Eddie Howe

[KaKa]

6 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Lampard is a horrendous manager. No idea about phases of play and on record as saying he doesn’t believe in having a particular playing philosophy.

 

Just look at how his Chelsea side played, suicidal, formless high press and a deep backline. Similar to how we play under Bruce. Nothing compact; the bloke is clueless tactically and got away with it due to the players at his disposal. Another in a long line of British “tough, tell it like it is” man-managers with no idea whatsoever with regards to modern tactics.

 

He’s the only one on our supposed shortlist I’d be genuinely upset about us hiring. Like replacing Bruce with a young Sherwood (might be hyperbole but I se similarities between them).

 

Now this post right here is absolutely terrifying, and it could very well end up being exactly what we do end up with under Lampard.

[Minhosa]

I wouldn't want Lampard at all. The uplift when Tuchel arrived and used the exact same players would frighten the life out of me if I owned a club and was considering appointing Lampard. When a proper top manager arrives, he essentially increases the output by like 200%.

 

That alone should kill Lampards managerial career or, as a minimum, fire him all the way down to L1/L2 to learn the trade properly and not get roles based upon his surname/playing career.

[Guest neesy111]

1 minute ago, dazzanufc1892 said:

 

Because this is the whole point. The 2 aren't comparable.

 

You're looking for a manager who has done something at a high level and proven he can maintain or elevate a team. Fonseca couldn't even do this with Roma where he had some great players and a huge budget following the sale of Allison. A top class manager came in to Inter, brought in 3 names and broke the Juve monopoly overnight. 

 

People are fawning over an unproven manager who did an average job in an average league because he edits well on YouTube.

 

Eh, everything I've read on Fonseca is reading the opposite what you've posted there.  

[Hanshithispantz]

5 minutes ago, Jimwallace197 said:

For me the main issue with Lampard is that they didnt seem to have any football identity or consistent way of playing football in his final year at Chelsea, mainly lumping balls into the box and hoping for the best. 

 

 

Yeah, which is why someone like Fonseca is much more appealing.

 

If your club has an identity in the way they play it's a lot easier to see where your players are going wrong too. Half the battle with assessing our squads over the past decade has been that not even they seemed to be aware of what exactly they were supposed to be doing.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Hanshithispantz

[The Prophet]

The problem with Lampsrd was that his Chelsea team lacked a style and an identity. He didn't know his best team and would often play players out of position to squeeze them into the side.

 

I don't think he's as horrific as some make out and he may one day be a good manager, but he needs to learn to be more assertive and decisive.

[Minhosa]

He'd also bring that annoying little runt Jody Morris with him so that's another tick in the 'No' column imho.

[KaKa]

2 minutes ago, dazzanufc1892 said:

 

Because this is the whole point. The 2 aren't comparable.

 

You're looking for a manager who has done something at a high level and proven he can maintain or elevate a team. Fonseca couldn't even do this with Roma where he had some great players and a huge budget following the sale of Allison. A top class manager came in to Inter, brought in 3 names and broke the Juve monopoly overnight. 

 

People are fawning over an unproven manager who did an average job in an average league because he edits well on YouTube.

 

Nah, man Roma were selling off players they didn't have great players or a huge budget under Fonseca, and in fact the club got sold during his time there.

 

Prior to that he won three league titles and 3 domestic cups in Ukraine all back to back. Also took Paco de Ferreira in Portugal to Champions League qualification their greatest ever league finish. You can't dismiss what he has achieved so far. it's certainly far more than what Lampard has.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

@gjohnsoni gotta say man, that post of yours above has got to be oddest take I’ve seen in ages. I mean literally there isn’t a single thing in that post that is nothing but your own incorrect biased opinion. 

 

I said it was my opinion, and not that well informed which is why I also sort of apologised for it, but to me he's never come across as someone particularly intelligent, or with leadership credentials. I had the same suspicions about Bruce ever since the day Freddie Shepherd tried to bring him here over a decade ago.

 

I might well be wrong about Rooney tbf, if you've heard some feedback which suggests he's actually a very promising young manager then by all means share. 

[SUPERTOON]

I wouldn’t have wanted Lampard here under Ashley as a desperate option, he should be nowhere near the job under these owners.

[christ]

One aspect that always gets mentioned whenever a Chelsea manager loses his job is the notion that he “lost the dressing room”. There are suggestions from more than one individual that this was a factor for Lampard too and it was certainly the case in the final weeks.

