The Chelsea Thread

[Aannddyy]

The first sentence isnt quite true, the squad IS still too old, they've been allowed to grow old together, most of the players are past their peak, and are unlikely to carry Chelsea toward a title tilt next season.T he Wilson article above expands on what people were saying, and says it much better. Secondly no one said it wasnt AVBs fault, they said it wasn't purely his fault, very very big difference. Short term he as done well, but nothing has been done with long term in mind. And if he then does nothing but carry on the status quo, then only the people who benefit will be Chelsea's rivals.

I did say the squad is too old.. But, the whole "It's not AVB it's the players" BS has been put to bed because despite them being old they are still competing in two huge cup competitions. My point is, AVB's approach was wrong, there is no denying that.

"Nothing has been done with long term in mind"? It's April.. Was is he meant to do? He hasn't even been given the job full time yet, how can anything be done about the long term? I'm talking about now, he can do a job now, worry about the future at the end of the season but right now Di Matteo is working wonders.. And if AVB was still in charge Chelsea would not be in such in this position.

 

[Mike.]

I did say the squad is too old.. But, the whole "It's not AVB it's the players" BS has been put to bed because despite them being old they are still competing in two huge cup competitions. My point is, AVB's approach was wrong, there is no denying that.

"Nothing has been done with long term in mind"? It's April.. Was is he meant to do? He hasn't even been given the job full time yet, how can anything be done about the long term? I'm talking about now, he can do a job now, worry about the future at the end of the season but right now Di Matteo is working wonders.. And if AVB was still in charge Chelsea would not be in such in this position.

knockout =/= 38 game season, after all they still sit 6th in the league, still not massively better. And it's hardly been put to bed, a side in decline can still get to a final, doesnt mean they will be any use next season.

Then how can you appoint him permanently then? I actually said he was brought in purely for the short term. But before people start saying him give the job, need to at least find out what his plans would be for the long term, rather than riding on a wave of popularity, otherwise it means **** all. Liverpool did that with Dalglish, they sit 8th having spent 100m. He's steadied the boat, that isnt the same as taking them forwards. Before Chelsea can think of giving him the job thats what they have to assess.

 

[Alcaraz]

Hardly naive. It's bang on, we simply have no idea about what he is like long term, as he has purely been in for the short term.

And what he has done is hardly special. Its merely safety first, back to what you know. Mata isnt benefitting he is excelling despite the system.

You can look at it any way you want, but it doesnt change the fact that Chelsea have gone backwards in trying to change.

To be fair nobody had any idea what AVB would be like in the long-term as well. The criticism you are giving to Di Matteo therefore applies to AVB as well.

Chelsea have gone backwards because thats the logical thing to do in order to salvage our season. There was absolutely no point in playing AVB's system and finishing 6th in the league with no FA Cup finals or CL Finals to look forward to. Di Matteo has actually turned this season around and given us a hope of being in the CL next season which is crucial towards attracting world-class players this summer

For all of AVB's long-term thinking and 'projects', under him we would have probably finished outside the top 4 with no chance of being in the CL next season which would set the club back in its desire to become financially stable as well as affect our ability to attract players. With Di Matteo, at least we have a chance of ensuring that these circumstances does not repeat itself

 

[Alcaraz]

knockout =/= 38 game season, after all they still sit 6th in the league, still not massively better. And it's hardly been put to bed, a side in decline can still get to a final, doesnt mean they will be any use next season.

Then how can you appoint him permanently then? I actually said he was brought in purely for the short term. But before people start saying him give the job, need to at least find out what his plans would be for the long term, rather than riding on a wave of popularity, otherwise it means **** all. Liverpool did that with Dalglish, they sit 8th having spent 100m. He's steadied the boat, that isnt the same as taking them forwards. Before Chelsea can think of giving him the job thats what they have to assess.

