Source: Daily_Mail
MARTIN SAMUEL: No more puppets Roman, what you need is a monster
For an extraordinarily wealthy man, Roman Abramovich has a disturbing habit in times of trouble of acting like a flummoxed contestant on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Left without an answer, he phones a friend.[LNB]This time, it is Guus Hiddink; the last, it was Avram Grant. Either way it hardly matters. Unless Abramovich is willing to charge his manager with the power to steer his football team, he might as well let his girlfriend take training.[LNB]The best clubs, the only ones worth their salt, are driven by the vision of the manager. Think of Manchester United[LNB], think of Arsenal[LNB], think of this season's most improved Aston Villa[LNB]. Abramovich, by contrast, has hired and fired four bosses in four-and-a-half years; some good, some bad, few given much of a chance. [LNB]He is becoming the thinking man's Rupert Lowe, with similar results. Lowe's Southampton sit near the bottom of the Championship table and, while Chelsea will never do that, even in the top division, they are falling rapidly through that mini-league of elite clubs at the top of the Premier League.[LNB]Too many changes, not enough foresight. Next stop fifth place, unless they are careful.[LNB]Over to you, pal: Abramovich and Hiddink are close[LNB]Arsenal are having a rough time, too, but the club does not risk the implosion that might yet befall Chelsea[LNB]because, when all else fails, what sees them through is consistency of purpose from junior academy to first team and up to the boardroom.[LNB]Yet, what is there to cling to at Stamford Bridge these days? Little, beyond the whim of an owner who has never deigned to explain his decisions to his paying public.[LNB] Why was Grant considered suitable for a position for which he was unqualified? Why was he then sacked, having come so close to making a success of it? Why Luiz Felipe Scolari? Why Hiddink now? If Abramovich is a man with a plan, he is content to keep it secret.[LNB] More from Martin Samuel... MARTIN SAMUEL: It's about a Test of character and this bunch get my goat[LNB]08/02/09 MARTIN SAMUEL IN JAMAICA: If the rage eats away at Pietersen's talent, beware a bitter end[LNB]03/02/09 MARTIN SAMUEL ON MONDAY: Shut window on this pact with the devil[LNB]01/02/09 THE DEBATE: Martin Samuel responds to your comments on FA Cup replays[LNB]28/01/09 Martin Samuel: Belgian dopes aid the cheats [LNB]27/01/09 MARTIN SAMUEL: Sheffield United's cosy deal to cut out Spring is all wrong[LNB]25/01/09 THE DEBATE: Martin Samuel responds to your comments on who is the Footballer of the Year so far[LNB]21/01/09 MARTIN SAMUEL: All you need is trust...but you are not going to get it in writing, Rafa[LNB]20/01/09 VIEW FULL ARCHIVE[LNB] 'Your every action has been a mystery to me,' the beleaguered McLeavy says to corrupt copper Truscott in Joe Orton's play Loot. 'That is as it should be,' Truscott replies. 'The process by which the police arrive at the solution to a mystery is, in itself, a mystery.'[LNB]So it would be at Chelsea if through this fog of bizarre, often random, appointments and dismissals, Abramovich finds a coach to somehow forge success again. The model is there, not just in the way it was under Jose Mourinho but the way it is now at Aston Villa, with the strong relationship between Randy Lerner, the owner, and Martin O'Neill, his manager. Empowerment of an employee does not necessarily humiliate or undermine the executives. Trust is vital.[LNB]Lerner has not been railroaded into spending like a lunatic by O'Neill but has also been respectful of his manager's wishes. Lerner gets the power, O'Neill the glory. [LNB]Meanwhile, the crumbling relationship between Rafael Benitez and the board at Liverpool[LNB]is further evidence of what happens when the bond of trust breaks. It is hard to remember the last time Chelsea's board acted as if trustful of the manager. The second season under Mourinho, perhaps, although even at the pinnacle of success, before the summer was out the first cracks had begun to appear.[LNB] Cutting wit: Liverpool fans let George Gillett and Tom Hicks know their feelings over treatment of Rafael Benitez[LNB]Chelsea will this week parade the usual cabal of stooges (perhaps minus Peter Kenyon, the chief executive, who is believed to have said no to Scolari's dismissal and could be following him out of the door) to explain in the absence of Abramovich what has taken place.[LNB]Perhaps to perspire in the spotlight is what they are paid to do, but where the owner's reticence to take the stage was once seen as his strength, now it is a sign of a man who wants power, certainly glory, but is shy of responsibility. [LNB]Not so long ago, a senior Chelsea executive warned to expect a big announcement from the club in early February, one that would leave nobody in any doubt of Abramovich's commitment, long-term. Maybe giving Scolari multiple millions to go away does show devotion of sorts; but ending up with a part-timer in his place, at least short-term, does not demonstrate the clearest corporate strategy.[LNB]The initial take on Abramovich was of a man indulging a fantasy, happy to throw his fortune at a hobby, sit back and see what unfolds. That did not last long. As poor old Claudio Ranieri was left to twist in the wind, still being quizzed by his employer on the future of Chelsea even while Mourinho was accepting his job, a different picture emerged.[LNB] The Special One: Mourinho[LNB] Quizzed: The Tinkerman[LNB] [LNB]Abramovich is like that, apparently. There is something of the puppet master in him, everyone dangling on string, Abramovich with the rod and bar, or sometimes a pair of scissors, but always behind the curtain.[LNB]Hiddink's appointment will be seen in some quarters as a strong owner taking the lead and getting his man, except why is he Abramovich's man?