A LOT of Chelsea fans were upset about the sacking of Frank Lampard, somehow assuming his status in the history books would make him immune to usual practice at one of the most ruthless clubs in Europe.
Those that consider the appointment of Thomas Tuchel a foolhardy step that lacks ambition are allowing their heart to rule their head. In hindsight, Lampard will be seen as a “holding position” hiring, he was effectively given a similar status as Avram Grant, Guus Hiddink and Rafa Benitez. He was slotted in when the club faced a transfer ban, which made Chelsea a [temporarily] unattractive proposition. When the clouds dispersed and money was spent, the egg-timer was flipped over. Tough? Yes, but look at recent history.
In Tuchel’s first two games, Chelsea have secured four points, kept two clean sheets and enjoyed an average of over 75% possession, hinting at the shape of passing games to come. He may find it easier to implement a new ethos while the stadiums remain empty. If the fans are unconvinced by the arrival of Tuchel, the club has fed the doubters by giving him an 18-month contract. It could be that Chelsea know that their coaches do not go the distance and that even success doesn’t make the seat any more stable. A shorter contract means less compensation when patience wears out and the man in the ivory tower decides he wants a new toy soldier.
As the Sunday Times pointed out, Chelsea’s penchant for paying-off “failed” managers has cost them dear, from the £ 31 million José Mourinho has received over two stints to the £ 6 million paid to Claudio Rainieri, the first victim of fantasy football at the Bridge.
For all Lampard’s “Chelseaness”, a term coined by the Guardian’s Jonathan Wilson, he was a rookie manager with no track record. As Bobby Charlton, Geoff Hurst and Bobby Moore found out, being a great player doesn’t mean you will become a top manager. Lampard is not an old-school manager in the mould of his uncle Harry or big Sam, but he doesn’t seem a laptop manager like Tuchel and some of his contemporaries. He might fall into either of those categories in due course, but one season at Derby County does not equip an aspiring coach with the credentials to take over an elite club. The mistake was all Chelsea’s. He may have seemed like the right man, but it was absolutely the wrong time. His moment will come.
Tuchel appears to know what he’s signed up for and you sense from his comments the 18-month deal may work both ways. “Honeymoons don’t last long at Chelsea,” said the Independent. “Tuchel cannot rely on a linear chain of command. There are back channels to Abramovich and the board for dissatisfied players and it is not considered unusual or unacceptable to go above the manager’s head.” If that’s the case, it could only be a matter of time before Tuchel hits a brick wall.
There is not universal approval of Tuchel’s hiring. Former players like Micah Richards, Paul Merson have criticised the move (pointing to Pochettino as a better fit, even though he’s just joined PSG) while Jürgen Klopp has expressed his surprise that Lampard was sacked: “I think it’s really harsh to make the decision that early. Mr Abramovich gives you some chances, money, players, whatever… but he is not the most patient person in the world.” Tony Evans, journalist and staunch Liverpool fan, in the Independent, added: “Managers don’t change Chelsea, the club changes them. Regularly and brutally.”
Some observers could not resist the German reference, noting that Tuchel was joining big money signings Timo Werner and Kai Havertz at a time when Germany had the audacity to criticise Britain’s covid-19 vaccines. A case of vaccine nationalism if ever there was one!
Meanwhile, Tuchel’s first few days have brought out the familiar claim that fans can look forward to a “fresh Chelsea style” – a cliché employed whenever the dugout gets a spring clean. Tuchel has said “I am the guy for the dressing room and the tactics.” He’s also a fellow who is different from the stereotypical football coach. He’s an “ascetic, vegan intellectual” said the Guardian’s Wilson. That may lack “Chelseaness” in the footballing sense, but it is certainly very Chelsea.
Sources: The Sunday Times, Guardian, Independent, The Times, Marca, BBC.