• Current Donation Goals

Michael Tucker

Manchester City 6 Chelsea 0

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

They are bang on the money there. You don’t hire short-term fix after short-term fix and manage to build anything worth having. It just doesn’t work like that.

 

22 minutes ago, Original 21 said:

I disagree. I think we do have a vision. We want to play like Barcelona or Man City. But we want to do it on the cheap.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. If you buy wisely. But we’ve acquired too many second rate players. Whereas City have players sitting on their bench who would get into our first team. 

A quick look at the managers we’ve employed since Roman bought us would debunk that theory immediately.

 

17 minutes ago, Original 21 said:

Oh dear. If people think Sarri would be bad... I loved Zola the player but as a manager he’s nowhere near what we need. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holymoly   
3 minutes ago, southcoastal said:

The Fall of Sunderland shows how quickly these things can escalate, if not addressed

 

A bit melodramatic. Chelsea FC has the one overwhelming advantage over Sunderland. It is in London and consequently if Roman ever decided to sell there would be a queue around the block seeking to pump money and more short term fixes into the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asvaberg   
4 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

A bit melodramatic. Chelsea FC has the one overwhelming advantage over Sunderland. It is in London and consequently if Roman ever decided to sell there would be a queue around the block seeking to pump money and more short term fixes into the club.

Anyone watched "Sunderland til'I die"? I actually find it to be a very good documentary. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Holymoly said:

A bit melodramatic. Chelsea FC has the one overwhelming advantage over Sunderland. It is in London and consequently if Roman ever decided to sell there would be a queue around the block seeking to pump money and more short term fixes into the club.

Melodramatic ? Maybe not applicable to Chelsea  maybe a worse case scenario of how bad things can get if problems persist see Fulham this season, Leeds, Aston Villa, Birmingham under Zola then Redknapp Spending Money aint a solution to poor management. Which is where we are.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The_Ghost said:

Oh dear. If people think Sarri would be bad... I loved Zola the player but as a manager he’s nowhere near what we need. 

Did anyone think that OGS would have the effect he has done at Man Utd, given his abject failure at Cardiff?

For the rest of the season, a smiling face and a decent coach who sets us up with simple tactics that play the players in positions they’re comfortable and good in, might be an improvement. No worse than where we are at now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueFizz   
57 minutes ago, kratos said:

Very much agree with that.

City have been shaping everything for years in preparation of Pep's arrival because they knew what sort of club they wanted to be.

We on the other hand? Well there is not a unified vision, the club wants to sign their own players, do their own thing and expect who ever is managing the squad to just get on with it.

Communication is key in any business and we seem to just black everything out and hope all goes well.

For too long the club has operated this way and now there is simply no more papering over the cracks because those cracks have given way.

I think the 'unified vision' is (and I am being serious):

To be a club which thrives on insecurity, constant turnover of coaches to refresh approach and keep our club in the spotlight. So far, you would (judging us side by side with most other Premier clubs) say that it's worked domestically, less well in Europe.

It's also a valid vision. We won't be Barca - continuity/the Barca way etc. We will be closer to Real - constant turmoil, but also regular trophies.

The two problems I see emerging now are:

1. It requires continuous investment in money to buy the best (coaches and players) and now this seems to be slowing down it's hard to maintain the trophies

2. It inhibits the continuity needed to bring through young, home-grown players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holymoly   
2 minutes ago, BlueFizz said:

1. It requires continuous investment in money to buy the best (coaches and players) and now this seems to be slowing down it's hard to maintain the trophies

It was easy adopting that approach 10 years ago when we were the club with all the money. Unfortunately now instead of paying £20m for a player you have to pay that in wages every year after shelling out £100m for a truly world calss individual. The playing field is now more level which arguably makes for a better product for the neutral. However when you have middle eastern countries funding your competitors it becomes impossible to maintain a consistent push year on year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlueFizz   
Just now, Holymoly said:

It was easy adopting that approach 10 years ago when we were the club with all the money. Unfortunately now instead of paying £20m for a player you have to pay that in wages every year after shelling out £100m for a truly world calss individual. The playing field is now more level which arguably makes for a better product for the neutral. However when you have middle eastern countries funding your competitors it becomes impossible to maintain a consistent push year on year.

Agree with this.

I guess the options are - change the model, change the rich Russian owner for an even richer Middle Eastern owner. 

For Chelsea, I think the latter will be easier than the former. The habit of patience does not seem to be one that our club (and arguably, many of our supporters) can acquire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
chelboy   

Taking Conte back would be the biggest joke. He never even wanted to be here towards the end and played for the sack. Sarri does care but does not have the managerial ability to really get the best out of a team which I think Conte is better at doing. Give Conte and Sarri any random 22 players in the world and I think Conte would do a better job of getting the best out of them IMO. Too many fans think Conte was an awful coach but I think for 1.5 seasons he was very good. It’s a shame he became unprofessional at the end and lost his way. If he had a top striker last season we would have made top 4 for sure.

Sarri is not ruthless enough to sell half of this team. Even giving Alonso a contract is not a problem. Sarri can go to the board and say he wants him sold. But Sarri won’t do that. He even said he does not care about the transfer market and so on. In his head he believes he can get these guys playing his football simply by training and learning it. About half this team will never be able to play the tactics he needs no matter how much training. That back 4 and midfield that he selects will never challenge for a PL title. Is he really ruthless enough to drop Azpi and Alonso next season? Drop Barkley, Pedro and Willian? I don’t think so. Sarri will play them as long as they are here. That is Sarri problem not the board. He has 22 players not 15. 

Edited by chelboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.