Chelsea Dominance

[dwolfman]

Taken from ESPNsoccernet.com insider article.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=353166&root=england&cc=3888

Also, do we think that spending money is the answer to making our local leagues more interesting?

[Israel]

Spending money effectively is part of the answer to making the local league more interesting

[Tallman]

It is too early to say. Ah mean, is only last year dey win de league. Even if dey win dis year, is not like dey could be considered a dynasty.

[SOBRIQUET]

why is this topic discussed sooooo much about the EPL? Isn't Lyon, Barcelona and Juventus all winning their leagues as well? All with one league loss, just like Chelsea? Didn't ALL of those teams win their league last year too? how and why is Chelsea's dominance seen differently than those other leagues/teams? Chelsea may not need to worry about this cockamine theory, because if it holds up, then ALL FOUR MAJOR LEAGUES AROUND THE WORLD ARE DOOMED (italian, spanish, english and french). Utter Nonsense.....

[JDB]

To look at Chelsea now it is scary to think about their players and resources and they have a quality manager but.....

There have been dominant teams before. This is Chelsea's time but it will not last forever. Football is cyclic because players get old and lose form, teams get complacent.

Also Chelsea could only get so good in terms of personnel because you can only play 11 men at a time. The squad could only be so deep because after you could only use about 18 - 23 top internationals regularly before men start to get vex. They also have to deal with the chemistry of the team when they try to improve the team or replace fading players.

When Chelsea peaks the other clubs will start making up ground. Also Mourinho can do what he wants, complacency sets in to every successful team/organization. That is as predictable as the sun rising.

Sadly Chelsea hasn't peaked yet. When they get a top class, top five in the world forward (Drogba and Crespo are not Eto'o, Henry, Ruud, Rooney, Adriano, Shevchenko) they will really be looking at their peak, but the decline will come soon after.

[dwolfman]

Chelsea has one major difference over any of the other teams, money. Lyon has been on top of French football for 5 or 6 years now and their spending budget pales in comparision to Chelsea's. Barcelona and Juventus also did very little in comparison to Chelsea. Real Madrid has spent more money than Barcelona, already proving that the biggest spender is not in control of the league. Therefore interest in the league is easier to maintain. Similarly, the spending in Italy is also a lot closer to even so it's not like the richest club has "bought" the league title.

If you reread the article you will get a better idea of what the argument actually is because it seems like you're missing the point completely. Are the attendance figures of the Spanish Primera, Italian Scudetta or French Ligue 1 also dropping (actually I would like to know)? Are the title races in these leagues considered effectively over by the halfway stage? In France it certainly seems so, but even in Italy it is not quite considered a done deal just yet, especially after Juventus let a double digit lead disappear last season.

I am not saying that I agree with the opinion of the author, but he does make some interesting points. The situation in the EPL is still very different from those of other leagues.

[palos]

Anybody who sayin Chelsea beatin teams regular PURELY because of money is being naive.

I doh like Mourinho, but he is de best club manager in de world.

Lissen....allyuh carryin on like if Chelsea have all de best players in de world.

In actual fact....Chelsea have Robben and Terry who are among the very best in their position.

Lampard who is a consistent player, Makelele who performs a very underrated but crucial role for them, and Cech who is an above average keeper.

The others can be found in any club anywhere in the world.

Ah mean..man does be talkin bout Chelsea midfield, but dem cyah mtach up wit Barca, Milan, or Juve midfield.  Dey forwards eh hotter dan Barca, Milan, or Juve forwards.  They probably have one of the best TEAM defences there is but break them down individually, apart from Terry.....dem fellas is journeymen.

The difference is:

1) - they playin in the EPL which is not exactly the strongest league in the world

2) - Mourinho

[dwolfman]

Palos, your point about the EPL is why I do not necessarily agree with the author. At this point if attendance levels are dropping it is because of the quality of the football, not the dominance of one team. That is why I asked the question as to if having more money available by itself will improve the professional leagues here in T&T. What makes the Mexican league so successful? What made Saprissa so successful? Why is Lyon so successful? Even in Europe.

Back to Chelsea. Where I do agree with the author is that the perception that the richest team is winning is not good for their league. The players and the manager are there because of money. That is fact. If Abramovic didn't have his large bankroll many of the players at the heart of the success and their manager would not be there so their money might not be the only reason they are winning since they still have to go out there and play, but it certainly weighs heavily in their favour.

[JDB]

Palos I agree that Mourinho is the key but you can't ignore the effect of their  money. They have spent more than 200 million over two years.

