BBC BLOGS - Phil McNulty
« Previous | Main | Next »

Chelsea add to rich history

Post categories:

Phil McNulty | 20:18 UK time, Saturday, 15 May 2010

At Wembley

Chelsea's supposed lack of history has become a familiar refuge for the desperate and just the plain old jealous since the advent of the riches of the Roman Abramovich era.

The refrain is used around Premier League grounds to suggest any success enjoyed at Stamford Bridge is solely down to the wielding of the mighty Russian chequebook - and is a factual nonsense.

This is, of course, the club that won the European Cup Winners' Cup by beating Real Madrid as far back as 1971 - even before a succession of magnificent Liverpool teams started their haul of silverware on the continent.

It never does any harm, however, to write fresh chapters in the record books to serve as a timely reminder to your doubters and Carlo Ancelotti was the author as Chelsea deservedly beat Portsmouth in the FA Cup final to complete the first domestic Double in the club's history.

And Chelsea added to the Premier League crown won with an 8-0 victory against Wigan Athletic last Sunday after an incident-riddled Wembley encounter that belied their one-goal victory margin.

Chelsea struck the woodwork five times in the first half alone and each side missed a penalty for the first time in FA Cup Final history, with all the action played out on another horrendous Wembley playing surface.

Kevin-Prince Boateng will reflect for the rest of his days on the missed penalty, saved easily by Petr Cech, that could have given Portsmouth an unlikely lead after Chelsea had spent the first 45 minutes peppering the frame of David James' goal.

penalty1_ap_595.jpgCech's second-half penalty save proved key to Chelsea's win - photo: AP

Boateng's sinking feeling was compounded within minutes when Didier Drogba, unstoppable on any sort of Wembley turf it would appear, placed a free-kick perfectly beyond David James on the hour.

Chelsea were even able to survive the rarity of a Frank Lampard penalty miss in the closing moments before celebrating a triumphant end to Ancelotti's first season.

The weight of expectation on the shoulders of the laconic Ancelotti was emphasised when, after making Chelsea only the seventh club to win the league and FA Cup Double, it was suggested he swiftly needs to turn his attention to winning the Champions League to satisfy Abramovich's lust for domination.

But expectation is a burden that sits easily with the relaxed figure of Ancelotti, who suggested a success that may help Chelsea's fans push the memories of the wonders of the Jose Mourinho era even further into the background, was down to good fortune.

Modest to a fault when asked about his new status as the man who made Stamford Bridge history, he said: "I am normal. I am lucky to find AC Milan and then to find another fantastic club, a club where my job is easy."

Not easy by any means - but the trick of the best managers is to make it look easy, and for the most part this season Ancelotti has done that.

It is too early to describe Ancelotti as the man who removed the spectre of Mourinho from Stamford Bridge. After all, it was more or less a Mourinho team that won the Double, but even a World Cup winner like Luiz Felipe Scolari proved this is not simply a case of pointing the vehicle in the right direction.

Ancelotti has impressively maintained the rejuvenation started by Guus Hiddink with his phlegmatic approach to victory and defeat. He has ensured Chelsea approached the business end of the season in prime condition and has been rewarded with a guaranteed place in the club's Hall of Fame.

And the other key contributor to Chelsea's landmark feat was Drogba, who scored in his third FA Cup Final, adding to his winner against Manchester United in 2007 and his goal in the victory against Everton last season.

Drogba remains one of the Premier League's prime drama queens, but overriding all this is his unquestioned status as a world-class striker with the complete set of weapons in his armoury.

He is dangerous from any range, as he proved with his decisive contribution from 20 yards and another staggering first-half free-kick that James turned on to the bar and down on to the line. Near or far, he is never anything less than a menace when in the mood.

drogba1_getty595.jpgDrogba has scored six Wembley goals in six competitive finals and semi-finals - photo: Getty

And, at the conclusion of a time of personal trauma, John Terry can now go into the history books as the Chelsea captain who lifted the title and the FA Cup in the space of six days.

There seemed some disquiet, surprise even, that former England captain Terry was so outspoken and openly critical of the Football Association and Wembley's pitch after the game. As someone who has suffered this awful experience on a regular basis, he is well within his rights to do so and his words hit the mark.

For all the talk of a better surface, there was little sign of improvement. Indeed the best those involved could offer up by way of a compliment was that at least it was bad in a different way to the ice rink effect offered up in the FA Cup semi-finals.

The FA can talk all it likes about difficult microclimates or other underlying causes of this embarrassing problem. The bottom line is its opulent new home is being constantly undermined by the most important area of the stadium, namely the pitch. The FA should not expect criticism to disappear until it is cured.

As for Pompey, Avram Grant's team was all heart and the splash of colour and wall of sound provided by their wonderful supporters should be a source of pride to this deeply troubled club.

Grant did not go quietly either, although he appeared a man in denial when he suggested, with a misguided optimism bordering on self-delusion, this was not a fair result and Pompey deserved more.

Sorry Avram, it has been a great ride but Portsmouth can have no serious complaints about the merit of Chelsea's win.

Grant then jumped aboard his familiar, and by now surely exhausted, old hobby horse about Pompey's players and fans being punished for events elsewhere because the club entered administration.

And he carried on a familiar theme by once again launching into the FA and Premier League for their refusal to back Portsmouth's appeal to play in next season's Europa League after reaching the FA Cup final.

The normally deadpan Grant even broke into animation and banged the desk in front of him in fury at this so-called injustice, which was actually a result of Pompey's inability to file their accounts in time because the club was in administration - a criterion for a Uefa club licence.

It was all passionate, but pointless, stuff and Grant may need to be aware that not everyone regards Portsmouth's run to Wembley as the epitome of the romance of the FA Cup, despite the heroics of his hard-pressed players.

Grant might discover those owed money by a club so heavily in debt less sympathetic and not exactly moved to tears as a result of his outpourings, full of feeling though they were.

Indeed Grant's own loyalty to the Portsmouth cause, and no-one can fail to be impressed by the way he has become a figure to rally around at Fratton Park, may soon be put to the test by an offer from West Ham.

In many respects this was the end of an era for Portsmouth, who will now start again in the Championship with a team that is likely to bear little or no resemblance to the one that fought so hard at Wembley, despite being so obviously inferior.

