Andre Villas-Boas vs. Jose Mourinho: Chelsea FC Manager Debate

If you have at all been following Chelsea FC over the past few weeks you would be well aware that they are performing below the standards fans have come to expect of the club. Three straight draws in the league have effectively knocked them out of title contention and put first-year manager Andre Villas-Boas on the hot seat.

And if you have been following my articles at all you would know that I think the hot seat is exactly where he belongs.

However, Chelsea owner Roman Abramovich has reportedly been mulling around the training grounds and locker room more than usual as of late. The club insists it’s a routine practice, but it is never a good sign to have the Russian billionaire breathing down your neck.

To further amplify the pressure on Villas-Boas, new rumors have suggested that his mentor Jose Mourinho may be on his way out at Real Madrid and looking to return to England, preferably to Chelsea.

While nothing has been factually substantiated, the idea that the protégé may be forced out by his master has the context of a Hollywood melodrama and sets up the question: Who would you prefer running Chelsea, Villas-Boas or Mourinho?

Here are some head-to-head comparisons of the two and how they stack up against one another.

Financial Considerations

The move to get Villas-Boas away from Porto and to Stamford Bridge was in fact the most expensive move Chelsea made this summer. At a cost of £25 million, including a £12 million three-year contract, £5 million in compensation to his former club Porto and severance pay for Carlo Ancelotti, this was by no means a light hit on the wallet.

And to attempt to attract Mourinho is only going to further disrupt any kind of financial stability, especially while the club is in the middle of balancing the books for the upcoming financial fair play rules.

The elder Portuguese has two years left on his contract at the Bernabeu and is only able to leave if proper compensation is met for the Spanish club. No figures have been released on to what that compensation will be, but it will surely be as large if not more than Villas-Boas’.

It would essentially mean the same situation that I spoke of before only this time dealing with much higher numbers, as everything from the buyout clause to the severance pay for Villas-Boas will be higher this time around.

I know it is difficult to understand that Chelsea may be a cash-strapped club, but with all teams needing to be more aware of their finances to avoid stiff penalties, Mourinho returning to Stamford Bridge does not make financial sense.

Advantage: Villas-Boas

Transfers

Transfers at Chelsea have been fluid since the Rubles came to town. In Mourinho’s first transfer window alone he spent over £70 million to acquire some of the best talent in the entire world.

It paid off in results, as Chelsea went on to win trophy after trophy under the manager and the club enjoyed unprecedented success, becoming a world power over the next few years.

His spending never curtailed as he would rack up a debt of over £110 million in his reaming years at the club. At Inter Milan he spent over €135 million, but again brought the club glory winning the Champions League in 2009. And finally, he has racked up a deficit of €130 million in two seasons at Real Madrid.

Villas-Boas conversely has been a nominal spender by comparison. At Porto he spent €29.1 million, but came out on top, selling €36.42 million. That netted a profit in the transfer windows as well as a treble for the club.

At Chelsea he has been much looser with a total that nears his mentor’s, £62.25 million. This has not exactly paid off in instant results, as we have seen.

When it comes down to it, I believe that finances are the most important thing to consider in this day and age with transfers. Villas-Boas has proven that he cannot make economical moves for the club. Mourinho, while extravagant, can deliver results.

Tough one to call, but I err on the side of caution.

Advantage: Villas-Boas

Player Management

At this level of the game, it is as important that you understand your players as much as your tactics. Luiz Felipe Scolari was undone not only by his failure to produce results, but more his losing of the locker room. Guus Hiddink is by no means the best manager who ever coached the game, but you wouldn’t know that by talking to his players.

Mourinho has a very dominating personality. He is brief, stern and stubborn in his decisions. However, he does have the inherent ability to move a locker room to his side.

When he was sacked back in 2007, there was an upswell of support for him emanating from all over the club including the players. John Terry even approached Abramovich to attempt to persuade him to reverse his ruling. Didier Drogba was famously said to have “wept like a child” at the news of Mourinho’s departure.

