The growing likeability of Chelsea

End of the old guard: Drogba's departure has restored Torres' confidence... and made Chelsea likable again    Pic: Reuters

As the summer transfer draws to a close with the outcome of Chelsea’s pursuit of young German striker Andre Schurrle still unknown, one thing is sure. The overhaul of the Chelsea squad is not only underway, but may almost be complete. And, perhaps even more surprisingly, the turnover of players has not only got Chelsea looking like a more formidable challenger than they have for many years, but, against all odds, verging on likable for the first time since the Roman Abramovich takeover in 2003.

Despite their triumph in both last years Champions League and the FA Cup, the west London club could only manage a sixth-place finish in the English Premier League. When the promising Andre Villas-Boas was sacked as Chelsea manager in March last year following a 1-0 league defeat against West Bromwich Albion, a large part of the criticism leveled against the Portuguese was that he had failed to impose his preferred style of play on Chelsea’s influential old guard and had quickly lost the confidence of his players. But this overlooked the fact that in a perfect world Villas-Boas would have brought in players better suited to his system rather than having to rely on those who were already there. Indeed, many people felt that Villas-Boas had been handed a poisoned-chalice by Abramovich, who demanded the manager rebuild without compromising results. In the end, Villas-Boas was given neither the time nor the support to see his project through and was shown the door. But today the signs are there that Villas-Boas may have been more successful than he was given credit for, only for Roberto di Matteo (and whoever replaces him in a year's time – probably Pep Guardiola) to reap the benefits.

In truth, until recently the shadow of another Portuguese manager, Jose Mourinho (for whom Villas-Boas worked as Opposition Scout) remained cast across everything that went on at Stamford Bridge. Mourinho was Abramovich’s first managerial appointment as Chelsea owner and the self-proclaimed ‘Special One’ led the club to unprecedented success between 2004 and 2007, albeit without being able to deliver the Champions League trophy so coveted by the new Russian-owner.

When Mourinho left the club by “mutual consent” in September 2007 following a well-documented power struggle between himself and Abramovich, it started a procession of managers (currently six in five years) who have promised much, but until last year, largely failed to deliver (with the exception of a League and Cup double under Carlo Ancelotti in 2009/10).

Throughout the years that followed Mourinho’s departure, the core of his Chelsea team remained more or less in tact. Under Mourinho, the team's effectiveness and the manager's own charisma and ability to draw the attention of the media to himself instead of his team, disguised, to a certain extent, how the team he had assembled was almost completely devoid of any charm of its own.

None of this is to detract from the quality of the players in question. Rather more, it is to highlight the genuine difficulty anyone other than Chelsea fans had in feeling any warmth towards the likes of Peter Cech, John Terry, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba. This problem was exacerbated by their close association in the eyes of many with an owner, the origin of whose fortune was unknown and who seemed intent on buying the Premier League, literally at any cost. It was the sense of inevitability, almost of entitlement, particularly after they won their first league title in Mourinho’s first season, that made Chelsea the target of most neutrals’ intense dislike (with me first among them).

But this aura wasn’t helped by the uninspiring nature and/or dubious character of some of Chelsea's key players: Petr Cech, John Terry, Frank Lampard and Didier Drogba, all relatively devoid of any sense of glamour, were all vital parts of the side that won the league title in 2004/05 and were later joined by similarly obnoxious Ashley Cole, Michael Ballack, Nicolas Anelka and Branislav Ivanovic. All the while, players demonstrating flair or the potential to become fan favourites were stockpiled by the wealthy club, but either failed to properly assimilate or were left to rot on the bench before being shipped out again (Joe Cole, Arjen Robben, Hernan Crespo and Scott Parker all spring to mind as the most obvious examples).

Undoubtedly one of the worst culprits of this is John Terry who, while undoubtedly a fine defender initially much appreciated by England fans for his heart-on-sleeve approach, could only disguise his loathsome personality for so long. I’m not from the school of thought that believes that it doesn’t matter what a footballer does off the pitch as long as he performs on it and Terry's conduct both on and off the pitch contribute to the detestable figure he has become. Terry has rightly attracted a lot of negative publicity for cheating on his wife (and mother of his twins) with the former partner of then-teammate Wayne Bridge, model Vanessa Perroncel, and his alleged racial abuse of QPR defender Anton Ferdinand, the brother of England teammate Rio. Most recently his attempts to crash the party at the end of last years Champions League final, a game in which he was not involved through his own stupidity/thuggery in the semi-final, were laughable but also entirely predictable. Sadly, such incidents are just the latest of a string of incidents (beginning with his abuse of American tourists at a Heathrow airport bar in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks – an incident in which Frank Lampard was also implicated) that have plagued Terry’s career and mean that “Big JT” is worthy of complete derision and all the bile that comes his way. Even Chelsea fans now have trouble defending the antics of their “heroic” captain.