Chelsea may also be entering a period of renewal, with fresher, younger faces likely to be injected into a side laced with vast experience.

And it is something Ancelotti appeared to be planning for just minutes after what is becoming a bit of a habit, namely taking the acclaim of Chelsea's fans.

Chelsea have a history - and Ancelotti could relax with a glass of his beloved fine red wine safe in the knowledge that he has added to it spectacularly in the last week.

You can follow me at twitter.com/philmcnulty and join me on Facebook.

Comments

Page 1 of 3

  • Comment number 1.

    First?

    Well played boys!

  • Comment number 2.

    Our bid to host the World Cup is at serious risk because of this complete fiasco with the Wembley pitch.

    You can bet your bottom dollar our bid rivals will make sure that FIFA are aware of the problems with Wembley.

  • Comment number 3.

    England wears blue, I mean true blue throughtout the season. Dont forget the Community Sheild at the beginning of the season. It starts well and ends well, a fantastic season with a true double or a treble (?)

  • Comment number 4.

    I think, other than the Chelsea fans, I am one of the few people in the country that wanted Chelsea to win. I am a Liverpool fan so I really don't have a liking for Chelsea but I got sick of the "oh, we're all victims" attitude of everyone connected with Portsmouth (not including the fans - I feel sorry for them) a long time ago.

    Honestly, I can't understand why everyone was getting behind a club that had been grossly mismanaged and only had themselves to blame for the position they were in. It really bothers me that clubs gamble as much as they do and something really needs to be done about it.

    http://the-fa-premier-league.blogspot.com

  • Comment number 5.

    Desperate pandering to Chelsea; a poor, sycophantic article.
    More of the same, then.

  • Comment number 6.

    fantastic result for the best team on the day
    great double for great club,drogba for golden boot in south africa.
    blue is the colour...

    sorry he plays for ivory coast,very unlikely.

  • Comment number 7.

    #5 more of the same united views then

  • Comment number 8.

    Phil with all due respect look at the facts when it comes to Chelsea's 'history'. A successful club, yes, a successful history, no.

    Chelsea have won 23 major trophies, if you include the minor cups and Charity Shield - 17 since 1997, so only 6 in 92 years before that, and 10 since 2003 when Abramovich took over. So just under 50% of their trophies have been won since the Russian took over

    To me that is not a club steeped in history. A factual nonsense? I think not.

  • Comment number 9.

    Chelsea have history, its just not as illustrious as many of its partners and there of course the recent winnings would of been unlikely without russian money.

    But they were the best team in the country this season, no doubting that and deserved to win this match too.

    As for the pitch disgrace, how can they not grow grass properely. This nonesense about climate, look at all the top prem league clubs they dont have such bad problems.

    No.5..... I bet you wouldnt say that if it was man u winning the cup as Im sure the following article would have exactly the same tone

  • Comment number 10.

    Chelsea are the only team in English football history to win the League/ Cup Double, the League/ League Cup Double & FA Cup/ League Cup Double

  • Comment number 11.

    McNulty then jumped aboard the familiar, and by now surely exhausted, old hobby horse of the spectre of Mourinho hanging over Stamford Bridge.

    It was all passionate, but pointless, stuff and McNulty may need to be aware that not everyone regards regurgitation of tired imagery as the epitome of journalistic flair.

  • Comment number 12.

    @ 5
    Desperate pandering to Chelsea; a poor, sycophantic article.
    More of the same, then.

    ----------------

    Yours is ranting and blabing

  • Comment number 13.

    Honestly, nothing much to savor. Football from england = Manchester United

  • Comment number 14.

    Phil, first blog Ive been very disappointed about for a long time. Firstly, on today's game, Grant has every right to feel disappointed.

    Sure, Chelsea hit the woodwork 5 times but it would be unbelievable to think they wouldnt have chances. Grant surely told his players to ride their luck and see where it took them - which was quite simply to a great chance (albeit reactionary) in the first half and a penalty at 0-0 (0-0, who wouldve believe that after an hour??).

    Also, ancelotti has obviously done well this season but look at his competition. I am a united fan and more than happy to admit chelsea were, on the whole, the better team. But can it honestly be said that it should have come down to a 1 point difference?

    People can talk about 7-0 wins til the cows come home but how much would they have counted for if it had been a 1 point united win?

    I appreciate ifs and buts mean nothing now but when you consider that avram lost the champions league by a posts width lets not get too carried away with the ancelotti pr machine.

    obviously not everyone will agree but this is the first blog that has reeked of very standard journalism phil - i personally hope theres no more

  • Comment number 15.

    I am a South African and an African. I am very disappointed by the way African Players are being treated by European Leagues. Look at Drogda he went to African Nations Cup for more than a Month and still he scored more goals than anyone in the League, but he was not recognised when the Best Player for the League was anounced, it went to Wayne Rooney whose Perfomance is way below Drogba or Frank Lampard. It looks like if you are an African you have to perform 1000 times before you can get any recognition. Samething happened to Samuel Etoewhen he was playing for Barcelona. They eventually sold him and bought useless Ibraminovic or whatever

  • Comment number 16.

    ***Chelsea are the only team in English football history to win the League/ Cup Double, the League/ League Cup Double & FA Cup/ League Cup Double***

    Is this sarcasm?

    Because Liverpool won the League/Cup double in 1986, the League/League Cup double in 1982, 1983 and 1984, and the FA Cup/League Cup double in 2001.

  • Comment number 17.

    Re no.5 and no.13, at least try to be humble in defeat. In response to 'Football from England = Manchester United,' which team currently possesses the Charity Shield, FA Cup and Premier League trophies?
    Regarding history, I must admit Chelsea's history is grossly inferior to both Liverpool or United, they lack European success (Champions League) which seems to define 'great' teams. That said Chelsea have had a great season. They've played attractive attacking football and under Ancelotti seem to go about things in a non-mourinho-like, quiet manner.
    So United fans, give Chelsea some respect. Oh, and enjoy the Carling Cup.

  • Comment number 18.

