Reports of Mourinho's departure from Stamford Bridge are now extensive with the debate now centering on whether he resigned or was fired. Here are the latest articles from a couple British newspapers with their take on the shock development - the Times and the Guardian. The Daily Telegraph and the Independent currently are without a story although the Telegraph contains a link to ESPN Soccernet.

With Ballack in the mix, Lampard's role become less clear and subsequently the English midfielder became less effective. Prior to his move to Stamford Bridge Ballack has been the fulcrum of the midfield at Bayer Leverkusen, Bayern Munich and with the German national side. Two players trying to play the same role did not work as England has experienced when Steven Gerrard and Lampard were teamed together.

While the problem of Ballack and Lampard in the midfield became more obvious as the season progressed the issue of Shevchenko's role was more apparent, in fact almost from the start. In order to play Shevchenko, Mourinho had two options - the first was to opt for the former Milan man over Drogba. Although Drogba struggled at times in his first Premiership season in 2005, it was clear to all by season two that the Ivory Coast striker was a game-winner and not someone who needed to play second-fiddle to anyone.

That left Mourinho with the option of moving to a 4-4-2 formation which he fielded for most of last season. It was a system that rarely flattered Chelsea and left them generally looking disjointed and lacking the balance and pace that was on show during Mourinho's first two seasons in charge.

What's more Chelsea seemed to lose the mental edge and application that had been such an important part of their game when the won back-to-back titles. As the fear receded in other sides Chelsea was forced more frequently to come from behind to salvage a draw or to pull off a win - a position they had rarely found themselves in before.

With rumours rife of the owner and the manager not speaking the club appeared to grow more dysfunctional as last season progressed. The move to bring in Avram Grant looked to be the straw that was to break the manager’s back but a peace deal was brokered that appeared from the outside to have everyone comfortably playing in their own sandbox. However, reports that owner Abramovich was on a mission to sign Ronaldinho just before the August 31 transfer deadline, was perhaps a clue that the fix was only a band-aid solution and the cracks quickly reemerged.  

Over the last two or three weeks the issues have compounded – an unsatisfactory explanation as to why Michael Ballack was left of the Champions League roster; the Shevchenko dilemma escalated as the Ukrainian striker put in good performance against Italy something not seen in a Chelsea uniform; a loss to Aston Villa and a draw with Blackburn in the Premiership; an embarrassing tie at home in front of a small crowd to Norwegian team Rosenborg; and then perhaps the final sign that Mourinho had cracked – his egg story at a press conference this week.

So what now for Mourinho? It’s not good news for incumbent managers. Knowing that Mourinho is again on the market provides any trigger happy Chairman with a ready replacement should any of the big clubs stumble in the next few weeks.

As for a replacement two names will be prominent. Fabio Capello is available and if Chelsea is looking for a proven and tested winner then Capello fits the bill to a tee. The other is Guus Hiddink, currently in charge of Russia’s national team. Abramovich is rumoured to have brokered the deal that placed Hiddink in charge and so there does appear to be a prior relationship.

That potential move does however come with complications beyond Hiddink dumping Russia and it comes in the form of Frank Arnesen, the current Sporting Director at Stamford Bridge (another chief!). Arnesen and Hiddink worked together at PSV Eindhoven a few years back until PSV management opted to dump the Dane in a power struggle that Hiddink won.