It took just 72 hours for Chelsea to ditch Avram Grant after eight months of tenure at Stamford Bridge.

The fans have been given their sacrificial lamb to defend the club's reputation over the long barren months of the summer ahead. The message being broadcast is to forget about John Terry's slip; Chelsea's failings are all Avram Grant's fault.

So why was Grant fired? Is there any defence? I have been reading the comments left on other Sportingo articles discussing this topic, and I have some bones to pick with the justifications being offered.

'Grant did a stellar job at Chelsea, and far outstripped all expectations which had him labeled for failure from day one'


"Chris D" tries to convince readers to take into consideration "the possibility that Grant was never supposed to be a permanent replacement and maybe he was only given a contract to create bit of stability in the minds of the squad."

Well Chris, that’s just nonsense. Grant was installed at Chelsea on a four-year contract, which is hardly an indicator that "Mr. Average" was only meant to be a seat-warmer. If a water-carrier is all the Blues needed then the contract would only have been for one or two years, as is commonplace in football.

Rather, all signs show that Grant was selected for the long-term, and his dismissal after just eight months is evidence of how quickly the rug was pulled from beneath his feet.

"Amit Naik" echoes a common complaint which is directed at Grant. "Grant did what a 5th grade student can do. He has played [a] season with Jose's team so he has done nothing."

The criticism runs that Grant was just a stand-in for the Special One, who added nothing and changed nothing, and for that is classed a dunce. But something doesn't stack up here. When Mourinho was managing the same squad of players and recording results which were highly comparable to the Israeli, the Portgeezer was deemed a genius. But for Grant the argument runs that it was the players rather than the manager who were the root cause of any success, leaving Avram without merit.

Obviously something is wrong here as it doesn't make sense that two people with the same tools, and recording comparable results, should be so diametrically opposed when assessing their standing. Such an argument suffers from a chronic lack of symmetry.

Then there are the people represented by the views of "j turner". "Glad he's gone. Never wanted him, don't think the team did, never had any faith in him, don't think the team did, never understood what he actually did, don't think the team did."

Such views reflect the total lack of respect Grant was afforded by many at Chelsea. Thinking they have a divine right to success, many Chelsea fans never gave Grant a chance due to his low-profile status. Never mind football results, what matters at Stamford Bridge are that you look good on TV and in the papers. Chelsea demands charisma and pizzazz, not a toad-looking fella who dresses like an undertaker.

Monkey balls!

Grant did a stellar job at Chelsea, and far outstripped all expectations which had him labeled for failure from day one. Where Rafa Benitez and the 'oh-so-clever' Arsene Wenger fell by the wayside in the title race, the Blues remained steadfast and duked it out with Sir Alex Ferguson's 'best team ever', all the way until the final day of the season and then onto Moscow.

Never before had Chelsea played in a Champions League final. Grant broke that duck. And while it is true that the Blues failed to perform in the Carling Cup against Spurs, had John Terry scored, Grant's name would have been de facto etched in history along with the greats in Blues' history.

The whole story of Grant's life at Chelsea is a disgrace. From the moment he was appointed as the Blues' manager he was derided, and matters only got worse from then on. Never did the Chelsea management truly back the Israeli, often releasing sound-bites which left his position publicly undermined. In the final few months of his reign, even his good pal Roman Abramovich was nowhere to be found.

The real question that needs to be asked is not why Avram Grant was fired, but why the Chelsea board acted so recklessly in putting a man up for a job whom they never believed in from the outset.