just

No-one has mentioned Mark Hughes. I always remember Wisey tipping him for a top job in management when he retired. His exact words were: "Hughsie is the sort of bloke who doesn't talk much. But when he does, you listen" And if Roman is dead set on "exciting and attractive", what about the fella who invented Sexy football and made us winners after 26 years of nothing. Mr Gullit himself.

Someone get Bluenut in a sound studio and get that recorded. Genius.

True Loz, but we didn't have anyone from midfield breaking forward into that area either.

Kirkland played well, (not fantastically brilliant IMO, but well), but the quality of our delivery into the box tonight was probably the best I've seen all season. There were some stunning crosses put in. Especially first half from Belletti, Ballack and Bridge. Kirkland was beaten all ends up on most of them. Unfortunately, we had practically no players in the Wigan area to take advantage. Formation? Or the players not being bothered? You decide.

This will probably be of no comfort to you Tim, but I'm still strangely optimistic about our chances in the CL. Regardless of how things have gone tonight and the way we are playing at the moment. I feel two things are hugely in our favour for the upcoming semi-final. 1. The players are so, so up for it. Make no mistake, despite all the talk of the EPL being the real measure of a team, people like JT, Lamps, Ballack, Drogba, Maka want the CL more than anything else. A lot more. They won't need any motivating for this one. 2. We have the 2nd leg at home. And, barring a Manacoesque performance in the first leg at Anfield, that is a definate advantage. An advantage that we never had with Jose in charge. Also, after tonight, I think some of the decision making may now be levered away from Avram. That's just my own personal guess. Could be wrong. But you can probably understand why I'm thinking like that. And, (like many others), I believe that even if we do manage to win the CL, it would be a monumental mistake to have Grant in charge next season. For me there have been far too many fundamental errors. And the worst thing about it is, he doesn't seem to learn from them. Though really, for the moment, that should all be put to one side. Because however, we feel about Grant as a manager we musn't give up. It could still be a wonderful ending to the season.

I try to forget Loz. But I can't always block it out. Sometimes, in my sleep, I remember games when we had Nutton at the back and Mayes up front. Jesus. Hand me the gun.

Here's the winner Gem. Mickey Nutton.

Alan Mayes?

PS. Anyone else notice the balance of our bench tonight? Between defence and attack? Look at it and ask yourself what we would have done if anyone across our back four was injured and had to come off? Essien, (not a natural defender), filling in any hole at the back is the only answer I can come up with.

Perhaps the game tonight showed those people who felt a two striker formation should only be utilised to chase a result, the futility of that tactic in that situation. Did you see the look on Shevchenko's face when Grant went to bring him on for those final few seconds? Please can we have that picture as the next "supply a caption" thread.

I think we are beginning to go backwards. Defensively, when we are put under any kind of sustained pressure, we look much more unorganized and fragile that's for certain. Attacking wise there isn't much it. But then Grant has simply marched on to Jose's tune and changed nothing in that regard. And however much people want to get away from it, Grant's remit as manager was to play more attractive, attacking football. He hasn't really tried to do that IMO. And please do bear in mind, I'm not one of those who thinks JM was perfect. He wasn't. I've used this example before to illustrate that point, but it's probably worth repeating. I was sitting in the Nou Camp the night when we had to over-turn a first leg defecit against Barca. We had to win and everyone who I spoke to out there believed we were gonna give it a right good go. After all, we had nothing to lose. But the team gave such a cautious, defensive performance we couldn't believe it. And that was down to Jose. He simply never went for it IMO. But, that said, as an example of Jose getting it wrong, I pretty much agree with all of this. An edited portion of Barak's previous post.

You might be right with your assumption Chippy. But this part in particular: "He knows what he is doing" Would appear to rule out Grant.

Hey Chippy! I've just re-read the article posted up by Abramovich and I spotted something. Did you notice that not one of the quotes, directly attributed to Anelka, mentions Grant specifically. Look: "The coach explained me Chelsea are used to playing in 4-5-1 and that he has the intention to do this 4-4-2 next year. “We have important and close games. He did not wish to destabilise the group and change tactics. “It has to be accepted. He knows what he is doing. Whatever happens, I work at training and I know I can play in a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1." He refers to the coach. Grant is the manager. Not the coach. So who do you think he's talking about? Clarkey or Ten Cate?