    #15

    your point is valid in that rooney for player of th eyear was always going to be difficult considering how well drogba has played this year. one could argue that drogba has been playing in the better team ergo he was more likely to score goals compared to rooney who had to drag united through games at time.

    your point about eto is weak - the fact he was pushed out at barca is less to do with him being african and more about the general mind set at the club.

    be careful of playing up injustices - theres enough of that abound as it is

  • Comment number 19.

    just so i dont sound as though i was being harsh there, you could also argue that drogba has once again performed as well all knew he could where as this season rooney has taken his game to a new level, adding goals (particularly with his head) to his already proven commitment and work rate.

    more than aware that there are equally good arguments for drogba but just seeking to show its not a witch hunt against african players as suggested by #15

  • Comment number 20.

    Drogba scored 37 goals, missed a month of the season. He could have scored nearly FIFTY if he had taken pens (like Rooney. Remind me who got player of the year...

  • Comment number 21.

    We know what happened.

    So what's this article actually for?

  • Comment number 22.

    The PFA/PWA player of the year is clearly the Manchester United player of the year and next year should be described as such to avoid confusion.

  • Comment number 23.

    Phil, this blog is extremely poor.

    It's called 'Chelsea add to rich history', yet the only history you mention is victory in a european competition that doesn't even exist any more, almost 40 years ago. They haven't built success, they have bought it and shouldn't be applauded for that. It's as if you'd written 2 blogs depending on the result of the game.

    People need to not get carried away with Ancelotti. With a far superior set of players overall he only managed to win the league by 1 point and were tactically inferior against Inter Milan in the champions league. Ancelotti might have brought more attacking football, resulting in the very occasional 7-0 thrashing - but he is by no means tactically sound and there is a lot to sort out before people can praise him so highly.

    and to post #4 - people wanted portsmouth to win because a) they were the underdogs and the english public love to follow underdogs (i.e. Barnsley's FA cup run) and b) portsmouth players and fans have showed tremendous spirit to actually get to the FA cup final considering what has been going on around them.

    There is no doubt that Chelsea deserved to win but people need to consider that they've beaten a club in disarray 1-0 to win a cup and won the premier league by only 1 point. I don't think that's anything to get carried away over.

  • Comment number 24.

    Chelsea have won 23 major trophies, if you include the minor cups and Charity Shield - 17 since 1997, so only 6 in 92 years before that, and 10 since 2003 when Abramovich took over.

    ---------------------------------------------


    I notice that some people define "history" in such a way that only three or four clubs have any of it. Leeds United are a club without "history" as some of you use the term. They've won the top flight, what, three times? Not history!


    It's all sour grapes from the Man united followers.

  • Comment number 25.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 26.

    ancelotti has obviously done well this season but look at his competition. I am a united fan and more than happy to admit chelsea were, on the whole, the better team. But can it honestly be said that it should have come down to a 1 point difference?


    -------------------------------------------------------


    For the life of me, I can't figure out what that's supposed to mean. Should Serie A this year come down to a one of two point difference? Should the Prem last season have come down to a two point difference? Should Barca still be fighting off a challenge from Real Madrid going into the final round?

    Really, what sort of question is that?

  • Comment number 27.

    Wayne Rooney fully deserved his player of the year award. The award was decided before the last game of the season where Drogba won the golden boot, so simply suggesting that Drogba deserved it for scoring more goals is rubbished already.

    Also, Rooney has provided more for the team than Drogba ever has or will and shows a much higher work rate and desire to perform. Drogba is much like Ronaldo - only interested when the team is playing well. The award is decided by others in the game and therefore there's no surprise that people see Rooney as the better player.

    Both are game changers and no doubt umongst the best front men in the world but I'd still rather have had Rooney this year than Drogba

  • Comment number 28.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 29.

    Once again the Red Mist decends. What is it with the MU supporters? If it's not Red it can't be good? Look up top lads and see the Blue. That's not the sky. When you look at football game...I presume you do look at football games that do not include MU.......no? Well no surprise there then. What a bunch of..........

  • Comment number 30.

    Factual nonsense, Phil?

    I'm sorry but the only FACT is that the other members of the 'Big Four' (despite Liverpool's awful season) have won an obscene amount of trophies over their history when compared to Chelsea. Yes, Chelsea have history, but so do Grimsby Town! If you compare the club's trophy cabinets over their entire history then Chelsea are behind numerous teams including some who have not played in the top flight in recent times.

    I've not looked this up, but the next club behind Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal is Tottenham, if memory serves? Do Chelsea even make it into the top 10? I'd be quite suprised if they did.

  • Comment number 31.

    Oh, and re: Drogba. I don't care how many goals that man scores, the simple fact of the matter is he is a disgrace and probably one of the worst examples to aspiring young footballers the world has ever seen. George Best may have been an alcoholic and a womaniser, but at least he never threw his toys out of the pram over taking a penalty!

  • Comment number 32.

    Chelsea may not have history but in a few years Manchester United may be history.

  • Comment number 33.

    I think what comes out of Phil's article is that Chelsea MADE history yesterday, just as Preston North End did in the 1800s, Cardiff did in 1927, Sunderland did in 1973, Forest did in the late 70s and early 80s, etc. They didn't commit any crime. They can proudly add this to achievements to look back on.

    But it has little relevance to their next football match. Their next opponents shouldn't feel ashamed of daring to try to win if their history hasn't been as long or successful as Chelsea's, because it counts for nothing when both teams will be sharing the same ball and pitch. They will both be making more history.

    It's bizarre to hear some supporters of clubs with periods of successful history claim they own history and that no-one else is allowed to change it, just as they were allowed to. If you want to be selective with your history, you can ignore Liverpool's success of the 70s and 80s, and say their success has been otherwise modest. The same could be said of Man Utd if you look at them in the 70s. If history is so important, why didn't they win the League this season? Let's hope England go out to MAKE history in South Africa, not dwell on it.

    One final thought, if Man City win 50 Premier League and 20 Champions League titles in the 21st century, will City fans be justified in teasing other fans that they have no history?

  • Comment number 34.

    I'd like to offer my congratulations to Chelsea on their first "Double", which brings their total major trophies haul to 16 (4 League titles, 6 FA Cups, 4 Football League Cups and 2 European honours).

    They have overtaken Everton and are now in 6th place in the table of all-time English club major trophy winners.

    http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimeEnglishTrophyWinners1871-72to2008-09.html

  • Comment number 35.

    Yet another poor blog here from Phil McNulty.

