FanPost

Blue Tomorrow, Part I: The Manager

GettyImages-1152286878.0.jpg

Blue Tomorrow is a series of three articles looking back on the season gone, and where we should aim to be heading in seasons to come.

My original intention was for this article to be a retrospective on Maurizio Sarri's first season in charge of Chelsea and whether he deserved to stay in his job for next season. If recent reports are to be believed, such consideration is now moot: Sarri is expected to be appointed the new Juventus manager, with Chelsea's accord, in the coming weeks.

My conclusion on Sarri was to be something like this: there can be no question that his first season has raised serious concerns about his suitability for the job, from stubbornness in his tactics and team selection to a failure to form a connection with fans. The thrilling attacking performances which were promised within three months or so never materialised. The degree to which he has unlocked the talent in his squad - another quality for which he was lauded coming into the job - is open to question. Ruben Loftus-Cheek, the player most often cited as Sarri's greatest success in this regard, was performing at a high standard even while Sarri was ignoring him. That it took until March, new year injury aside, for him to be introduced into the Premier League XI ahead of the underwhelming Mateo Kovacic and Ross Barkley seems more evidence of Sarri's self-destructive intransigence than a masterclass in man management.

Nevertheless, by hook or by crook, it also cannot be denied that the minimum aims for the season were achieved and, to a degree, exceeded. Chelsea's rise to third place in the Premier League might have been driven more by our inconsistent form being less comedically catastrophic than that of Spurs, Arsenal and United, but third was nevertheless achieved. A Europa League win might have materialised off the back of facing sub-par opponents all the way to the semi-finals against Frankfurt - Arsenal's run to that point saw them face off against Sporting Lisbon, Napoli and Valencia, where Chelsea had been milling through the backwaters of Central and Eastern Europe - but you can only beat who you're up against and ultimately, a trophy is a trophy.

Though myriad doubts and questions remain, if Chelsea are committed to the change of direction that Sarri's appointment suggested, it would have seemed wisest on balance to see what he would be able to do now he is acclimatised to the demands of English football and with a full pre-season with his players under his belt. Though dismissing him would not be without justification, it would add fuel to the (deserved) narrative of Chelsea as a club concerned only with the short-term, lacking any identity and increasingly left behind compared to the more illustrious trophies competed for by City, Liverpool and, to a lesser extent, Spurs.

If Sarri does leave for Juventus, all the above naturally becomes immaterial. What can be said is that it would represent, perhaps, the best of both worlds for club and manager. Sarri gets to depart with the dignity of being the first permanent Chelsea manager of the Abramovich era not to be sacked, while Chelsea are free of a manager who never seemed a natural fit without the burden of having to pull the trigger and pay the price themselves, in addition to being freed from the many costs (footballing and financial) of Gonzalo Higuaín. Some will cheer, others will sigh, most will probably shrug and move on. The likely absence of any strong reactions would probably say all that needs to be said about Sarri's reign, if this truly is the end: it was OK.

Assuming Sarri is indeed headed to Turin, the question inevitably becomes: who's next? A number of candidates have been put forward, with coaching styles and philosophies from across the board. This perhaps reflects the continued uncertainty at Chelsea, among both board and fans, over exactly what they want this football club to be. Some follow the club for the trophies, for whom talk of good football and academy integration is anathema. For them, there is no 'Chelsea' per se, simply the prestige of following a status symbol which has a trophy or two in the cabinet at the end of the season. Others, who have followed the club since before arrival of Roman Abramovich, place high value on integrating among the imported superstars even a few of our enormously gifted local players into the squad rotation, and ideally the starting XI, as much for their talent as to form a sense of community and togetherness between players and supporters that has been missing since the departure of John Terry (and declining due to mismanagement of the club's academy players since even before then). Many remember the flair and attacking verve of the Gullit and Vialli eras and wonder why, with the club richer and more stable than ever, we seem content to aim more for a Stoke City style of play than to thrill in the way we once did, and City and Liverpool now do in our stead.

13268056-7008189-image-a-126_1557355080214.0.jpg

If it's not immediately obvious, I'm in the latter camp. Appointing Sarri was a commendable show of intent by the board to bring positive football back to the Bridge, even if some of his shortcomings (refusal to rotate, change tactics or use academy players) perhaps ought to have been warning signs compared to someone like Leonardo Jardim - who, to be fair, has had a tumultuous season of his own at, away from, then back at Monaco.

If Chelsea are to continue with the intent of moving the club's style of play in a more aesthetically worthy direction - and they should - the obvious appointment would be Erik Ten Hag of Ajax. Though he has only received serious attention this season for getting Ajax to the Champions League semi-finals and winning the Eredivisie for the first time since 2012, his excellent record at Utrecht - getting them up to fourth in 2017 - is arguably just as great an achievement. He's an attacking coach who is also tactically flexible, has shown an excellent knack for developing and integrating the cream of the Ajax academy crop in addition to getting the most out of experienced talent like Dusan Tadic and Luuk de Jong. They not only dominate possession, but use the space well and take a large number of shots - although that stat is slightly skewed by Hakim Ziyech's tendency to shoot from absolutely anywhere, sometimes with incredible results and sometimes not.

