Uneasy lies the head that wears the frown

I think Sunday’s loss to Liverpool has created a perfect storm of anger against Carlo Ancelotti.

Like the deadly weather system that spawned its name, a perfect storm is what happens when a number of circumstances, each dangerous on its own, combine to create a mega-storm.

Here are the ingredients:

1/  Chelsea supporters were riding a big wave of excitement after recent results and the massive transfers of Torres and Luiz. Anticipation was high. Thus, the letdown from defeat was bigger than usual.

2/  Having “taken” Torres from Liverpool fans, winning the game became a matter of face. Losing meant a loss of face, a humiliation. No Chelsea fan wants to hear taunts from the traveling supporters after their club splashes 50 million.

3/ Liverpool was considered weak and beatable.

4/ You’ve got to blame someone. It’s human nature.

5/ Dalglish outsmarted “us”. Fans refer to their club as “us” and “we.” All of us have feelings of inadequacy at times. People thought Dalglish’s old fashioned three-man defense was a sign of tactical smarts. When supporters decided that Ancelotti had been outsmarted, it therefore meant that “we” were outsmarted too. That stings.

6/ Manchester United lost and this was a rare opportunity to get back in the title fight. (This is the one that has me most upset.)

Did Carlo score an own goal?

OK, so supporters are upset with Ancelotti. Let’s look at the arguments against him. Is there a counter-argument?

Claim:

Ancelotti was outsmarted by Dalglish

Counter-argument:

Ancelotti started managing in Italy in 1995. He’s seen 3-man defenses before. He’s defeated them with a diamond.

Claim:

No width

Counter-argument:

Like Arsenal, Chelsea on Sunday tried to work the ball down the middle. The flanks were occupied by Liverpool’s advanced fullbacks. After Tuesday’s success against Sunderland, Ancelotti had reason to be patient with his formation. He gave it a full chance to succeed before deciding to make a change.

Claim:

Tactically inflexible, changed formations far too late

Counter-argument:

Everyone forgets that the score was 0-0 when Ancelotti finally called it quits on the diamond and changed to a 4-3-3. Draws are extremely common in big matches, so the score line was not an aberration. There was no cause for alarm.
Ancelotti pulled Torres at 66 minutes, roughly the time when most managers make their first substitutions. Unfortunately, right after that Cech made a horrendous blunder on a not-very-dangerous breakaway. Once Liverpool had the lead, they withdrew their fullbacks and parked a double-wide bus in the middle of the field. Game over, basically.

Claim:

Where was Ramires?

Counter-argument:

None. It’s a good question.

Claim:

No energy or enthusiasm, players didn’t seem to care

Counter-argument:

Faced with a packed midfield, Chelsea patiently tried to work through the crowd without losing possession. Ancelotti has criticized his team in the past for taking too much time to move the ball out of the back. But I think it would be wrong to say that players who are going about their business with precise deliberation are therefore lacking in motivation or enthusiasm. That’s a very English point of view, possibly based on the history of the English game as a run-like-mad league. For the record, Chelsea had more possession and had a higher passing percentage than Liverpool.

Conclusion:

Ancelotti made some mistakes. But none were game-changers. Were it not for Cech’s terrible mistake, the outcome of the game might have been different.

It’s my sense that the anger directed at Ancelotti has less to do with his performance than it does with the anger and embarrassment Chelsea supporters feel about losing to Liverpool on this particular Sunday. Ancelotti has become ground zero in the perfect storm of blame.