Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Are Chelsea washed up under Scolari?

13»

Comments

  • #102
    MisterAnarchy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,397 ✭✭✭✭MisterAnarchy


    mormank wrote: »
    and start afresh like at barca this year, total clear out, well not total but u know what i mean.

    I see what you are saying but Barca wasnt a clearout but more a reboot.
    Its almost exactly the same team as last season and boy is it some team.:D


  • #103
    Bubs101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,478 ✭✭✭Bubs101


    Also we have Mancienne, not Messi


  • #104
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    mormank wrote: »
    jose WAS there when utd won the league in 2006/07 so your statement is null and void...

    or i could say, i bet u a million bucks that chelsea would in fact not have won the league this season and the previous two seasons had jose been there..

    respond to whichever you prefer

    If he was still there and had the complete support that he had in the opening two seasons, I reckon that they would have continued their dominance of the PL.

    Jose was undermined for a lot longer than the first half of last season. The team, formation and tactics that Grant used in the second half of last season were also virtually identical to those used by Jose in the first half of the season. It also cannot be disputed that Jose is a better manager overall than Grant.

    Considering the margin that Chelsea lost the league and CL, it is perfectly reasonable to state that Chelsea's last two seasons very possibly would have been better than they were if Jose had received the support that he did in the opening two years of his tenure before all these notions of sexy football entered Roman's head.


  • #105
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Firstly, they're missing Essien and Drogba big time. I know Drogba is back now but he's not playing as he used to and might or might not want a move away.

    I also think this Chelsea team needs stability badly. If this is to be believed, Abramovich seems to think he owns Real Madrid, demanding instant success from managers and then sacking a successful one as he doesn't like the tactics or doesn't want him to have too much control.

    The thing about Madrid is that they just need Barca to have a bad season and they get the league. Also, many of the great players want to go there. The English league is much more competitive and Chelsea cannot presume to keep changing managers until they find another Jose - particularly if Abramovich is serious about not overspending on transfers any more.

    This is Scolari's first season in charge in England. I think it would be a damning testimony to Chelsea if a foreign manager, new to the country, was not even given a second year.


  • #106
    Mitch Connor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 46,452 ✭✭✭✭Mitch Connor


    gosplan wrote: »
    Firstly, they're missing Essien and Drogba big time. I know Drogba is back now but he's not playing as he used to and might or might not want a move away.

    I also think this Chelsea team needs stability badly. If this is to be believed, Abramovich seems to think he owns Real Madrid, demanding instant success from managers and then sacking a successful one as he doesn't like the tactics or doesn't want him to have too much control.

    The thing about Madrid is that they just need Barca to have a bad season and they get the league. Also, many of the great players want to go there. The English league is much more competitive and Chelsea cannot presume to keep changing managers until they find another Jose - particularly if Abramovich is serious about not overspending on transfers any more.

    This is Scolari's first season in charge in England. I think it would be a damning testimony to Chelsea if a foreign manager, new to the country, was not even given a second year.
    The English league is not more competitive than the spannish league, least not any seaosn before this one. Seville and Valencia have both been legitimate contenders to the title over the years.


  • #107
    gosplan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,828 ✭✭✭gosplan


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    The English league is not more competitive than the spannish league, least not any seaosn before this one. Seville and Valencia have both been legitimate contenders to the title over the years.

    They have, as have Atletico, Depor and Villareal. But, in doing so, I'd argue that they had phenomenal seasons and overachieved somewhat.

    With Real and Barca's squad power, either one of them should win the league (or challenge the other) as long as they have a good season.

    Money buys success in football and in that category Madrid have one direct competitor.

    Similar to Madrid, Chelsea have a monetary advantage that automatically puts them way past most of the teams in the premier league. The trouble is that they've got far more peers with similar squads or spending power (Man U, Pool, Arsenal ... sort of, and now Man City) and unless Abramovich is going to spend like he used to then I can't see any new manager delivering success in his first year.

    Ergo, if Scolari is sacked at the end of the year for not winning a really competitive league (by playing the exciting fast-flowing football demanded), then you'd imagine the whole useless cycle will repeat itself until the best years of players like Essien, Terry and Lampard have been wasted at a club with no sense of itself owned by a man that demands instant success.


  • #108
    jesus_thats_gre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,441 ✭✭✭✭jesus_thats_gre


    Excellent posts gosplan..


  • #109
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I think the title of the thread should be renamed "Are Chelsea washed up under Romaon Ambromavich"
    His time has come and gone.


  • #110
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Its been noted how Roman is not the ever present figure he used to be. Is he getting bored?


  • #111
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    mike65 wrote: »
    Its been noted how Roman is not the ever present figure he used to be. Is he getting bored?
    He always looks bored tbh

    73583271.jpg


    AbramovichDM_468x343.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    mike65 wrote: »
    Its been noted how Roman is not the ever present figure he used to be. Is he getting bored?

    Probably but sick of spending hundreds of millions. So it begs the question, the kitty has dried up and there goes the clubs trump card. Unless the club get him off thier back they will be washed up, but thats like putting a bullet in your own head as they wont be able to operate as a business without Roaman. So what to do?


Advertisement