Well Di Matteo has had to contend with a gruelling fixture list considering how we were involved in three competitions as well as some really tough games in a space of a short time. The fact that we still have a chance, no matter how slim of finishing in the top 4 remains an achievement in itself

His plans for the long-term would probably mirror that of AVB. Rumours flying around Chelsea that Emeleano has already asked Di Matteo to prepare for the next season and considering Di Matteo was at this club since AVB was appointed, he probably does have a clear plan as to what must be done this summer. The only difference is that he will be doing it rather than AVB if he is appointed ofcourse

Liverpool's ****** league position is also as much as Commolli's fault as is KD. A Chelsea we do not have that problem. Emeleano keeps his nose out of transfer dealings for the senior team, that job mainly rests with Roman and the manager who discuss the targets

 

[Aannddyy]

knockout =/= 38 game season, after all they still sit 6th in the league, still not massively better. And it's hardly been put to bed, a side in decline can still get to a final, doesnt mean they will be any use next season.

Then how can you appoint him permanently then? I actually said he was brought in purely for the short term. But before people start saying him give the job, need to at least find out what his plans would be for the long term, rather than riding on a wave of popularity, otherwise it means **** all. Liverpool did that with Dalglish, they sit 8th having spent 100m. He's steadied the boat, that isnt the same as taking them forwards. Before Chelsea can think of giving him the job thats what they have to assess.

Chelsea had conceded 4th place long before AVB was sacked.

They haven't gone as far backwards as they would have had AVB in charge.. Chelsea have a very good chance of playing CL football next year, something that we wouldn't be saying if AVB was still in charge. How is that not progress?

It's all well and good talking about long-term but we don't know, we should judge managers on what they have done and are doing right now not what they could/maybe/might/quite possibly be doing in the future. Just because Dalglish hasn't worked out in the league so far doesn't mean we should write off every other caretaker manager who is successful.

 

[Mike.]

Chelsea had conceded 4th place long before AVB was sacked.

They haven't gone as far backwards as they would have had AVB in charge.. Chelsea have a very good chance of playing CL football next year, something that we wouldn't be saying if AVB was still in charge. How is that not progress?

It's all well and good talking about long-term but we don't know, we should judge managers on what they have done and are doing right now not what they could/maybe/might/quite possibly be doing in the future. Just because Dalglish hasn't worked out in the league so far doesn't mean we should write off every other caretaker manager who is successful.

They hadn't conceded, there weren't in 4th but still chasing 4th. Much like now.

They are still 6th, still league wise in the same place as AVB. So not sure you can argue that league wise. The only difference is that they are in the CL final. Lose that and their chances are the same as before. So its not really real progress.

That's why you assess if he has a long term plan before you give him the job....

Of course you have to try and think what they might do in the future, its called long term planning, and its pretty important to the future of a club. And where did i write off every other caretaker manager? Caretaker managers who tend to go on do so,because it emerges that have also thought of the long term future, and have a coherent road map. Otherwise you end up being Ranieri, forever steadying a club, never actually taking it forward.

I pointed out that voting on short term popularity only does not mean future success. Chelsea's single biggest challenge is the next three years, changing the squad, integrating the youth etc, you need someone who has a plan for that. If Di Matteo has a plan over the summer, thats fantastic give him the job. If not, how can he possibly be the man to revitalise Chelsea? You have to think on both counts.

 

[CJACKO11]

Chelsea should look to Leeds for a warning from history


The similarities between this Chelsea side the Leeds United team that lost the 1975 European Cup final are striking and the London club would do well to study their slow decline

The team in white celebrated wildly. Reduced to 10 men in their semi-final second leg on 24 April at the Camp Nou, they'd held on for an improbable 3-2 aggregate victory over Barcelona to reach the European Cup final.

Earlier in the season they'd looked in disarray. An upstart young manager who was supposed to oversee the rejuvenation of the squad had been ousted after alienating a core of senior players, but a safe pair of hands everybody assumed was a short-term appointment had arrived, soothed egos and reawakened some of the old fire.

The league was beyond them, but doggedly they'd scrapped their way through to within one game of the prize – the greatest prize – that had eluded them through all their years of success. In that final that side in white faced Bayern Munich. Undone by some scandalous refereeing, they lost and were never the same again.

