Do Chelsea Really Have “strength in depth”?

There’s been lots of talk of “strength in depth” this season, and how Manchester United can’t compete with Chelsea there. And from a glace, yeh, it seems obvious to agree with that. Chelsea have had Robben on their bench for most of the season, when he’s good enough to make the first team of most top teams in Europe.

But now we’ve seen Chelsea lose their lead two games in a row. Sure, against Wigan they scored in the third minute of injury time to get the points, but surely we’d never expect a team like Chelsea to lose a 2-0 lead against Wigan… not when they have all these options? And yesterday at home, twice taking the lead, twice conceding.

Of course, this is because John Terry is out. We can look to Petr Cech as well, but Chelsea weren’t struggling defensively before JT’s injury. They matched United’s goals conceded as the least in the league.

It’s always going to be hard to replace players like John Terry, and not even Chelsea could have a player with as much quality and influence as JT on their bench. But surely they could have a better option than that clown Boulahrouz?

We talk about strength in depth, but would you rather Wes Brown on your bench or Boulahrouz? Shaun Wright Phillips or Park Ji Sung? Kalou or Solskjaer?

Who would miss their first team players more?
Ronaldo - 10 league goals……Drogba - 12 league goals
Saha - 8 league goals…………Lampard - 7 league goals
Rooney - 8 league goals……..Ballack - 3 league goals
Solskjaer - 5 league goals……Shevchenko - 3 league goals

Rooney - 6 assists………….Lampard - 7 assists
Giggs - 5 assists…………….Robben - 4 assists
Ronaldo - 4 assists…………Drogba - 3 assists
Saha - 4 assists…………….Essien - 3 assists

Manchester United have their assists and goals spread out across the team, whereas Chelsea seem to have a few players who contribute more heavily.

I’m posing questions as much as making a point. But do Chelsea really have as much strength in depth as people talk about?

Comments

Leave a comment