Before this run of form though, perhaps a note of caution is required. It is inevitable that those connected to individuals who play less regularly are going to have more negative things to say than people associated with first-team regulars.

But in talking to various contacts and people close to even those who do play most weeks, a general theme emerged and if these things were being relayed to The Athletic, you can expect perhaps even more forthright opinions to reach Granovskaia’s ears.

“The problem was, the manager didn’t talk to the players — well only the ones he liked,” one such source explains. “I know of players who weren’t in the team that didn’t hear from him for many months. That’s very frustrating for a player because you don’t know what you have to do to do better, what the manager is thinking. It’s crazy. 

“Obviously when Chelsea were on their 17-game unbeaten run (between September and December), the coach is not going to make too many changes. But you still need to talk to people. Players are going to be wary about knocking on the manager’s door themselves because it can be perceived negatively.”

Another added: “It was very weird for me that Lampard’s way of working was to be distant to the players. He was a player until very recently (retired 2016). He should know how to approach players but he seemed to have forgotten.”

And one more said: “The communication of Lampard with the players was not fluent. When I met with one of the players last year I was asking if the manager was telling him things. He said to me: ‘No, but usually he never speaks to the players’. I said I could not understand that because Lampard needs a professional relationship with every player. You need to know players need information and guidance.”

One player told The Athletic that Lampard staying on for the rest of the season would have been a “catastrophe”, with the levels of tension in the dressing room too high to recover from and players comparing his criticism of performances to Jose Mourinho in his final days at the club.

There was also a feeling that as form started to dip that the regular changes to the starting line-up prevented players from building a system and confidence. The squad, for example, could all see how talented Werner is but were horrified to see the confidence drain out of him as he was put in and out of the starting XI.

There were some other flashpoints too. The first indication that all was not well behind the scenes this season came with Marcos Alonso’s show of disrespect by leaving to watch the second half of Chelsea’s 3-3 draw at West Brom after being substituted at half-time. The left-back hasn’t played for the club since. “What happened with Alonso raised a red flag in terms of Lampard being able to control the dressing room,” one source claims.

After having the disadvantage of not being able to buy players in his first year, the arrival of six new members brought a different kind of problem, especially as Chelsea failed to get many fringe players out. The only significant departures were Pedro and Willian but they were out of contract anyway.

Attempts were made to move certain people on, however the impact of COVID-19 on football clubs around the world meant there were few takers. The high wages Chelsea players are on meant only a handful of loan deals (Ross Barkley, Davide Zappacosta, Victor Moses, Tiemoue Bakayoko) took place. It left a bloated squad for Lampard to deal with.

“You didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure it out,” says one contact. “There were too many influential voices outside of the starting XI causing issues. There was a danger of a bit of a divide developing between those playing and those who weren’t. The body language of some told a story. There were those who weren’t putting in the same effort as others in training. Like a disease, you get issues and it spreads. It obviously got a lot worse when Chelsea began losing regularly.”

Some players complained of a lack of tactical instructions from Lampard (Getty Images)

Lampard certainly had his moments when he let players know in no uncertain terms what he made of their performance. On top of the West Brom game, the 3-0 loss at Sheffield United in July, the FA Cup final reverse to Arsenal a month later and then the Premier League defeat on December 26th to the same opponents were notable occasions where he was described as “losing it”.

But perhaps surprisingly, there are insinuations from players that Lampard didn’t provide them with tactical instructions, that some were just told to simply go out on the pitch and express themselves. One doubts that is a view shared by the man in question.

Players began to grow suspicious of Lampard’s job security when one member of the backroom staff who was not appointed by him told some players: “Don’t worry, this (Lampard) will all be over in a couple of weeks.”

Even the intensity of the training sessions was raised as a point of alarm by the end. At the start and when things were going well, players responded positively to the drills. It was a refreshing change from the repetitive nature of Sarri’s exercises. However, after the impressive victory over Leeds, Chelsea notably looked fatigued in their displays against Everton, Wolves, West Ham, Arsenal and Aston Villa during the rest of December.

By the Fulham game in early January, players were expecting Lampard to be sacked if they didn’t win. A 1-0 victory courtesy of Mason Mount meant that wasn’t the outcome but after the dire showing at Leicester a few days later, the atmosphere in the dressing room, according to one source, “felt like a goodbye”.

