When will they ever learn?

Well, we can't say we weren't warned. Frank Lampard's sacking has been on the cards, even before the mid-season slump. Some rumours suggest that the club was unhappy with things at the end of last season, Lampard's first in charge, and one which began with a transfer ban, the loss of Eden Hazard, and a reliance on fast-tracking youth, and ended with a FA Cup Final appearance, fourth spot in the Premier League and qualification for this season's Champions League (which, by the way, Chelsea are into the last 16).

But, then, this is Chelsea. Whatever the end-of-term report last summer said has merely been compounded by the indifferent form in recent weeks, losing five of the last eight league games and, then, not losing well. Yesterday's win over Luton Town in the FA Cup Fourth Round was a welcome fillip, but with more potential banana skin league fixtures coming up with Wolves on Wednesday and Burnley on Sunday, Roman Abramovich is clearly not taking any chances. The FA Cup is one thing. The Premier League is something else entirely. 

And, so, the wheel at Chelsea Football Club turns once more, with another manager making way after a short tenure. A penny, then, for the thoughts of Pep Guardiola, Jurgen Klopp and even Ole Gunnar Solskjær, none of whom produced spectacular results in the early days of their time as managers at Manchester City, Liverpool and Manchester United, and yet have, generally, come extremely good. Lampard has had just 18 months in charge, admittedly with six or so of those with £200 million-plus worth of new players under his belt, including the likes of Timo Werner and Kai Havertz, Germans of whom much has been expected, and yet haven't yet delivered. The thinking now is that Lampard will be replaced by a German-speaking manager to get the best out of the pair, with Leipzig's Julian Nagelsmann and former PSG boss Thomas Tuchel high on the list, as well as Southampton's Ralph Hasenhüttl.

As this blog (and its predecessor) has catalogued, depressingly, Chelsea's impatience is frustrating. Then again, you could argue, somewhat coldly, that Chelsea's habit of dispensing with managers so frequently has been key to their success. It does, though, leave this fan in particular feeling dispirited. Club loyalty isn't bought by success. While we have, in the Abramovich era, enjoyed a success that wouldn't have seemed possible when I first went regularly to Stamford Bridge, with Chelsea playing in front of crowds of 7,000 in the old Second Division, we have always enjoyed a sense of entitlement to being something bigger (and in those days, far bigger than we actually were). Today, Chelsea are considered part of the "big six", a fact that still sticks in the craw of Liverpool and Manchester United fans who've experienced their own wilderness years (adding Tottenham to that cabal for good measure). But we are where we are, and Abramovich's largesse has got us there. And so it's only natural that he should be ruthless in protecting his investment. But with each managerial sacking - especially with someone universally liked, and particularly so, in the case of Lampard - a little piece of the love for Chelsea dies.

I get it. It's a business, and if you run a business badly, your board will remove you. But football is also a different animal. It's sport, performance sport. Elite players are not plug-and-play components, and while I don't even pretend to understand the science that goes into football coaching, I know that you can't just match up a coach and a set of expensively-assembled players and it all falls into place. And even when it does, new challenges come along. Again, just ask Guardiola, Klopp, Solskjær, Mourinho, Arteta or any one of the other Premier League managers who, at various times, walk the tightrope.

Time, we know, is not in the football manager's gift, and Chelsea managers in particular know this more than most. What frustrates me more than anything else about Lampard's sacking is not his exalted status as the club's all-time record goalscorer and a proper club legend, but that he hasn't been given time to develop the project. Success under Abramovich has to be instant. This, I also believe, is because he has too many people in his ear who are more concerned with what the football commentariat has to say than the actual reality. It feels like Lampard has been talked into the sack by media headlines saying that, though I'm sure the decision-making process was a lot more thorough than simply looking at the back pages.

Taking out, for a moment, the emotional attachment fans have to Lampard, he represented a challenge that always was going to need time. In his maiden season in charge, it was clear that the youngsters (and club youth products) he was forced to play, like Tammy Abraham, Mason Mount, Reece James and Callum Hudson-Odoi actually represented a promising future. They still do, of course, especially Mount, who was given the captain's armband yesterday against Luton and looked like it was his destiny, especially having been at Chelsea since he was six-years-old. Managerial comings-and-goings are part of football, so even to these youngsters Lampard's sacking won't be a surprise. These kids will not have been immune to the ruthlessness with which Abramovich has axed his managers (which isn't all that different to the attrition rate under Ken Bates). But taking the helicopter view, it's a worry that, having been brought on so far, a change of manager and the likelihood of someone with absolutely no past connection with this talented group will impede their development. Look how many loan spells Abraham had before any first team head coach would give him a start.

It remains to be seen who Chelsea will go with now, but it's safe to assume that the names of Tuchel and Nagelsmann appearing in the press is no coincidence. Tuchel, in particular, will be a divisive appointment, given his departure from PSG and the nature of his relationship with the French club's hierarchy. The bottom line, though, is that there doesn't seem to be the ideal Chelsea manager. None last long, not even a favourite son like Lampard. The last such gamble on a younger manager was André Villas-Boas, appointed in June 2011 and fired the following March. His replacement, Roberto Di Matteo - another club legend - went on to win the Champions League itself...only to be fired in the November after a dip in form. And so the cavalcade of managers - some popular choices, like Carlo Ancelotti, some less popular, like Rafa Benitez - has come and gone. At the same time, the club has won four league titles under three different managers, five FA Cup finals under as many head coaches, and three European trophies under three bosses. Yes, there may be some method in the madness, but it leaves the bitterest of tastes in the mouth. As The Times' chief football writer, Henry Winter, wrote prophetically this morning: "A personal wish would be for Lampard to be given until the end of the season, given a chance to get Chelsea back into the Champions League, and if he fails, at least Abramovich can look a club legend in the eye and say thanks but goodbye. Lampard certainly deserves that respect." That he does, that he does.

