Chelsea FC - Building from ashes

Chelsea fans are said to be bandwagon jumpers; they support the team only because they are champions up till recently. This suggestion is backed by the increase in the support for the club worldwide during the Abramovich era after the Russian oil tycoon became the owner of the companies that controlled Chelsea FC in 2003. With his Russian roubles, he funded to build a stellar team which ushered in Premier League successes under club-favourite couch, Jose Mourinho, in 2004/05 and 2006/07. But the actual reality is that Chelsea FC was already at least a contender among the top teams and they did enjoy relative success over the years before their newly acquired wealth. Under Ruud Gullit from 1996 onwards, they had success in the League Cup and FA Cups and even qualified for the coveted Champions League in the year 2000. Chelsea FC's other notable successful era was way back in the 1960s. While I admit I only became a Chelsea supporter in 2004, it is worthy to note that it is during that time that I started watching football. Thus, in my opinion, those within my age group and lesser might have a tendency to support this club if otherwise not influenced by other factors such as place of birth. Afterall, for supporters not living in England, our primary factor which governs our choice of football club would be to support the current leading football club of the day and that might explain the older age group of fans for Manchester United and Liverpool. If Chelsea fans really are bandwagon jumpers, then we only need to see their reaction when they lose the plot. Last year, the club finished a record low at 10th position in the Premier League and failed to qualify for any competitions in Europe in 2016.

Chelsea 2015/16 Campaign
Some fans imploded. Some fans openly criticised their own players calling Hazard, Fabregas and Costa rats. The whole team were horribly off form and they lacked a credible game plan, effective playing style and seemed generally bereft of winning a game. It was obvious to the casual observer that Chelsea does not look like capable of creating chances let alone winning matches. The goals scored seemed to be created out of luck and the playing system was so unplayable, it was gut wrenching to watch. Honestly, when PSG was tied to play Chelsea in the Champions League, if one watched PSG played a match in Ligue 1, it appears that PSG already plays a lot better than Chelsea. PSG has fluidity in their play and talented players, Chelsea were the underdogs.

Chelsea 2015/2016 Squad Report

4-2-3-1

The 4-2-3-1 system then had Costa up front, Fabregas or Oscar in the number 9 position with Hazard and Willian on the flanks. Matic and Obi Mikel/ Fabregas played in the centre defensive role and Chelsea had 4 constantly changing defense. The fluidity of the team was nowhere. The team under Mourinho is famous for parking the bus and then utilising the talented wingers to wreck havoc on the counter. But this tactic is vulnerable to technically good players who can continue to keep the ball in possession or an organised defence which could cut the link between Chelsea's defence and attack. Two wingers and a creative player was not enough to create enough chances. The occasional Fabregas pass appears to be the only outlet a Chelsea goal may come from. Hazard tracked deep and had to slowly find a way to the oppositions third and the genuine lack of form of most players resulted in them constantly losing the ball. Also, the players rarely continue to find spaces to open up play when in possession and was so individualistic in their play. Thus, Chelsea rarely look to win matches. Obi Mikel is a classic old school CDM player but he constantly infuriates with his tendency to pass backwards and not contribute to attack at all. His defensive replacement, Fabregas does not contribute to defence, his only merit in providing the long accurate crosses from deep. Oscar was woeful and a subject of transfer speculation. Last season, he might find himself lucky to not play in a lower league side, such was his contribution to the overall gameplay. He is not as defensively astute as Obi Mikel (which was average, in my opinion) and does not have the creative eye to provide the killer pass like Fabregas. He is simply an average footballer, not fit for a team of stars like Chelsea. Sometime in the campaign, Willian and Hazard does not look like complimenting each other's play at all where they rarely passed or created chances for the other. They mainly prefer to have a solo run at the opposition. Hazard have a genuine footballing talent in his feet and this was seen in almost every match. The only problem last season was his luck in scoring and creating. if one watches Chelsea play, he was actually good contrary to the media's reports. The forwards too, suffered as a result of a lack of opportunities. Costa would be lucky to have one gilt-edged chance last season in one match, compared to numerous now and boy did he take it. His record haul of goal is impressive given the lack of clearcut chances. Pato was not good enough for the squad and deservedly had only so few starts. Traore was pacy and skillful but he have a very tame shot, which isn't enough to beat a Premier League goalkeeper. My main criticism of the defence is Branislav Ivanovic. Time and time again, he was the weak link in the defence. At 31 then, he is awfully slow and as a right back in the Premier League with nifty and fast wingers, you have to be fast too. Maybe defensively he is quite reliable in man marking but he constantly goes forward (which is bad, since he is slow in tracking back). He was really an Achilles Heel in the Chelsea backline. John Terry is a defense rock in his day and is a quality defender. In the 2014/15 season, his body was everywhere in the box. Somehow, shots are blocked by some body parts of his. Unfortunately, last season, not only was his defensive capabilities missing, his main problem, his lack of pace was a constant pick for marauding opposition forwards. Like a retiring Carlos Puyol, fast strikers like Shane Long and Aguero could easily find their way through. Finally in goal, Courtois was not as good as this season. I find myself craving for Petr Cech to be back. He showed little in his goalkeeping; unsuccessful dives, he was less agile and less focused. Asmir Begovic was even less convincing in goal. Finally, the fact that fringe players without as much quality as the others such as Baba Rahman and Kenedy could be the best player on the field shows how much Chelsea was lacking. There needs to be change.

