Skip to main content

Nevermind the gaffer....

Cesc Fabregas's appearance on Sky with Thierry Henry last night has been seen by many as a confirmation that Chelsea players, and not the manager, are the true cause of the club's present malaise. But what Fabregas's appearance told me, quite categorically, was that the dressing room is a pernicious place to be. He was saying - and he would, wouldn't he? - that players had to take responsibility, had to lift themselves and show pride. What I didn't hear was any suggestion that the manager's behaviour had nothing to do with them being in the position they are in. This interview told me that the players recognise their responsibilities, but that it now doesn't matter how they got here and that they have to put in the hard yards to get themselves out of it. For me, rather than being a show of support for the manager, it was an interview with horrific subtexts. 

Henry, who as a consequence of his relationship with Fabregas likely knows far more about it than he can say on public television, arrowed in on this point when he suggested that whether you like Mourinho or not, he is now irrelevant and now is the time to show pride.  I have heard one fan say that Fabregas was suggesting players had "sabotaged" the season - we can't expect fans to hear anything but that which they want to hear, but Fabregas was saying nothing of the sort. Quite apart from his evident reluctance to be there, his language was, to anybody who cared to listen, damning. It is possible that Mourinho himself may have misunderstood it as well, but then, he does live in his own peculiar mental Ivory Tower.

Footballers are sensitive and precious and, above all, human. Fabregas can only go so far in what he says; and one would expect him to say the players need to show more. They do. But I found the interview painfully revealing of how they are all feeling at the moment. For football fans, the blame game is based on very, very thin lines. Right now, partly because of their adoration of Mourinho and partly because Mourinho goes out of his way to inform the narratives of player failure and betrayal, the fans are pouring a great deal of hate onto the team. Last year, when the same group won the league, they were of course pouring all the love onto Mourinho. Such is life and we have seen all this before from Jose. Some of us have always felt that Jose couldn't turn this around: he needed to take a very different course to the one he has evidently chosen, but as I suspected, that seems beyond his personality. It was fascinating (and alarmingly predictable) to hear him talk about how he elevated these players last season; I wonder if it would be scarcely credible if I were to have invented half of what he says sometimes, but with such comments, it is not difficult to see why the players probably wouldn't mind seeing the back of him.


Popular posts from this blog

Panic! Culture and the working class

A new report on the working class relationship with culture has been doing the rounds recently.
Panic! Social Class, Taste and Inequalities in the Creative Industries (which you can find here ( comes at the issue from the point of view of the working class and their opportunities to find careers in the cultural sector. I usually concern myself most with the audience aspects of this debate but this report does touch on matters that relate to that, too. The general issue was also recently making waves with respect to entrants into Oxbridge and with Owen Jones's huge Twitter spat about the class of those in the media. 
The Panic! report takes data from various sources and draws conclusions from it. Some of the conclusions are based on what appear to me to be oddly skewed impressions and some of the report sounds like an argument looking for a validation, rather t…

Emma Dent Coad - putting the record straight

Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad has again used OHP as a tool in her battles against RBKC. This piece once again quotes figures that are manifestly untrue.

The first time she quoted these figures was in her 'After Grenfell' paper on poverty. A great deal of misinformation has been circulated regarding OHP's costs over the years and the amount of money the council spent. Inflating, misreporting and dramatising the cost of supporting public arts only adds to the sense of outrage, increasing the climate of fear around local authority support for culture. When these arguments appear, little reference is made to expenditure on other services the council provides. We are an easy target.

Emma Dent-Coad's "After Grenfell" paper tied OHP to the disaster and quoted a FOI report from RBKC that purportedly revealed the council had spent "£30 million over 15 years" on the…

The Oxbridge divide

In the past couple of weeks the issue of privilege and the Oxbridge divide has been prominent on social media. The argument has essentially been that Oxbridge caters most to the privileged and monied, and further, excludes black students in particular. David Lammy extracted some data from Oxford which he believes shows Oxford is not doing well enough with respect to offering access to bright black and underprivileged students. I am not sure if he is suggesting Oxford is institutionally racist but the inference that Oxford actively excludes black and disadvantaged students is easy to draw from his comments on the matter. The statistics are quite complex and to me don't actually suggest Oxford is doing too badly, but this thread of tweets addresses the specifics very well;

To be frank, I am not entirely sure where to start with this discussion because those progressing the arguments against elite universities appear to misunderst…