How Villas-Boas lost his players

If he takes the advice of the majority of English media, then Andre Villas-Boas’s tenure as Chelsea manager should come to a tragic, Shakespearean-like conclusion.

It’s taken a few months but I’ve finally seen just how vicious the English tabloids can be.

The Sun has seemingly made it a mission to have the young Portuguese manager sacked.

The tabloid publication has cited almost everything from tactical inflexibility (despite The Sun's reporting, AVB did change to 4-2-3-1 for the Napoli match) to playing Bosingwa at left-back (something Guus Hiddink did rather effectively against Barcleona).

Unfortunately they all seem to be missing the main point. While it’s obvious Abrahmovich wants to win, simply winning is not enough for the Russian billionaire.

He wants to win like Barcelona does and he’s realised that takes a certain type of coach.

Villas-Boas fitted the bill almost perfectly. His FC Porto side played a ‘Barca’ type of football. He says exactly want you want to hear from a coach who wants to play possession-based, high-pressing football. An added bonus was he knew the club from his time under Jose Mourinho.

But as the season unfolds, Abrahmovich is finding out that while AVB was ready for that type of football, Chelsea wasn’t.

The Sun reported that Ashley Cole told his manager: “I came here to win medals and trophies but I’m never going to do that with your tactics”.

Despite the support of his owner, Villas-Boas has failed categorically in selling his philosophy to the players.

Just like tactics and team selection, this is a fundamental part of any coach’s job and AVB’s inability to get his team to believe in his philosophy has already cost Chelsea dearly.

Jose Mourinho came to Stamford Bridge under similar cicumstances to Villas-Boas. He served a long apprenticeship as opposition scout and assistant coach before achieving success with FC Porto.

But Mourinho has no philosophy. He’s a coach who adapts to the circumstances of the players, the club and the country. He is also a master psychologist who convinces the players they will succeed with whatever tactics he chooses.

While Villas-Boas is different it doesn’t mean he isn’t an excellent coach.

Last season FC Porto won a treble playing superb, attacking football. It was more exciting and successful then Mourinho’s first full season at the club.

Despite only one major departure (Radamel Falcao) this campaign the Dragons sit second in Liga Sagres, have been dumped out of the Portuguese Cup and Europa League and often playing football that can best be described as uninspiring.

While the current coach Vitor Perreira is competent, he does not posses the tactical acumen to take Porto to last season’s level.

So why was AVB so successful at the Dragao but not at Cheslea?

One of the reasons is that Porto has an in-built philosophy in the club. In keeping with the club ethos, the Dragons squad was put together to play a high intensity 4-3-3. The same can’t be said of Chelsea.

A few months ago, I wrote that Abrahmovich needed to back AVB in the face of a player revolt.

While I still believe the Chelsea owner should not sack his coach simply because some players in the squad don’t like him, there does need to be close scrutiny of AVB’s performance.

The main issue is that there are few signs Chelsea is evolving. The team is not able to keep the ball for long periods, it is unable break down opposing defences with ease and the team’s defensive pressing has not improved since August.

It may suggest that while Villas-Boas is an excellent choice as coach for a team well suited to the Barca type 4-3-3 system (which is why he’s on Marca’s shortlist to replace Josep Guardiola should he leave), he may not be the ideal candidate to make the transition to such a system.

In that respect it’s no surprise Marcelo Bielsa – a man credited as a guru of the Barca way – has been linked with a move to Chelsea.

But perhaps given enough time, AVB can implement his philosophy successfully at Chelsea. The question is whether Abrahmovich is willing to sacrifice enough for that to happen.