Christmas cheer, Chelsea-style

Picture: Reuters

A look, this morning, at the Premier League table and there is a chasm of just seven points separating Liverpool at the summit from plucky Southampton in ninth and at the bottom of a mini-league on 25 points. The main point here being that everyone seems to be circling around each other at the moment, and despite Liverpool’s ominous position at the top (well, ominous until Sam Allardyce came along yesterday), the fact that Manchesters United and City are back in the running, along with Leicester and Everton are indications that, surprisingly for the Christmas period - slap bang in the centre of the middle third of the season already - it’s anyone’s guess who’ll end up in a Top Four finish come May, or June, or October, or whenever this season actually ends.

Read the back pages and on any given day someone will write about any one of about six or even seven teams being title contenders. Or, to put it another way, have a good run and, apparently, you’re putting together a tilt. Even Manchester United, implausibly now up to fourth. So where does that leave Chelsea? Saturday’s match at the Emirates was one of the most lethargic performances I’ve seen from Frank Lampard’s side since he took charge, and really it shouldn’t have been. Premier League footballers are too professional to go nuts on the Christmas indulgence, so the apparent legginess couldn’t have been caused by overdoing the port and cheese (which would be my ready excuse for anything over the last 72 hours). So, quite why they allowed an Arsenal, stripped of many of their regular starters through illness, and coming to the game on the back of a truly abject run that raised very real questions about Mikel Arteta’s future, to monster them in such a decisive fashion is baffling. And troubling.

Let’s face it, Christmas is a lousy time for football. In normal times, the fans aren’t up for Boxing Day fixtures - especially the ridiculous 12.30 kick-offs that television scheduling insists on - and the pile-up of games has a noticeably diminished return as the period progresses. Frankly I’m usually grateful to get past New Year and onto the FA Cup Third Round. But that doesn’t excuse Chelsea’s dismal performance on Saturday that left them lying seventh (now eighth, at time of writing) and with an ugly looking record of three defeats out of their last five matches, all of them away. Lampard will have plenty to think about before making his team selection for tonight’s home fixture against Aston Villa but, then, he presumably had some weighing up to do against Arsenal. 

On Saturday, performances seemed to drop off a cliff before our vary eyes. “It wasn’t good enough,” said the Chelsea coach afterwards, adding that he was angry about the missed opportunity to go second. “You get what you deserve,” he ruminated. “Lazy,” was the other part of his assessment. “Lazy to give away a free-kick that [Xhaka] puts in the top corner,” he railed to Sky Sports, “and I'm very, very disappointed in the way we approached the first half, because some things in football are basics. It's not tactics or systems, it is 'do you want to run, back your teammate out and sprint'? Or do you want to jog and say 'maybe I don't have to run,' and we took that decision instead of the right one.”

One can imagine the atmosphere on board the Chelsea team bus back from Islington to Cobham was as chilly as the blustery evening had been in anticipation of Storm Bella blowing in. Lampard’s frustration was understandable, and while it’s usual for know-it-alls to say that a coach needs to take as much blame for a bad defeat as his players, on this occasion, it was clear how much his players were lacking. Timo Werner continued his frustrating run of games without anything meaningful in front of goal; Tammy Abraham continued to demonstrate what a dedicated forward he is, but without the goals to show for it, save for that one consolation (which was subject to scrutiny after the linesman ridiculously ruled offside due to a hair on the striker’s knee being slightly too close to goal than regulations allow). Still, though, Olivier Giroud sat it out in quiet frustration in the stands, a picture of seemingly stoic acceptance, despite knowing how he would have liked to get on and play against his former club. 

What Chelsea lacked in the forward line-up, they didn’t exactly make up for in their midfield and wide players. Even if Callum Hudson-Odoi, brought on at the break, injected some vim into the play, it was a rare uptick by anyone in blue. Jorginho’s latest missed penalty seemed to sum up the team’s performance - another one of his hop-skip-jump efforts that lacked any power and was promptly stopped by Leno. Really, it shouldn’t even be a case of sending him back to the training pitch to practice. He should never take another for the club again. 

Arsenal’s goals were well taken, but as good as they were, Chelsea were also at fault for all three: a needless penalty given away by Reece James, a cheap free kick conceded by the usually dependable N’Golo Kanté, and then Bukayo Saka’s bizarre cross that somehow redirected itself and into the goal, like a cruise missile dynamically changing course at the last minute and down a different chimney to the one its handlers had intended. With the exception, perhaps, of Christian Pulisic and Mason Mount’s ever-present industry (although even they were off their usual pace), none of the team Lampard put out against Arsenal did much to draw praise. It wasn’t that they were bad, per se, it’s just that they were just so ineffective. Yes, lethargic. Which means that the selection tonight against a vibrant Villa - who sit one place above Chelsea on goal difference, but with two games in hand - will be crucial. Because if Chelsea’s supposed best 11 can put in such a dismal shift against an Arsenal we thought were there for the taking, the second string certainly won’t fare so well.

Inevitably, though, questions are being asked again about Lampard’s own future. Lying eighth in a tight title race is not what Roman Abramovich bankrolled a £250 million summer spending spree for. The pressure is on the 42-year-old manager do better in his second season than the fourth place and a cup final finish from his first. Christmas is a lousy period to assess a football team, with the fixture logjam - worsened by the pandemic - making life hard for any team. Lampard faces the challenge that they are already four points off where they were after 15 games last season, with too many in-form teams above Chelsea who could pull away further. He’s clearly also dealing with some fitness issues in his squad. Ben Chillwell made such a miraculous recovery after exiting the home West Ham fixture after seven minutes with an ankle problem, that his teammates called him ‘Lazarus’. He definitely wasn’t sharp enough against Arsenal, as could be said of his neighbour in the backline, Thiago Silva. And elsewhere along the defence, Reece James looked like he wasn’t firing on all cylinders, either. But, then, Lampard has options. Club captain César Azpilicueta is still one of the best right-backs in the business, even if he's lost his starting place to James. To add to this, Lampard's religious adherence to 4-3-3 is starting to highlight a lack of flexibility that means he labours with Werner in his left-of-centre forward position.

