John Terry race row has overshadowed the most significant aspect of QPR's win

Hate figure: Juan Mata came in for some heated criticism from QPR supporters at Loftus Road (GETTY IMAGES)

please log in to view this image

Away from the maelstrom of alleged race hate indiscretions, quickfire red cards and David Luiz’s hair, there has been a major omission from reports of QPR’s victory over Chelsea.

I was dreading watching my team (QPR) on Sunday. What should have been a triumphant derby day confirming our return to the big time instead looked certain to be a humiliating home defeat to a team with far more men in their employ that are excellent at playing football.

It was the first time I have ever travelled to a QPR game entirely convinced it would end in defeat. I was too young to know any better the last time we were at this level and while there have been long spells in lower leagues when an expectation of humiliation seemed like the best coping mechanism, it often masked a glimmer of hope. Such practical pessimism is a distressing necessity in the modern Premier League.

I knew, at least, that the atmosphere would be mildly diverting. Loftus Road is a tinpot ground with awful sightlines, cramped walkways and a genuinely painful lack of legroom. But it’s tight, enclosed, and the crowd are close to the pitch. When every seat is taken (18,360, stop laughing at the back) and the crowd find their voice it’s atmospheric and noisy.

Nevertheless Chelsea should have rendered such factors a quaint irrelevance. They hadn’t lost to a promoted team in 10 years, they were coming off the back of a 5-0 Champions League win and, as I say, they have all those useful men who are especially good at kicking footballs.

What they didn’t have was a squad member who had played QPR at Loftus Road before. It’s hardly Fenerbahçe vs Galatasaray, but most QPR supporters reserve special ire for their West London neighbours.

Chelsea singularly failed to take account of the depth of this hatred, despite André Villas-Boas’ assertions beforehand that the match represented “an emotional challenge”. Their official website carried a patronising preview and Chelsea’s players were visibly shocked by the barracking they were receiving from the QPR support.

Poor Juan Mata, who’s not been in the country long enough to properly upset anyone, received such a fierce welcome for two right-sided corners that Frank Lampard had to take them instead. Lampard and John Terry looked especially baffled with the especially virulent abuse aimed in their direction. Their baffled expressions said “who are these nutters? Why do they hate us so much?”

As excellent QPR blogger Clive Whittingham wrote: “On Sunday one of the world's best teams, player-for-player the most experienced side in the league, boasting a host of players who have performed on some of the toughest stages and situations in the game were rattled by 15,000 QPR fans shouting at them.” There’s something tremendously heartening about that.

There were other plausible reasons for QPR’s unlikely victory. Neil Warnock hailed the 1-0 win as the greatest achievement of his managerial career, which is a bit rich considering how Chelsea outplayed a full Rangers team with their nine men. Chris Foy was right to send off Didier Drogba and Jose Bosingwa but overlooked two decent Chelsea penalty shouts.

André Villas-Boas, worryingly, appeared to complete stage one of his eventual full metamorphosis into Jose Mourinho with a minor post-match meltdown that was a festival of angry blame. One manager turning into another, that’s got to be distracting for the Chelsea squad. And David Luiz is a defender who can’t defend.

But fundamentally QPR’s victory owed more to intimidation from the crowd than any I can remember in recent years. Chelsea lost their collective heads and looked decidedly uncomfortable as pantomime villains on such a claustrophobic stage.

Rangers fans, as is the style on the continent, booed spells of Chelsea possession for much of the game. This has always seemed like an effective means of winding up a visiting team to me. Why doesn’t it happen at every ground?

It’s because almost every football supporter is insecure. Every team’s support (bar that tiresome lot that routinely qualify for the Champions League) believes that when they foul up in farcical circumstances there was degree of inevitability about their capitulation, that it was “typical [insert team name here]”.

Some teams do summon consistently effective scare tactics. Stoke supporters have made the Britannia Stadium the archetypal “horrible place to visit,” and The New Den retains a special edge that’s a welcome contrast to the non-atmosphere at out-of-the-kit out-of-town stadiums.

For most other teams sustained aggression from their support is a difficult thing to maintain. It can only happen when the circumstances are right: the fans are largely behind the current team and manager; there’s an added spice to the game (it’s a derby or the return of a player or manager who departed in acrimonious circumstances); or if there’s a run of perceived officiating injustices to whip up outrage.

That British crowds can so rarely muster such intimidation is a shame for all underdogs. As QPR proved, a lot of people making a lot of noise can still make a huge difference to a football match.

iReader

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...gnificant-aspect-of-qprs-win-against-chelsea/

 

Really well written article. Just summarises it beautifully. Lampard coming to 'rescue' Mata then finding him self deeper in it and much more involved than Mata ever was!

Have to say though, if they HAD scored, I think they would have all come over to QPR blocks and celebrated big time!!

 

Spot on!

 

Not a bad article but I think he overblows the impact of the crowd. Of course, the crowd did effect the game. Quite so. But it's not why QPR got 3 points. With 11 vs. 11 they couldn't break us down.

As teams playing against us lose a player, I always think that it's going to be difficult for my team from then on. 60% of the time, teams seem to gain something from going a man down. Perhaps they work harder or move about more to make up for it. And surely they become more detirmed and start feeling the hungry underdog factor.

The truth is, Chelsea very rarely broke the QPR defence down in that game.

On the day, the QPR players turned up and put in a better shift, barely putting a foot wrong and keeping their discipline, which is not something to be overlooked.

I honestly think we deserved that win. We had more chances (that admittedly should have been put away) and we player more fairly.

I do think some of the players got really tired towards the end, though. Especially SWP.

Helguson troubled them non stop. Barton was a thorn to them and Faurlin and Derry controlled things well in the middle. But the defence were very good. Chelsea barely found a way in, with 11 or 9.