Chelsea’s one year contract extension policy saw several members of the old guard leave. What if they were given more to stay longer?
Chelsea long held firm on their one year extensions for players over 30 rule. No matter who the player was, the rule remained law. Until David Luiz of all players broke it. And Olivier Giroud as a transfer. And the last few months have been all about how Willian wants not two years, but three to further dig the boundaries into the hole Chelsea made.
This is the same rule that saw Didier Drogba leave after the Champions League win. It saw Frank Lampard depart not long after. Eventually, after a few near misses, it claimed John Terry’s one club man status as he continued at Aston Villa (no one is counting the loan to Nottingham Forrest).
But what if these players had been given long than a year at a time? What if Chelsea, because of their status with the club, had worked out something more with them? Would anything be different?
First was Drogba whose (at the time) final kick for Chelsea was winning the Champions League. Drogba had been slowing down and the Blues were desperate to make Fernando Torres work, but Drogba’s style was one that would have aged well. Roberto Di Matteo could have leaned on his experience and used him greatly in the following campaign.
Lampard lasted longer and was used often as a super sub in his final season with Chelsea. He nearly always seemed to score though and showed with Manchester City he still had plenty left in tank. He would have had to adapt his style as age caught up with him by either becoming more advanced almost playing off the striker as a poacher. But perhaps with Lampard around, Chelsea would have avoided 2015/2016 being as bad as it was.
Terry lasted the longest and barely played by the time he was done. Like Lampard though, Chelsea did take a down turn after he left. Leadership in the dressing room is an often forgotten factor that has more influence that appears and having Terry could have changed 2017/2018.
But overall, what really would have changed had any of these players seen out their Chelsea careers? Honestly, not a whole lot. Drogba, Lampard, and Terry were all incredibly influential but it would be difficult to say any of the three would have stopped some of the bad times that followed their exits.
If anything, they may have saved Chelsea from some of their sillier signings but at the same time they would have blocked off the youth. There is an old YouTube video of Romelu Lukaku complaining about Drogba running the roost sometime in the 2011/2012 season. Lukaku may have left even sooner had Drogba remained and kept that pipeline filled.
Maybe the only real difference is Terry and Lampard start their coaching at Chelsea as opposed to Aston Villa and Derby County. And as a result, maybe both would be at the club in that capacity right now and another manager in place. So reality may have, in a strange way, worked out better for Lampard.
What other what ifs would you like to see? Let us know in the comments and on Twitter!