It's official - we are naff at home

[loz]

So the amazing unbeaten home record is secured for another season - great for the record books but, this season, not so great for the Premiership.

Despite people talking about how hard it is to get a result at the Bridge we actually we lost more points at home than we did away this season. At home we drew 7 games thus dropping a whopping 14 home points whereas away we lost 3 and drew 3 thus only dropping 12 points.

This means we weer the only team in the whole league to drop more home points than away points.

Not that this means all that much in the grand scheme of things but maybe just illustrates that the unbeaten home record is not that big a deal.

[jack h]

Ive been wondering for a while if we will win more games and play better at home if the record was ended, at times we seem more concerned about extending the unbeaten run than actually getting a win. When it does eventuly end it will be interesting to see if the players change their attitude/style when were at home.

[ethicalstrategy]

I wouldn't say that we have been protecting our home record but it definitely has played a part in our failure to win the league this season. I think teams come with a draw as the limit of their ambition and put 10 men behind the ball just as Bolton did today. What we have struggled to do is find a solution to this problem. This has meant some disappointing draws against the likes of Blackburn, Fulham and Liverpool. We have also made life difficult for ourselves by failing to push on and get a second goal when we have finally managed to get ahead - Everton, Wigan, Bolton.

It is very frustratiing because we didn't play especially badly in most of those matches but we just lacked a killer touch to get 2 goals up and eliminate the margin for error.

To put it in perspective, if we had lost 2 home matches and won two more then we would have been champions.

[Paul Seery]

It is a shame that despite our home record we did not win the league. The five results that cost us were Fulham, Everton, Aston Villa, Wigan Athletic and Bolton Wanderers. Chelsea have got to do alot better at home next season, somthing like the home record of 2005/2006 would do nicely.

[ethicalstrategy]

It is a shame that despite our home record we did not win the league. The five results that cost us were Fulham, Everton, Aston Villa, Wigan Athletic and Bolton Wanderers. Chelsea have got to do alot better at home next season, somthing like the home record of 2005/2006 would do nicely.

12 more points - 97 in total! Yep, we might have squeezed past the Mancs with that.

[Paul Seery]

It is a shame that despite our home record we did not win the league. The five results that cost us were Fulham, Everton, Aston Villa, Wigan Athletic and Bolton Wanderers. Chelsea have got to do alot better at home next season, somthing like the home record of 2005/2006 would do nicely.

12 more points - 97 in total! Yep, we might have squeezed past the Mancs with that.

We would have done

[bar24rat]

Despite people talking about how hard it is to get a result at the Bridge we actually we lost more points at home than we did away this season. At home we drew 7 games thus dropping a whopping 14 home points whereas away we lost 3 and drew 3 thus only dropping 12 points.

If you go back to last season's results you happenedwill find exactly the same thing-draws at home and adrift of Utd at the end.

We do not seem to be able to get over the psychological barrier of pushing on to consolidate a result before the fear factor creeps in.

In the 2 big games recently we were apparently in control with a 1 goal lead at half time but how many of us honestly allowed the reaction of what will happen in the 2nd half to creep in! Of course we all know that Blues did not start to play again until the opposition scored.

So why is this and what is the answer?

It is not as if the players are suddenly reincarnated or have skill replacement therapy! They are the same group who seem to collectively go into a shell.

Can we find and do we need an equivalent of Glen Hoddle's guru?

2 or 3 of the too many very late goals were conceded by defensive errors- today was another example- Utd has been involved in late goals but usually to save games (I can only recall the game at Arsenal where a late equaliser was conceded).

Put these 2 statistics together , it's clear where the title was lost.

Next season, more solidity in defence, power in attack, improved psychology and the title is back at the bridge.

[loz]

I actually don't think it is all that different from what often happened when we went one nil up with Jose at the helm. I just think we are getting away with it less now than we did then and I think one of the key reasons for this has been the quality of our defending, both as a unit but also individually.

Cech has made errors this season that we could never imagine him making before.

JT has rarely hit the form we all know he is capable of.

At right back I still think we are paying the price for Jose losing confidence in Paulo and Grant not restoring it as I don't think Belletti should be anywhere near the first team.

