The Fish 9009 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Success breeds stability in those cases, Fish. Not the other way round. Also, the period you speak of is Chelsea's most successful ever isn't it? Also, who is the most successful club side ever? Real Madrid. Hardly a beacon of managerial stability. Money wins things more than anything else and now more than ever. Di Matteo was just a stop-gap anyway. Two losses at the end of last season (perhaps even just losing the CL final) and he probably wouldn't even have been in the job come August gone. I remember both Ferguson and Wenger were given longer than 10 and a bit months to get things right. They didn't exactly have stellar starts either. I'd argue that trust and ability brought success. You can't argue that at least some of the managers to go through the revolving door at Stamford Bridge had ability? They were let go because RA is a spoilt child and wants everything immediately. Chelsea have had a lot of success, but it's cost him a fortune and it's unsustainable. He cannot hire and fire managers for huge sums every year and supply them with tens of millions each window. It's just unsustainable. Look at Everton (bear with me), they've stuck with a manager who has had them flirting with relegation at least once, who's not won a single trophy and has broken their transfer record at least 3 (4?) times. Without support and stability as their watchwords it's my contention that Everton would have been relegated. You compare their performance after 03/04 to ours and while we may have finished higher than them on a couple of seasons, you can plot a very obvious rise against them and just insanity on our part. The reason I bring up Everton is simply that while yes, Chelsea have won trophies under RA's Henry VII style reign, they could have cemented their place at the top of the table. Now, instead of catching Man U unaware and usurping their spot atop the Premier League table (and more importantly holding onto that spot), they're fighting a 4 way battle with Man U, Man City and Arsenal, with literally no strong foundations from which to make an assault. Every year they're starting again; new coaches, new philosophies, new players and the same old enemies. Man City could well find themselves in the same boat, but they seem more patient with Mancini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19837 Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share Posted November 21, 2012 didn't wenger win he double in his first season? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 didn't wenger win he double in his first season? Nah his second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 30450 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I take your points, Fish but Di Matteo was never the man to build a dynasty around, was he? They missed that boat when they pissed Mourinho off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9009 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I take your points, Fish but Di Matteo was never the man to build a dynasty around, was he? They missed that boat when they pissed Mourinho off. Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying DiMatteo was definitely the man to bring success, but one of Luiz Felipe, Guus Hiddink, Carlo Ancelotti, Andre Villas-Boas Could very well have. Also how many top class managers will have ruled themselves out simply because of the way the managers are treated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Think the reason for the longevity of Wenger and Ferguson is often too easily given to the owners of their clubs simply 'giving them time'. Certainly this is the case to an extent, however I think it does both managers something of a disservice. The reason being is that I believe that Both Wenger and Ferguson have learnt to adapt to the changes of the game incredibly well. They have taken the changes both on and off the pitch in their stride, and altered with them. In the PL, you cannot be stubborn as a manager as the dynamics of football - monetarily, the actual gameplay, player power, tv coverage and revenue, the total celebritization of big players - have altered so much in the past 20 years and continue to do so. Both these managers have rolled with the tide. Had they not, had the had an approach of 'this is my way of doing things and there is no other way' I reckon they would have had their tenure cut short a long time ago. Ferguson's mantra of 'no one is bigger than the club' rings true here, and can be extended to 'no one - no matter how successful you have been - is bigger than the perpetual changes that football is constantly undergoing.' That said, I think Wenger is losing a bit of this adaptability. Can't see him winning the PL with Arsenal again tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bye bye Pingping :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADP 0 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Abramovich's demand is this unattainable paradox of consistent and instantaneous success or GTFO. That's why they will never, never have a Wenger or a Ferguson. Di Matteo didn't stand a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 (edited) Think the reason for the longevity of Wenger and Ferguson is often too easily given to the owners of their clubs simply 'giving them time'. Certainly this is the case to an extent, however I think it does both managers something of a disservice. The reason being is that I believe that Both Wenger and Ferguson have learnt to adapt to the changes of the game incredibly well. They have taken the changes both on and off the pitch in their stride, and altered with them. In the PL, you cannot be stubborn as a manager as the dynamics of football - monetarily, the actual gameplay, player power, tv coverage and revenue, the total celebritization of big players - have altered so much in the past 20 years and continue to do so. Both these managers have rolled with the tide. Had they not, had the had an approach of 'this is my way of doing things and there is no other way' I reckon they would have had their tenure cut short a long time ago. Ferguson's mantra of 'no one is bigger than the club' rings true here, and can be extended to 'no one - no matter how successful you have been - is bigger than the perpetual changes that football is constantly undergoing.' That said, I think Wenger is losing a bit of this adaptability. Can't see him winning the PL with Arsenal again tbh. Agreed, they havent achieved success because they have been there for a long time, but because they are both great managers. Time alone is no guarantee for anything, in fact the longer in charge a bad fit is - the further downhill he will drag the club. Edited November 21, 2012 by Lake Bells tits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9009 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Agreed, they havent achieved success not because they have been there for a long time, but because they are both great managers. Time alone is no guarantee for anything, in fact the longer in charge a bad fit is - the further downhill he will drag the club. Do they not have subtlety in Norway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aimaad22 3472 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Except