Rosenior’s Adaptability Suits Chelsea’s Chaos | OneFootball

It is a sign of encouragement for Liam Rosenior that Chelsea fans have rallied behind him despite Tuesday night’s painful loss to Arsenal.

What little controversy exists has been almost entirely media-concocted, stemming from a fleeting moment of anger during the warm-up ahead of the Carabao Cup semi-final second leg. No matter how social media discourse or headlines have tried to frame it, Rosenior did not inflate a trivial incident unprovoked. A reporter asked two questions about it. Rosenior answered them.

Those facts are inconvenient for the extreme pettiness driving this narrative. Chelsea supporters have largely seen through the attempt to brand Rosenior as a loose cannon, or somehow “weird,” simply for responding honestly to a question.

Adaptability is Strength

In many ways, this episode reflects Rosenior’s broader early success at Stamford Bridge. Matches against Crystal Palace, Napoli, West Ham and Arsenal have showcased his lack of dogmatism in how Chelsea play. While there is some continuity from the Enzo Maresca era, there is already a sense that Rosenior has little shame in adapting.

Whether it’s showing fire against a bitter rival in defence of his club, or abandoning Plan A when it clearly isn’t working, Rosenior appears far from a one-note, predictable presence willing to die on the hill of his own ideology.

At Selhurst Park, Chelsea were unashamed to sit deeper and strike on the transition, leaning into the simplicity of their best talents. Three natural midfielders started, wingers stayed wide, and full-backs overlapped. Against Napoli, Chelsea entered half-time trailing and at risk of being overrun in a hostile environment.

Rosenior identified the problem and acted quickly. Chelsea pressed less aggressively, adjusted personnel, and—through the brilliance of João Pedro—overturned the deficit to win impressively.

The Ultimate Flex. Is Flexibility.

Disaster loomed last weekend when Chelsea found themselves 2–0 down at home to a dreadful West Ham side. One could argue there was no choice but to change, but in this modern, “process-driven” era of entrenched tactical identities, some coaches—by principle or stubbornness—are reluctant to admit they were wrong. Rosenior appears unconcerned with that. At the end of the day, no one cares how married you are to your ideas if you are successful.

Although the second leg at Arsenal ended in disappointment, the shift to a structured 3-4-3 against the Premier League leaders provided Chelsea with a platform to avoid a damaging early goal that would have ended the tie. Attacking shortcomings ultimately cost them, as Chelsea attempted to walk a tactical high-wire.

In a club as chaotic as Chelsea—where everything feels 100mph and long-term thinking is often mocked—being nimble enough to switch tactical plans, personnel, and approach feels more Chelsea-coded than rigid adherence to a holistic philosophy regardless of results. Finding the balance between those extremes will define Rosenior’s longevity in the role.

For those bored by the sameness that Maresca and others have occasionally been guilty of, it is difficult to argue Rosenior has delivered that so far. Performances have swung wildly, sometimes within the same game, and tactical variation has been constant.

A glass-half-empty perspective might reasonably highlight the flaws already visible in Rosenior’s Chelsea. The glass-half-full view, however, will look at the results and sense that momentum—something Chelsea have sorely lacked—may finally be returning.

You can follow my coverage of Chelsea on YouTube at SonOfChelsea. More written coverage of the club on Substack. Follow me on X for more thoughts, along with listening to the podcast.