Why Chelsea had to sack Liam Rosenior and the true scale of the mess left behind

Rosenior appeared to have lost the dressing room (PA)

A sourness might persist in how it’s not like many of the players currently look like they are worth keeping, either. Aside from the obvious questions about the strategy in how the squad has been put together, one description has been of a “spoiled” group. Figures at teams who recently beat them were scathing, the atmosphere around the Chelsea group reminded them of the worst moments around their own clubs.

It’s not like Rosenior really did anything to justify such a premature appointment, however. His perceptive tactical insights were a bit pointless if he couldn't get enough players to fully follow them. The final interview played into another doubt that had been playing on the minds of those at the club, that Rosenior’s very profile was increasingly “becoming a distraction every week”.

Rosenior faced chants calling for his sacking during the loss to Brighton in midweek (PA)

That was never more illustrated than with the Enzo Fernandez controversy. It came full circle with the Argentine ultimately offering a defining image of Rosenior’s departure, standing there and shrugging his shoulders to the away crowd, while also reflecting the circularity of Chelsea problems beyond the manager. Rosenior obviously had to deal with Fernandez in some way, and club sources both backed him and initially felt it was impressive management. The midfielder is a strong character who had the support of some key players; however, it just ended up creating more noise, another distraction and more controversy.

Ultimately, nothing was actually resolved. More problems festered. Not all of those problems were down to Rosenior’s inexperience, or personality, mind. One argument that has repeatedly been made within Chelsea over the past few weeks is that it’s always difficult for a new coach to come in mid-season anyway, but especially when they have tactical differences with their predecessor. Rosenior was attempting to introduce his own ideology. There’s even a belief from some sources that spoke to the Independent that a shift away from Enzo Maresca’s more possession-based approach - especially after the Club World Cup - may have contributed to an injury crisis, which only made Rosenior’s job harder, with his best players frequently absent.

All of which only emphasises what a mess the club has become. Something was going wrong at almost every level. Certain fan dissent still points to what they see as a needless sacking of Maresca, but that decision tends to be defended within Chelsea. There is now a widespread belief in football that the Italian will take over from Pep Guardiola at Manchester City whenever the Catalan leaves. Whatever the truth of that, it was not a future Chelsea could countenance.

Liam Rosenior and Chelsea co-owner owner Behdad Eghbali (PA)

But it’s not like the present is what they want, either. Fingers can be pointed at everywhere, but all of that is a consequence of the thinking at the top. It was written in The Independent on Tuesday evening that these failures almost represent a morality play for a private equity group fundamentally seeking to exploit football; that this is a project that just doesn't have the right priorities.

Rosenior's lamentable fate, and a career that may have been set back by an ill-advised appointment he couldn't say no to, is just another act in that play. It never looked like a long-term plan. It came together chaotically and ended chaotically. That’s the story of Chelsea right now.