Chelsea find themselves; win Champions League

Chelsea's win over Bayern Munich during Saturday's Champions League final is a triumph that only three months ago was utterly inconceivable.  The club was desperately short of form, many/most/all players had decided unilaterally that Andre Villas-Boas had no business coaching them and the team played with purposelessness rivalling beheaded chickens.

This is certainly due in part to Villas-Boas' methods and the uneasy conflict they created when combined with his remit: beautiful football, better results and a younger, growing team.  That the Portuguese manager attempted a root-and-branch reform in the back rooms of Cobham within months of arriving was certainly ambitious; with hindsight, it appears unfortunate and a little misguided

Chelsea's progress towards a high defensive line and a team composed of rapiers rather than broadswords created a definite schism in the playing staff.  Those players with bucketfuls of personality and credibility - Terry, Drogba, Cole, Cech and Lampard - were still key to this iteration of the team, both on- and off-field; yet the club's future identity was shifted instantly and without consult to a shot-happy Daniel Sturridge, the pitiable Fernando Torres and other youngsters.

This situation wasn't helped by player purchases made by club executives rather than by the man in charge of dictating the squad's sense of collective self, the manager.  Torres, Romelu Lukaku, Kevin de Bruyne, Thibault Courtois, Johnny Kills and Gary Cahill were all young, highly sought-after and supposedly übertalented superstars of the future.  Unfortunately they only exacerbated the personality crisis within the club: were Chelsea a young, fluid, passing team or a team of blunt but supereffective veterans?

Although game tactics were (probably) clear, the entire squad - by dint of confusing statements, puzzling purchases, genuinely odd team selections and an unfamiliar, unsuited gameplan - were a team without an overwhelming sense of purpose or identity.

Courtesy: Telegraph.co.uk

In sport, identity is important.  Not only does it provide a tactical map, but it also generates a sense of certainty in both management and playing staff which helps inherently on a psychological level.   Perhaps one of it's ultimate consequences is with player acquisition.  Rather than plugging in stars from other teams who may not fit the team's  psyche or tactics (a la Liverpool), they can bring in players suited best for their club (say, Blackpool or the latter-day Newcastle United).  A standout example can be taken from this year's promoted teams: after having played the same style in three divisions, Swansea City and Norwich City have succeeded by employing cheap, second- and third-tier players who fit their club's on- and off-field culture.

Since Roberto Di Matteo assumed control, he has created a sense of unity and identity lacking during Villas-Boas' reign.  Even though they finished one position lower in the league than they were when AVB was fired, this too helped: Chelsea became cup-focused and able to coalesce behind an "underdog" persona.  While this worked well against bogey-team Barcelona, it was taken to the n^th degree in Munich: talisman captain suspended, best defender suspended, two centre-backs recovering from injury, backups of questionable quality, key midfielder suspended ...  the pervading instability and queries over the quality of replacement (who'd have though Jose Boswinga and Gary Cahill would start the final only two months ago?) only contributed to a "we'll show 'em" mentality.

Chelsea absorbed tremendous amounts of pressure and then punished both Barca and Bayern when their limited opportunities came.  With some notable exceptions, the Blues have struggled since Mourinho's departure to find a common identity.  Saturday's result came as they found themselves after years of looking.

Villas-Boas fired for breaking coaching's golden rule

And so Andre Villas-Boas is gone, cast to the recycling pile like a dapper cardboard cut-out in a suit that's slightly too small.

Roman Abramovich may as well have employed a cardboard cut-out, as he almost certainly would have performed better in the job with the highest expectations in England.

It's not that Villas-Boas is a bad manager – that's not even close to the truth. He's an excellent manager who, in this appointment, simply picked the wrong battles to fight. The result is that his head is now deservedly displayed on a spike outside Abramovich's castle alongside those of the myriad managers who've run afoul of Roman.

Villas-Boas' remit was to scratch his Russian patron's itch for beautiful football.

And to focus more on refreshing the squad with youth.

And, most importantly, to win – preferably the Champions' League.

As is the case with 21^st Century management, employing a manager is to employ his style. It's now almost impossible to divorce the man from the method, and therefore Villas-Boas was brought to West London to play the same football with which his Porto sides traipsed through Liga Sagres and the Europa League.