They don't have to worry about mistakes in the transfer market because they could just loan a player out, cut him for free or sell him at a loss. They also have players lined up for years to come. Look how they poach Obi Mikel from United.

As good as Mourinho is he is not winning Championships with Melchiot, Babayaro and Gronkjaer.

The good thing is that for all their money they are paying over the top prices for players.

[palos]

In reply to BOTH dwolfman and JDB

Respeck to both of you and yes...money is a huge factor because it allows Mourinho to get what his massive ego feels he deserves.  It also allows him to at least be in the market for any big name player.

I'm not sure if dominance by one team is so bad for a league.  New York Yankees in baseball is a team that everybody wants to beat.  Same with the Chicago Bulls in the Jordan years.  Michael Schumacher was bad for F1?  WI team in the late 70's and 80's was bad for cricket?  Roger Federer bad for Tennis?

These authors were not saying anything when Man U was dominating EPL.  When Liverpool was winning everything in sight in pre EPL days, not a peep.  They say nothing when Juve is winning Scudetto after Scudetto in Italy.  In my opinion, they don't care about Italy or any other league....or at least this author doesn't.  They care about EPL which is fine, but check closely...when Arsenal broke United's stranglehold, they resented that.  They HAD to respect the brand Arsenal was playing but grudgingly so.  In my opinion, they are fine as long as an English club with a BRITISH MANAGER is dominating.  Any foreigner in charge and is haterism right through.

As for Mourinho, the man won CL with PORTO!  Not exactly a club with big name, big money players.  He beat Man U at Old Trafford with that same Porto team to knock them out of CL.  And not only did he knock dem out, he did say BEFORE DE MATCH he was goin to do so.  As we have all come to know, he have plenty chat, but more often dan not, he and his players back it up.  Say waht u want, but his players PLAY FOR HIM and THAT is what you need from any coach.  Add to that a squad as competitive as his, full of egos, and getting them all to be on the same page FOR THE TEAM eh no easy feat.  I doh like the man but I have massive respeck for him as a coach.  He is simply one of the best out there right now.

[JDB]

I don't disagree with yuh entirley. Mourinho is a boss manager. From what I have read his preparation of tams is second to none. he also plays to his strengths, notice how different Chelsea is to his Porto team.

He is also a very good PR man within his club and is an excellent leader of his players.

As for the haterism, a lot of it has to do with the great fortune which resulted in Abramavich buying Chelsea. There is no real jingoistic sentiment, as there was with Wenger (basically because Wenger focused on foreign players and let go a lot of young English talent, Mourinho on the other hand has focused on English players and even developed Joe Cole).

The haterism that Chelsea is experiencing now is only because they rich and they winning and to be honest United used to get a lot of it also with people questioning how "real" each United fan was and frequent attacks on the club and its players.

[palos]

As for the haterism, a lot of it has to do with the great fortune which resulted in Abramavich buying Chelsea. There is no real jingoistic sentiment, as there was with Wenger (basically because Wenger focused on foreign players and let go a lot of young English talent, Mourinho on the other hand has focused on English players and even developed Joe Cole).

The haterism that Chelsea is experiencing now is only because they rich and they winning and to be honest United used to get a lot of it also with people questioning how "real" each United fan was and frequent attacks on the club and its players.

So wait....didn't Arsene Wenger develop Ashley Cole way more than Mourinho "developed" Joe Cole?  At least when Joe Cole moved to Chelsea, he was already looked at as a prodigy.  Ashley Cole's development was solely down to Wenger.

[trinidre]

everybody talking about chelsea's dominance and hating on chelsea and me being a long time man utd fan doesnt like the fact that chelsea has a 9 point lead at the top of the prem but I'm not going to say that their dominance is bad for the league because the man utd team of the 90's were just as dominant. Chelsea has alot of good talented players at every postion good team unity ar strong defence and maybe the best coach in club football and all that was achieved by the club's wealth.

But lyon, barcelona, juventus and bayern munich also dominat in there domestic leagues especially with lyon winning the past 4or 5 french league titles and nothing is metioned of team dominating leagues until chelsea because of their buying power and for me this doesnt make sense because personally I think that juventus and barcelona and even ac milan are better teams and have more highly rated players than chelsea and play a more attacking brand of football that is more pleasurable to watch.

Also with the exception of the one defeat liverpool suffered to chelsea this year and with the games I've seen between the 2 clubs and the way liverpool is playing at the moment,I dont think chelsea can beat liverpool as easily as the appear to beat the rest of the epl so I dont think chelsea's dominance would hurt football or the epl

[kaliman2006]

I have to agree with Palos. Although I don't like Mourinho personally, I have to respect his managerial ability. I actually think Chelsea's dominance this season is good in the sense that it would raise the standard of the football the rest of the league plays.