    Do you think you could possibly mention Chelsea without Mourinho? The "spectre" of Mourinho would have gone long ago if people like you could just put your personal infatuation with the man aside.

    Your point on the clubs history and success is also a "factual nonsense". Yes the club has a history - like Preston North End, Blackburn Rovers and countless other sides in England. Success outside the Abramovich era has been limited though. Only a really hopeless journalist with an agenda would try to diminish or ignore the impact that Abramovich has had on the fortunes of the club. Would Chelsea be where they are now without his backing - in short no. A Cup Winners Cup from the seventies is a really weak attempt to deflect away from this pretty obvious point.

  • Comment number 36.


    What a fascinating blog at the end of an action-packed FA Cup finals. Thanks Phil.

    The momentum has been with Chelsea for quite some weeks and their victory in the finals was no surprise. Congratulations to Carlo Ancelotti and his boys for the historic double. Hope Drogba and his Chelsea mates carry their good form to South Africa.

    Portsmouth players fought well and covered themselves with honour and came second best ahead of all the rest. Well played.


    Dr. Cajetan Coelho

  • Comment number 37.

    Grass looks like it has been eaten and regurgitated by a sick cow. The FA need to sort this out as soon as possible.

    Well done to my beloved Chelsea for winning the FA Cup again! Was brilliant 10 years ago when Denny Wise went up the hallowed Wembley steps and is brilliant now with JOhn Terry. Come on Chelsea.

  • Comment number 38.

    Chelsea FC making history, not bleating on about it!

    Man United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs enjoy those sour grapes, it's funny watching you digest them!!

    Champions Champions Champions!

  • Comment number 39.

    Chelsea were founded in 1905, and as far as I am concerned have been making their own history ever since!

  • Comment number 40.

    To CaptKrimbo...my point exactly, especially the mention of Grimsby Town. The jibes about Chelsea not having a history are usually based on the amount of silverware won, especially before Roman Abramovich arrived.

    Chelsea did win trophies before then (FA Cup 1970/1997, European Cup Winners' Cup 1971/1998 etc) but you do not have to have won trophies to have a history...otherwise must clubs would be regarded as not having one, which is ridiculous.

    As for the article being too much in praise of Chelsea, I don't know what anyone else thinks but I would regard making history (or more history) by winning the league and FA Cup double for the first time is worthy of praise.

  • Comment number 41.

    Are you a Chelsea fan by any chance Phil?

  • Comment number 42.

    I don't understand all this obsession with 'history', especially as many of us who bleat about glory days gone by weren't even around to witness it! As a Derby fan I'm proud of the Brian Clough years, but it has no bearing on the Rams teams of today (even with strongest link possible currently in charge!). McNulty's right - it IS just jealously!! Successful history is one thing, but a successful present is far more important. England won the World Cup in 1966, so what? Yeah my dad's got great memories.....now I want some!!

  • Comment number 43.

    Don't forget that the Chelsea win via the dodgy offside goal at Old Trafford was what gave them the Premier League Championship.

  • Comment number 44.

    Phil.......

    Can I go off topic, and touch on today's breaking story about Lord Triesman and our World Cup bid? Which is now in tatters!

    You are a journalist, so please tell me, were the Daily Mail right to get this story and then print it?

    Was it in the national interest to ruin our chances of hosting the World Cup.

    Why did the Daily Mail decide they had to send an undercover journalist to trap Lord Triesman in the first place?

    What was their motivation to do so? Why do they have to record people's private thoughts and conversations and publish them?

    I am beginning to think I will never live to see a World Cup hosted in England and it makes me both frustrated and sad!

  • Comment number 45.

    Phil, you're blog's all well and good and will appease the polite fans of Stamford Bridge, but if you are seriously saying that Chelsea's success since Abromovich arrived is not down almost exclusively to the weight of his investment then you are deluding yourself.
    If in the next few years Man City start sweeping up trophies etc are you going to argue that they have not 'bought' those trophies, like you have done here with Chelsea?

    Behave mate, if Ian Dowie,Steve Bruce, Moyes or Martinez were suddenly given £2-300 million then I'd be pretty happy to suggest that their clubs would have a good crack at the Prem in the next couple of years.

    Fans of the moneybags clubs like to try and delude themselves by saying nonsense like "money brings it's own problems" and " you have to get the blend right" blah blah blah...but we all know that's rubbish really don't we? In the modern game money = success (unless you are Rafa that is...but he's an exception to the rule as he is unbelievably rubbish at management)!...what I'm trying to say, is that if you buy titles, cups etc..it's gotta feel a bit empty, unless you have no soul, of course.

  • Comment number 46.

    Again we have people confusing history with success, the sour grapes by some Utd supporters beggars belief.

    CaptKrimbo who said "Oh, and re: Drogba. I don't care how many goals that man scores, the simple fact of the matter is he is a disgrace and probably one of the worst examples to aspiring young footballers the world has ever seen. George Best may have been an alcoholic and a womaniser, but at least he never threw his toys out of the pram over taking a penalty!"

    I think you'll find that the demonising of Drogba by footballing pundits and the media suits an agenda. The man himself has just recently made the cover of Time Magazine, which is a fantastic achievement, for his charity work and fund raising in his homeland. As Phil said, a drama queen he may be, but a disgrace is so far wide of the mark it's laughable.

  • Comment number 47.

    All those supporters banging on about history are just jealous, probably glory hunting liverpool and united fans. i bet if city and everton had a more ilustrious history you'd support them. most of you dont even support the team on your doorstep, well i supported chelsea when they were rubbish and have every right to enjoy there current success as in 10 years time they may be in the position liverpool are in now. making absolutly no history at all!!

  • Comment number 48.

    Ancelotti has done very well indeed in his first season and deserves the recognition your article gives him.Mind you, if he wants "Manager of the Year" next season he needs to win a treble as minimum requirement,just in case Harry Boy makes third spot in the Premier League.

  • Comment number 49.

    Re: CaptKrimbo

    Drogba has donated well over a million pounds of his own money to fund a brand new hospital in Africa as well as raising more through charity events and fund raisers.

    I don't know one footballer that has done that in the past or does it currently.

    Yes he does act like a kid on the pitch, but that's football, if only the microphones could pick up what Rooney shouts at the referee every single match.

