ethicalstrategy

Alternatively you could say that we have generally won the matches you would expect us to win, lost the important ones and failed to provide much, if any, more entertaining football whilst looking more vulnerable defensively. Depends on your point of view I guess. The one thing that I can't get over though is the idea that people are quite happy to finish fourth and aren't that bothered about the league. i keep reading it and my jaw drops each time. The league is the bread and butter. if we never won anything else that would be fine. CL will be nice when we do it one day - I doubt it will be this year but you never know. I don't see how changing the manager means that we should give up on the league before the turn of the year.

Do you seriously think with defending like that we will win the CL? Defences win titles not attacks.

Loz, you are so far off beam on this one its not true! Nobody is saying that Jose didn't have any faults or that the team never under performed when he was in charge. I am saying thought that conceding 4 goals at home is a) a disaster and down to the McClaren like approach of our current manager. Let's examine the facts. Cech has played in the last 3 games even though he is clearly not fit. This is a call the manager made - no doubt with input from the player and the medical staff - but still his call. In hindsight it has been the wrong decision. In yesterday's match he adopted a different formation that we have only used once or twice before. Nothing wrong with that. I have suggested it as a formation myself. But it clearly wasn't working. We were 2 down before half time. We were handed the lifeline of a soft penalty and the dismissal of Knight. Against a weakened side we were able to get ahead in the game but then did nothing to ensure that we held on to that advantage. I would have liked to see a change when we went 3-2 up (for what it's worth a certain previous manager would have had a defensive player stripping off as soon as the 3rd goal hit the net!) The problem with tinkering with formations is that players are suddenly left unsure of what their job is in any particular situation - again I would guarantee that no player was ever left in any doubt as to exactly what his job was under Jose. That uncertainty had as much to do with how we defended as anything else. Playing a more attacking game or line up will inevitably lead to more space for the opposition and make life more difficult for the defence. Our defence is used to playing with some deep lying midfield cover and it looked vulnerable without it. Maybe it would be different if we had a full strength, fully fit defence - but yesterday we didn't. This point is less of a criticism as it represents the change that Grant is actively trying to make. I happen to think it is wrong, but I don't actually get any say in it so I'll have to lump it. So at the moment we have the worst of all worlds. We aren't playing attractive sexy football and we aren't solid in defence and when the matches against the big teams have come up we are losing those too. Unlike some, I am not happy to give up on the league. I think it's there to won still but we have to stop drawing at home and we have to take some points off Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool when they come to the Bridge. Last season we managed to compete on 4 fronts despite internal wrangling, despite some serious long term injuries and despite the manager not being supported by the owner either financially or indeed in any way. This season we have no worse squad. There is not the same internal problems, we will miss players during the ACN and we do still have a lot of injuries. But we do have the opportunity to bring players in January. We may not win the league, but we should be in with a good shout right up to the end.

There's a world of difference between losing 2-0 away - including a last minute goal when we were chasing the game - and conceding 4 at home. I'm not even sure we did that under Ranieri! With the quality of the players we have, even allowing for injuries, losing 4 goals at home has to reflect on the ability of the manager to organise his team and on his ability to change things during the match. We were handed a lifeline in this match and let it go twice. Once may be an accident but twice starts to look like carelessness. Certainly more McClaren than Mourinho.

today we played without a holding defensive midfielder and paid the price. that was the managers choice. even when we got ahead we persisted in playing with 5 up front. seems crazy to me.

You are right. I don't have time at the moment but I'll give you my more considered arguements as to why I think a better tactician/organiser would have helped us get 3 points today. In the meantime I will still say that conceding 4 goals in one match at home is a disaster. The draw I can live with, disappointing as it is, but to go 2 goals down, get back in front and then lose that lead twice - all against a Villa team which is game but limited - has to be a reflection of how the team was managed on the day.

no of course you dont. conceding 4 at home is just one of those things - one of those things that never happened under mourinho! individual errors as a result of the manager failing to organise players properly. to come back twice and not be able to close out the game - dont tell me thats not poor tactics. after the first time you close down the game, if u dont then ur an arse.

funny how we never conceded 4 at home before. nothing to do with tactics though of course. why was Cech playing - he obviously isn't fit today just proved that Grant is not a winner. you make all the excuses under the sun but the bottom line is losing the lead twice after coming back from 2 down is not acceptable.

nice tactical work mr grant you d**khead. 4 goals at home. 2 with the opposition on 10 men. 4 goals at home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that's sh*t

Lampard hasn't looked interested for ages now, it's like he's got his mind on other things - Spain, perhaps? I for one wouldn't be sorry if he left, though I'm grateful for what he's given to Chelsea in his time here. hasn't looked interested, my arse! You want to argue he hasn't played as well then I'll go with that, but not interested - I can't see that! Even amidst a pretty average showing against the Arsenal he was still running around working his balls off defensively. If he wants to go then fine - but if he wants to stay we'd be mad not to hang on to him.

oh good. another world beating, injury prone dutchman. just what we need

I think Carvalho despite his misplaced back header. I too am surprised at so many mentions for Essien. I thought he was pretty ineffective. His shooting was cack and I remember one "quick" break that we had on where he seemed to be running in treacle just waiting for the defence to reorganise. Overall, it wasn't a good match at all. Pool just defended hoping to catch us on the break and we looked pretty clueless about how to break them down. I never thought we would lose but we really weren't very good.

Every time he went near a Chelsea player he fouled them. Ironically, he ended up being booked for dissent after kicking the ball away. Overall the ref was ok last night but he should have sorted Sissoko out in the first 10 mins.

anyway, who is he going to play instead of? Lampard? Ballack? Essien? Mikel? I don't think so.

