So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 33 seconds ago
You’ve asked who can change the fact that Chelsea are underachieving and I’ve given you and answer. What am I missing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframe is what you’re missing.
I’m saying that no manager could get Chelsea to a point where they’re not underachieving with less than two years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, I don't necessarily agree with that. If Chelsea sacked Lampard tomorrow and brought in Nagelsmann or Tuchel, for example, you might realistically see:
- Chelsea climbing the table over the next few weeks and eventually not only finishing third ahead United and Spurs, but looking superior to both as teams, clearly the third-best team in the country and improving all the time. Not where Chelsea want to be ultimately but an improvement.
- In his second season, Chelsea putting daylight beween themselves and United et al and really getting in amongst City and Liverpool as a genuine contender.
I don't think this is unrealistic for Chelsea (or for United). However, I also don't think it's that unrealistic that a Tuchel or a Nagelsmann might struggle at United or Chelsea, which is one reason why I don't call for Solksjaer's head even when we're at our worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that is particularly realistic, though, given my post above?
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 33 seconds ago
You’ve asked who can change the fact that Chelsea are underachieving and I’ve given you and answer. What am I missing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframe is what you’re missing.
I’m saying that no manager could get Chelsea to a point where they’re not underachieving with less than two years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, I don't necessarily agree with that. If Chelsea sacked Lampard tomorrow and brought in Nagelsmann or Tuchel, for example, you might realistically see:
- Chelsea climbing the table over the next few weeks and eventually not only finishing third ahead United and Spurs, but looking superior to both as teams, clearly the third-best team in the country and improving all the time. Not where Chelsea want to be ultimately but an improvement.
- In his second season, Chelsea putting daylight beween themselves and United et al and really getting in amongst City and Liverpool as a genuine contender.
I don't think this is unrealistic for Chelsea (or for United). However, I also don't think it's that unrealistic that a Tuchel or a Nagelsmann might struggle at United or Chelsea, which is one reason why I don't call for Solksjaer's head even when we're at our worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that is particularly realistic, though, given my post above?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't necessarily disagree with you - I'm on the side of Solskjaer and Lampard deserving more time, for many of the reasons you've discussed. But I don't agree with the statement that no manager could have Chelsea (or United) in a position where they're not underachieving within two years (my issue is that I can't name that manager with conviction and think Solskjaer has done well enough to deserve more time).
You've talked about Liverpool and City and how long it took Klopp and Guardiola. Fair enough - but they are the 2018, 2019 and 2020 PL winners. The 2016 and 2017 winning managers were both in their first seasons. One took over the previous champions, yes, but the other certainly did not. Even then, Conte made a winning signing in Kante. Both United and Chelsea are probably 2/3 signings away from being real challengers, and that could happen quickly. I know the 2016 and 2017 seasons didn't have teams as strong as the 2018-20 Liverpool and City but, at the moment, neither does this one.
To summarise, I am on your side generally, in believing that Solskjaer and Lampard deserve more time. I don't follow Chelsea closely but I can say that I think Solskjaer has shown enough early promise to give me hope for the next couple of seasons. But I also see the point of people like Darren/Donny, Arsenal Legend Pochettino and the Chelsea fans now asking about Lampard's position, that another manager might conceivably have a squad as good as Chelsea's doing much better than they are.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pep won the league at City in his 2nd season and he basically had the title wrapped up before Christmas.
Liverpool were a club languishing in mid table and Klopp improved them every season. 1st full season they finished top 4, 2nd season they got to a CL final.
In Lampard’s 2nd season they are 8th at the almost midway point and have regressed on last season despite significant spending.
You need to check your facts because this comparison is awful.
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pep won the league at City in his 2nd season and he basically had the title wrapped up before Christmas.
Liverpool were a club languishing in mid table and Klopp improved them every season. 1st full season they finished top 4, 2nd season they got to a CL final.
In Lampard’s 2nd season they are 8th at the almost midway point and have regressed on last season despite significant spending.
You need to check your facts because this comparison is awful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
I suggest you check your facts.
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
You are embarrassing yourself . Like I said, check your facts
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
Clockwork, yeah that’s why I don’t tend to buy into Chelsea needing a project. They’re successful when they bring in signings, and managers, that can have an immediate impact. If they appoint Allegri, as I suspect they will, I’m pretty sure they’ll win the title next season.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
--------
This is not true. He signed the contract in February 2016, but he hadn't officially taken over Man City until the 1st July 2016. Pellegrini was still in charge up until that point.