Of course you look at it again, but you don't throw out a formula that has gotten you to where you are just because it worked on one or two occassions. But he hasn't looked at it again has he? Not even once since the Arsenal game. Qaz, read back through your posts. You're contradicting yourself without seeming to notice. And because we change formation for a match doesn't mean we discard the 4-3-3, or any other formation, entirely. Read my last post to you again and think about it. It's about picking the right players and formations dependant on the opposition you are playing and the personnel you have available to you. I have another example for you. Remember Ole Gunnar Solskjaer (I think i have the spelling right)?. He used to sit on the bench a watch the match looking for the soft point in an opposition defence. After Yorke and Cole had pounded the opposition centre backs for 60 mins he'd come on, play differently to how they did and often pop up with a goal (hence the super sub tag). This was a deliberate strategy and change in tactics and something that was done to change a game. With respect. I think thats complete twaddle. I honestly don't know enough about all of Solksjaer's appearances to comment on that as certain fact. I very much doubt you do either. I'm sure there were times Solksjaer's introduction would have coincided with a change in formation. I'm also as sure that there were many times when it was simply a case of one forward on for another. All, of course, dependant on the circumstances United were in at the time. Which gets us back to what I was saying previously about how formation changes should be used, doesn't it? Moving the second striker up to partner Drogba is a good strategy and a good way to change a match, but I feel the disruption it would cause out midfield means its not worth doing it at this late stage in the season. I agree, perhaps we should have experimented more earlier in the season (though you could counter that the terrible injury run we suffered at the time limited our options and meant it wasn't a great time to be messing around with things too much). That doesn't however mean we should be experimenting and making changing to our matchday tactics now. And yet you said in your earlier post; Yes I beleive its worth looking at Yes I think they could make a very formidable pairing Yes it would help get more out of Drogba and Yes, again, I beleive it is worth looking at That looks suspiciously like the formation we played last season that failed miserably because we couldn't hold onto the ball and left us lumping the ball up to Drogba for all our goals. Is it? Is that what happened? Did we play that formation all last season? Funny, because as I remember it we did still use the 4-3-3 quite alot last year. But on the occaisons when Jose did change tack, and employed two strikers together up front, the general consensus of opinion was that we played some pretty decent passing football. And it certainly got the best out of Drogba didn't it?. Yes I remember and yes it was clever and its a pity Grant hasn't done more preparation to help the side be able to make changes during a match without the players becomming confused as to their role in the side at the time. That doesn't however convince me that changing tactics is a good idea, in fact it convinces me even more that we should stick with what we know for the moment. You know full well I didn't make that point in relation to my argument for trying a change in formation. I made it in answer to your point regarding the confusion surrounding our substitution against Fenerbache. I used it to illustrate the detail Jose went in to and to highlight the difference in preparation from Grant. And thank you. You've just re-iterated the point for me. Saying that suggests that we can learn a new formation that we haven't previously used to any great extent and break the old habits of expecting to find a player in a certain position on the park at any one time (eg. defensive midfielder) in a match or two and a handful of training sessions. Just imagine this, we are playing in the Champions League Final. Grant decides to change the formation his used all season to a traditional 4-4-2 so we can have two up top. Ballack in on the ball and being pressurised by two Man Utd midfielders. Ballack then instinctively passes back to where Makelele and Mikel have been positioning themselves all season till now only they aren't there because the formation has been changed. Man Utd then run off and score a goal. That scenario isn't necesarilly going to happen, in fact its unlikely as Ballack is going to look for Makelele or Mikel in the holding role before he passes, but its quite conceivable in this situation he will see no one there and find theres no one to pass to and be pannicked into lumping the ball up the field or into touch because theres no one to pass to. Yes its the wingers job as much as any to play deeper and provide that passing option, but this is something they haven't had to do previously in the 4-3-3, so once again, they have to learn to play their roles differently too. Changing to a two up top formation is a fairly big change tactically regardless of how you look at it. There's so many buts, ifs and maybes in that example I really don't know where to begin. Personally I would hope Ballack would look up before he made a pass. It's the least we should expect for £120 a week. And who, (in their right minds), would propose changing to a 4-4-2, for the very first time, in a CL final? How preposterous is that? That's a world away form wondering why Grant hasn't given it a try since the Arsenal game. That, IMO, is a perfectly reasonable question given the quality of football we have been producing. Qaz, I honestly feel you are now arguing for the sake arguing. Re-reading this thread again, I have to say there are so many contradictions and contrived scenarios contained in your posts that it certainly seems that way to me. It is tiring. So I'm done. I'll let someone else take over if they want to.

Never thought of that! Rangers V Chelsea in the Super Cup Final. In Monaco. What a farking away trip that would be!

I think your kinda missing the point of my post here Just. I was trying to say that just because a tactic changes a game on one occassion doesn't necessarilly mean you should start with it for your next match. Surely thats something you can agree with... Yes, but if that change had been so succesful, commonsense would make damn sure I had a good look at again. And soon. I would like to see it too, we just differ on the timing. Grant has had plenty of time and oportunities against weaker opponents, to have a close look at it before now. Yes I beleive its worth looking at Yes I think they could make a very formidable pairing Yes it would help get more out of Drogba and Yes, again, I beleive it is worth looking at However, unless we get special dispensation from Fifa/the FA to play 12 players during a match fact is it will change the the way we play in midfield, it will mean we will have to do without that defensive midfielder that acts as a outlet and allows us to take control in midfield. Ultimately I think we need to ween our side out of having that 3rd central midfielder, but for the moment the players are used to having one there and removing him to bring on an extra striker would be unsettling during the business end of the season when we simply cannot afford to drop any points if we want any chance at winning the title. Au contraire Rodney. Who dares wins. We don't have to lose a holding midfielder. Thre are several formations we could employ to accomodate a dual strike force and a defensive/holding midfielder. This is one example:: ..................Cech Paulo/Bell......Carv....JT..........Cole/Bridge ...............Maka/Mikel/Essien ........Cole......Ballack........Lamps ...........Anelka ....Drogba Remember the Fenerbache game (2nd leg), remember how Grant brought on an extra defender and half the team was looking at each other unsure where to go and what their role/position was in the side?, thats what happens when you change your formation at short notice without properly training your players for the change. Wow. Did you really mean that to come out the way it has? Because that says more about Grant's lack of preparation and management than anything else. Incidentally, while we're on the subject. Remember Jose's substitutions? Each sub coming on with a hand-written note from the manager containing precise instructions telling the outfield players exactly what was required? Clever wasn't it? So yeah, I would like to see us play two up top too. But there is a time for it and I don't beleive that time is now. Rather now against a side like Wigan at home than if we are 15 minutes away from going out of the CL and using it as a last-ditch, Hail Mary throw of the dice.