The similarities with Leeds United in 1974-75 and Chelsea's success at the Camp Nou 29 years later are striking. Of course the Barcelona then, despite the presence of Rinus Michels in the dug-out and Johan Cruyff and Johan Neeskens on the pitch, did not have quite the aura of the present-day side. And Leeds, having won 2-1 in the first leg, scored their away goal early, Peter Lorimer latching on to a Joe Jordan knockdown after eight minutes.

But then too, Barcelona were disappointing. "They did not spread their attacks wide enough to worry their opponent," wrote David Lacey in the Guardian. "It was a strangely muted performance from a team who many people had thought would sweep all before them in Europe this season." But almost as soon Barcelona had levelled on the night through Manuel Clares after 69 minutes, Gordon McQueen was sent off. "McQueen played Clares with such vitality," Lacey wrote, "that it was nearly a minute before the Barcelona player could be brought round, and he played to the end mopping his wounded head with a pad … it is a pity that on the threshold of their greatest triumph they should now be faced with problems caused by one of those irritating losses of control which have so often marred the club's success."

The correspondences between two semi-finals played on the same date 29 years apart are coincidence, of course, but what is significant is the underlying similarity between their side now and Leeds then. André Villas-Boas is not as abrasive as Brian Clough, and almost certainly didn't gather the Chelsea players together on the training field, as Clough did at Leeds, and tell them to throw their medals in the bin because they'd won them by cheating. Yet there were training-ground spats and the sort of confrontational team meetings that characterised Clough's time at Leeds.

Nor did Villas-Boas follow a hugely popular manager who'd formed the club in his own image over a period of 13 years; Carlos Ancelotti was popular but had been there only two years and this, anyway, is a side moulded by José Mourinho. But the intrinsic issue, of a core of players who had grown old together and who saw themselves as the heart of the club resisting change and the agents of change. Jimmy Armfield, the Roberto Di Matteo of the piece, said he had the hardest job of any Leeds manager because he was the one who had to tell Billy Bremner, Norman Hunter and John Giles that they were finished. The left-winger Eddie Gray – injured so often, Clough said, that if he'd been a racehorse he'd have been shot – even suggested one of the reasons Revie had decided to leave Leeds and take the England job was that he couldn't bear to break up the side he had built.

Leeds came ninth in the league that season, and spent the rest of the decade puttering about mid-table, never finishing higher than fifth before being relegated in 1982. Armfield left in 1978, and was replaced by Jimmy Adamson, who resigned two years later. After that, their came the first of the former Revie players, Allan Clarke, who oversaw the relegation. He was followed by Eddie Gray and then Billy Bremner, neither of whom could bring promotion – a warning, perhaps, should Roman Abramovich be tempted to turn to John Terry.

Assuming Abramovich's interest remains keen, of course, there is little chance of Chelsea being relegated, not even in seven years' time. Modern football has a series of checks in place to prevent the big clubs ever falling too far. But those seasons of stagnation – albeit probably bobbing around challenging for fourth rather than mid-table – are a genuine possibility.

Villas-Boas was appointed for a reason which was to manage the transition to a younger squad with a more dynamic style of play. That still has to happen: superbly as Chelsea played against Barcelona – and at times in the second leg against Napoli – the odd stint of dogged resistance from ageing limbs is not going to bring a league title. Whether Villas-Boas tried to change things too quickly, whether his approach would ever have worked, whether he was over-confrontational or whether that was inevitable in the face of his squad's conservatism, is debatable, but what is not open to dispute is that change was necessary.

It still is – and whatever happens in Munich next month doesn't change that. The example of Leeds three decades ago shows that a team in decline can still reach a European Cup final; Chelsea cannot let that disguise the underlying trend.

ChelseaChelsea should look to Leeds for a warning from history | Jonathan Wilson | Football | guardian.co.uk

Don't like being compared to dirty Leeds and one thing could be different, Leeds lost the final.

