As soon as the Carling Cup finalists were known, it was obvious that one of two new managers would be lifting silverware within months of being appointed. The fact that, in the event, it was Juande Ramos of Spurs rather than Chelsea's Avram Grant not only confirmed the Spaniard's midas touch in cup competitions; it also raised doubts about the Israeli's acumen at the highest level.
Unpopular Changes
Ironically, neither Ramos nor Grant had been popular appointments. Both were succeeding men who had swung the mass of their respective club's supporters behind them: Martin Jol at Tottenham and Jose Mourinho at Stamford Bridge.
But while Spurs fans were unhappy with the way Jol was clumsily ousted, they were not anti-Ramos per se; they knew he was a good manager - as his record, especially at Sevilla, proved. And they have seen such a rapid improvement at White Hart Lane since Ramos arrived and started to put his managerial approach into practice that they have embraced the new regime with gusto, especially after Sunday's triumph. Jol may still be liked, but they would not want him back in place of Ramos.
Can you say the same about Grant at Chelsea? The short, brutal answer is, 'No.' Mourinho was adored by the Chelsea fans (and, it was clear, most if not all of the Blues' players). He was always going to be a hard act to follow, whoever took over.
But when Grant, brought in two months earlier as director of football, was handed the reins, the cloud over Stamford Bridge was heavy with disillusion, scepticism and anger. The contrast with Mourinho could not have been starker: the extrovert and self-styled Special One with charisma to spare had been succeeded by the introverted Quiet Man with the permanent hang-dog expression.
Grant's first assignment was at Old Trafford, the home of the defending champions, at the end of the traumatic week in which Mourinho left the club. To nobody's great surprise, United won 2-0, and with some of the senior players apparently threatening to jump ship, predictions of Chelsea's imminent implosion abounded.
Impressive Record
To his great credit, Grant held it all together and, moreover, set the team on a 16-match unbeaten run in which there were some impressive victories: 2-1 at Valencia, 6-0 at home to Manchester City and 4-0 in Trondheim against Rosenborg.
A narrow defeat at Arsenal in which inspirational captain John Terry broke bones in his foot compounded a debilitating injury situation at the Bridge, but despite the privations caused by injuries, suspensions and, in January, the demands of the Africa Cup of Nations, Grant led the team to another unbeaten run that stretched, by coincidence, to 16 games again before Spurs halted it on Sunday at Wembley.
Only the churlish and the uncharitable would argue that Grant's record of just two defeats in his first 34 matches in charge of Chelsea was not impressive. His team had withstood the absences of many key players without losing matches, remaining in contention on four fronts; the mooted exodus of stars in January had not happened; and Mourinho's 'untouchables' policy had been swept away, with the likes of Michael Ballack insisting nobody was untouchable now: you earned your place on merit and good form. And yet there were lingering doubts.
Doubts Persist
The fantasy football that owner Roman Abramovich ousted Mourinho for not providing was still conspicuous by its absence. Chelsea were functional and effective rather than free-flowing with flair. The fans continued to chant Mourinho's name at Chelsea matches, suggesting that Grant had not yet won their hearts. And there were signs latterly that as players returned from injury and Africa to give the coach more options, he was not entirely sure-footed in dealing with the selection dilemmas this posed.
Now, after Sunday's Carling Cup final, in which Chelsea took a first-half lead but uncharacteristically failed to protect it, losing 2-1 to worthy winners Spurs, Grant stands accused of timidity in his team selection, caution in his tactics, lack of urgency and imagination in his substitutions, and lack of motivational powers when his players may have been looking to him for leadership and inspiration.
Damningly, none of those perceived failings were levelled at Mourinho. He ticked all the boxes. And fairly or unfairly, Grant's performance is again being compared to that of the Portuguese following Sunday's defeat. Apart from leading Chelsea to back-to-back Premier League titles, Mourinho took the Blues to three domestic cup finals and won them all. Sunday was Grant's first chance to authenticate his reign with silverware, to confirm that he is also a winner. On this occision, he blew it.
Spurs played well throughout but there was a contrast between the two benches. Ramos appeared to be thinking on his feet, and his tactical switches and substitutions brought rapid dividends and, ultimately, the Cup. Grant seemed less decisive and less flexible. And Chelsea lost.
Positively Negative
Spurs won because Ramos was positive, and instilled positive thinking into his players, while Grant and his team were negative. That is why many neutrals enjoyed the outcome. Chelsea, after taking the lead from a set-piece - Didier Drogba's superb free-kick that maintained the Ivorian's record of scoring in English cup finals - retreated into their negative shells until they were forced to chase the game in the last 15 minutes of extra-time.
If Spurs had not won, at least they would have gone down giving it their best shot. They played with urgency, self-belief and imagination against opponents seemingly primed to play a percentage game which eventually back-fired thanks to a rash handball and a goalkeeping error.
On the touchline, Ramos outwitted and outflanked Grant, whose claim afterwards that for a period before and after half-time Chelsea had dominated was not a view widely held beyond his bench. There was a telling shot on TV - between the end of regulation time and the start of extra-time - of the Chelsea players in a huddle, seeking inspiration and instruction on how to approach the additional half-hour. But who was providing that input? Not Grant, and not the much-vaunted Henk ten Cate. No, it was Chelsea survivor Steve Clarke.
There were other concerns for Chelsea fans, regarding the composition and balance of the team, and the way the substitutions were handled. Why was such a talented and incisive striker as Nicolas Anelka exiled on the wing where his contribution was never more than peripheral? Why was Ballack on the bench when he has been the midfielder in form during the past month? Was it to accommodate Frank Lampard - who perhaps is an untouchable after all? It began to look that way when the industrious Michael Essien, rather than below-par Lampard, was removed from the fray to accommodate (belatedly) Ballack.
There were subversive rumbles in the build-up to the final that, following Grant's team selection for the Champions League game in Greece against Olympiakos, Lampard and Terry had thrown, or threatened to throw, their toys from the pram if not given starting roles at Wembley, despite both having only just returned from lengthy injury absences. Are some of the players, rather than the manager, calling the shots?
And why was the mercurial Joe Cole, a potential match-winner, left on the bench for so long? One of the defining aspects of Mourinho's success was his ruthlessly decisive approach to substitutions. They were not a last resort for Jose but a potent tactical weapon to be used the moment he deduced the opposition had an edge.
After the game, Grant complained about refereeing decisions - the penalty, which looked cut-and-dried, Bridge propelling the ball away with his hand - and even the timing of the final whistle. Of course, every manager, Mourinho included, struggles to cope with defeat and seeks scapegoats when it happens. That's OK, as long as Grant doesn't delude himself that Chelsea were unjustly robbed of the Cup.
Perspective
All of that said, it is important to keep things in perspective. After all, this was just one match, and Chelsea are still in real contention for three trophies, which is all credit to Grant and his players. As he also said after the game, his players must get over their disappointment and re-focus on the Premier League, Champions League and FA Cup.
He revealed that it was "very painful," to lose, although the Chelsea fans do not need to be told that. They feel it just as keenly. And they will hope that the lessons learned from this game will be taken on board when Chelsea find themselves in their next big contest.
But they will be slightly disturbed that the three matches Chelsea have lost under Grant have been a cup final and Premier League games against the two teams above them in the table. They may be wondering whether their manager, solid enough most of the time, lacks the temperament and/or tactical nous for the big matches. Because if he does, Chelsea will plateau rather than reach the next level that chief executive Peter Kenyon trumpeted when putting his spin on the decision to replace Mourinho with Grant.
send me your comments
