From Newcastle’s Halftime Collapse to the Bald Coach’s Exit: Chelsea’s Christmas Nightmare

Right after Maresca publicly stated that he had not received support from the club in the past 48 hours, rumors quickly spread that he would be Manchester City’s successor once their coach departed. Although these claims were later denied, the timing was suspicious, as Maresca had just changed his agency—clearly suggesting manipulation behind the scenes. Then came Chelsea’s away match against Newcastle: the Blues collapsed in the first half, conceding two goals, and only managed to claw back to a draw in the second half. Despite having a chance to win after halftime, the early deficit proved costly. Enzo Fernández was absent, leaving the midfield lacking hardness and connection. The central defenders repeatedly made mistakes, while Fofana’s return was below standard, exposing the defense and allowing Newcastle’s tall striker to score easily. On the left, Garnacho repeatedly broke through, but as everyone knows, he can dribble but cannot deliver decisive passes or shots—his finishing wildly unpredictable. Countless chances were wasted, and Chelsea had to rely on a captain’s free kick and striker Padu’s scrappy effort to equalize, hardly a product of tactical coordination.

Maresca is undoubtedly a good coach, but not yet a top‑tier one. He has no truly remarkable achievements, essentially serving as an assistant to famous managers. Though he has occasionally won trophies such as the Club World Cup and the Europa Conference League, those were flashes of inspiration, often thanks to Cole Palmer’s individual brilliance. He is frequently criticized for rigid squad rotation, mechanical substitutions, and poor tactical preparation. He even lacks the basic understanding that winning titles requires beating mid‑table teams consistently while aiming to avoid defeat against stronger sides. His lineups change every match, often inexplicably. Against Newcastle, for example, Enzo warmed up but never got a chance to play, leaving the midfield in disarray and the team nearly collapsing. His claim of “not being supported” reflects the club’s search for his replacement. Chelsea has a history of frequent managerial changes, and this season several clubs have improved after switching coaches. Even mid‑table sides have climbed into the top six thanks to sound tactics. Chelsea’s slump during the Christmas period has become routine: struggling even against relegation candidates, while only showing flashes against stronger teams. Under such conditions, winning the league is nearly impossible.

The idea of “giving enough time for the team to grow” is unrealistic—two seasons should be sufficient, and big clubs cannot afford to wait without results. Although a coaching change is unlikely right now, the club has already consulted Crystal Palace’s manager. After the World Cup, more options will be available: Brazil’s Carlo Ancelotti, England’s Tuchel, and even Mourinho, who once brought glory to Chelsea. Many top coaches are open to returning. Tuchel often attends matches, Mourinho recently revisited Stamford Bridge in an emotional gesture, and Ancelotti once delivered a domestic double. There are only a handful of elite coaches worldwide, and Chelsea must hire one to achieve success.

In recent years, Chelsea’s transfer and managerial decisions have been problematic: buying only young players instead of the best, hiring coaches they like rather than those most suitable. Under American ownership, chaos was inevitable—seen in other clubs too—but Chelsea’s massive spending with little coherence is especially disappointing. Since Trump’s rise brought erratic governance, American investors have similarly mismanaged Chelsea. Given that U.S. influence has indirectly receded from NATO after the Russia‑Ukraine war, perhaps Americans should also step back from front‑stage control of European clubs. In reality, Chelsea’s major investments—from player transfers to sponsorship—are largely driven by Middle Eastern funds.