Mourinho/AVB just the undercard

Originally published on the Montreal Gazette's Goal Posts blog on Saturday morning, 28th September.

Much of the press surrounding this weekend's matchup between Tottenham and Chelsea has been about the fractured friendship of the managers, Andre Villas-Boas and Jose Mourinho.

While it is true that Villas-Boas followed Mourinho around like a puppy heeling to his master, the comparisons are - as usual - overstated.  Mourinho's teams are usually best on the counter-attack, while Villas-Boas tends to favour a little more ball control. The Elder's squads are made up of uncompromising types who start out wanting to kill for their boss, and end up wanting just to kill him; his padawan is far milder and prefers fewer histrionics.

But the clubs' rivalry, based as much around Villas-Boas' ill-fated stint at Chelsea as their personal relationship, isn't the most important battle of wills on display at White Hart Lane today.

Far more integral to the Blues' season is the effect of Jose Mourinho's display of primal chest-puffing affects fallen superstar Juan Mata.  More precisely, Chelsea's season doesn't rest on one clash with Villas-Boas and his new men, but with how well Mata is able to integrate into this newest edition of Chelsea. 

Why the new/old boss left such gifted player sidelined comes down to one of only three reasons: either Mourinho felt Mata would not be benefit the side; his playing would unhelpful to the player himself (and, by extension, Chelsea) or - most headline-grabbingly - it's personal.

Whilie Mourinho has form for playing the man, it's almost inconceivable he'd choose the even-tempered Mata as a sitting target for this kind of vitriol, connections with Rafael Benitez, Iker Casillas and Sergio Ramos notwithstanding.  Thus, it's fair to assume that his reasoning is probably tactical.

This is concerning, as Mourinho has suggested that Mata's game didn't suit his plans.  Even to the most appreciative eye, Jose's clubs tend towards brutally effective football rather than aesthetics, meaning he envisions a future for Chelsea which doesn't exploit the strengths of a willo'-the-wisp like Mata.  While it's true that Mourinho has encouraged great performances from players like Cristiano Ronaldo and Diego Milito, employing his unusual brand of discipline to an utter professional like Mata seems reductive and somewhat counterproductive. Finding someone who can fault Juan Mata for the failed title challenges of 2011-12 and 2012-13 is like trying to find a introvert in the Big Brother house.

Minimalising Juan Mata's football might be the easiest way for Jose Mourinho to get results, but it also counts as a (admittedly petty) crime against the sport.  Managers are paid to get results; this particular manager chooses to do so in the simplest and most straightforward method possible.  With the force of personality Mourinho wields - and the utter professionalism displayed by his player - it appears likely that the requisite changes will be made and Mata will adapt to play Jose-ball.

Chelsea will be richer for it, but the Premiership may be immeasurably worse.

Juan Mata leads (another) Chelsea revolution

It's hard to be mad at anything that scampers. Likewise disdainful, jealous or irritated. As a word, scamper is used generally when something flits about in a light-footed manner, implying that the observer receives some kind of pleasing entertainment just from the sight.

No-one scampers with malice – it can't be done. Any attempts veer quickly towards scurrying, or it's less desirable cousin, scuttling. A list of things that scamper almost invariably begins with Lionel Messi, kids or puppies; while any of this trio may not be your cup of tea, active disliking toddlers, Messi or puppies is almost always taking things too seriously.

Scampering almost perfectly describes the New Chelsea. After years of solid – but hardly light-footed – play won them a few titles but few friends outside their considerable fan base, the past twelve months has earned them new admirers. Abramovich's ultimate dream has finally become manifest: a team of artful dodgers able not just to compete, but win the Champions League.

This cheekiness isn't just paying off on the pitch: after nearly a decade of being England's pre-eminent “guys you love to hate”, Chelsea Football Club are suddenly somewhat likeable.

There are several reasons for a general mellowing of feeling towards the Blues, even despite their remarkable talent for attracting (and washing off) negative press. Part of this can be put down simply to success; another possibility is the final and extended dissolution of an inner sanctum far more unsavoury together than in its individual parts. But chief among these reasons has been the youthful personification of West London forward play: Marko Marin, Eden Hazard, Juan Mata and Oscar.

The latter three may be the most talented players in the Premier League, an on-pitch aria of insightful, constant scampering – with the ball or without, ability (and desire) to pass the ball and technical skill. Over the past decade, professional sport has verged towards an atmosphere of black-and-white tribalism; the intrinsic wit and dextrous nature to the football of Mata, Hazard and Oscar has brought Chelsea and some former critics closer in mutual appreciation.

While there are still some elements at Chelsea the casual observer must tolerate rather than enjoy, Roman Abramovich's mob has moved a long way from the days as the archetypal black hat villains.

Some regeneration advice for Chelsea from Doctor Who

Courtesy: bandbent.wordpress.com

“Life depends on change, renewal”.

These were some of the first words spoken by the second Doctor Who, all the way back in 1966. They were needed because the original actor who played the Doctor, William Hartnell, had left the series and moved on to a retirement home for the terminally crotchety; he was replaced by a younger, fitter, happier – at least initially – actor, Patrick Troughton.

The character of The Doctor, from the eponymous series – starting again in only a matter of weeks – has (mostly) enjoyed a fifty year television existence because when Hartnell's illnesses became too great for the program, they simply subbed in another actor and wrote it into the plot. The Doctor's appearance and mannerisms changed markedly, but his innate character of fairness, equality and just being generally good has remained through eleven actors and half a century. The invention of “regeneration” was so simple and elegant that it allowed a successful program to embrace, and therefore survive, radical change.

This same sort of regeneration is currently in process in West London at Chelsea. Over the summer the Blues cornered the market in tricksy, creative types as they acquired starlets Oscar, Marko Marin and the Hazard brothers, Eden and Thorgan. When combined with last season's best buys, Gary Cahill and Juan Mata, the Blues have replaced their cantankerous old stagers with much more watchable stars.

This is a regeneration with leaguewide implications. The Blues still boasts five of the six most important aspects of the successful last decade – their names are Abramovich, Terry, Lampard, Cole and Cech. Only Drogba has departed. The character of this team doesn't so much depends on this quintet but is actually entirely derived from them: they have the strongest personalities and are the best leaders, the rest of the team will follow or be damned.

Because of this, no matter how important Mata or Hazard become, and despite the obvious cosmetic changes, Chelsea's performance in 2012-13 will revolve around its more venerable elements.

Let's harken back to Who for a moment. Acclimatising to a new Doctor usually took a couple of episodes simply because the characterisation varied so greatly between actors; a new boy was finally accepted as The Doctor (capital T, capital D) after claiming the role with a great performance in a strong story. The same applies at Stamford Bridge. The sheds belong unquestionably to Terry because of his “Mr. Chelsea” aura, his past performances and the memories of success. This has a twofold effect – it promotes team pride but it's hard to argue that it also doesn't lend itself to embracing necessary change. The reinvigoration won't be complete until an alpha dog emerges from this new batch.

For the Blues to walk, rather than reel, into the future, the old salts have to lead by example one last time and embrace regeneration not just of the playing squad, but of the team's leadership group.

Chelsea won't change definitively unless one of Eden Hazard, Fernando Torres, Daniel Sturridge or Mata takes over. While his performances last year justify him the title, Mata's personality may be too mild-mannered to wrest control of the team. With Torres' funk stretching back to the Tennant era, this almost automatically leaves the confident Hazard the best candidate.

The regeneration of body has all but taken. Now the same must occur at the head.

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.