FEB 7 — The first rule of watching English Premier League football: never write off Manchester United.

The second rule? Never write off Manchester United.

Sunday’s thrilling comeback at Stamford Bridge — recovering from 3-0 down to register a 3-3 draw — was something the Red Devils have achieved so regularly over the course of Sir Alex Ferguson’s management tenure that we should no longer be surprised when they pull off another great escape. The only surprise, indeed, should be those rare occasions when they fail to get themselves out of a mess.

United simply do not give up, they do not know when they are beaten, and they are hard-wired with irrepressible levels of confidence that the result will eventually go their way. They always believe that they can score a goal; and when they’ve scored one, they believe they can score another.

From the moment Wayne Rooney netted his team’s first goal from the penalty spot, with more than half an hour still remaining, there was a sense of “Uh-oh... here we go again,” amongst the nervous home fans. United were on the march, and that normally only means one thing.

And so it proved. Rooney netted another penalty 10 minutes later, and six minutes from time Javier Hernandez levelled the score with a bullet header from Ryan Giggs’ precise cross. United were back from the dead to claim a point.

They did still require some late heroics from much-maligned goalkeeper David De Gea, who made splendid injury-time saves from Juan Mata and Gary Cahill to deny Chelsea a dramatic fourth goal, and those heroics may help to boost the young Spaniard’s apparently fragile confidence. However, it was still a far from convincing performance by De Gea, whose vulnerability under crosses was again evident.

As for Chelsea, the afternoon’s proceedings provided a microcosm of their entire season: some moments of rich promise followed by moments of worrying vulnerability, ultimately concluding with a satisfactory if unspectacular result.

With no John Terry, Frank Lampard, Ashley Cole or Didier Drogba in the starting line-up, this was very much a new Chelsea. Instead of those former stalwarts, who are being gradually faded out of the Blues’ long-term plans, the home team were led by a backbone of Gary Cahill, David Luiz, Raul Meireles, Juan Mata, Fernando Torres and Daniel Sturridge.

Times are certainly a-changing at Stamford Bridge, and Chelsea fans now have a pretty good idea of how their team might look in a couple of years — assuming Andre Villas-Boas is allowed to continue the unavoidable rebuilding process he has initiated.

It’s been far from a glorious first season at the helm for inexperienced Portuguese boss, whose side are well adrift in the title race, but that’s hardly surprising considering the transitional period he is overseeing.

With a new manager and so many new players to integrate, finding immediate consistency in such a challenging environment at the Premier League was always going to be a mighty challenge.

But it’s hardly been a disastrous campaign either, with the Londoners still in a good position to clinch a spot in the all-important top four by the end of the campaign.

Villas-Boas’ future at the club has been under severe scrutiny almost from the moment that he first arrived, but I firmly believe he should be given time — a lot more time.

Half a season is nowhere near enough to judge a new manager who has taken over a team in transition — unless that half-season is a complete disaster along the lines of Roy Hodgson’s ill-fated stint at Liverpool, and that has clearly not been the case for Villas-Boas.

Ever since The Evil Genius (as I shall hereafter always refer to Jose Mourinho) fell out with Roman Abramovich and left Stamford Bridge in September 2007, Chelsea have lurched from manager to manager at an alarming rate: Avram Grant, “Big Phil” Scolari, Guus Hiddink, Carlo Ancelotti and now Villas-Boas — that’s five managers in 4½ years, with none of them lasting more than two seasons.

What Chelsea need now is a period of stability, not yet another new man in charge. If they decide to dispense with Villas-Boas, it will be more an indictment of their recruitment process than of the manager himself: as they were so keen to secure his services from Porto last summer, surely they should be prepared to show some patience and understanding rather than turf him out at the first sign of trouble?

I don’t particularly like Villas-Boas — or, at least, his public persona. Having initially arrived in England showing signs of calm and humility, he has rapidly developed an air of arrogance and an irritating propensity to whinge about anything that doesn’t go his way (but then, what would you expect from someone who was tutored by The Evil Genius?).

But I do feel he deserves a lot more time to prove himself at Chelsea. His record at Porto last season was phenomenal, and there’s no reason to think that he can’t be the man to lead the Blues through their current turbulence and into a period of much-needed stability. Losing a 3-0 lead at home against Manchester United, though, probably won’t do his cause too much good.

* The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist.