Liverpool FC Forum

[L-type]

Tuesday night's reprisal of Old Trafford's 'pizza wars' match between the second and third best teams in the country produced only one winner, and it wasn't Manchester United. 

Though they trooped off the pitch ******-a-hoop at their deserved three points it was Chelsea who had bigger cause to celebrate. How they must have enjoyed the sight of their two nearest rivals cutting each other to bits - quite literally in some instances.
 
Quite simply, Chelsea have redefined the operating parameters of English football's elite. After a brief, and many would say welcome period of collective austerity and prudent financial belt-tightening by England's Premier League clubs, Chelsea have once more turned everything upside down.
 
If Leeds United failed to learn any lessons from 'Ridsdale The Terrible's' reign of financial tomfoolery at least everyone else did. Their relegation and subsequent demotion to the back waters of English football for the forseable future (not to mention their having fallen prey to the clutches of Ken Bates) is warning enough.
 
Admittedly Manchester United bucked the new thrifty trend somewhat when they spent £25m on one player, Wayne Rooney, but that was their entire spending budget for the season gone in one fell swoop. Arsenal have remained cautious while Liverpool's splashing of £6 million in the January transfer window on Fernando Morientes was borne out of necessity rather than an avaricious desire to snap up all available talent.
 
But since the summer of 2003, Chelsea's billionaire owner Roman Abramovich has spent an obscene amount of money on a colossal number of new players and the question is, can any club ever hope to compete with his seemingly endless reserves of wealth?
 
It wasn't that long ago the same questions were being asked of Manchester United. Commerically, light years ahead of the rest and with a fan base the envy of every other club on earth United appeared set fair to dominate for as long as they liked. They too had a pretty decent manager at the helm and had got themselves into the trophy-winning groove.
 
But in the blink of an eye their dominance has begun wavering; firstly to Arsenal, champions in 1998, 2000 and 2004, and now it appears, to Chelsea.
 
Ferguson is a fading force and so is his squad. They may have enough about them to bring a bit more silverware to Old Trafford in the next year or two but there's a feeling that this particular spin of their cycle of success has almost run its course. That's what happens in football regardless of the wealth a club has.
 
But where does all this jostling of the new 'big three' leave Liverpool? Well, United's loosening grip, rather than boding well for the two London teams, may well be a harbinger of better times ahead for Rafa Benitez and his developing squad.
 
A look back at post-war history in English football tells us that basically only two teams have ever dominated proceedings with any real longevity: Liverpool and United. Liverpool won the first post-war title (1946-47) before falling into a decade of decline (and the Second Division for a spell) during which time Matt Busby's United helped themselves to three titles.
 
The 60s saw a rare period of both club's handing over the title to each other twice in four years before United's fall from grace (and a visit of their own to Division 2) coincided with the beginning of Liverpool's long period of dominance; a period that lasted nigh on twenty years. When Liverpool's golden era receded into the history books it was United who picked up the baton, taking 8 out of the 11 titles contested since 1993.
 
In the 57 seasons since the end of the war Liverpool and United have won 27 titles between them, 14 FA Cups, 8 League Cups and 10 assorted European trophies.
 
So it's largely been a case or either us or them with increasingly infrequent moments of fleeting glory for lesser clubs such as Leeds (late 60s, early 70s and '92), Derby County and Nottingham Forest (mid-late 70s). Even Everton won a couple of titles in the Harry Catterick era and another two under Howard Kendall's 1980s incarnation.
 
Arsenal's trio of Premiership titles won under Arsene Wenger and spread over eight seasons can hardly be advanced as evidence of national dominance. Indeed, their woeful European record during the same period says more about the legitimacy of their ridiculously claimed right to be acclaimed 'immortal'.
 
With a solitary title success in 1955 and a smattering of cup victories to their name, Chelsea don't even appear on the radar.
 
Their current saunter to Premiership glory can only be viewed in much the same manner as Blackburn Rovers' surgically enhanced effort of ten years ago (sadly for Rovers, Jack Walker's implants couldn't save the same club from relegation two years later). Those who point to the depth of Roman Abramovich's wealth make the point that it is of a whole magnitude greater than Walker's. Yes it is but any power concentrated into the hands of a single man remains at the whim and mercy of that man. When Abramovich has had enough, or heaven forbid, falls under a bus, what happens then?
 
Many clubs, including United, Liverpool and Arsenal have not been shy to splash money in the past but it's always been money earned the right way by those respective clubs, either through gate receipts or via the commercial bonanza associated with ongoing success. In short, these clubs have used football to generate their money and have reinvested large chunks of it back into the 'business'.
 
Even when multi-millionaire business men pump money into a club it's usually based on a share issue or a sound commercial valuation of the club's worth.
 
Chelsea have taken a different route. They have suddenly and undeservedly been swamped with an Everest-like mountain of readies. They are like a classless lottery winner trying desperately to move upmarket, not realising that the people they aspire to rub shoulders with neither like nor respect them. We just don't buy into it. We all know how it's been achieved and it stinks.
 
The sad thing, notwithstanding the club was very seriously in debt, is that Chelsea prior to the end of 2002-03 were doing well through conventional means. Claudio Ranieri was building a good squad and had guided them into the Champions League (at Liverpool's expense). We didn't like it but there were no gripes about how their gradual and unequivocal improvement was being engineered. It was being done the 'football way'.
 
This season's title charge has been impressive, but only in the same way that Ben Johnson's tainted Olympic Games 100 metre sprint was impressive in 1988. It would have been far more impressive had it been achieved on the back of honest toil. Their fans must know it too. Their success this season will be long remembered as a hollow victory.
 
