Did you think you knew everything and anyone in a suit or over 25 talked through their rear end when they offered you sensible advice? Were your hormones still causing havoc to your body and mind? Did you feel the world was against you at the slightest hint of criticism?

Don’t feel bad, you weren’t alone. You were a teenager and, frankly, that’s what teenagers are like isn’t it? It’s a pretty much accepted view I think. 

How many of you are STILL like that? Not many. Exceptions crop up of course – Peter Stringfellow is still the oldest teenager in the world, although I can’t see him having anything to get into a teenage strop about. But generally, we’ve all grown up and we realise, looking back, that we didn’t know everything after all – although maybe we do now.

So, if we’re all willing to accept that we were like that as ‘kids’, and to a degree we realise there’s every possibility that our kids will go through that phase, but we are pretty certain that it’s a phase to be grown out of – almost a rite of passage.

Why on earth then, are so many people concerned about our signing of Nicolas Anelka? He got his ‘Le Sulk’ nickname when he was in that late teen, early 20′s period of life – considering the way young footballers are cosseted and hidden from the realities of life nowadays you’d have to be surprised if he HADN’T been a bit sulky. He starred at Arsenal, then Real Madrid came calling and the lure of Spain was higher than that of North London for a kid with stars in his eyes.

Madrid didn’t work out wonderfully, but has he really been ‘Le Sulk’ since then? Certainly no more than any other player. Remember a certain Mr Gerrard almost joining Chelsea because nobody at Liverpool said they loved him? Or at the same club, a Mr Carragher quitting England because he wasn’t as high in the pecking order as he felt he deserved? Jermaine Defoe slapping in a transfer request as soon as West Ham were relegated? Keegan throwing a wobbly because Bobby Robson didn’t tell him he was going to drop him? Gazza trashing his hotel room when told of HIS demotion (although in fairness to Gazza, it may have been less trashing and more in keeping with the Geordie lifestyle). Did we have no ‘sulky’ superstars during Mourinhos’ tenure? Even Mourinho himself?? Will we have none under Grant?

Let’s open our eyes. Sulking, not love, is all around. Look at all the sulky posts on this forum for confirmation. Anelka has grown up, not in the same way that most of us have because his circumstances are different, but he has grown up as a footballer and I get the feeling he is going to provide us with three or four seasons of top class entertainment. His appearance is of someone who is happy with life and is comfortable with himself.

Those of you that still insist on seeing him only as the sulky teenager of yesteryear get off to your rooms and don’t come back until you’ve apologised and cheered up.

Teenagers, I don’t know…

Right now, the same argument is taking place. However, Chelsea are a little better placed by having Terry, A.Cole, Bridge, J.Cole, Lampard, Wright-Phillips all in the England squad and Sidwell also looking to compete for a midfield berth. Arsenal appear to be the new Chelsea – about 7 or 8 years behind us, which is surely as it should be.

The pathetic booing of these same English players (Derby fans, Terry & Ashley Cole didn’t play you know) would suggest that we may have too MANY in the squad, but knowing these players as we do from watching them week in, week out I’m sure most of us are happy with them in general. And let’s face it, it’s easy for Derby to boo them as they have no one of that standard of their own to castigate. Roy Keane came out in the press and called the English players ‘big heads’ just before his team of workers capitulated 7:1 to Everton.

Platini says England will lose its’ identity if anyone other than an Englishman takes charge (but, being French, does he have an ingrained fear of England doing well? I know I do). But has Johnny Foreigner REALLY destroyed English international football? After all, we’ve been told that the current crop of players are the ‘Golden Age’ of English football and simply bad management has seen them fail. Was Eriksson REALLY that inept? Was there no plan B or were the players simply not up to playing in any other way? McClaren obviously didn’t improve things – would Allardyce, Redknapp or Coppell?

Did John Terry come through the ranks to play at the top level whilst Michael Duberry ended up as a poor alibi for the racially challenged Lee Bowyer through simple luck? Or is it possible that Terry was an exceptional talent who thrived on the experience on offer from the likes of Frank LeBoeuf and Marcel Desailly whilst Doobs was good, but not quite good enough?