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 1 minute ago
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
You are embarrassing yourself . Like I said, check your facts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies, I was wrong, I thought he joined a few months earlier.
Doesn’t really change my point.
It took him two seasons to win a league, despite having a squad that had finished top two four out of five seasons and had the biggest budget in the league.
Yet frank should surpass that achievement, even with Pep and Klopp doing so well in their roles?
Winston the gift that keeps on giving
ChEcK yOuR fAcTs
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 52 seconds ago
Clockwork, yeah that’s why I don’t tend to buy into Chelsea needing a project. They’re successful when they bring in signings, and managers, that can have an immediate impact. If they appoint Allegri, as I suspect they will, I’m pretty sure they’ll win the title next season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a big prediction! I still feel like we've got another year of City/Liverpool even after this, though someone else could get second.
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 27 minutes ago
I don’t think it shows a lack of class to sack him. He’s lucky to be in the job in the first place, sticking with him if you have no confidence in him (and if the players don’t) just because he’s a legend isn’t a good footballing decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely classless. And totally premature too. Also, he’s not lucky. He might not have the managerial experience, but he earned the chance through years of excellent service, his comprehensive knowledge of the club’s workings, his affinity with the fans, and by ticking every other box required except ‘experience’. Loads of experienced managers crash and burn at big clubs, often in large part because they don’t ‘get’ the club. You’ve had a few of them at United in recent seasons.
He arguably overachieved last season, and this year is having to accommodate more than half a new starting team with no preseason, so is almost having to start again from square one.
So, do you bring in a club legend and loyal club servant with whom you achieved things you’d only ever dreamed of, to take on a huge task - and then bin him off the moment you have a poor run of results? No, show him a modicum of loyalty and patience to get things right. Of course it’s classless to sack him at this point.
Keep moving the goalposts.
In Pep’s 2nd season, City had won 16 of their first 17 league games.
Chelsea are 8th after spending £200M+ in the summer
It’s not even a comparison and the fact you are still trying to make it is laughable
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are saying he should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving, so that’s exactly what they’re saying, isn’t it?
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 17 seconds ago
Keep moving the goalposts.
In Pep’s 2nd season, City had won 16 of their first 17 league games.
Chelsea are 8th after spending £200M+ in the summer
It’s not even a comparison and the fact you are still trying to make it is laughable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not moving the goalposts - my point is the same now as it was at the start.
Chelsea are 8th. So? Is the season over? They’re 3 points from 4th and 7 from the top of the table ffs... anything could happen.
Seems like you can’t debate like an adult not understand basic points so I will just discuss this with the others, thanks.
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
=====
Based on the evidence so far, after having spent £250m+ on a Champions League quality side in the Summer, they are several points worse off than they were at this stage last season.
Granted - the season is not over and he may still turn things around. But the weight of expectation + pressure is higher because of their transfer activity. And if their season objectives are in jeopardy, which is what it looks like so far, we all know what Abramovich will do.
Klopp never had this sort of budget in his early years and his starting position was significantly weaker compared to Lampard, who took over a side that had finished 3rd and won the Europa League. The dynamics aren't the same.
I don’t agree, ioag. Lampard’s service as a player are irrelevant. He’s lucky he’s in the job as if there was no transfer ban he wouldn’t have been offered it. Timing and circumstance were massive factors. He’s not really shown anything at Derby or Chelsea to suggest he’s good enough to be managing them. If they replace him with Allegri then I really don’t see the issue.
comment by Samir (U2630)
posted 10 seconds ago
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
=====
Based on the evidence so far, after having spent £250m+ on a Champions League quality side in the Summer, they are several points worse off than they were at this stage last season.
Granted - the season is not over and he may still turn things around. But the weight of expectation + pressure is higher because of their transfer activity. And if their season objectives are in jeopardy, which is what it looks like so far, we all know what Abramovich will do.
Klopp never had this sort of budget in his early years and his starting position was significantly weaker compared to Lampard, who took over a side that had finished 3rd and won the Europa League. The dynamics aren't the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What season objectives are they incapable of achieving at the moment?
Given the situation at City and Liverpool, do you really believe Lampard is expected to take Chelsea above either of those this season?
