The Curious Case of Chelsea Football Club

Last night, in one of the most epic- if not brilliant- finals in recent years, Chelsea finally reached their Holy Grail and became Champions of Europe. The Chelsea oligarchy has reached its ultimate justification, yet it remains dysfunctional to its core.

363 days ago Roman Abramovich relieved Carlo Ancelotti of his duties. The Italian, while presumably not short of an empathetic shoulder to cry on given his former employers trigger-happy nature, would have been allowed to feel just a little preplexed given the relative success during his two years at the club. But alas the bell had tolled for Ancelotti and in his place Andre Villas Boas was hired. Before long he too was being swiftly signalled to the exit.

While one would find it difficult to extol Villas Boas' record during his brief tenure, his mistakes were not at the core of what remains wrong with Chelsea Football Club. AVB failed trying to do the right thing. He simply went about it the wrong way. Having been authorised to undertake a transformation of the club's ageing squad he went about his business with the subtlety of of a scythe. In the process he managed to alienate senior players likely Ashley Cole, Frank Lampard, Alex and presumably Terry, Cech and Drogba too. Having lost control of the dressing room Villas Boas was always likely to fail. 

However, the question remains why was he needed in the first place? A manger with the wealth of experience that Ancelotti possesses is surely astute enough to recognise the ageing profile of his squad. Why was he not given the opportunity to bring about the Velvet Revolution required, rather than AVB's Storming of the Bastille. 

Robert Frost in his 1920 work ' The Road Not Taken', hindsight and a dash honesty in tow laments the consequences of his actions;

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 

In time Mr. Abramovich may do likewise. 


Leaving the significant successes of the last fortnight aside, what at his football club has really changed. While 'The Old Guard' of players that form the core of the Chelsea dressing room are far from finished as a force in the Premier League or Champions League, Chelsea are still far too dependent on them. A freshening of the squad is required, just as it was 12 months ago. The Board have replaced one young, inexperienced manager with, for now at least, another. It seems perverse that a manager that has achieved so much in such a short period of time would be shown the door like those before him. Yet for once it may be the correct decision. Let us not forget a year ago Villas Boas had just completed the Treble with Porto having captured the Europa League- becoming the youngest manager ever to win a major European competition. He was the hottest property around, the flavour of the month so to speak. Only three months prior to the culmination of AVB's achievement Di Matteo was sacked by West Brom. Not one of Europe's elite clubs- West Bromwich Albion. If fifteen months ago a modest mid table club found his managerial direction to be surplus to requirements, surely any decision on his appointment as permanent manager must be taken with a note of caution. None of this is to take away from Di Matteo's achievement, he has done a stellar job. However, going forward his tenure must be properly evaluated. What has he changed?

Not much. He has reinstated key figures and more importantly key players like Lampard, he has sought to bring more out of Torres and he has created a happy dressing room. Tactically? He has stuck to the tried and tested of Chelsea going back as far as the Mourinho days; solid back five (not playing, or pressing too far up the pitch), two holding in front with Lampard providing goals from midfield, and a front four of playmaker (Mata), two wide men and a central striker. It's not rocket science, but it works, it suits this group of players and Di Matteo has been absolutely correct in returning to it. Any notions that Chelsea's reversal of fortunes has come about as a result of the manager's tactical nous are, however, misplaced. Another key consideration, is that given that his success has so evidently been built on the restoration of the Chelsea core, will he now have the desire or ability to gradually reduce their influence on the team?


Abramovich should never of sacked Ancelotti. The man is a two time European Cup winner and multiple domestic champion in Italy, he won the domestic double in his first season in England, and had crucially begun to ring the changes in the squad seeing no more use for the likes of Deco, Ballack, Cole, Belletti & Carvallho. The decision facing Ambramovich now leaves him to ponder the lessons of the past. Should he recognise and seek to refrain from his tendency to prematurely replace successful managers and hand Di Matteo the reins on a permanent basis? Or should he take heed of the most recent of lessons that choosing the young, successful, up-and-coming manager does not always represent the best option? Should he invest his faith in Di Matteo and the new manager obliges with an early season record comparable to that of his predecessor, Roman may feel more than a little empathy with Frost for the folly of his actions. A curious case indeed.