Looking back through history, how successful have England been? They won the World Cup in 1966 at home (and no, I have no idea why England hasn’t been chosen to host the even since) and failed to win the European Championships with home advantage (Greece managed it). They failed to even qualify for two World Cups in 1974 & 1978 and have flattered to deceive in virtually every tournament. Much of this has been prior to the influx of foreign talent, which I suppose we can say started in earnest after the 1978 world cup when Ardiles & Villa joined Spuds.

The Liverpool induced ban from European club competition undoubtedly played a part in promoting our very insular outlook on tactics, although this is virtually ignored in the debate. Worth mentioning also that English players weren’t exactly in the majority in the vaunted Liverpool team of the 70′s. Plenty of English players in the Chelsea teams of the same period though, for all the good it did us.

Spain is also rolled out as an example of a domestic league filled with imports impacting negatively upon the national side, but haven’t Spain always been a bit like that? If you use Spain to prove the point, it’s equally easy to introduce Italy to disprove it. Plenty of overseas talent in their leagues over the years yet the national side consistently goes far and wins a fair percentage of international matches and tournaments.

My own view is that a good English player can only benefit from playing with a good overseas player. He will learn different ideas, outlooks and approaches will learn that extra training is more helpful than extra drinking sessions, pasta is better than a fry up, passing makes ball retention easier than wellying out of defence. As Terry learned from his peers, surely someone must have learned from Zola (who himself learned from Maradonna – an import into Zola’s native Serie A). Could Sidwell not learn from Ballack? Mikel from Makelele? Sahar from Drogba?

If I may use a personal experience to emphasise the point, I play seven a side every Monday. Some of us are in our 40′s or 50′s, some in the 18-23 bracket. It has always been a bit of a welly and chase game if truth be told. Recently four Argentineans from the local tapas bar started playing. The changes have been subtle, but more noticeable when they don’t turn up. If they play, everyone seems happy to play the pass and move game, when they’re away the football reverts to type – long balls and solo runs. But after 5 or 6 weeks you can see that certain facets of their play have made an impression. We’ve seen that some things work and we’re happy to give it a go. And it works sometimes! We can play flowing football – maybe only for 15 or 20 of the 90 minutes right now, but that’s 15 or 20 more than previously. If we can do it, there’s no reason why professionals can’t.

Surely then, the answer isn’t to reduce the number of foreigners playing in the Premiership – it’s increase the number of foreigners involved in the England setup? If that’s right then Chelsea has pretty much got the balance that will help England in the next few years – It’s a blueprint that the FA should embrace.

Man City came to Stamford Bridge with a decent record behind them and a coach who, whilst unexciting (to the non-females at least) had a fair bit of technical and tactical nous. The rest is history of course, as goals from Essien (pop) Drogba (pop pop) Joe Cole (pop) Kalou (pop) and Shevchenko (hiss) evacuated the air from Man City lungs far more effectively than Apollo 13 managed.

However, that match has enough comment elsewhere so I thought it may be an idea to take a look at a few other premiership bubbles that have been irreparably punctured or are rapidly losing air.

Arsenal – in fairness, their bubble is still growing somewhat. Having watched them tear Liverpool apart at Anfield and still only get the same result that we managed however would suggest that the loss of Van Persie has somewhat blunted their attack. Add to this that the likes of Eboue & Torre will be of to the ACN in January and it isn’t difficult to imagine that this season isn’t going to be anything like the procession that many pundits are hoping.

Liverpool – thoroughly outplayed by Arsenal, bottom of their Champions League group, injuries starting to mount up and a manager who increasingly has difficulty in knowing what team to be put out would suggest that this year, like all the others, will be one of Premiership underachievement. In the recent past, European exploits have deflected the criticism away from Benitez, but will the UEFA cup have the same magic for the fans? It’s more of a balloon than a bubble at Anfield, and I can see theirs having the most massive expulsion of air – floating several loops around the league making a comedy farting sound that the kids will adore, before landing half way down the dining table (which I will adore).

Man Utd – considering the media view that Chelsea are only criticised because they’re at the top, criticism of Utd has been slow in coming forward after last seasons Premiership. The bubble isn’t deflating here yet, and frankly I don’t expect it to. However, this is still a team which can drop points carelessly. Coventry have already removed the League Cup from their wish list and you feel that, like last year, a top European side will leave them to concentrate on the two remaining domestic competitions. Avoiding defensive injuries will be the key here.