Liverpool also don't have trigger happy owners, unlike Chelsea. So, rightly or wrongly, Lampard will probably not get the chance to show if he can improve 'year on year'.
Rule 101 from Winston’s book of “Debate like an adult”: tell people factual statements are wrong and get pissy when proven otherwise
comment by Samir (U2630)
posted 31 seconds ago
Liverpool also don't have trigger happy owners, unlike Chelsea. So, rightly or wrongly, Lampard will probably not get the chance to show if he can improve 'year on year'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On that we agree!
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are saying he should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving, so that’s exactly what they’re saying, isn’t it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. You and I agree that City and Liverpool are the likeliest top two this season. Chelsea could get top four and still be "underachieving" (playing poorly in too many games, being turned over by the top teams as they were today and generally benefitting from teams around them not doing that well etc); or they could finish top four by playing really good stuff and just falling short of City and Liverpool. I think (some) Chelsea fans are saying they want and expect something approaching the latter whereas, at the moment, you could say it doesn't look like they will even get the former.
Clockwork, I think we’re at cross purposes.
Chelsea are underachieving as a club if they are not winning trophies and just battling it out for the top four. Same as United.
My point has only been that no manager will change that in the time Lampard has had, so he at least needs the rest of the season to see where they are at, and probably next.
Sign in if you want to comment
Louis Van Gaal
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 3/1/21
So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 33 seconds ago
You’ve asked who can change the fact that Chelsea are underachieving and I’ve given you and answer. What am I missing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframe is what you’re missing.
I’m saying that no manager could get Chelsea to a point where they’re not underachieving with less than two years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, I don't necessarily agree with that. If Chelsea sacked Lampard tomorrow and brought in Nagelsmann or Tuchel, for example, you might realistically see:
- Chelsea climbing the table over the next few weeks and eventually not only finishing third ahead United and Spurs, but looking superior to both as teams, clearly the third-best team in the country and improving all the time. Not where Chelsea want to be ultimately but an improvement.
- In his second season, Chelsea putting daylight beween themselves and United et al and really getting in amongst City and Liverpool as a genuine contender.
I don't think this is unrealistic for Chelsea (or for United). However, I also don't think it's that unrealistic that a Tuchel or a Nagelsmann might struggle at United or Chelsea, which is one reason why I don't call for Solksjaer's head even when we're at our worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that is particularly realistic, though, given my post above?
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 33 seconds ago
You’ve asked who can change the fact that Chelsea are underachieving and I’ve given you and answer. What am I missing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The timeframe is what you’re missing.
I’m saying that no manager could get Chelsea to a point where they’re not underachieving with less than two years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
See, I don't necessarily agree with that. If Chelsea sacked Lampard tomorrow and brought in Nagelsmann or Tuchel, for example, you might realistically see:
- Chelsea climbing the table over the next few weeks and eventually not only finishing third ahead United and Spurs, but looking superior to both as teams, clearly the third-best team in the country and improving all the time. Not where Chelsea want to be ultimately but an improvement.
- In his second season, Chelsea putting daylight beween themselves and United et al and really getting in amongst City and Liverpool as a genuine contender.
I don't think this is unrealistic for Chelsea (or for United). However, I also don't think it's that unrealistic that a Tuchel or a Nagelsmann might struggle at United or Chelsea, which is one reason why I don't call for Solksjaer's head even when we're at our worst.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that is particularly realistic, though, given my post above?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't necessarily disagree with you - I'm on the side of Solskjaer and Lampard deserving more time, for many of the reasons you've discussed. But I don't agree with the statement that no manager could have Chelsea (or United) in a position where they're not underachieving within two years (my issue is that I can't name that manager with conviction and think Solskjaer has done well enough to deserve more time).
You've talked about Liverpool and City and how long it took Klopp and Guardiola. Fair enough - but they are the 2018, 2019 and 2020 PL winners. The 2016 and 2017 winning managers were both in their first seasons. One took over the previous champions, yes, but the other certainly did not. Even then, Conte made a winning signing in Kante. Both United and Chelsea are probably 2/3 signings away from being real challengers, and that could happen quickly. I know the 2016 and 2017 seasons didn't have teams as strong as the 2018-20 Liverpool and City but, at the moment, neither does this one.
