Chelsea 1-3 Aston Villa - The Verdict

Trouble at the Bridge : Ireland levels for Villa

Harry Aitkenhead at Stamford Bridge

TacticalBet

If the draw at Wigan was an un-expected setback, and the home points dropped against neighbours Fulham a disaster, then this was a calamitous event beyond all thoughts. Under Jose Mourinho, Chelsea didn't lose once at home, a run stretching from 2004 to 2007, and yet know they've lost three times in-between the 29th of October and the 31st of December. An even more damning comparison, in March 2010 they beat Aston Villa 7-1 at home, with Malouda, Lampard and Zhirkov running riot. Now, under two years later, they were comprehensively and humiliatingly beaten. Where did it all go wrong?

Structure

Having a birds-eye view at the top of the West Stand for yesterdays game, it's so simple to pick holes in Chelsea's structure, of severe lack of it. While the 4-3-3 formation means a tight three in midfield, this means it is crucial that the wide two of the front three provide width. Juan Mata drifted aimlessly over the pitch, and while he might make some nice touches and crosses, this disrupts the whole structure of the side. There were notable occasions when Mata would arrive on the right wing next to Daniel Sturridge, and with Didier Drogba down the middle, who was on the left? Crosses would float over and there wouldn't be a blue shirt within 30 yards of the left touchline. This also makes it painfully easy to defend against, as any space Sturridge may create would be killed by Mata who brings more defenders over to him. Is this Villas Boas telling Mata he can do what he wants? Or is the Spaniard simply not responding to team orders? Either way, it's selfish play and it's damaging the team. If you look at the almost unbeatable Chelsea team of the years 2004 to 2006, it was based upon a rigid structure. This has just disappeared. When Torres replaced Sturridge, it became impossible for anybody to establish what formation Chelsea were playing. Drogba and Torres were down the middle, with Lampard, Ramires and Meireles in the midfield. So where was Mata playing? Nowhere. There was no width, with two notorious wide men in Malouda and Kalou sat warming the bench. With this kind of tactics, it is no wonder that Chelsea haven't scored more than two goals in a game since the 3rd of December.

Team Selection

Throughout the game there were continued whispers of discontent at Andre Villas Boas' team selection. Where was Malouda or Kalou? Selecting two right backs on the bench, Hutchinson and Bosingwa, was also bizarre, with 18 million pound man Romelu Lukaku nowhere to be seen amongst the substitutes. Choosing to bring on Bosingwa for Ferreira with 15 minutes to go was another decision greeted with utter disbelief from the Chelsea faithful, disrupting a defence which then went on to ship two late goals. Another controversial decision would be the one to pick both Romeu and Meireles in midfield, two seemingly defensive minded midfielders. Raul Meireles rarely got forward, and his passing and shooting was utterly dreadful. Despite Lampard's obvious error for the 3rd goal, it was obvious to all to see that he should have been starting. Using TacticalBet's IPR (Individual Player Rater) which takes into account all the stats of accuracy such as passing and shooting, Meireles scored a pitiful 3.7 out of 10. Surely there must be a better option, or deploy him as the designated defensive midfielder and sacrifice Romeu.

Impatience

This can be a point directed at both this game, and Chelsea as a football club on the whole. With the score at 1-1, while it wouldn't be a great result by any stretch of imagination, it would've meant keeping pace with Tottenham, who drew, and gaining on Manchester United who lost too. However, Villas Boas threw on Torres with no plan, encouraged his players to charge forward, and the game was lost before you could even think it possible. The same happened against Arsenal on the 29th of October, when Juan Mata equalised late on and Chelsea again lunged forward, to be caught similarly twice on the break and lose. Another example would be Glen Johnson's late winner when Liverpool visited, with Chelsea pouring forward only to be undone in the 87th minute and lose 2-1. That's three points thrown away due to impatience, and it reflects other aspects of Chelsea's business. In the summer,when their pursuit of Luka Modric feel short, they panicked and signed their second choice, Meireles, and as discussed above, he's hardly set Stamford Bridge alight. A further, more poignant example would be the dismissal of Ancelotti last season, after a trophy-less season. Would this game have been lost had the Italian still been at the helm? The general consensus after the game was that it most certainly wouldn't have been.

While it would appear hasty at best to sack Andre Villas Boas, there is no denying it that Chelsea are a team in a serious crisis. Already three points adrift of 4th place, if they don't secure Champions League football next season they will be in serious trouble. They won't get the financial income, and that will mean Roman Abramovic will have to pump more money in. In the long-term, this would mean if they qualified the next season, Chelsea wouldn't meet UEFA's financial fair play rules, and wouldn't be allowed to compete. A disaster looming large for The Blues, and they can't afford to just sit back and let it happen, washing it away with endless excuses. The fans have had enough of Villas Boas' moans about 'misfortune' and 'bad luck', and the more he paints over the cracks, the more appear. While Chelsea remain fourth favourites to qualify for the Champions League at 1.88, they are now 85/1 to win the title. Who can remember the last time Chelsea were that high at this stage of the season?

HA