Grant ousted at Chelsea- An Opinion

So, the predictable has happened as Avram Grant paid for a trophyless campaign with his job as manager of Chelsea. The Blues sacked their boss on Saturday after just eight months in charge of the club, and only three days after their penalty shoot-out heartbreak against Manchester United in the Champions League.

Grant arrived at Chelsea last summer from Premier League rivals Portsmouth as director of football, a move which did not please then Blues boss Jose Mourinho. After an indifferent start to the season, the popular and media pleasing Mourinho was axed after a 1-1 home draw with Rosenborg in the Champions League, and the Stamford Bridge hierarchy placed Grant in charge.

It was a decision which didn’t go down well with the fans as, not only did they adore Mourinho, the self styled “special one” who brought the club 2 league titles, they were rightly concerned at Grant’s limited managerial experience.

His first game was a daunting trip to Old Trafford and a 2-0 defeat by Manchester United wasn’t the perfect start, though they weren’t helped by the red card issued to midfielder Jon-Obi Mikel. After that though, Chelsea embarked on a 16 game unbeaten run which saw them through to the last 16 of the Champions League, quarter final of the Carling Cup and back up the Premier League table.

Although his public demeanour was perhaps duller than Mourinho’s was, he set Chelsea out to play in a more attacking sense than Mourinho did, who focused on a solid defence. This was evident in a 6-0 drubbing of Manchester City, who were then flying in 3rd place, and the 3-2 defeat of Liverpool in the second leg of the Champions League semi final. Added to that thrilling 4-4 draws with Aston Villa and Tottenham then the entertainment value was there. Certainly more so for a neutral than what Mourinho’s sides produced.

But, ultimately, Mourinho’s teams won trophies, which is where the Israeli failed. He came in for fierce criticism following the Carling Cup final loss to Tottenham, who dominated Chelsea for long periods. Then his team suffered the embarassment of FA Cup defeat at Barnsley, who had also shocked Liverpool.

Crucial dropped points in draws at home to the likes of Wigan and Everton, where Chelsea lost very late goals, ultimately cost them the title but from a seemingly impossible position which I stated after that Wigan game, they defeated Manchester United and took the title race down to the last day and marched to their first Champions League final. But Chelsea missed out on both, leaving them with nothing to show for their efforts.

Chelsea chairman Bruce Buck said in the aftermath of Grant’s departure: “We have very high expectations at Chelsea and a couple of second place finishes is just not good enough for us.

“So although it was an excellent season, we are still disappointed.”

Now, of course they are entitled to be disappointed. However, this is where football as we know it is going down the swanny in front of us. Chelsea before Roman Abramovich took over were a decent side. Regular qualifiers for Europe, winning the occasional trophy. But since the Russian has invested an obscene amount, they demand instant success. They have had some, but even reaching the final of Europe’s elite tournament and almost snatching the title from the dead isn’t good enough.

I felt its been a great season for Chelsea in the main and they were unlucky to end empty handed, especially in Moscow. Grant was given a near impossible task in trying to emulate the success of Mourinho, and I feel his sacking is premature and harsh after his achievements this season. He at least deserved to put his own stamp on them and take them into next season.

The foreign owners taking over at Premier League clubs and demanding success instantly is a problem. They don’t know too much about the game it seems to me, they’ll just think they can throw money at it and they’ll get what they want. Thaskin Shinawatra at Manchester City, threating to sack Sven-Goran Eriksson after his first season there, where they finished a very creditable 9th, is another case in point. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

I’ve said it before and will do again. Manchester United and Arsenal didn’t achieve the success they have by hiring and firing all the time. Sir Alex Ferguson has been in charge of United since 1986, and Arsene Wenger at Arsenal since 1996. Sure, they have gone through trophyless seasons but the United and Arsenal boardrooms know what great managers they are and always have faith in them.

If the Chelsea board had done that, then perhaps Grant could’ve delivered trophies next term. 8 months is not time enough to judge, and certainly not given he led Chelsea to their first Champions League final, ultimately decided on a lottery. Even axing Mourinho, after the success he’d brought was ridiculous simply because they’d had a sticky start to the season.

