The Next Manager?

[Henrique 9,133]

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.

[The Chels 2,502]

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 January 26, 2016 by The Chels

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

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

[Eidur the Spider 4,515]

- I'd happily take Pochettino, would be difficult to get him from the Spuds though. 

Maybe he could bring Harry Kane with him. 

[Fernando 6,585]

Yeah I be happy with Pochetino as well. 

[Hybrid Angel 2,130]

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.

[kmk108 1,186]

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.

[Hybrid Angel 2,130]

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.

[Spike 12,049]

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.

[Sideshow Luiz 2,310]

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

 

[kmk108 1,186]

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.

[Hybrid Angel 2,130]

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. 

[MefiX19 1,092]

Pochettino <3

[*Z4YN 69]

On 24. Januar 2016 at 8:49 PM, Henrique said:

Care to elaborate?

Actually pretty obvious.

However, just let me remind you of something: Germany - Brazil 7:1 #neverforget

[*Z4YN 69]

I don't get why people think we would play coward football with Simeone.

Just remember our Semi-Final against Atletico at the bridge where Atletico made the 1-1 away goal. Instead of sitting back they went for the 2n goal and sucker punched us even a 3rd time at home knocking us out in a bravely and hazardous fashion.

Calling Simeone's style of play coward and small-team-tactics just shows your lack of knowledge.

[Blue_Fox_ 2,086]

5 minutes ago, *Z4YN said:

Actually pretty obvious.

However, just let me remind you of something: Germany - Brazil 7:1 #neverforget

I like this guy

[Eidur the Spider 4,515]

Chelsea eye up Claudio Ranieri, Mark Hughes and Eddie Howe as permanent replacements for Guus Hiddink (Telegraph) #CFC

With #MCFC & #MUFC target Guardiola seemingly out of their reach, #CFC have identified Simeone and Allegri as their top choices. (Telegraph)

The club’s hierarchy are having to contemplate more achievable manager alternatives with no Champions League qualification. (Telegraph) #CFC

Eddie Howe has drawn admirers within the corridors of power at Chelsea’s Cobham training base for his work with Bournemouth (Telegraph) #CFC

There is support [from #CFC hierarchy] for turning to Mark Hughes, the former Chelsea player who is now Stoke City manager. (Telegraph) #CFC

Having spent last summer pursuing and failing to sign central defender John Stones and going through a similar goose chase with Wayne Rooney Chelsea do not want to be suckered into a fruitless pursuit of a big-name manager. (Telegraph) #CFC

 

Interesting.

Ranieri: HELL BLOODY NO. Just no. Love the tinkerman but no. 

Eddie Howe: Would be a hell of a gamble, I like the guy but Roman won't go for it. 

Mark Hughes: More than worthy of being mentioned after the job he's done at Stoke. I'd put him on a top 5 wishlist for sure. 

I know nothing of Allegri or Simeone so I won't pretend I do by offering an opinion. 

[The Chels 2,502]

So within a couple of days we've been linked, by respected newspapers or journalists at the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent, to Conte, Sampaoli, Allegri, Mark Hughes, Simeone, Eddie Howe, Ranieri, Guardiola and Pochettino... 

Of course it could all just be nonsense but the lack of discernible pattern in the alleged managerial targets wouldn't be too surprising, given the apparent lack of focus or philosophy at the club (as many have already spoken about).

[Henrique 9,133]

5 hours ago, *Z4YN said:

Actually pretty obvious.

However, just let me remind you of something: Germany - Brazil 7:1 #neverforget

Humm, because 7x1 has everythig to do with Simeone being next Chelsea manager.

[Henrique 9,133]

32 minutes ago, The Chels said:

So within a couple of days we've been linked, by respected newspapers or journalists at the Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent, to Conte, Sampaoli, Allegri, Mark Hughes, Simeone, Eddie Howe, Ranieri, Guardiola and Pochettino... 

Of course it could all just be nonsense but the lack of discernible pattern in the alleged managerial targets wouldn't be too surprising, given the apparent lack of focus or philosophy at the club (as many have already spoken about).

The fact is no one have a clue about whos going to be the next manager. Just remember years ago when people were talking about Capello, Hiddink and even Redknapp and one day before it was revealed AVB was travelling to London.