Spurs – Bubble already long gone here. With the boardroom constantly shooting themselves in the foot it was inevitable that a stray round would cause damage. They’ll avoid relegation but the primarily young English team that Jol was building is going to be dismantled. Will Ramos do a Benitez and stick to what he knows in the transfer market? Probably.

Bolton – Another burst bubble, Sammy Lee was uninspired and Megson unexpected. A dogfight this year, and I don’t think Anelka is going to want to hang around for that (and what a good option he would be for Chelsea in the January window).

Newcastle / Blackburn – I can’t separate these two. They’ll both do ‘ok’. Both managers will increase their stock but neither side dares inflate their bubble beyond a conservatively safe level.

West Ham – the team synonymous with ‘bubbles’, their own bubble has never recovered from the effects of an Argentinian hurricane. As ever, they faded and died in pretty short order.

Finishing back at Chelsea, the old bubble has been punctured and caused a loss of points, performance and optimism. However, work has speedily progressed on a replacement bubble and early signs are encouraging. I said at the time of the Grant appointment that I fully expected us to be in with a shout of the Premiership at the end of the season and with the bubble still inflating and showing plenty of room for expansion it could even be our year for European glory. Yes, the Chelsea bubble is looking good – and it’s inevitable that it’ll be floating proudly above all the others before the end of the season.

After all, you only have to look in the forums to see that we have an unlimited supply of hot air. It’s almost unfair isn’t it?

Remember when Roman arrived? I know, you can’t be expected to remember every little thing that happened at the club. But try to think back, what were the feelings at the time? No cheating, I don’t want you skimming back through posts and articles here to find out what the general consensus was – a bit of research tends to trash a good story doesn’t it?

MY memory, shaky as it is, and after removing the chaff of Mafioso gangster nation robbing money laundering James Bond villain buys football club as front for criminal activities, is that some of us were concerned that we would fly aimlessly down the Real Madrid route. Indeed, we spent a lot of money in that first season. But we hung on to the manager (whilst giving him Real type support) and the players coming in were solid, quality players like Cole, Mutu (yes, alright – hindsight is wonderful), Veron (yes, alright……etc) and the promise of Cech & Robben for the next season. No Beckhams, Ronaldinhos or Zidanes.

One typically understated purchase was Claude Makelele from Real themselves, and his story kind of typifies the parallel lines I’m thinking along.

Galactico Beckham had signed for Real. The story went that Claude, the water carrier type of Cantona/Deschamps legend, had earlier been promised a raise in recognition of his hard work, but in order to accommodate Beckhams wage demands the club had reneged on this.

Chelsea made a bid for the unhappy midfielder, which Real refused. Claude then threatened to go on strike until he was allowed to leave (something which we all tend to gloss over but which is possibly worse than anything Winston Bogarde did to us). Real eventually relented and we got our man for something around £15 million. This was seen as a ridiculously high fee for a defensive midfielder at the time.

Del Bosque, the successful coach of Madrid who had appeared from nowhere to lead the team to European glory, was at much the same time unaccountably dispensed with. He had had no particular pedigree or record to fall back on, in fact, he was pretty much unqualified to take over a club of this stature. Yet his record from 1999-2003 comprised of 2 Champions leagues, 2 Spanish leagues, 1 Spanish Super Cup, 1 European Super Cup, 1 Inter Continental Cup, progression to the last 4 in the Champions League every year and 104 wins in 186 games. He was also nothing to look at and seemed to be lacking in the personality stakes.

The Makelele-less midfield was toothless and Beckham faltered. He, Zidane and Figo seemed unable to play consistently together. They sold lots of shirts though, probably to knowledgeable football fans around the world that saw Beckham as a unique footballing talent. Maybe a few were tag-along football groupies who wouldn’t know their Arsenal from their elbow.

Claude was the man who had done the donkey work for them for several years had been treated like an ass and his leaving had kicked like a mule at their future prospects. The Del Bosque-less coaching staff was equally inept and his handling of talented players was only appreciated after his departure.