The first sentence isnt quite true, the squad IS still too old, they've been allowed to grow old together, most of the players are past their peak, and are unlikely to carry Chelsea toward a title tilt next season.T he Wilson article above expands on what people were saying, and says it much better. Secondly no one said it wasnt AVBs fault, they said it wasn't purely his fault, very very big difference. Short term he as done well, but nothing has been done with long term in mind. And if he then does nothing but carry on the status quo, then only the people who benefit will be Chelsea's rivals.

So in your mind who is not good enough to be at Chelsea anymore? Who do you consider to be the old players who should go? If we did not have Lampard, Cole or Drogba then we wouldn't be in two finals its as simple as that so that tells me they still have a role to play with their experience and even ability. Utd have old players still so why can't Chelsea? I admit there as some that need to go i.e Malouda, Bosingwa and Meireles but who else? AVB lost the dressing room and when a manager looses the dressing room the performances get worse at every club, if it didn't then no manager would ever be sacked. Di Matteo and Newton (they come as a pair) has gone back to basics and instead of trying to come down hard on these players he has joined the group as Jose did and they will now respect him. Some players need to be managed different ways and unless you get rid of a group of players who could be effected if you plan to manage a different way then there are always going to be problems.

Like i said if AVB got rid of 2 of the older players in the summer that would have laid down a marker right from the off and players would have respected him a lot more. All this that we have gone backwards is only what we say Roman wants, he wants to see Chelsea win in style but we wearn't winning at all. I would say he would prefer Chelsea just to win rather than not at all, the minimum AVB would have needed was Champs League next season i said this at the start of the season and he wasen't going to achieve this.

On Di Matteo and Newton i'd say give them another year, one year contract minimum Champs League qualification while being competitive in cups. Let them do what they want with the squad, they are both Chelsea men so want what's best for the club so i trust them completely.

 

[Mike.]

Don't like being compared to dirty Leeds and one thing could be different, Leeds lost the final.



So in your mind who is not good enough to be at Chelsea anymore? Who do you consider to be the old players who should go? If we did not have Lampard, Cole or Drogba then we wouldn't be in two finals its as simple as that so that tells me they still have a role to play with their experience and even ability. Utd have old players still so why can't Chelsea? I admit there as some that need to go i.e Malouda, Bosingwa and Meireles but who else? AVB lost the dressing room and when a manager looses the dressing room the performances get worse at every club, if it didn't then no manager would ever be sacked. Di Matteo and Newton (they come as a pair) has gone back to basics and instead of trying to come down hard on these players he has joined the group as Jose did and they will now respect him. Some players need to be managed different ways and unless you get rid of a group of players who could be effected if you plan to manage a different way then there are always going to be problems.

Like i said if AVB got rid of 2 of the older players in the summer that would have laid down a marker right from the off and players would have respected him a lot more. All this that we have gone backwards is only what we say Roman wants, he wants to see Chelsea win in style but we wearn't winning at all. I would say he would prefer Chelsea just to win rather than not at all, the minimum AVB would have needed was Champs League next season i said this at the start of the season and he wasen't going to achieve this.

On Di Matteo and Newton i'd say give them another year, one year contract minimum Champs League qualification while being competitive in cups. Let them do what they want with the squad, they are both Chelsea men so want what's best for the club so i trust them completely.

No thats exactly what you dont want to do with the Di Matteo, have Chelsea not learnt anything from the way they fire managers? If you think Di Matteo can take the club forwards you give him three years, otherwsie you find someone else. This one year thing is short term and doesn't work.

For one if you really want the best from your newer players, you'd be looking getting ready to replace Lampard.

You've missed the whole point of the article. The older players for both clubs took them to the final. Nothing was done about it and it went **** up for leeds. The whole point is the players on the decline can still get you to a final, doesnt mean you then dont replace them. Carl go back and read the article, it makes that point far better than I could. The Chelsea squad still needs freshening up and that doesnt change whether you win the final or not. What about next season? or the season after?

Drogba is one I'd watch over the summer. Cole isnt old (though I would be bleeding through Bertrand for continuity because of his long standing ankle injury) and I dont think anyone ever said get rid of him. Malouda needs to. Ferreria (sp) needs to go. Boswinga isnt old, but he sure as **** needs to go.

