-
Chelsea owner Roman Abramovic - Source: Getty Images -
Related
They say a week is a long time in football.
But in the case of former Portsmouth manager Tony Adams, and Chelsea's Luiz Felipe Scolari, the exit from their respective clubs has been anything but.
And it is the sacking of Brazilian Scolari, who was sensationally ousted from Chelsea on Tuesday that highlights the growing impatience and disillusion currently occurring in one of the world's biggest and richest sports.
Just seven months into the job, former World Cup winning manager Scolari was deemed 'not good enough' by the Stamford Bridge hierarchy after the samba style football played by a rejuvenated Chelsea at the beginning of the season gave way to a stumbling waltz that produced more than a few dismal results from a tired and uninspiring Blues.
The fans with banners of "Scolari out" being touted at the dismal goalless draw at Hull may have shown how disenchanted the Chelsea supporters have become, but, no matter how much anyone tried, a few losses and goalless draws would always draw criticism from the Chelsea camp who, two-years after the fact, are still trying to find out just who they really are since 'The Special One' grabbed his Armani coat and left the Bridge.
Big Phil pays the price
Unfortunately it was Big Phil Scolari who has paid the price for Chelsea's 'not good enough' past glories, and it is just how unceremoniously well-respected Scolari was sacked from Chelsea that has left the football world reeling.
Realistically it should not take any seasoned Premier League fan or close watchers of Chelsea by surprise because of who pulls the strings at this London club.
In 2007, it was Jose Mourinho who was sent packing after the only trophy that eludes Chelsea once again slipped out of the club's reach with a semi-final loss to Liverpool in the 06/07 season and some poor results in the 07/08 early stages of the Premier League and Champions League qualifying.
Like Scolari, Mourinho unexpectedly left the club reported to be 'by mutual consent' although rumours surfaced that their had been a bust up between him and club director Roman Abramovich.
Mourinho, hailed as a hero at Chelsea after he won the club no less than five trophies, including two Premier League titles in his first two seasons at the helm, was reportedly at loggerheads with Russian Abramovich with disagreements over lack of transfer funds, the Portuguese's reluctance to play Andriy Shevchenko (brought in by Abramovich himself for 31m pounds) and the billionaire director's desire to bring in Avram Grant to work as director of football at the club.
Grant, a close friend of Abramovich, was thrust into the spotlight after Mourinho's exit, and at the time was said by former Chelsea player Pat Nevin to be as welcome at Chelsea as "Camilla" would be "at Diana's memorial."
He also pointed out that friend of Abramovich or not, Grant would be expendable at Chelsea because "the man I'm sure they want is Guus Hiddink."
Nevin was right on both counts.
At the beginning of the season tension in the stands boiled over as Chelsea supporters pined for Mourinho, holding banners and shouting his name, while the players themselves were reported to have been less than impressed with Grant and his managerial style.
It was perhaps surprising then that while the dour Grant never quite lit up the screen or the imagination of the fans, in all the turmoil that surrounded Chelsea since the departing of Mourinho, he actually turned out to be a decent manager.
In just his first and only season in charge, Grant achieved what many top-flight managers can only dream of.
He guided Chelsea to the 2008 Carling Cup final (which they lost 2-1 to Tottenham) and were runners-up in the Premier League.
Grant even managed to do something Mourinho never had by getting Chelsea to beat Liverpool to advance to the 2008 Champions League Final, and if it wasn't for that infamous slip one night in May then Grant could still have been Chelsea manager, but probably not.
Just three days later the 'not good enough' curse came for Grant and his contact with Chelsea was "terminated with immediate effect."
Laughably in an interview with The Guardian in December 2008, Grant claimed that his 'friend' Abramovich did not want him to lose his job "Roman thought that I should stay" Grant said. "But in this team the owner does not take all the decisions."
Many would disagree.
Now, after his official appointment on Thursday, it is Russia's and now Chelsea's interim manager Guus Hiddink who has the task of trying to bring Chelsea back up to where they supposedly belong.
Abramovich has finally got his man and like many of his former managers and backroom staff, he knows Hiddink well.
He did, after all, help Hiddink land the job as Russia manager and has been paying the 62-year-old Dutchman's wages at Russia since 2006, with Hiddink telling reporters "Abramovich does so much for Russian football. I wanted to give him something back. He called me personally."
The appointment of tactical genius Hiddink may be good news for Chelsea as they struggle to find form in the latter half of the season, but for many, the treatment of Scolari, Grant and Mourinho plus the swift appointment of Hiddink may leave a sour taste in the mouth and a notion that, with this club at least, if you can't play for success then you just have to buy it.
But there is a saying in football - money can buy you a lot of things, but it can't buy you class - you only have to look at Chelsea to see that.
What do you think of the turmoil at Stamford Bridge? Do you think Abramovich has too much input on the field at Chelsea? Can Hiddink stop the rot? Have your say on our message board below.....
Add a Comment:
Post new commentswanny242 said on 2009-02-12 @ 19:50 NZDT: Report abusive post
This is hardly the fall of the club but without some stability at the helm it could end up like that. Chelsea still have a great squad of players and unlike most of the other premier league clubs they have loads of home grown English tallent. The days of chelsea spending big money were years ago, the problems they now have are due to an owner who is too impatient to let success develop. It is a problem with most clubs in the premier league and is due to the massive amount of money involved.
Laurie Reid said on 2009-02-12 @ 16:57 NZDT: Report abusive post
Few will be sad at the demise of a club that craved instant sucess and thought they could find it with Russian money from dubious sources. Hiddink will do a job, but he prefers tournaments and won't be excited at all about away games against Hull, Stoke and WBA.