“They have gone from looking one of the paciest, quickest sides in the Premier League, to one of the most pedestrian,” former Chelsea midfielder Craig Burley said on ESPN, noting that such a dip in form is the sort of thing the capricious Abramovich, takes note of - whether the head coach is a club legend or not. “I’m not suggesting Abramovich is going to sack him in the next couple of weeks,” Burley added, “but there is one thing they need to remember – top four. If they don’t get in the top four, he’s probably done.”

Picture: Facebook/Chelsea FC

An ominous thought to end on, and although one bad game at Christmas doesn’t make a disaster, three defeats in as many trips away is the stuff of form issues. The next few weeks of league and cup fixtures are not going to be helped by individual players at Lampard’s disposal not pulling their weight, either due to confidence or fitness, factors that can be helped by the coaching staff. 

Where I do have some sympathy is that, as with every year it seems, the Christmas fixtures are relentless. While Lampard can’t complain about the recovery time between last Monday's game at home against West Ham and Saturday’s at Arsenal, he’s got a point about his beleaguered squad having to go again tonight. 

“I'm not trying to be clever,” he said last week. “It's an important point for us, because there are other teams that are challenging at the top of the league that play two games in three days. Manchester United, Tottenham and Liverpool play two games in three days. It's counter-productive for the quality of the Premier League, it's a risk for players if they are going to play both games at top-end elite sport, everybody knows that.” And he added that Aston Villa also wanted an extra day’s grace, but both clubs were overruled, he says, by the Premier League and by the broadcasters. “I know in conjunction with each other, this was bounced around, it got decided that we play twice in 48 hours, when other teams that are challenging at the top of the league play twice in three days. I don't see how it's a fair playing field, I think it's wrong.” 

It’s a refrain we hear every Christmas from every club and every manager. And from a fan’s perspective, the games themselves are never quite the attractions the broadcasters hope they’ll be. But it’s Lampard's job, come what may, to manage his squad through the period, maximising those in form, resting those who clearly need it - mentally as much as physically - and taking a punt on players who deserve their chance. Hudson-Odoi comes to mind, and Billy Gilmour. And, perhaps, Giroud, could do with more use.

The festive fixtures congestion argument will cut little ice with Lampard's bosses. Maybe not now, but certainly when the end-of-season review comes around. Lampard knows he’s not in charge by some default of having been the club’s highest scoring player of all time. When he signed the contract to become manager, that legacy was confined to the trophy room. What happens between tonight and season’s end is partly in his hands. I wish him well: as much as I can’t fault Abramovich for what he’s done for my club, his readiness to dispense with managers before they have had the chance to establish themselves has at times been predictably ugly. With the exception of one or two - the divisive Rafa Benitez and the frustrating Maurizio Sarri come instantly to mind - some stability and heritage creation would also have been nice. Lampard deserves no more favours than any of his predecessors, though fan loyalty is justified. But that also requires a reciprocal match in terms of team performance. And on that, he still has some distance to carry.

Keeping it real: Chelsea's season in review

Picture: Twitter/Chelsea FC

If you wanted an encapsulation of Chelsea’s season, rewatch last Wednesday’s 5-3 defeat at Anfield. Because there, in 90 blood pressure-baiting minutes, we saw the best of Frank Lampard’s side and easily its worst. Simply stated, this is a team blessed with attacking potential - and that will only get better with the incoming summer signings - but, to be fair, lacking some defensive integrity. The stats don't lie: Chelsea have ended the season in fourth place - it could have been third - but have conceded more goals than any other team in the top half of the Premier League.

One nagging concern about Lampard's tenure at Derby County last season was the defensive side of his and assistant head coach Jody Morris's game, and you could easily surmise that to be a blind spot that followed the duo "home" to Chelsea. The Liverpool game certainly placed it into sharp perspective, conceding five goals - some relatively cheaply - while scoring three through decent opportunities (and from those contracted to do so: Giroud, Abraham and Pulisic). From a neutral's point of view, a 5-3 encounter between the champions-elect and a top-four team, at the arse-end of this of all seasons, must have been fun to watch, especially with the irritating pyrotechnics erupting from addresses in the L4 postal area. But if Lampard was making mental notes, as he agitatedly prowled the technical area, he should have been only underlining pre-existing observations of issues with his side that have been patently clear all season long. Namely, the defence. Or, more fairly, 'defence', without the definite article.

Keita's stunning opener for Liverpool was the result of a wayward half-clearance by Willian inside his own half, in a position that should have been occupied by a midfielder or wingback, or N'Golo Kante, had he been fit. Avoidable, then. Liverpool's second came about after Mateo Kovicic was unfairly judged to have fouled Mane, allowing Alexander-Arnold to curl in one of his set piece specials from the free kick. Even before he'd taken his run up, Chelsea's Kepa Arrizabalaga was leaving oceans of space to his left on the goal line, so much space, the crew of the International Space Station could have looked out of a porthole and concluded: "He's going to pop that one in, top-right corner". Which he did. Avoidable. Five minutes later, another set-piece (an Alexander-Arnold corner), Chelsea fail to clear and Wijnaldum has the ball in the roof of the net from 12 yards. Avoidable.

None of this ignores the quality Liverpool displayed - and have displayed all season long - as they marched towards their first ever Premier League trophy (as opposed to the five for Chelsea...). Lampard, and his underlings and club hierarchy, would do well to look at how Jurgen Klopp's side have done it. If they have any hope of matching the Merseysiders next season, the prescription during what little close season exists before everything kicks off again on 12 September needs to be rich. Kepa Arrizabalaga, despite being the world's most expensive goalkeeper, has become increasingly unfit for purpose. His rooted-to-the-line stance and absence of stature invited Alexander-Arnold to give it a go last Wednesday night, and paid the price. But it would be wrong to pin the blame solely on the Spaniard with the job-descriptive first name. Chelsea need greater imperiousness at the back.

