When a team concedes four goals in consecutive defeats within a matter of days it is obvious that something needs to change. At Chelsea, that would often be the manager and given the lack of direction and identity that the team are showing, those gunning for Mauricio Pochettino do have plenty of ammunition.

Yet however dismal the defeats against Liverpool and Wolves, short-term thinking is only going to exacerbate the problem. For once it would be nice to see a plan taken through its difficult stages and into some sort of fruition. Having the manager sitting permanently in an ejector seat primed with a hair trigger might have worked in the past. That five different people have already been in that position under the new regime with results only getting worse would suggest that compounding one bad decision with another is unwise.

That the team have gone backwards since the apparent revival in the middle of autumn with vibrant displays against Tottenham and Manchester City is undeniable. That there appears to be no discernible patterns of play, increased understanding between team mates or little to no improvement in individual contributions is a significant indictment on the coaching staff. At the same time, Pochettino has hardly become a bad coach overnight and it is telling that the likes of his seasoned predecessors Thomas Tuchel and Graham Potter have also struggled under the new ownership. The absurd policy of ditching all experience and club identity in order to replace it with talented but callow and misapprehending youngsters has predictably backfired, not least in midfield where games are generally decided. Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, unfortunately, are going nowhere. Having invested £4.5bn, they will not be be selling up any time soon, not least as their asset will have significantly decreased in value since they acquired it. They might not have a clue about how to run a football club but (I assume) they understand the value of money

So what can realistically be done to turn things around or, at least, steady the ship a little? Here’s a few ideas.

Goals might win games but porous defences lose them. For much of this season and especially in recent weeks, Chelsea have been been meek out of possession and far too easy to score against. Defensive solidity has been the hallmark of each great Chelsea team this century with the possible exception of Carlo Ancelotti’s double-winning side though the avalanche of goals that his team scored largely managed to offset any deficiency.

The regular sight of seeing centre backs playing at full back has been perplexing. While understandable when beset by injuries, the policy has negated defensive mobility in those areas and nullified any attacking threat. Levi Colwill and Axel Disasi are both decent players able to fill in and occasionally contribute in that position but it isn’t their natural role and Colwill’s decline in performance and confidence has been clear to see. They are both centre backs and should be played as such except in emergencies. 

With the ageing Thiago Silva clearly starting to struggle, the most obvious solution would be to revert to a back three. This would leave the Brazilian less exposed and more able to utilise his organisational strengths, his positional nous and his passing range. Flanked by Colwill or Badiashile on the left and Disasi on the right, there would be physicality and pace alongside him with the outer centre backs also allowed to move into midfield, with or without the ball, as required, in much the same way as Cesar Azpilicueta and Toni Rudiger used to do under Tuchel. 

This would also have the added bonus of allowing Colwill to learn his craft next to one of the great defenders of recent times, possibly filling his shoes when Silva finally calls it a day in west London. The young Englishman is a rare talent, a stylish ball-playing centre back whose potential risks being squandered by his current travails. Returning him to a more familiar role can benefit both the present and the future.

One of the only regularly recognisable patterns of play has been the obsession of playing out from the back. The tactic itself is fine, the understanding of when to do it or when to seek an alternative has been awful. In fact, at times it has been little short of embarrassing especially in the defeats away at Manchester United and Liverpool. Attempting to beat the press in this way to expose the yawning gap behind the midfield has merit and had Raheem Sterling and Nicolas Jackson been on the same wavelength at Old Trafford, then it might have borne some fruit. But whether that outweighs the inherent risks in doing so when the team are plainly struggling to execute against well-drilled opponents begs a serious question. 

Part of the issue is that Chelsea lack physicality and height in advanced areas meaning they have little option but to play it short though that in itself should not dictate that the team keep persisting with something that is so obviously to their detriment. There needs to be a point in a game when an alternative is deployed in order to create variation and potentially make the opposition change their approach. The simple way would be to adopt another old tactic, that of the long diagonal ball contested aerially by an advanced defender. Branislav Ivanovic used to be the target of that particular out-ball and it worked a treat. Although he was deployed as a full back while being utilised in this way, in a back three, a Disasi or Colwill could be pushed up in this instance with a wing back or midfielder momentarily occupying his regular space. It might not be sexy but it is an option and has less chance of instantly conceding a shot on goal if it goes wrong.

A back three can also make the most of Ben Chilwell and, when he returns, Reece James. While both are defensively solid when fit and in form (the latter of which Chilwell is clearly lacking at present), they possess great attacking and creative gifts. The midfield has rarely functioned properly this season meaning that any forays forward from full back has meant leaving a gaping chasm behind them which isn’t being filled by a midfield teammate when possession is turned over. By affording them the protection of an extra central defender and a deeper midfield (more of which shortly), they can have more freedom to contribute higher up the pitch. The same applies to Malo Gusto and Marc Cucurella.

This in turn would help Chelsea sculpt a more coherent attacking structure. At present everything seems to be off the cuff, reliant on a spark of magic from Cole Palmer or a rare moment of precision and clarity from one of his teammates. Defences are not stretched by pace, play isn’t switched, tempo is rarely changed, the pitch isn’t made wide, opponents aren’t being lured upfield and out of position. And beyond that, there seems little understanding between players of what runs should be made and which passes should be threaded. 

Wing backs are not the solution in themselves but they would provide a constant source of reliable width, forcing opponents to defend both touchlines. It would also release Chelsea’s multitude of inverted forwards to operate in areas in which they are more comfortable. Perhaps Palmer and Carney Chukwuemeka could operate as dual number 10s with Christopher Nkunku ahead of them. Or Palmer could be given a relatively free role behind a pair of pacy forwards. Maybe (though a long shot given the current dearth of mutual understanding) even work on a fluid three in attack, each capable of filling each others’ roles in creativity, movement and finishing.

While attacking shapes and defensive cohesion are all important factors, the most obvious cause of concern has been Chelsea’s midfield, a situation made especially stark by the transfer fees lavished on two of its main exponents. Enzo Fernandez and Moises Caicedo have not just struggled but visibly gone backwards over the past couple of months. They both seem unsure of where they should be and what they should be doing, victims of the dream of a rotational midfield three (along with Conor Gallagher) that just isn’t working. Enzo lacks the engine to get around the pitch, particularly when the opposition have the ball, finding himself continually chasing shadows as his opposite number moves into unguarded space. Caicedo has shown himself to be a good ball-winner and, at times, decent on the ball but the lack of options around him have resulted in him regularly losing possession, often in dangerous areas.

A more rigid understanding of their roles would serve them better in the short term. It would give them less license though would allow them to slowly exert their influence. Enzo’s passing range and ability to switch the play is excellent and playing him deeper would let him use that vision without draining him. Getting him on the ball as often as possible is the key to dictating the play so putting him in a position do just that makes sense. Caicedo’s talent for disrupting the opposition needs to be maximised and having Enzo sitting with a back three behind him would allow the Ecuadorian to maraud without too much fear of the team being exposed if he is bypassed. Either of them could be switched for Gallagher whose natural talent might be lower than theirs but whose energy, drive and passion exceeds them by miles. And if Romeo Lavia ever gets fit then he would provide another decent option.

None of this is rocket science and this isn’t the roadmap to the Promised Land. But it is a possible template to tighten things up over the coming weeks and grind out some results. If Chelsea want to give themselves any chance of winning the Carabao Cup final or finding any redemption in the last third of the Premier League season then something has got to give.