New column in Chelsea mag. Published June 11, prior to Scolari appointment

LET'S BEGIN AT THE END...the end of last season that is...and get one thing straight right away.
The sacking of Avram Grant was the right decision if, and it is a big if, it takes the club forwards in the way that say the sacking of Sven Goran Eriksson has done at Manchester City.
Few City fans backed the decision by Thai owner Thaksin Shinawatra to dump the former England manager, arguing he had done a decent job at Eastlands.
They demonstrated at their last game of the season, demanding he be retained. But they are not demonstrating now. Indeed many are secretly applauding the decision.
Why? Easy answer in two words: Mark Hughes.
Few of them had given Shinawatra the perception and vision to appoint a man who arguably can take them to heights they have not scaled since the late 60s and the heyday of Lee, Summerbee, Bell etc
And the similarities with the Bridge are uncanny: a foreigner (Roman Abramovich) is once again seen as having no real perception of how a club should be run and managed, and it is widely believed he does not have the vision, or even the discipline, to appoint the right man to coach his team.
Yet for their faults, both Shinawatra and Abramovich have come into clubs that were in a financial mess and turned them around quickly on the field (the Thai with Eriksson, Roman with Jose Mourinho). Now they both want to improve on the foundations they have laid - and what is wrong with that? Surely, we should give them more credit than we do?
Some Chelsea fans argued Grant should be granted (excuse the contrived play on words!) an extension; that his feat in taking the club to runners-up spot in the Premiership and the same outcome in the Champions League had earned him a chance to at least establish his credentials over a full season.
Many others believed he was out of his depth and that the club had stormed to an end of season push purely because of player power. I am one of those in the latter bracket: I do not feel Grant is good enough to take on Sir Alex Ferguson and Arsene Wenger on a regular basis. Like the Blue non-believers, I would go along with the opinion that Chelsea FC largely managed themselves for the run-in - or more particularly John Terry, Frank Lampard and the ever improving and influential Michael Ballack did.
Grant's role appeared more that of a benign uncle sat on the touchlines, ready to embrace the players with a hug and keep spirits up - and full credit to him for that. In that sense, he was a success, but I do not see him having the footballing vision, perception or tactical nous to usurp Ferguson.
Which brings us to the future and his successor.
For me, there were always three major candidates for the job: Carlo Ancelotti, Frank Rijkaard and Big Phil Scolari. Outside those, there were Hughes and the sacked Inter Milan boss Roberto Mancini. I contend Hughes is a fine choice at Man City, but don’t know if he would have been for Chelsea. I am not convinced he can put together an entertaining enough team to satisfy Blues fans, or even for that matter, Manchester United fans given he is always mentioned as a possible successor to Ferguson when old purple face finally hangs up his chewing gum.
My pick would have been Ancelotti. Yes, I know you could argue he failed last season at AC Milan (they finished 5th, outside the Champions League spots), but he has won the Champions League twice - and that is what Roman Abramovich craves more than anything. He is also a proven motivator of big names (Kaka being the biggest) and, despite looking like a knackered Italian version of the Pilsbury dough man, is the right age at 49. He is a winner.
Of the other two, either would bring charisma to the job - and both Scolari and Rijkaard are also winners. Scolari's detractors would argue he has not managed in Europe - well, the last I heard, the Portuguese national team was still in Europe, and he ain't done a bad job there! He may seem a maverick, but there is much more depth to the man than meets the eye.
As for Rijkaard, again his record speaks for itself - particularly winning the Champions League with attacking, wonderful football with Barca in 2006.
Even the outsider Mancini could surely do a better job than Grant although I rated him the least attractive option of the big names. Having said that, he did win three Serie A crowns with Inter Milan.
Which brings us nicely to Mr Mourinho, still regarded by many as the king of Stamford Bridge, even almost a year after he was sacked. I am going to stick my neck out here and say I think Jose has made a big mistake succeeding Mancini at the San Siro.
I am one of his biggest fans and admirers, but I can't see the logic in the move - apart from the bulging salary, of course. Jose is a man who takes on teams with potential and takes them higher, turns them into champions and is a man who regenerates clubs from top to bottom with his mighty ego and managerial brilliance.
In short, he casts a large shadow wherever he goes; he lifted the blues at Porto and at Chelsea, even winning the Champions League with the little-fancied Portuguese club.
Yet Inter may provide problems. The players already believe they are champions after winning those three successive Serie A titles, and may not be as receptive of his methods (and his ego!) as were Porto and Chelsea.
He has to win the Champions League in his first season at Inter to show the dismissal of Mancini was the correct decision, and I don't think he will do it. I believe Chelsea or Man Utd will win it and have him crying in his pasta.
My feeling is that Jose’s heart remains at Stamford Bridge and that one day - when he has accumulated sufficient millions - Chelsea will have a new foreign owner if Roman tires of the job. That man will be Jose Mourinho – and I bet few Blues fans would argue then about the owner trying to pick the team!

FRANK WORRALL