Who was responsible for Drogba-Anelka?
As the Chelsea Bureau of Investigation sits down this morning to examine yesterday’s Carling Cup crime scene, some of the witnesses will undoubtedly trot out some unconvincing theories. The slippery pitch, the accuracy of the penalty decision, the fact that the referee failed to prevent the opposition from tackling whinging Didier Drogba, all will be blamed at some point for yesterday’s miscarriage of justice.
However, as the detectives travel a little deeper into what happened, they may find that their conclusions have a rather unpleasant flavour. Because at the heart of Chelsea’s downfall was the decision to play Drogba and Anelka from the beginning. Not only did Anelka contribute little up front, he also left Chelsea’s midfield far more exposed than had Joe Cole played, and Tottenham swept into that space from the kick off. The slightly unfamiliar look of Chelsea may also have contributed to Chelsea’s seeming to lose possession much more casually than usual, though the investigators may have a tougher time making that charge stick.
So, who made the decision to play Drogba-Anelka? Under Mourinho, Chelsea rarely played with two out-and-out strikers, and Grant has continued the tradition. Only once in the league, at home to Fulham, has he started Drogba and Shevchenko together, and that experiment ended 0-0. Some newspaper reports state that Roman Abramovich is known to influence team selection, and with the side looking a bit floppy in the league this month (1-1 to Portsmouth, that hideous 0-0 to Liverpool), did the order to play a thrilling, attacking, but ultimately flawed line-up come from the very top?
5 responses so far
1 Roman // Feb 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
My name is Roman Abramovich, and I did not influence the team selection.
Hope that clears it up for you.
2 jesse // Feb 25, 2008 at 10:38 am
you may not have influenced team selection but Mr. Abrahamovic. Is this the kind of football you hired Mr. Grant to produce? Are these the kind of decisions you pay a lot of money to be taken? even a football novice would notice the errors and weaknesses that grant has. how comes you are turning a deaf ear to the fervent chelsea supporters?
3 Ansaar Baderoen // Feb 25, 2008 at 11:27 am
Yes if it was mourinho he would of played a one striker upfront get easy games and let them have a few games under there belt before playing them in a cup final they need time to gel anyway I still dont think Grant is the right man for the job we a coach who can man handle players and not be influnced by senior players like lampard please sell him ballack is by far the better player.
4 Ansaar Baderoen // Feb 25, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Maybe you didnt influence the team but you sure as hell influence our season because Mourinho was the perfect man for chelsea. I hope with all hope that he went to liverpool and they win the league then what would you say not attractive football ,but that our attraction to chelsea we dont have to play like arsenal or barcelona we play our style its not attractive but it was effective cause we won 2 league2 carling cups and the FA cup this was the season for Champions League but no we went and made a nobody like Mr. Grant coach where nobody even in the lower league will consider him as a coach and made him coach and what has he achieved …. Abosolutely nothing… so guess what Roman evertything you do influence the team.
5 yongabi // Feb 25, 2008 at 3:29 pm
mr roman, do you now see chelsea running out of this season with no trophy? your man grant is not jose’s match. can you ever be able to convince jose back to stamford bridge. i know you have the money to make decisions but remeber that money is not everything