Chelsea FC: Drogba or Torres? A Fan's Debate on Style

Yesterday, I did a brief, albeit arbitrary grading of Chelsea’s performance against Tottenham. The Blues came away from White Hart Lane with only a single point, and Spurs extended their unbeaten streak at home to their crosstown rivals to six straight.

It seems I had done a pretty good job and that most readers made it through 13 grades more or less agreeing with what I had given the players. The only problem was there were 14 players. That last slide, which I always reserve for the final substitute, was Fernando Torres.

Torres was introduced into the game at the 77th   minute for Didier Drogba. With roughly 15 minutes of play, he produced essentially nothing. His highlight would be a pass from the goal line back to Ramires, whose shot was blocked by a defender. Other than that, it could have been anyone out there.

And for this performance I gave Torres a D.

Much to my surprise I was bashed for the harsh grade. Comments flew from readers I have never heard from before, simply tearing me apart, questioning whether I watched the game and if I really knew anything about the game or team. I tried to take the comments in stride and answered them quickly and thoroughly with my own opinion.

However, I found myself continually getting frustrated as I had to repeatedly defend not only my grade for Torres, but my grade for Drogba. Many readers were commenting that if Drogba was to receive the grade he did for his performance (B+), then on the logic of my own subjective analysis, Torres was not that far behind.

I concede that perhaps 15 minutes is too small of a sample size to judge a player, but I don’t look at stats. As a matter of fact, I rarely ever do.

I like to view the game holistically and from the perspective that a player on the pitch can theoretically impact the game by just mere presence. With that in mind, Drogba’s departure and Torres’ arrival marked a point where momentum swayed back to the hosts.

But this again can become irrelevant. There are plenty of samples of 15 minutes in which Drogba was ineffective. Is it possible to just look at those 15 minutes and block out everything else? I am not quite sure.

As you can tell here, this is still nagging at me quite a bit. Why are readers getting so up in arms over my low grade for Torres?

A comment came in late tonight that was sort of revelatory for me. A reader suggested that my grade was wrong, not based on an argument that Torres was better than the grade I gave him, but rather Drogba was not as good as the grade I gave him.

Somewhat shocked, I laid out in pretty plain terms how he was better: “He played the ball to Cole that set up the goal, played another great one to Ramires that he should have scored, and like you mentioned, the one he crushed off the post…In all, Chelsea had five great scoring chances, and he was directly involved in three and Torres in none.”

But then I thought back to how this reader may interpret what I said. Yes, Drogba did all these things, but there were also long droughts were he did nothing. But is that not how Drogba plays? Is that not how he has always played? Hasn’t he always been the guy who does the grunt work and will score a goal or flick a ball onto teammate before they put it away?

What the reader and I were arguing was not preference of player, but preference of style, and this has become the interesting point in which a schism has hit the Chelsea fan base.

When Andre Villas-Boas was brought to Stamford Bridge, he made headlines the next day by promising to bring "flair" to the club. The idea that they could play the game with style, pace and technique has become more akin to the Iberian peninsula and has led to most major European trophies—club and country—finding their home there over the past few years.

As attractive as it sounded, there was always a part of me that met it with some trepidation. Could it work in England?

Let’s not be naive about the simple fact that different leagues produce different styles, and some clubs or coaches succeed more in some more than others. It is simply a matter of how the nation views the game and wants to view the game.

I doubt Sir Alex would be able to pick up Barcelona and walk to a La Liga title, just as Guardiola would have similar difficulties in Manchester. The structure of the clubs and their fan base does not make it easy for a change of philosophy.

But Chelsea is a bit different. Yes, there is some 100-plus years of history behind the club, but it is a modern team with a modern fan base. When Roman Abramovich took over the team in 2003, it was a proverbial year zero for the club, similar to the one Germany experienced at the fall of the Berlin Wall—the past will always be remembered, but not as the foundation for the present, rather the instances that led to it.

The present does not recognize the past.

This is not a wholly bad thing. It is just a style, or more accurately, a philosophy that the principles which govern finances, play, transfers, media relations and all things Chelsea are influenced by.

Same goes for how we view our strikers.

Perhaps the "Drogba" way is dead. Perhaps fans no longer enjoy the spectacle of a heavyweight centre-back vying in a strongman struggle against an equally weighted forward. That style may have gone the way of Priscus and Verus.

It could be time for change.

But I don’t think this is unanimous. Let us not forget, as in cultural trends, sports tend to sway on a pendulum. It was not too long ago a World Cup was won by a carefully orchestrated zonal defense. Only four years later, it was done so on the stylistic pleasings of quick passing and even quicker feet.

And that is the current trend.

And why should Villas-Boas not want to bring it to Chelsea? It has been proven effective at not only bringing home silverware, but filling the stands with ardent spectators waiting to be awed by a near theatrical performance, one that borders the line between improvisation and inspiration. Sports are entertainment at heart.

I had a coach once who told me in order to get better, just watch the best player you can and mimic what he does. This is what Villas-Boas is doing and in the end, it may work out. The only problem that I realized with this philosophy is that I will always be one step behind. I will never attain the level of the great player because I will always be walking in his shadow. In professional football, if you are in the shadows, you are meaningless.

This has been more of a reflexive piece than anything, basically my way of working out my own frustrations. Thinking out loud in 1,200 words, if you would like. But there is a point to this.

How do you as a Chelsea fan view your club? Do you prefer that the Blues stick with "tradition," or is it about time for change? Can they regain glory through suffocating defense, or must they force their opponents into submission with a quick-paced attack? Do you fancy Torres or Drogba?

I want to get a debate going on here about where we stand as fans.

I know that the B/R fan page for Chelsea is a rather small sample size, but please place this on as many fan boards as you can and encourage people to come and have their voice heard. You are more than welcome to respond to what I have written, but I would also like you to add something to the discussion. Think of this article as a jumping off point.

I am not doing this for reads or comments; I could care less about medals. I want to have myself and all of us to understand where we stand and where we are headed.

After all, we just want a dang trophy, no?

Please make all comments respectful and non-aggressive. I want an intelligent debate where we can all better understand our team and ourselves. I will try and pitch in as much as I can, but I really want to see if you the readers can stimulate an argument amongst yourselves.