As for United's older players, Giggs is actually a rotation player, and Scholes is a freak of nature who still manages to be one of the best passers in Europe, and even then he may still retire again.

 

[CJACKO11]

They hadn't conceded, there weren't in 4th but still chasing 4th. Much like now.

They are still 6th, still league wise in the same place as AVB. So not sure you can argue that league wise. The only difference is that they are in the CL final. Lose that and their chances are the same as before. So its not really real progress.

That's why you assess if he has a long term plan before you give him the job....

Of course you have to try and think what they might do in the future, its called long term planning, and its pretty important to the future of a club. And where did i write off every other caretaker manager? Caretaker managers who tend to go on do so,because it emerges that have also thought of the long term future, and have a coherent road map. Otherwise you end up being Ranieri, forever steadying a club, never actually taking it forward.

I pointed out that voting on short term popularity only does not mean future success. Chelsea's single biggest challenge is the next three years, changing the squad, integrating the youth etc, you need someone who has a plan for that. If Di Matteo has a plan over the summer, thats fantastic give him the job. If not, how can he possibly be the man to revitalise Chelsea? You have to think on both counts.

When Ranieri took over at Chelsea he took us forward, sold a lot of the older players Poyet, Flo, Petrescu, Deschamps, Leboeuf, Wise all in two years and bought in new younger players Lampard, Gallas, Cudicini and Zenden etc. Maybe now days he is a steady man but he done a great job with Chelsea not forgetting he was also the man that bought Robben, Cech, Makelele and Joe Cole.

 

[Mike.]

When Ranieri took over at Chelsea he took us forward, sold a lot of the older players Poyet, Flo, Petrescu, Deschamps, Leboeuf, Wise all in two years and bought in new younger players Lampard, Gallas, Cudicini and Zenden etc. Maybe now days he is a steady man but he done a great job with Chelsea not forgetting he was also the man that bought Robben, Cech, Makelele and Joe Cole.

Right now he is a steadyman, for the last 3 stints he has done. he is known as the go to man in italy but he cant take any club forwards.

 

[CJACKO11]

No thats exactly what you dont want to do with the Di Matteo, have Chelsea not learnt anything from the way they fire managers? If you think Di Matteo can take the club forwards you give him three years, otherwsie you find someone else. This one year thing is short term and doesn't work.

For one if you really want the best from your newer players, you'd be looking getting ready to replace Lampard.

You've missed the whole point of the article. The older players for both clubs took them to the final. Nothing was done about it and it went **** up for leeds. The whole point is the players on the decline can still get you to a final, doesnt mean you then dont replace them. Carl go back and read the article, it makes that point far better than I could. The Chelsea squad still needs freshening up and that doesnt change whether you win the final or not. What about next season? or the season after?

Drogba is one I'd watch over the summer. Cole isnt old (though I would be bleeding through Bertrand for continuity) and I dont think anyone ever said get rid of him.

As for United's older players, Giggs is actually a rotation player, and Scholes is a freak of nature who still manages to be one of the best passers in Europe, and even then he may still retire again.

One year to show he can take change this club for the future starting with this summer. I am not saying not to replace players because yes at times Lampard needs to be replaced but not sold. AVB was trying to replace Lampard with someone who is 28 so not that young and playing much much poorer than Lamps. I read the article a few days ago and of course there are similarities but that was then and this is now. Players are much fitter these days and can go on for much longer, getting rid of players like Drogba and Lampard could harm the club more than help it for short term and long term. Saying that is it obvious they do need replacing more often, Di Matteo has a sensational amount of young lads at the club to chose from if he decides to stay and i believe he will if he gets the job. I think this has been Cole's worst season at Chelsea in terms of performances (which i don't blame him for considering he has played non stop for club and country for about 6 years now) but AVB used Bertrand like once??? Now you tell me (if you have personally seen his displays) if he merits only one game by a manager bought in to change this club for the future?

