The Next Manager?

[killer1257 3,282]

As fans we most be accepting to have new manager every two years it is the way of the Chelsea.

One of the reasons why we will never have a Klopp at Chelsea

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

[Tomo 21,751]

1 hour ago, Jap Si. said:

As fans we most be accepting to have new manager every two years it is the way of the Chelsea.

I don't really get this notion as it being some kind of bad thing, it's similar at a lot of big clubs, even the one's that win league's every year. Partly because the modern player gets bored of the same voice after a while (Pep cited that as one of the reason's he left Barcelona) and partly because managers themselves want to try out different things.

Also for all this talk about us being a poisoned chalice I feel quite the opposite, if you really want to build a great team and era there's few if any better resourced clubs than us to provide for a manager. They get strong backing in the market and have the best academy in the world to dip into, yes strong results are expected but why shouldn't they be with those resources available? If you were Nagelsmann and saw the opportunity to take over an already highly talented side, spend £200m to bring your own players to compliment that and alongside both of those have youngsters of the quality of Livramento, Gallagher, Bate and Soonsup-Bell knocking on the door you really think that wouldn't appeal?

[killer1257 3,282]

Problem is that we can sell our new golden generation of youth players because our next new managers needs 200 million investments to make his new team and then guys like Soonsup bell, Broja, Anjorin will play for other Pl clubs or for Bayern [emoji23]

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk

[Pizy 18,848]

I actually wouldn't put it past our board to actually consider Rafa Benitez again. Almost the same situation as last time and it would be beneficial to both sides. Chelsea gets a "safe," boring, experienced and pragmatic manager to steady the ship. Maybe luck out and go on a run in Europe like last time. Benitez gets to put himself in the shop window again and gets himself another PL gig. And with no fans in the Bridge there won't be huge backlash this time.

Of course that's not what I want by any means but I wonder if they're considering it...

[Tomo 21,751]

8 minutes ago, killer1257 said:

Problem is that we can sell our new golden generation of youth players because our next new managers needs 200 million investments to make his new team and then guys like Soonsup bell, Broja, Anjorin will play for other Pl clubs or for Bayern

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk
 

DP

[Tomo 21,751]

5 minutes ago, killer1257 said:

Problem is that we can sell our new golden generation of youth players because our next new managers needs 200 million investments to make his new team and then guys like Soonsup bell, Broja, Anjorin will play for other Pl clubs or for Bayern

Gesendet von meinem VOG-L29 mit Tapatalk
 

Why can't we do both? Many successful teams (including the current Champions of England) have combined top prospects with big spending. Even the one's who don't quite become good enough to start for us can still provide the squad depth which frees up funds for star signings as opposed to squad filler.

The two ain't mutually exclusive.

[Nero 1,866]

Ernesto Valverde?

[Jype 6,398]

13 minutes ago, Tomo said:

I don't really get this notion as it being some kind of bad thing, it's similar at a lot of big clubs, even the one's that win league's every year. Partly because the modern player gets bored of the same voice after a while (Pep cited that as one of the reason's he left Barcelona) and partly because managers themselves want to try out different things.

Also for all this talk about us being a poisoned chalice I feel quite the opposite, if you really want to build a great team and era there's few if any better resourced clubs than us to provide for a manager. They get strong backing in the market and have the best academy in the world to dip into, yes strong results are expected but why shouldn't they be with those resources available? If you were Nagelsmann and saw the opportunity to take over an already highly talented side, spend £200m to bring your own players to compliment that and alongside both of those have youngsters of the quality of Livramento, Gallagher, Bate and Soonsup-Bell knocking on the door you really think that wouldn't appeal?

Yep. And it's not like the ways of the club haven't changed in the last ten years too. In the current Chelsea setup I can't see something like Ancelotti's sacking happening anymore, a year after winning the double and then finishing second.

Roman and the board seem a lot less ruthless now than a decade ago and the managers these days won't be getting sacked after a trophyless season as long as there's still progress made and the manager doesn't go on the warpath with the board like Conte did.

Even Lampard's job would be more than safe if he was on course for a ~75pts finish in the league and the style of football looked like it's getting gradually better. Now the progress seems to have stalled completely or even gone backwards despite big investments made into the squad, and that's why he's on the verge of getting sacked.

Don't see any reason why someone like Nagelsmann etc. wouldn't want to take the job and have a go. If it works out there's a good chance he'd stay for at least 2-3 seasons and that's around the average length of a manager's life span at a top club these days anyway. How many top teams have currently had the same manager for +5 years? Liverpool, Man City and Atletico have but that's about it, the rest have been changing managers just as often as Chelsea if not even more regularly. 

[Blues Forever 1,232]

8 minutes ago, Patrick Bamford said:

Ernesto Valverde?

I would rather have Allegri than Valverde.

[Tomo 21,751]

2 minutes ago, Jype said:

Yep. And it's not like the ways of the club haven't changed in the last ten years too. In the current Chelsea setup I can't see something like Ancelotti's sacking happening anymore, a year after winning the double and then finishing second.

Roman and the board seem a lot less ruthless now than a decade ago and the managers these days won't be getting sacked after a trophyless season as long as there's still progress made and the manager doesn't go on the warpath with the board like Conte did.

Even Lampard's job would be more than safe if he was on course for a ~75pts finish in the league and the style of football looked like it's getting gradually better. Now the progress seems to have stalled completely or even gone backwards despite big investments made into the squad, and that's why he's on the verge of getting sacked.

Don't see any reason why someone like Nagelsmann etc. wouldn't want to take the job and have a go. If it works out there's a good chance he'd stay for at least 2-3 seasons and that's around the average length of a manager's life span at a top club these days anyway. How many top teams have currently had the same manager for +5 years? Liverpool, Man City and Atletico have but that's about it, the rest have been changing managers just as often as Chelsea if not even more regularly. 

I find the narrative that we would give blanket sackings to managers if they don't win the league a bit strange tbh. Mou and Lampard got second season's despite not winning the league and Sarri would have but chose to walk so that's 3 in 7 years. Ancelotti's sacking was more down to his CL record if I had to guess, when you're appointed for your European pedigree and don't even match the efforts of previous manager's in the competition you will be in trouble regardless of what you do domestically.

No manager in the Roman era (bar maybe Ranieri) has been sacked with the direction we were heading in looking promising, in my opinion.

[Jase 43,479]

The bookies have put Brendan Rodgers as the favorite to replace Lampard.

[Vesper 30,081]

15 minutes ago, Patrick Bamford said:

Ernesto Valverde?