Lampard was accused in some quarters of working players too hard, dating back to the preparations in June, ahead of last season getting back underway following the three-month postponement. Indeed, despite Chelsea’s fixture list this season regularly involving matches in midweek as well as the weekend, the 42-year-old was spotted still putting on intense drills. As one individual remarked: “There was a worry that not only were Chelsea players getting exhausted but it would take a toll with people getting more injuries.”

 

https://theathletic.com/2298337/2021/01/25/lampards-chelsea-sacking-tension-with-marina-unhappy-players-and-secret-job-offers/?source=user_shared_article

 

No thanks.

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Mr Raspberry Jam said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/10/22/graeme-jones-told-manage-next-three-newcastle-games-new-owners/?utm_content=football&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1634904960-1

 

 

There is a suggestion that the Saudi Arabians, who have a controlling 80 per cent stake in the club through the country’s Public Investment Fund, like the idea of bringing in a big-name manager like Lampard because of the pulling power he will have for players and sponsors alike.

 

 

 

 

That worries me if it's true. The Saudis would want Lampard here for all the wrong reasons. "He's a big name with pulling power" translates as: he's British so British media and fans will take to him more readily. 

 

It's along the same lines as when Ashley hired Bruce because he knew it would dilute the hostility a southern based yes man would have triggered. 

[Kanji]

12 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

I said it was my opinion, and not that well informed which is why I also sort of apologised for it, but to me he's never come across as someone particularly intelligent, or with leadership credentials. I had the same suspicions about Bruce ever since the day Freddie Shepherd tried to bring him here over a decade ago.

 

I might well be wrong about Rooney tbf, if you've heard some feedback which suggests he's actually a very promising young manager then by all means share. 

 

It was simply saying X manager is a fake Klopp. The other manager is like Redknapp. Rooney is like Souness. I'd rather you beat down managers for their actual performance as a manager than make people comparisons. 

 

I'd rather Lampard not be our manager either, I'm hoping its a Fonseca, Emery, Favre or Howe over a Gerrard or Lampard. But I just didn't think it was fair to call the younger english managers PFM. They aren't dinosaur cunts who beat their chest about whatever fake team they supported as a boy etc ala Bruce. 

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Kanji

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Kanji said:

 

It was simply saying X manager is a fake Klopp. The other manager is like Redknapp. Rooney is like Souness. I'd rather you beat down managers for their actual performance as a manager than make people comparisons. 

 

I'd rather Lampard not be our manager either, I'm hoping its a Fonseca, Emery, Favre or Howe over a Gerrard or Lampard. But I just didn't think it was fair to call the younger english managers PFM. They aren't dinosaur cunts who beat their chest about whatever fake team they supported as a boy etc ala Bruce. 

 

 

 

 

Yeah but I didn't say any of those things, all I said was I couldn't get my head round Rooney as a manager. All the other stuff is what others have said, possibly not even about Rooney. 

[KaKa]

11 minutes ago, christ said:

 

 

 

https://theathletic.com/2298337/2021/01/25/lampards-chelsea-sacking-tension-with-marina-unhappy-players-and-secret-job-offers/?source=user_shared_article

 

No thanks.

 

Yup, I was never really in, but now I'm completely out. Thanks

 

That absolutely reeks of him trying to be some knock off Mourinho layered with a good dose of PFM. Nope.

[Jimwallace197]

Its behind a paywall, any chance you could post the contents of it?

 

[thomas]

If it's Lampard I'm out.

[Emotic]

Are there any other strong rumours that Lampard is seriously in the running or did I actually read three pages of people freaking out because of an article by Luke Edwards FFS. The guy is just trolling now that his Daddy Bruce is gone.

[mrmojorisin75]

1 minute ago, thomas said:

If it's Lampard I'm out.

 

seems a bit extreme

[KaKa]

7 minutes ago, Jimwallace197 said:

Its behind a paywall, any chance you could post the contents of it?

 

 

It's all there in the post at the top of the page. Just expand the quote.

 

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by KaKa

[Sam Garvey]

On 21/10/2021 at 14:30, KaKa said:

 

This is really interesting because Lampard and Fonseca have been talked about a whole lot. Really does make me wonder if it's all agent mischief for the pair of them now.

 

In any case I do think Fonseca has a lot of really good qualities and would be a really good appointment, certainly not Lampard though, as I think he'd have a melt down if any criticism came his way and we'd be right back in the Bruce situation again.