    Everyone is human and wants to win no matter the cost, I'm the same for the team I captain.

  • Comment number 50.

    @43 David Roberts
    I was wondering when that pearl of wisdom would be entered into the debate. Of course the blinkered views of some Utd supporters seem to overlook, that Macheda handled the ball into the net. So lets say the officials get those two decisions correct, then Chelsea still win 1-0 not rocket science is it?

  • Comment number 51.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 52.

    Well said Norapeti #44. If England fail to be awarded the World Cup will all fans that care boycott the Daily Mail? Responsible journalism reports the facts and offers informed comment, not set out to trap unwary victims.

    And by the way, this blog did simply report the facts and offer an honest and balanced opinion on a historic double success. Well done Phil!

  • Comment number 53.

    David Roberts,have you time to explain why you and most other Man Utd followers who go on about the Drogba goal at Old Trafford whilst completely shutting their eyes to the hand ball goal United were given as a consolation in the same match.Good debate is about fairness,something rarely given at times.

  • Comment number 54.

    Pathetic.

  • Comment number 55.

    Chelsea still haven't won as many trophies as Liverpool or Manchester United. Shall we all just not bother next season then? After all, if Chelsea or indeed anyone else wins anything, they still won't have the 'history' of these two clubs, and clearly a club’s history is more important than the present to some United fans, only when they’ve had an unsuccessful season, of course. It seems to be a readymade excuse in case Chelsea enjoy any success over them – ‘we’ve still got more history, and your success is invalid anyway because you have a rich owner’.

    The whole ‘buying success’ argument is tiresome now. Every club looks to buy success by acquiring the best players they can; it's part of what makes football so exciting! Besides, prior to Abramovich, Chelsea had won a couple of FA Cups (97 and 2000), finished 3rd in 98/99, and qualified for the Champions League in 4th the season before he arrived, so they were hardly a small club.

    United are a great team, but the fact is Chelsea have been better this season – 100% record against the established big 4 (dubiously including Liverpool), and with a record number of goals scored. If all those accusing Phil McNulty of bias could take off their anti-Chelsea tinted glasses for a moment, you would realise that any unbiased journalist would have written a similarly praiseworthy article. Chelsea have just won the league and cup double! Were you expecting an article belittling their achievements? Congratulations Chelsea, can’t wait for next season already.

  • Comment number 56.

    I think you're a bit wide of the mark this time Phil. I really don't think people pointing out Chelsea's lack of history are doing so out of jealousy (or at least not all of them). One Cup Winners Cup does not make a club a "Big Club" - if that were the case Ipswich would be huge having won one UEFA Cup (a more prestigious trophy).

    The reason people highlight it is that Chelsea have bought their way to the top table - it's a simple as that. It's a fact of modern football, so we shouldn't complain too much about their success - but it does stick in the craw a bit when they are spoken of in the same breath as truly great clubs who have established themeselves over time.

    Part of it, I think, is that they are based in a rather fashionable part of London - so always got much more media coverage than they deserved. It will be interesting to compare the press reaction when Man City's new-found wealth starts bringing in the trophies - I can't help but think it will be much less sycophantic. And that's despite Man City actually having a little bit of history.

  • Comment number 57.

    I wasn't going to comment but oh my god when i saw this...

    #43 "Don't forget that the Chelsea win via the dodgy offside goal at Old Trafford was what gave them the Premier League Championship." - David Roberts

    You, are an idiot. You obviously don't watch the matches, you just read the match report from "The Sun" or something.

    Yeah Chelsea's second goal was offside, but Macheda's consolation goal was put into the net with his HANDS.

    Final score was 2-1, If you're going to whine about refereeing decisions and take away Drogba's offside goal, then take away Macheda's blatant handball and what do you get? 1-0 to Chelsea. We still win the league.

    Nothing "gave" us the Premier League. We were by far the best team. Most goals ever scored in the Prem, wins home and away against MU, Arsenal & Liverpool, it was our title to lose, we made some errors, e.g. against Spurs. But we are deserving champions. Credit where it's due.

    Absolutely pathetic attempt to discredit 10 months of hard work. If you're going to discredit Chelsea, at least bring up something that is factually accurate.

  • Comment number 58.

    History is exactley what is says - 'history' and appears to be a despirate attempt by teams who have won little in a season, to justify a poor campaign.Aresenal geing the exception, Liverpool and Man U are the worst offenders. In a poor season they throw their 'history' around and in a good season they are adding to their 'history'. So for their fans it is some kind of sad 'win - win'.
    As for money buying success - Man City??
    Chelsea are currently the best team in England as their results against all the other teams (rich and poor / history or no history)prove and they are also the FA cup winners because they were better than the teams they played. Nothing to do with history or money.
    This season was great but come May it starts again!

  • Comment number 59.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 60.

    congrats to Chelsea fo making club history. So the Charity shield at the start of season, is Chelsea going to play Chelsea? They won the league and the FA cup.

  • Comment number 61.

    Great game on an absolute shambles of a pitch, an utter disgrace to the finest knockout comp in the world.

    As for Pompey
    1. I feel sorry for the debacle that has been their 4 owners in a season, which is plain crazy &
    2. They should be in the UEFA Euo league next season with any and all prize money going to the local businesses in Portsmouth owed money by the club

  • Comment number 62.

    Let's be honest (and not sucking up to the top clubs), the RECENT success of Chelsea (mentioning a trophy won decades ago is absurd) is due to Abramovich's millions. Without them, Chelsea would never have made enough money to buy the players that beat Portsmouth yesterday.

    Clubs that do not live within their means like Chelsea, Man City and, in past years, Portsmouth and Leeds are bad for the game.

  • Comment number 63.

    To CaptKrimbo...my point exactly, especially the mention of Grimsby Town. The jibes about Chelsea not having a history are usually based on the amount of silverware won, especially before Roman Abramovich arrived.
    ......................

    It is indeed sad that people equate history with 'success'.
    It would seem to me that people who rely on the glory of trophy winning to big themselves and their club up suggests that they might just be glory hunters.
    It's usually the case.

  • Comment number 64.

    The reason people highlight it is that Chelsea have bought their way to the top table - it's a simple as that. It's a fact of modern football
    .....................