Chelsea Preseason 2016
In comes Chelsea's preseason and Antonio Conte. Antonio Conte is a hawkish and tactically astute manager. He exploits and understands the game very well and it could be with his constant interaction and feedback from players that most benefits the club and him. In the preseason, he tested out many players in many positions. Look at Chelsea's first preseason match against Rapid Wein, it was utterly disastrous. Like most of last season, there was no fluidity, no eye-catching talent and the opposition looked to have better players instead! The match deservedly ended 2-0 in Rapid Wein's favour. The next matches against Wolfsberger and Werder Bremen showed a slow and hopeful progression. By the end of the match against Werder Bremen, Chelsea was playing like the team with talents they have, although with slight hiccups in the formation. The players are playing better, and Chelsea looked to be quite a formidable squad to be honest. The revelation of preseason saw the talent of Victor Moses and Ola Aina. Moses was a different calibre of player than Hazard. While Hazard was pacy and skillful, Moses was also pacy but he is more of a direct runner. He runs at defences head on and pushes defenders back. He was a joy to watch, an absolute beast and game changer in preseason and deservedly remained in the squad, eventhough initially only as back up for Willian and Hazard. Ola Aina was a welcome change at RB in exchange for Ivanovic. He was not overawed, he have composure and most importantly, pace. During preseason, Conte also brought in 4 great players in Michy Batshuayi, Ngolo Kante, David Luiz and Marcos Alonso.

Start of Season Formation
Come the start of the season, Chelsea played with roughly the same tactic as last season. The main exception was Kante in replacement of Obi Mikel/ Fabregas. The team played fairly better under Conte with more initiatives in the opposition's half, a sign of a promising good start. Players later attributed their organisation and better play to a better prepared preseason. Conte was astute even during the first few matches. He plays by his players strengths and suggestions. I reckon he asked his players on their most ideal playing situation before he made the last call as to who should play where. An early Conte tactic was to play in the same formation the players were comfortable with (4-2-3-1) before introducing 2 or 3 new forwards in the later part of the second half. We all know what fresh legs can do and the introduction of lethal game changing forwards like Moses and Pedro when the opposition are tiring can be a moral demoraliser for the opponent. The available forwards probably knew of the incoming change and it may have induced the forward starters to give their all, knowing they will be hauled off soon. Usually, Willian, Hazard or Costa may be subbed out and in comes Batshuayi, Pedro or Moses. This tactic worked at the start, earning Chelsea late wins against Watford and West Ham but more is needed than this "surprise" tactic to win game. For one, the better teams are so much more organised and playing a lot better. Arsenal's now famous 3-0 devastating win against Chelsea shows how much more Chelsea needs to change in order to win. The system, as like last season shows how little Chelsea could dominate or create chances. Outlet was too little and the formation was spread too thin. Thus, came Conte's famous switch to a back three. The 3-4-3 tactic was brilliant in compacting the otherwise stretched play of the team and addressed the holes inside the 4-2-3-1 shape. The team are playing closer together and are able to close opponent's formations faster and more effectively.