[JDB]

So wait....didn't Arsene Wenger develop Ashley Cole way more than Mourinho "developed" Joe Cole?  At least when Joe Cole moved to Chelsea, he was already looked at as a prodigy.  Ashley Cole's development was solely down to Wenger.

Oh gosh Palos yuh choosing one man.

Just for the sake of argument, Cole was actually selected for England before he was an Arsenal regular. Wenger brought him through but Cole's development has been gradual and constant. Mourinho has turned Cole from a wasted talent to the most consistent creative player on his team in just a year and a half.

Also even if yuh count Cole yuh have to consider Upson, Bentley, Pennant, Hughes. Yes these players have gone on to prove that they weren't good enough but some of the players Wenger brought in to replace them were no better (Giles Grimandi, Remi Garde, Pascal Cygan) and people perceive this as a bias by Wenger against young English talent.

I am not saying that this perception is accurate or not I am just proposing that this is a bigger problem for Wenger than Mourinho and that anti-foreign sentiment does not play a big part in people's dislike for Chelsea.

[Grande]

To look at Chelsea now it is scary to think about their players and resources and they have a quality manager but.....

There have been dominant teams before. This is Chelsea's time but it will not last forever. Football is cyclic because players get old and lose form, teams get complacent.

Also Chelsea could only get so good in terms of personnel because you can only play 11 men at a time. The squad could only be so deep because after you could only use about 18 - 23 top internationals regularly before men start to get vex. They also have to deal with the chemistry of the team when they try to improve the team or replace fading players.

When Chelsea peaks the other clubs will start making up ground. Also Mourinho can do what he wants, complacency sets in to every successful team/organization. That is as predictable as the sun rising.

Sadly Chelsea hasn't peaked yet. When they get a top class, top five in the world forward (Drogba and Crespo are not Eto'o, Henry, Ruud, Rooney, Adriano, Shevchenko) they will really be looking at their peak, but the decline will come soon after.

I would equate Hernan Crespo right along with Henry, Adriano and Shevchenko. De man is a born goalscorer fuh Argentina, AC Milan and Chelsea. I doh like  Mourinho either but he doing his job and I respect dat. It is not like Chelsea on ah lucky streak, they playing hard football and dey deserve their wins. Who vex lorse.

[spideybuff]

I think what is hurting the EPL is not Chelsea's dominance, per se, but the manner in which they are dominating. They just grinding out wins. At least when sides like Manu and Arsenal, and Liverpool in the 80's were winning...they were winning in style. This way, there was always a chance of an upset. But Chelsea is just a machine...and that is killing the excitement.

Also, I don't agree with the money issue cause Ranieri had most of these players, and he bought Robben too...but he didn't dominate like Mouriniho has. The closest thing to them is Juventus, cause Capello is clinical as well. But...Juventus not backed with the wealth like Chelsea is. We can see their domination ending at some point but with Chelsea, one blip and they could buy their way out of it so the potential to dominate as long as Mourinho is in charge is definitely there.

[Cowen]

It is too early to say. Ah mean, is only last year dey win de league. Even if dey win dis year, is not like dey could be considered a dynasty.

Aggreed Tallman .... dominance can't be attributed to Chelsea after one year of winning the league. They looking on course this season also ...but dominance .......... .not yet ..... they need at least 2 more years before you can equate Dominance to Chelsea.

[dwolfman]

I did say that if the EPL is struggling it has a lot less to do with Chelsea's dominance and more to do with the overall quality of the competition. If the game is not attractive then people will slowly stop coming out. If the sponsors see an unattractive product then they too will stop coming out. The author of the article makes a point about children being ready to go after 20 minutes and nobody commented on the fact that children tend to have shorter attention spans anyway and would not be able to appreciate the 90-minute game for a few more years again. In the meantime, Lampard, Cole and Terry generate a lot of excitement for the next generation of English players and that can hardly be a bad thing.

However, there is a perception that Chelsea is dominating the league now because of their ability to spend more than any of the other teams in the EPL. It is this perception that I am saying will hurt the league a bit because the average fan is more willing to listen to what the sports writer says in his weekly column than actually making his own assesment from observation. It is like that football draw article that speaks about conventional wisdom. It's popular to believe that Chelsea is not good for the league because of their seeming invincibility and spending power. That is conventional wisdom in this case. Unconventional wisdom would look at other factors behind people's dissatisfaction with Chelsea and not only would it point to the fact that dominance by itself doesn't hurt leagues, but it would also show that there are other reasons for many to dislike Chelsea that have little to do with their dominance or deep budget.