    Actually it's nothing new.
    The successful teams in virtually ever league in every generation have been the teams with the most money to spend.
    At some point almost every team has 'bought' their way to the top table.Man Utd did,Liverpool did,Arsenal did.Barca,Real,Inter,AC and it goes on and on.
    Yes,they might have 'bought' their way to the top table decades ago but make no mistake they still did it.

  • Comment number 65.

    There's no club who hasn't "bought" their current position. look at the league tables in all countries. There is a very close correlation between income and success. That is no coincidence.

    That's what happens in football! Chelsea are no different to any other trophy winning club.

    E.g Man. Utd. have won the Premiership 3 times in the last 7 seasons. In recent years they have purchased Ferdinand, Rooney, Hargreaves, Berbatov, Valencia, all for 25m plus each, and Vidic, Nani, Ronaldo, Evra 10m plus each, plus smaller amounts on other players.

    Why are they not accused of buying the title and their other honours? They have spent more than Chelsea in the Abramavich era (if you discount his first year when he wasted lots of money).

    Also, of course Chelsea have a history - they've been going since 1905. How long ago do you have to have won a trophy for it to become acceptable 'history' and give the club a 'heritage'.

    Chelsea are 6th in the all-time list of English trophy winners:
    www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimeEnglishTrophyWinners

    If Chelsea don't have a history or heritage then are those people who denigrate Chelsea's past saying that only 5 clubs have?






  • Comment number 66.

    Re 'History' - Points 40 and 42 are spot on. Obviously no one is going to dispute who's won the most trophies, but clearly the rest of the football world will strive to get their name in the record books too rather than sit back and let Man U and Liverpool fight it out every year. 'History' is simply a case of how long a team has been around, so every club has one, irrespective of time span or size of trophy cabinet.

    Re 'Winning trophies is all down to money' - Of course Abramovich has been a major factor behind Chelsea's recent success - again no one's going to dispute that so do try and come up with something original:) Anyway, this season has proved it's certainly not as simple as the size of your bank balance: Despite massive investment Man City failed to break into the top 4 and didn't get anywhere near a trophy (Chelsea, remember, were already a top 4 side before Abramovich came along.) And Man U fans who recall the 80s will remember how Ron Atkinson and then Ferguson brought a succession of top players to the club without seriously threatening Liverpool's domination of the league.

    I'll end with a quiz question for those still obsessed with the past: Who was the first English team to qualify for the European Cup? It was Chelsea in 1955, who qualified for the inaugural competion by winning the 1st division title in 1954-55. But in their 'wisdom' the Football League persuaded them to withdraw due to perceived incompatibilities with domestic fixtures.

    Have a nice day everyone.

  • Comment number 67.

    @62
    I think you can now add Utd and Liverpool to that list, unless of course you prefer to be selective with your team choices.

  • Comment number 68.

    As the direct decendant of" Gus the Father of the club "I am very proud of Chealsea today. I know that Gus will be having a party where ever he is( He will not let a little thing like he is dead right now stop him).I know even thought I am in New Zealand my pride for his achements are still on the top . My Grandfather Josoph kicked the first ball for the first game at Stadford Bridge so I watch with interest and great pride that our family started the whole bundle that is now Chelsea

  • Comment number 69.

    2. At 10:57pm on 15 May 2010, norapeti wrote:

    Our bid to host the World Cup is at serious risk because of this complete fiasco with the Wembley pitch.

    You can bet your bottom dollar our bid rivals will make sure that FIFA are aware of the problems with Wembley.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I totally agree. John Terry is correct in saying that the FA must treat Wembley as a football stadium and not as an events venue.

    The problem is that the FA spent far too much redeveloping Wembley and now have to over use it to get any return on their money. However, they don't have to use Wembley for the World Cup as we are blessed with many modern stadia and the final could be held at the Emirates instead.

  • Comment number 70.

    Chelsea, as a club, lose vast amounts of money each season. They're no better than Portsmouth, except they have some Russian Billionaire who gives them money as a plaything.

    When they're winning trophies with players the club itself can't afford to pay through its own means, then they are hollow wins.

    Before the Billionaire came along and paid for all these players Chelsea had only won 1 league title in the 1950's, 3 FA Cups, 2 League Cups, 2 European Cup Winners Cups and 1 UEFA Super Cup. I'd qualify that as a respectable enough cup history, but when it comes down to it Chelsea's history doesn't measure up to the likes of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal, Everton, Aston Villa etc.

  • Comment number 71.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 72.

    8. At 11:37pm on 15 May 2010, dtjenkins wrote:
    Phil with all due respect look at the facts when it comes to Chelsea's 'history'. A successful club, yes, a successful history, no.

    Chelsea have won 23 major trophies, if you include the minor cups and Charity Shield - 17 since 1997, so only 6 in 92 years before that, and 10 since 2003 when Abramovich took over. So just under 50% of their trophies have been won since the Russian took over

    To me that is not a club steeped in history. A factual nonsense? I think not.

    I agree Chelsea, like most other teams, are not steeped in the level of history it perhaps should be or when compared with Liverpool, Man Utd and Arsenal, all of whom have won an exceptional number of trophies, most of which have come over the past 40 years, but nevertheless Chelsea are still 6th in the all time English team Silverware list behind the big red three plus Aston Villa and Tottenham.
    Including the double this season, Chelsea have now won 17 Major trophies (plus 4 charity shields), 4 League, 2 ECWC, 1 EuroSuperCup, 6 FACup, 4 LeagueCup.
    11 of these trophies came pre 2003, 1 League, 2 ECWC, 1 EuroSupercup, 3 FACup, 2 LeagueCup and 2 Shields.
    6 trophies came from the Gullitt and Vialli (and Zola) era when a new era began with Glenn Hoddle arriving as Player Manager from Swindon Town in 1993/4. Every team has an era, currently it has been Man Utd's, before that Arsenal and before that Liverpool.
    Now its Chelsea's turn, although the emormous club size and financial muscle of Man Utd will always be there (like Real Madrid), it is prehaps refreshing that Tottenham and Man City may also be waiting in the wings!

  • Comment number 73.

    For all those whiners complaining that Chelsea have bought their success... did Liverpool not benefit from a single pound of Littlewoods Pools money then?

