didier-drogba.jpgIn one of his typical post-match conferences last week, Grant made a mention that we don’t play long balls anymore. Of course, he did not say that in a ‘statement-of-fact’ manner. He sounded rather proud. This brings about some vital questions – What do we mean by ‘long balls’? Were we playing long balls? Should we stop playing long balls?

We don’t play long balls. We now play with a lot of combinations and short passes. If you look at the games we create two or three times more chances than the opposition. We try to be organized between our defence and midfield and our forwards.

This is where I lose it. What’s this thing about Chelsea ‘now’ playing with combinations and short passes? I’ve seen most of our matches of the last three seasons many times over and over again. We have always played with combinations and stuff. Did you see JM’s last match in charge? That 1-1 draw against Rosenborg? Anyway, let me stay on topic – long balls.

As far as I know, by ‘long balls’ we refer to those hopeful hoofs from own half to the centre of the final third, which normally results or expected to result in a fifty-fifty header. Were we playing too many ‘long balls’ before’? My answer is no, a big resounding NO. All our attacks were through either flanks with our attacking midfielders let loose. Of course we did make many early crosses to take advantage of Drogba’s presence and that was perfectly logical and tactical. Ashley Cole and Drogba had terrific chemistry on the pitch, which proved very effective several times. If Drogba is upfront, the opposition would be hoping that we don’t attack in the air because Drogba wins the ball in the air more often than not. The long balls were never from the centre backs, they were from the wing backs from the side midfield area. So if these early crosses are being termed as ‘long balls’, that’s a very unfortunate understanding of the game.

Grant proclaims that we won’t play long balls anymore. That’s ok but wait, if ‘early crosses = long balls’, then I don’t think that’s right. Do you realise why we are not playing any so called long balls nowadays? It is quite logical because we don’t have anyone with strong aerial skills, in the absence of Drogba. To say this in Drogba’s absence is very opportunistic. But why is this ‘long ball’ a bad thing? Rafa never got branded like this when he was using Peter Crouch upfront which gave him a big advantage in the air. This season Arsenal have scored so many goals this season using those looping long balls. What is David Beckham? Longballer with no skill? Are we going to value those long shot screamers any less than the goals scored by 21 passes? To shoot from 35 yards, to get it on target and to beat the keeper, it takes tremendous amount of skill. That’s the same with ‘long balls’ too.

Even if we are going to play ‘long balls’, how many times would we be trying? Hardly a few times, which is what the top European teams would do, if they have a striker of Drogba’s quality. When you know that your opponent weakness happens to be your strength, what should you be doing?

Lots of those jealous rival fans who could not stomach the fact that we are superior to them in the air, did make silly remarks about our aerial prowess. Certainly I did not expect our own manager to mock our tactics. It is a tactic that our players and coaching staff believed in, and to disparage it while they’re all still around is not a good idea. I’m all to support Avram. In order to retain his job or to win the confidence of all (especially that of the owner) or prove himself, he need not show that his predecessors were bad. It is one thing about not playing long balls (which I don’t agree) and the other about going to the press with such remarks (which I hate!).

My verdict on this matter is very clear. The tactic that we employ depends on the strengths and weakness of our players and the players that we play against. That means if an aerially strong striker is upfront, I’d always prefer to trouble the opposition with early crosses.