Front 3
The other revelation was the use of wingbacks, Victor Moses and Marcos Alonso. Personally, I too had not thought Moses could be a wingback, seeming as how he is good at attacking opponents defence with his direct running. At wingback, he still can do so but he have other responsibilities which may limit what he enjoys doing. In return, he gets playing time and a confirmed start in the starting lineup, a good tradeoff obviously. Starting from the front attacking 3, the players are closer together and able to create the devastating counterattack we see against Manchester City. Pedro and Hazard are skillful nifty players able at dribbling with pace through the backline. Costa too, is able at holding up play and dribbling but his main prowess lies in his shooting. He was always a strong shooter with strength to hold up play and swat away defenders, much like Didier Drogba. However, unlike Drogba, Diego Costa have pace which allows him to match the pace and style of play of Willian, Pedro, Moses and Hazard. He is part of an attacking unit synchronised to perfection. Willian always seems to be a good winger with a lot of pace and skill. Honestly, I would prefer him over Pedro because Willian is hugely consistent and always a threat going forward (Chelsea's Player of the Year in their most dreadful season). He is also capable of running, being at better positions and utilising wider spaces than Pedro who is more able in smaller forward positions although as we saw, Pedro is skillful in a niftily different way. (His backheel for Hazard to dribble home in the match against Leicester City was a peach of an assist) Eden Hazard is of course, if not as great, even greater this season. He plays in a  more forward position now and his pace and dribbling is simply a joy to watch. He creates more now with constant layoffs for teammates and his confidence is definitely there for him to take the occasional shots which some becoming goals. (As of now he have scored 8 times in 15 games.) A world talent and a gem of a talent indeed.

Mid 2
In midfield, we have the two in an almost Central Midfielder role, Nemanja Matic and Ngolo Kante. Kante, though he was a dominating force in the earlier games and a source of inspiration for Chelsea, he appears to not play so well as of late, but he do constantly steals the ball and defends very well. Matic is a joy to watch now. He do win balls as like previous seasons but now, he actually dribbles forward with the ball and take the occasional shots like Kante. In tandem, they take turns defending and attacking and hopefully, they can play even better in future matches. Not so surprisingly now, Matic now holds the highest amount of assist in the Chelsea squad at 6. Fabregas came on for Chelsea against Manchester City. The bad thing with Fabregas is he is nowhere in defence. He just do not defend or he can't. As a result, Manchester City could dominate the midfield position now almost entirely manned by Kante alone. The good thing is obviously his killer pass. He is so good at anticipating where his teammates will be and creating chances which was why he was probably the only creative outlet for goals last season. Overall dependence on individual quality was an undoing of Mourinho sides. Instead, collective play is the sides that win in current Premier League matches. (Look at West Brom, Man City, Liverpool and Arsenal where the team plays so well as a unit). Oscar is better too, in my opinion. When he plays, his defensive work is good although not as good as Matic or Kante and he is an able creator of chances too, thus I would not want him to leave just yet as he is at least a good replacement for many of the available positions in the squad.

Back 3
Moving to defence, what can I say? They have been fantastic. David Luiz especially was such an assured presence at the centre, I would not want anyone else to take his position. The Gaffer heads balls away and being good at his feet, he could dribble out of difficult positions to change from a defensive outlook to an attacking one. His freekicks are also dangerous and have that sudden dip at the end which makes it special and hard to save and I think it is down to luck that he have not scored so far. Azpi, though I did not like his contribution last season, is actually fantastic at the right side of a back 3. He is very fast, for one, and closes down opponents quickly, and he makes little error. Cahill is the defender receiving much of the criticism of late but I think he is very able. He have some pace in him and his defending is quite good. I rate him highly last season despite a poor defensive record. However, it can be seen at the start of the season he was so lacking in confidence, his passing was bad and his teammates tend to not want to pass to him. But for whatever happened, he showed true character to stay strong and remain in the squad. As I reiterate, he is a good defender and a captain as of now with Terry on the bench. His confidence may be a key to a solid backline. For whatever criticism that puts him down, he is a fighter to come back and prove himself time and time again.

