People say this was reactionary but it really wasn't. You simply just don't understand what I mean. You're all talking about standards and culture and "taking accountability" but you can't see it when it's staring you in your face. Perhaps it’s my background in sports. Perhaps it’s just the way I am as a person but my view of winning standards is clearly on a different level to most people on here. Many arguments can be made for us not winning this match — such as what was clearly a poor tactical game from Xabi Alonso and what seemed like the Spurs players simply wanting it more throughout the game — none of those things were acceptable yesterday. However, the one thing I have been attacked for is criticising the club’s decision to keep Mike Penders and his performance today. My opinion on Penders has been consistent. He is an incredible talent who, IF developed correctly, can become one of the best goalkeepers in the world, if not the best, for over a decade. He is also a 21-year-old goalkeeper with errors in his game and things he is yet to learn. His season at Strasbourg made both of those things very clear to me. He is extremely gutsy in the box, but his timing is off too often and his decision-making in his area has a long way to go. He’s a great ball player for a goalkeeper, but he needs to learn risk analysis. He’s a very good shot-stopping prospect, but there are still aspects of his technique that need developing. Then there is the experience. Managing massive matches. Dealing with hostile atmospheres. Learning to not let opposition players get under his skin. These are things he needs to learn through playing football. I do not believe he is ready to be Chelsea’s number one if the ambition is to seriously compete. I also question whether being number two gives him the regular football required to fulfil his potential. That is why I wanted him to go on loan again. Vol 1 of this project was about signing the best young players possible and developing them together over multiple seasons. I backed that project. However, I never agreed with following that strategy in every position. Goalkeeper is a different position to anywhere else on the pitch. I always wanted an experienced, world-class option there. Someone who could give the team security while the players in front of him developed. The same applied to the manager. I wanted a leader with winning experience at the highest level. Vol 2 of this project is about winning. It’s about taking the step we have failed to take over the past four seasons. It’s about implementing standards and breeding a winning mentality. Winning should be the culture of the club. Now, from my understanding, other big clubs were circling Penders. The feeling was that if Chelsea sent him on loan again, he would push for a permanent exit. That played a part in the decision to keep him. I understand why the club would be reluctant to lose a goalkeeper with that potential. However, keeping him because we fear losing him does not automatically make it the correct sporting decision for this season. The club still has to assess whether he is ready for the responsibility he is being given. Penders wanted to stay. He backed himself to challenge for the number one spot. I respect that. I will always respect an athlete who backs themselves to succeed. I also disagree with his assessment and would have made a different decision to the club. Both of those things can be true. However, the decision was made. HE wanted to stay. HE backed himself. The club kept him. He is now a Chelsea goalkeeper, and his performances have to be assessed according to the responsibility that comes with that.