  • Comment number 74.

    Let's be honest (and not sucking up to the top clubs), the RECENT success of Chelsea (mentioning a trophy won decades ago is absurd) is due to Abramovich's millions. Without them, Chelsea would never have made enough money to buy the players that beat Portsmouth yesterday.

    Clubs that do not live within their means like Chelsea, Man City and, in past years, Portsmouth and Leeds are bad for the game.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The same could be said of when Manchester United became a PLC.

    The similarity here is that to be successful in English football you need lots of money and both Chelsea and Manchester United do. Surely it is no coincidence that the Premiership has been won by these two teams for the last 6 season and who would bet against one of them winning it again next year.

    Something needs to be done to make the EPL more competitive as it has become a boring two horse race every year regardless of how much it is hyped up by the media and the supporters of the top two clubs.

  • Comment number 75.

    Well done Chelsea, history in the making. I'd rather be making history than be ancient history!

    Fantastic job by Carlo. I think the first year was the most difficult so I fully expect plenty more titles in the future.

    There is a spirit and togetherness at this club which money can't buy and that, currently, is only matched by Utd. Congrats to Utd for pushing us so close in the league and congrats to Portsmouth for their spirit and attacking intent yesterday, adding to the spectacle of the FA Cup.

  • Comment number 76.

    I am a United fan and I would like to say not only were Chelsea the best team this season they have now evolved under Ancelotti in to an entertaining one with incisive attacking play. Congratulations on a great season and on one of the most entertaining FA Cup finals for a while too.... I just hope United can keep up with all the rich clubs in the years to come !

  • Comment number 77.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 78.

    Normally I'd be sympathetic to your agrument about Chelsea's History Phil, but considering the fact that I have to listen on a daily basis to my Chelsea colleague derriding the history of others, saying history doesn't matter, it's all about what you do now, sympathy is in short supply.

    When a clubs own fans don't care about it's history (oh and by the way one piece of evidence in defence is hardly argument stopping) I don't see why others should.

    Said colleague has allready regalled the interested and uninterested by the medium of Facebook with the chants his section of the stand were singing yesterday when they won, and they weren't simply revelling in their own history, expletives removed they were

    [insert rival "big 4" club with history] Stuff your history, stuff your history 'cause we've won the double.

    Now for me fans that have to start celebrating by berrating rival clubs is pathetic, why not simply concentrate on your own clubs achievment? I know fans of all clubs do this but it is annoying and simply shows the tribalism of football and the thuggish element left in football that even in moments of victory expletives must be aimed at others.

    It's one of the reasons I'll never take my kid to a game of football, because while the game may be beautiful, and the Chelsea players fully deserving of their double, fans of their club, and clubs across the nation would get any movie rated at least a 15.

    Oh and their so called "fans" celebrated by jumping on cars on the Fulham road when they won the league last week, which they said was "funny" Again showing the thugggishness that persists in our game

    So well done Chelsea, you've got a new bit of history, but that's all it is, history, it happened yesterday and as you are so keen to downplay others don't be surprised when your's is downplayed.

    Grants achievement yesterday was the truely historic one.



  • Comment number 79.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 80.

    @70
    Would you like some vinegar to go with that chip on your shoulder?

  • Comment number 81.

    Chelsea, as a club, lose vast amounts of money each season.
    .......................

    But in the last few we haven't lost as much as Liverpool or Man Utd.
    Is there a reason you aren't mentioning them?

  • Comment number 82.

    Chelsea might have added to their history but it isn't a rich history. Manchester United and Liverpool, I think, can be classed as having a rich history.

    Ancelotti doesn't deserve SUCH high praise. He's inheritted the strongest team in the premier league and won the FA cup 1-0 against a club in disarray and won the premier league by 1 point. I don't think they'll dominate like people seem to think they will

  • Comment number 83.

    Now all the Man U fans can do now is grind their teeth in bitterness.

    Can only says thanks for the history comments, since you can't really argue with the football being played.

    I don't even think Fergie cares about history when his team have lost.

  • Comment number 84.

    Now for me fans that have to start celebrating by berrating rival clubs is pathetic, why not simply concentrate on your own clubs achievment?
    .......................

    Says the Man Utd fan on here berrating Chelsea.

    I mean do you really expect people to take such hypocracy seriously?

  • Comment number 85.

    @79
    I do enjoy the selective memory recall of certain fans. All teams get their run of good and bad luck, and I don't want to start trawling over decisions, we could be here for the next 12 months. Have Chelsea had some generous decisions go their way? yes of course they have, but they've also had some go against them.

    Perhaps, some managers might take a leaf out of Ancelotti's book and never complain about officiating, he accepts it, good, and bad. Unlike a certain Scot and Frenhman, who see it as a divine right to complain.

  • Comment number 86.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 87.

    Just for all those history lovers the 4 teams above us in the all time trophy winning table are Liverpool 1892, Man U 1878, Arsenal 1886, Aston Villa 1874 and we are joint 5th with Spurs 1882. So I must agree they have more History than us as they were formed earlier. With Liverpool and Arsenal not winning anything for 4 & 5 years respectively so they only have history.

  • Comment number 88.

    Country seems to have an obsession with 'history'; undoubtedly rose tinted glasses to when the country was truly 'Great' Britain appeals to the masses - 'two world wars and one world cup' and all that.

    Well done to Chelsea, the better team this season. Funny that people are still going over individual decisions - the season's over now lads, this chapter has been written.

    I actually think that what riles most fans is that Chelsea are probably favourites for next season too! Carefree...

  • Comment number 89.

    As a non Chelsea supporter I can say - thank god the season is over.

    Yeah Chelsea won the FA cup...my god did they not have the easiest run in - Aston Villa the toughest game and that at Wembley.

    If I felt that they were getting their turn in the sun and soon it would pass on to someone else then I would say well done. But I feel it has been bought (just like Portsmouth last year) and that Abramovich will continue to buy for the forseeable future to boost his ego and cement their position...winning 3 out of the last 4 is a joke. FA cup is a joke.

    The Premier league is happy as inward investment improves the league in terms of quality and TV money but has created a static league and FA Cup where the winners have largely been Manchester United and Chelsea.

    Yes, I'm hacked off because of spending or resources I cannot see anyone breaking this duopoly in the short term and football rather than being an escape from life just reinforces the unfairness of it.

