I've noticed something from reading match reports from websites, newspapers and tabloid publications about Chelsea. The language used always infers the same idea - we didn't win comfortable, moreover, we don't deserve to succeed. I used to think these articles were accurate, sometimes when Chelsea play, they do look a lack the dazzlement you might expect from a team with their finance and recent reputation. But more often, I find myself coming home from the pub and reading a match report which subtle suggests Chelsea played poorly. Today Chelsea beat Portsmouth and whilst I didn't see the game, I suspect it was one where Chelsea simply outpowered and outclassed the opposition, I could be wrong. Nevertheless, I've seen matches where Chelsea have performed well and recieved similar match reports in the past, which suggest an undeserved victory. Phrases such as "Chelsea began unconvincingly", "Finished nervously", "uninspiring performance". Reports are littered with clever choices of words to accent an opinion, or the same view of Chelsea. Whilst Chelsea are guilty of sometimes playing within themselves, I don't think there's a team in the world who can play with the guile and energy newspapers and tabloid want. I think it's unlikely that EVERY media resource is against Chelsea, which is why i'm slightly confused, perhaps someone can shed some light... Does everyone hate Chelsea? Are Chelsea genuinely poor every game? Or is it all in my head?
You do play boring football from time-to-time. I think it's because you know you have some of the best players in the world and you don't need to play flamboyantly to win. You also seem to lack the passion of other clubs. i also think you have very boring fans.