I disagree with you Cowen. I don't have to win for 4 years to be considered dominant. They have not yet created a dynasty, but a team that won the league with matches to spare last year and is threatening to do that again this year has to be considered dominant. Whether or not this dominance is hurting the EPL is not quite as clear cut.

[superoli]

attendance's are also dropping because teams such as chelsea are charging £45 to watch a game when a couple years ago it was £30. People are picking and choosing what game to go to.

[Touches]

The real issue is not Chelsea and how good they are or their Manager.

The real issue is that the other big teams in the league struggling and all have problems.

Manu, and I hate to say this for fear of stroking JDB and truthseekers fragile egos is a BIG side but they just cant contain the downward spiral that they have been experiencing for the last 5 years or so.
The manager giving trouble, the stars no longer there or gettin ole and the youngsters they have not ready yet.

With Arsenal it is a question of injuries and more importantly in this instance it is about Money. Granted we sold Viera, but that money has all gone into the new stadium. Also I woulda sell Viera the year before and make a few more millions on the deal and get a player traded as part of the package. Arsenal always needed to beef up the defenders, a midfielder and another fwd to compliment Henry. We just going along and now the injuries taking its toll.

Liverpool was not a big side since the 80s and even though they win CL they doe have the firepower to go tru a whole season without hiccups.

Spurs....steupppsss........a midtable team at best who only now find a lil form, consistently ketchin they arse to be in the top half of the table for the past umpteen years.

Wigan, some now come up lil upstarts who surprising people.

Bolton, a real good bogey, retirement side that does surprise people due to Allerdyce wit and tactics but really EPL champions.....I dont think so.

So you see Chelseas dominance for all the money, manager and players they have, is really due to a lack of competition.

Arsenal or Manu in top form would not get licks from any other EPL side except each other and would certainly put the squeeze on Chelsea.

[spideybuff]

Not really, Touches. The points total them other teams have would be enough to win the league in past seasons..Chelsea just raise the bar and making them look bad. Apart from the Champions League exit, ManU are no worse than they were since 99, when they were at their peak. SO I don't think ManU are in a decline. Arsenal maybe, after Viera's absence and Liverpool and Spurs playing the best they have in about 15 years.

[Touches]

Spidey I doe agree as with every season the points total needed to win a Championship has increased.

I cyar believe I doing this but I arguing to support ManU. ManU only fall orf in 2003. from 99 -2002 they more than held their own.

Even though Spurs and Liverpool playing they best in years it still just not good enough.

When Arsenal won the league unbeaten what was the points total and gap they had over the other teams as compared to Chelsea.

Every season yuh need more points not only to win but to remain in the top flight as well as yuh need more points now just to not get relegated. The rule of thumb was 1 point a game and yuh safe or 20 points by Christmas. As you can see form those who got relegated last year this is not always the case.

Chelsea strength is squad depth and consistency, ManU and Arsenal could more than deal with them.

[Tenorsaw]

I will say that right now Chelsea is undisputably the best team in the UK.  We can't say is just about the budget, cause Mourinho in his first season did not really make a huge number of signings.  He brought in Cech, who replaced an very capable Cudicini.  Drogba, Smertin, Carvalho, and Ferrara also came in.  I think the big difference with Chelsea has been their consistency along with sound coaching.  Ranieri was a tinkler, and sometimes he over experimented with his team selection.  Liverpool are quietly getting things together, and Rafael Benitez is again showing that he is a coach that can match and outwit Mourinho, but in all honesty, they are a work in progress.  Right now, they are looking reall good, but their slow start to the season is testament to the fact that they were still trying to play in the mold of Benitez.  I expect a closer fight next season, as 'Pool make some more signings, Man U reload, cause I think they are lacking in the player department, and Arsenal finetune. 

