Eddie Howe

[wormy]

It would be an honour. 

[Cronky]

Chelsea need a striker, not a change of manager.

 

If they can land Osimhen, that'll make a big difference.

[TheBrownBottle]

Chelsea’s insane managerial record - sacking and appointing more than twenty managers (including caretakers) from the day Abramovich bought the club - also shows that one of the standard football truisms re managerial stability and success has no correlation.   They’re the most successful English club of the 21st Century. 
 

edit: I’m not suggesting that we do this.  I’m not daft - just that somehow, Chelsea has made it work. 

 

 

Edited April 15 by TheBrownBottle

[Zero]

7 hours ago, Cronky said:

Chelsea need a striker, not a change of manager.

 

If they can land Osimhen, that'll make a big difference.

 

No way they could afford him under FFP. If they can, we must be able to do the same

[Cf]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Chelsea’s insane managerial record - sacking and appointing more than twenty managers (including caretakers) from the day Abramovich bought the club - also shows that one of the standard football truisms re managerial stability and success has no correlation.   They’re the most successful English club of the 21st Century. 
 

edit: I’m not suggesting that we do this.  I’m not daft - just that somehow, Chelsea has made it work. 

 

 

 

 

They had multiple seasons of being able to buy the league without any real competition. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Cf said:

 

They had multiple seasons of being able to buy the league without any real competition. 

They won both their European Cups years after Man City’s Abu Dhabi takeover

[Dr Venkman]

2 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

They had multiple seasons of being able to buy the league without any real competition. 

‘somehow’

[TheBrownBottle]

17 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

‘somehow’

Yes, ‘somehow’.  I’m referring to standard football truisms, not my actual confusion as to how it occurred.  I know how it happened; again, I’m not daft.  

[The Prophet]

Article on how much we've mixed up the tactics in the last few games.

[The College Dropout]

16 hours ago, Interpolic said:

Why are they even thinking of getting rid of Poch, man? He's a very good coach, trying to work it out with a disjointed mish mash of young players. Just let him get on with it. 

 

They always want the latest shiny thing man, such a joke club. 

The problem is the culture at the club. But Poch isn't doing a good job.

 

51 minutes ago, Zero said:

 

No way they could afford him under FFP. If they can, we must be able to do the same

Chelsea actually use financial hacks and dopes. We don't.

 

52 minutes ago, Cf said:

 

They had multiple seasons of being able to buy the league without any real competition. 

And setup an infrastructure to make them FFP-proof. That youth infrastructure is saving them atm.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Article on how much we've mixed up the tactics in the last few games.

Thought Eddie didn’t have a plan B?

[Lordshola]

Who’s go a gif of Eddie flicking himself in the eye from MOTD?? lol

[ExiledGeordie]

17 hours ago, David Edgar said:

??

[Bondedcrown]

I think he might know more than us about football?

 

 

Edited April 15 by Bondedcrown

[Thumbheed]

51 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Article on how much we've mixed up the tactics in the last few games.

 

I thought we looked quite good vs City with the same tactics. 

 

Hope we stick with it tbh. 

[Turnbull2000]

1 hour ago, Zero said:

 

No way they could afford him under FFP. If they can, we must be able to do the same

 

The owners will just sell another hotel to themselves.

[FinnMag]

18 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

Chelsea.

[Dr Venkman]

5 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Chelsea’s insane managerial record - sacking and appointing more than twenty managers (including caretakers) from the day Abramovich bought the club - also shows that one of the standard football truisms re managerial stability and success has no correlation.   They’re the most successful English club of the 21st Century. 
 

edit: I’m not suggesting that we do this.  I’m not daft - just that somehow, Chelsea has made it work. 

 

 

 

 

No it doesn't. It's a sample size of one, for which there is an elephantine mitigating factor. It was this assertion that led to me assuming you were using the word 'somehow' in good faith.

[Troll]

6 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Chelsea’s insane managerial record - sacking and appointing more than twenty managers (including caretakers) from the day Abramovich bought the club - also shows that one of the standard football truisms re managerial stability and success has no correlation.   They’re the most successful English club of the 21st Century. 
 

edit: I’m not suggesting that we do this.  I’m not daft - just that somehow, Chelsea has made it work. 

 

 

 

 

Counterpoint:  Only 3 of those managers actually won the league, and over half those titles came from the same manager.   Pep Guardiola has as many league titles in the last 7 years as all 20 of those managers combined.

 

 

Edited April 15 by Troll

[LiquidAK]

There's an argument that Chelsea would've seen even more success for the money they've funnelled into their team over the last 20 years if they'd had a bit more stability. Not sure the chopping and changing has actively helped them as much as the sheer cash they've thrown at the problem has led to short bursts of success before it inevitably goes wrong 

[TheBrownBottle]

22 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

 

No it doesn't. It's a sample size of one, for which there is an elephantine mitigating factor. It was this assertion that led to me assuming you were using the word 'somehow' in good faith.

Sorry, I was genuinely being tongue in cheek with the ‘somehow’ comment.  We know the key reason why Chelsea won things.  But I really do think that the ‘stability’ argument isn’t as solid a premise as football’s collective wisdom likes to think.  Real Madrid has had 16 managers during the same period.  Yes, they win things because they’re massive.  Chelsea won things due to financial support from their owner.  It’s money that dictates success more than any other factor, of course.

1 minute ago, LiquidAK said:

There's an argument that Chelsea would've seen even more success for the money they've funnelled into their team over the last 20 years if they'd had a bit more stability. Not sure the chopping and changing has actively helped them as much as the sheer cash they've thrown at the problem has led to short bursts of success before it inevitably goes wrong 

Yeah, I think there’s a good chance you’re right (it’s unprovable of course).  I do think that changing things up every few years at successful clubs can be a positive (Chelsea’s chopping and changing of late defies logic). 

[The College Dropout]

I don't think the culture at Chelsea permits that. Even prior to Roman. Under Bates in the latter years it was a v. cosmopolitan team. Impersonal and transient.

 

City is built v. differently. It has to be. They made it Pep's kingdom, with the minions doing exactly as Pep wants. 

 

Chelsea being in west London. Attracts a different type of person.

 

As a club we are closer to City. But probably more emotional, just-as-nervous. It's an intense city to live in for players. Neither City or Chelsea have that.

[huss9]

6 hours ago, Zero said:

 

No way they could afford him under FFP. If they can, we must be able to do the same

but they could afford callum wilson, you say?

 

 

[Smal]

not checked the validity of this but absolutely wild if true

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, Smal said:

not checked the validity of this but absolutely wild if true

A high proportion of goals occur in the last 20 minutes of a game. We thumped Spurs in 80 odd minutes. Then most of the other goals came against WHU in the last 20 minutes.