Various defensive combinations have been tried throughout the season but none have proven definitive. Antonio Rüdiger and Kurt Zouma may have played themselves into contention as the central defensive pairing, but neither have always given the confidence that they have anything like the symbiotic relationship once seen in blue with John Terry and Ricardo Carvalho, or even Terry and Gary Cahill. Captain César Azpilicueta is still a decent defender, and the fact he's been played out left as well as right shows just what is missing out left. Marcos Alonso is somewhat lacking in both pace or awareness in the wingback role, and Emerson Palmieri doesn't provide anywhere near the competition for that place he should do. Out right, Chelsea have options, including the promising Reece James, but even he's learning, and for all his genuine muscular ability, can sometimes have lapses of concentration. In front of the backline, Lampard has been forced to play Jorginho instead of the injured Kante in the closing stages of the season, but even the Brazilian-born Italian blows hot and cold as to his effectiveness.

Picture: Twitter/Chelsea FC

There’s no doubt that Lampard is building something at Chelsea. He is, after all, still only in his first season as head coach at the club and only in his second in management, altogether. He also came into the season with one of the club's hands tied behind its back, as the UEFA ban forced Lampard into fielding talented, home-grown youngsters. The loss of Eden Hazard didn't help, either. However, football is unforgiving, and Roman Abramovich even less so. The oligarch will, of course, be somewhat more sympathetic towards Lampard, not least of which because he saw the former Chelsea No.8 lift trophy after trophy during the better part of his 12 seasons as a player. There will, too, be some leniency over the fact that Lampard hasn’t, yet, been able to fully stamp his mark on the club. Expectation, then, will be high on how he integrates the inbound Hakim Ziyech and Timo Werner and, potentially, nabs Leverkusen’s Kai Havertz, who is apparently keen to move. Attacking creativity is already not in short supply - Christian Pulicic has given some glimpses of late as to what he can do, even with the heavy load of Hazard’s shadow hanging over him. Clearly, a refresh in the forward mix can only be a good thing, but realistically, that’s not where the money needs to be spent. It would be nice to think that Marina Granovskaia, keeper of the Roman chequebook, knows this too. If Havertz is the missing piece of the creative puzzle, wholesale changes at the back are needed.

I wouldn’t normally expound much time on anything Jamie Carragher has to say about Chelsea (let’s just say, there’s been form between us over the years), but his assessment after the Liverpool encounter was spot on: "Chelsea won’t go any further unless they change their goalkeeper,” he told Sky Sports, adding: “You see a lot of centre halves at Chelsea without seeing one really outstanding one, those are the areas that if they are going to challenge Liverpool and Man City they’ll have to rectify in the summer. They are the worst team in the league defending corners. This is a massive problem for Chelsea. Yes Werner is coming in and [Ziyech], there is talk of Havertz as well. It sounds great and it gets supporters excited but it means nothing if you don’t sort out that back three and certainly that goalkeeper."

No surprise, then, that Lampard resigned Arrizabalaga against Wolves in their Premier League season finale. Pundit and fan concerns about the keeper's justification have been compounded this season. Against Wolves, the dependable Willy Caballero did everything he was called upon to do, but at 38, the Argentine can't be considered the long-term solution for the goalkeeping position. Kepa's not a bad keeper, but his discipline and decision making let him down too often.

All that’s left of the season, then, is the FA Cup Final on Saturday against Arsenal - another storied fixture between the clubs, though neither are quite at the level of previous encounters between them. And then, there’s the somewhat weird notion of a Champions League Final 16 meeting on 8 August with the mighty Bayern Munich, something of a dead rubber, given that Chelsea head to Bavaria 3-0 down on aggregate. Chelsea have had plenty of these fixtures in recent years - famously winning the Champions League itself in 2012 at the Allianz Arena by beating the host home side. This time around, it’s a different encounter, especially given that this early in August would see both sides in the midst of pre-season friendlies. The first leg at Stamford Bridge, however, proved an education for Lampard, highlighting the gap between his side of mostly youngsters and a Munich consisting of players in their prime and at their prime. Chelsea could still pull off a shock, as they did in 2012, but overturning a 3-0 deficit against the Germans would be something of an unlikely outcome, even in this somewhat unlikely term.

In some ways, Lampard couldn’t have enjoyed an easier nursery slope on which to try out his management skills, an even more benevolent situation given how many of his predecessors have not been afforded such freedom. The 2020-21 season will be a whole different affair, and the likeable 42-year-old may face more challenging scrutiny. But, put into perspective, an FA Cup Final, a last-16 place in the Champions League, and fourth place in the Premier League is, by anyone’s standards, not bad. The thing is, Chelsea managers are rarely held up to “anyone’s standards”.

Sweet birds of youth

Picture: Facebook/Chelsea FC

Many words have, over the decades, been expended on the involvement of English (and Scottish) clubs in European football. I’m neither an archivist or an inveterate Statto, so I won’t bore you with fancy-pants recollections of the giants of the game, past and present, and their exploits (although into that category you still must include Nottingham Forest and Leeds United, even if they’ve lost their way, domestically, since). European football nights have changed, somewhat, in the Champions League era, with its TV rights-hiked, inflationary stadium ticket racketeering, but I think to childhood TV broadcasts featuring the likes of Borussia Mönchengladbach and a Brian Moore TV commentary coming over a telephone line. It was rather exotic, wasn’t it? Players you’d never heard of and probably would never again, scoring wonder goals. Now, you see them once, and expect to see them again within the next transfer window at your own club. These were the days when “the Continent” seemed mystical: you could get away with subtle xenophobia about players with ‘amusing’ names in much the same way as Stuart Hall did during the Jeux Sans Frontières international stages of It’s A Knockout.

