Chelsea fans can afford to be forgiving if Roman Abramovich's money makes sure they don't pay for sacking a manager... and why Cristiano Ronaldo won't be back at Manchester United

• e-mail

Due to the time difference between London and Auckland, and a scheduling commitment to the build-up to the first British Lions Test, it’s almost a 5 Points Chelsea special this week. Fortunately, that’s still quite a broad church. As is this.

Point one: about the tolerance levels of Stamford Bridge attendees.

Chelsea are playing Russian roulette as far as the manager is considered. Get rid of Antonio Conte and they could end up playing four years at Wembley to small crowds. The fans will not forgive Chelsea if Conte leaves. Chelseafanclub, London.

You reckon? I think they’re quite a forgiving bunch, actually. Either that, or pretty shallow and wholly concerned with success, depending on your point of view. Put it like this, as long as they keep winning they’ll continue supporting whatever is in front of them, no matter the circumstances or the collateral damage. When Jose Mourinho left the first time, there was initial resistance to Roman Abramovich. Then Avram Grant took them to the brink of Champions League success and it evaporated. The same with bad feeling over the sacking of any manager from Carlo Ancelotti to a club hero such as Roberto Di Matteo. Remember the animosity towards Eden Hazard, Cesc Fabregas and Diego Costa over Mourinho’s second departure last season? The fans got over it soon enough once the same players were top of the league under Conte. The only way Chelsea would play to small or unforgiving crowds at Wembley would be if Conte left and a series of replacements then failed. Experience suggests, however, that Abramovich will throw enough money at the problem that this won’t happen.

Point two: the Chelsea way – success from chaos?

You make fair points, but as a Chelsea fan I have to wonder how long our ‘success from chaos’ model will endure. Surely it will come back to bite us eventually, if only because we will run out of managers to hire. If Conte is sacked or forced to resign, it will be a monumental blunder. Kev DC, Weybridge.

Abramovich's ruthlessness with managers makes it bewildering that he isn’t equally brutal with his director of football. Arguably Chelsea’s atrocious transfer dealings in 2015 were a big contributor to the complacency in the squad that resulted in a disastrous season after winning the league under Mourinho. Blutopia, London.

The present situation is not about Conte versus Costa or Conte versus any other player for that matter. It’s about who controls the club and who controls transfers, and it’s not Conte because that isn’t how Abramovich works. If Conte’s happy with that, fine, and if he’s not then eventually he will leave or be dismissed. Pat57, Exeter.

You may have noticed, Pat, that in my piece about Conte and how Chelsea work, I made no reference to the supposed spat over the text message to Costa. That’s because I’m not buying it as a big issue. Conte may have overstepped his authority here, but I don’t see this as the reason for friction. I think the ripples of discontent are coming from him, more than them. He wants transfer targets delivered; he wants greater control in this area. He isn’t going to get it and, as you say, he either accepts this or he won’t last long. I take Bluto’s point about 2015 but, as he acknowledges, Abramovich is completely behind Michael Emenalo and Marina Granovskaia, who are the constants amid the executive turmoil. 

As for the success from chaos theory, what we can never know is what Chelsea would have won with more patience. After Mourinho left in 2007, for instance, Chelsea did not win the league again until 2010. Would he have got it right sooner? The same with Ancelotti, gone in 2011. Would Chelsea have had to wait until 2015 for their next title had he stayed? There is a middle ground between the legacy projects of Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson, and the constant upheaval at Stamford Bridge. It is this that has never been fully explored. And I agree, it did seem for a little while that Chelsea were running out of options. When they re-appointed Mourinho it reminded me of the line from those old cookery shows. 'Here’s one we sacked earlier…'

Chelsea boss Antonio Conte wants transfer targets met and greater control over that area

Point three: The media? What do they know?

Conte has rubbished claims that he will leave many times and reiterated his desire to stay for many years. Do you really think Abramovich will choose a want-away, selfish mercenary like Costa over him? LMFAO. But this is typical from the media. Every time they want to create unrest or friction between Chelsea and the manager, they start writing articles about the manager being unhappy with his inability to obtain full control at the club. This is daft, because no manager at any modern ambitious club has genuine control. Conte is here to stay. Deal with it. EnglishRuleOnEarth, London.