[g]

Good discussion fellas, Everybody have validity in their assesments. I'm my opinion Chelsea's quality starts on the sidelenes. Murinho real astute, allyuh ever notice how he rotates players? certain parts of the field he don't mess with, Goalkeeper, Central defense and central midfield, bar injury it will always be (Czech) in goal (Terry and Gallas) in d back and (Lampard, Makalele and Essien) in d middle every other position is rotated. He simply has the best players in Terry and Makalele in their position,. Remember the champions league winning madrid side, who was anchoring d midfield? And as soon as Makalele asked to be paid on the same level as Zidane and Figo he was sold. Up to now madrid can't recover from dat sale, regardless of attackers they bring. I agree wiht previious posts, Chelsea's dominance is not how much they win, but how they win it. When teams going all kida 20 games unbeaten dat is dominance, is like d crap dey playing right now but it's 3 points everytime, dat is dominance but just like d sun it will rise, it will burn everything in its path, but eventually it will set. I think the reason everybody vex with chelsea is that they outprice the competition young coveted players (Cole, Wright_Phillips, Robben, Duff, Essien) other teams cant compete in a bidding war and Chelsea win everytime. Notice these are the same young players that are rotated in the squad. In d days of ManU dominance i dont think they were spending as much  money outpricinng everybody like that but signs of the times, if Wenger could have bought Wright-Phillips and Fergie get Cole and Essien i dont think Chelsea would have been as strong a squad. Chelsea winning on the field, on the sideliness, and in the transfer market, sound like dominance to me.

[Arazi]

It's easy to say that chelsea's dominance is very similar to man u's, but it's not at least in man u's time some teams used to actually seem to be able to beat man u. but i actually think the premiership is full of better teams than during man u's era, is just that mourinho is exposing the EPL for the weak league it is by outhinking everyone and possessing a well assembled squad. Now as for Chelsea being unattractive, i do not agree, when they want to they grind it out, when they want too they can blow out teams, i fondly remeber when they dumped Bolton 4-1 or sumtin, Bolton was rel fighting down a 1-o half time lead and Chelsea basically tell dem "DOH REV" and score like 3 goals in 8 minutes and completely dominate the second half, how could a side dat destroy the European Champions Liverpool 4-0 be boring? the money issue is another part of it, this gives chelsea a definite advantage buh on the same coin chelsea never sought out the very best players in every position but bought solid players who work well and it's paying off. Lampard, terry and gallas are very important to the Chelsea team and they were there b4 Moruinho and abramhovic. They're a class team and the only team i really believe is better than them will be playing them in champion's league in february...

[palos]

In reply to g

I don't agree that Lampard is the best in his position.  Actually, I don't even believe he is the best in his position in the EPL.  Lampard is a very good footballer who is being hyped to the max.  Gerrard for me is a better player.  Neither are as good as Viera, Nedved, Camoranesi (interesting that they all play on one team), Kaka, or Ballack for me.

[g]

In reply to g

I don't agree that Lampard is the best in his position. Actually, I don't even believe he is the best in his position in the EPL. Lampard is a very good footballer who is being hyped to the max. Gerrard for me is a better player. Neither are as good as Viera, Nedved, Camoranesi (interesting that they all play on one team), Kaka, or Ballack for me.

I don't think either but he does have Makalele who is the best in his position, there are many very good box to box midfielders all you have mentioned. I was actually refering to the first choice combination of Lampard, Makalele and Essien and Murinho never rotates them, they play every game. Murinho dont mess with the middle of the park in defense and midfield, it is where the game is won and lost. 

[andre samuel]

Even though Spurs and Liverpool playing they best in years it still just not good enough.

Chelsea strength is squad depth and consistency, ManU and Arsenal could more than deal with them.

Liverpool deserves more credit that you are willling to give them touches!  Actually, i think that winning 9 straight games on the trot is more than just good enough!! Inn fact, not conceeding a goal for over 720 minutes is also a great achievement!!

I understand your point about Totenham, but to class liverpool with them is not fair.  They won the champions league last year and even won their group this time around!

I think that the only thing that Chelsea is doing wrong is outpricing certain players from other teams, but other than that, they still have to go out there and play and win games.  

Ranieri's squad was just as star-studed but they didnt win anyting!!

Mourinho is the man and the English just dont like him, so that is why they will make comments about Chelsea's dominance!! Manutd won 7 titles in 9 years!! where were they then??

ps: I repeating my prediction, Arsenal ent making de Champions League next year!  

ah love it!!

ps to palos, in my opinion, all those players that u quoted just now ent better than gerrard with the exception kaka.  he on de same level as ballack and nedved!

[andre samuel]

I don't think either but he does have Makalele who is the best in his position, there are many very good box to box midfielders all you have mentioned. I was actually refering to the first choice combination of Lampard, Makalele and Essien and Murinho never rotates them, they play every game. Murinho dont mess with the middle of the park in defense and midfield, it is where the game is won and lost.

excellent point g, the same can be said for liverpool, who always play gerrard, and alonso in the middle, with hypia, and carragher at the back. the other players are rotated!!