Makelele is finally showing signs of aging

And, like any team would, we still miss Gallas, his pace was often the reason we got away with errors as he would be able to get back to save the proverbial bacon.

So that covers the individual angle. As a defensive unit I think we are less organised. In the days when our back four was pretty much four from Bridge/Gallas/JT/Carvalho/Ferriera there wasn't a man there that didn't know everyone else's job and be fully aware of what was expected of them. I don't think that cohesion is nearly as strong now. I think this is partially down to chopping and changing the full backs, partially to do with having to deal with some freak injury luck to JT, Carvalho and Cech and partially due to the fact that I don't think Grant and his management team are as meticulous as Jose and his team at preparing the side for the opposition.

I think Jose's weakness was attacking and his strengths were defending. It strikes me that Grant may be the opposite. I think we are beginning to look like a team that can attack with more style than we did under Jose (and we are doing it with players not necessarily naturally comfortable with doing it) but we are also looking like a team more likely to buckle under concerted pressure.

[ethicalstrategy]

II think we are beginning to look like a team that can attack with more style than we did under Jose

I don't see that at all Loz. I agree we are not as defensively solid for all the reasons that you mention but going forward we are, if anything, more toothless than before. Certainly more so than Jose's first two years. In 04/05 we failed to score more than one goal in 18 PL matches. In 05/06 it was 13, and that includes two 1-0 defeats after we won the title. Last year and this year it was 20 matches.

[Tim W]

we are also looking like a team more likely to buckle under concerted pressure.

Shouldn't that read "we are a team that buckles under concerted pressure"?

[Phillip]

It is a shame that despite our home record we did not win the league. The five results that cost us were Fulham, Everton, Aston Villa, Wigan Athletic and Bolton Wanderers. Chelsea have got to do alot better at home next season, somthing like the home record of 2005/2006 would do nicely.

Well, Bolton did not cost us, since the title was over (ManU was up 2-0 with about 1 minute to go) when Bolton equalized.

[BLUENUT]

It could also be argued that we don't concentrate for the whole 90 minutes, players losing focus.

The amount of last minute goals we have conceded that have lost us points is unbelieveable.

Bolton, Everton, Villa, Spurs away, Wigan just off the top of my head is 10 points where we should have had the game wrapped but we conceded all these late equalisers.

I don't want to turn this into a Grant v Jose arguement, but it just didn't happen under TSO

[rahul]

I think the reason we don't push for a second is that when under Jose we went 1 up, it was almost game over for the opposition, whatever PL team it maybe. We had so much solidity and belief in our defense. That allowed us to sit back with the lead and soak up all the pressure. And we did that with success 99pc of the time. I think the same attitude had continued with the squad, however, we are more error prone in defense now. Maybe a lack of belief?

We have been one of the worst teams at set pieces this season....at both attacking and defending. This is quite unbelievable when you're talking about a squad that boasts Terry, Ballack, Drogba etc....and a squad that is probably one of the strongest and tallest in the league.

[blueday3]

Im a little confused by the calculations here, we lost 3 away and drew 3 meaning if we had drawn the 3 losses we pick up a point each and if we had won each of the draws we would have picked up 2 points each so 6 and 3 is 9. Could someone clarify for stupid me?

[loz]

Oops - OK we dropped 15 away from home (9+6) - OK the whole thread is off, we dropped more points away than at home.

[callista]

I think Jose's weakness was attacking and his strengths were defending. It strikes me that Grant may be the opposite. I think we are beginning to look like a team that can attack with more style than we did under Jose (and we are doing it with players not necessarily naturally comfortable with doing it) but we are also looking like a team more likely to buckle under concerted pressure.

Considering Grant's rep in Israel was as a coach that was terrified of losing and was defensive by nature, I don't see where this great attacking intent from Grant that you sense comes from.

Grant seems to me to be more in the mould of JM (a defensive based coach) but just not as good at it - or perhaps just not as good in terms of organising it.

He may be trying to force the team to be more attacking to repay Roman's faith in him but I don't think he feels any more comfortable doing this than JM did.

I also agree with the poster who said our concentration levels are not as good as they used to be.