It's akin to beating a three-year old at Monopoly or a ninety-year old in an arm wrestle. What's the point exactly? What a sad legacy to pass on to the fans of the club that gave us Chopper Harris and David Webb, two of the most colourful and committed characters the game in England has ever seen.
 
Still, they would do well to heed the lessons of history. When United wane it's usually Liverpool who take up the mantle. Rafa Benitez is the right man to take Liverpool forward. He may have to contend with the tawdry upstarts from Stamford Bridge for a few years, and at the time of writing I've no idea at all how Abramovich, Jose Mourinho and co, will screw things up, but I've no doubt the much vaunted period of dominance Chelsea fans seem to think is theirs for the taking simply won't happen.
 
Liverpool seemed impregnable in the 1980s, United in the 1990s and now Chelsea seem set fair to dominate the remainded of the 'noughties'. However, for all their wealth and the associated ability to go out and buy whoever and whenever they feel like it Chelsea's new found success appears to me to be founded on feet of clay.
 
It would be a foolish man who bets on them dominating the English game in the same way United and Liverpool havedone.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/mediawatch/drilldown/MW7572050203-0851.htm

__

Sounds realistic and for the most part unbiased, I thought it was a good read, I'll see what you all think.

[azriahmad]

I don't know about follish to bet on Chelsea dominating Europe, but with the squad they have and a very clever and competitive manager, it seems like logical that Chelsea will be in with a strong shout in the CL.

Unlike the Premiership, the CL is not a marathon but requires some element of luck as it is not always the case that the very best team wins. This is also partly due to the fact that the games are played with a break from Oct-Dec to Feb-May the following year where some teams who start brightly can come back and do disasterously in the second phase due to a bad spell (loss of foem, injuries etc) in the second part of the CL.

With the expanded format of the CL these days, it is much harder to win it and Porto had a lot of luck as they were not drawn against AC Milan or Juventus or Real Madrid. AC Milan was undone by Deportivo and Berlusconi who publically stated that AC Milan must play a more attacking game with 2 strikers and not just 1, which was promptly adhered to by his manager and they lost 4-0 (how many times has AC Milan ever conceded more than 2 goals?). Madrid and Chelsea lost to Monaco. Even Maurinho admitted that Porto had rode their luck to the CL win last year in the knock-out stages, especially at Old Trafford.

Realistically, with the squad that they have and with Maurinho successfully embedding a very high work ethic amongst his charges, Chelsea do have a good chance of becoming a success in Europe.

[azriahmad]

Also, it is always the bast teamm that wins the league championship and Chelsea, at this moment, like them or not, are the best team in the EPL. Their consistency and ability to grind out wins even when not being on top form, in an indication that they are amongst the best teams.

[KennyisGod....still]

Like it or not, you can buy all the players you want but it still takes some skill to make them play together effectively. What Ranieri did last season was astounding, but Mourinho has also done a damn good job this season. I have absolutely no doubt that given the money Benitez could do the same, but he's had to cope with injuries and the like all season. Apparently Chelski have to be 'financially independant' by 2010 so we'll all jus have to wait and see if Abramovich carries on pumpin money into the club. If he doesn't then I dont see the EPL becomin the one club competition that other ppl see it as. And at the end of the day, at least JM press conferences are a breath of fresh air compared to Wenger (I didnt see it...........) and Ferguson (It was their fault, look at the tapes.....) dont you think?
As for Rafa, he carries on revivin this club slowly but surely and the phoenix shall rise from the ashes. Next season may not be early enough for some ppl, but its a more realistic yardstick to judge the man by, especially after so much bad luck this time around.

[kazza]

I think that the formula that teams like Real Madrid and now Chelsea are using of buying heavy every year will not work in the medium or long term and may only work in the short term.

The core of football is about teamwork and for teams to be great like liverpool in the 70's/80's and United in 90's they must have a team of excellent players that play well and for each other. A team can only do this when they have played together for a while.

I think the euphoria of new players, new manager and new staff has given Chelsea the energy to glue the team together but it will not last (even though I thought they would have unravelled by now). They may win 4 honors this year, but long term this formula of buying everything will never allow the team to reach its potential. I do not remember manure or us for that matter (when we won everything) buying so many players in one season. Great (long term) teams must be stable, and cannot be when a constant stream of new players (and managers) join every season.

Finally Chelsea seem to play for ego (both the owner's and the manager's) and not for the fans (let's face it, most Chelsea fans support the team because of fashion, and have only been fans for a short while. With them it seems more about the glamour rather than the football).

Finally Abramovich stole about 7 billion pounds of Russian money and they want it back. This story will not go away and is worth keeping an eye on.

Win while you can Roman, because you will end up watching Chelsea lose from jail with your cell mate bubba. Anybody seen the soap?

[liamac]

I mentioned the fact that Abramovich is wanted by the russian equivalant of the inland revenue some time ago on here in a thread along with someone else.
He is wanted for embezalment ( cant remember how to spell it ! ) and their tax office wants him extradited from the UK
The Russian president basicly wants to take the russian oil companies back into state ownership and Abramovich allthough close to Putin is the last "Oligarch" in the way to all the oil being back in state ownership. Id say within the next 5 years we will see the biggest nose dive in footballing history ,far worse than that of Leeds. Its not a wish or hope ,its a real feeling .
Its rightly been said that it is a hollow victory winning the league this way ,just as Blackburn did  and when Arsenal or the mancs have won other than us  ,its been thru hard work and graft not mafia millions

[109-1105722616]

he'll leave them soon as they win a title or 2 and move to formula one.  cant remember who told me that but it was probably bullsh1t

[109-1105722616]

should roman p1ss off and leave them in a proper mess, a lot fo their players will be going dirt cheap and the likes of us, arsenal and the scum will be able to pick them up cos they are settled in england.