Spaniard's style and substance is perfect for Chelsea as a club but his personality isn't compatible with its owner, writes Sid Lowe
The philosopher was Pep Guardiola and the phrase explained much, even as it explained nothing at all. Ibrahimovic had arrived the previous summer on a deal officially valued at €69m and now he was gone. There was no explanation other than the fact that Guardiola didn't want him any more. Nor did there need to be.
The previous summer Samuel Eto'o had been released to Inter as part of the Ibrahimovic deal. Guardiola said that it was a question of "feeling". He offered no other reason. It did not appear to be a question of football: Eto'o had been central to Barcelona's treble-winning side but it did not matter. He too was gone. Pretty much the first thing Guardiola had announced when he took over as Barcelona coach was that it would be better if Ronaldinho, Deco and Eto'o left. The former were pushed out immediately; Eto'o was gone a year later.
There were reasons, of course, and many of them were an open secret – from a lack of professionalism to dressing-room confrontations and the coach's own tactical evolution – but there were never any explanations.
There did not need to be: that was what Guardiola wanted, end of story. And if Barcelona were going to do things his way, they were going to do things his way. Xavi had played with Guardiola and he claims that he knew that Barcelona would be a success: "Pep is a perfectionist. If he wanted to be a musician, he would be a great musician."
For Guardiola things must be just right. When he arrived in the first team from Barcelona B, young and experienced, he imposed upon Joan Laporta the need to employ his entire team: from his assistant Tito Vilanova to his own physio, scouts and trainers. That is not to say he refused to listen to sporting directors – he reluctantly agreed to the sale of Chygrinskiy – but ideas must be shared.
He has done things his way and his way is different. He is different.
When he has made up his mind, it is unalterable. From the one-year rolling contracts at Barcelona, to the year's sabbatical. As a player, he had spells in Mexico, Qatar and Italy. There has been a kind of moral hue to the path his career has travelled down, to the image he has projected of himself. It helped that Guardiola's way was Barcelona's way. "We chose a philosophy not a brand," says Laporta, the president who hired him.
The day that Guardiola arrived, he did not promise titles but he did promise that Barcelona would be "faithful to our philosophy, to a way of understanding the game". He was true to his word.
"His success was making us believe in his ideas. More that training us, he taught us," says Andres Iniesta. That philosophy was Cruyff's: "Pep suckled from the teat of Cruyff," says one of his collaborators.
The question now is: Is that philosophy applicable elsewhere? Does his philosophy fit? Does he fit? Last week, the former Barcelona coach was hanging over events in west London. He has said nothing and he has stayed away, thousands of miles away, but his presence has been felt.
Today, Chelsea play Manchester City. His presence has been felt at the Etihad too. It is hard to read mere coincidence into the arrival in Manchester of Ferran Soriano and Txiki Beguiristain. It feels like a prelude, an attempt to convince Guardiola that he fits.
They can join the queue. Roman Abramovich is one of many who aspires to Guardiola. It is safe to assume he believes he has a chance too. Everyone, he probably figures, has his price. Otherwise, why would he choose another interim manager? Why would he bring in Rafa Benitez on a short-term deal?
Why would he be so determined that the job be available when Guardiola becomes available? But not all his actions seem conducive to convincing the Catalan. On the most simplistic level: six months of Benitez does not feel like a natural transition towards Guardiola.
Guardiola gave no explanations while Barcelona manager, not publicly at least. Last week it emerged that Roberto Di Matteo was forced to give explanations after every game; he also felt obliged to play certain players. Guardiola would not accept such interference. He was not for turning when Barcelona did not win either of their opening two games under him, nor when Eto'o scored the opening goal in the European Cup final.
Guardiola holds the cards now in a way that he never did in 2009. He is unlikely to face the same obligations that Di Matteo did. Or have a £50m player turn up unrequested, as happened to Ancelotti. He may be told that Hazard, Mata and Oscar were signed with him in mind and he would no doubt get guarantees denied to others.
But watching events unfold at Stanford Bridge, he is entitled to wonder whether he really fits there. Style and substance both matter; neither fully fit. The ground is being prepared but will Guardiola like the lie of the land?