For the first time in my life, I'm willing to publicly admit I agree with Piers Morgan on something that isn't America's fascination with bullet-fuelled high school massacres.

No doubt, in the last few months Chelsea's results have plummeted from abysmal to absurd. But as the curtain abruptly closed on Jose Mourinho's second, unprecedentedly polarised spell at Stamford Bridge yesterday afternoon, I couldn't help but think the reigning Premier League champions have made a monumental mistake.

If the Portuguese had been more open about his own misgivings over the last few weeks, perhaps he would still be in the job. Technical director Michael Emenalo has spoken of a 'palpable discord' between Mourinho and his players and I'm sure that has as much to do with what he's said publicly as behind the scenes.

[ffc-gal cat="chelsea" no="5"]

Notions of 'betrayal', murmurings of a mole in the camp and the increasingly loud soundbite of 'a couple of bad apples' all allude to the accusations of egocentric, paranoid finger-pointing that have swirled around Mourinho for much of his career and particularly since the Eva Carneiro scandal at the start of the season - which placed a stormy cloud over Stamford Bridge that is yet to be absolved.

No doubt, mistakes were made by the 52-year-old, including his handling of the club doctor. The chance to vastly enhance the squad wasn't taken up during the summer and Chelsea started their pre-season later than their Premier League rivals. That showed during the first few weeks of the season, losing to Arsenal in the Community Shield final and Manchester City before the end of August, and from there, the Blues never really recovered, as everything started to snowball into uncontrollable momentum along a downward spiral.

The biggest and most obvious criticism of such a talented is manager is his failure to turn things around. The best in the business aren't necessarily those who can sustain winning form for the longest period but those who can get back to winning ways as quickly as possible. Yet, as a victim of his own success, Mourinho has rarely found himself in that situation before and when things go wrong at a big club, they really go wrong.

The burning question is quite simply, what do Chelsea actually gain from sacking the former Inter Milan and Real Madrid boss? It is indisputable that he's one of the most talented and successful managers of his generation and after sacking him the first time around, the Blues endured six years of having their potential limited by short-term appointments, who never quite felt like the right fit, before eventually finding themselves back in love with Mourinho once again.

Sure, they won trophies in the meantime - three FA Cups, a Europa League title, a Premier League title and a Champions League title. But Chelsea's silverware average under Abramovich with Mourinho at the helm (counting this as half a season and excluding his handful of games in charge at the start of the 2007/08 campaign) is 1.3 trophies per season; without him, it drops to exactly one.

He's literally been 30% more successful than Abramovich's other appointments and the fundamentals of the modern Chelsea philosophy - the physicality, pragmatism, ability to thrive under pressure and the besieged mentality that has been at the core of all their success - all stem back to Mourinho's first spell in charge. Attempts to change that philosophy under Phil Scolari and Andre Villas-Boas failed spectacularly.

Likewise, the players must shoulder a significant chunk of the blame. I won't speculate upon what's happened behind closed doors this season but unless Mourinho has been using the players' mothers to quench a secret sex addiction then there is little excuse for the way many have performed and the overall lack of professionalism.

Diego Costa's admitted he started the season overweight and he's clearly still playing catch-up, Cesc Fabregas simply hasn't been the same player since the turn of 2015, Nemanja Matic has gone from being the Premier League's most feared enforcer to collapsing to the floor every time an attacker's laces rattles against his size-14 boots, John Terry has looked more crocked than captain and Eden Hazard is still living off the glory of last season's PFA Player of the Year award.

All are experienced, elite, international players who've won trophies with Chelsea and elsewhere. Regardless of how their opinions of Mourinho may have vastly changed since the end of last season, for whatever reason, their individual displays have been unacceptable.

Equally disappointing is the overall failure to step up and take charge of the situation. When Petr Cech and Didier Drogba departed in the summer, a leadership void was left in the dressing room; clearly, none have adequately filled it. It speaks volumes that 21-year-old Kurt Zouma has arguably been Chelsea's best player this season barring a few individual errors, purely through the sheer honesty of his performances. He should still be learning his trade from more senior team-mates.

Clearly, the characters of Mourinho's Chelsea's 2.0 aren't cut from the same cloth as the first team he forged in west London, whilst the balance of the starting Xi has somehow been lost, so the dynamics of the squad - both on and off the pitch - must change during the next few transfer windows. Which makes you wonder whether Mourinho was an essential casualty, or sacked simply to make a statement.

Abramovich wants the world to know that Chelsea aren't a club who settle for second-best, or in the case of this season 16th-best. But the campaign is already over; the Blues probably won't qualify for Europe and they also won't get relegated. Would it really have hampered the club's reputation that much to simply write off this season and allow Mourinho to concentrate on how he can turn it around next term?

For a club as big as Chelsea, there is always next season and no damage is completely irreversible. Manchester United spent one season outside of the Champions League, but they are still amongst Europe's biggest clubs. Borussia Dortmund suffered a similar unprecedented decline last year, but they're now competing for the Bundesliga title once again. Are they any better off for parting with Jurgen Klopp? No. They're the same group of players, playing the same type of football, still nipping at the heels of Bayern Munich, but with a less proven manager.

Many will view Mourinho's departure as the most convincing evidence yet of the Portuguese being a short-term manager and Chelsea being a short-term club, either infatuating or insufferable to their employers and employees respectively. History certainly suggests that, but it wasn't long ago we were talking about the start of a dynasty at Stamford Bridge. If there's one man who could break Chelsea's cycle of short-term appointments, it's Mourinho. And if there's one club who could tame the Special One, it's Chelsea.

Regardless of this season, I still believe that to be the case. 16 games cannot define a manager who has intrinsically influenced practically every success story of the Abramovich era and equally proved his credentials, or in some cases exceeded them, in Portugal, Italy and Spain. Mourinho was Chelsea's chance to settle down, find consistency and truly start building for the long-term, in the same way Sir Alex Ferguson did at Manchester United.

It appears Abramovich isn't ready for that mindset and their plan to hire Guus Hiddink on an interim basis until the end of the season speaks volumes. Although it may seem a logical solution, it also feels like Chelsea have stepped back into the circus of hire-and-fire once again.

But Chelsea and Mourinho still have unfinished business, the best-intended plans that never came into fruition. I wouldn't be surprised if the Portuguese was offered a third spell in west London five or six years down the line - which once again, begs the question of why they've sacked him in the first place.

[ad_pod id='writeforus' align='center']