Wingbacks 2
All that remains is that tricky wingback positions held by Moses and Alonso. Moses was a revelation. He tracks back often and constantly keeps wide to receive a long ball and start an attack. He defends well, winning important balls in a back 5 when Chelsea is defending and is a good attacking outlet in a front 5 when Chelsea attack. His direct running sometimes allow him to cut in an score, as he did against Tottenham and Leicester City, and his pace allows him to defend against fast wingers or wingbacks. Honestly, I would not want to rate Alonso too high. In my opinion, he is an average player compared to the form of the other players in the squad. He is just slightly better at the wingback role where his industry is required. So little players can fit in there. Pedro wouldn't make it, Willian would be a waste at wingback. Alonso was even picked to be the weak spot in Chelsea's defence against Manchester City. He does not have the pace of Moses but his industry is at least commendable. He is there to receive, he is there to provide. His passing is quite good, almost akin to Fabregas in my opinion; his long balls often almost leading to gilt-edged chances but unlike Fabregas, these chances are relatively few.
Finally, Courtois have changed my mind about him this season. He is an excellent goalkeeper and is proving to be the talent he had been touted to be for years. Because of him making so many crucial saves, Chelsea are winning. Honestly, without him, Chelsea would not have won as many matches. The Manchester United game, Leicester City, Tottenham, Manchester City, West Brom, West Ham. He made saves which I doubt many goalkeepers could make and is the last piece of defence I would not want changed. Asmir Begovic does not even come close to the quality of Thibaut Courtois, though Begovic is good for a Premier League goalkeeper. Courtois is a great goalkeeper indeed.

3-4-3

Substitutes
Some players in the bench deserves mention and praise this season. For the team, they had to settle for the bench and yet still produce the goods when called upon in an instant. Much like Andre Shurrle, a wonderful player at Chelsea and an effective wonder sub towards the end of his Chelsea stay, these players are constantly waiting for the opportune moment to shine. And shine they did. Michy Batshuayi, given the form Costa is in couldn't even start one match but as a sub, he did score and assist and from his style of play, he looks to be a strong shooter too. He can succeed and his lovable and eccentric personality will endear him to the Chelsea fans. Keep positive, Michy! Then there is Fabregas, a world class talent in passing. For the team, he now plies his trade as an impact player in moments of uncertainty for Chelsea, a reliable player to sub in. Another reliable player to wrap up play is young Nathaniel Chalobah. The defensive midfielder is quite average in winning balls and defending but he have some skill in him. At best now, until he matures and become better, he is a safe defensive option when Chelsea is winning. Oscar is already a good option to bring on and I should expect him to be subbed in or replace an injured player. Willian/Pedro are both good players vying for one spot in the starting 11. I would not mind either to start or finish as they are both quality players, as this season have shown. Ola Aina have yet to impress since his good preseason but he is still young, and can improve. Ivanovic is another defensive option to play in a back 5 in the closing stages of a winning game, thus I have no criticism of him unless he starts. He is good at defending and I expect a tiring fast paced opposition would not be as energetic or fast towards the end of the game.

Team Spirit/ Team Cliques
Another key aspect of Conte's management, be it down to luck or chance, is probably the handling of players mentality and squad togetherness. As often mentioned by David Luiz in his interviews, he kept on emphasising the bond among the first team players. In actual fact, Batshuayi and David Luiz's arrival may have forged a strong team spirit in Chelsea. Like most top football teams, there is bound to have people of many different nationalities. The Chelsea squad now currently seem to have three or maybe more camps, the English speakers, the Spanish speakers and the young Academy players. David Luiz is an important cog in the dressing room as he could seamlessly integrate with the Spanish speaking players, especially the Brazilians Willian and Oscar, but his fluency in English and happy-go-lucky attitude makes him comfortable with the other players too. He might even be a great warrior friend to the charmingly brash Diego Costa. Furthermore, he was part of the old Chelsea squad thus he would know a lot of the management and teammates already. Imagine if an Italian speaking Bonucci came instead! Batshuayi is a happy personality to be with and he have his national Belgium teammate in Hazard and Courtois, thus he have a natural connection in the squad. He is trying his best to learn English and is great at bantering on social media. His eccentricities could also be a great talking point. The former Academy players are understandably close; Aina, Chalobah, Loftus-Cheek and Solanke. Of course, here John Terry can be a role model and guidance for them to make the step up to the main team's level. Chelsea have always had strong characters in their squad who could hold it on their own. To name a few is to simply pick the recent batch of Chelsea legends, a lot of whom were national captains for their respective countries themselves. Michael Ballack, the player that got me supporting Chelsea when I started watching soccer, Frank Lampard, John Terry, Didier Drogba, Michael Essien and a lot more. Currently now we have Hazard, Ivanovic, Obi Mikel, and Traore serving as captains for their respective countries. Ultimately, this team spirit might be due to Chelsea's streak, or it could be an improbable clash of compatible personalities and players. Whatever the case, the Chelsea squad is ticking on the field.

