The Blues have identified the Colombia international as a potential signing, despite his struggles at Manchester United, but is the deal doomed to fail or a piece of brilliance?
IT ACQUIRED THE reputation as a strikers’ graveyard. Stamford Bridge, the place where the most potent players on the planet became laughing stocks.
First Andriy Shevchenko, then Fernando Torres. Roman Abramovich’s dream signings were exposed as hubristic follies.
So Radamel Falcao threatens to complete an unwanted hat-trick of supposed superstars who became sorry substitutes. Except there are two significant differences. The Colombian is the manager’s choice, not the owner’s. And, unlike Shevchenko and Torres, Falcao’s decline seemed to begin before Chelsea even entered the bidding.
The statistics were damning. He scored 155 goals in 200 games for Porto, Atletico Madrid and Monaco. He mustered a mere four in 29 for Manchester United. He looked a player transformed by last year’s cruciate ligament injury, one deprived of the sharpness to escape defenders and the confidence to find the net. By the end of his stint at Old Trafford, United were in effect only playing with 10 men whenever Falcao was on the field.
So if Mourinho, winner of two European Cups and eight domestic league titles in four countries, can restore him to past glories, it will rank as one of the finest achievements of his storied managerial career. As it is, this is one of his greatest gambles.
Advertisement
Falcao’s scoring record, prior to his arrival in England, might suggest there is little risk and Mourinho’s need for a replacement for the departing Didier Drogba is obvious. Yet a glance at the Portuguese’s past shows he is at his best when fashioning and forging formidable attackers, not signing the finished article. Drogba arrived at Stamford Bridge in 2004 as a rough diamond, with the force but not the finesse. Mourinho improved him. Diego Milito joined Inter Milan in 2009 as a journeyman with an eye for goal. In a year under Mourinho, he became a world-beater, the man who fired Inter to an extraordinary treble.
Even Diego Costa, a Champions League finalist and La Liga winner with Atletico Madrid in 2014, was a player whose career trajectory was on the up when Mourinho bought him. He has prospered with others’ striking discoveries, most notably Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Samuel Eto’o, but his most successful spearheads have tended to be ruthless, aggressive and indelibly associated with Mourinho. Falcao cannot fall into that category.
And the job description makes it a strange fit. Falcao became frustrated that he had a bit-part role at Old Trafford. Unless Costa spends much of next season injured, suspended or both, he threatens to have the same status at Stamford Bridge.
Jose Pekerman talks to Radamel Falcao during a send-off ceremony at the presidential palace in Bogota this week. AP / Press Association Images
AP / Press Association Images / Press Association Images
Moreover, while Costa’s existing deputies were clearly inferior players to him, they had attributes that suited Mourinho’s blueprint. While Falcao seems to need a team ready to service a penalty-box poacher to be built around him and was a passenger when United were not in possession, Loic Remy brought the counter-attacking pace the Portuguese prizes, Drogba the hold-up play, capacity to waste time and win free kicks that rendered him useful.
If Falcao can replicate the ageing Ivorian’s contribution – seven goals in 14 starts, including a vital strike at Old Trafford – then it would be a distinct improvement on his efforts at United, if nothing like his prolific spell on the European mainland, and could give valuable back-up to Costa.
But it is a matter of Costa and of cost. Every expensive signing brings a question: could the funds have been spent better? United’s fans were remarkably forgiving of Falcao, considering his £265,000-a-week wages and sizeable loan fee. His four goals cost United £5 million apiece. He is proof that, in the modern football economy, borrowing can be as expensive as buying.
Monaco, who have Falcao under contract until 2018, must be desperate to find a buyer. Financially Falcao is the biggest liability on their books. The reality is there are probably a maximum of 10 clubs in the world who can afford his salary. Falcao is paid like a Galactico but scored fewer goals this season than Ashley Barnes. Assuming he ends up at Stamford Bridge, it will highlight the cosy relationship between Mourinho and Falcao’s agent Jorge Mendes and Chelsea.
Because those who don’t believe footballers should be judged on the basis of their transfer fee and wages are being naïve. Reserves are rarely as pricey as Falcao. Chelsea have developed a reputation as the savviest sellers in England, but Falcao needs to prove they are not squandering the money they have squirrelled away.
Chelsea’s history enables them to testify that funds do necessarily translate into goals. Before Costa, only Drogba and, to a lesser extent, Nicolas Anelka were successful striking signings in the Abramovich era. There is no doubt who were the two worst.
Shevchenko and Torres cost a combined £80 million. They left without Chelsea recouping fees and after only delivering 29 goals in 158 games. If Falcao looks like a possible successor, another brilliant finisher who became a blunt force at a comparatively early age, it is worth remembering there is often method to Mourinho’s seeming madness. Perhaps there is again.