Everywhere "The Special One" has gone, there have never been instances of a locker room in disarray. Even at Madrid, where he has failed time and time again to overcome their rival Barcelona, it has never once been suggested from inside that he is not the man for the job.

Villas-Boas has seemingly picked up some of these personnel management techniques from Mourinho.

As far as I can find, there has never been a complaint lodged publicly at Villas-Boas from one of his players. Now this is easy when he has only coached successful sides, but even at Chelsea this is not true.

When you consider he is benching legends, playing others out of position, failing to garner results and ultimately having one of the most unsuccessful seasons in the club's recent history, he must be doing something right to keep the players on his side.

With youth and charisma working in his favor, he has been able to avoid the fate of Scolari, while netting a similar type of record. As long as he can keep the players happy his job security will be much higher.

It is difficult to define a clear winner, but in the end Villas-Boas has not been put in the position Mourinho has had at Madrid. Not his own fault—just the facts.

Advantage: Mourinho

Appeal to the Owner

At most clubs this would weigh little into a managerial decision. A majority of owners bankroll a club for profit and leave the football moves up to those who know the game. But not at Chelsea.

It is not enough to win over the hearts of the fans and players at Stamford Bridge. It is not even enough to win on the field. Your success must be backed by Roman Abramovich if you want any hope of surviving.

The Russian runs the club like a disconnected Czar, treating it like a rich man’s toy that he can manipulate however he wants.

Carlo Ancelotti was fired last season for coming up a game short in the league after an injury-prone season. He was also forced to figure out the best way to make a player who is not worth £10 million worth £50 million.

The spat between Mourinho and Abramovich back in 2007 spelt the end for the manager. The stubbornness of the two allowed for no bending on either side on who was to blame for a few poor results. Abramovich being the boss had the last say and was going to sack the manager.

However, Mourinho’s stubbornness prevailed as he got there first and resigned.

The falling-out was difficult as fans and players disagreed with the move. The two began to take shots at one another with Mourinho suggesting Abramovich appointed friends over qualified people for positions at the club.

Since that time, the two have made up and are on more respectable terms with both understanding that each has their own qualities that have made them successful.

When Villas-Boas was picked to be the Chelsea manager, Abramovich had a look upon his face that I had not seen before. It was a smile like he has finally found the missing piece in his puzzle for Champions League glory.

Chelsea were finally going to play the “attractive” style of football he always wanted and have a manager for the foreseeable future.

Obviously none of this has panned out yet, but the fact that Abramovich has remained so absent when the team has performed so poorly is a testament to the faith he has in him.

Any rumors that have surfaced about the questions of Villas-Boas in the long haul have emanated from elsewhere and are squashed by the owner.

With the rekindling of old flames between Mourinho and Abramovich, their relationship is not quite as grim as it looked. But I have never seen the owner so quiet when they are winning or losing. Slight nod goes to the new guy.

Advantage: Villas-Boas

Appeal to the Fans

No matter what a team is to its owner, players or managers, it still remains a spectator event meant to entertain and please. All decisions, no matter what they do, are directed toward improving the team’s appeal to its fans.

For three years Jose Mourinho owned Stamford Bridge. For all the talent he brought in, all the fame he gave his players, in the end, he was the one the fans were grateful to have.

His incredible arrogance at his first press conference in charge of Chelsea had him calling himself “The Special One,” a name that has stuck to him to this day. Some were turned off by the egoism, but they were soon persuaded as he brought title after title to the club.

As I already stated, his departure turned fans into an angered group, organizing protests against the owner’s decision. It was a rare instance where the personality outweighed the results, only furthering the lore of such a character.

I mean, how many other fanbases do you know that would stick up for a manager's dog?

Villas-Boas was initially greeted with the same attitude most did Mourinho. A bit more shy he was, warmly received as someone who would revolutionize the club and bring it into the new generation.

However, some fans were not ready for this “revolution” and as results were lost the argument against such a move began to gather steam.

Today, there is a split among the Chelsea faithful that has put the manager in the middle. Some believe time is needed to allow him to build his club. Others dismiss that as nonsense and his inability to adapt has set the team back.