I feel he can leave with his head held high. The question for Chelsea is, who next? Frank Rijkaard seems to be the bookies choice, but we shall have to wait and see what happens.

“Champions” League? You’re havin’ a laugh!

Now that the dust has settled after Manchester United’s victory over Barcelona last night, attention switches to the second semi final to determine who will play Sir Alex Ferguson’s men in the Champions League final at Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium. Will it be Chelsea, hot on United’s heels in the Premier League, or their arch enemy Liverpool?

While I believe that Chelsea will just about edge the tie thanks to the 1-1draw they secured in the first leg at Anfield (goals from that are below), that isn’t the point of this latest post. My latest whine is one which has bugged me for quite a while, and that is the set-up of Europe’s elite club competition.

This year’s final will be the third in which two sides from the same country will go head to head for the European Cup, as it was known when the tournament first started. In 2000, Real Madrid defeated Valencia 3-0 in Paris, while in 2003 Ac Milan edged Juventus on penalties at Old Trafford after a forgettable 0-0 stalemate. We are now guranteed an English winner of the competition.

Listening to Richard Bacon’s show on Radio 5 Live last night, he urged callers to phone in with regards the difficulties in which fans of the English clubs will face getting to Moscow and while they are there. Main concerns included the cost of flights and accomodation, with one Manchester United fan telling how he’d spent £5,000 to be there, as well as visas which are needed to enter Russia. These can take a while to process and while UEFA are confident the visas will be issued on time to supporters of the clubs involved in time for the final, fans are still worried.

So cue calls for the game to be moved to Wembley, the home of the English game, to make it easier for fans. Undoubtedly it would, but it shouldn’t be moved, and neither should there be as many as 42,000 visas to process.

Because, my friends, the Champions League should live it to its name- ie, be for Champions only. Since the tournament began in 1955, the cup was solely for the league winners of each European country. Other qualifiers included the Fairs Cities (now UEFA) Cup and the now defunct Cup Winners Cup, which was, you’ve guessed it, a tournament for domestic cup winners across the continent.

But in the 90s, UEFA in their wisdom ditched the CWC (the last ever final played in Birmingham and won by Italian side Lazio) and increased the Champions League, allowing runners up in domestic leagues to qualify for the tournament. Indeed, Manchester United qualified for the 1998/99 tournament after finishing 2nd in the English league to Arsenal, and went on to lift the trophy.

It has now been extended to the point where up to four teams from the bigger leagues in Europe can qualify for the tournament. Whats “Champion” about that? Why not rebrand it the “1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th place” league?

While there is no doubt that the bigger sides in Europe can provide entertainment, there is a detremental effect. There is no doubt that the big name advertisers of the competiton, for example Sony, Mastercard and Vodafone, would rather the big guns participated all the time and provide much more revenue.

But, as the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer and we now see the winner of the tournament is near enough guaranteed to be an English, Spanish or Italian team, barring some exceptions, such as Porto in 2004. What chance have clubs from the Belgian league or Swedish league have of competing if they face a couple of rounds to qualify, despite winning their league, while the likes of Arsenal can qualify after finishing third in theirs, simply because the English league has a higher standing according to Michel Platini and the UEFA fat cats? It isn’t fair.

In 1994, Sweden’s IFK Gothenburg knocked Manchester United out of the Champions League. Now, it’s a struggle for Sweden’s champions to even participate. The worst thing UEFA could do was get rid of a successful competition in order to create a bigger Champions League to benefit the bigger clubs.

Some might say they’d far rather watch Liverpool V Chelsea instead of an Anderlecht V Barcelona as the gulf in the latter game would be massive, while the former would be close. Me? Well, give me the latter. If clubs from around Europe, not just the big names, were given a fair and equal shot at qualifying, the experience and finance they’d generate would enable them to compete in the coming years. As it stands, games we see at least twice a season domestically are becoming four or more due to being on Europe’s biggest stage. Its dull and its wrong.

“Champions” League? You are indeed having a laugh.