Is Mourinho's Falcao bid genius or folly?
IT ACQUIRED THE reputation as a strikers’ graveyard. Stamford Bridge, the place where the most potent players on the planet became laughing stocks.
First Andriy Shevchenko, then Fernando Torres. Roman Abramovich’s dream signings were exposed as hubristic follies.
So Radamel Falcao threatens to complete an unwanted hat-trick of supposed superstars who became sorry substitutes. Except there are two significant differences. The Colombian is the manager’s choice, not the owner’s. And, unlike Shevchenko and Torres, Falcao’s decline seemed to begin before Chelsea even entered the bidding.
The statistics were damning. He scored 155 goals in 200 games for Porto, Atletico Madrid and Monaco. He mustered a mere four in 29 for Manchester United. He looked a player transformed by last year’s cruciate ligament injury, one deprived of the sharpness to escape defenders and the confidence to find the net. By the end of his stint at Old Trafford, United were in effect only playing with 10 men whenever Falcao was on the field.
So if Mourinho, winner of two European Cups and eight domestic league titles in four countries, can restore him to past glories, it will rank as one of the finest achievements of his storied managerial career. As it is, this is one of his greatest gambles.
Falcao’s scoring record, prior to his arrival in England, might suggest there is little risk and Mourinho’s need for a replacement for the departing Didier Drogba is obvious. Yet a glance at the Portuguese’s past shows he is at his best when fashioning and forging formidable attackers, not signing the finished article. Drogba arrived at Stamford Bridge in 2004 as a rough diamond, with the force but not the finesse. Mourinho improved him. Diego Milito joined Inter Milan in 2009 as a journeyman with an eye for goal. In a year under Mourinho, he became a world-beater, the man who fired Inter to an extraordinary treble.
Even Diego Costa, a Champions League finalist and La Liga winner with Atletico Madrid in 2014, was a player whose career trajectory was on the up when Mourinho bought him. He has prospered with others’ striking discoveries, most notably Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Samuel Eto’o, but his most successful spearheads have tended to be ruthless, aggressive and indelibly associated with Mourinho. Falcao cannot fall into that category.
And the job description makes it a strange fit. Falcao became frustrated that he had a bit-part role at Old Trafford. Unless Costa spends much of next season injured, suspended or both, he threatens to have the same status at Stamford Bridge.
Moreover, while Costa’s existing deputies were clearly inferior players to him, they had attributes that suited Mourinho’s blueprint. While Falcao seems to need a team ready to service a penalty-box poacher to be built around him and was a passenger when United were not in possession, Loic Remy brought the counter-attacking pace the Portuguese prizes, Drogba the hold-up play, capacity to waste time and win free kicks that rendered him useful.
If Falcao can replicate the ageing Ivorian’s contribution – seven goals in 14 starts, including a vital strike at Old Trafford – then it would be a distinct improvement on his efforts at United, if nothing like his prolific spell on the European mainland, and could give valuable back-up to Costa.
But it is a matter of Costa and of cost. Every expensive signing brings a question: could the funds have been spent better? United’s fans were remarkably forgiving of Falcao, considering his £265,000-a-week wages and sizeable loan fee. His four goals cost United £5 million apiece. He is proof that, in the modern football economy, borrowing can be as expensive as buying.
Monaco, who have Falcao under contract until 2018, must be desperate to find a buyer. Financially Falcao is the biggest liability on their books. The reality is there are probably a maximum of 10 clubs in the world who can afford his salary. Falcao is paid like a Galactico but scored fewer goals this season than Ashley Barnes. Assuming he ends up at Stamford Bridge, it will highlight the cosy relationship between Mourinho and Falcao’s agent Jorge Mendes and Chelsea.
Because those who don’t believe footballers should be judged on the basis of their transfer fee and wages are being naïve. Reserves are rarely as pricey as Falcao. Chelsea have developed a reputation as the savviest sellers in England, but Falcao needs to prove they are not squandering the money they have squirrelled away.
Chelsea’s history enables them to testify that funds do necessarily translate into goals. Before Costa, only Drogba and, to a lesser extent, Nicolas Anelka were successful striking signings in the Abramovich era. There is no doubt who were the two worst.
Shevchenko and Torres cost a combined £80 million. They left without Chelsea recouping fees and after only delivering 29 goals in 158 games. If Falcao looks like a possible successor, another brilliant finisher who became a blunt force at a comparatively early age, it is worth remembering there is often method to Mourinho’s seeming madness. Perhaps there is again.
- Rich Jolly
Liam Brady: None of the players or staff knew about FIFA payment to FAI
Call for probe into Fifa’s ‘completely arbitrary’ payment to FAI after Henry handball
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Chelsea Falcao Forward Thinking Jose Mourinho Manchester United Premier League