17Feb

So, who will blink first in Stamford Bridge standoff?

by Ciaran McMonagle

Share:

In the aftermath of Saturday’s disappointing defeat to Everton, there has been a wealth of ink dedicated to detailing what appear to be serious cracks in the relationship between André Villas-Boas and his players. All this takes place against a backdrop of the reported continued presence of Roman Abramovich around the Cobham training ground.

Who is Roman there to keep an eye on? Is if the under-performing players or the ever more desperate and seemingly lost young manager?

Chelsea need to change, to develop. One year is a short time frame and perhaps it’s unreasonable to expect results to match the level of expectation at this stage. But the type of performance that was seen last weekend (flat) and the weekend previously (when Chelsea found a way not to win the game against Man Utd despite leading 3-0 after around 50 minutes) is not really acceptable. In the Man Utd game, the manager must face questions, especially over his choice of substitutes. However, the players must take the majority of the blame for the Everton performance – it wasn’t the tactics, that’s for sure. So, what course of action should be taken from here?

For me, it is simple. The revolving door policy for managers needs to stop. This is for a number of reasons. Firstly, Chelsea have spent an obscene amount of money (£64million) firing managers in the past three financial periods. This is the very definition of dead money. The corollary to this is that the termination clause in the current manager’s contract is ‘only’ £5million – not a huge amount of money by Chelsea’s standards. The next reason is that this is the first time Chelsea appear to have a long-term plan and want their manager to develop younger players rather than relying heavily on expensive veterans. A more experienced or big name manager would likely demand a large transfer kitty come the summer – that appears to go against what the club should and need to do – for both long term sustainability and short term financial reasons.

The importance of finishing fourth (which is the best than can be hoped for at this point) cannot be understated for the club’s financial position and its ability to attract players. Chelsea received £44million for reaching the quarter-finals of last season’s Champions League, whereas Porto received less than £8m for winning the Europa League. This for me is the only compelling reason why the club would get rid of Villas-Boas at this stage – Chelsea’s form is getting worse, and given that he does not seem to have the trust/support of the players, or indeed a sizeable number of fans, you would wonder how it will improve. The potential bounce that someone like, say, Guus Hiddink could provide in the short-term cannot be underestimated. But then Chelsea are back to square 1 – they need a manager and are no closer to meeting their long-term goals.

If it’s the case that it’s the players or the manager, I asked the question earlier in the week ‘who has the most long-term value to Chelsea’ – is it the young and apparently talented manager or the aging and seemingly disgruntled senior players?  Of the three answers I got, two seemed to feel that the manager should be cut loose. My view is pretty simple – back the manager, at least for another season. There is still a chance that Chelsea surge into fourth, and then, he has the entire summer to get what he needs to develop his side for next season, at the same time allowing those who don’t want to be a part of his project leave.

Posted by Chelsea fan Ciaran McMonagle

Follow Ciaran on Twitter @CiaranMcMonagle