Having lived in continental Europe for the better part of two decades, travelling throughout for work and pleasure, some of the exoticism of foreign football has dissipated. Last night, however, I received a sharp reminder that such mystique still existed, when Chelsea entertained Bayern Munich at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea’s European history, in my conscious lifetime, has been something of a Curate’s Egg. For example, there was that Cup Winners Cup run in 1995, which took us to Club Brugge on a night when Glenn Hoddle was in charge and played David Rocastle up front on his own to no discernible impact. It was my first and only European away fixture experience, too and, now I think of it, it was quite surreal: dawn departure from the Fulham Road in what looked like a D-Day column of numbered buses (“Orange 5, Orange 5, Orange 5!!!”, we taunted Purple 7 at a convenience stop), being marched past overly aggressive Belgian riot police, their horses and their dogs, before heading back down the E40 to Calais and a return roughly 24 hours after we departed, suitably chastened by having lost to the single Gert Verheyen goal. Since then, Chelsea have motored through numerous managers of eclectic European origin, and have established themselves - questionably, in some people’s minds - as one of the European elite. Well, we did win it in 2012, in Munich, which I watched from my local pub in Paris. One of the best nights of my life. Period. Last night, Chelsea suspended that status as Bayern took revenge on 2012 and were punished 3-0 on home turf, leaving them without Jorginho and the red carded Marcus Alonso for the return leg. It’s unlikely that there will be a further round for the Blues, even if miracles have happened before.

Perhaps unusually, I’m quite sanguine about it. Head coach Frank Lampard might, as is his duty, be fuming (“They outclassed us in pretty much every department, so it was quite sobering,” he said afterwards), but Chelsea fans should be philosophical. Bayern were, frankly, scintillating, as they were in their 7-2 demolition of Spurs last Autumn. Chelsea are a work in progress. That’s not an excuse, but when you’re comprised of still-developing youngsters and veterans over 30 eying last payday-ahoy opportunities elsewhere, you don’t have to look too far for reasons. It’s just one of those things. Learn from it and move on. God knows what the reverse fixture will be like next month in Bavaria, but I sincerely hope that Bayern don’t take their foot off the pedal, even if the other foot is currently on the windpipe of my beloved football club. Sometimes you just want to see European class, even at your own expense. As I blogged on Sunday, Chelsea weren’t meant to get higher than the bottom half of the Premier League’s top ten this season, so as long as they remain focused on staying in next season’s European places, it will only serve their youngsters’ progress well.

That, still, won’t prevent the boo boys from having their say. The “#LampardOut” tweets are depressingly predictable, even if they come from a myopic minority. Some have even suggested that the club should never have discarded Maurizio Sarri, God help us (though in mitigation he did win a European trophy in his single season at Chelsea). Few football fans are suitably patient when it comes to their beloved clubs. Win handsomely one week and the insistence is that a consecutive win will follow. When it doesn’t, the grumbling breaks out. I’ve seen that this season at Chelsea. After that opening day disaster against Manchester United, things started to look up, and youngsters like Tammy Abraham, Mason Mount, Christian Pulicic and Fikayo Tomori were giving our jaded eyes hope that, maybe, this wouldn’t be a fallow season, after all. But that was delusional. These talented players have tremendous potential (and great prospect for the national side), but to expect them to just step into gear in their debut seasons in the Premier League is asking a lot. Even more so, in their European debuts. That’s not an excuse, just a statement of reality. What Frank Lampard and his coaching staff have to ensure, however, is that it doesn’t become an excuse for them, either. Lampard might be a club legend, rightly revered, even more so than his ‘Captain, Leader, Legend’ teammate John Terry, but that still doesn’t immunise him from Roman Abramovich’s all-seeing eye. Just look at the treatment of the late, great Ray Wilkins.

Taking last night’s Round-of-16 first leg tie into account, Lampard’s job is and shouldn’t be at risk. Genuinely, Chelsea have a golden opportunity to learn from the experience without recourse. Rarely does that happen in football, even rarer at Chelsea, but if Abramovich and his directors have any amount of common sense, they will treat this season in the correct context. Yes, the loss of Eden Hazard has been painful; yes, the FIFA transfer ban has been significantly restricting; yes, the need to draw on Academy players has been both challenge and opportunity. These aren’t excuses but unavoidable points of mitigation. Losing 3-0 at home to this Bayern Munich is nothing to be ashamed of, even if the goals came in a negative sequence that began with Jorginho’s needless booking. Chelsea had actually played quite well before that point, even if there were early signs of Bayern’s ruthlessness, and the class of Robert Lewandowski and the forgotten capabilities of former Arsenal player Serge Gnabry. It would, though, be remiss to just dismiss the defeat as a combination of unavoidable factors. Alonso - redeemed against Spurs on Saturday - let himself down with two equally avoidable bookings, while Jorginho’s discipline let him down by mouthing off to the French referee to receive a next-match suspension. Stupid. Abraham and Mount both showed their inexperience with wasted chances late on that could have restored some pride had they been properly converted, while Barkley’s inability to complete passes cost dearly. Things to work on? Of course. Things that might improve in the next leg? Unlikely. That’s just where Chelsea are. Like the marathon runner running out of puff, sometimes you can only give so much. These Chelsea youngsters, in particular, still have a lot to give, and in seasons to come will do so. For now, they are where they are. Playing Bayern Munich - already being talked up as European champions-elect - will only serve them well.

You can't win anything with kids

It is, of course, too soon to make even an educated guess as to how the 2019-2020 football season will ultimately pan out for anyone, let alone Chelsea, whose competitive record since the season began currently stands at Played 6, Won 2, Drawn 3, Lost 1 with not a clean sheet between them. But at risk of putting an over-positive spin on things, such a capricious start to Frank Lampard's tenure as the club's head coach belies what will no doubt become the core narrative of the Blues' season to come: kids.

Now, the likes of Tammy Abraham, Mason Mount, Fikayo Tomori and Christian Pulisic, plus Reece James, Callum Hudson-Odoi and Ruben Loftus-Cheek, when they are released from injury, are hardly children, at ages ranging from 18 to 23. But in the recent history of Chelsea Football Club, that Abraham is currently the Premier League's top scorer, that Mason Mount has just made his senior England debut, and on Saturday Tomori scored an early contender for goal of the season, is testament to the undoubted sprinkling of youthful stardust that has transformed the mood around the club like stormy weather and overcast skies being replaced by bright sunshine and a cloud-free vista. The football is still capricious: Saturday's 5-2 win over Wolves is not without the recognition that Chelsea still couldn't keep a clean sheet, despite Abraham breaking Eden Hazard's record for becoming the youngest Chelsea player to score a league hat-trick as well as becoming the first English player to score three for Chelsea since Lampard himself eight years ago.