    So - Chelsea fans enjoy it...but don't expect anything form any other fans - you don't deserve it.

  • Comment number 90.

    what is lifelaticsfan talking about? Are you trying to imply that we bribe refs? quite clearly you don't watch European games???!!!
    I am amazed at the way people only see one incident in a game, a Man utd player throws the ball in the net and no one sees it but they can see an offside player. maybe we could say the same thing about refs as in the carling cup final Vidic should have been sent off, but again it's Man Utd we will give them the benefit of the doubt!!

  • Comment number 91.

    If i am a member of the FIFA,i will and can never vote for England,i will vote for any country but England especially anyone that is yet to host the game-they do not deserve to host it for whatever reason

  • Comment number 92.

    #52. At 09:44am on 16 May 2010, Paul Mitchell wrote:

    "Well said Norapeti #44. If England fail to be awarded the World Cup will all fans that care boycott the Daily Mail? Responsible journalism reports the facts and offers informed comment, not set out to trap unwary victims."

    And well said Paul Mitchell. But fortunately anyone with a shred of common decency in their soul boycotts the Daily Mail already.

  • Comment number 93.

    To add to this history debate, the way I see it is, Liverpool were old 2nd division when Shankly took over. He got them promoted and turned them into a force in the top tier of football through hard work and talent as a manager. Most players he bought could've been bought by any decent club at the time but they weren't. Paisley eventually came and continued the work Shankly did turning them into arguably the best team in europe. They may have at times bought some of the better players around at the time but this was due to their success as a club and not a sugar daddy owner.

    Manu can be put in a similar bracket. They also won many trophies based on good buys(that most other clubs could afford too) and good management. They may not have won that much while Liverpool and whoever else were winning titles but they were continuously (mostly) in the top 4 and challenging. Therefore they also earned good revenues that enabled them to buy better than average players, which didn't always work out it must be said. So again Manu's success was based on their own success in the past, not a sugar daddy owner.

    Arsenal, is another previously successful team. George Graham led them to their recent successes based again on good management etc individually his players did not cost that much at all but were to become regular champions and it seems Wenger has carried on this work. Again no sugar daddy owner.

    Nobody is saying that only these 3 teams are allowed to win anything, far from it in fact. If Everton(like they used to), West Ham(imagine if they had held on to all their academy players) or any club for that matter built a team up and were successful with it, then nobody would begrudge them at all.

    Although Chelsea were a decent team before Roman took over, it was only his money that pushed them to the top. NOT money they earned themselves as a club through previous successes, hence the resentment felt by probably most supporters who are old enough to remember pre Roman Abramovich times and the same will apply to Man City when they start winning things.

  • Comment number 94.

    Chelsea have made history this past week, as the double winning sides of spurs, arsenal, man u, liverpool etc etc did in their time. The back bone of this team also won 2 other league titles, 3 FA cups, a league cup as well as reaching a champions league final. So I think as a whole, the spine of the team (cech, terry, lampard, J.Cole, Drogba) can be remembered as a great team, as theyve achieved great success.

    I think its sad that fans of Man u especially struggle to accept this. They have been successful for the past few years, and many before that, and have revieved many paludits and backside kissing articles like this, when teams win they generally do. Just say well done, we'll try and beat you next year.

    Chelsea are the best team in England this season, because theyve won the league, and won it by beating the "big 4" home and away (and to #43 who claimed that we only won there because of an offside goal, well man u's goal against the run of play was a fairly blatent hand ball, pushed in with 2 hands) so if you take both dodgy goals away, it was 1-0 with a well taken joe cole goal.

  • Comment number 95.

    Why are people so wound up by Chelsea's "lack of history"?

    Take my club, Leeds. We won nothing of significance until 1968, and we had a relatively short spell of domination, but people talk about us as having a great history. We can be proud of what we achieved, but we had to make it. We were a great side then, Chelsea are a great side now. People remember that Leeds team, and they will remember this Chelsea team decades from now. They're just making their history now.

  • Comment number 96.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 97.

    Lets be honest, the ONLY reason why the FA will not allow Portsmouth to play in europe is because then Liverpool wouldnt be able to.

    It is a complete joke and yes, they didnt apply for their licence in time but this is all about protecting the big clubs. If the roles had been reversed then would they give it to 7th place if a little club was there and Liverpool in the final? I dont think so.....

    And it could possibly happen as well, Liverpool dont have loads of cash, loads of debt more like it.

  • Comment number 98.

    For anybody who is moaning about the 2-1 win at Old Trafford where Drogba scored a clearly offside goal, they are clearly right in saying that Macheda did bundle the ball into the net with his hand. However please can somebody explain to me how at Stamford Bridge, the ref gave a free kick for a foul which clearly was not a foul by Darren Fletcher and then proceeded to let Drogba haul down Wes Brown whilst John Terry nodded the ball in. Furthermore how Chelsea got away with 2 penalties that should have been given to Bolton. If memory serves me right, Drogba was the first one where he quite clearly was trying a volleyball shot and then John Terry handled the ball in his area. Yes I admit Chelsea have played some wonderful football this season but on the balance of everything I do not feel any team deserves to win the title. If the decisions had gone the way they should have gone then United would have won the league by 4 points.

  • Comment number 99.

    To yeah_right...I am not suggesting for one moment that Chelsea's recent success has not been helped hugely by Abramovich's wealth.

    What I am saying is that to suggests Chelsea have no "history" before Abramovich is completely wrong. I am NOT a Chelsea fan, but they are one of the great clubs of British football and had success - and history because I refuse to gauge history simply by silverware - before Abramovich arrived.

    It seems to smack of jealousy to me. As I said when Manchester City suddenly acquired huge spending power, many of the fans so keen to criticise them would love their club to be in a similar position. I stand by that totally.

    Let's widen the question then. What do you all think constitutes history? I happen to think pretty much every club in the league has history, irrespective of what they have, or have not, won. Chelsea certainly have one, pre and post Abramovich.

  • Comment number 100.

    Let the naysayers reflect that Chelsea would have been the first British representatives in the European Cup had the FA and the Football League let them enter in 1955. Had they played and won it that would have been truly historic.

 

Page 1 of 3

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.