Unlike Terry, Lampard’s involvement in the September 11 debacle can probably be put down to immaturity, but his subsequent performances have hardly helped endear him to the footballing public. Whilst I’m willing to admit that my perspective of Lampard may have been unfairly tainted by the acrimonious circumstances under which he left West Ham (the club I support) and the way he refused to defer to the superior Steven Gerrard in an England midfield that could only accommodate one of them, it says something that, despite being the highest scoring midfielder in Premier League history, he is thought of less fondly than midfield contemporaries such as Gerrard, Paul Scholes, Patrick Viera, Roy Keane and even Ryan Giggs (who has not been without off-field indescretions of his own in recent times). Goals may be one thing, but they alone can’t buy you the affection of Premier League audiences, and his finger-pointing-to-the-sky celebration is touching, but hardly inspires passion.

The greedy, chavvy, cheating Ashley Cole, the self-important Ballack, the headgear wearing Cech (who in fairness only does so following a “challenge” by one of the few footballers to rival Terry for shear unpleasantness, Stephen Hunt), the moody Anelka, and the so-thuggish-that-the-only-surprise-is-that-he-hasn’t-joined-Mourinho-at-Madrid-yet Ivanovic were all also complicit in contributing to making Chelsea the most difficult team to feel anything but negativity towards.

However, perhaps it is Didier Drogba that was the greatest contributor to the dour view many people took of the Chelsea of the last five years. Bought from Marseille in July 2004 for £24 million right at the start of the Mourinho era (unlike Lampard and Terry who were already at Stamford Bridge by the time Mourinho arrived), Drogba is perhaps the personification of Mourinho’s Chelsea. At his best Drogba was unstoppable meaning he regularly scored hatfuls of goals for the Blues, but much like Mourinho's Chelsea never played in a way that encouraged the adoration of the neutral. There’s no escaping that many of the goals he scored were incredibly impressive and, as demonstrated in the 2012 Champions League final, Drogba always seemed capable of producing at crucial times and in the most important matches. But there is also no getting away from the idea that Drogba was more reliant on power and force than skill, that he bullied defenders, and that his desire to win and make himself look good mattered more to him than anything else. And while none of those things are bad qualities to have for a Premier League striker, one can’t help but feel that the Stamford Bridge crowd (not to mention the rest of the football watching world) would have liked to see a bit more of the artistry exhibited by the likes of Thierry Henry and Dennis Bergkamp at cross-town rivals Arsenal from time to time, even if they could never admit it.

Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the same things that made Drogba a winner also acted as a detriment to teammates, that his mentality and personality may have been so dominant that other players failed to flourish in his presence, that the potential of a Chelsea team was sometimes sacrificed on an alter of Drogba’s perhaps subconscious insistence that he personally was the star.

The following quotes from double-winning former Chelsea manager Carlo Ancelotti are, in my opinion, some of the most interesting insights offered into the inner workings of a team by any sports figure in recent times and are particularly enlightening with regard to the impact Drogba had on Chelsea:

"What I would say is training Chelsea, when the club is in the middle of a major generational change, is complicated.

"Take Torres and the crisis he has lived through there. I now know if you decide to invest strongly in him, you have to sell Drogba.

"Didier is like Filippo Inzaghi was at AC Milan. He simply devours any competition.

"It's not that he's evil - nor was Inzaghi - it's just the way they are."

Drogba may not be evil, but “the way he is” is not necessarily terribly likable either. It comes as absolutely no surprise to me, or it would seem to Ancelotti, that Torres has begun to find form again this season and I fully expect him to score 20 plus goals this season and be in contention for the Golden Boot.

