The Managerial Merry Go Round™

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

1 hour ago, TRon said:

 

That's the annoying thing, pre-Abramovic, they weren't really seen as a top tier club. Big club without a doubt, but not title contenders. They were a bit of a joke under Ken Bates.

 

But a decade at the top is a long time and they've probably imprinted themselves on the football world as one of the biggest English clubs now. Bastards.

A decade is understating things. It was nineteen years and nine months ago that Abramovich bought Chelsea and they were immediately one of the best clubs in the world from that date. Almost none of the players around today even recall a time before a dominant Chelsea. I was born in the early 1990's and for me it is a distant childhood memory. In the currrent context, saying that Chelsea weren't a top tier club is equally irrelevant to saying Nottingham Forest were once the best club in Europe.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Segun Oluwaniyi

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, Segun Oluwaniyi said:

A decade is understating things. It was nineteen years and nine months ago that Abramovich bought Chelsea and they were immediately one of the best clubs in the world from that date. Almost none of the players around today even recall a time before a dominant Chelsea. I was born in the early 1990's and for me it is a distant childhood memory. In the currrent context, saying that Chelsea weren't a top tier club is equally irrelevant to saying Nottingham Forest were once the best club in Europe.

 

 

 

 

Well this is where you learn a bit of history. Chelsea were indeed a pretty mediocre club before they were bought by the Russian mafioso. I'm not saying that makes them any less of a club now by the way, two decades is definitely enough time to make a long term mark.

[Ronson333]

Chelsea were basically a current West Ham before Abramovich turned up.

[80]

1 hour ago, Segun Oluwaniyi said:

A decade is understating things. It was nineteen years and nine months ago that Abramovich bought Chelsea and they were immediately one of the best clubs in the world from that date. Almost none of the players around today even recall a time before a dominant Chelsea. I was born in the early 1990's and for me it is a distant childhood memory. In the currrent context, saying that Chelsea weren't a top tier club is equally irrelevant to saying Nottingham Forest were once the best club in Europe.

 

 

 

That's the thing, it's pretty much like saying Liverpool always used to be a nothing club in 1992. Factually accurate but times change. We are where we are.

[Shak]

1 hour ago, Ronson333 said:

Chelsea were basically a current West Ham before Abramovich turned up.

 

Probably a bit harsh.

 

They'd finished between 3rd and 6th for six straight years before Abramovich got there and had won three domestic cups in that span as well as a Cup Winner's Cup.

[gbandit]

Not read the media reports but is Poch pretty much nailed on? He’s probably one of the people I’d least want to take it on. There’s no way he does poorly. I know they’re going to have to sell players this window but if they bring in a quality striker and have Poch I’d be amazed if they’re not top 5 next season.

 

There are a lot of clubs vying for top 6 now.

City will always be top two while Pep is there and they’re bankrolled still

 

Arsenal will clearly be top three for a while to come.

 

Cant imagine Liverpool being as shit as this next season but who knows.

 

I think Spurs’s time is done, think they’ll properly fall away next season from the top six.

 

Man U will probably be stronger next season.

 

Then you have us, we’ll be stronger next season but Europe will have a fairly significant impact on us in the league.

 

Brighton, if they don’t get into Europe, will be up there 

 

Villa if they don’t get into Europe will be up there.

 

I suppose that’s only seven teams vying for the top places but I think it’s pretty hard to pick between the teams after City and Arsenal, where the others will be next season in third and fourth 

[Deuce]

Spurs have the financial muscle to be in the top 6 picture every year. They’ll fall into the right manager sooner or later.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Deuce

[gbandit]

5 minutes ago, Deuce said:

Spurs have the financial muscle to be in the top 6 picture every year. They’ll fall into the right manager sooner or later.

 

 

 

Have they though? They’ve got huge debts from their stadium, no? They don’t have huge sellable assets other than Kane and if he was to go, they’d be utterly fucked 

[Wolfcastle]

Chelsea kicked on under Matthew Harding's money in the late 90s but until then I wouldn't even say they were West Ham.

7,000 for a home game in 1992 in the top flight.  They were 7th in the league at the time.

Absolute nothing club. Not big enough to rile, fans too nasty to have a soft spot for.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Shak said:

 

Probably a bit harsh.

 

They'd finished between 3rd and 6th for six straight years before Abramovich got there and had won three domestic cups in that span as well as a Cup Winner's Cup.

 

More like Arsenal I'd say.

[Wolfcastle]

For me Spurs are where we were in 2004.

Being uspured by Abramovich's money and shuffled out of the top four.

Flayling trying to stay there and it might do more damage than accepting a decline in their case and getting a plan for the longer term.

Hard to think like that whilst your fading but clinging on as opposed to having faded.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Wolfcastle

[Ben]

37 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Have they though? They’ve got huge debts from their stadium, no? They don’t have huge sellable assets other than Kane and if he was to go, they’d be utterly fucked 

Levy holds them back, he gets to cosy with the players and takes their advice over top managers, he surrounds himself with yes men and takes poor advice, IMO Spurs under Levy are no more than a top 8 team.

[Nobody]

What an appointment Lampard has been

[FinnMag]

This gotta be Lampard’s last PL gig as a manager. 

[wormy]

26 minutes ago, FinnMag said:

This gotta be Lampard’s last PL gig as a manager. 

 

[The Butcher]

Can't stand this cunt.

[bowlingcrofty]

Absolutely disgraceful that they’ve been forced to play each team twice.

[Ace]

He’s as bad as Klopp for whingeing 

[Ben]

Has he even seen Man City's fixtures ? 

[SUPERTOON]

 

 

[KaKa]

Would have stayed up if they stuck with Marsch. Leeds are a complete and utter mess.

[Ace]

Seemed a great idea to go for a defensive coach the way they played under Bielsa and Ted Lasso 

[maze]

So glad we don’t find ourselves in this mess. Truely grateful. 

 

That being said, you do have to wonder if teams that changes managers rapidly (Watford, Tottenham, Chelsea to name a few) actually has a sound strategic plan at all or is it just hit ‘n’ miss hoping for a lucky streak. 

 

Hope we NEVER become like that. 
 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, KaKa said:

Would have stayed up if they stuck with Marsch. Leeds are a complete and utter mess.

 

Nah, they were hopeless man. Think just because it's the name 'Leeds' people are expecting better but they've been no more or less than a Watford, Norwich, etc. 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2023 by Optimistic Nut

[KaKa]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Nah, they were hopeless man. 

 

Yeah, it wasn't perfect, but they gave every single team they played problems, and I just think they would have got enough results. Also think he was best positioned to get the best of all the players they allowed him to bring in.

 

This new guy has been hopeless and they're still outside of the bottom three. Pretty sue Marsch would have got more points than he has, no?