Thus, is Conte's quite brilliant tactic in utilising players to their strengths. There are many creaks in the system though and it is not perfect. After the 5-0 thrashing of Everton, the players did not pick up where they left off and may even show a slight dip in form. As a result, as of late, Chelsea have been grinding out results instead of utterly dominating them. Luck have been on their side to ensure a 9th consecutive win, but so have hard work. Conte's team is still a work in progress and with some additions to the squad this January hopefully, they should be able to create a powerful squad to challenge for the title and Europe next season. Chelsea will rebuild from the ashes.

Influence

I am what I experience.

The sociologist George Herbert Mead wrote about The Self and coined what he termed the "I" and the "Me". When I was first introduced to Mead in Sociology, I found this concept utterly fascinating. The Self is essentially a socially-constructed entity created from the values, norms and beliefs of society which manifest within ourselves via agents of socialization, people whom we come into contact with. What this means is that our Self, what defines who we are, is really the sum of all that there is in our culture, the part that was transmitted to us. We are simply a reflection of our society and not an inherent Self. Therefore, there is not really an "I" as much as a "We", for I am Society.

"I" and "Me" takes a little abstraction to understand. The Me is the body in which other people are able to see and respond to. The I is the reaction and thoughts to a social situation which surrounds the "Me". For example, when someone insults you ( the "Me"), "I" will feel offended and will want to retaliate. However, "I" will then think about how will "Me" be perceived by others. Will Me be perceived as rude? Will "Me" be portrayed as sensitive? What should "Me" do then? "I" then chooses what "Me" should do so that "Me" can be portrayed as the best of what "I" wants. The constant interaction between the I and Me creates the person's Self. However, because the eventual conception of the Me is the direct response to the perception of others, thus the Self is really a manifestation of our surrounding culture. (Charles Horton Cooley had another interesting theory called "The Looking Glass Theory". What I am, is what I think you think I am.")

Socialization
Influence is everywhere. As long as you are in contact with someone or something man-made, you are in a sphere of influence. Research have shown that people who spend more time watching television will perceive reality more akin to the television world. Similarly, having different types of friends results in a person adopting different attitudes and habits which in turn, shapes their own decisions. So, how much influence does the people we come into contact with influence us? Based on Mead, they influence us totally. But why are people so different then? One possibility is that each one of us experience different agents of socialization. As mentioned before, agents of socialization are any people whom we come into contact with. The most influential agents of socialization are what Sociologists term as our Primary Groups; our families, school, peer groups and workmates. Our families for example, are our first introduction to Society, our first agents of socialization. They inform us about how people behave in the society. In a way, they also transmit their own interpretation of society to their children which are different than other families.

This have important consequences. In McIntyre's The Practical Skeptic, she mentioned that families also tend to pass down their idea of where they belong in the society as well. For example, researches have shown that parents of working class backgrounds prioritise "obedience" and "respect" in their children. This may be a reflection of their own personal experience of subjugation in order to be the best in their social class. On the other hand, parents of upper class backgrounds prioritise "intellectual curiosity" which may be important traits for management or positions of upper class in society. Thus, parents are teaching their children how to remain in their social classes irrespective if that was their intention or not! Our parents are huge influencers of our destiny.

The closer you are, the closer your Selfs will be
In schools and peer groups, the kid will also experience the Socialization process. For example, the School is where different pre-existing cultures first interact. A curious phenomenon social scientists tried to uncover is why do people gravitate towards people of roughly similar backgrounds. In the symbolic interactionist hypothesis (Mead and Cooley's hypothesis), people do so to prevent a personal culture shock and the shaking of one's existing Social beliefs. Sociologist Donna Eder even uncovered the interesting perpetuation of existing social classes in school. For example, "Rich kids are snobs while poor kids are dirty" are just some myths or prejudice which exists in the schools she studied which divides the school environment into different social classes. This phenomenon also affects the individual in choosing their social friends. For example, sometimes they mix with people who are "jocks", "slackers" or "nerds". In retrospect, the closer one gets with another person, the more closer one will see from the point of view of the other. "Rubbing off on one another" is an apt phrase to describe this Socialization process. Thus, whoever we meet and interact with and share our minds, perspectives or actions with, we internalise or recognise a little of what they bring and encode it into our Selfs.

