An overblown Eden Hazard love-in

The start of Eden Hazard’s career with Chelsea might best be described as bimodal.

After a £32-million summer transfer from the 2011 French Champions Lille, Hazard began the season lauded as perhaps the best Belgian in a league full of ‘em.  But his form slumped around the time his club entered the mid-season depression that cost Champions League winning manager Roberto Di Matteo his position and recovered only in the early months of this year.

Yet when one takes a look at the nominees for the PFA Player of the Year award and now that same organisation’s Team of the Year sees him line up behind Robin van Persie.  He has been touted for a superlative season, but hasn’t produced at the same level we expected after his glistening start.

Both seem a bit rich.  Hazard is unquestionably an incredibly talented player, but has performed rather inconsistently in the English Premiership – he is capable of outstanding performances but has remained somewhat anonymous in other matches, perhaps a function of Chelsea’s attempt to shoehorn three pesky creative types into one outfit.  While statistics only tell half the story, Mata has indeed had the superior season.

Was his selection in the Team of the Year a product of a lack of alternative options?  Given his peers voted him one of the best six players in the country, that’s a long bow to draw – it’s clear that the Premier League rank and file deem him a player to be respected.  Nevertheless, he made the celebrated team at the expense of players of whom it could be easily argued had better seasons like Arsenal’s Santi Cazorla or Swansea City superbargain Michu. 

The love-in surrounding Hazard’s debut English season has begun and history will say that it was a fine one, replete with awards.  But that doesn’t do him justice – he could be one of the five greatest players in the world and that hasn’t been reflected in the totality of his performances this year.  This year, he has been very-good-but-not-great, perhaps only displaying eighty percent of his formidable skill.  But does a player who only engages (even) a fraction of his ability truly deserve a position in such an esteemed team?

Juan Mata leads (another) Chelsea revolution

It's hard to be mad at anything that scampers. Likewise disdainful, jealous or irritated. As a word, scamper is used generally when something flits about in a light-footed manner, implying that the observer receives some kind of pleasing entertainment just from the sight.

No-one scampers with malice – it can't be done. Any attempts veer quickly towards scurrying, or it's less desirable cousin, scuttling. A list of things that scamper almost invariably begins with Lionel Messi, kids or puppies; while any of this trio may not be your cup of tea, active disliking toddlers, Messi or puppies is almost always taking things too seriously.

Scampering almost perfectly describes the New Chelsea. After years of solid – but hardly light-footed – play won them a few titles but few friends outside their considerable fan base, the past twelve months has earned them new admirers. Abramovich's ultimate dream has finally become manifest: a team of artful dodgers able not just to compete, but win the Champions League.

This cheekiness isn't just paying off on the pitch: after nearly a decade of being England's pre-eminent “guys you love to hate”, Chelsea Football Club are suddenly somewhat likeable.

There are several reasons for a general mellowing of feeling towards the Blues, even despite their remarkable talent for attracting (and washing off) negative press. Part of this can be put down simply to success; another possibility is the final and extended dissolution of an inner sanctum far more unsavoury together than in its individual parts. But chief among these reasons has been the youthful personification of West London forward play: Marko Marin, Eden Hazard, Juan Mata and Oscar.

The latter three may be the most talented players in the Premier League, an on-pitch aria of insightful, constant scampering – with the ball or without, ability (and desire) to pass the ball and technical skill. Over the past decade, professional sport has verged towards an atmosphere of black-and-white tribalism; the intrinsic wit and dextrous nature to the football of Mata, Hazard and Oscar has brought Chelsea and some former critics closer in mutual appreciation.

While there are still some elements at Chelsea the casual observer must tolerate rather than enjoy, Roman Abramovich's mob has moved a long way from the days as the archetypal black hat villains.

Three Things: Is Wayne Rooney overrated?

Three talking points from the English Premier League this weekend:

Some regeneration advice for Chelsea from Doctor Who

Courtesy: bandbent.wordpress.com

“Life depends on change, renewal”.

These were some of the first words spoken by the second Doctor Who, all the way back in 1966. They were needed because the original actor who played the Doctor, William Hartnell, had left the series and moved on to a retirement home for the terminally crotchety; he was replaced by a younger, fitter, happier – at least initially – actor, Patrick Troughton.

The character of The Doctor, from the eponymous series – starting again in only a matter of weeks – has (mostly) enjoyed a fifty year television existence because when Hartnell's illnesses became too great for the program, they simply subbed in another actor and wrote it into the plot. The Doctor's appearance and mannerisms changed markedly, but his innate character of fairness, equality and just being generally good has remained through eleven actors and half a century. The invention of “regeneration” was so simple and elegant that it allowed a successful program to embrace, and therefore survive, radical change.

This same sort of regeneration is currently in process in West London at Chelsea. Over the summer the Blues cornered the market in tricksy, creative types as they acquired starlets Oscar, Marko Marin and the Hazard brothers, Eden and Thorgan. When combined with last season's best buys, Gary Cahill and Juan Mata, the Blues have replaced their cantankerous old stagers with much more watchable stars.

This is a regeneration with leaguewide implications. The Blues still boasts five of the six most important aspects of the successful last decade – their names are Abramovich, Terry, Lampard, Cole and Cech. Only Drogba has departed. The character of this team doesn't so much depends on this quintet but is actually entirely derived from them: they have the strongest personalities and are the best leaders, the rest of the team will follow or be damned.

Because of this, no matter how important Mata or Hazard become, and despite the obvious cosmetic changes, Chelsea's performance in 2012-13 will revolve around its more venerable elements.

Let's harken back to Who for a moment. Acclimatising to a new Doctor usually took a couple of episodes simply because the characterisation varied so greatly between actors; a new boy was finally accepted as The Doctor (capital T, capital D) after claiming the role with a great performance in a strong story. The same applies at Stamford Bridge. The sheds belong unquestionably to Terry because of his “Mr. Chelsea” aura, his past performances and the memories of success. This has a twofold effect – it promotes team pride but it's hard to argue that it also doesn't lend itself to embracing necessary change. The reinvigoration won't be complete until an alpha dog emerges from this new batch.

For the Blues to walk, rather than reel, into the future, the old salts have to lead by example one last time and embrace regeneration not just of the playing squad, but of the team's leadership group.

Chelsea won't change definitively unless one of Eden Hazard, Fernando Torres, Daniel Sturridge or Mata takes over. While his performances last year justify him the title, Mata's personality may be too mild-mannered to wrest control of the team. With Torres' funk stretching back to the Tennant era, this almost automatically leaves the confident Hazard the best candidate.

The regeneration of body has all but taken. Now the same must occur at the head.