You have to feel for Andre Villas-Boas. He inherited a somewhat broken strike force when he took over at Chelsea. Drogba, whilst still able to perform at a high level, is undoubtedly past his best, Torres has failed to settle ever since his high profile move last January and Anelka is out of favour; so much so that he has been allowed to leave in the upcoming transfer window. Apart from that the Portuguese manager has Kalou and Sturridge at his disposal.
Recently Villas-Boas has been using Drogba, to decent effect, in his team. However there is a problem with this. Drogba will be leaving for the African Cup of Nations. You get the feeling that in order to get the best out of one of his strikers Villas-Boas had to put his faith in one of them, he had to inspire belief in to either Drogba or Torres. He chose Drogba, which is fine, but it won’t have done Torres’ confidence any favours.
[ad_pod id=’unruly-2′ align=’left’]
Because both Kalou and Drogba are playing for the Ivory Coast you would presume that they would be in the competition for a reasonable amount of time. If you combine this with the sale of Anelka then Chelsea could be without Drogba, Anelka and Kalou come January, and a few weeks in to February as well. During this time they also have to play rivals Manchester United, and, if Torres hasn’t found his form by then, Sturridge will have to lead the line. There is no doubt that Sturridge is improving with every month that goes by; but after all the money they have spent over the last five years how are they in a position where Daniel Sturridge, a striker who last year was playing for Bolton, will be their main striker?
Nobody is saying that Sturridge will not be up to the task, but at a crucial time in the season was it not a little short-sighted of the Chelsea manager to get rid of Anelka in a time of need? Torres will always be a talented player, but he is heinously inconsistent at the moment and whilst Anelka has not been scoring goals of late his build up play is always exceptional and the fact that Villas-Boas has had him training with the reserves seems a little insulting to a striker that a) has given a lot to Chelsea, possibly more than he has given to any club and b) could be a useful part of the squad whilst the African players are away.
Anelka may not have acted as the front man for Chelsea in Didier’s absence, but his presence, and the experience that goes with it, could have been invaluable next to Sturridge who, although talented and athletic, still has a lot to learn.
Who knows, maybe Abramovich has told Villas-Boas that he is willing to back him in the January transfer window. But even if that is the case who are Chelsea going to buy? How much money will Abramovich really be willing to spend in January after being burnt with Torres a year ago. And, if Villas-Boas hasn’t already lined up a potential target then, no matter what he thought of Anelka as a player, it was rash to agree to his sale before he had a replacement lined up. Chelsea have options up front, don’t get me wrong, Mata is excellent and Malouda has not totally lost his worth. But do they have enough options to cope with the loss of Drogba and Kalou? I’m not so sure. The competition for places in the top six is incredibly tight and this is exactly the sort of problem that could cost Chelsea their objectives, and that is before you even consider the possibility of an injury to Sturridge or Torres. I can understand that Anelka’s contract is up at the end of the season and it may have made financial sense to sell him in January, but is anyone really going to tell me that a team that could pay £50m for one player, couldn’t afford to let Anelka run down his contract in order to provide cover for the potential six weeks that Drogba could be away for? It seems unlikely.
Follow me on Twitter @H_Mackay
[divider]
FREE football app that pays you CASH
[ad_pod id=’qs-2′ align=’left’]
