Chelsea fans have been debating whether or not the recent tweaks still make the style Sarrismo. In reality it does not matter what it is or is not.

Sarrismo (or as the less cool kids call it, Sarriball) was a name attached to the brand of football Maurizio Sarri’s Napoli played and the perceived goal he was bringing to Chelsea. The term took a life of its own, beyond anything Sarri could actually implement. And thus it became this carrot at the end of the stick that was nearly unreachable.

But the recent tweaks Sarri has made against Manchester City and Tottenham Hotspur has made fans question what is and is not true about Sarrismo. In fact, Sarrismo has become a bit of a thought experiment.

Imagine someone owns an ax. The head breaks, so they replace it. Then the handle breaks, so they replace that. Is it still the same ax? If Sarri is changing the way the team defends or attacks, is it still Sarrismo? The answer is probably that it does not even matter.

Sarrismo as many understand it has a few tenets. The defense defends narrowly and zonally with a high line. Overall, the defensive shape is a 4-4-2 that presses aggressively in numbers. Offensively, short and quick passes are used to lure the opponent in before releasing the ball vertically at speed. Most of these attacks are done through rehearsed moves and often start with a regista (almost always Jorginho).

But Chelsea has not followed all those tenets as of late and that has built on top of a debate from earlier this season. The debate used to be that what Chelsea was doing was not Sarrismo but a pale imitation. Usually the supporters of that debate backed Sarri in waiting for the players to understand. Detractors felt like it was a bad use of what Chelsea was actually good at. But one was a path towards Sarrismo and one was seen as a path away from it.

And then against Manchester City and Tottenham, Sarri changed things. He uses some of his tenets and mixed it with things Chelsea is traditionally good at (defending deeper, containing, and countering at pace). The debate of Sarrismo changed to whether or not that it was now Sarrismo or something else.

Chelsea has been defending in a 4-5-1 with a much lower defensive line and a less aggressive press. There also seems to be less of an emphasis at playing short passes to lure the opponent in and more of an emphasis on getting the ball forward. Some have said that this is Sarrismo finally arriving. Others see it as a step away from Sarrismo (especially those that think the shape went to a 4-2-3-1 against Tottenham, which it did not).

So if Sarri has changed the ax head and the ax handle, is it still the same ax? Can it be said that Pep Guardiola is still playing his style from Barcelona or has it changed into something else?

Simply put, the answer is that it does not matter if this is Sarrismo anymore. In the loosest of ways, simply because Sarri is the manager, it can be called Sarrismo. But if it wins who cares? If Chelsea had changed absolutely nothing from Antonio Conte’s style to Sarri’s, but Sarri was manager, if a game was won no one would care whether or not it was Sarrismo or not.

In trying to arrive at Sarrismo, fans and Sarri have lost sight of the main goal at times. The main goal was never to import Napoli to Chelsea. The goal was to win. And just as Sarri looked poised for the sack, he stepped away from the way that worked at Napoli and went to a way that could work for Chelsea. Whether or not it is Sarrismo is a secondary issue if the match is won.

Fulham will present a different twist after the last two matches. Sarri gave no indication that his changes in the last two matches would be permanent. But whatever way his team sets up, it will be Sarrismo. Just as it was Sarrismo when it was all languid, wasteful, and boring possession. And as long as it gets the win, it does not matter if it is Sarrismo as many envisioned over the summer.

After all, if the ax still cuts wood, it does not matter if it is the same ax or not.