 That’s what I’m saying man, agent mischief, I couldn’t have put it better if I tried. Don’t want either manager if their agent is playing games to get them a nice pay day and a brilliant project. I want me a proper manager. 

[Jimwallace197]

Anyone else think there's probably too many people involved currently in the decision making process at Newcastle, it seems like 3-4 parties have to sign off on any important decision & that's leading to indecision & delays. Bruce should have been gotten rid of well over a week ago & even if they were going to give him his final game in charge, he should have been gone Sunday, Monday at the latest. 

Since the Saudi's own 80%, they should be the ones making the decisions obviously but it seems like Stavely & Co have more say than just a minor shareholder. I hope its not going to be a consistent theme throughout their ownership especially now when were in the middle of a relegation dogfight & decisions need to be made quickly to get us out of this mess. I could see it becoming a serious problem if we are trying to sign players in the January transfer window & because of delays, the news gets out and we end up missing out on the player to another club. 

 

The old adage, too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind

[PauloGeordio]

Just now, Jimwallace197 said:

Anyone else think there's probably too many people involved currently in the decision making process at Newcastle, it seems like 3-4 parties have to sign off on any important decision & that's leading to indecision & delays. Bruce should have been gotten rid of well over a week ago & even if they were going to give him his final game in charge, he should have been gone Sunday, Monday at the latest. 

Since the Saudi's own 80%, they should be the ones making the decisions obviously but it seems like Stavely & Co have more say than just a minor shareholder. I hope its not going to be a consistent theme throughout their ownership especially now when were in the middle of a relegation dogfight & decisions need to be made quickly to get us out of this mess. I could see it becoming a serious problem if we are trying to sign players in the January transfer window & because of delays, the news gets out and we end up missing out on the player to another club. 

 

The old adage, too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind

We have cooks and broth ??????

[Sam Garvey]

On 21/10/2021 at 14:18, Shearergol said:

 

I think you were asked yesterday, but why would you take Martinez over Fonseca? Ignoring who their agent might or might not be.

I don’t want no media push agent for a manager who has no link to English football after failing in Italy. Martinez has been with the number 1 international team in the world. Imagine if he got us some players like Tielemans for Newcastle instead of bloody Hendricks. And all that Belgium pool of talent that they have could be ours as he’ll know the younger players coming up (imagine we got a young unknown hazard or de Bruyne from Belgium) Plus I know he failed at Everton but that’s not a similar project to us, the manager would have money Time and unity from the fans now that Brucey has gone. That’s why. 

[NG32]

Just now, Jimwallace197 said:

Anyone else think there's probably too many people involved currently in the decision making process at Newcastle, it seems like 3-4 parties have to sign off on any important decision & that's leading to indecision & delays. Bruce should have been gotten rid of well over a week ago & even if they were going to give him his final game in charge, he should have been gone Sunday, Monday at the latest. 

Since the Saudi's own 80%, they should be the ones making the decisions obviously but it seems like Stavely & Co have more say than just a minor shareholder. I hope its not going to be a consistent theme throughout their ownership especially now when were in the middle of a relegation dogfight & decisions need to be made quickly to get us out of this mess. I could see it becoming a serious problem if we are trying to sign players in the January transfer window & because of delays, the news gets out and we end up missing out on the player to another club. 

 

The old adage, too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind

Id rather the board have different or conflicting ideas that they discuss and come to an agreement over time, compared to Ashley just saying "he'll do".   

[TRon]

1 minute ago, Jimwallace197 said:

Anyone else think there's probably too many people involved currently in the decision making process at Newcastle, it seems like 3-4 parties have to sign off on any important decision & that's leading to indecision & delays. Bruce should have been gotten rid of well over a week ago & even if they were going to give him his final game in charge, he should have been gone Sunday, Monday at the latest. 

Since the Saudi's own 80%, they should be the ones making the decisions obviously but it seems like Stavely & Co have more say than just a minor shareholder. I hope its not going to be a consistent theme throughout their ownership especially now when were in the middle of a relegation dogfight & decisions need to be made quickly to get us out of this mess. I could see it becoming a serious problem if we are trying to sign players in the January transfer window & because of delays, the news gets out and we end up missing out on the player to another club. 

 

The old adage, too many cooks spoil the broth comes to mind

 

Who's to say what's really going on though? We are hearing all this stuff from journalists who themselves are most of the time just guessing. If you take away all the speculation, seems Staveley and co seem to be handling this in quite a measured and deliberate manner, no knee jerk reactions or appointments so far.