Frank Lampard wasn’t sacked by Chelsea because of Declan Rice

Reports have come out from several sources that Declan Rice is Thomas Tuchel’s No. 1 target and that Chelsea seems to be interested in the deal. The reports also state—though already obvious—that the club will not pay the purported exorbitant fee that West Ham United have reportedly attached to Rice. These reports do state though that Chelsea may be willing to play ball should the price drop to about £70 million.

First of all, that amount is still a bad deal for the club, but I digress.

These reports have now called into question the earlier claims, by a lot of the same sources, that the Chelsea hierarchy “clashed” with former boss Frank Lampard over the latter’s keen interest in moving for Rice. That was apparently one of the many reasons Lampard got the chop. These new reports don’t necessarily mean any of the previous ones were false, it just shows that the importance of the aforementioned was a bit overstated.

More from Chelsea FC News

• Bournemouth vs Chelsea: 1 Blue Mauricio Pochettino should drop
• Bournemouth vs Chelsea: 3 Blues who must start
• Predicted Chelsea lineup vs Bournemouth: Palmer starts in 4-2-3-1
• Chelsea sporting directors finally reveal why they sign so many young players
• These 3 new signings may never get a game at Chelsea

Frank Lampard wasn’t sacked by Chelsea because he was persistent about a move for Declan Rice, but instead, performance.

Lampard’s continued, unwavering interest in Rice wasn’t the reason he was sacked. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t even one of the biggest reasons he was canned. If it was ever reported that way and people believed it, it was because many wanted to convince themselves it was the truth. It was easier to believe that Lampard was a victim of the board’s erratic decision making than to believe that there was genuine reason to sack the 211-goal Chelsea legend.

There are reports emerging now that Rice is Tuchel’s No. 1 target showed that . . . a) the board never had a problem with bringing the West Ham star back to Cobham, it was always a problem with the p(Rice) and b) Lampard’s sacking had nothing to do with his transfer targets. Lampard was sacked for the same reason every other manager has ever been sacked: results.

No, Lampard wasn’t sacked at the “first sign of trouble” either. That’s another narrative that is pushed to paint the board as the villains, while highlighting Lampard as a student of the game that was sacked for being human. Lampard had just come off a season where he had conceded more goals that more than 50 percent of the Premier League teams. Yes, they scored enough goals to cover it such that they still came fourth, but Chelsea is a team built on defensive solidity. That’s the Blues’ identity. This wasn’t the first sign of trouble either because Lampard had come from a Derby County side that was also not defensively solid. It was merely a trend that continued.

The arrival of Edouard Mendy, Ben Chilwell and Thiago Silva helped with the defensive issues, but the underlying problem was still there. Chelsea’s manager did not know how to set up a team defensively.

Lampard didn’t start the season well by any stretch of the imagination. His start included a game against Barnsley where his side conceded nine shots on target, albeit still winning 6-0 due to Willy Caballero standing on his head. The beginning of the season also included two 3-3 draws to mid-to-lower table sides in Southampton and West Bromwich Albion. Kurt Zouma (depending on who you ask) and Marcos Alonso were blamed for those games, but the issue remained. Lampard eventually stabilized keeping two clean sheets in a row for the first time as Chelsea boss.

The point is that Lampard didn’t start well and there were signs of trouble again at the beginning of the season, but the board rode it out. The December to January rot was a different one this time around though. The Blues’ league position and the imminent results had the team playing so poorly that fans almost ruled out the possibility of finishing in the top four.

The rot had to be stopped because not only were the Blues descending further down the table, they were also losing points to teams that they’d need to beat in order to get back up the table. The drastic change was applied and several members of the club were impacted too. Zouma lost his place, despite being one of the most consistent to that point. Hakim Ziyech lost his place and lost some much needed minutes crucial to get back to full fitness, just to name a pair.

That was the price to pay for attempting to stop the rot, but the attempt had to be made. Yes, Tuchel justified that by winning the Champions League and getting to the FA Cup final, but even if he didn’t, the board was still not wrong for replacing Lampard.

In addition to the results on the pitch, the dressing room got worse. Players had problems with his coaching style and his team selections (which in and of itself is not a major issue). The players did not trust Lampard to dig them out of the hole based on what they were seeing, neither did the board. The parting was inevitable.

Chelsea was left in ninth place, five points behind the team in fourth place having played every opponent exactly once. To get back up the table, the Blues needed to beat Liverpool, Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur, Leicester City and Everton, amongst others. They eventually beat them all under the new management—bar Manchester United.

Roman Abramovich’s business model is quite straightforward. It doesn’t matter why you’re hired, but if you achieve the objectives or meet the requirements, you keep your job. If you don’t, you lose your job. Anyone who thought Lampard wasn’t going to be sacked if the results and atmosphere at the club deteriorated was naïve when you consider the pedigree of managers that were sacked for that same reason. The reason Lampard was sacked was clear as day and it had nothing, even remotely, to do with his transfer targets.

Generic statement? Let us know in the comments or on Twitter!