Jose wouldn’t be turned on by Blues’ six-appeal

CITY should count themselves very lucky that we only scored the six goals.

When the fifth went in with still 15 minutes on the clock, we had a “Mourinho” 10 minutes of “resting with the ball” — before Shevchenko thumped in the final strike.

If Kalou had not snatched at two very good chances and had Riley not been distracted by studying his usual anti-Chelsea agenda, Sven and Co could have been looking at the ignominy of a double figure score.

This is not something we would have seen under José. It was a Mourinho team and formation, and we would have still won this game under him . . . but six goals? No chance. He would not have permitted it. He would have demanded restraint and control. Three nil would be sufficient.

Eriksson was devoid of ideas.

But I do wonder what anyone could have done to combat the rampant Frank Lampard. He was imperious and the only injustice was that his name was not on the scoresheet.

He was the main topic of conversation after the game. He is such an intelligent player and has a vision which is beyond most of his team mates. Both Zola and Crespo possessed it and over the post match pints we pontificated over what it would have been like to see all three of them in the same team at Stamford Bridge.

So apart from Frank who orchestrated this win and performance? A small percentage believe it was down to Grant.

Many (including most members of the press) think that we have management by committee (Grant, Ten Cate, Clarke and Abramovich). Some think it was a manifestation of the players’ own determination — with some putting themselves in the shop window. The truth is no one knows. Under José you were under no illusions. He picked the team, decided the tactics and style and substitutions. With the current set up everything is vague. To be honest, I don’t really care as long as it works although I am still unhappy at how everything came about.

But even that now pales a little into insignificance when we see the atrocious and undignified way that the Tottenham board dealt with Martin Jol.

If the players can accept the management team, then who am I to argue? Drogba’s views are known. Lampard’s also are in the public domain despite him keeping his counsel. Carvalho was always a Mourinho man and despite his recent affirmations that he is staying with Chelsea, many fear he is biding his time until José finds another club. The Chelsea board and management team must do everything within their power to keep these three. Meanwhile, the Italian and Spanish papers are full of speculation about this trio, and about a destination for Michael Essien.

Isn’t it amazing how, if something is repeated enough times, it becomes a “fact.” Take Arsenal’s “young” team. I have yet to read an article or match report which does not on at least one occasion mention how “young” the Arsenal stars are, and what a fantastic youth policy they have.

But here are some genuine facts: the Arsenal team that started against Liverpool had an average age of 25, hardly teenagers eh? As a comparison, the Chelsea team that took City apart: average age 26. The United side that started against Boro averaged just over 25.

As for Wenger’s youth policy — if a policy is made up of stealing youngsters from other clubs, then many other clubs can boast an equally great youth policy surely?

But back to Chelsea. Tonight we play Carling Cup hosts to Leicester and the point of interest for me is whether Wright Phillips will appear following an alleged bust-up with Grant. No room for him, even on the subs’ bench, in the last two games suggests his association with the club may end in January.

Then, while “Young Boys of Islington” host Manchester United on Saturday we travel to Wigan; Grant/the committee/the players (delete as applicable) need to win these games and win them convincingly to prove that the City result was not a fluke.

Contact Trizia on [e-mail]