themanupstairs Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No ta. Rather have JFK Care to expand why ? IMO, Grant is a no-mark jobs-for-the-boys manager. Has done nothing significant in his career. When the time comes to part with Kinnear, which IMO should be by the end of the season at the latest, we need the right manager in charge. Grant is not the right manager to move us forward in my eyes. this, but i wouldn't say i'd rather have JFK if it came down to either of them being given the gig mid-long term I agree with you to a certain extent. It's just that despite him being the inferior manager of the two, I like the passionate JFK type over the cold and soulless Grant type. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No ta. Rather have JFK Care to expand why ? IMO, Grant is a no-mark jobs-for-the-boys manager. Has done nothing significant in his career. When the time comes to part with Kinnear, which IMO should be by the end of the season at the latest, we need the right manager in charge. Grant is not the right manager to move us forward in my eyes. this, but i wouldn't say i'd rather have JFK if it came down to either of them being given the gig mid-long term I agree with you to a certain extent. It's just that despite him being the inferior manager of the two, I like the passionate JFK type over the cold and soulless Grant type. ah righto, yeah grant is a bit of an empty vessel i suppose hopefully it'll end up with neither in charge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No ta. Rather have JFK Care to expand why ? IMO, Grant is a no-mark jobs-for-the-boys manager. Has done nothing significant in his career. When the time comes to part with Kinnear, which IMO should be by the end of the season at the latest, we need the right manager in charge. Grant is not the right manager to move us forward in my eyes. this, but i wouldn't say i'd rather have JFK if it came down to either of them being given the gig mid-long term I agree with you to a certain extent. It's just that despite him being the inferior manager of the two, I like the passionate JFK type over the cold and soulless Grant type. ah righto, yeah grant is a bit of an empty vessel i suppose hopefully it'll end up with neither in charge Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is my sarcasm detection plugin in Firefox broken or are people really saying they wouldn't take Grant? I mean, nevermind the possibility of actually getting him, or anyone of quality in, but saying no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. huh? so the 'far superior' you put in front of scolari was meant to say what exactly? seemed to me it was sarcy and was implying that grant was at least the equal of scolari, which i can see no basis for other than a decent season with chelski where they ended up with nothing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is my sarcasm detection plugin in Firefox broken or are people really saying they wouldn't take Grant? I mean, nevermind the possibility of actually getting him, or anyone of quality in, but saying no? what would be your basis for appointing grant then, out of interest? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is my sarcasm detection plugin in Firefox broken or are people really saying they wouldn't take Grant? I mean, nevermind the possibility of actually getting him, or anyone of quality in, but saying no? what would be your basis for appointing grant then, out of interest? 20 years experience in management with a great club record, did very well with Chelsea in a difficult position and with a dressing room probably in 300 times more turmoil than ours, doesn't seem easily rattled and his teams played decent football. edit: also according to wiki he likes to give young players chances Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 It would be an utter disaster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Also he's used to the DOF idea so, hey, if this system is kept who else is available that would slot in with minimal fuss? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is my sarcasm detection plugin in Firefox broken or are people really saying they wouldn't take Grant? I mean, nevermind the possibility of actually getting him, or anyone of quality in, but saying no? what would be your basis for appointing grant then, out of interest? 20 years experience in management with a great club record, did very well with Chelsea in a difficult position and with a dressing room probably in 300 times more turmoil than ours, doesn't seem easily rattled and played decent football. aye fair enough i guess, just been looking up his background...one top job really, chelski, but granted (ahem) he did pretty well but with a very expensive squad/team that picked itself most of the time not like they were relegation candidates like us and he got them to play their way out is it? as i remember he basically continued with the style & selection of Jose but they became a little more expansive later on nothing i saw suggests to me he'd have made it long term there given the chance...but that's just my opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmojorisin75 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Is my sarcasm detection plugin in Firefox broken or are people really saying they wouldn't take Grant? I mean, nevermind the possibility of actually getting him, or anyone of quality in, but saying no? what would be your basis for appointing grant then, out of interest? 20 years experience in management with a great club record, did very well with Chelsea in a difficult position and with a dressing room probably in 300 times more turmoil than ours, doesn't seem easily rattled and his teams played decent football. edit: also according to wiki he likes to give young players chances GET HIM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Also he's used to the DOF idea so, hey, if this system is kept who else is available that would slot in with minimal fuss? He's used to being one. I'm not sure how well that translates to working under Dennis Wise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzofit_Grant If he's married to a woman who would drink her own piss on TV I think working under Wise wouldn't be a problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. huh? so the 'far superior' you put in front of scolari was meant to say what exactly? seemed to me it was sarcy and was implying that grant was at least the equal of scolari, which i can see no basis for other than a decent season with chelski where they ended up with nothing Theres more basis for Grant being a success than Scolari. Grant didnt win anything, but he took them a few points within the title and one penalty within winning the champions league. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. huh? so the 'far superior' you put in front of scolari was meant to say what exactly? seemed to me it was sarcy and was implying that grant was at least the equal of scolari, which i can see no basis for other than a decent season with chelski where they ended up with nothing Theres more basis for Grant being a success than Scolari. Grant didnt win anything, but he took them a few points within the title and one penalty within winning the champions league. So? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. huh? so the 'far superior' you put in front of scolari was meant to say what exactly? seemed to me it was sarcy and was implying that grant was at least the equal of scolari, which i can see no basis for other than a decent season with chelski where they ended up with nothing Theres more basis for Grant being a success than Scolari. Grant didnt win anything, but he took them a few points within the title and one penalty within winning the champions league. So? So why are people saying they wouldnt take someone who got to within a whisker of winning 2 trophies? Beggars cant be choosers, and he certainly has more reason to be picked ahead of Steve Bruce or any of the other managers that people are hyping up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 I find it laughable but not surprising that people dont want the manager that took Chelsea to within a kick of winning the Champions League and within a couple of points of winning the league. Especially when the 'far superior' Phil Scolari cant get anywhere near either of the feats. aren't they still in the CL? big phil was sacked before he got anywhere near it to be fair... Aye, but he's been sacked before he could get anywhere near where Grant got. Both points still stand. both points? first one stands i guess, second is only because he was sacked surely? not really a fair assessment imo Course it is, Grant wasnt sacked mid way through the season. Scolari was. huh? so the 'far superior' you put in front of scolari was meant to say what exactly? seemed to me it was sarcy and was implying that grant was at least the equal of scolari, which i can see no basis for other than a decent season with chelski where they ended up with nothing Theres more basis for Grant being a success than Scolari. Grant didnt win anything, but he took them a few points within the title and one penalty within winning the champions league. So? So why are people saying they wouldnt take someone who got to within a whisker of winning 2 trophies? Beggars cant be choosers, and he certainly has more reason to be picked ahead of Steve Bruce or any of the other managers that people are hyping up. Because it can be argued Grant had a team that picked itself. He also seemed to have trouble dealing volatile stars like Drogba. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Our team picked itself when KK walked yet we promptly crumbled. Mourinho is as much an icon to Chelsea and Grant did admirably. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Heneage Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Our team picked itself when KK walked yet we promptly crumbled. Mourinho is as much an icon to Chelsea and Grant did admirably. Chelsea's first XI and our First XI? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 Our team picked itself when KK walked yet we promptly crumbled. Mourinho is as much an icon to Chelsea and Grant did admirably. Chelsea's first XI and our First XI? Pressure on Chelsea to perform and our own underwhelming expectations? Link to post 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