|
The more I look at Chelsea, the more I feel they have a problem and the more I dislike the culture of the club.
They brought a raggle-taggle selection of youth and reserve team players to Villa Park, and everything about their selection and their attitude on the night suggests they couldn't give a tuppeny stuff about the reserve league.
This, you see, is the new Chelsea. A massive first team squad of expensive and precocious superstars and imports - none of whom could bear the insult of a reserve outing at Villa. I thought we might see Steve Sidwell at least.....not a bit of it. I did recognise Scott Sinclair from the teamsheet, but that was it...
Villa, behaving like a real football club with a clear line of progression between Academy, Reserves and first team, fielded a strong team. Sorensen, Davies, O'Halloran, Berger. Osbourne and Harewood all lined-up alongside the new-boy Moustafa Salifou - the Togolese making his debut in claret and blue after all his work permit problems. And for 90 minutes they completely outplayed the neon-yellows of Chelsea (again....), ending up comfortable 6-0 winners.
On a cold night, I felt sorry for Thomas Sorensen. Playing in front of a near-empty Villa Park is some come-down, but with nothing to do either....poor sod.
So let me answer the key questions I know you will be asking. Presumably, they would be:
1. Did Curtis Davies look ready to challenge Zat Knight for a first team berth?
2. Should Patrik Berger be named amongst the Villa subs on Sunday?
3. Is Salifou a signing worth shouting about?
4. Did Marlon Harewood look anything more than a donkey?
5. Is Steve O'Halloran a challenge to Freddie Bouma?
6. Did anyone else stand out?
Right?
Well first of all, a 6-0 win is pretty sound and will reinforce Villa's single point lead over Arsenal in the reserves league.
Now let's take points 1-6 one by one:
1. Davies was good in the air against weak opposition. His positional play was dodgy at times, and he looked nervous for the first hour. Later in the game, he started to look better bringing the ball forward, but his distribution was generally poor. To be honest, if you didn't know who he was, I don't think you would have picked him out. Verdict: currently no threat to Knight (despite Saturday's calamities).
2. Berger ran his socks off, and is clearly desperate to be back in the frame. His touch, vision and reading of the game were all several streets ahead of anyone else on the pitch. I have a feeling he was still signing autographs for the Chelsea players as I was getting in the car. I was surprised how fit he looked, too - the match was over by the time his legs were getting heavy. He lacked a bit of sharpness, but that extra 10% only comes from first team exposure. Verdict: must be on the bench for the Reebok.
3. Salifou struggled to settle in the first half, though he combined well to set up a great cross for Berger's goal. As the game progressed, he grew into it, and started to show some touches of class and signs of real ability. Playing wide right, he gets sucked into the middle a lot, and doesn't seem to have the pace to scare full backs. But he has a nice touch, good vision and a cheeky side to his game. Reminded me of Maloney. Verdict: jury out, but no bad start.
4. Sorry to say this, because I arrived at Villa Park with an open mind. Don't be fooled by the hat-trick - Harewood was average throughout, showing poor control, poor distribution and a lack of movement. His first goal was well taken after a great through ball from Salifou, and when he scored the others Chelsea had given up. Verdict: it may be a scandal to say this of a guy who has scored three, but I thought his performance was awful. I'd have taken him off after 60, even at this level...no place in the 16 for Sunday.
5. O'Halloran played intelligently, showed pace and a good reading of the game throughout. His distribution was generally excellent, and his movement off the ball very good too. He got caught forward a bit too much, which could have cost us against a better side. Verdict: Bouma should certainly watch his back, but I won't see a real threat until O'Halloran is a) physically more imposing and b) a bit more streetwise.
6. Zoltan Stieber, who (I don't yet know why) was replaced shortly before half-time, looked a live wire to me for the 40 minutes he was on the pitch. There's a lot of youthful naivety to his game, but he's quick, intelligent, skilful and has great touch and vision. Verdict: not worth a place on the bus yet, but it won't be long if he keeps playing like this.
So that's it from me. A very straight diagnosis this time, but that's my view on the reserves.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
