Chelsea thread 2012/2013 season

[Castiel]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/13/chelsea-roman-abramovich-andre-villas-boas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... illas-boas</a>

And heres me thinking it was down to the manager to sort the players out.

So you believe the managers, and AVB by extension, are puppets. Why then did Abramovich have to "intervene" in the first place? If he's calling the shots why was this dramatic intervention necessary? Was he intervening with his own terrible management? Or was he showing up to ask the man he employed for a lot of money, and his players, why they were failing so dramatically at their jobs?

I'm not sure what your reasoning is here. If, for example, City went on to lose 5 games in a row and drop to the relegation zone, would you not expect somebody, if not the Sheikh himself, to go and ask somebody whats going on?

 

[samharris]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/feb/13/chelsea-roman-abramovich-andre-villas-boas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012 ... illas-boas</a>

And heres me thinking it was down to the manager to sort the players out.

So you believe the managers, and AVB by extension, are puppets. Why then did Abramovich have to "intervene" in the first place? If he's calling the shots why was this dramatic intervention necessary? Was he intervening with his own terrible management? Or was he showing up to ask the man he employed for a lot of money, and his players, why they were failing so dramatically at their jobs?

I'm not sure what your reasoning is here. If, for example, City went on to lose 5 games in a row and drop to the relegation zone, would you not expect somebody, if not the Sheikh himself, to go and ask somebody whats going on?

Strange that one week later AVB got sacked.. No manager at Chelsea even gets a chance to put things right..A run of bad performances as Chelsea manager is like writing your own p45.. tell me Im wrong ??

 

[Castiel]

Strange that one week later AVB got sacked.. No manager at Chelsea even gets a chance to put things right..A run of bad performances as Chelsea manager is like writing your own p45.. tell me Im wrong ??

As I recall he had several meetings in the weeks preceding that article. Who knows what else was said in meetings in private. Results never improved and our humiliation at the hands of Napoli was the final straw. The whole saga went on for half the season and we progressively got worse every game.

I'm not contesting at all that poor performances means you get sacked at Chelsea. But thats true of most clubs in football. Arsenal for example have the opposite policy. I'm not sure how any of that makes the managers puppets though. You're saying its a bad thing that managers are given a mandate and are sacked swiftly if they can't fulfil it? This is common practise in many job sectors.

 

[Marvin]

Strange that one week later AVB got sacked.. No manager at Chelsea even gets a chance to put things right..A run of bad performances as Chelsea manager is like writing your own p45.. tell me Im wrong ??

As I recall he had several meetings in the weeks preceding that article. Who knows what else was said in meetings in private. Results never improved and our humiliation at the hands of Napoli was the final straw. The whole saga went on for half the season and we progressively got worse every game.

I'm not contesting at all that poor performances means you get sacked at Chelsea. But thats true of most clubs in football. Arsenal for example have the opposite policy. I'm not sure how any of that makes the managers puppets though. You're saying its a bad thing that managers are given a mandate and are sacked swiftly if they can't fulfil it? This is common practise in many job sectors.

It's called short-termism and is incredibly costly.

 

[Castiel]

It's called short-termism and is incredibly costly.

But so what? Isn't that up to him to decide how the club is run? It gets results so I don't understand where this perceived moral outrage is. Presumably if we found a manager who was consistent he'd stay for longer. Most clubs in football have high turnover rates on managers for similar reasons.

 

[Marvin]

No moral outrage from me.

Question of efficiency. If Roman is prepared to keep pumping money in then I guess it doesn't matter.

 

[samharris]

It's called short-termism and is incredibly costly.

But so what? Isn't that up to him to decide how the club is run? It gets results so I don't understand where this perceived moral outrage is. Presumably if we found a manager who was consistent he'd stay for longer. Most clubs in football have high turnover rates on managers for similar reasons.

Not moral outrage at all mate, its you getting het up about it.. Im just saying what I see,and that points to chelsea managers not in full control..
I will be surely surprised if RDM is manager for the whole season.
And btw you say 'consistent'..what do you deem consistent ?? surely thats from season to season not game to game.

 

[Castiel]

Not moral outrage at all mate, its you getting het up about it.. Im just saying what I see,and that points to chelsea managers not in full control..
I will be surely surprised if RDM is manager for the whole season.
And btw you say 'consistent'..what do you deem consistent ?? surely thats from season to season not game to game.

What I deem consistent and what Roman deems consistent aren't really in alignment. If I were in Roman's shoes I'd never have fired Mourinho or Ancelotti.

Chelsea managers aren't really managers. They're coaches. Each manager has had largely the same squad playing a different style or brand of football. But thats a coaching matter. The "management" stuff, by which you could include transfers, is certainly not in control of the managers. I don't think thats some sort of secret, its just the way Chelsea is run. Wenger and Ferguson are true "managers" in the sense that they have total control - but I'm not sure there are many clubs left in the world that operate like that, and those two spent years earning their status amongst their respective boards.

 

[Matty]

Chelsea, City and United will be the top 3 this season, although not neccessarily in that order. Chelsea have added some real quality, they are certainly better than last season, and definite title contenders. There are still issues, I remain unconvinced by their centre halves, Terry isn't what he was and Luiz will continue to make mistakes. The real test will be when they play the really top sides. Newcastle are a good side, but they aren't the very best. City, United, Arsenal and Spurs will be the tests, the performances against Wigan and Reading can't really be used as a measure of what's to be expected this season, both those sides will be in a relegation fight until the end of the season. Personally I think the dramatic change in style and tactics being dictated by Abramovich (he wants to entertain as well as win) will cause some teething problems, it wouldn't surprise me if, on occasion, it just doesn't quite work and Chelsea drop points in games they shouldn't. Ultimately I think Chelsea will run it close, but miss out on the title.

 

[samharris]

Not moral outrage at all mate, its you getting het up about it.. Im just saying what I see,and that points to chelsea managers not in full control..
I will be surely surprised if RDM is manager for the whole season.
And btw you say 'consistent'..what do you deem consistent ?? surely thats from season to season not game to game.

What I deem consistent and what Roman deems consistent aren't really in alignment. If I were in Roman's shoes I'd never have fired Mourinho or Ancelotti.

Chelsea managers aren't really managers. They're coaches. Each manager has had largely the same squad playing a different style or brand of football. But thats a coaching matter. The "management" stuff, by which you could include transfers, is certainly not in control of the managers. I don't think thats some sort of secret, its just the way Chelsea is run. Wenger and Ferguson are true "managers" in the sense that they have total control - but I'm not sure there are many clubs left in the world that operate like that, and those two spent years earning their status amongst their respective boards.

That answers my question mate. cheers.