Jump to content

The Next Manager?


 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, milka said:

 What you think   about  Mark  Hughes ?! 

When I think about Mark Hughes, I think of his time back in charge of City.

I don't mind ex-Chelsea coming back in charge, but Hughes is NOT the first person on my mind when it comes to that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On January 24, 2016 at 0:20 PM, Blue Armour said:

When I think about Mark Hughes, I think of his time back in charge of City.

I don't mind ex-Chelsea coming back in charge, but Hughes is NOT the first person on my mind when it comes to that

Hughes was in charge of City before the investment really paid off in terms of quality. Similar IMO to Ranieri here.

Still, I don't think Hughes will be the man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

I'm guessing hard work, tough-nosed football with an emphasis on canceling out the opposition.

I'm guessing he is suggesting Chelsea should look for someone who is similar to Mourinho, even though Simeone and Mourinho are 2 different animals in every possible way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to The Times we have a shortlist of four managers: Simeone, Sampaoli, Deschamps and Pochettino, although Roman hasn't yet given up hope on Pep. The Independent also mention these managers, in addition to Conte. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mauricio-pochettino-to-chelsea-tottenham-manager-added-to-blues-hit-list-a6835536.html

 

 

Edited by The Chels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Chels said:

According to The Times we have a shortlist of four managers: Simeone, Sampaoli, Deschamps and Pochettino, although Roman hasn't yet given up hope on Pep. The Independent also mention these managers, in addition to Conte. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/mauricio-pochettino-to-chelsea-tottenham-manager-added-to-blues-hit-list-a6835536.html

 

 

I'd rank them in terms of my excitement as:

1.  Pochettino/Sampaoli

3.  Simeone

4.  Deschamps

That means Deschamps is nailed on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2016 at 0:25 PM, *Z4YN said:

Simeone represents everything this club should stand for.

And why is that? Because Mourinho brainwashed Chelsea fans into thinking that counter-attacking football and playing like a small side is the Chelsea way? 

Btw 'should stand for' is just wrong. Many fans here including me don't want us to play like a small side anymore. Imo, In order for us to establish ourselves as a truly top club in the long term, we need to focus on attacking Football as a philosophy and choose our managers and players based on this philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hybrid Angel said:

And why is that? Because Mourinho brainwashed Chelsea fans into thinking that counter-attacking football and playing like a small side is the Chelsea way? 

Btw 'should stand for' is just wrong. Many fans here including me don't want us to play like a small side anymore. Imo, In order for us to establish ourselves as a truly top club in the long term, we need to focus on attacking Football as a philosophy and choose our managers and players based on this philosophy.

Why does attacking football = top club? Arsenal have been like that under Wenger but haven't won the league in years. The beauty of the game is that there are many different styles and playing one style doesn't equate to success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

Why does attacking football = top club? Arsenal have been like that under Wenger but haven't won the league in years. The beauty of the game is that there are many different styles and playing one style doesn't equate to success.

I said attacking football is better if you want to be a a top club for the long term. There are many reasons but mainly it's because the most talented players in the world refuse to play under this philosophy for a long period of time.

Arsene Wenger is just a very poor manager. He lacks tactical intelligence and often lets his side down due to a lack of plan B. He also fails to adapt to certain situations in certain games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Attacking football doesn't send me up the fucking wall. Nothing raises the blood pressure like watching a CB pass the ball back forth between his defensive partner, the DM and the GK. Wew lad.

That's not attacking football though.  That's possession football, and it's not exactly the same thing.  Attacking football is kind of hard to define, but you know it when you see it.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2016/jan/06/the-question-what-is-attacking-football-jonathan-wilson

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hybrid Angel said:

I said attacking football is better if you want to be a a top club for the long term. There are many reasons but mainly it's because the most talented players in the world refuse to play under this philosophy for a long period of time.

Arsene Wenger is just a very poor manager. He lacks tactical intelligence and often lets his side down due to a lack of plan B. He also fails to adapt to certain situations in certain games.

I don't want to watch a whole season of performances like we saw in the second half of last season, but I also don't want to watch Barcelona or Bayern all season. Borussia Dortmund's play excites me. Leicester City's play excites me. I wanted Klopp until Liverpool snatched him up, and Ranieri's not coming back, so I want whoever is going to impose that "philosophy" of quick buildup, decisive passes, and high workrates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, kmk108 said:

I don't want to watch a whole season of performances like we saw in the second half of last season, but I also don't want to watch Barcelona or Bayern all season. Borussia Dortmund's play excites me. Leicester City's play excites me. I wanted Klopp until Liverpool snatched him up, and Ranieri's not coming back, so I want whoever is going to impose that "philosophy" of quick buildup, decisive passes, and high workrates.

I agree that my word choice of 'attacking' football was a bit vague and general. But yes, I agree that we do not have to have a Barca or Bayern sort of system where we dominate 80 percent of the position. A team that plays with urgency and will to attack can be successful in the long term if we have good managers who could go along with the philosophy along the way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You