Qaz, firstly, what got us back in the game against Spurs last season was Jol inexplicably taking off Berbatov, (who was causing problems everytime he had the ball), and Lennon. If you don't believe me I can put you contact with a dozen Spurts fans who will tell you the same. They were livid with Jol. Secondly, when we brought Anelka practically everyone on here was anticipating a Drogba/Anelka partnership. With Anelka's arrival no-one felt we were going to stick so rigidly to the 4-3-3. It was generally viewed as a step towards Roman's wish of more attacking, entertaining football. Not many people were talking of an "either/or" situation with the two players. It was believed both were going to play TOGETHER. After all, Drogba had been brilliant the season before with a striker partner alongside him sharing the load. Thirdly, IMO, the overall quality of our football, (certainly defensively), has gone backwards under Grant. The games against Fenerbache, Boro, Sunderland even the 2-0 victory at City for me have been turgid, dire affairs. And Liverpool at home! Christ, that was truly appalling. In fact apart from Derby and the 2nd half against Le Arse, the last game I felt we have played really well for the whole 90 is Wet Spam away. So why, when the 2nd period of the Arsenal game proved how good a Drogba/Anelka partnership can be, hasn't it been looked at again. Don't you believe it is something that is worth looking at again? Don't you think they could make a formidable pairing? Don't you believe it's a move that may also help us get the absolute maximum effect out of Drogba? Don't you think it's worth looking at, for even part of game against, say, the likes of Wigan?

Chippy. There is so much in that post to pick holes in. Firstly, your choice of formations is wrong. In the article you are agreeing with, Anelka says we are playing a 4-5-1. There is no mention of a 4-3-3. However, I think you are right Chippy. I don't know what Nic is on about, the Mourinho inspired 4-3-3 is Grants's usual formation. Secondly, is the belief that Avram was put in charge purely to get results? I don't think that was his initial brief. If all you wanted was results and trophies, we already had the best in the business. TSO. No, results with STYLE was Grant's calling from Roman. Indeed he readily repeated this himself in his early days but, as time goes by, it is a mantra he repeats less and grows further and further from. Thirdly, with the football we are playing under Grant, who wouldn't benefit from trying a 4-4-2 or 4-3-1-2? Drogba scored thirtysomething goals in the season he had a strike partner alongside him. Albeit an ageing partner, well past his prime. And as you yourself point out, what happened against Le Arse when were deep in donkey doo? Yes, the bugle sounded and on came Anelka to help Drogs through the middle. The rest is history. Did Grant learn from that? Has he deemed it worthy of another try? Question is, did he even make that decision? Lastly, why are you so insistent that these players, most of them seasoned Internationals with years of top class football behind them, so regimented and indoctrinated that 4-3-3 is the only formation they can understand and perform in? Surely, they played football in other formations before Jose moulded them into winners?

He has the players to do it now.

That's the one. But anyone who thinks Grant is going to start with Anelka and Drogba together up front is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Still got a long way to go before he beats Gronks! None of them come close to the King of frustration. Jimmy Floyd Frustatingbank

My best mate has said this from day one of Avram's reign. He is unshakeable in his belief that that is the reason behind Grant's appointment.

I hope you're both right Ade, but I'm not so certain. The Corporates will be out in force for that one. I was thinking about it today, and the last really top draw, kicking atmosphere I can recall at the Bridge was the 3-3 with the y*ds in the FA Cup last season.

It's a very good answer Liam. Though you know it's not one I'll agree 100% with. I agree, Mourinho was given God like status by many people who wouldn't accept he had any flaws or failures at all. But where I diasgree, is with the opinion that he got that level of adulation and credit simply because he won things. For me the trophies and success were merely a by-product of the most important thing he brought us, players and fans alike. Self-belief. A belief that we could be the best. That we could really achieve those things - win the League - win the Champions League. Be one of the very best teams in the world. We had nothing to fear, let other teams fear us. We didn't have to be second best to anyone. That belief was something we had never had in my Chelsea supporting life. Ruud Gullit was getting close but then he was sacked. Ranieri tried but certainly never gave it to us. It needed a man of Jose's character and persona to make us feel like that. For all the players that played under him and the overwhelming majority of us fans that support Chelsea, he changed our mindset and expecations. IMO, that's his greatest legacy and why he is so revered. And he deserves all the credit in the world for that.