chesterbells said:
moomba said:
True, but beside the point. It's not the way I want our club to act, and in the long term I think it will cause damage to Chelsea.
You don't rate what Chelsea have done but their trophy haul in recent years is not to be dismissed. I don't believe you need to keep a manager for decades to ensure success
I've been thinking about this and Chelsea is an interesting case. They spent a lot of money pre-Mourinho but he was the manager that put it all together and won two consecutive titles. He also established the basis for their system, which was anchored by an exceptional spine - Cech, Terry, Lampard, Drogba - and a good supporting cast. Even Avram Grant nearly won the CL playing the Mourinho system with those players.
Managers like Scolari and AVB tried to screw around with it and fucked up because the players knew the system that JM introdiced played to their strengths. They had to do something different at some point though and Di Matteo did that, plus it helped that they won the CL as they could attract decent players as the old guard started to move aside. However it took a bit of tactical tweaking from Benitez to get that little bit extra out of them and get them performing to the level they should be.
Mancini has half-done what Mourinho did for them but he can't seem to take it forward as teams adapt to our style. So while our worry is that Mourinho may not be interested in building a dynasty over 10 years, would it be worth getting him in for 2 or 3 years just to establish that winning mentality and system? Then let the next manager (Klopp, Guardiola or someone else) build for the long term on what JM might have put in place?