SOMETIMES you wonder if it's just what is known in professional wrestling circles as a "work": a made-up dispute designed to create more interest and debate.

Indeed, with the Premier League winner pretty much settled - Chelsea could clinch it today when they play Crystal Palace - and the European places also determined, there isn't that much else to talk about.

So instead, let's debate whether Chelsea are boring.

It's a logical narrative because it suits everybody involved. It is made for the short-attention span. More attacking - or conventionally fun to watch - clubs can feel good about themselves, because they are not "boring".

Jose Mourinho and a certain breed of Chelsea fan can feel under siege (maybe from the same "dark forces" who were behind the "campaign" and, before that the "conspiracy"). And earnest-looking former pros- turned-pundits can trot out the time-worn cliches about "Joe-Say" being a "winner" and being judged on results and how the table never lies.

It all lies somewhere at the nexus of inanity, childishness and the way so much mainstream media talks down to football supporters.

The truth of the matter is that Chelsea were very attacking and played very well in the first half of the season. And then, probably due to fatigue and a lack of rotation, they played considerably less well and became more conservative and defensive in their approach.

Mourinho quite clearly went into this Premier League campaign convinced that the "safety-first" approach wasn't quite right. So where last season he had two primarily defensive players in front of the back four - usually some combination of Nemanja Matic, John Obi Mikel, Ramires, Frank Lampard and David Luiz - this campaign his 4-2-3-1 has seen Cesc Fabregas line up alongside Matic. And the Catalan is a much more attack-minded force and one who is given freedom to roam and to effectively be this team's deep-lying playmaker.

That's the real innovation as I see it. Mourinho, who almost exclusively played a pair of defensive midfielders in the past now mixes it up with a genuine, deep playmaker. (And, for Fabregas, it means getting to play the Xavi position he was never allowed to fully embrace at the Camp Nou.) But when the going got really tough, he ditched it for a more conservative approach, which, of course, is standard Mourinho.

If you want to debate something, debate whether next season's Chelsea will look like the conservative one of the past few weeks or the expansive one seen in the first half of the season. In other words, does Mourinho believe he needs to play more attacking football - and what we've seen the past few weeks is merely a necessary blip - or will the first months of the campaign be remembered as a failed - but entertaining - experiment?

Time will tell. In the interim, Mourinho will likely win his third Premier League title today, prompting both the hagiographies from his supporters and the hatchet jobs from his critics, whether or not they are all just playing parts in a giant "work".

NIGEL Pearson has been called a bully repeatedly this season. He's had run-ins with fans and the media, culminating most recently in a bizarre exchange with a Midlands reporter where he called him "an ostrich" (head in the sand and all that) and seemed boastful of the fact that he was flexible enough to physically put his head in the sand, unlike the reporter.

Two days later, after Pearson apologised, a BBC radio man subjected Pearson to an excruciating seven minute and 22 second grilling in which, amongst other things, he suggested "anger management".

Participating in that exchange was simply a bad idea for the Leicester City manager and you fail to understand why he didn't simply say: "Look I apologised in public, let's move on."

Instead, he joined in the needless exchange, which inevitably only served to make him look sillier and more awkward than before. You almost felt sorry for the way he obliviously walked into it. Because, truth be told, Pearson doesn't come across as a bully.

There are bullying managers and their bullying works because they intimidate. Pearson may be physically intimidating, but his words aren't. When he stares at his interlocutor, it's not a death stare, it's more like the gears are grinding in his head to help him figure out what to do next. His body language is that of an awkward teenager. And his put-downs? Ostrich? Really?

Pearson strikes you as someone trying to be something he's not.

Former team-mates say that beneath the bouncer exterior, he is bright in a bookish sort of way. The tough guy schtick makes him appear silly. It would be something you laugh about, if not for the fact that his players are embroiled in a relegation dogfight.

And his employers might not see the humorous side.

CLUBS employ press officers for the same reason politicians do: to relay simple, easy-to- understand messages. The latest came on Friday from Liverpool. They spread the word that, because Raheem Sterling turned down a contract worth £100,000 a week, then he's effectively losing £65,000 a week, or around £1 million every three months.

Couple this with Brendan Rodgers' insistence that Sterling - whose deal expires next year - won't be sold this summer, you reach the conclusion he's mad not to ink a new contract, given he's going to lose £4m between now and June 2016.

There's a flip-side to all this, of course. Sterling may indeed lose loads if he doesn't sign the deal. But if it comes to that, he will leave the club as a free agent and, at the age of 21, put pen to paper on an enormous long-term contract.

And what will Liverpool lose in that scenario? Only a player worth north of £40m. Who has more to lose here, with every day that passes?

Exactly.