Martin Samuel: Mr Chelsea could soon be feeling (light) blue

15 July 2009 10:44
The difficulty Chelsea have in keeping John Terry from straying into a move to Manchester City is that their strongest card is paying the money, too. If Terry remains at Stamford Bridge, it is increasingly likely he will need to be given a pay rise because, in the end, Chelsea are being made to realise the bottom line. Aside from the prospect of playing in the Champions League next season (and reviewing the previous two campaigns that is unlikely to make happy memories flood back in the Terry household) there is little to choose between the clubs. That has been Chelsea's weakness from the start. Who is there to represent permanence and constancy? Who can talk of the future with certainty? Chelsea fondly imagine that by keeping the odd backroom boy on the staff they are demonstrating loyalty, but players respond to the imperatives of the manager. Captain Courageous: John Terry takes it on the chin from Abou Diaby but will such bravery now be displayed in City colours? If Terry was the captain of Manchester United, Arsenal, even Liverpool, Everton or Aston Villa, a superior could sit down and discuss the way forward, with a nod to a successful past. Chelsea are not run like that. This is a club controlled by the whims of Roman Abramovich, the owner, and as a result there is no paternal management figure to cut through Terry's confusion. There must have been occasions when Sir Alex Ferguson had to explain to one of his brightest young players, Ryan Giggs certainly, but also David Beckham and Roy Keane, why they were better off at Old Trafford rather than in Serie A. He could do so by recalling where they had been together, and where they were heading. Who can do that for Terry at Chelsea? It would make more sense to give the task to Frank Lampard, rather than Carlo Ancelotti. The last three Chelsea managers, Avram Grant, Luiz Felipe Scolari and Guus Hiddink, have lasted an average of seven months. Why should Terry listen to entreaties on being a symbol of the club from a man who started work last week and will, on recent figures, be sacked some time in January. The fact that Terry is the embodiment of Chelsea demonstrates weakness, not strength, because at other clubs that role falls to the manager. There is no symbol of Manchester United more powerful than Ferguson; the principles of Arsene Wenger are the key to understanding Arsenal. We could debate the presence of Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher against that of Rafael Benitez at Liverpool, but there is little doubt that, if one of his most influential players were tempted by a rival, Benitez could call on emotional shared experiences and spell out his vision for Liverpool in five years' time. Even if successful, will Ancelotti still be at Chelsea in two seasons, let alone five? This is his first post outside Italy. We do not even know if he gets homesick yet. It cannot be easy being Mr Chelsea, which is probably from where some of the stranger rumours about Terry's disaffection emanate. All this stuff about there being no one at the ground to meet him, and needing the club to match his ambitions (as if footballers have grand plans beyond winning matches, involving space exploration, perhaps, or the global economy). He wants respect, too, apparently. This is what happens when a player's significance to a club grows unchecked. It is not so much that Terry has ideas above his station, more that the club have encouraged him to think that way, to take on greater responsibility in the absence of real team leadership since the departure of Jose Mourinho. The relationship between Mourinho and Terry is believed to have suffered an unfortunate strain at the end, but that was no doubt largely caused by the tension between Mourinho and his employers and would have been easily mended had manager and captain continued working together. Had Mourinho still been manager of Chelsea, there would have been no reason for Terry to assume the duty of figurehead amid so much disruption. There was never any doubt about who was Mr Chelsea when Mourinho was at the club. Why did Manchester City think they could get Terry, who has been with one club all his life, rather than, for instance, Rio Ferdinand at Manchester United, who is on his third employer, or Nemanja Vidic, who has played for three teams in three countries in five years? Maybe Mark Hughes, the Manchester City manager, simply prefers Terry, who at 28 is two years younger than Ferdinand and has much more leadership experience than Vidic. Alternatively, are Chelsea viewed as vulnerable and lacking in structure and direction, two professional qualities that keep players content? With the arrival of Ancelotti, Terry is working for his fifth manager in two seasons: might