In the end it was appropriate that Luis Suarez should administer the last rites to Andre Villas-Boas at Tottenham. Here was a player Liverpool had fought tooth and nail to retain last summer, dismissing firm offers from Arsenal and overtures from Real Madrid, to convince the striker, against his better judgment, that his immediate future lay on Merseyside.

Spurs had faced a similar dilemma over Gareth Bale, whose instinct was to up sticks for Spain. They eventually relented and cashed in to the tune of £86 million. At the time the reinvestment of those funds in seven signings seemed exciting, even shrewd, though the sight of Suarez ripping the new brigade to shreds on Sunday told a very different story.

Villas-Boas has time now to ponder if this all boils down to Bale. Relieved of his duties at White Hart Lane, his reputation in the Premier League about as persuasive as Tottenham’s backline, the Portuguese retreats scarred by another brush with management in England.

At Chelsea he had failed to convince seasoned performers there that he was the man to hoist them back into Premier League and other contention. At Spurs he was undermined by an inability to coax immediate form from a swath of recruits, talented players with no experience of English football.

The scale of the overhaul was overwhelming and the “dramatic changes” to which he referred on Sunday all stemmed from Bale’s sale.

The chairman, Daniel Levy, clearly thought Villas-Boas had constructed a squad capable of challenging for the title, though the Portuguese might argue the transition was too radical, the upheaval too dramatic.

Culture shock
He had spoken of the "culture shock" being endured by Erik Lamela, at £30 million the third of three record signings last summer and a player whose first Premier League start was that 6-0 trouncing at Manchester City. The same might apply to Roberto Soldado, at £26 million, whose style of play did not appear to fit easily into the approach Villas-Boas pursued. These players needed time while their presence ensured many of the existing squad felt usurped and undervalued.

"We've worked hard to build a strong team, we have a strong team and we are happy with the signings . . . We have to work with them, to bond them together into the team," the manager had said when asked if he considered this to be "his" line-up.

Born of frustration
More revealing had been his stuttering opening. "Well, we had . . . obviously this . . . I'm not sure if I can make it public . . .", which hardly suggested he was about to endorse the club's transfer policy. Perhaps it was born of frustration that Bale had left, particularly as Villas-Boas himself had waived Paris St-Germain's interest over the summer apparently in the belief that the Wales forward would remain at his disposal.

More likely is that he had dropped his guard to reveal tension at the top. The 36-year-old had endorsed Franco Baldini’s appointment as technical director and had even actively championed it, though any implied criticisms he had concerning the summer recruitment would, by definition, have indicated his relationship with the Italian had already become strained. Were such as Lamela – formerly at Roma with Baldini – Nacer Chadli and Christian Eriksen the manager’s choices or were they imposed on him?

Those who would more readily doubt Villas-Boas’s credentials might suggest this was merely the latest instance of passing the buck. At Chelsea he had apparently been undermined by the senior players. At Spurs it was any combination from the medical staff to anxious fans, under-performing first-team players to the recruitment policy.

Villas-Boas still departed having secured Spurs' highest points tally of the Premier League era, and with the best win percentage, at just over 53 per cent, of any Spurs manager in the past 20 years. Yet there was no sense of surprise at his sacking.
Guardian Service