[LNB]Is it because he has a track record of getting more from under-performing players, as happened with Russia. Is it his consistent club success with PSV Eindhoven or the way he was not scared to abandon a tired regime and work with youth, as he did in South Korea?[LNB]Or is it because the pair are acquaintances through the Russia national team and therefore Hiddink is another manager Abramovich sees as suggestible (although he may get a surprise there).[LNB] A word in your shell-like: Grant and Abramovich talk tactics[LNB] That would appear to have been a motivation on other occasions, most particularly when Abramovich appointed Grant to succeed Mourinho. It amounted to more than simply wishing for a quiet life. It was as if Abramovich required a manager who would be grateful to be in the job, rather than one who thought his employers should be thanking him.[LNB]Grant was over-promoted and, considering this, made a reasonable fist of his only season in command. When he was replaced by Scolari it was considered harsh, but understandable, taking into account Chelsea's vaulting ambition, but from the start the new manager was vulnerable in not appearing to be aware of the way successful clubs are structured in England.[LNB]Overnight, Felipao, the Big Phil of popular imagination, became Felipinho, or Little Phil, deferring to his bosses whenever transfer issues were mentioned, seemingly happy to take direction.[LNB]He had spent a long time in international management and had no experience of European club football, let alone the unique dynamic of the Premier League, with its uber-managers such as Sir Alex Ferguson, Arsene Wenger and O'Neill. [LNB]Scolari's club background came from his homeland, and a basket case league that frequently climaxes with a stampede to the law courts. It is not unknown for Brazilian clubs to have four managers in one season and by comparison he might have found Chelsea a liberating place to work.[LNB] Certainly, he did not publicly question the empowerment of Ferguson at Manchester United or Wenger at Arsenal, and Chelsea were certainly not going to encourage him down that path, believing they had already created a monster in Mourinho. [LNB]Yet, these monsters are a necessary evil in football. Ferguson is a monster, Wenger is a monster, O'Neill is a monster and Benitez would like to be a monster, only Rick Parry, his chief executive, will not let him. They are monsters because they believe it is their right to spend another man's money.[LNB]Mourinho was adamant on that and the fall-out from his clashes with his superiors looks to be directly responsible for two years of upheaval at Stamford Bridge. It was the division created in Abramovich's yen for the beautiful and exotic, and Mourinho's desire for success through pragmatism, that changed the relationship between owner and manager in west London.[LNB]No doubt Abramovich thought Mourinho ungrateful as their relationship deteriorated. The result, though, was a power-grab that continues to affect the club. It could be argued that Abramovich will be less restless with Hiddink, a man with whom he can rub along; yet he had a personal ally in Grant, too, and that did not work. [LNB]It all depends on motive; it may be that he has the right man in Hiddink, but, if he has him for the wrong reasons, Abramovich is as far away from the million-pound answer as he was before.[LNB] Only Beckham is to blame for his trip to the knacker's yardAs AC Milan continue their battle to extricate David Beckham from his commitments in America, the common perception is that there is only one man to blame for this horrid state of affairs: the long-suffering patsy of English football, Steve McClaren.[LNB]It dates back to a conversation McClaren had with Beckham (or one of Beckham's people, because the modern footballer tends to have staff for errands such as speaking to the national team coach) before making the decision to go to Hollywood.[LNB] Patsy: McClaren[LNB] Beckham, or his surrogate, asked McClaren, then England manager, if there was any chance of a return to the England fold; McClaren said there was not.[LNB]The popular version has Beckham quietly replacing the receiver and, with tears in his eyes, accepting the fact that his career as a top-class player is at an end before heading off to the knacker's yard known as Major League Soccer, with only a new contract equivalent to the Gross Domestic Product of Tonga to console him.[LNB]It is, therefore, McClaren who is responsible for such a fine player being stranded in a minor league, instead of claiming a new contract with AC Milan; not to mention denying him the caps that would have long ago outstripped Bobby Moore's international record for England, with starting appearances, too, not second-half cameos.[LNB]The problem with this denouncement is that it fails to take into account one simple fact: that Beckham must have thought he had shot it, too. If he had not, then, knowing him, he could not have been forced on to the plane to Los Angeles at gunpoint. [LNB]Beckham is defined by a desire to prove his critics wrong. If questioned, he is consumed by a drive to succeed and then smile sweetly at the doubters from behind another milestone of achievement.[LNB] Strong shoulders: Beckham[LNB]It does not follow that decamping to an inferior league was the default response to rejection by McClaren. Beckham's trademark style would be to tell one of his people to get back on that telephone and find the biggest, flashest club in the market for a superstar and advise them to call a press conference for the weekend.[LNB]Slinking away to LA Galaxy was an admission of defeat; perhaps the only one Beckham has made in his career.[LNB]Beckham won, in the end, almost by accident, because McClaren's England fell apart so rapidly. But how he must regret that loss of faith after his resurgence at AC Milan, even if he appears to have again made a greater impact on his career than on the fortunes of his team, who have drawn as many games as they have won since his arrival.[LNB] [LNB]