he be tiring of the constant need to validate his worth? There is a presumption that Terry would be leaving one castle built on sand for another by swapping Chelsea for Manchester City and, that if any manager is likely to be the first out of the door, it is Hughes if his summer spending spree fails to deliver instant improvement. This is true. Yet it is also the case that the owners of Manchester City, the Abu Dhabi group of Sheik Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, have shown greater propensity for loyalty to their managers than Abramovich in recent years. A closer relationship with the truth, too, considering that the club steadfastly insisted they would not sack Hughes after a mediocre first season, and kept to their word despite a rash of gossip to the contrary. Chelsea, meanwhile, have carved out quite a career proving journalists right of late. Speculation around the futures of Mourinho and Grant were widespread before their dismissal, while Scolari's sacking was almost pre-emptive, happening before the doom-laden predictions concerning his long-term appointment had really got off the ground. Abramovich never says a word, but Chelsea do have an active media arm that frequently dismisses conjecture as fanciful before holding, in the case of Grant, an excruciating press conference confirming a good number of the suppositions of the previous six months. So Ancelotti can no more look Terry in the eye and tell him of his long-term plans than Hughes can. Both men need a good start to the season or, history suggests, they will be in trouble. It was noticeable that, while Hughes was installed yesterday as second favourite to be sacked behind Alex McLeish, of Birmingham, Ancelotti, who has not even taken charge of a game, is regarded as less secure than Mick McCarthy at Wolverhampton Wanderers, whose bone-dry assessment of life as a newly promoted Premier League manager involved winning two games in the first three months and getting fired in time to go on holiday for Christmas. And while City and Chelsea do not face the survival battle that will surely take place at Wolves, that does not mean Hughes and Ancelotti are under less pressure. The Abu Dhabi Group will not indefinitely advance Hughes funds without return, while Abramovich certainly demands plenty of bang for his buck. For Terry, there will be little to choose between the two if he is hoping to work for a manager who is there for the long haul, having experienced so many changes at Chelsea. One also feels that Hughes, a British manager and a combative player, may have more in common with Terry than Ancelotti, whose time in English football can be measured in weeks and counted on the fingers of a hand. Where was Ancelotti in 2001 when, following the 9/11 attacks, Terry was one of the Chelsea players who boarded the plane for Israel to play Hapoel Tel Aviv in the UEFA Cup while six remained at home, including club captain Marcel Desailly? Chelsea have since had seven managers. I remember talking with Terry on that trip. He was 20 and just getting established in the team. The club, no doubt fearing bad publicity over the absentees, made him available for interview in the hope he would portray the true spirit of Chelsea, a challenge he accepted and carried out with just the right mix of bullishness and diplomacy. He was already on the road to being Mr Chelsea then. Of course, the chairman was Ken Bates, who remains one of the few in his position to have his name sung in positive fashion by supporters. Again, at that time, there was no need for a player to assume the role of focal point for the club. Bates had fought doggedly to keep Stamford Bridge out of the clutches of property developers and had changed Chelsea's culture with ambitious managerial appointments including Glenn Hoddle, Ruud Gullit, Gianluca Vialli and Claudio Ranieri. He was a visible presence on the trip to Israel, which passed off safely, and spoke quite forthrightly on the issue, making back-page headlines. Who would fulfil that role for Chelsea now? Not Abramovich, the Harpo Marx of Premier League club owners. It would be left to an inferior, Bruce Buck or Peter Kenyon, to present the public face of the Chelsea executive, but their voice would not be heard because the go-to guy in that situation remains Terry. And there lies Chelsea's problem. The lurches in policy and direction that followed Mourinho's departure have placed upon Terry a responsibility that delights and discomforts. As he is required to fulfil a unique purpose, he has grown to expect unique treatment. Hence expectations that to those outside the Chelsea bubble seem greedy and unrealistic. That is what Manchester City are offering: the chance to earn like Mr Chelsea, but play like Mr Terry, plain old club captain and centre half.

Source: Daily_Mail