But that was a foul too

“I agree the Carling Cup is a competition that we can rest players in. It depends on how they’re feeling. This is not the major trophy that we want, but as long as we play for Chelsea in a game like that, we want to win.” Looks like we won't be full strength tonight I think that is wrong. We should be going all out to win.

Sorry. I mistook you for someone with a sense of humour. Won't let it happen again! my sense of humour is ok, I usually laugh at your posts, and "you should be on the radio with that sort of stuff" is quite a well known line from a Derek and Clive sketch....a joke And there was me thinking that the smiley indicated that you weren't amused. I guess we must just be on completely different wavelengths.

I'd like to see us play 4-2-3-1. --------------------------Cech -------Ferreira------Alex----Ben Haim-------Cole ----------------Essien--------Lampard Cole------------------Mikel--------------Kalou -----------------------Sheva

No way. JT went in hard but he clearly won the ball. He didn't come through the back of any player, it wasn't two footed. Even Andy Gray was forced to change his mind when he saw the replay. The fact that Fabregas got wiped out after he played the ball is just an added bonus.

Sorry. I mistook you for someone with a sense of humour. Won't let it happen again!

You'll have to be damn quick to beat Chippy to it!! Nah, I said "first in line if he shows he can take us to the top" Not " first in line if he shows that he can remember not to put his underpants on over his trousers"

Yep. We can agree to see it differently. Just to answer your points though. 1. I am surprised that Jose did put up with being pushed down the route he was. I can only offer the money as a reason. He definitely wasn't going to walk out without being paid off. 2. I wouldn't say that we only had one formation. When everyone is fit then 4-3-3 can work quite effectively. The problem arises when key players are missing. Then it really doesn't matter too much about formations at all. The difference is that you are likely to be less reliant on one key player in a 4-4-2 than in a 4-3-3. Anyway, it's all water under the bridge now. We can both agree that it's not Grant's fault he isn't Mourinho I'll be the first in line to say well done if he shows that he can take us to the top. Roll on May.

I hear what you say Loz but I do see it differently. The move to 4-4-2 was forced on Jose. Once this was the case then he needed players that could play in that formation. Consequently, we are top heavy on midfielders and light on wingers. Even those wingers that we do have are more suited to playing in a 4-4-2 (Cole/Malouda). But now we are trying to play 4-3-3 again so we are obviously going have a problem. Gallas had been playing at left back/right back/centre back throughout his career at Chelsea, including under Ranieri. He was ready to move, wanted a big payday and so left. You can argue all you like about how much he was sold for, what the club offered to keep him and who he was sold too, but that's a club issue more than a Jose one. Jose always took the view that if someone didn't want to be there then they could go - hence Duff, Parker, Robben, Tiago, Guddy, Crespo and Diarra all departing. Sidwell made sense from Chelsea's point of view. He was cheap, had experience of the PL and could provide cover for our 4 man midfield - it was for Sidwell that the move made no sense as he was always going to be a long way down the pecking order. He has played a lot more due to injuries than I thought he would. Diarra wanted to leave because he would have been in that same position. He was never going to be ahead of Lampard, Ballack, Essien or Mikel. Now he finds himself in the same position at Arsenal. Injuries to Flamini and Fabragas gave him his chance and he pretty much blew it. Even if he hadn't he would still have been stuck back on the bench at best once they returned. He's a good player, but there are better and younger players who are ahead of him at the top clubs. Malouda was perfect for the 4-4-2 diamond. He could get forward and cover back and play narrower to allow the wingers to overlap. We haven't seen that much of him yet, but I would guess that he would do better in that formation than as an out and out winger. Alves would have provided the pace from full back to match Cole/Bridge on the other side. I don't see them as inappropriate purchases for that system. Again, now we seem to have reverted back to 4-3-3 we do probably, no certainly, need someone else to play wide. We will never know if Jose would have stuck with 4-3-3 if he had been left to get on with his job. But as he wasn't I at least can see pretty much where he was going with the squad. I can also see the glaring gaps we have now we are trying to revert back to a system that we don't have the players for.

Couldn't disagree with you more Loz. Jose's departure had bugger all to do with football and everything to do with a clash of egos between him and Abramovich - so, actually I do agree with you that he had to go. Otherwise, most of the issue's that you raise are symptoms of the problems between the two of them. Gallas left over money - that's not Jose's domain. He wanted to keep him. Duff and Robben were fantastic for us, but I don't think either has done a thing since they departed. SWP hasn't worked out but that doesn't make it wrong to have signed him. He was a rising star in the PL at the time. Ballack - I wish he had been available this season. Sheva we know about. Ben Haim/Sidwell/Pizzaro all players that he was allowed to have for not much money, Belletti too. I'm guessing he would have chosen different players if he had been given the funds. The change to a diamond meant less importance for the wingers - but he had to change to accommodate Sheva. The bottom line for me is that the change has made us less likely to win the CL/PL than more likely. That seems to me to be a bad thing. but again I do accept he had to go in the circumstances. The question is does the replacement have that XFactor that makes the difference between being an Alex Ferguson/ Jose Mourinho/Fabio Capello and a Claudio Ranieri/Kevin Keegan/Sam Alladyce - always the bridesmaid never the bride. We won't know until after the event.

I would go further than that, I think it would be preposterous to place the blame at Grant's feet and anyone who does is clearly still suffering from 'If-it-aint-Jose-I'm-ignoring-what_i-see-itis' You are absolutely right Loz...... but I just have this little nagging at the back of my mind. It's not about tactics or team selection or anything else at all tangible. It's just that some people win when the crunch come and others just come up short. Jose changed that for us when he arrived. Will we still have it now he's gone? We never lost to Arsenal under Jose and first game up under Avram we lose. I know many don't agree but it's just there in the back of my mind.