A case against stability

[manpe 10,861]

The best April's fool thread so far (not that there is much contest). I won't bet my life on that it is one though, who knows, your controversialness has no limits, a beast that cannot be tamed. I think the last sentence of the OP is the most controversial ever.

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

We had stability in the team over the past decade, maybe not with the managerial position but Cech, Terry, Lampard, Drogba etc were all there and when needed, they pushed other players to fight, they led the team. Had we changed the core of the squad as often as we did with managers, it would've been a disaster. So no, I do not agree with you.

[Liquidator 5,176]

So he has a different opinion and therefore he is a clown?

Yep, I'm afraid that is how it has always been with Henrique

[Ollie 4,400]

We've done great in the last decade yes, but with stability we would've done even better and dominated English football like Man Utd have done. That's my opinion. We'll never know just how good we could've been. It's been a great ride though.

[Peace. 4,352]

Even though I am not agree with everything that Henrique said in this topic, he has a point... The managerial stability is overrated. I strongly believe that stability is a key factor to bring you success. Although, this whole affaire about having stability with your managers is over done. Mind you, stability doesn't lie solely in the manager ! For instance, it could also lie within your board or within your squad.

In the last eight years, we have been quite successful, especially trophy wise. Is it because of the merry-go-round with managers ? No. That's because we had stability. Yes, we had — not where everybody are looking, though. In these eight seasons, where we won one Champions League, three Premier League, four FA Cup and went in three CL semis... What was the thing which has been here in all these years ? The core of our team : Drogba, Lampard, Terry and Cech. They weren't only world class players, but also our leaders. And around this core of players, you had other world-class players who have stayed a long time here and who also had a good sense of leadership. Namely : Ricardo Carvalho, Ashley Cole, Michael Essien (six years) ; Claude Makélélé (five years) Michael Ballack (four years). You even had "only" good players who were around there for a long time : Joe Cole, Paulo Ferreira (seven years) ; Salomon Kalou, John Obi Mikel (six years).

Despite having axed Mourinho, we reach the CL final, not because of Grant, but because the players were perfectly oiled (and partly thanks to Clark, also). We have done well in Champions League under Hiddink because we reverted back to the Mourinho's tactics — park the bus. Ancelotti has built his team around the Mourinho's players. We won the CL last year because we also reverted back to Mou's tactics. Every times that something went wrong, players automatically were reverting back to Mourinho's tactics.

We have had a merry-go-round with our managers, though our squad was a sole entity. Players knew well each other, they were natural born leader, they were well oiled. So yeah, we had stability — within our squad. In a way, that's kinda like if we had Mourinho all these years.

That's the same thing with Bayern and Barcelona. They didn't have managerial stability in the years 2000's. Though, they had stability else were. The German side : in its board. Managers came and went, but the heads of this club remained the same. Which means that they kept moving toward the same direction, depiste not having the same coach. That's more or less the same with Barça. Why have they been so successful ? Because of the stability within their philosophy, regarding their playing style and their academy set-up. And then, we have Manchester United who have had stability through their manager Alex Ferguson.

At the end of the day, the four most successful clubs of the last eight years had stability during that period of time. Though, the stability was in a different place for each of them. Having stability with your manager is not the only solution.

Now, that core of player is gone. We need to fix our stability else where. To my eyes, we should not try to find stability with our next manager. No, we need to keep a stability regarding the team, regarding the players we buy, regarding our playing style. We also need to build a stability within our academy systeme (it looks we are going into that direction). That's how I believe we should do. Because managers easely come and go, though the squad and the academy structure remains (more time, at least..).

[Strike 7,474]

It's been exciting no doubt. All the managerial changes, the late-season charge for the cups etc, but one case for stability is the use of the academy. earlier in the season Chelsea faced Manchester United in the league cup. United team had Wootton, Keane and even brought on Tunnicliffe and Nick Powell. It gave real experience to them and that is something that goes amiss when you have no stability.

ofcourse, one would say - why do we need youngsters when we can buy proven talent? i don't have an answer for that but i know i would prefer chelsea integrating some of the players from the academy.

[Blue Gino 377]

Instability and what ten trophies? It makes for good drama I guess and makes forums like this entertaining in the long run. Personally I'd love more EPL titles but the CL doesn't hurt. English media hates us and I love it. Roman came in when all it was was just Arsenal and United trading titles and he crashed the party, took a dump in the punch bowl and it shook the league for the better, so stability can suck it I love chaos.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Henrique sorta, kinda has a point in that stability in the coach's position might not be necessary - where he's completely wrong in my opinion is that stability in itself is overrated. It's entirely necessary in my view.

We bring kids into the academy before they're 10, we sign them before they're 18 and if they make the first team they could be here for about 20 years. That's an oversimplification but there needs to be stability for that period, an overarching view of where the club wants to be heading so that plans can be made accordingly. Even over a shorter period of time that's evident. Over the last four transfer windows we've signed almost 20 players, so an average of five players per window. If you're making that type of commitment, both financial and practical, then you need to have an idea of what type of football you're wanting to play and what your needs are.

If we look at the examples thrown out you can see how that applies. Ferguson makes a particular type of signing, and it's not changed a huge amount over the last 20 years which means the people in the academy and the scouting department know exactly what they're looking for. Similarly at Arsenal you've seen a particular type of player define Wenger's first seven years in charge but there you can see a different ideology take over, one that has put economic needs ahead of ambition and it's turned into a mess. I've long said that Arsenal and Wenger have become too entwined with one another so they're in a position where they will struggle to excise him from the club. That is obviously beyond stability into co-dependence, Sid and Nancy-style.

With Barca and Bayern what you're seeing is a philosophy that transcends coaches. Here the coach is an important cog in the machine, not the engine. Whilst they may bring their own idiosyncrasies to the role but they won't re-define it. The same goes for Real Madrid, which is why I think Jose was the wrong choice for them - that role is more like a strait-jacket.

We seem to be between these two ways of running a club - we're still defined by the Mourinho period and our success in May was built on that, as well as a bit of luck. Carlo never made the team his own in my opinion and we've been drifting aimlessly in many respects since 2007.

But no discussion on this can be had without reference to one man - Michael Emenalo. At the moment, he seems to hold more sway over the direction of this club than any other. He is the stable presence.

And do you know what? In many ways we've got a more focused approach in recruitment and development than we've had for many years. You can see exactly what the club is trying to do from the players they've brought in. You can see the beginnings of a new type of development path for young players from the academy and elsewhere. You can see a unified vision of what football this club wants to be playing.

Any coach we bring in will be a short-term appointment in all likelihood (that's 3-5 years) but the club can't have a short-term view. There needs to be an ethos of what this club should be that goes beyond that. The kids that we'll want to introduce into the first team in 5 years time are 14-16 now. They need to be learning what their roles in that team might be NOW, which is why stability is a must. It just doesn't have to be sitting in the dugout.

[Laylabelle 9,534]

We've done great in the last decade yes, but with stability we would've done even better and dominated English football like Man Utd have done. That's my opinion. We'll never know just how good we could've been. It's been a great ride though.

We've tried not having stablity...and ended up with Rafa...

Wouldnt surprise me if the FA crack down somehow on the amount of hiring and firing we do,it doesnt make us look like a potential club to come to for long term managers and makes us a crazy laughing stock.Not that it matters but still.Its hard for a Manager to know the team in and out if they just get the flick.Our longest has been 2 years which is a bit mental.

That and keep costing money etc..not bad for them but probably not so good for us