A question can be posed then. Shouldn't siblings then have similar behaviors? It is true that some siblings do share similar idiosyncrasies found only in the family. However, firstly, the parent may not transmit the same culture, norms, beliefs and values to each children due to different amount of contact and the spontaneity of interactions and secondly, they will encounter other agents of socialization elsewhere. Thus, no two human is alike. The more time you spend with another person, in really understanding and interacting on a daily basis, the more you align your Social Self with the other person. Those who are closer or have similar social networks will tend to have closer norms, values and beliefs.

The further apart you are, the more different your Selfs will be
The opposite notion holds true when we compare between societies. The further away one is and have lesser contact with, the less the Society will resemble the other. Culture is after all, man-made. For example, a villager in a rural village in Vanuatu will have different norms, customs and beliefs than say a cosmopolitan in New York City. We even find a difference in culture between different ethnic groups and even between occupations. A drastic example would be a cannibalistic tribe, if there still is one, which most likely should have close to no contact with the outside world or they would have adopted the global norm/belief that cannibalism is taboo. However, when these cultures come into contact with other cultures, a process of cultural levelling occurs. We see adoption of other cultures into another culture. For example, we find Sushi Bars in New York. The more one culture have contact with another culture, the more their behavior, norms and values will converge. That is why we have almost universal values in which we have all agreed upon such as slavery or incest being not right.

Isolation
However, a more contentious argument may be found in Mead/ Cooley's idea. If the Self is an actualization of society, if a person does not interact with society, it means that the person does not have a Self. In other words, babies cannot be considered to be "human" or have "humanity" until they come into contact with people. Two examples can be brought up from this notion. The case of Isabelle and the case of Anna, both feral children. Both were brought up in isolation and hence, when suddenly reintegrated back into society, both displayed non-human characteristics and behavior. They behaved like "wild animals". Isabelle was able to reintegrate back into society after a couple of years but Anna didn't. One explanation provided was that Anna had less contact with human during her isolation years because Isabelle at least had her mother who nurtured her although minimally. Humans have a tendency to socialize and this tendency is innate. People go mad with lack of socialization and the renowned Sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote an entire thesis on the relation of Suicides with Egoism (A lack of social integration).

Deviance
Other interesting aspects about this theory is how people of differing cultures are able to interact with one another and what happens when your perspective is largely against your society's. In this hypothesis, people who have differing cultures from the main society will be ostracized or negatively sanctioned. E.g: Cannibal, criminal. The difference must be therefore little and able to be adopted or assimilated into general society. E.g: Religion abiding to state marriage regulations for marriage registration. However, as norms, beliefs and values are man-made and ever changing depending on the mindset and influence of every single individual in the community, a deviant can technically influence society to his or her way of thinking if he ir she can convince enough people. Durkheim even instigated this notion by adding that today's deviance may be tomorrow's hero. Honestly, most of Sociology lessons was like brain porn to me and I loved it because it helps me explain the many uncertainties surrounding myself. Or, like most science, at least gave me a reason as to why things are as they seem, eventhough it may not be true. See "Faith in Reason".

Individual Experience
On a personal scale, I am the embodiment of all the cultural attributes of my society. My viewpoints should reflect mainly my agents of socialization. However, due to the increasing availability of connections brought about by globalisation, I will be able to tap upon vast experiences of different cultures and agents of socialization. People say that travelling will widen one's view of the world. Cooley and Mead's Symbolic Interactionist Theory confirms this. The type of people I choose to be with will eventually shape and orient my own mindset.

I control my influences
Strangely, this also means that I am given the personal freedom to at least choose how and to whom I will be influenced by. Whether it is fate or predestination which led me to meet different people, or whether the world is an immensely complicated algorithm which made me meet someone because of what I already am, that can be a whole new topic on it's own. For now, in my obviously insanely limited sight, I am, in essence, who I choose to want to be.