 

[CJACKO11]

Right now he is a steadyman, for the last 3 stints he has done. he is known as the go to man in italy but he cant take any club forwards.

But its obviously something he can do if he done it at Chelsea, maybe if teams gave him a long term commitment?

 

[Mike.]

But its obviously something he can do if he done it at Chelsea, maybe if teams gave him a long term commitment?

They do, usually gets a three year contract. its him who actually stutters badly. He is really good at stopping the rot, but is too conservative to lift them. And this happens repeatedly.

 

[Mike.]

One year to show he can take change this club for the future starting with this summer. I am not saying not to replace players because yes at times Lampard needs to be replaced but not sold. AVB was trying to replace Lampard with someone who is 28 so not that young and playing much much poorer than Lamps. I read the article a few days ago and of course there are similarities but that was then and this is now. Players are much fitter these days and can go on for much longer, getting rid of players like Drogba and Lampard could harm the club more than help it for short term and long term. Saying that is it obvious they do need replacing more often, Di Matteo has a sensational amount of young lads at the club to chose from if he decides to stay and i believe he will if he gets the job. I think this has been Cole's worst season at Chelsea in terms of performances (which i don't blame him for considering he has played non stop for club and country for about 6 years now) but AVB used Bertrand like once??? Now you tell me (if you have personally seen his displays) if he merits only one game by a manager bought in to change this club for the future?

Its not about AVB.

A new team takes three years to build on average. Judging after a year is utterly self defeating, and its why so many clubs around europe struggle, except those who actually show the faith.

The simiarities are bang on. I would love it as a United fan. if Chelsea went into next season like this, without any real new blood.

Why would getting rid of them hurt the club? Replacing Drogba with Cavani? or Lampard with Moutinho or someone similar? Sounds like positives to me.

If Di Matteo has a real road map for where he thinks he can take the club, then give him three years. Or find someone else. Chelsea are running out of time to make this swapover, and the longer its left, the more the drastica the changes, and the more drastic the changes, the more its likely to negatively impact the future seasons.

 

[CJACKO11]

Its not about AVB.

A new team takes three years to build on average. Judging after a year is utterly self defeating, and its why so many clubs around europe struggle, except those who actually show the faith.

The simiarities are bang on. I would love it as a United fan. if Chelsea went into next season like this, without any real new blood.

Why would getting rid of them hurt the club? Replacing Drogba with Cavani? or Lampard with Moutinho or someone similar? Sounds like positives to me.

If Di Matteo has a real road map for where he thinks he can take the club, then give him three years. Or find someone else. Chelsea are running out of time to make this swapover, and the longer its left, the more the drastica the changes, and the more drastic the changes, the more its likely to negatively impact the future seasons.

And them players would join a club not playing in the Champions League?? That's a straight easy no.

 

[slbenficacoach]

Heh, don't you give so much importance to champions league
If it's money, Moutinho would sell his wife! XD

 

[Mike.]

And them players would join a club not playing in the Champions League?? That's a straight easy no.

There are also players like Martin, Jovetic who you have been following. But that isn't the point. Replacing them with quality doesnt hurt the club, of course its harder without CL, you dont get rid of them without a replacement. But replacing them doesnt hurt the club.

 

[CJACKO11]

There are also players like Martin, Jovetic who you have been following. But that isn't the point. Replacing them with quality doesnt hurt the club, of course its harder without CL, you dont get rid of them without a replacement. But replacing them doesnt hurt the club.

When i said replacing i meant getting rid of, i agree they need to be replaced more often by new players but not sold.

 

[Mike.]

When i said replacing i meant getting rid of, i agree they need to be replaced more often by new players but not sold.

No one would ever sensibly argue for getting rid of them without replacement. I would only sell if them if you had a a replacement lined up. And that wouldnt hurt the club.

Hypothetically speaking, Drobga and Lampard leaving and Jovetic and Martin coming in doesnt hurt the club.

 

[Jak]

MARIN TO SIGN | Latest Chelsea News | Team & Transfer News | Chelsea FC | Chelsea
decent young player