Both managers have had their supporters, but rarely has there been such a massive backing behind a single leader. Couple that with the fact Villas-Boas has become a polarizing figure at Stamford Bridge, never a good thing as a manager, and it is difficult to argue that the fans prefer the latter over the former.

Advantage: Mourinho

Tactics

For all the noise I made in the previous slides, it can all be nullified by how this one sums up. Fans, players and owners will be happy, transfers will pay off and money will pour in if you win on the field.

Mourinho has been deemed one of the great tacticians of our age. His vast knowledge of the game has been what has given him so much success. He consistently produces winning sides and puts out players and formations that keep opponents on their heels.

However, the singular most impressive thing he has done has been his ability to win in a variety of places.

Mourinho has now won 15 trophies in five different leagues, including Champions League twice, making him only one of two managers to ever do so from two different leagues.

It is much simpler to move from one team to another in the same league. You are already aware of your competition, the culture and the players. It is nothing short of incredible the quickness with which Mourinho is able to adapt and figure out the best possible way to approach his competition with the players he currently has.

Villas-Boas has found this task a bit more difficult. While having success at Porto, he also inherited a very good side to begin with. The Portuguese league is also nowhere on the same level of where Mourinho has enjoyed his wins.

But what becomes even more discouraging is how he has handled the team he has inherited at Chelsea. This was a side that was a win away from an EPL title and a round from a Champions League final. With a team that has only improved through transfers, they are now struggling to hold down a Champions League spot for next season.

Villas-Boas has been unbelievably stubborn when it comes to his choice of formation. He has held fast to his favorite 4-3-3, which has proven time and time again ineffective with his current crop of players.

Furthermore, his in-game decisions have been left begging. Nothing was done to quell the introduction of Javier Hernandez last Sunday against Manchester United. As Wayne Rooney dropped back into the midfield, he was given free room to run, creating goals left and right.

The argument is sure to come that he does not have the players he needs to make this system work, but that does not qualify him as a great tactician. He is simply a good talent evaluator. Those who understand tactics are able to put the players he has in the best position to win the game. This is something Villas-Boas has not done.

Advantage: Mourinho

The Future

This is perhaps the most difficult one to factor. Chelsea are at a critical juncture in their history. The names that brought them glory are ageing and will surely need to be replaced soon, but the youth that is there is not ready to take the reins and continue the success.

Both managers are relatively young so age is not a factor. Both are innovative in their styles of play, so tactical future does not weigh in much. And both are excellent at scouting talent, so whether or not they can build a team is negligible.

The one thing that I think differentiates the two is in what they have done in relation to their pasts.

Mourinho has continued what he did at Porto at Chelsea, Inter and now Madrid. Though the amount of trophies may differ, he always is competitive wherever he moves on to next.

Villas-Boas has seemingly taken a step backward in his development as a manager, as this Chelsea side doesn't compare with what he had at Porto. Add in the fact that resources are much greater at Stamford Bridge, and you have to say that he no longer holds the same prestige he once did.

However, at the same time, the argument could be made that Mourinho is only able to do what he has done due to the excessive wealth he has spent, while Villas-Boas is essentially cash-strapped while Chelsea are trying to balance their books. At the same time, he is also wrestling with how to win, appease the veterans and build for the future.

It is too close and there are too many factors and uncertainties to declare a clear winner here.

Advantage: Push

Who Do You Want to Coach?

So if you were keeping score, that's Andre Villas-Boas 3-4 Jose Mourinho, with one tie. So the advantage weighs in Mourinho’s favor by estimation, but not a clear landslide victory.

This is, of course, an arbitrary means of evaluation where I selected a few topics that I thought are important for any manager to grasp and then reasoned through them in my own head.

Your opinions will certainly differ and I am interested in hearing them.

Are these the only topics which we should judge by? Is my argument wrong on one or more of them? Who do you think should be in charge at Stamford Bridge?

Please comment below answering any of these questions or raise others. I always write to stimulate a thorough debate so that we all may better understand our club.

Follow me on Twitter: @thecriterionman