That's all, Maresca

Chelsea didn't sack Enzo Maresca because of a bad run of results. They parted ways because trust had been lost. When the manager and the hierarchy no longer see eye-to-eye, every project comes to an end.

Chelsea have just sacked Enzo Maresca.

Chelsea entered the new year with a decisive decision: terminating Enzo Maresca's contract. A run of one win in seven Premier League matches was the apparent reason, but not the root cause.

Chelsea are still fifth. Their Champions League qualification chances are intact. They are still in cup competitions. A truly crisis-ridden team is rarely in that state. Chelsea's problem isn't on the scoreboard. It's in the boardroom and the corridors of power.

The relationship between the head coach and the hierarchy had already been strained. Maresca's inconsistent statements after the Everton victory, and his absence from the media citing "unwellness," were just the tip of the iceberg. Disagreements over personnel and autonomy had been simmering for weeks. The atmosphere was clearly spiraling out of control.

When a manager no longer feels protected, all plans become fragile. Chelsea let that situation drag on. And they chose to end it in their usual way.

The rejuvenation project and power struggles.

Maresca wasn't against the youth development strategy. He understood his mission at Stamford Bridge, accepting the challenge of working with the youngest squad in the league, patiently molding each player. But paradoxes emerged very early on.

Maresca was encouraged to rotate the squad. He followed suit. Chelsea dropped points. The pressure immediately returned. When Maresca maintained a stable lineup, the demands changed again. He was questioned for a lack of flexibility. Long-term building was the slogan. Short-term results were the measure.

Chelsea gave Maresca the coaching role. However, most of the power remained at the top. That's the model the club believed was modern. But when things stalled, that very model pushed the manager to the front lines to take responsibility, while the decision-making power wasn't entirely in his hands.

The relationship between the head coach and the club's hierarchy had already been strained for some time.

This isn't a new story at Chelsea. In the post-Abramovich era, the manager is often the first to pay the price. Changes in the coaching staff are used to appease public opinion. The operational structure is rarely thoroughly analyzed.

To be fair, Maresca didn't bring Chelsea to their peak. The club's playing style was inconsistent, leading to many disappointing draws. At times, the team lacked sharpness. But Maresca didn't cause Chelsea's downfall either.

Chelsea are still in contention for the title. They haven't fallen into freefall. The difference lies in belief. The board no longer believes Maresca is fit to lead the team for the next phase. Maresca, too, no longer believes he has enough room to maneuver.

When trust is lost, results become just details. A sacking at this point is the predictable choice. It helps Chelsea break the prolonged tension and simultaneously bring to a close a tenure that hadn't yet been clearly defined.

Time of risk

The decision was made just before a grueling January. Chelsea will face a packed schedule, from Manchester City to Arsenal and then Napoli. Sacking the manager at this point is a huge gamble.

The successor will have no time. Every game is a matter of life or death. Mistakes have no place. The pressure will come right from the first training session.

Chelsea understood the risks, but still acted. This shows the extent of the rift has exceeded acceptable limits. Keeping Maresca any longer is no longer a safe option.

Maresca's departure doesn't just mark the end of a tenure. It opens up a familiar question: What does Chelsea really want?

When Enzo Maresca left Stamford Bridge, what remained was more than just a few numbers.

A young team needs stability. Maturity takes time. But Chelsea constantly changes managers. Each manager brings a different philosophy. Each departure leaves a new void.

The top brass talk about a long-term vision. Reality shows short-sightedness. The gap between words and actions persists. Maresca is just the latest link in that chain.

This separation is not unexpected. It just came at the right time. A "marriage" lacking mutual consent is unlikely to last long. Maresca lacked the authority to shape the project. Chelsea lacked the patience to wait for him to complete it.

When Enzo Maresca left Stamford Bridge, what remained was more than just a few numbers. It was a familiar feeling about a club still searching for a balance between vision and execution.

The sacking was a decisive decision. But decisive doesn't necessarily mean the right direction. Chelsea are entering a new spiral. And the old question remains valid: who will be the next person to have enough time to see it through?

Source: https://znews.vn/het-roi-maresca-post1616010.html