Chaos at Chelsea

 Chaos at Chelsea

New year, same old Chelsea. The ultimate chaos club strikes again, despite Manchester United's best efforts to take usurp them. The new year has started off with a bang. A marriage of inconvenience came to an end. Enzo Maresca left Chelsea football club. The recent results were far from perfect but not solely warranting of a dismissal of the Italian. This situation, however, is different with it becoming clear that background tension between the head-coach and the club’s hierarchy came to a boil. Tension over what though? And how did it lead to both parties simply wanting to get rid of the other?

Chelsea have been inconsistent under Maresca. True, but it was also a trait of Pochettino’s Chelsea before. Perhaps having a young and inexperienced squad leads to inconsistent performances and results. Who knew? Highs include a top five finish last season (qualifying for the Champions League), the Club World Cup triumph in the States and a fantastic performance and 3-0 win against Barcelona in the Champions League earlier this season. Performances, when good, were fabulous. However, performances were also stodgy and when bad, tepid. Maresca’s footballing style means that when it doesn’t click, it looks slow, laboured and lacking in ideas and rhythm. 

Despite these issues, a top 5 finish is more than within the realms of possibility this season and so it doesn’t appear that results nor performances have solely lead to this swift divorce. Reports have come out that Maresca has twice spoken with executives at Manchester City about replacing Pep Guardiola as City head-coach if / when the Catalan leaves. Having told Chelsea of this, and amongst growing frustrations and tension between himself and the board, it appears both parties have decided a break-up was required. So, with all that in mind. Where does it leave Chelsea, and where does it leave Maresca?

Chelsea
The Chelsea “model” is different to the one we became accustomed to under Roman Abramovich. A win at all costs model ruled at Stamford Bridge where elite, experienced footballers were brought to the club and when the club won, the manager stayed, and when it didn’t, the manager left. Chaos ensued but trophies were won. The sale of the club to Clearlake Capital and Todd Boehly marked a significant adjustment to that approach. The club has since embarked on a portfolio type project which involves hoovering up young talented players around the world, in the hope that some make the first team, and in the event they don’t, they are traded for a profit. It’s a sound business approach on paper, and one that’s not unfamiliar to what we see at Brighton, perhaps.

However professional sport, at that elite level, is not solely about business successes. It’s not all about the balance sheet and trading footballers as if they’re Pokémon cards. The extreme nature of Chelsea’s strategy reminds me of my own sporting project on football manager where I signed the world’s best talents to develop. One key difference though is that I already had a world-class squad that won trophies season on season. And, yes, this was Football Manager. Investing sums of money into a playing squad shows obvious intent, but is the intent really to win? Chelsea’s ownership have spent over £1.5billion in four years (since the current ownership took over control of the club). A staggering amount of money spent and by far the most in the Premier League. The problem is what they’ve spent that money on. Asides from Chelsea’s midfield of Cole Palmer, Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez (just about…) and possibly Marc Cucurella, how many other top players have Chelsea signed? 

If we look at the 23 signings they brought in during Maresca’s reign, only one (yes, one) can be considered a real a success as of right now and that’s Estevao. Others might go on to prove their transfer fee but when you go through some of the names, it makes for grim reading. The transfer sums for the 23 players amount to around £538 million. 8 of these players haven’t even played for the club yet. Chelsea have also recouped a significant amount of money from player sales in this period and so the player flipping model doesn’t look so expensive when that’s taken into account. However, we’re not talking about selling players and bringing in improvements here. Noni Madueke and Joao Felix were sold in the summer, with Chelsea bringing in two direct replacements in Jamie Gittens and Alejandro Garnacho for a combined £88million. Upgrade? I don’t think so.

And despite the tens of millions Chelsea have spent on goalkeepers in the last few years, it’s Brighton reject Robert Sanchez who is between the sticks for the blues. We also can’t ignore the deficiencies at centre half that persist. Maresca, himself, pleaded with the board publicly for more options at centre half but was told to sit tight. And yet, it’s £20m-£30m gambles that have taken precedent for Chelsea. Sure, they might be able to flip one for the same price in a year or two but to what end. For every Cole Palmer, there’s an Omari Kellyman. Who you might ask? Exactly. This is a portfolio of players. This isn’t proper squad building. This isn’t buying younger players to improve the team and win.
Any experienced head-coach who is genuinely serious about wanting to win the biggest prizes football has to offer would think twice about the Chelsea job.

What’s next for Maresca?
As for Maresca, his stock has remarkably gone up from being at Chelsea. Those outside of the club (and some of their fans) can see the flaws of the club’s set-up and how, simply, it isn’t designed to win. Maresca had admirers from his time at Leicester where he led the foxes to a Championship title. Given the Foxes’ struggles at the same level this season, and their disastrous Premier League campaign last season after Maresca left, perhaps his title win, and the performances his team produced are under-rated by fans. And yet, given the inexperienced make-up of Chelsea’s squad, were the performances so inconsistent because of this or because of flaws in Maresca’s own approach and inexperience? Is he really good, or don’t we know that yet? The jury is probably still out.

The next move? Well, this piece opened with the reported news that Maresca had been in touch with Manchester City chief’s about replacing Pep Guardiola if / when he leaves the Etihad. Having worked as an assistant to Guardiola and being one of “Pep’s disciples”, perhaps this isn’t much of a surprise, and yet it’s a little strange on the face of it that a man who has left his job as a top six manager, would replace the great Pep Guardiola at the top of the Premier League. The fact that City’s executives have reportedly spoken to Maresca, shows how highly regarded he must be at the club. The Italian is not a former player. City are not known for plumping for home comforts. They’re not Manchester United.

Whether a summer move to City materialises for Maresca, will ultimately depend on Guardiola’s plans. Maresca’s opportunities in England will otherwise be limited with the geographical nature of Chelsea, although with the no love lost feeling around his departure, why couldn’t we see him in the Spurs dugout? Maresca will no doubt have opportunities abroad, particularly in Italy. All in all, a spell in the madhouse hasn’t done his reputation any harm and will have no doubt given him experience in dealing with a big-club dressing room.

Chelsea’s next steps are uncertain. A club that has committed to doing things differently. The new man in, Liam Rosenior, knows the approach of Blue Co (Chelsea, Strasbourg and friends), having been head-coach at Strasbourg. He’s bright, communicates well, and he has developed young players in France. The bill at Stamford Bridge will be more of the same but on a much bigger stage, with much bigger pressures under a much bigger microscope. Good luck in that madhouse, Mr Rosenior.