Yes, when I look back at all the times Chelsea have made the media look ridiculous having speculated the manager could be sacked. Mourinho, Grant, Luiz Felipe Scolari, Ancelotti, Andre Villas-Boas, Di Matteo, Mourinho again – what fools we have been. Remember we said there were issues between Conte and Costa last season, too. I know, what were we thinking? A good job we have EROE here to set us straight and tell us what is really going on. I think reading his well-informed missive – and let’s face it, why shouldn’t the English rule the earth, we’re doing such a great job of running our country at the moment – we can all guarantee Conte is here for the long haul. By the way, for our older readers, I looked up LMFAO and apparently it stands for Laughing My F****** Ass Off. As I have often said, IRDHTSTSCAUFB. Or, for those not down with the kids, I Really Do Have To Sift Through Some Complete And Utter Fu... (...that’s enough acronyms - Ed.)

Point four: Fed up with Chelsea? May I interest you in a tactical appraisal of Cristiano Ronaldo and Manchester United?

Do Manchester United even want Ronaldo back? With Kylian Mbappe up front for France, England had a stretched defence who were worried about his pace. This left the midfield open and Paul Pogba then had his best game of the season, playing balls in to a striker with pace. Last season United had Zlatan Ibrahimovic coming deep and Pogba was average. Ronaldo, at 32, would be similar to Zlatan. He would be less likely to make runs forward and stretch the defence. Surely it would be better to play Marcus Rashford and Pogba like France did with Mbappe, although Mourinho probably won’t do it. The Voice of Reason, England.

No, I don’t think he will. I don’t think he is as yet convinced by Rashford as a No 9, which is why United are in the market for a striker. I fear for Rashford at present. With United about to buy a central striker and Harry Kane clearly the first choice for Gareth Southgate in that role, he could end up squeezed into wide positions for club, and country. 

Talking to Stan Collymore at England’s match with Scotland, he said that we tend to produce what he termed ‘generic’ forwards in this country: players who can do a bit left, right or through the middle. Utility strikers, really. Not wide men, not wingers, but not centre forwards either. Think about it: Danny Welbeck, Theo Walcott, Wayne Rooney, Daniel Sturridge, now Rashford – they all ended up a bit like that. I know they have those players on the continent, too – Dirk Kuyt was brilliant at it, Antoine Griezmann plays a variety of positions for Atletico Madrid – but it will be a shame if Rashford never really gets a proper run in the central role, and the chance to grow into the position as Kane has done. 

As for Ronaldo, I don’t think he does come deep as he used to. He has almost reinvented himself as a striker in the last 12 months, conserving energy by staying high up the field. I think he would work brilliantly with Pogba actually: I just can’t see the transfer happening, from either his or United’s perspective.

Cristiano Ronaldo is in Russia with Portugal but I can't see him heading back to Manchester

Point five: an excuse to play a fine Harry Nilsson song, masquerading as a discussion of the abilities of Guus Hiddink.

The Chelsea hierarchy much prefer a manager in the style of Hiddink. He got results, but was always calm and never ruffled feathers. That’s why he was and still is loved by Abramovich and all of the players. He’s well respected everywhere. Dave5281, Maidstone.

Hiddink won the FA Cup in his first spell as Chelsea manager, but there is a bit of a myth around his return in 2015. He only thrived in comparison to the debacle that had unfolded around Mourinho. Hiddink’s first game was against Watford on December 26. Up to that date, Chelsea had collected 18 points from 17 matches, at an average of 1.05, a dismal return. In the 21 games played with Hiddink in charge, Chelsea got 32 points from 21 games, at an average of 1.52 and rose from 15th to 10th. So in that respect, as you say Dave, he got results. Yet 1.52 points per game over a 38-game season amounts to 57.76, which in 2015-16 would have equated to ninth place. So it really wasn’t that great. Now, Hiddink was walking into a club in turmoil, so there is mitigation, but even so Chelsea should have been better than that. Anyway, as you say he’s well respected everywhere, which sounds a little like the line from Simon Smith And His Amazing Dancing Bear, which made me think of the brilliant Harry Nilsson cover version and – well, regular readers know how this column works. The song was written by Randy Newman who, as a Jew born in 1943, remembers a time when it wasn’t so easy for outsiders to get accepted in polite society. Simon Smith gets in because he has a gimmick. “It’s a gentile bear,” Newman deadpanned many years later. Stick with 5 Points, kids. It’s not much fun but it’s educational. Until next time.