And that is where the revolution of likability at Chelsea begins. I’ve followed the career of Fernando Torres since he was a fluffy haired teenager debuting for Atletico Madrid and have always liked him. When he moved to Liverpool in July 2007 I thought it was the perfect move for all concerned. One of the brightest young talents in Europe moving to a high-profile team where he would immediately be not just a first-team player, but a star. Most importantly he hadn’t chased the money and gone to Chelsea. And for the first couple of seasons Torres really did look the complete striker, a rare case of a prospect who lived up to the hype. Needless to say I was devastated when one of my favourite players moved to one of my least favourite clubs for £50 millon in January 2011. The fee was astronomical (the sixth highest paid for any player ever) which only served to prove, in my mind at least, that Torres wasn’t the player I thought he was, and instead just another Chelsea mercenary. But then what was an initially embarrassing lack of goals turned into a complete humiliation for Torres. After a year and a half of taking the piss out the Spaniard, I actually began to feel sorry for him and started making excuses in his defence. The Ancelotti quote was all the encouragement I needed to change my perspective of him once again. Torres hadn’t turned into a terrible player overnight as a form of devine retribution for joining a club like Chelsea. Instead, it was that Drogba and the environment he created that wouldn’t allow Torres to perform and with Drogba gone, Torres could not only redeem himself, but could possibly also contribute to the redemption of Chelsea.

Then, this summer Chelsea won the race to sign another of Europe’s most exciting talents, Eden Hazard, beating out no less a club than Manchester City. Manchester City, of course, had just won the Premier League on the back on a massive influx of money from the Abu Dhabi United Group Investment and Development Limited, much as Chelsea had done seven years earlier. The only difference was that City had assembled an even more impressive (although somehow more likable) squad who played more attractive football. But City’s newfound wealth meant the Manchester club also surpassed Chelsea as the club players moved to if they were only interested in money. All of a sudden, Hazard’s £32 million move to Chelsea (as opposed to City) became more acceptable.

Seemingly overnight, Chelsea could field an exciting front three of Torres, Hazard and Juan Mata without an overbearing Ivorian or moody Frenchman in sight, and with youngsters Daniel Sturridge and new boy Victor Moses as back-up. 

In midfield, Frank Lampard will (unfortunately) probably continue to be something of a fixture (at least for another couple of years albeit in a deeper lying role), but will most likely be accompanied by the sneaky-good Ramires (who showed he was so much more than just a workhorse box-to-box midfielder with this strike against Barcelona in last year’s Champions League semi-final), the bad-boy with a heart of gold Raul Meireles, and the promising Oscar and Marko Marin. Only perma-crock Michael Essien and the money-grabbing John Obi Mikel (who never really reached his potential after forcing his way out of Manchester United after realizing there was more money on offer at Chelsea) remain as midfield relics of the Mourinho era.

In defence Ashley Cole (at least until he inevitably chases one last payday) looks likely to come under increasing pressure from young Champions League finalist Ryan Bertrand, who came through the Chelsea Academy (making it difficult to begrudge him his success at the club). Meanwhile, as captain, John Terry will continue to feature prominently but for how much longer is unclear, particularly if he continues to be dogged by scandals of his own making. In his place are the enormously entertaining “Playstation footballer” David Luiz, and the affable and competent England international, Gary Cahill, who toiled valiantly for a number of years with Bolton before making a deserved switch to a Champions League contender. The final piece in the puzzle was added last week when Chelsea signed Cesar Azpilicueta, a young Spanish defender who I've been following since he made the unconventional and brave move to Marseille at the age of 20, to contest the right-back spot with the brutish Ivanovic (if he survives his first training session against the Serbian).

I’m even almost ready to forgive Cech, who despite demonstrating increasing frailty last season, was an excellent and exciting keeper before he was tarred with the Mourinho-era brush (and suffered his head injury). I’m hopeful that Cech can reinvent himself as part of a bright, new, inspiring Chelsea team and provide the sort of leadership that will be needed by this young squad (particularly once Lampard and Terry shuffle off).

I’m not saying that this will be the team to line up against Atletico Madrid in this evening’s European Super Cup, or even necessarily feature all together in any game this season, but this season Chelsea could field a team of Cech – Azpilicueta, Cahill, Luiz, Bertrand – Ramires, Meireles, Oscar – Mata, Hazard and Torres and that’s just about one I can get behind, or at least watch without actively hoping bad things happen to them.

Speaking as a West Ham fan, I have to say it’s the kind of overhaul that other teams in the Premier League should be envious of and whilst the finishing touches have undoubtedly been put on it this summer, with Roberto di Matteo at the helm, the foundations were there under Andre Villas-Boas last season. With a bit more time and support there’s no telling how successful Villas-Boas might have been but Chelsea fans should perhaps now look back on his time at the helm a little more fondly. They are now reaping the benefits of Villas-Boas cleaning house. Now it’s over to Tottenham fans to see if he can repeat the feat – maybe this time with a bit more support.