I think Man U's success was due largely to the sheer
determination of the players. And of course, the performance of key
players eg: Ronaldo helps. In addition, Man U was able to score
more often & from more sources instead of relying on a few key
players.
Comparatively, Chelsea relied on Drogba largely for goals although
the rest of the strikers chip in here and there - it was not good
enough. If we look at the crucial matches that turn the trophy race
- lesser known teams eg: Fulham & Reading managed to snatch
last grasp draws. Then there is this game that Eissen scored an own
goal that gifted a draw to the opponent. These are two points lost
not one point gained. Who's at fault? A good team is a team that
can grind out results. Chelsea came into the 06/07 season as
defending champs, obviously every team have a something to grind
against them and every team treats it an achievement to win / get
something against them - hence they will play harder and defense
stoutly - its the same facing Man U going into the new
season.
Moreover, the failure to perform for some of the key Chelsea
players contribute too, look at Lampard, would you say he performed
well? Maybe during the first half of the season but thereafter, I
don't recall him performing that good. In fact if you compared his
performance during the 05/06 season, he was much much better then.
Also, Ballack, he is supposed to score more goals. Shevchenko's
performance was well documented, I need not say much more.
I think we should not always pin it down to injuries to Cech &
Terry. Every team face injuries, its how the team cope. Look at the
amount of money that Chelsea has burnt since Abramovich took over,
with the amount spent, one should be able to have team that have
sufficient depth and cover.
The ball is round, Man U has its defense wiped out towards the end
of the season, so has Arsenal. Who knows what will happen next? But
being a good team and to be a good team, you have to cope and churn
out results.