That style of football, however, utilised a high defensive line which didn't suit a backline whose key components could be outrun by the Eastbourne Zimmer-frame Relay team. The Chelsea of 2011-12 wasn't built to thrive in such tactics, and the young boss didn't alter his methods quickly enough to stop the slide (!) into fifth place. In isolation he may have survived such tactical idealism, but when combined with an openly antagonistic relationship with stalwarts Lampard, Anelka and Alex, the thirty-four year old could not be persevered with.

Villas-Boas followed what has now become the management norm: steadfast adherence to one's tactical ideals is favoured over pragmatism. This is slightly disturbing, as it directly opposes the first rule of coaching: play to your team's strengths. This rule can be ignored only when working under an extremely patient overlord – and even then only occasionally. It takes time to adapt a team to a gameplan, especially when those players are as hard-nosed as John Terry; it takes far less time to adapt said gameplan to a set of world-weary multimillionaires.

It would have been almost impossible to resist overtures from noted sweet-talker Abramovich, but it appears now Villas-Boas should have twigged that he wasn't the best fit for the position. In sport, however, common sense often plays second fiddle to self-confidence. All of self-confidence, rationale, common sense and ambition are also easily concealed by the coin on offer.

The next manager to take the star cross'd position will have his own ideas how to play the game. For his sake, and for the heart health of the entire Chelsea fan base, he should realise the key to achievement – and therefore longevity – at Stamford Bridge is ultimate pragmatism.

In defence of Andre Villas-Boas

After overseeing two successive home losses for the first time in the Abramovich era, Chelsea manager Andre Villas-Boas has faced renewed speculation as to his future at Chelsea. Such talk is inevitable - I said, inevitable - thanks to his boss' propensity for firing managers. Expected, sure, and unfair given his short tenure, but is sack-talk even warranted?

Let's examine AVB's remit: to win - or at least compete - for the Premier League and Champions' League titles, replenish an ageing squad, get Fernando Torres firing, all the time playing attractive football. The season is about 100 days old; to expect all of the above to occur by now is quite obviously laughable.

What has the 34-year old done to warrant such attention? Presiding over three losses in four, OK, but the play behind those losses hasn't been horrible. To fire a manager on results rather than overall quality of play, while common, is a last-ditch move; Abramovich must have second, third and fourth-line plans rather than just nuking it all and starting over.

Villas-Boas has been tactically sound, if prone to an ambitiously high defensive line. The Blues assemble in a compact formation usually featuring Torres up front, ostensibly allowing incision from Juan Mata and width players Malouda and Sturridge. In keeping with the reinvigoration part of his mandate, offensive focus isn't on players nearly his own age (Drogba, Anelka and Lampard) but guys entering their prime.

Neither has the manager redefined roles - his men play where and when they perform best. Spectators haven't seen Lampard lying deep before the defence - he isn't suited to it and won't or can't play that position effectively. While spectacularly unsuited to a high defensive line, John Terry isn't being empowered to act as a Libero. So far, with only a few exceptions - and one notable inclusion - guys deserving it have played.

The Blues still score goals - over two per. Torres, while not the blistering El Nino of old, has regained his blonde locks, and with them a semblance of form. Mata looks to be one of the buys of the offseason, while it shouldn't take long to replace Jon Obi Mikel with Raul Meireles (even though it's harsh to blame the Nigerian for Maxi Rodriguez' goal on Sunday). The team is now much less stiff-legged than last year; an athleticism AVB hoped to take advantage of with a new game style.

In short, Chelsea haven't won more because his men have given away poor goals and, at times, failed to take advantage of fruitful situations. Suggested "fixes" for Villas-Boas and the Blues have focused on improving the defence, big-upping Mata and finally choosing between Torres and Drogba. This is only kind of true: the defence certainly needs addressing, but Mata by virtue of skill alone is becoming a featured player. Villas-Boas already has chosen Torres over Drogba - the cards are on the table - but now needs the dressing room's waning alpha-dogs to embrace change.

No-one's calling Terry and Lampard old dogs - well, nearly no-one - but it takes time for players to adapt to another, especially one which prioritises out-and-out speed over muscularity. Villas-Boas will be fine, as will Chelsea. The same can't be said for Didier Drogba and Nicolas Anelka.