Roberto Di Matteo, the interim Chelsea manager, is pondering the biggest selection dilemma of his managerial career as he plots Barcelona's downfall in Chelsea's latest Champions League semi-final.
Di Matteo has to decide whether to stick with Didier Drogba for tonight's first leg at Stamford Bridge or recall Fernando Torres.
Based on current form and previous meetings with Barca, Drogba is the obvious choice but that would also be the case for Saturday's Barclays Premier League game at Arsenal and Tuesday's return at Camp Nou.
Di Matteo has given almost equal game time to Drogba and Torres since he took charge and, after the former started Sunday's FA Cup semi-final thrashing of Tottenham Hotspur, it would appear something has to give.
However, Drogba, who has long been used to being top dog at Stamford Bridge, has accepted that rotation is a fact of life for the rest of this season.
"It's new for me, but there's nothing bad about it," he said. "The most important thing is for the team to win games and to go forward.
"Of course, I would like to play more, but I think the other players would like to play more as well, so I can't complain."
Barcelona's Dani Alves, meanwhile, has claimed Chelsea blew their chance to reach the 2009 final because of fear and not because of Norwegian referee Tom Henning Ovrebo.
Ahead of tonight's game between the two sides, Alves has reopened wounds from the controversial tie three years ago, when Chelsea claimed they were robbed of a final place.
Chelsea's then-manager Guus Hiddink claimed Ovrebo's performance was "the worst I have ever seen" by a referee, and Drogba and Jose Bosingwa were both sanctioned for protesting at the final whistle.
But Alves claimed: "There is no doubt that was the hardest game we've played, but a team with a man advantage playing at home and winning should have attacked us more.
"People say Chelsea should have won but for the referee, but that is not our problem. We were there to play football, to compete and try to get to the final. Chelsea did not reach the final because of fear."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article