The Lampard Experiment falls short
An acrimonious end to ex-player Frank Lampard’s time at Chelsea, as owner Roman Abramovich pulled the plug after 18 months to replace the English legend with Thomas Tuchel, who had his own painful end to his job at PSG.
So, just like that, it is over for Frank Lampard. Chelsea have never been a club for long projects, and if Lampard hoped that his legendary playing career would change this, this week has shown he was mistaken.
Yet, we should be careful not to underestimate Lampard’s impact. In his first season, Lampard took Chelsea to 4th place with 67 points, 1 point ahead of Arsenal and United. This does not seem a huge achievement; 70 points was not enough for Arsenal the season before. But in the context of the transfer ban, as well as developing young players such as Reece James and Mason Mount into starters, this was a successful season for Lampard.
So when Marina Granovskaia condoned the spending of more than £200 million on new players, there was justified optimism for Chelsea’s season. That Lampard has failed to convert these signings into an improved attack — Chelsea had scored 2 more goals at this stage last season — is a crucial reason for his sacking. This is despite multiple factors out of Lampard’s direct control: Hakim Ziyech has been hampered by injuries and Kai Havertz by COVID-19 whilst Timo Werner has undergone the worst finishing spell of his career.
On the other hand, you cannot absolve Lampard of blame. Havertz has operated most frequently as an 8 in a 4–3–3 and has never looked comfortable. Lampard’s version of 4–3–3 has also seemed to affect Werner negatively, with the forward spending far too much time near the touchline. On paper, Werner seems to suit an attacking 4–3–3, since he is at his best coming into goal from the inside-left position. However, he has played far too wide and Lampard has not coached or mentored him out of his finishing rut.
The system has also been an uncomfortable fit for many of the players Lampard inherited — Kante in particular has been poor at 6 in the 4–3–3, and it is telling that Tuchel has already declared that he is best in a ‘double 6’. He also never settled on his favoured number 9, with neither Giroud nor Abraham ever establishing true rhythm.
Reports coming out after Lampard’s sacking suggest more flaws in the Englishman’s approach to management. His relationship with Chelsea’s Director of Football had collapsed, some players were “hurt by his public criticism” and “complained about a lack of tactical instruction.”
A question the ruthless sacking raises is whether Lampard would have got into this negative spiral so quickly at a club that had a history of giving their managers more time. If he were at a Liverpool, or Tottenham, and the directors believed in his project would he have been more patient with his out-of-form players, and not reacted badly in the press?
Unfortunately, these hypotheticals do not help Lampard now. The fact of the matter is that he is not at the level of a Klopp or Pocchetino just yet, and the Chelsea hierarchy are justified in their move for an obvious upgrade in Thomas Tuchel. He cannot be criticised for taking his dream job so early, but he can for his failings in his dream job. At a club like Chelsea, extended poor runs of form simply cannot happen, and Lampard’s siege mentality in the last month has shown he is aware of this.
Yet, Tuchel will be glad to have joined a Chelsea team far more rounded than the one Lampard inherited. His development of Mount and James in particular will be appreciated, even if his 18 months as Chelsea manager have to be judged a failure by the standards of this incredibly merciless club.
