Chelsea FC: Is Daniel Sturridge the Cause of Chelsea's Woes?

Things don’t look bright for England next summer in Ukraine/Poland. The media looks at the current squad as just keeping up the downward spiraling trend.

You have center backs that are either so old you wonder if they will even make it through this winter or so young they may get home sick. There is a midfield, whose problem was once how to play Lampard and Gerrard together, that is now more asking if Lampard or Gerrard even play. And of course you have forwards, or some kind of hosh-posh mixture of guys who like to hang out in front of the goal.

Even the group itself is just begging for a big-time upset. I’m suppose to believe that UEFA is not corrupt when there is a group with countries that all have strong mafia ties, another that may be the hardest group ever, one that the favorites should walk through and lastly a group of has-beens?

It must be tough to be an English fan. But if you are, you may have one little glimpse of hope. A single shining beacon that could bring promise for years to come. He has pace, ability, strength, skill and a deadly eye for the goal. At only 22 years old, he will be around for another decade producing brilliance and impacting a squad that needs life now more than ever.

And can you believe he plays for Chelsea?

That’s right, the great white hope (or should I say…never mind) is Daniel Sturridge. He has come on to take the team by storm, leading in goals with 10 and adding another seven assists. He has at times been the best player on the field for this lackluster Chelsea squad, pushing forward, making runs and just finding space when nothing else seems to be happening.

Yep, he sure is the complete package, minus one little thing—he is the reason Chelsea is failing.

I am going to excuse his easy midfield giveaway against Spurs last week that led to the counter goal as him just trying to be advantageous, not the worst thing a winger can do, but there is still plenty more we can point to and say “hmmm, what is that boy doing?”

As with most things Chelsea, it has to do with Fernando Torres.

I wrote an article a few days ago that discussed the two styles of football that are currently in debate amongst the Chelsea faithful—the strength in defense way of "Drogba" and the rushing attack of "Torres." It was an amazing response I got from everyone that really made me feel good about what I do here, but that is beside the point. What is important is that there is an obvious split in which way Chelsea should be moving.

I am not going to sit here and berate Torres any more. There is enough hate scattered throughout the web to keep his ears burning for eternity. But I want to point out some very insightful comments that some readers made.

A few readers suggested that Torres’ misfirings were not due to Lampard’s tedious time on the ball, Ramires’ inability to deliver a pass, a lack of confidence due to limited playing time or even Villas-Boas’ contentious 4-3-3 system. The problem may indeed lie with the same player that could be voted the club's player of the year—Sturiddge himself.

This struck me as odd. How could a youngster who is breaking on to the scene as one of the best up-and-coming stars be the reason for the burning out of another?

Let’s go back to where it really began on June 22, 2011. Chelsea had just signed Villas-Boas to be the club's new manager. His promise of playing a style that produced more "flair" with a three-high offensive attack, a central forward and two wide wingers, was expected to revolutionize the game at Stamford Bridge. The only problem for Villas-Boas was that Chelsea had no natural wingers.

So the Portuguese man got creative and began trying different players out wide. Some were OK, others were horrid, but one seemed to get it. In a preseason match against Hong Kong side Kitchee, Sturridge received the ball on the right wing with back to net. He turned the defender on him, push the ball and ran, beat another, before unleashing great finish for Chelsea’s fourth and final goal. Just like that, Sturridge was Chelsea’s new right wing.

In his first game during the season he scored a magnificent game winner with his back heel. He scored a double against his old loan side Bolton at the Reebok. Two weeks later there was another in Everton. Four league goals in four league games.

And for Torres? Nothing.

Then came the matchup at Old Trafford. The wonder kid was inept, creating nothing on his side of the field and being outdueled every time he touched the ball by the overwhelmingly veteran Patrice Evra. He was shown to be human, and that’s fine. After all, the fact that he was doing so well was a surprise to many. But after that game I began to watch him with a little sharper of an eye.

I started to notice little things, those minuscule moments that make or break a game, that Sturridge routinely screwed up. He was selfish, rarely putting in crosses, and when he did they were terrible more often than not. He would dribble too much, always looking forward and outpacing his support. He is limited in moves and even more limited in vision. Sturridge was actually a pretty bad player who just has an absolutely great instinct for the goal.

This all left poor Torres stranded. With defenses clamping down of Mata’s side much of the play came down the right, and Sturridge was rarely able to give Torres the balls he needs to be great. Anyone can look bad when you go from getting passes from the likes of Gerrard and Kyut to a selfish little post-teenager.

But is that even Sturridge’s fault? I mean, he was a striker. All through his career it was beat into his head to attack the net, be greedy with the ball and go forward. What else could he know? So there you have it: Torres is a loss because he is playing against Sturridge more than he is with him.

So fine, we moved on and now Drogba starts. Then why do they keep dropping points? Why can’t they beat even the lowest of opponents? Is it Sturridge again? Yes and no.

The plight of Torres is the plight of Chelsea, a de-facto mix of styles, personalities and most importantly age. So when you are asking Sturridge to play in a foreign position and be the playmaker for veterans who have played a different style all their careers, you are asking quite a bit out of the kid. But perhaps most difficult of all is where you are asking Sturridge to play this role.

Let’s return to the English national team for a moment. Would Sturridge play  as a winger in the squad? Do they even have a winger on the squad? Theo Walcott perhaps? Anyone else?

What about in the English League? There are a few—Aguero, Mata, Nani, A. Young, Bale. But think for a moment about this idea of the position of "winger." Would you say Bale plays the same position as Di Maria or Robben? In some instances maybe, but you would be hard pressed to say they are the same two players.

What this all boils down to is the English game does not allow for a true wing player. Anyone who is out that wide and that high becomes too isolated. The midfields in England are too balanced and the play too physical for this to be an effective mode of playing. We can talk all we want about Barca having a superior midfield to any English team, but in all reality the midfield of most English teams is much better all around, in all aspects of the game.

Look at the best player the EPL has had in the past decade, Christiano Ronaldo. He was a winger at United indeed, but always came back to get the ball and carried down the flank. He did not wait in the corner for it to get to him. Now in Spain, he sits on the edge of the 18 just twiddling his thumbs until he the ball is worked to his feet.

Even Ronadlo’s teammate Ryan Giggs, proclaimed by the Daily Mail to be the best winger in the history of the English game, is more described as a deep-lying midfielder than the hybrid position that a winger is today in most other leagues.

It’s just the way it is.

So in the end it comes down to this simple fact: You are asking a 22-year-old to take on a major role, in a foreign position, against his instincts, conflicting with his teammates and at a spot that does not work in the English game.

Can we really say it's Sturridges fault?

Or perhaps should we point the finger at the person who is asking him to do these things?