Too much tinkering not good for Chelsea

If you’ve watched Chelsea play anytime recently, or kept up with Chelsea-talk in the media, then it is beyond a shadow of doubt that talks about them being a “team in transition” will have hit you. Or maybe how the “old guard” is being phased out for the new, how the John Terrys must make way for the David Luizs. What’s striking about all this, though, is that this isn’t something that has occurred over the course of this season, or the previous one. It’s one that has afflicted Chelsea since the day Roman Abramovich decided to mould the club according to his fancy.

It is a matter of great concern for a football club when it’s golden period is defined not upon one of its great players or the manager, but the owner of the club. Such is the era presently known as the “Abramovich era”. It could well have been called the Lampard Era, or the Terry era, or maybe even the Drogba era, but it’s a fact well known that he asserts more control in the dressing room and over the team itself than the manager does. And it is probably his fear of losing control over the coveted dressing room that he has unceremoniously dispatched the likes of Nicolas Anelka and Didier Drogba, and has shown Frank Lampard the door. His constant revolving door of managers must be fuelled by a constant urge to retain control over the players and a constant reminder of his authority.

Having already employed the best names in the football business (Mourinho, Ancelotti, Benitez, Villas-Boas), Abramovich had his sights set on the manager whose style allured him the most, Pep Guardiola, formerly of Barcelona. He had even begun the rebuilding process, replacing the supremely direct and physical style of Chelsea characterised by Alex, Terry, Essien, Malouda, Anelka and Drogba, with players who would offer a more attractive version of the game, aka, tiki-taka. Juan Mata was bought in as the chief architect of this project, and around him has been built a team of young stalwarts, all of whom who have the potential to be world-beaters at some point; namely, Eden Hazard, Oscar, Victor Moses, Cesar Azpilicueta, Ryan Bertrand, David Luiz, and of course, the Spaniard whose price tag hangs on his shirt like a rubber patch, Fernando “50m” Torres.

Torres was not only one of the biggest household footballing names at the time, but also one who was familiar with the tiki-taka style of play, embodied by the Spanish national team, of which Torres was then still an essential part. He was to replace Drogba seamlessly, and would be supplied by characteristic Spaniards like Juan Mata – small, stocky, yet preciously talented, and with magnetic ball control and amazing levels of vision. However, the Torres strategy hasn’t quite worked out the way it was planned, and instead Chelsea have had to rely on a style of play where Mata is the focus of the team, and Oscar and Hazard are working overtime to match up to his level.

Among all this are the bulwarks of the Chelsea team, Ashley Cole, John Terry, and Frank Lampard. All well into their 30s, and have been immense cogs in the Chelsea’s wheel. They stand for all Abramovich wants to eradicate and managers like Villas-Boas had tried phasing them out, despite their performances not meriting such actions. Ashley Cole was rumoured to be one of those on his way out along with Lampard, but he has been granted a contract extension of a year, and will continue till Abramovich so pleases. But, it is more baffling why he would deny a player of undeniable talent and ability like Frank Lampard a fresh contract. Lampard has assisted 3 goals this season, and scored 14 himself, an astonishing figure for a man of 34, who has constantly belied his age and looks set to do so for the foreseeable future. The mystery is why Chelsea would let a man like him, and his following, off for a Bosman, where he would hugely benefit whichever team he lent his right foot to. The answer of course, is simple. As long as he’s around, there’s a spanner in the works.

Guardiola’s eventual decision to join Bayern Munich, though, has put the ultimate shock up for the Russian Oligarch. He is not used to rejection, in business matters at least, and it must have put some perspective in his mind over how unwilling people are to put their foot into a project as unsure as Chelsea. As Brendan Rodgers answered when asked about the Chelsea job, “I’m trying to build my career, not destroy it”. Managers, and players, look for a certain amount of stability at their workplace, and that stability and consistency yields the greatest benefits. Look no further than Manchester United for evidence. Transitions are an essential for any team, and their success afterwards depends on the smoothness of that transition. Chelsea, though, have been taken apart and put back together multitudes of times in the last ten years and with the exit of “interim-manager” Rafa Benitez at the end of the season, prepare for another great transition. This constant tinkering, though, causes them much more harm than good in the long run, even though the trophies have come in bits and bursts.