I noticed this week in the lead-up to the Chelsea – Aston Villa fixture that hidden amongst the praise for Villa’s start to the season was a commonly used phrase – “slow-burning revolution.” Martin O’Neill, it had been claimed, had made steady but nonetheless slow progress raising Villa to the giddy heights of third.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong but when O’Neill took over Villa in August 2006 with around twenty days of the transfer window left, Villa had just completed one of their most below-par season in years, the only bright spot being the double derby victories over Birmingham City. The defining image of the immediate period just before O’Neill arrived was the banner aimed by the Holte End at incumbent boss David O’Leary – ‘We’re not fickle, we just don’t like you.’
O’Neill was understandably greeted like a Messiah by the Villa fans, so used to mediocrity. O’Neill begged for time, and it perhaps wasn’t until the end of 2006/7 that the team became O’Neill’s properly. Villa are a team that has gone from sixteenth to third in just over two years. Now what’s slow-burning about that? Any faster and the end of season video would look like the credits to Mission: Impossible.
It’s incredibly rare these days for a team to be below-average in one season and the next talked up as potential title-winners. Cloughie did it with Forest and Derby but that was football on a level playing-field. With the money that saturates the upper echelons of the league, it’s incredibly unlikely that a team like Hull will be breaking the top four any time soon. Which is why the talk of Villa is confusing. For a club that’s made rapid progress, an awful lot is expected of them already, something I would not describe as slow-burning.
Chelsea are another club that made rapid progress, but for a different reason. However Blue you are, you cannot deny that Abramovich’s money bought them a success that ordinarily would take other teams four, five, maybe even ten seasons. It bought the best players and coaches money could buy (well, if they had a price), and it’s no shock to recall that within two years of Roman Abromovich’s purchase, the club had won their first championship for fifty years. How can the same be expected of Villa? They may be owned by a dollar billionaire, but they as a club could never compete on an equal financial par. Villa, like most clubs outside the top four, need to earn success, which gives them wealth and kudos to attract players. Like it or not, Chelsea circumvented the rules. It’s what’s getting Manchester City’s fans all excited.
Today, Villa came up against the Chelsea way, and they found out that if you have to take time to create the winning formula, don’t be surprised if teams who have already created one pummel you. Chelsea completely dominated possession, Petr Cech may as well have spent ninety minutes in a hammock in his pants, and Frank Lampard, up against Gareth Barry, showed exactly why Chelsea wouldn’t let him leave this summer, whatever it cost. Villa were seen as most likely to end their winning run because Chelsea were under-strength and Villa in rampant form. That conjecture was put to bed minutes into the first half when Nicolas Anelka pinged a shot off Brad Friedel’s bar.
Villa’s fabled potent attacking threat evaporated in the pressure, and after about three minutes the team discovered that the Chelsea they beat last September under Jose Mourinho had been completely overhauled. The one they drew against last December in a marvellous 4-4 draw have learned to respect their own fearsome potential. There was to be only one winner.
In truth, the 2-0 scoreline flattered Villa. At times Villa’s defending was desperate and even as a biased Villa fan, you perversely wanted some of Chelsea’s attacking intent to reap a more substantial reward.
With all the talk of Villa maybe cracking the top four, you might be forgiven for thinking the scoreline represented a narrowing of the gap between Chelsea and Villa. But Chelsea went easy. They did play near the top of their game, at least in the first half, but never really had to over-stretch. Villa, by contrast, found the difference between ambition and reality is mercilessly wide.
But Chelsea are not winners these days because of money. They’re winners because they are comfortable with winning. They’re not top of the table for nothing, after all. Money certainly helps realise the ambitions of their supporters and mega-rich owners, but the most striking thing about this victory for Chelsea is that they won without fuss. It was a clear, stark message, raw in the hearts of fans of any team that has designs of ending the season in close proximity to the leaders – it’s not a struggle to make the pretenders look amateur. Villa were at arm’s length for the entirety of the match.
Villa may play better and stay in touch with the top four, even after Christmas. A result like this does not make Villa a bad team. But were the improbable to happen and Villa unseat one of the holy tetralogy of Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester United and Arsenal, you get the feeling that their inexperience would make it a one-shot deal, at least for now. Because winners are used to it, and Villa, at the moment, are not. They got their noses rubbed in that fact right from minute one.
A result and a performance like today, coupled with Liverpool’s comeback against City, gave the pretenders to the crown a stern, much-needed lesson – you have to learn to get used to winning before you can be a winner. An obvious point, maybe, but one that will make Martin O’Neill’s Villa revolution seem slightly slower-burning tomorrow than it has been.