The downside for Ten Hag would be that, like Sarri, he could come into a club demanding more immediate results than his previous appointment, in addition to needing time to rebuild a solid but unbalanced squad where several key components are getting on in age and declining in form. As Fabregas recently noted, that pressure may dull his willingness to give chances to academy players and take risks in playing as expansively as he might wish. That is where Frank Lampard gains a clear advantage: already beloved by fans and board alike, he would arrive on a wave of goodwill and a willingness to give him the time to succeed. He may only have been one year in management, but it has been an excellent year, clearly overachieving in getting Derby to the Championship play-off finals.

There are certainly still things he has to learn: his spat with Bielsa did not end well for him, while despite showing strong tactical acumen at many points in the season, some of his selections - including starting Mason Bennett up front in the play-off final - have been more questionable. However, I struggle to think of any other manager who would be given the same platform to rebuild the squad and its philosophy from the ground up. By the nature of who he is, appointing Lampard would be a serious statement of intent for Chelsea's future, and should the club not appeal the transfer ban (I do not recommend this), that goodwill may make him the right person to carry us through it. Nevertheless, it should not be said that appointing him would be without risk: experience is valuable, and both he and Ten Hag would be coming from clubs in lesser divisions, with very different expectations, albeit with Ten Hag having managed for longer and in top club competitions. However, if Chelsea are willing to let Lampard grow alongside the club, even his short tenure at Derby has shown plenty of signs that the risk may be worth taking.

ipanews_b860547b-3a11-463f-9209-f9bf5d159cd1_1.0.jpeg

The other candidates are, regrettable, singularly uninspiring. Those who value trophies above all else call for the relentlessly pragmatic Massimiliano Allegri, whom Sarri would be replacing at Juventus. Even looking beyond his conservative style of football, this would seem an unwise appointment even from the more cynical 'success above all' perspective. While Allegri is famously flexible in his use of formation and players, he has also shown the vulnerability of many counter-attacking coaches to the hard-pressing, modern style of football exemplified by Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool. He also inherited from Antonio Conte a squad which was far and away the strongest in Italy. Despite predictably dominating domestically, he has singularly failed to replicate that success on the more challenging European stage. It is perhaps telling that many of the fans suggesting Allegri have also wondered whether giving José Mourinho a third attempt at the wheel might be a worthwhile endeavour. Both men represent a style which is increasingly out of step with modern football and reliant on inheriting a dominant squad and chequebook for any success they may yet have. My doubts are, to put it kindly, enormous.

Laurent Blanc has been linked with every Chelsea vacancy since, it often feels like, 1905. On one hand, he's an underrated coach who did fine work at Bordeaux and decent work in his three years at PSG. Despite spending his playing career as a defender, he created a positive style of play in Paris and sensibly integrated a number of gifted academy graduates into his expensively assembled team. On the other hand, like Allegri, his lack of European success is a major mark against him, and also like Allegri, his tactical decisions have not been without some spectacular failures. He deserves better than to have been unemployed since 2016, but would be a distinctly middle-of-the-road appointment at Chelsea - far better than Allegri, worse than Ten Hag or Lampard.

Steve Holland's name has also entered the running of late and as much as I appreciate all the man did as assistant at Chelsea and now with England, it's difficult to work out why. For those citing Lampard's lack of managerial experience, Holland has none at all. While he would bring a hands-on appreciation of our exceptional academy talent, he wouldn't arrive with anything like the goodwill afforded to Frank Lampard, making it less likely that he would have the time to work them into his rotation. His hat only seems to be in the ring because he shares Lampard's connection to the club, but would be much less heartbreaking to fire should it all go wrong. Not an ideal recommendation.

Looking beyond the headlines, one might also consider Marcelino from Valencia or the aforementioned Jardim from Monaco. Despite my affection for the latter, neither would represent a particularly inspiring appointment at this point in time. Marcelino ended this season strongly, but has not been without his hiccups in the past. Jardim is a great manager whose talents finally couldn't compensate for his board pulling the rug out from beneath him, but I'm always hesitant to recommend a manager coming off a bad year. Last season, I'd have had him for sure; this time around, there are preferable options available. At this point, Ten Hag would probably be my first choice, albeit with Lampard less than a whisker behind.

The next entry in the Blue Tomorrow series will be an assessment of the performances of each individual player in the Chelsea squad across the 18/19 season and whether they should be kept or sold.

This FanPost was contributed by a member of the community and was not subject to any sort of approval process. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions held by the editors of this site.