael Ballack or Frank Lampard would have to play scissors/paper/stone on a weekly basis for that attacking midfield position. I’d have been wronger than a photo of your father posing provocatively in your mother’s pants.

It seemed to me that the only 2 players last season who never, at any stage, really lost their form were Essien and Drogba. Whether you can put this down to simple physique – both guys are, after all, pretty close to Olympian – or whether it’s simply desire and a serendipitous freedom from injury that the rest of the squad, for whatever reason, lacked… well, whatever your opinion, I defy you to find 2 Chelsea fans out of 10 that disagree with me. Following the Wembley fiasco, it was essential that the squad offered an emphatic response. Consider yourselves emphasised, Irons. And yet neither bastion of the team started the game, with Essien making a 20-minute cameo after Ashley Cole had stretched the team’s lead to 4 goals. By the way, chin up Ash. She’ll get over it son. And if she doesn’t, hey… you’re still a millionaire footballer.

That Drogba has come back from Ghana jaded and out of form is not really up for debate. That he should have genuine competition for the lone striker berth looks to be something of a problem for him. After all, if he’s facing off against Pizarro and Shevchenko, sheer necessity is going to drag him out of the slough of despond sooner or later. But Anelka revels in the position, setting up 2 goals on Saturday and having a perfectly decent one wrongly disallowed: a performance that reminded me of Chelsea’s 4-0 mauling of Liverpool at Anfield a couple of years ago. Much like Anelka’s virtuoso performance on Saturday, Drogba failed to score but had a decisive hand in every attack as Duff, Lampard, Cole and even Geremi handed Liverpool’s backsides to them on a silver platter. Anelka was played wide at Wembley and looked lost. On Saturday, he often pushed out wide but did so with absolute clarity of purpose. When he took a centreback with him, he left acres of space for Ballack and Lampard to stroll into. When he didn’t, he was allowed room to set Joe Cole up for a marvellous half-volley.

All this begs the question… what of Drogba? Is the much-discussed move to Milan on the cards? Is his heart already elsewhere? It’s no secret that Milan, with the ageing Inzaghi and hapless Gilardino, require a serious target man to offset the frightening talent of Pato. Or am I reading too much into it… could it be a perfectly natural reaction to what turned out to be another disappointing cup showing from the Elephants? If so, we need the big man back and in the mood sharpish. The season’s business end is winking coyly at us all. United are on fire. Arsenal are falling apart. But both have to visit the Bridge, and Chelsea have a game in hand. There’s a lot of footie still to play.

Which brings us back to yet another Untouchable: Claude Makelele.

At the beginning of this season, the man looked to be hitting that era of glorious senescence  - and I mean that in the most positive way that the word permits – that only true greats can achieve. No, he’s no spring chicken; in fact, he wasn’t when he arrived at the Bridge in 2003. But his bite and controlled aggression, topped off with that sunny grin – are fully intact. If you don’t believe me, ask Julian Faubert, who can testify that there’s an occasional dark side to the smiling Frenchman’s game. But, that tackle aside, he remains one of the quintessential you-can’t-quite-book-me-for-that players: a man who marshals the buffer in front of defence like few others in the game. And he’s had a lot of work to do this season, what with his natural successors – Mikel and Essien – being otherwise engaged for a good 8 weeks. His presence has been a large factor in Chelsea’s ability to stay in touch at the top during the African Cup of Nations. Whether he can continue to produce at that level as the season nears a climax… well, we’ll see. But should Chelsea’s European run continue, it will be interesting to see who Grant favours in defensive midfield against more stalwart opposition than Olympiacos.      

Finally, we come to Alex, whose blossoming as a Chelsea player continues apace. His arrival was marred by the natural conundrum of adapting to a new team, but his integration and efficiency has completely won me round. If it wasn’t for Terry’s commanding - and at times scintillating – performance against West Ham, it would be easier to wonder if his absence at Wembley hadn’t been a serious reason why we looked so confused at the back. Immaculate in the air and instinctive in terms of positioning, the two are very similar players… not least because they both lack the yard of pace that distinguishes Carvalho – despite his relative slightness of frame – as one of the world’s premier central defenders. Terry’s always needed a quicker man to play alongside. Alex doesn’t fit the bill, so with his captain’s return to fitness, he’s going to find starting places harder to come by. As a Chelsea fan, here’s hoping Grant can keep him happy. He’s a player we need to keep hold of. 

Comments

[Rob]

Thanks, Nick. Feel free to add to your comments once you've read the rest of the piece.

[nick]

arsenal falling apart? top of the league and just having knocked the european champions out of the CL. not bad for a team falling apart.

[Blue G]

Fair play to all comments about the Liverpool game of yesteryear - I think I was a bit too harsh on Chelsea's performance looking back at the match results.

I think it was a matter of me, as a neutral, wanting Liverpool to win to keep the title wide open. But that was the year of the near impregnable defence, and more importantly, it was a game where the nearly-great (some of Liverpool's play was astounding that year) came up against the astounding (talk about too much money in the game all you want, that team of Chelsea's was almost perfect in some ways, especially defence). That's the way cup finals ought to be, not the drab 0-0's like we saw last year.

