The Next Manager?

[Polo7 3,496]

6 minutes ago, It's too big said:

It's a lot for a guy who whined for 2/3 of the season and had zero plan B for most it too. Makes you wonder why some coaches are paid so much money. 

And got 91 points. That’s a lot for someone with no plan B.

[Tomo 21,751]

43 minutes ago, BlueLyon said:

It took Klopp a while to achieve this and even this season they were shit defensively against some smaller sides which cost them potential title run. 

Do you want all out attacking football and during season destroy some teams, but also lose to Burnleys and Palaces often? 

Do you think Chelsea will tolerate two seasons with average results, like Klopp had before this season? (and even now they finished 4th, which isnt great). 

Sarri tried to go attack with Napoli too (much more drilled side than Chelsea will be next season) and lost to City. 

All Im saying we shouldnt play allout attack game just because its fancy and popular, because Pep will beat us in his game. We have to develop from our strenghts, not adopt rivals style. 

Dont get me wrong, I would love Sarri here and Im sure we will play fantastic football on the eye (with few new players and given that current squad puts faith and adopts to new manager), but dont be surprised if we get spanked by top sides who play offensive football for longer time with more drill, or small sides who will take our approach by the balls and punish the defence (lets be honest, Klopp, Pep, Sarri have wonderful attack and actions, but their defenses are plain and simple garbage more often than not). 

Only reason I have faith in Sarri is because majority of our players went through defensive drills by Mou and Conte and they know how to defend, Pep and Klopp players never had that chance.

What I mean, people seem to love Pep football, but his defence is pure shit. I dont want that at Chelsea. We always had strong defence, but efficient attack. 

If Sarri can implement that, (like Ancelotti did in 2009/10) thats awesome, but honestly if all we do is trade defensive stability for attacking brilliance, we wont see any trophy for a long time. Fuck that.

I love idea of a more attacking chelsea, but not at the expense of what made us strong club. I loved when we played like shit, everyone laughed at us, but I cheered for our defense to hold on and then we scored and I was like yeah, take the L. Its what made Chelsea powerful. They were rolling over us, we let them attack, they made 100 shots and then bang, we hit them on counter. Everyone said we will lose, but we never gave up. 

I want that Chelsea, packed in new era. Fuck Pep and Klopp and their styles. I admit I admire good football from opposing side, but Chelsea wouldnt be Chelsea if it wasnt defensively balanced and deadly efficient. Maybe iz sounds weird, but thats our dna of roman era, reason I supported the club. We defy odds, we dont give shit about others, play our game and win. Be it by one shot-one goal and make everyone in the world mad. 

Playing super attacking football would just look too fancy. I want strong characters and never give up mentality back. Atletico is example to an extent, they just dont have the funds we had, but pretty much same mentality and phylosophy. 

EVERYONE in football screams for revolutions and attacking football. Imagine Chelsea back at their top dog game with pragmatic approach. Not giving shit about what world wants and thinks. We just played our way with plan to win. And piss off the rest of the world. Thats what we did in Didi, Lamps era.  

The screams for attacking football are more common these days because that's what the modern game demands. The 00's was the era of the solid shape first everything else second but these days high pressing and being on the front foot wins out the most.

[the wes 7,212]

any news yet our board like doing it the hard way getting players and now managers ffs 

[11Drogba 2,000]

I think Bluelyon is saying that we can't beat Guardiola's team by trying to play exactly like them.

For example when Liverpool beat City 3-0 the possession was 34-66 in City's favor. Yes Liverpool attacked but they did not try to play like City.

 

[Costa19 858]

According to Alfredo (Very reliable) the deal is very close  but we have to wait a few days 

[Jase 43,479]

1 hour ago, BlueLyon said:

It took Klopp a while to achieve this and even this season they were shit defensively against some smaller sides which cost them potential title run. 

Do you want all out attacking football and during season destroy some teams, but also lose to Burnleys and Palaces often? 

Do you think Chelsea will tolerate two seasons with average results, like Klopp had before this season? (and even now they finished 4th, which isnt great). 

Sarri tried to go attack with Napoli too (much more drilled side than Chelsea will be next season) and lost to City. 

All Im saying we shouldnt play allout attack game just because its fancy and popular, because Pep will beat us in his game. We have to develop from our strenghts, not adopt rivals style. 

Dont get me wrong, I would love Sarri here and Im sure we will play fantastic football on the eye (with few new players and given that current squad puts faith and adopts to new manager), but dont be surprised if we get spanked by top sides who play offensive football for longer time with more drill, or small sides who will take our approach by the balls and punish the defence (lets be honest, Klopp, Pep, Sarri have wonderful attack and actions, but their defenses are plain and simple garbage more often than not). 

