Such a negative outlook represents something of a change in direction from Villas-Boas, who has previously been largely upbeat in his interactions with the media, and sought to present himself as a positive and buoyant figure to the public. In fact, in the press conference following Wednesday night’s disastrous result, he was bullish, telling reporters that he stood by his team selection. On the subject of whether he still has the backing of the club’s hierarchy he was just as emphatic, simply batting away the question of whether or not he was still trusted to lead Chelsea forward with a curtly “of course.”
Yet as he trudged off the turf of the Stadio San Paolo Villas-Boas certainly cut an isolated figure, and the reality is that his confession of the troubles Chelsea face ring true. There’s no doubt whatsoever that Villas-Boas is an intelligent and brave man. As he breezed effortlessly through what was a difficult set of post-match questions for the umpteenth time this season it occurred to me that here is a man, not much older than myself or many of those he is tasked with leading, conducting himself in a language that is not his mother tongue with aplomb, and who has forged an auspicious career path for himself in game that is notoriously closed off to those who did not play professionally.
The inevitable comparisons with Jose Mourinho do not help Villas-Boas. Living in the shadow of such a colossal figure is clearly not easy, and in many ways makes Villas-Boas’ decision to take the Chelsea job a slightly curious one. Were he to turn the ship around and bring success to Stamford Bridge a certain amount of praise would naturally gravitate towards Mourinho, the mould from which many simply assume Villas-Boas was cast. Should Villas-Boas fail he is just as likely to be branded inferior to his mentor, a ‘Mourihno-lite’ for clubs not able to entice the great manager of the modern era himself.
But behind every great manager lies a great assistant, something Mourihno himself knows only too well given that he was ably supported during his tenure at Chelsea by the hugely popular Steve Clarke, who is now performing similar feats for Kenny Dalglish at Liverpool. During Mourinho’s time in control Clarke keenly supported him, not just with matters relating to training and team selection, but in adapting to life in England and dealing with the pressures of expectation. Clarke’s impact is easy to overlook, but was essential to Mourinho’s success, a calming influence to an often acerbic character, and a tactical Doctor Watson to Mourinho’s Holmes.
It’s also easy to forget that, though they both arrived in London via Porto with a pat on the back from Sir Bobby Robson, Mourinho had not just Primeira Liga and UEFA Cup titles in his suitcase, but the big one too; the Champions League, something Villas-Boas does not. In fact a glance at the record books conjures up the question of actually just how good was Villas-Boas’ record? Accepting that winning the Portuguese title with Porto is no guarantee of elite ability such is the condensed nature of competition in the league, Villas-Boas solitary Europa League title does not compare with Mourinho’s back-to-back European titles, as well as his remarkable achievements with União de Leiria. When considering that Abramovich’s ultimate goal remains Champions League glory, the appointment of Villas-Boas in the first place seems somewhat odd, particularly when you remember that Carlo Ancelotti, a winner of Europe’s premier club competition as a manager and a player, was considered surplus to requirements.
The widely held opinion is that Villas-Boas is clearly talented, but needs more time. But, to a certain extent, he has already had exactly that. Much has been made of the current Chelsea squad’s lack of suitable players to piece together the high tempo, aggressive and pressing 4-3-3 formation that he implemented with Porto last year, yet he has now been through two virtually complete transfer windows without really seeking out the kind of players he so desperately seems to need.
Juan Mata has, of course, proved to be an excellent buy, but Raul Meireles has not come any near to close to recapturing the form he showed at Liverpool and Romelu Lukaku, the Belgian teenage sensation widely considered to be the natural heir to Didier Drogba’s throne has seen little-to-no playing time. Questions remain too over Gary Cahill, with his performance against Napoli being particularly poor. Yet the current Chelsea squad conveys an image of an ageing bunch who are gathering dust on their mantel piece, but who are still desperate to show you their assembled accolades.
Villas-Boas’ approach with the misfiring Fernando Torres is interesting. Though he has not managed to get him scoring he has also not written him off. Given that he wasn’t a Villas-Boas signing this afforded him the opportunity to distance himself from the negative connotations of Torres’ poor form, though has chosen not to do so. That Torres is still featuring so heavily would perhaps appear to be down to the weighty influence of Roman Abramovich, whose affection for the striker is generally accepted to be particularly strong. To a certain extent that could be why Villas-Boas remains too, given that he has the lowest win percentage (47.4%) of any Chelsea manager in the Abramovich era, and yet has been afforded more time than World Cup winning coach Luiz Felipe Scolari.
One issue aiding Villas-Boas could be the associated costs of firing him and recruiting a replacement. Though Abramovich’s pockets remain as deep as ever, the incoming financial fair play directives could ultimately be influencing the club’s decision. The circulation of Rafael Benitez’s name as a potential successor would appear to be a red herring, but it is clear the sword of Damocles situation that Villas-Boas find himself in cannot continue. Though he appears to have the confidence to fight his way out of the mess he finds himself in, he will need help. Should he not emerge victorious from this defining battle, there’s little doubt Abramovich will swing that sword again.