There are more milestones to come, more records to be broken. The 11 league goals scored so far between Abraham, Mount and Tomori, five games in, have already beaten the previous best record of academy graduates (six scored by just Loftus-Cheek in the entire 2018-19 season), marking a first since Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003. That, alone, is a telling set of stats, even if they are a reflection of the situation the club finds itself in, unable to do the thing they've done most seasons under the Russian oligarch's ownership, and simply gone out and bought players. Thanks to the two-window FIFA transfer ban, the youngsters are getting match time that would have never been possible under any of Lampard's predecessors, a frustration that first found oxygen under José Mourinho, but manifested itself more prevalently under the progressively petulant reign of Antonio Conte, and more dangerously, under the stubborn Maurizio Sarri, whose eventual inclusion of Hudson-Odoi and Loftus-Cheek came across as something he was coerced into.

We have been there before, of course. The promise of youngsters like Jon Harley, Ryan Bertrand, Josh McEachran and Nathan Aké, joining Chelsea Academy alumni like Venables, Greaves, Bonetti, Osgood, Harris and, latterly, Terry, in breaking through into the senior squad and on to greatness is a well-wrought saga. To date, only John Terry in the club's modern era has gone on to see out his career at the club he joined as a schoolboy. That, though, is the romantic view of youth. Football is a serious business, not a careers advisory service, so the expectation of Academy products breaking into the senior team has been somewhat naive in the era of mega-money transfers for players from the European and South American elites. Even when the Chelsea youth squads train in a separate part of the club's Cobham training ground as the senior team, it has often sounded like they could be in a separate part of the country, for all the good it's offered (some weeks back the Daily Telegraph reported that Sarri didn't watch a single youth training session or attend any under-23 games during his year in charge, and once remained in his Cobham office while a critical youth championship game was going on barely 50 yards away).

Lampard's appointment as head coach in July may have appeared like a compromise, in the absence/reluctance of more experienced candidates for the job, but his open embrace of youth, which has already seen Academy players taking part in senior squad training sessions, is bringing a degree of feelgood back to the club. Even if defence continues to be a major worry, the goals-per-game from Abraham in particular is a genuine cause for celebration, even if the reality is that Chelsea this season are not expected to end it that high up the Premier League table, or progress in the Champions League, a campaign which commences tomorrow night against Valencia. But there is an acceptance - for now - that this will be a fallow year that, unless things go dramatically badly, will have us see homegrown talent putting smiles on faces at Stamford Bridge, something that was absent for much of last season and patches of the previous one.

Even more pleasing is that in these first few weeks youngsters have been going some way to entertainingly disprove Alan Hansen's infamous remark on Match Of The Day that "you can't win anything with kids" after Sir Alex Ferguson's then-young Manchester United side lost 3-1 to Aston Villa on the opening day of the 1995-96 season. United later went on to do the League and Cup double with that very same team, one whose average age was 26 years and 137 days. Curiously, only Chelsea has since won the league title with a younger squad - a side in 2005 featuring Lampard himself, Terry and Joe Cole with an average age of 25 years and 312 days. Perhaps you can win things with kids. Time, this season at Chelsea, will only tell.

Sweet bird of youth

Picture: Richard Pelham, The Sun

I'm still staring at the calendar in disbelief. It's Monday, 12 August. My shoulders continue to peel from the blast of Florida sun I've just returned from. My work inbox is groaning under the weight of e-mail traffic seemingly indifferent to the fact I've been on holiday, each missive tugging at my coat screaming "read me first!". Of course, the myriad reply-alls which simply say "Thanks." are straight in the bin, as should be the individuals who inconsiderately sent them (word to the wise - I really don't care that you're thankful. I do care that you're bunging up my inbox with a message for someone else).

Such holiday harrumphing aside, I'm staring at the date because it means that first blood has already been drawn in the 2019-2020 football season. Around the country in recent days there have been qualifiers for the FA and League cups, the Football League began the previous weekend, and we've just witnessed the opening salvos in the Premier League. It's the same every summer, I suppose: games watched partially in holiday resort bars, out of desperation for some sight of football in most cases, and escape from the family in many others. These first weekends for the respective leagues are the beginning of an arcing season that will clamber through the temperature changes of summer, autumn, winter, spring and summer again, with the prospect of breaking out the mid-season parka and gloves now still a long way away, but in reality, only a matter of weeks. As the TV commentators have been predictably stating, there's a long, long way to go.

Which is why yesterday's events at Old Trafford should be meaningless. Because, we are told, the first game of the season is. And the second. And probably the third. These are, however, the views of those with false hope. An opening day tonking, such as Chelsea suffered yesterday, can always be rationalised, justified, even. The optimist will look back on it and make hopeless excuses: "They were still at the beach"; "The pre-season friendlies don't mean a thing - it's always different when they get down to the real work"; "We've still got players coming back from injury/the summer tournament/settling in to the new side"; and yada, yada, yada.

Chelsea have turned over so many managers over my lifetime (and not just in the Abramovich era, either), that the arrival of each new one is always a test of faith, belief and expectation. Frank Lampard's status as a club legend makes no difference than that which accompanied the appointments of Ruud Gulitt, Gianluca Vialli, Roberto Di Matteo or even dear old Geoff Hurst, many moons ago. All equally expendable, none particularly qualified. Like his predecessors, Lampard fits a narrative, only this time it's a little more spun out: the two-window transfer ban imposed on the club, coupled with the acute need for the club to reconnect with a fanbase alienated by Maurizio Sarri's stubbornness and Antonio Conte's slide into uppity petulance. Hence a focus on youth, a commodity the Stamford Bridge faithful have desired more than anything else, given the plethora of young talents that have been husbanded out on loan deals. With Eden Hazard gone, and the FIFA ban preventing external reinforcements, Chelsea are being forced, very publicly, to rely on a combination of inexperience (manager and players) and relatively unproven potential (youngsters Mason Mount, Tammy Abraham, Reece James, 20-year-old American wunderkind Christian Pulisic, Fikayo Tomori, plus Callum Hudson-Odoi and Ruben Loftus-Cheek, who started to get opportunities last season, before being cut short by injuries).