A series of new managers (I think they’re currently on their 8th since 2003 when Del Bosque left) took the reigns in an attempt to stop the club imploding, ending in Capello who regained La Liga and was rewarded with the sack.

The parallels I see are our loss of Gallas being the equal of Madrid’s loss of Makelele, currently the appointment of Grant not being a million miles from the appointment of Del Bosque, and latterly the signing of two players who would fit the ‘Galactico’ billing. Hopefully the Del Bosque similarity will be repeated in silverware.

Although the focus currently seems to be upon our aim to play like Barcelona, it looks more and more like we’re careering down the Real Madrid route to global domination. Is this a good thing? Well, from a Peter Kenyon standpoint it has to be. Real is still the club of legends and is arguably still the biggest name in world football, despite the apparent circus act that often seems to envelope it. On the football side, well, what do you think? They’re big and successful and quite often play exhilarating football with a team of stars.

Like I said at the beginning, the research on this is far from complete. I’m throwing this open to be discussed and, if need be, torn apart by the rest of you.

What’s the betting on Mourinho replacing Schuster I wonder?

So, does anyone else remember the good old days? Before Walkers took the crisp crown Golden Wonder were the darlings of the deep fried potato snack set. In those days, Salt & Vinegar were in a blue packet and Cheese & Onion were always in a green packet.

Nowadays however, the colours have changed and for those of us of a certain vintage there is always the possibility of a nasty, vinegary surprise when we tuck into our customary pack of cheese and onion in front of Match of the Day.

But things change and we all have to move on. Someone, probably within the Walkers Empire, decided once they had taken over the Smiths mantle that they needed to show that they were in some way different and progressive. Quite why Cheese & Onion had to face the ignominy of having their highly distinctive Green & Yellow livery (always one of my fave Chelsea away colour combinations by the way) replaced with the blue of a flavour that always left a slightly sour taste in the mouth is anyone’s guess, but given Walkers’ continued rise to glory it would appear that someone at the top of the organisation knew exactly what he was doing.

Personally, I’ll always equate Cheese & Onion with Yellow & Green, it had a sort of symmetry – cheese is yellow and spring onions are green. Neither are blue (apart from those continental mould types of course).

To replace a combination that had become recognised worldwide and with a fair amount of success always seemed ridiculous to me. Nowadays, however, I’m sure that the stats would support the fact that the change was correct and should encourage me to move with the times, embrace the change whilst still being able to look back fondly on the heyday of Cheese & Onion.

Anyway, enough cheese and back to the football. Let’s be thankful the guys pulled off a win at the Mozzarella this week eh?

All the ingredients were in place for a miserable night that would rank up there with St Gallen, Rosenberg(!), Shrewsbury, Rotherham and sadly, Hull. The accident chasers were all there, many no doubt having written the majority of the match report in the days leading up to the game. Were we going to Hull in a handcart? Or would we make the trip to Hull & back without major incident?

As it turned out, the Hull goal was shot at more times than a Kylie calendar in a teenagers bedroom and this time some even managed to hit the target. However, despite the score it was a game that Avram Grant couldn’t win. You knocked 20 past Hull? So you should. You only won by a couple of goals? You’re rubbish. You LOST / DREW? Grant Out, Grant Out, Grant Out!

After Sundays can’t lose game, things somewhat evened out in this one but we haven’t really learned anything about our future direction in this first week of Grants reign. Fulham at home is a bit more balanced.

Fulham are capable of upsetting teams on their day and we are defending a long unbeaten home record – can we get it to span over three managers? I hope so. The win at Hull should give us some confidence, but we mustn’t allow it to lull us into a false sense of security. A win here on Saturday followed by a point in Valencia and we’ll at least be able to breathe easier in the hope that the good ship Chelsea hasn’t suffered from catastrophic Hull damage.

The first two weeks of post Mourinho Chelsea are going to be Titanic. Let’s hope we can keep afloat while the necessary repairs are taking place, look to dock ourselves back at the top of the league and once again harbour hopes of Champions League success. I refuse to get too worried until Eddie Barnett starts selling tickets to women and children first, and I see Peter Kenyon scampering away with his tail between his legs. (Although I find that last bit the least worrying).

Just a damned pity we didn’t sign David Seaman as goalkeeping coach – would have fitted the nautical theme beautifully.