Less than seven months and just 31 games into a five-year contract at Stamford Bridge, the short-lived Graham Potter era officially came to an end at Chelsea on Sunday.
Potter was sacked following a 2-0 home defeat to Aston Villa which left Chelsea in the bottom half of the table, 12 points adrift of the Champions League places with only 10 games of their season to go.
A mixture of poor results and an unprecedented financial outlay on new players had caused speculation over Potter's future to rage for much of his tenure, with the Englishman departing Chelsea with the joint-lowest points-per-game ratio of any of their managers in the Premier League era.
However, while many Chelsea fans have been calling for his head for some time, there has also been sympathy for the 47-year-old, who earned his move to Chelsea off the back of impressive, against-the-odds success at Ostersunds, Swansea City and Brighton & Hove Albion.
Whether Potter's reputation as one of the best up-and-coming managers in the country has been irreparably damaged by his Stamford Bridge stint remains to be seen, but questions have also been asked of the Chelsea board and owners, who made the decision earlier this season to dispense of Champions League-winning boss Thomas Tuchel and replace him with a manager with no Champions League experience at all.
Despite public assurances that the club were in it for the long haul with Potter, they now find themselves searching for a third manager of a hugely disappointing season - but was sacking Potter the right decision?
Here, the Sports Mole team discuss their views on the matter.
Barney Corkhill, Editor
There are so many layers and facets to both sides of this argument that it is difficult to give a definitive, black-and-white answer, but the joy and relief of many Chelsea fans at the news of Potter's exit is perhaps the bottom line.
The supporters never truly got behind the manager - probably more down to their dismay at the sacking of Tuchel rather than any ill-feeling towards Potter himself - and the only thing that will turn that around is a good run of results which Chelsea never really threatened to get.
In modern-day football, at a club the size of Chelsea, a 38.7% win percentage simply is not good enough, even over a relatively short period. Even more damning is the fact that they sit 11th in the table, as close to the relegation zone as they are the Champions League places; given their eye-watering expenditure on players since Todd Boehly's takeover, missing out on Champions League qualification will be an enormous blow.
A lot of Potter's decision-making was questioned, although there is an acceptance that there were mitigating factors regarding injuries and simply managing a huge squad filled with big-money new arrivals all of whom probably expect to play each week. Not many managers would complain at having such a big cash injection into the playing squad, but in this scenario it was perhaps a case of too much of a good thing.
On the flip side, there is an argument that a different manager would be able to make things work with the considerable amount of tools at Chelsea's disposal; that is an argument we may get the answer to in the coming months.
The situation with the fans, the performances and the results probably means that it was the right decision to sack Potter, but it shines a spotlight on the decision to appoint him in the first place, or perhaps more tellingly to sack Tuchel.
Potter's time at Stamford Bridge cannot be classed as a success by any stretch of the imagination, but it feels like his reputation has not suffered too much of a hit; getting another big six club might not be on the horizon, but the Leicester City job has handily become available at the same time and, although he is reportedly not interested in it, a club of that size seems ideal for him.
Instead, the people who have come out worst from this reputationally are the owners and the board. They publicly committed to a long-term project with Potter but blinked after less than seven months, spent ludicrous amounts of money with a seemingly scattergun approach, sacked a manager who routinely got them into major finals in Tuchel, and have now sacked his replacement - all in less than a year since taking over.
They positioned themselves as being different to Roman Abramovich's ruthless and trigger-happy approach, but with two managers of varying success having already been fired, their actions have not backed up their words so far. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but even at the time sacking Tuchel and replacing him with Potter seemed a bold move, and they may ultimately look back at that as their major mistake.
Darren Plant, Senior Reporter
Whichever way that you spin it, Graham Potter's record at Chelsea put him at risk of the sack in the event that Todd Boehly and co lost their nerve with regards to his appointment, yet that does mean that the decision to remove him from the dugout is the correct one.
Chelsea are at the start of a process, going through a transition, call it what you will, and it is debatable whether Potter had any significant influence on the signings which were made in January. He's been working with a group of players which is seven or eight players too deep, dealt with injury issues which have disrupted any rhythm and had to do his best to keep everyone motivated. Regardless of the talent available to him, it's been a nigh-on impossible task.
When the dust has settled and Chelsea are moving forward with his replacement, Potter will still end up with a high-profile job because his stock hasn't fallen. That should tell you something about whether Sunday's decision was right or not. Instead, Chelsea's hierarchy look like a shambles. They gave someone a five-year contract, mistakenly perceived ambition and progress to come through throwing cash at everything and sack someone who they have made look weak because they were narrow-minded with their approach.
If Potter was given time to work his own players, Chelsea would have improved in time, but there are too many figures with influence and fancy names behind the scenes. Chelsea want to tie any newcomers to seven and eight-year contracts, but given the chaos that these owners are causing, I wouldn't want to commit to a quarter of that timeframe, never mind what effectively equates to half of a career.
Joel Lefevre, Reporter
It pains me to say this about a man I have the utmost respect for and someone humble and classy despite the criticism against him, but I think Graham Potter had to go.
In his seven months at Chelsea, the team got progressively worse and while managing so many new faces and building chemistry takes time, I never saw enough progression during his tenure, which suggested this was going to be a proper fit, and I have to say I thought he was a great choice at the time, though looking back perhaps it was wishful thinking.
Conceding over 30 goals, scoring a little more than that and winning fewer than 40% of matches during his tenure is simply not good enough for most teams, let alone a club that's expected to contend for major trophies each season and has an enormous budget like Chelsea.
I believe Potter is still an intelligent manager who deserves a chance to coach another Premier League side, however, based on what we saw from him with the Blues, it appears to me like a big six team was too much pressure for Potter, so perhaps clubs similar in stature to Brighton are where his skills are best suited.
Marvelous Adepoju, Reporter
Chelsea were right to sack Graham Potter.
Chelsea's run of form under Graham Potter was the worst the Blues have experienced since that infamous 2015-16 season when they ended in 10th place.
While a section of the Chelsea faithful might leap to Potter's defence under the umbrella of having key players injured on several occasions, the Englishman simply didn't do enough with the resources at his disposal for large periods of his seven-month stint.
Joshua Ojele, Reporter
Absolutely. Under Potter's watch, Chelsea have dropped into the bottom half and seen their hopes of a place in Europe severely dashed.
Just one win against the current top 10 and three away wins so far is not only unacceptable for a club of Chelsea's stature but for the millions already invested by the new owners. Let's not forget early cup exits, poor derby displays and worrying player regression under the Englishman.
Potter seemed like a nice guy, but the job was ultimately too big for him and this was often revealed by his lack of tactical astuteness.
body check tags ::