Lampard has already played the 'I've got to work with what I've got' card to rationalise his Premier League managerial debut. I don't blame him. But from the perspective of some fans' point of view, be careful of what you wish for. We've looked on, frustratingly in recent seasons, as Chelsea's acclaimed academy has produced trophies at a better rate than the first team, without seeing many - or even any - of that youth progressing to the senior squad. Now Chelsea have been forced into drawing on the kids, with Lampard placing it as a pillar - if not the pillar - of his maiden season as a Premier League manager. With his tight little crew around him of Jody Morris, Eddie Newton, Chris Jones, Joe Edwards and Henrique Hilário, Lampard is clearly a risky bet, given that he only has the one season as a coach under his belt, and a Championship coach at that. So here's a perfect storm: two or three major factors conspiring to install a young, unproven coach in charge of a squad containing young, unproven players at this level. Chelsea have virtually signalled that it will be alright if things go pear-shaped this season, though any study of the Abramovich form will show that no one, no matter how much of a much-loved club son, will be immune if things go too pear-shaped. Just ask José Mourinho.

Ah, yes, Mourinho. Always the scene stealer, as he managed to do yesterday as Sky Sports' star summer signing, being allowed to upstage his fellow pundits (including resident alpha male, Graeme Souness) as they presided over proceedings at Old Trafford between the Portu-geezer's two former teams. And, as Brucie would say (and I don't mean Steve), "Didn't he do well?!". Despite José's less than subtle "come and get me" plea to clubs, we actually got to savour the footballing intelligence that turned a very minor player into one of the most successful coaches of all time, to date with 25 major honours to his name.

"Chelsea were too soft, not compact defensively, not aggressive enough, there was too much space between the lines. They did not press in blocks," Mourinho told Sky Sports viewers after the match, in what had been an assured punditry debut for the channel. "A little bit of experience would fit well with the team. You look to the performance of Mason Mount, Tammy Abraham and for matches of this dimension you need a little bit more," questioning why N'Golo Kante - only recently returned to the squad from injury - was left on the bench by Lampard at the start. "If Kante can play 30-35 minutes he can start the game. And then if he lasts only one hour then he lasts one hour. But maybe Frank listens to us and says Kante is impossible to play. My feeling is that they had a possibility to play with more know-how," adding that the experience of Marcos Alonso and Olivier Giroud were also sitting on the bench. "To come to Old Trafford, even if this is not the huge Manchester United that used to scare people, it's Manchester United."

Don't get me wrong, I want Lampard to succeed. Ever since talk began of the club's record-scorer returning as manager, I've warmed to the idea. Not piping hot, I'll readily concede, but given the circumstances, if the club is prepared to have a fallow year while it bloods in the youth while unable to buy new players, then so be it, and we should be able to enjoy the love-in with our much-loved former No.8. And yes, too, this was just the first game of the season. But Mourinho is right: it was still Manchester United - even 'this' United, with its own young manager and a dysfunctional misfit like Paul Pogba - at Old Trafford on the opening weekend. However, to blame Lampard's selection of youngsters like Mount and Abraham, would be wrong. There was a broader naiveté to Chelsea's structure yesterday. As Lampard himself conceded, four mistakes, four goals conceded. Blame for at least two of them can be laid at the feet of club captain César Azpilicueta, who seemed to pick up where he left off in his last, indifferent season, and Kurt Zouma, still only 24 but whose signing for Chelsea at the age of 19, then loans and injuries, gives him an air of club experience and history. Whatever that experience is deserted him yesterday. One might concede that not even David Luiz - now departed for Arsenal - would have conceded such errors. Much expectation weighs now on the return of Antonio Rüdiger to the Chelsea defence. But with Luiz gone, it's surely fair to say that Chelsea's options at the back aren't huge, even with the talented youngsters Tomori and James available in the full back positions.

That Chelsea dominated for large parts of the first half yesterday should not be forgotten. But there are - and should be - very real concerns about how Manchester United were able to suck the Londoners in and then hit them, hard, on the break. Even with the likes of Loftus-Cheek, Hudson-Odoi and Willian still to return from injury, their talents are not defensive. Nor, too, was the now much-missed Hazard, to be fair, but Lampard has to ensure that his expressive attackers can be as steely in the defensive phase as they are in the offensive. In this, he has to take on board Mourinho's valid criticisms, even if he has a point that injuries limited his options. Unfortunately that excuse only goes so far.

"I don't have to be too concerned about what anyone else says, the pundits," said Lampard, responding to his former boss. "But what is clear is the squad is the squad we've got and I believe in it. I can't drag people out of the medical room, whether they're experienced or not. The players we played today, and on the bench, are the players we have. We were missing internationals and big players, but I don't want that to be an excuse. We were competing for long periods. We made four mistakes and they put them away. It is a reality check for us all. It wasn't a 4-0 game for long periods, but we need to accept it."

Lampard is, and always has been one of the more likeable figures in the game. Articulate and intelligent, as well as gifted on the pitch, he has been long destined for management, perhaps even more so than his former oppo John Terry. But brains and eleven expensively-acquired GCSEs (including an A* in Latin) mean little when a) you're working for Roman Abramovich and b) competing in the Premier League. One could easily interpret Mourinho's "a little bit of experience" comment about Lampard's team selection as a jibe about Lampard himself. Mourinho has rarely pulled his verbal punches, and you wouldn't expect him to do so even when commenting on a former player whom he might still regard as one of his football 'sons'. Even José is capable of being cruel to be kind.