To summarise, I am on your side generally, in believing that Solskjaer and Lampard deserve more time. I don't follow Chelsea closely but I can say that I think Solskjaer has shown enough early promise to give me hope for the next couple of seasons. But I also see the point of people like Darren/Donny, Arsenal Legend Pochettino and the Chelsea fans now asking about Lampard's position, that another manager might conceivably have a squad as good as Chelsea's doing much better than they are.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pep won the league at City in his 2nd season and he basically had the title wrapped up before Christmas.
Liverpool were a club languishing in mid table and Klopp improved them every season. 1st full season they finished top 4, 2nd season they got to a CL final.
In Lampard’s 2nd season they are 8th at the almost midway point and have regressed on last season despite significant spending.
You need to check your facts because this comparison is awful.
posted on 3/1/21
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 32 seconds ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 4 minutes ago
So let’s just get this right...
Pep took over a City team with the biggest budget in the league and a team that had finished in the top two for four of the previous five seasons... and it took him 2 and a half years to win the league.
Klopp took over Liverpool and it took him 3 and a half years to finish second... also winning the CL that season.
Yet people are saying that Lampard should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving 18 months into his job and halfway through his first season with a proper transfer budget.
They’re also saying that there are plenty of managers who could come into Chelsea and turn them into league winners / challengers within 18 months.
Hmm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pep won the league at City in his 2nd season and he basically had the title wrapped up before Christmas.
Liverpool were a club languishing in mid table and Klopp improved them every season. 1st full season they finished top 4, 2nd season they got to a CL final.
In Lampard’s 2nd season they are 8th at the almost midway point and have regressed on last season despite significant spending.
You need to check your facts because this comparison is awful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
I suggest you check your facts.
posted on 3/1/21
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
You are embarrassing yourself . Like I said, check your facts
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
posted on 3/1/21
Clockwork, yeah that’s why I don’t tend to buy into Chelsea needing a project. They’re successful when they bring in signings, and managers, that can have an immediate impact. If they appoint Allegri, as I suspect they will, I’m pretty sure they’ll win the title next season.
posted on 3/1/21
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
--------
This is not true. He signed the contract in February 2016, but he hadn't officially taken over Man City until the 1st July 2016. Pellegrini was still in charge up until that point.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 1 minute ago
Wrong.
Pep joined partway through the previous season, so it took him two and a half seasons to win it. In a much better starting position than Lampard, and with more money.
You are embarrassing yourself . Like I said, check your facts
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My apologies, I was wrong, I thought he joined a few months earlier.
Doesn’t really change my point.
It took him two seasons to win a league, despite having a squad that had finished top two four out of five seasons and had the biggest budget in the league.
Yet frank should surpass that achievement, even with Pep and Klopp doing so well in their roles?
posted on 3/1/21
Winston the gift that keeps on giving
ChEcK yOuR fAcTs
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 52 seconds ago
Clockwork, yeah that’s why I don’t tend to buy into Chelsea needing a project. They’re successful when they bring in signings, and managers, that can have an immediate impact. If they appoint Allegri, as I suspect they will, I’m pretty sure they’ll win the title next season.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a big prediction! I still feel like we've got another year of City/Liverpool even after this, though someone else could get second.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Donny The King van de Beek (U10026)
posted 27 minutes ago
I don’t think it shows a lack of class to sack him. He’s lucky to be in the job in the first place, sticking with him if you have no confidence in him (and if the players don’t) just because he’s a legend isn’t a good footballing decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely classless. And totally premature too. Also, he’s not lucky. He might not have the managerial experience, but he earned the chance through years of excellent service, his comprehensive knowledge of the club’s workings, his affinity with the fans, and by ticking every other box required except ‘experience’. Loads of experienced managers crash and burn at big clubs, often in large part because they don’t ‘get’ the club. You’ve had a few of them at United in recent seasons.
He arguably overachieved last season, and this year is having to accommodate more than half a new starting team with no preseason, so is almost having to start again from square one.
So, do you bring in a club legend and loyal club servant with whom you achieved things you’d only ever dreamed of, to take on a huge task - and then bin him off the moment you have a poor run of results? No, show him a modicum of loyalty and patience to get things right. Of course it’s classless to sack him at this point.
posted on 3/1/21
Keep moving the goalposts.
In Pep’s 2nd season, City had won 16 of their first 17 league games.
Chelsea are 8th after spending £200M+ in the summer
It’s not even a comparison and the fact you are still trying to make it is laughable
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are saying he should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving, so that’s exactly what they’re saying, isn’t it?
