Investigated: Chelsea Firing Scolari—Good Idea or Not?

As many of you may have heard by now, Luiz Felipe Scolari was appointed coach of Chelsea FC July 1, 2008. He was fired Ferbruary 9, eight months later.

What I'll try to investigate is simple: Was it a good decision on Chelsea's part, what outside forces might have been involved in this decision, and the problem this might create for Chelsea.

Scolari's return to club management started out well enough. A 4-0 trashing of Portsmouth, with new signing Deco scoring, had Chelsea fans excited for the upcoming season.

However, somewhere, somehow, Scolari went wrong. Was it the loss of Chelsea to Liverpool on October 26th at home? Maybe the ending of the unbeaten run at Stamford Bridge under Mourinho, lasting more than four years, left a bad taste in Chelsea's managements mouth.

However, a match is not defined by one game, but under Scolari, Chelsea were simply not looking the sharp side they used to be. I'm not saying that Mourinho was a head better than Scolari, no.

It's the results that matter, and for Scolari they didn't come.

But as many people duly stated, against the rest of the title contenders (Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United) Scolari flopped. Excluding the tight 1-0 win over Roma, here are Chelsea results against big teams under Scolari.

Liverpool 1-0 Chelsea

Manchester United 1-1 Chelsea

Roma 3-1 Chelsea

Arsenal 2-1 Chelsea

Manchester United 3-0 Chelsea

Liverpool 2-0 Chelsea

Need I go on?

As can be seen, these are certainly not the results of a league-winning side.

While it is true that Chelsea were missing Drogba, Essien, Terry, Joe Cole, Carvalho, and others at one time or another, that is not an excuse.

As the saying goes—Life isn't fair, and you work with what you get.

But a question was raised—is that really a good enough reason to fire a World-Cup winning coach? Everybody has their own opinion, but I think yes.

The Premier League is tough and fast. As can be seen especially over the last couple years, managers come and go like a big thunderstorm. Boom, boom, boom. You don't deliver, you're gone.

A big club like Chelsea follows this policy tightly. Consider last year's manager—Avram Grant. Under him the team performed well. They made the Champions League Final, fell two points behind the Red Devils, Terry slipped, etc, etc, the rest is history.

Unfortunately, Grant was fired, and again the question was raised—Why?

The same answer still holds—Avram didn't deliver. For Chelsea, coming close isn't enough, trophies are what's needed.

This need for trophies can be blamed on Roman Abramovich. As rumors go, Shevchenko was a forced buy by Abramovich, and look at Sheva now.

Club owners shouldn't involve themselves in team affairs, it's as simple as that. Although it may seem otherwise, behind the scenes, I believe Roman does decide who stays and who goes.

However, Chelsea are reaching a dangerous point. If they make a habit of firing managers more often than a Ronaldo to Madrid rumor, a simple outcome will be seen.

Nobody will want to manage Chelsea.

I'm not saying Chelsea are at this point yet, but they will be soon.

Looking at this situation, consider this:

Mourinho - Five trophies in three years, bad results, and fired.

Grant - Champions League Final, two points behind Manchester, fired.

Scolari - Run of bad form, fired.

Are Chelsea creating a too tense atmosphere at their ground?

Think of Ferguson's situation—he didn't deliver for quite some years, and even the fans got upset. However, the management staid with him, and look what he's done.

Maybe that's what Chelsea should do? Maybe Scolari, given a few more seasons, could have created an unstoppable Chelsea? We don't know.

The idea is, that's not what happened, Chelsea was dissatisfied, and good-bye Scolari.

That's my take, but what do you think? Was it fair to fire Scolari? Should club owners be involved in club manners? Is Chelsea creating a too tense atmosphere? What should Chelsea do? Comment.