Only reason I have faith in Sarri is because majority of our players went through defensive drills by Mou and Conte and they know how to defend, Pep and Klopp players never had that chance.

What I mean, people seem to love Pep football, but his defence is pure shit. I dont want that at Chelsea. We always had strong defence, but efficient attack. 

If Sarri can implement that, (like Ancelotti did in 2009/10) thats awesome, but honestly if all we do is trade defensive stability for attacking brilliance, we wont see any trophy for a long time. Fuck that.

I love idea of a more attacking chelsea, but not at the expense of what made us strong club. I loved when we played like shit, everyone laughed at us, but I cheered for our defense to hold on and then we scored and I was like yeah, take the L. Its what made Chelsea powerful. They were rolling over us, we let them attack, they made 100 shots and then bang, we hit them on counter. Everyone said we will lose, but we never gave up. 

I want that Chelsea, packed in new era. Fuck Pep and Klopp and their styles. I admit I admire good football from opposing side, but Chelsea wouldnt be Chelsea if it wasnt defensively balanced and deadly efficient. Maybe iz sounds weird, but thats our dna of roman era, reason I supported the club. We defy odds, we dont give shit about others, play our game and win. Be it by one shot-one goal and make everyone in the world mad. 

Playing super attacking football would just look too fancy. I want strong characters and never give up mentality back. Atletico is example to an extent, they just dont have the funds we had, but pretty much same mentality and phylosophy. 

EVERYONE in football screams for revolutions and attacking football. Imagine Chelsea back at their top dog game with pragmatic approach. Not giving shit about what world wants and thinks. We just played our way with plan to win. And piss off the rest of the world. Thats what we did in Didi, Lamps era.  

Inclined to agree with your overall view but I don't think Sarri is as gung-ho as you might have painted him out to be. He does know how to forge a balance team. The biggest worry, IMO, about Sarri is his lack of Plan B. His mindset is always to play on the front foot but if the opponent is able to withstand that, he doesn't quite know how to change things around. Napoli's home game against Juventus this season (which they lost) is a good example. They tried to play their football but Juve parked the bus and they couldn't find an alternative to break them down. Only hope is that, with better options available here than at Napoli, he would find ways to have backup plans. 

[Jase 43,479]

47 minutes ago, Costa19 said:

According to Alfredo (Very reliable) the deal is very close  but we have to wait a few days 

Not sure what's more annoying these days - stupid transfer rumors or journalists putting timeline in their stories but when that time comes, nothing happens and they forge more BS! 

[Jase 43,479]

 

[Panic 57]

While Conte has been disappointing this season, to say the least, I'm just not convinced that bringing in another manager will change much. It is quite evident that Conte did not have control over our transfer dealings, and our transfer dealings have played a huge role in our lack of success this season. The club brought in almost nothing but mediocre/limited players in the last 3 years. Players like Alonso, Moses, Bakayoko, Barkley, and Pedro are all highly limited players. In addition to that, the club has kept many other limited players from the the pre-Conte era.(Willian, Fabregas,and Cahill) With the exception of Bakayoko, I wouldn't say any of these players are terrible. The problem is that most of them are first team regulars. Top teams can have players like Willian and Moses in their squad, but they cannot have a squad full of these types of players. If the club doesn't want to get left behind by City and Utd, it has to stop making so many bad transfer deals, especially given the costs of players these days. There is no point in shelling out 75 million pounds on Zappacosta, Drinkwater, and Emerson if they're only going to play in cup games and emergencies. It would have been far better to splash the cash on Sandro and let our youth players cover the remaining two squad spots.Now the club is in a position where we are probably bringing in a new manager with a completely different play style that will require new players. The likes of Courtious,Rudiger, Christenson, Azpi, Kante, and Hazard are a solid core but the club still needs more quality. This summer transfer window will play a bigger role in determining our success next season than a new manager will.

[Tomo 21,751]

15 minutes ago, Panic said:

While Conte has been disappointing this season, to say the least, I'm just not convinced that bringing in another manager will change much. It is quite evident that Conte did not have control over our transfer dealings, and our transfer dealings 

So us suddenly going after half of Serie A is a coincidence?

[AK-3001 286]

1 minute ago, iceboy said:

 

This from..nowhere. 

Check the date

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

1 minute ago, iceboy said:

 

This from..nowhere. 

From 5th January.

[Costa19 858]

6 minutes ago, iceboy said:

 

This from..nowhere. 