its only 6 months since he won the biggest trophy in club football Thats my point, they both did much better than they were expected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Dynamite 5937 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Rafas getting a temporary contract apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake Bells tits 1 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Do they not have subtlety in Norway? No, its like an american thriller - every subtle point must be made glaringly obvious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Success breeds stability in those cases, Fish. Not the other way round. Also, the period you speak of is Chelsea's most successful ever isn't it? Also, who is the most successful club side ever? Real Madrid. Hardly a beacon of managerial stability. Money wins things more than anything else and now more than ever. Di Matteo was just a stop-gap anyway. Two losses at the end of last season (perhaps even just losing the CL final) and he probably wouldn't even have been in the job come August gone. Spot on. Them hiring and firing managers won't really make a massive difference to their chances as long as they have the money to keep backing their choice of new manager. When you're spending the kinds of money they are, you don't need to be a genius to spot who are the top players. Pretty much every club in Europe would have signed Hazard if they could have afforded it and it's never a surprise a when a player who has just cost thirty odd million is a success. It would not surprise me in the least if RA one day decided to just manage the team himself and led them to at least one trophy. The players he would have at his disposal would do it for him. And these players don't sign for a club like Chelski because they buy into the managers philosophy or they've worked with him before and respect him. They sign because they will get paid shit loads and will undoubtedly be successful in at least one competition over two years at worst! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 9009 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Spot on. Them hiring and firing managers won't really make a massive difference to their chances as long as they have the money to keep backing their choice of new manager. When you're spending the kinds of money they are, you don't need to be a genius to spot who are the top players. Pretty much every club in Europe would have signed Hazard if they could have afforded it and it's never a surprise a when a player who has just cost thirty odd million is a success. It would not surprise me in the least if RA one day decided to just manage the team himself and led them to at least one trophy. The players he would have at his disposal would do it for him. And these players don't sign for a club like Chelski because they buy into the managers philosophy or they've worked with him before and respect him. They sign because they will get paid shit loads and will undoubtedly be successful in at least one competition over two years at worst! Aye, but every year they've new staff, new manager, new tactics, new players. They may win a cup, but any protracted campaign is hampered by such instability. I think most people were shocked when Chelsea won the CL, that wasn't success built on anything but the dwindling embers of dying stars like Drogba, Terry and Lampard. Players who were in their pomp under the last manager that managed more than a fleeting stewardship of the club. Surely, everyone sees the benefit in stability? Regardless of financial backing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Kelly 1117 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Aye, but every year they've new staff, new manager, new tactics, new players. They may win a cup, but any protracted campaign is hampered by such instability. I think most people were shocked when Chelsea won the CL, that wasn't success built on anything but the dwindling embers of dying stars like Drogba, Terry and Lampard. Players who were in their pomp under the last manager that managed more than a fleeting stewardship of the club. Surely, everyone sees the benefit in stability? Regardless of financial backing? I'm not arguing against the benefit of stability, I think it would have benefited them massively to stick with Ancelotti. But as you've just pointed out, they won the champions league because of the players (players who cost them a fortune). Players of that standard will always take you a long way (to a level we can sadly only dream of these days). Keeping faith with a quality manager when you have a sticky patch will push you on even further imo but no matter how good a manager is or how long you give him, if there's no money to buy these top players then you'll win fuck all. It's clearly a combination of the two that achieves real long term success but I would say that cash is far more important especially in the first place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sniffer 0 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Stability is only a demonstrated benefit if you have Alex Ferguson as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Thing is, you can see the Guardiola thing ended in tears a mile off. He built that Barca team from the youth level and evolved with them into the first team. If Chelsea want the success of Barca then they'd have to give him a few years, but he'll get 6 months. He would only do exactly what AVB tried to do last season which was - shock fucking horror - attempt to build something long term. Hope the fuckers implode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Rafa appointed until the end of the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoveTheBobby 1 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Fuckin arseholes . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 38804 Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Bye bye Pingping This needs more lolz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christmas Tree 3997 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 SKY SPORTS BREAKING NEWS: Pep Guardiola has been sacked by Chelsea for failing to win a trophy since being linked with the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3206 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Anyone else hoping Benitez has an absolute mare and ruins them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 19837 Posted November 22, 2012 Author Share Posted November 22, 2012 Anyone else hoping Benitez has an absolute mare and ruins them? yes. i just can't understand why he's been given the job. he must realise he's a temp until roman lands the man he really wants - pep. can't understand why benitez woudl take it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26441 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 yes. i just can't understand why he's been given the job. he must realise he's a temp until roman lands the man he really wants - pep. can't understand why benitez woudl take it either. Didn't he turn down the same offer when they got rid of AVB? I guess he's realised that six months in the Chelsea job is better than six months sat on his tod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now