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Arsenal Legend Pochettino (U18355)
posted 17 seconds ago
Keep moving the goalposts.
In Pep’s 2nd season, City had won 16 of their first 17 league games.
Chelsea are 8th after spending £200M+ in the summer
It’s not even a comparison and the fact you are still trying to make it is laughable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m not moving the goalposts - my point is the same now as it was at the start.
Chelsea are 8th. So? Is the season over? They’re 3 points from 4th and 7 from the top of the table ffs... anything could happen.
Seems like you can’t debate like an adult not understand basic points so I will just discuss this with the others, thanks.
posted on 3/1/21
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
=====
Based on the evidence so far, after having spent £250m+ on a Champions League quality side in the Summer, they are several points worse off than they were at this stage last season.
Granted - the season is not over and he may still turn things around. But the weight of expectation + pressure is higher because of their transfer activity. And if their season objectives are in jeopardy, which is what it looks like so far, we all know what Abramovich will do.
Klopp never had this sort of budget in his early years and his starting position was significantly weaker compared to Lampard, who took over a side that had finished 3rd and won the Europa League. The dynamics aren't the same.
posted on 3/1/21
I don’t agree, ioag. Lampard’s service as a player are irrelevant. He’s lucky he’s in the job as if there was no transfer ban he wouldn’t have been offered it. Timing and circumstance were massive factors. He’s not really shown anything at Derby or Chelsea to suggest he’s good enough to be managing them. If they replace him with Allegri then I really don’t see the issue.
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Samir (U2630)
posted 10 seconds ago
Klopp did improve Liverpool every season... but Frank has only had one season, so how do you know whether he’ll improve year on year or not?
=====
Based on the evidence so far, after having spent £250m+ on a Champions League quality side in the Summer, they are several points worse off than they were at this stage last season.
Granted - the season is not over and he may still turn things around. But the weight of expectation + pressure is higher because of their transfer activity. And if their season objectives are in jeopardy, which is what it looks like so far, we all know what Abramovich will do.
Klopp never had this sort of budget in his early years and his starting position was significantly weaker compared to Lampard, who took over a side that had finished 3rd and won the Europa League. The dynamics aren't the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What season objectives are they incapable of achieving at the moment?
Given the situation at City and Liverpool, do you really believe Lampard is expected to take Chelsea above either of those this season?
posted on 3/1/21
Liverpool also don't have trigger happy owners, unlike Chelsea. So, rightly or wrongly, Lampard will probably not get the chance to show if he can improve 'year on year'.
posted on 3/1/21
Rule 101 from Winston’s book of “Debate like an adult”: tell people factual statements are wrong and get pissy when proven otherwise
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Samir (U2630)
posted 31 seconds ago
Liverpool also don't have trigger happy owners, unlike Chelsea. So, rightly or wrongly, Lampard will probably not get the chance to show if he can improve 'year on year'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On that we agree!
posted on 3/1/21
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 41 seconds ago
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 seconds ago
Clockwork, I’m not saying it’s impossible that a new manager could achieve that.
But it’s highly unlikely given how established Liverpool and City, and their managers, are.
Let’s just stop and think about what we’re asking a manager of Chelsea to do.
Personally I stand by my comment that there’s not a manager who would have Chelsea winning the league in let’s say 18 months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with the last paragraph but I don't think that's necessarily what people are asking for. There's a place (or seven) between beating City and Liverpool to the title and where Chelsea are now. Apparently they were awful today and fans are saying he doesn't seem to know what to do with some of the new signings etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But people are saying he should be sacked because Chelsea are underachieving, so that’s exactly what they’re saying, isn’t it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. You and I agree that City and Liverpool are the likeliest top two this season. Chelsea could get top four and still be "underachieving" (playing poorly in too many games, being turned over by the top teams as they were today and generally benefitting from teams around them not doing that well etc); or they could finish top four by playing really good stuff and just falling short of City and Liverpool. I think (some) Chelsea fans are saying they want and expect something approaching the latter whereas, at the moment, you could say it doesn't look like they will even get the former.
posted on 3/1/21
Clockwork, I think we’re at cross purposes.
Chelsea are underachieving as a club if they are not winning trophies and just battling it out for the top four. Same as United.
My point has only been that no manager will change that in the time Lampard has had, so he at least needs the rest of the season to see where they are at, and probably next.
Page 5 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9