A few weeks ago, CFCnet ran one of the most controversial articles in its ten year history. The headline captured the essence of the article and simply enquired, 'How bad is Ross Turnbull?' The implication, of course, was that if Hilario was as poor as we'd seen against Man City then our third choice goalie must be a calamity, with arms just for show.

We came under quite a bit of flak for running that article, written by Chelsea book author Richard Micallef, and a number of fans berated us for letting the article through. Our response was that we're there primarily to allow people to publish their views and thoughts about Chelsea FC and we're not in the business of censorship. Yes, we're careful not to allow too much criticism of players and we certainly won't publish anything malicious, but in this instance we felt Richard had every right to ask whether Ross Turnbull was any good.

Our forums subsequently lit up and fans even came out of the woodwork from Cardiff City who said Turnbull made David James look 'reliable'. Our own resident reserves commentator simply stated that Turnbull's Chelsea debut against Villa was 'a road crash' and the 4-0 scoreline 'merciful'.

The pre-match banter therefore focused on whether our season would disintegrate in the arms, or lack of them, of our third choice keeper. As it happens, against the Hammers Turnbull put in a decent performance and his all-round display was good - not even Cech could have kept out Scott Parker's volley. No complaints from us, that's for sure, and after the game a few fans thought the young Turnbull should keep his place until Cech returns. After all, Hilario's 34 and won't be part of our long term future.

The only disappointment about the whole day was not so much on the pitch but off it. Whilst the team performed admirably, the crowd was a disgrace. Once West Ham had equalised we simply shut up. Is it that hard to utter the words, 'Chelsea', 'Carefree' or 'Blue Flag'? Later in the Anglesea Arms a few fans ventured that it was 'nerves' that made everyone go quiet. But surely that works against the team? Wouldn't it be better to simply belt out song after song to cheer the boys on?

It wasn't just CFCnet that was disappointed either - Talksport took more than a few calls from Chelsea fans disheartened with our vocal display. We could point the cause at the average age of Chelsea fans who attend the games - 43 years old - but whatever the reason the atmosphere has got to improve if we are to continue making Stamford Bridge a fortress. Good luck to Cliff and the boys on the Atmosphere Committee, they're going to need it.

Singing used to be the hallmark of a Chelsea fan. During the dark days of the late Seventies and much of the Eighties, no one supported Chelsea because we were a good team. They supported Chelsea because of what it meant - belonging to a tribe of real football fans who would sing whether we were winning, drawing or losing. For many of us who stood and sang through those times, it's heartbreaking to have such a great team on the field and such a shocking crowd off it. We used to be the best fans with the worst team….now the tables have almost reversed.

OK, we might be exaggerating somewhat, but come on, we support one of the best teams in the world. As fans, we're very, very lucky. Let's show our appreciation if nothing else.

Finally, a word about John Obi Mikel who had another superb afternoon in midfield. CFCnet was pleased to see the young Nigerian have another pop at goal and whilst the bookies stopped taking odds on him scoring aeons ago, we were almost happy to see the ball whistle past the post - next stop the goal itself? Don't hold your breath.