[Mike]

I suppose a coach and his team are only as good as their next game, but one has to be honest and admit Grant has been a pleasant surprise. This team won nine in a row and lost once in a 17-match stretch from December to the Carling Cup. To crucify him for the Carling Cup is unfair; it’s likely they put more emphasis on the Champions League, FA Cup and the Premiership.

http://startingeleven.blogspot.com/2008/03/champions-league-chelsea-olympiacos.html

[Jini Sebakunzi]

I agree with you on most points ass you made some good analysis on the game.

I still hope for a Drogba-Anelka partnership, but that would leave out wingers. Perhaps a midfield diamond? Im not convinced Didier wants to leave: all these comments about him leaving were released by purpose during the CAN so he would be coming back with pressure to answer those claims.

I think rotation can only be good, but I still believe that Terry/Carvalho is a great partnership as they played together for many months.

[Filip]

I am one of the Chelsea fans thatwould not disagree about magnificent from of Essien and Drogba last season. However, their exclusion last weekend was totally justified. Drogba has not had a great game since that crucial away win at Valencia and even if he had, it is questionable that he is a better player than Anelka. Last season everything Drogba touched turned to goals, but I remain unconvinced about him. His touch and vision is poor and Anelka has silky control, more pace and better finishing. He is more suited to Grant's stated aim of eliminating long ball football, which got very tedious and predictable under Jose.

Essien thrived last season due to Jose's diamond. He revelled in dominating the right side of midfield with his energy and he seemed to have that natural knack of choosing correctly when to move infield and when to go wide and deliver a cross. Him and Makelele (and later Mikel) in holding role were the ones who kept the diamond from totally falling apart. When we were down in games, Essien often played as an all-action attacking right back. Grant does not fancy him at right back, probably because of Belletti's attacking qualities. Now, as part of midfield 3, Essien seems to play within himself, duplicating much of Mikel's (or Makelele's) defensive work and not supporting Ballack or Lampard enough when going forward. This was also the case in his first season, when the pundits wondered if he was worth the hype.

Essien losing form is not ideal, but this season its less of an issue. Due to his status as vice captain and his role in Chelsea's success over the years, Lampard is an untouchable. At current form Ballack has to play the big games. Even last season he was not bad in big games and this year he could win them for us. As both Ballack and Lampard are strong, hard working and good at tackling, we would still be defensively solid with just one defensive midfielder, be it Essien, Mak or Mikel. I go for Mak at the moment, with Essien being the first sub for any of the first choice 3.

My bigger worry are the wings. We simply haven't got enough quality there, which is probably why Grant tried play Anelka there. Malouda exemplifies where Mourinho failed. While hard working and good passer, the guy has little imagination and no dribbling skills or pace whatsoever, which for a winger cant be good. Kalou is inconsistent and a poor finisher and Shaun's ball control and crossing is awful, which only leaves J. Cole as a classy winger that can win us important games. This is the one weakness of the team that might ultimately cost us against top sides.

A question: If Drogba does rediscover his form, he is clearly better than all our wingers. would it make sense to go back to the diamond? Last season, due to Shev and Ballack underperforming it did not work, but now with Ballack on fire and Anelka, it might. Or alternatively, we could drop Ballack or Lampard, and play Essien on the right and J Cole on the left with Drogba and Anelka up front?

Or do you think 4-3-3 with picking people in their positions is the way to go till the end of the season, even if it means having one poor winger on the pitch?

By the way, spot on about Liverpool 4:1 game. We totally outclassed them and there was no luck about that performance, just some quality defending and clinical finishing. In retrospect, that + wins vs Barca and Munich in the first season was as good as it got under Jose. By the 2nd part of 2nd season predictablity and long ball football crept in.

[Rob]

Blue g, you're absolutely right... 4-1 it was. Memory deals us all a dog turd every now and then.

Liverpool did indeed have a go - I never suggested otherwise - but the defence of 2005 can hardly be described as lucky. Terry / Gallas / Carvalho were near as dammit impregnable all season. But I take nothing back about the overall comment on the game. Liverpool had their bottoms handed to them in front of the Kop. I've just had a quick look back at the match reports. BBC described it as "Chelsea crush Liverpool". McCarra in the Guardian said "Chelsea... barely allowed Liverpool a speaking part on their own Anfield stage".

And I spent nearly a week chuckling. But what the hell. This article is about Chelsea, not Liverpool.

[Blue G]

Good comment, I'd like to think Chelsea could take it to the wire but I don't think Grant is up to it. Good manager, but just not great.

And I think the description of the Liverpool game was pretty unfair...that was when the two of you were scrapping it out at the summit, and the game was very open (BTW, it was 4-1, Liverpool equalised at one point)

Compare that to the drab 0-0 of recent times, and you can see why us neutrals yearn for the 4-1s, where both teams are attacking for the win and leave themselves open at the back. Fair play for scoring 3 more from 1-1, but it doesn't really represent how much Liverpool had a go at you, and some lucky (an some decent) defending saved the game from a cricket score.

But, the wider the title race, the better in my opinion, good luck.