Managerial stability is best?

[Eren.Kaiten]

This change will bring stability and cohesion towards the club.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

To use the Chelsea model is seriously expensive, though. Everytime they change manager, the new one comes in and buys players who are the finished article. And because the manager is on borrowed time, the academy players don't get a look in. How many first team players in their current squad came through the ranks?? They never have more than a 3 year plan. Teams like Bayern, Dortmund, Barca etc...can plan for the next 10 years. This is why stability is important because the transistion is smooth, in comparison to just ripping it up and starting again. This is why Chelsea have net spent of £524 million in the last 10 years, and the rags have only spent 123 million in the same period. Stability saved them £401 million.

Bayern have had 8 managers in the last 9 years

 

[hallstreetblue]

I've mentioned this before on another thread. Look at Bayern Munich, they're about change their manager for the 15th time in 20 years. Jupp Heynckes is coming to the end of his 2 year contract, in which he's took them to 2 CL finals, 2 cup finals, were runners up in the league last season and pissed it by a mile this time round. Not bad is it? Pep will also be gone when his contract runs out. Let's see what silverware he brings em. 20 years with 15 changes in management = 11 league titles, 7 cups, 6 league cups, 5 CL finals, 1 UEFA Cup and an Intercontinental Cup.

 

[Maldeika]

To use the Chelsea model is seriously expensive, though. Everytime they change manager, the new one comes in and buys players who are the finished article. And because the manager is on borrowed time, the academy players don't get a look in. How many first team players in their current squad came through the ranks?? They never have more than a 3 year plan. Teams like Bayern, Dortmund, Barca etc...can plan for the next 10 years. This is why stability is important because the transistion is smooth, in comparison to just ripping it up and starting again. This is why Chelsea have net spent of £524 million in the last 10 years, and the rags have only spent 123 million in the same period. Stability saved them £401 million.

Bayern have had 8 managers in the last 9 years

It is difficult to find managers that really match. And sometimes it is only for short periods. But in this 8 managers there is the short time managers in that have been in charge only weeks between the transitions.

It has mainly been that coaches

Magath - has been at Munich two and a half years. Won 2 Championships and 2 Cups. But - at the end the success on the pitch was not there anymore, he lost the connection to the team and had problems with the management. Time to shift.

Hitzfeld - Short time solution after Magath. Only some months were prolonged to a year and some months. He had a burnout after his first stay at Bayern and is better of with the job as national coach of the Swiss and TV pundit.

Klinsmann - total failure. A ballon with hot air...

van Gaal - On the field tactically and technically a success story. Did a lot to the team and built up the basics to the success today. But - had problems personally with the management and parts of the team and at the end the CL-qualification was in danger - there was just too much turmoil.

Heynckes - is 68 and will end his career. He already told that he will have his last Bundesliga match on Saturday and answered a question today that he would think of going abroad when he would be 15 years younger - so he probably will finally spend his time on his farm with his flowers and his dog...

It is fine if you can have managers for long periods - but it does not help to keep them when things do not function.

 

[intheknow!]

I think it all depends on the culture of the club. Some clubs (United, Arsenal) feel and operate better with 'stability' and their manager is a kind of comfort blanket, they are fearful of change.

In regards to Chelsea, they are a club with a culture of managerial change and revolution. People seem to forget Chelsea have always been this way. It's not just since Abramovich bought them. That just raised the profile, as Chelsea became United's main challengers and brought in some of the world's best coaches. Chelsea way before Abramovich, under Ken Bates often sacked managers very easily and have always had a tradition of strong players. The time they won the UEFA Cup in 1998, there was Di Matteo, Zola, Clarke, Vialli, Wise, Poyet, LeBouf, no shrinking violets, and they were being 'managed' by player-manager Gian Luca Viailli!!

If anything Abramovich has just carried on the Chelsea culture.