Liam Rosenior at Chelsea: Have the Blues Finally Found the Right Manager?

When it comes to managers, Chelsea have tried almost everything. Serial winners with clashing philosophies, emotional short-term appointments designed to appease supporters, and long-term “project” managers who never truly saw the rewards of their work.

That is why the dismissal of Enzo Maresca felt different. Among fans, there was a growing sense that Chelsea were cycling through agreeable “yes men” rather than appointing leaders capable of challenging the structure above them. Into that atmosphere stepped Liam Rosenior a move greeted largely with ridicule.

Social media jokes branding Rosenior a “P.E. coach” reflected a fanbase worn down by years of churn and false starts. Yet results have quickly shifted the conversation. Five wins from his first six matches and qualification in the Champions League top eight represent a strong opening chapter. The question now is unavoidable: is this the start of something sustainable, or simply another short-term bounce?

Familiar Foundations, Subtle Shifts

At first glance, Rosenior’s Chelsea did not appear radically different. Against Charlton, the team continued to build in a back three, with Jorrel Hato inverting into the left half-space even scoring from the type of underlapping run Marc Cucurella perfected under Maresca. For many supporters, the concern was obvious: new manager, same ideas.

Subsequent matches, however, have revealed more nuance.

Maresca’s Chelsea were built to dominate transitions. His now-familiar 3-1-6 structure in possession prioritised control, with three defenders anchoring play, a single pivot protecting the middle, and six attackers pinning opponents back. The result was territorial dominance and strong underlying numbers, but also predictability against low blocks and a heavy reliance on Moisés Caicedo covering enormous spaces alone.

The football was often controlled, but sterile.

Rosenior’s Trade-Off: Speed Over Control

Rosenior has retained some positional principles while subtly altering the balance. Chelsea now resemble more of a 3-2-5 in possession, with an additional midfielder staying closer to Caicedo. In theory, this offers greater protection. In practice, it has produced a very different rhythm.

Attacking play has become quicker and more vertical. Combinations through midfield look sharper, third-man runs are more frequent, and individuals such as João Pedro and Andrey Santos have shown visible improvement. But the cost has been control.

Chelsea are turning the ball over more often and in more dangerous areas. Rather than suffocating opponents, Rosenior’s side have looked open and vulnerable once possession is lost. What appears to be a minor structural tweak has introduced a level of chaos thrilling at times, but risky.

What the Numbers Say

The warning signs are already visible beneath the results. Since Maresca’s departure, Chelsea’s expected goals conceded has exceeded their expected goals scored, suggesting outcomes have outpaced performances.

In both of Rosenior’s Premier League matches, Chelsea were outshot. Against Brentford, the disparity was stark: 15 shots to Chelsea’s six, with five on target to Chelsea’s two both of which happened to result in goals. Under Maresca, Chelsea regularly ranked among the league’s strongest sides for shot volume and attacking output, even if the football frustrated supporters.

This contrast raises an uncomfortable question: are Chelsea winning because of the new approach, or in spite of its instability?

The Defining Test

Rosenior deserves patience. Tactical transitions often bring sloppiness, and adaptation takes time. But sustainability will hinge on whether Chelsea can regain control without losing the attacking sharpness that has defined his early spell.

Rosenior himself has acknowledged the limits of coaching solutions, particularly against low blocks:

“Playing against low blocks, sometimes a coach can only do so much… Football is about the quality of your players.”

That may ultimately be the deciding factor. Systems provide structure, but execution defines outcomes. If Chelsea’s players cannot combine quality with composure, Rosenior risks becoming another chapter in a familiar cycle early optimism followed by inevitable collapse.

At Stamford Bridge, the hardest part has never been starting well.

It’s surviving long enough to finish the project.