Do you remember 2005? It was only a mere six years ago, but it seems so distant now. The stock market was strong and people had jobs. George Bush was inaugurated in for his second term as president of the United States.  London was awarded the 2012 Olympic Games. Chelsea won their first Premier League title by a commanding 12 points.
Oh my, how those were different times. Full of hope and ambition of what could be. A beautiful future for all on the eve of new horizons that only pointed towards prosperity and joy—especially if you were a Chelsea fan.
Jose Mourinho (“The Special One,” if you are so inclined) had broken the spell that had gripped the grounds of Stamford Bridge for the past 50 trophyless years and brought glory and honor to her fans. Even more importantly, he paid back the great investment of the then-enigmatic owner Roman Abramovic. He too had a feature of hope to his cause, a kind of ambivalence and naiveté from the fans that saw him as a charismatic foreigner and we became infatuated with seemingly blind economic support. 
Only later would we learn that such failures to return on his investments would be met with same punishment that many czar’s had bestowed upon those that disappointed, just not as bloody. But on that particular year, Chelsea rolled through the Premier League with the same fortitude that Peter the Great did through the Polish Plains.
They did differ in one key respect. Peter’s triumphs over Sweden’s Charles VII was done through a hard line march through the vast expanses of Eastern Europe. Chelsea’s title was won through a bunkered-in mentality—defense was the name of the game. Chelsea’s 15 goals conceded that year still remains a modern record (tied only with the 1888-89 Preston North End). Add 72 goals for on top of that and you not only have the best Chelsea season ever, but one of the greatest in the history of the English football.
72477242_crop_340x234Bruno Vincent/Getty Images
Yep, 2005 was sure some year.
On Wednesday, Nov. 9, 2011, I woke up with a headache, thanks to some little punk from Middlebury College who decided to give me a shot with his fist right in the eye during a water polo match this weekend. I have been looking at jobs the past few weeks with an eye (my one good one) towards graduating in December, knowing full well there is not much out there. My apartment is a mess, my dog just ate my remote and my heat is not working.
And you know what is the one thing above all that is most disconcerting? Chelsea looks terrible.
Through 11 Premier League games, Chelsea sits in a precarious fourth place with 22 points, nine adrift from league-leaders Manchester City. What is concerning most Chelsea fans is something that they have not seen under the Abramovich era, a porous and vulnerable backline. The three league titles the Blues have won over the past decade have all been on the backs of stout and resolute defenses. In that time, Chelsea has never surrendered more than 34 goals in a single season. They have already given up 15 less than a third through this year.
It is easy to point at the Chelsea back line and say there is the problem. There are so many issues, whether it be the fact that most of them are card-carrying members of the AARP or that their communication problems are similar to something you would see in a bad sitcom that would lead to two characters showing up for the same date. The real problem, however, behind the hemorrhaging in front of the Chelsea net (and I don’t mean Petr Cech’s nose) is simply in the game plan.
Manager Andre Villas-Boas' belief in the “high-line” is naive.  It worked at Porto and to great success, but at the risk of sounding like an elitist who only believes England is qualified to run an established professional league, the Primeira Liga is a joke. Any league where the winners are disproportionately better than the rest is subpar to one which every result, though it could be an upset, is met with some sense that it was in the realm of possibility.
Now in England, playing teams week in and week out that would all challenge for the title in the Iberian nation, the truth of the matter is that good teams—complete teams, which all 20 in the Premier League are—have no issue picking apart such a system.
131118123_crop_340x234Jamie McDonald/Getty Images
But it goes beyond the league. Like I have already said, Chelsea have won titles on defense and a stubborn, hard-nosed approach to it. Four players are sent out to sit right on top of their own box and basically build a wall that the only way to tear down is to beat into submission. This is how every single Chelsea defender was brought into the team for and bred to do once they got here. Now, after decades of playing one style to the game, you are all of a sudden asking them to change to a wholly different one?
You know the saying you can’t teach an old dog new tricks? Can someone please translate that into Portuguese for our "savior"?
So, what does this all have to do with Daniel Sturridge? Don’t worry, I’m getting there.
It is absolutely foolish for me or you to sit here and think we are breaking new ground. I don’t really expect Villas-Boas to log on to B/R anytime soon for some advice on how to improve his faulty back line. He has to have known coming into the season, or at least by now, that his system—the way he deployed it in Portugal—is not going to work to the same effect.
However, he continues to use it. Week in week out it is the same thing: Chelsea conceding goals and dropping points.
Wait a second—United has conceded 12 and City 10, and Newcastle eight! Why aren’t the Magpies in first? And Arsenal has let 21 through and are only three points back, and Liverpool only 10 and Chelsea are ahead of them? Does this mean—yes, yes, I think it does—Chelsea have to score as well?
Now, before you all scroll to the bottom and comment on my stupidity, pointing out that Chelsea are indeed third in scoring with 24 goals, just hear me out.
130755296_crop_340x234Ian Walton/Getty Images
Goals at Chelsea have not been hard to come by, but why should they not? Villas-Boas is playing a 4-3-3 dynamic attacking formation. In this formation you have three players up top who are only concerned with the offense, two midfielders who move in when they have the ball and both full backs come up and support out wide. At any given moment when the ball is deep in the opponents zone there are seven to eight players with it. Of course they will score. The problem is not how many, but rather when.
Wins of 5-1 over Bolton and 4-1 over Swansea are great. No one is going to tell them to spare the other team and ease up on the gas pedal. However, in two of their losses, not only were they outscored (duh), but their offense was near nonexistent, at least in relation to the teams they were playing. And in their most recent loss to Arsenal, three goals is a fine total—but not when the other team scores five.
Villas-Boas’ system is different than any other Chelsea manager in the recent past. The stresses of defense are not a focal point and that is fine. It is difficult to argue with someone who wants to put more scoring in the game. However, if you are going to go into this shootout at the OK Corral mentality, it’s going to be difficult to win when the big boys are showing up with fully loaded .44 Magnum and all you have in the holster is a water pistol.
The Chelsea attack is a feeble and a joke when it is put in relation to its counterparts or up against the jobs it is expected to perform. Results like the one against Swansea should not be positive, but more expected. The very fact that they are not consistently putting away three or four a game is somewhat disturbing because they are built to do just that.
Villas-Boas has to understand that under the current system he will continue to concede goals and against better opponents it will be three or four. The offense are the ones who become responsible for bringing back a win. Getting three goals in a match is only enough if the other team gets two. Scoring six goals in a match is only enough if the other team scores five. The offense;s production should not be judged by the goal total under Chelsea on the scoreboard, but it needs to be judged in relation to the total of the opponent.
It sounds odd to criticize a team that scores half a dozen goals, but it is the style of play Villas-Boas has asked his side to play.
I know this article has nothing to do with Daniel Sturridge, but in fact it has all to do with him. He is a good player, there is no arguing that. He also is not to “that” level yet of being able to compete with the best of the best. He is only 22—what do you want out of the kid? But he symbolizes the problem in this inability to score not just goals, but game-winning goals, the kind that mean something, not scrap in extra time of a 5-0 victory.
His freezing in the moment is reminiscent of them getting only one against United and only three against Arsenal. It is just not enough. Chelsea are just not quite there yet.