Chelsea have enjoyed 15 years of success without having any coherent guiding strategy or club core. That era is over, as clubs with a purpose have exposed Chelsea as a footballing Frankenstein.
Two era-defining streaks ended at Stamford Bridge on Sunday. After 28 years, Chelsea lost at home to Tottenham in the top flight. That record, though, is a historical anomaly, a fun touchpoint for nearly three decades of Chelsea fans. It does not reflect any possible intention or design. Fans like to think the men in Blue rally themselves to face Tottenham because Spurs-hatred is uniform from the pitch to the pub, but in reality, the players approach Tottenham as they do any other top flight opponent.
However, the loss to Tottenham also signals the end of Chelsea’s era as a winning Frankenstein. Success under Roman Abramovich has been not only the goal, but the means to achieve that goal. Need a forward? Buy that highly-rated forward. Manager not working out? Sack him, hire that other guy who just won somewhere else. Defender getting too old? Sell him, slide someone equivalent into his position. Need a midfielder? Buy that midfielder off the title-winners. This manager not working out? Sack him, hire that other other guy, sack him, too, appoint a caretaker until the end of the season. See a promising youth player? Sign him, loan him.
Chelsea have bought success by buying other clubs’ success and binding it together long enough to produce a trophy. Whenever a vulnerability crops up, excise it, plug the hole, win again. When that plug gives out, put a patch over it. And when the patch starts to give way, remove that part and install a whole new one.
Since Jose Mourinho left the first time the Blues have been a patchwork of personalities and styles. The board hires the best manager who is available when the position comes open. The thought process does not include the best manager for the style of the players or the direction of the team. It is simply “Who can win with who we have?”
Must Read: Mauricio Pochettino to Chelsea would be the least risky of risky options
As a result, managers have teams of players they did not choose. Scouts reported to a technical director who did not get on well with the manager. The technical director leaves, and still has no replacement. Players share a locker room but not a common vision or style of play. Youth players share a kit but not a club with the first-team.
Nearly everyone at Chelsea is there because they are there, not because they are there for a purpose. If they ever had a purpose in being there, that purpose left with whoever brought them into the club.
No manager is around long enough to shape the team’s tactics and personnel around a coherent vision, and since Carlo Ancelotti everyone knows this is the case. The board wants to win now. They will fire the manager who does not win now. Therefore, if a manager wants the board to grant their transfer wishes, they ask only for those players who can help them win immediately – not the ones who will bring a coherent club to life over the course of years.
Then again, even asking for proven players is no guarantee. Sometimes a manager asks for Alex Sandro and gets Emerson Palmieri a window or two later.
Manchester City, Tottenham and Liverpool are succeeding this season as their multi-year plans are coming to fruition. Chelsea are a major casualty, as strategy and discipline in the front office is every bit as effective and necessary on the pitch. The Blues’ plug, patch and replace approach worked for 15 years, but is now as out of place at the top of the Premier League as Route One football and two-footed tackles.
Chelsea must decide around whom they will built a team. They must set a foundation in place and build around that core for longer than a season, longer than any coach’s tenure, longer than a Roman Abramovich whim.
The Blues need to choose a few players from the existing lineup, a few coaches from across the system and a few administrators to determine the future direction of this club. They must decide the dominant style and philosophy of the club, from youth development to first-team formation.
What are the standards for the loan army, what progressions will young players undertake and at what age will they be sold? Will Chelsea continue to be a defensive-oriented team, or do they want to be a possession-attack team? If the latter, what do they need to teach the youth and U23 teams, and what progression of coaches will guide Chelsea to that point? Who must they buy to implement the system and mentor the younger players?
What will be the character of the players, and the mix of experiences? Do the Blues want to be like Tottenham and be a hotbed of homegrown talent? Or should they imitate the Manchester clubs and be the English galacticos? Or do they want to build around existing players like Cesar Azpilicueta and N’Golo Kante, and boast of journeymen-turned-stars like Marcos Alonso?
These decisions are not new. They have always been present, but the imperative to deal with them is new. Until now, Chelsea have been able to avoid them and still succeed. But that era is over. Money must have a purpose behind it in the transfer market.
Next: Player ratings vs. Tottenham: How do Thursday nights sound to you?
Chelsea have spent 15 years as a staggering monster, one who stomped their way to early victories but are now being casually outwitted. The townsfolk with their torches and pitchforks are not far behind.