I'm no Statto, so my memory may not be 100 per cent here, but the last time I saw Manchester United beat Chelsea 4-0 was at the old Wembley in 1994 in that year's FA Cup Final. It was a miserable afternoon, made worse by having to trudge back to Fulham to start a 12-hour night shift at Teletext, relieving the day duty editor who happened to be a massive United fan, and who took great pleasure in taunting me from his lofty seat on the mezzanine floor as I came through the front door. I was too jet lagged yesterday afternoon to be that bothered by this latest 4-0 drubbing. Lampard's comments, post match, were the right ones, but they somewhat passed me by. "As a manager I feel things are slightly magnified," he said. "You take wins and losses more and this hurts," conceding the mistakes that lead to the goals, but defensively pointing out that "anyone with football experience will tell you that it wasn't a 4-0." Unfortunately, Frank, it was. How you and your team responds now will be the mark of you as a manager.

Falling through an open window

You've got to love the summer transfer window, haven't you? From season's end to season's beginning, three months of rumour and speculation and, occasionally, a transaction. No one - be they football hack or football fan - knows what's really going on, usually until it actually happens. And even then, in the case of Romelu Lukaku's transfer from Everton to Manchester United, the club he was expecting to join - Chelsea - didn't seem to have much of a clue of what was going on, either. Or so we're led to believe.

It is often reported that clubs are considering or even activating wholesale changes, as new managers come in and overhaul their squads. Sometimes it's attritional, at others, a clearout. Which is what makes what's going on at Chelsea more curious. Away from the shock-horror headlines about Lukaku, there appears to be something of a talent drain. Last night Nathaniel Chalobah was sold to Watford for just £5.5 million, a transfer of the player's own volition in the pursuit of more playing time. Likewise Nathan Aké, the superbly versatile 22-year-old sold to Bournemouth. Ditto Dominic Solanke, another highly rated youth product, whose sale to Liverpool is still being finalised due to a difference of opinion between the clubs on his value. Winger Christian Atsu has been sold to Newcastle, while Bertrand Traoré has gone to Lyon. All highly rated young players, players who've either come through Chelsea's youth system, or have been acquired as the next great thing.

The outflow of youth players has also seen more disappearing via Chelsea's now well established loan route: Ruben Loftus-Cheek - one of the few young players to break through under José Mourinho - is now on a season-long spell at Crystal Palace, while Ola Aina finds himself at Hull City for the duration of the next term. Tammy Abraham, who was such a prolific striker last season while on loan to Bristol City, is now at Swansea for the season ahead, albeit with a substantial new five-year contract anchoring him at his parent club. Until he, too, is deemed surplus to requirements, of course.

But still, it's not like Chelsea are awash with strikers, and with Solanke gone and Diego Costa going (a matter of when rather than if), some of the club's fans are getting a little irritated. Chelsea aren't threadbare, though: the current full squad currently totals around 50 players, if first team and 'development' personnel are added together. But the real concern is not warm bodies, but talent, and the nurturing of that talent.

It's long been clear that Chelsea works on a dual strategy of populating its first team with players it has invested heavily in, while its so-called "development squad" acts largely as a husbandry operation. The principle established early on in Roman Abramovich's ownership of Chelsea was that the club's academy should be consistently feeding players to the first team. However, the last academy product to become a fixture was John Terry. Prospects like Josh McEachran, striker Izzie Brown and indeed Loftus-Cheek have all been talked of as having the potential to establish themselves, but nothing has come of it. McEachran is now at Brentford and Loftus-Cheek is at Selhurst Park. Brown remains in the squad, but could be another loanee.

Chelsea's husbandry has drawn praise in some quarters: Marina Granovskaia, described by Chelsea as the "representative of the owner", but also a kind of de facto chief executive, oversees transfer dealings, along with technical director Michael Emenalo. And, it could be said, they've done quite well in generating transfer income so far this summer, with £65.3 million in the kitty from the sales of Aké, Juan Cuadrado, Asmir Begovic, Traore, Solanke and Atsu - all fringe players. In fact, Chelsea have earned in well over £330 million from player sales in the last few seasons, all of which being good for financial fair play, and putting money back Abramovich's way.

Picture: Chelsea FC/Twitter

The issue, however, remains who is coming in, and why. So far the club has only brought in Manchester City keeper Willie Caballero on a free (to replace Begovic) and defender Antonio Rüdiger (above) for £29 million, with Monaco's midfielder Tiemoué Bakayoko expected any moment for £40 million (the latter two being specific requirements for Antonio Conte, which explains his willingness to let Chalobah go for £10 million and consider even letting Kurt Zouma - once seen as John Terry's shoe-in successor in central defence - go out on loan as well).

The most vexed issue of all is clearly what's happening about strikers. There was, in fact, a certain indifference from Chelsea fans over the club's failure to land Lukaku. He'd hardly set the world alight when a Chelsea player previously, and for all his prolific goal-scoring at Everton, didn't exactly put himself high on the list of must-have forwards. But, still, Chelsea are currently looking threadbare up front, with only Michy Batshuayi and the forgotten man Loic Remy as first team options for the centre forward position, when Costa goes. Which means signing Alvaro Morata from Real Madrid or Fernando Llorente from Swansea is now a money-no-object imperative.

With a Premier League title to defend and the Champions League to return to (not to mention the domestic cups), Chelsea have a big season ahead, raising even more questions as to why the club has been prepared to let so many of its brightest rising talents go. I'm sure - as indeed are many fans - tjat the club knows what it is doing, and we should just put our faith in them. In the case of Lukaku, it became clear that the club simply wasn't prepared to pay and inflated agent's fee to secure him, and to some extent, that should be respected. But with pre-season already in progress, a summer tour next week to the Far East and a return to Wembley and Arsenal in just three weeks' time for the Community Shield, we can be forgiven for feeling nervous that another summer transfer window will close with targets missed and some last-minute surprises smirking their way through St. Pancras station on the final evening of trading.