Posts
Andres
Villas-Boas has had a tough few months. Appointed Chelsea manger under a sea of
comparisons to Chelsea God Jose Mourinho, the 34-year-old was given the task of
building a legacy at the Blues which would, eventually, see Chelsea return to
the top of the English football pile.
Before
Saturday’s win away at Newcastle, Chelsea had managed just four wins in ten
games. They’d lost to QPR, taken a battering from Arsenal and lost to Liverpool
twice. It hardly means the club are in crisis, but it certainly warrants
comment.
There
has been much talk about the eccentricity – and, at times, stupidity – of centre-back
David Luiz. Mikel Jon Obi has taken some flak for being an ineffective
midfielder. Aging stars such as John Terry, Frank Lampard and Ashley Cole are,
seemingly, nearing the end. The form of Fernando Torres has been beyond a joke
now for months and there is a genuine possibility that we will never see the
Spaniard back to his best again.
But
there has been very little criticism of Villas-Boas, and any criticism of
Chelsea has – on the whole – been justified.
It
is well-known that to win the Premier League is vital to Chelsea, and winning
the Champions League is something at the very forefront of Abramovich’s mind. Villas-Boas
himself said that not winning titles at Chelsea would be unforgiveable.
After
last night’s comfortable and impressive victory over Valencia, the manager sat
down for his press conference and, basically, attacked
the press. He criticised what he saw as the “continuous persecution of
Chelsea”.
“We
have become your target,” he continued. “We accept that. But you have to accept
that today was a brilliant win.”
Villas-Boas
named Gary Neville amidst his rant, which is odd given that Neville has backed
the manager in the past – although AVB
is perhaps still unhappy with Neville’s description of Luiz.
Now,
some points need to be made here, mainly regarding Villas-Boas’ astuteness.
This rant takes the limelight away from his players, something that most
managers do and is becoming more tedious with every passing press conference.
Villas-Boas
protects his team and almost creates an ‘us against them’ mantra, something his
constant shadow Mourinho is famous for. Again, this stance is getting old and
tiresome.
The
timing of the outburst is also rather odd. The ‘Ha! In your face!’ retort could
have at least been saved until after Chelsea come through some difficult
fixtures: Manchester City, Tottenham and Fulham all the before the New Year. Just
as Chelsea’s form this season does not mean the club are in crisis, two 3-0 wins
on the bounce is hardly enough to start readying the trophy cabinet for a new instalment.
Even
so, on the whole, the press have been rather calm in terms of Villas-Boas’
managing of the club. Various writers at The Telegraph have stated that Villas-Boas
is the right man for the job, and that Villas-Boas
is not the problem at Chelsea – the players are. The Sun has led with a similar
line, whilst also slating
the Chelsea defence.
Villas-Boas,
then, is clearly thinking of what is best for his team – whether that be in
moving the limelight elsewhere or taking criticisms of Chelsea to heart. He has
– compared to managers in the past who have been criticised by the press early
on - got off lightly but the criticism of Chelsea has been continuous,
something that AVB maybe sees as unjust.
On
the whole, the press have been supportive of Villas-Boas but critical of the
Chelsea team and wary of Abramovich. And those three stances are justified. AVB
should be supported, certain aspects of Chelsea’s squad have either
underperformed or simply cannot play at such a high quality as they have in the
past, and Abramovich has a history of short-termism when it comes to managers.
Mourinho
quit in September 2007 and, of the managers hired by the Russian billionaire: Avram
Grant lasted the season, Luiz Felipe Scolari was sacked nine months into his
tenure and Carlo Ancelotti was given the boot after his second season.
It
is hardly surprising, then, that the majority of the commenters on Villas-Boas’
appointment back in June stated that he should be given time in the job and it
is even less surprising that Abramovich’s short-termism is mentioned now when
Chelsea perform below par – and produce below par results to match.
Granted,
rumours regarding a possible
return to the club for Guus Hiddink are needless and, in all likelihood,
baseless. Provocative headlines such as “Time
for AVB to start praying” and “Villas-Boas
loses authority with every defeat” also don’t help, while using the phrase “dreaded
vote of confidence” is a clichéd way of looking at a genuinely positive
piece of news.
It
is unfair to say that the media have agendas and it is surely incorrect to say
that journalists will be disappointed to be writing positive things about
Chelsea. But of course, column inches have to be filled so every minor,
interesting development is expanded to 800 words of piffle.
But
the media’s treatment of Chelsea has been surprisingly reserved, frankly. The
negatives have rightly been commented on and the positives have rightly been
pointed out (Didier Drogba was fantastic last night, and David Luiz put in a
very calm, collected performance).
Perhaps
one of the oddest points AVB made was that of the difference between the
coverage of his side Manchester City.
“The
approach to Manchester City is basically, 'if they qualify, they qualify. If
they don't qualify, they don't qualify'. We don't get that margin, basically,
from you guys (the media).”
City
are top of the League, have a resoundingly stronger squad and at times look
like genuine world-beaters. But when
cracks have appeared, the flaws
have been pointed out.
AVB
sees the difference between City and Chelsea as one is wanted to fail, one isn’t.
The real difference is that one is top of the League and flying – the other is on
the edge of the top four.