You want me to snap your jaw? You scared me big time buddy, that tweet is from January 

[Superblue 6,372]

34 minutes ago, Jason said:

Inclined to agree with your overall view but I don't think Sarri is as gung-ho as you might have painted him out to be. He does know how to forge a balance team. The biggest worry, IMO, about Sarri is his lack of Plan B. His mindset is always to play on the front foot but if the opponent is able to withstand that, he doesn't quite know how to change things around. Napoli's home game against Juventus this season (which they lost) is a good example. They tried to play their football but Juve parked the bus and they couldn't find an alternative to break them down. Only hope is that, with better options available here than at Napoli, he would find ways to have backup plans. 

Agree, but you could label the likes of Guardiola and Klopp with the same opinion.

I think it is simply something that we would need to get used to having a manager who is supremely confident in their own tactics and formula that their focus is on our own team and how we play as opposed to concentration being on the opposition and changing our style/tactics to suit the opposition. I think the flip side of that is a more offensive minded style should improve results over the teams outside the top 6, by beating them into submission. We've seen at times this season and under Mourinho before that when we're set up too defensive and we suddenly need to attack or chase a game we struggle to adapt, or the constant switching between playing defensively and then offensively to suit the opposition leaves a lack of fluidity in our play.

Positives and negatives to both types, there's no one perfect way of playing football otherwise everybody would follow it.

[Superblue 6,372]

7 minutes ago, Tomo said:

So us suddenly going after half of Serie A is a coincidence?

Zappacosta for me is the main one that shows Conte must have had some influence because I just cannot see the club targeting him without Conte's influence. Maybe he didn't have his first choices, but from what it appears Chelsea chased Sandro all summer and when it got to the end and they knew it wasn't happening Conte gave the club an alternative option that he had knowledge of and could trust.

 

[Costa19 858]

6 minutes ago, iceboy said:

Massive fail from me guys. APOLOGISE.

Got me wondering how deep down twitter you were digging when you found a tweet from January  Shieeeet i though i was the only one refreshing twitter every other minute. 

[DDA 9,941]

50 minutes ago, Jason said:

They tried to play their football but Juve parked the bus and they couldn't find an alternative to break them down. Only hope is that, with better options available here than at Napoli, he would find ways to have backup plans. 

Bar Hazard, what are these better options you speak of? Some would argue that Napoli has a stronger starting eleven than ours. Certainly a more balance first team.

[the wes 7,212]

50 minutes ago, Jason said:

 Napoli's home game against Juventus this season (which they lost) is a good example. They tried to play their football but Juve parked the bus and they couldn't find an alternative to break them down. Only hope is that, with better options available here than at Napoli, he would find ways to have backup plans. 

Did napoli not beat Juventus at their ground this season? 

[Panic 57]

28 minutes ago, Tomo said:

So us suddenly going after half of Serie A is a coincidence?

Why do you think we were going after Serie A players? Because some newspapers reported it? For the past 5 summers Hazard has been linked to Real Madrid or PSG. He is still here. How many times have we been linked to Messi or other top players over the years? Most transfer stories are garbage and to rely on them seems silly. While it is really hard to determine how the club operates, it doesn't seem reasonable to say Drinkwater, Barkley, Zappacosta, Batshuayi, and Emerson are Conte buys when none of them play. It seems much more likely that because Conte is familiar with Serie A, newspapers ran with stories those stories because they aren't too ludicrous.There's also the Matic situation to take into consideration. Conte PUBLICLY stated that he wanted to keep Matic so that Bakayoko had time to adapt. Combine all of this with the fact that Conte has been very vocal with his criticism of the board failing to back him. and I would say there is no reason to believe Conte had much of a say in any of our transfer dealings.

[Panic 57]

22 minutes ago, Superblue_1986 said:

Zappacosta for me is the main one that shows Conte must have had some influence because I just cannot see the club targeting him without Conte's influence. Maybe he didn't have his first choices, but from what it appears Chelsea chased Sandro all summer and when it got to the end and they knew it wasn't happening Conte gave the club an alternative option that he had knowledge of and could trust.

 

Conte may have approved of the Zappacosta deal, problem is almost every other deal seems to have Conte's disapproval. was Batshuayi a Conte buy? Because if he was it seems very strange that Conte would rather play Hazard as a false nine. Was Drinkwater a Conte buy? Seems strange because Conte preferred Fabregas to Drinkwater despite Fabregas hardly playing in Conte's first year. Was Emerson a Conte buy? Would be strange to say so when he only started 3 matches. Another huge problem is that we don't know what the alternatives were to Zappacosta. He may have been the best of the worst possible options. He may have been the only option.