AVB has to earn stability

The fact that Didier Drogba came on at half-time and helped them find the equaliser prompted questions about whether the Ivorian had conducted the half-time team talk.

"This is ridiculous!", Villas-Boas retorted. "Why would Didier be doing the half-time team talks? It is ridiculous. I will not comment on this story. It is ridiculous."

True or not – and odds are, it's probably a gross exaggeration, these are the questions you face when you're under fire. And Villas- Boas undoubtedly is. The round of 16 Champions League clash with Napoli on Tuesday takes on huge significance. Elimination from this competition, coupled with a finish outside the top four – they currently sit in fifth place, behind Arsenal on goal difference – will almost certainly cost him his job.

If Villas-Boas is relieved of duty in 2012, whether in the next few weeks, in the summer or after a poor start next season, you will hear plenty of tut-tutting from the punditocracy. They will, no doubt, remind you that whoever replaces the former Portuguese wunderkind will be Chelsea's seventh manager in five years.

They will shake their heads, talk about the folly of trigger-happy owners and lecture you about the importance of stability and the perils of knee-jerk reactions. Let's knock that one on the head straight away, shall we?

Chelsea may have had plenty of managers since the departure of one Jose Mourinho in September 2007. But that doesn't mean Abramovich is some nut with a smoking Magnum .44. Guus Hiddink and Avram Grant came and went, but neither was sacked. They were interim bosses all along.

Mourinho's departure was one of those murky mutual consent deals, but, if you're going to consider it a sacking, you've got to admit he basically sacked himself. The club had set up a veritable megastructure with a high profile chief executive, Peter Kenyon, and a high profile director of football, Frank Arnesen. The idea was to set up some kind of self-sustaining club that could continue to be successful and profitable over time, even once the Special One rode off into the sunset.

You can argue whether Kenyon and Arnesen were the right people for their jobs, but what's not in dispute is that Mourinho's constant rowing with both did not help his position. As one Chelsea insider put it: "He wanted to be omnipotent like Sir Alex Ferguson, without making the kind of commitment Sir Alex made to United. And forgetting that United were already one of the biggest clubs in the world before he arrived, whereas Chelsea were trying to build from scratch."

So the only two bosses Abramovich has actually fired in the past five years were Luiz Felipe Scolari and Carlo Ancelotti. Not even the Brazilian's staunchest supporters would question the decision to let him go; his career arc after leaving Stamford Bridge – Bunyodkor in Uzbekistan and then a bumpy ride back at Palmeiras – suggests Chelsea aren't exactly missing out. Ancelotti, of course, who had led them to a league title, is a different story. But whichever way you slice it, Abramovich's managerial history does not make him the second coming of Jesus Gil, the former club president of Atletico Madrid. And, frankly, this whole "stability" business is somewhat overrated.

Yes, when you compare Chelsea to Manchester United or Arsenal – where the incumbents are in year 25 and year 12 of their respective tenures – Chelsea look the epitome of instability. But Sir Alex and Arsene Wenger are the longest- serving managers in their respective clubs' histories. They are statistical outliers, freaks, deviations from the norm. And their longevity is a function of their success, not the other way round.

Guess who is out of contract – again – this summer? Yes, Pep Guardiola. In what is becoming an annual ritual, the Barcelona boss is hinting that he's not sure about extending his stay at the Camp Nou.

No multi-year deals for him: he takes it one season at a time, based on how he feels.

"I know that I would not be better off somewhere else, but I need to feel it," he said. "I cannot work at such a demanding club if I don't have strength. I don't have it clear in my mind, that's why I am not saying whether the cycle has ended or whether I will extend."

Guardiola's honesty is jarring. In the macho world of football, managers don't usually talk about their own uncertainties and insecurities. They're taught to be strong and impervious to doubt from the time they were footballers. And those who ascend to become leaders of men – like Guardiola – are expected to see the world in black and white, with no shades of grey.

Is it also laudable? That's a different question. You never want to encourage dishonesty or false courage. But, by the same token, there's more to Barcelona than Guardiola. There is a medium-term plan, there are players who are there because of him, there are sponsors who have bought into a project.

He has said the same thing the last two seasons and, eventually, stayed on so maybe it's no big deal. But it doesn't change the fact that managers who are open about their emotions in this way make the rank and file uncomfortable.