Chelsea Watch: Why is Avram Grant being criticised?
The monotony was finally ended on Sunday as Tottenham became the first club outside the top four to win a trophy in England since Middlesbrough in 2004. It was a deserved victory by Ramos’ men as they come from back from a goal down to beat Chelsea. But as one manager is receiving praises for winning a trophy just four months into his tenure in England, another is being victimized for not having won it.
As unlikely as it seems, Chelsea boss, Avram Grant, is being heavily criticized for one reason or another. The Sun and others like it joyfully explain how Grant did a horrible job in preparing for the cup final and how this would never have happened under the Special One. The worst part: the shameless propaganda has gotten to Chelsea fans, most of which by now are dissatisfied with the job that Grant is doing at their club.
The criticism thrown at Grant is not that he is not a good manager; rather he is being accused of not being a “big-game manager” – whatever that means. Apparently games against Liverpool are not “big” and narrow losses at Arsenal and at Manchester United in his first game are poor performances.
It could be that the Chelsea fans are still disgruntled at the departure of Mourinho, but to try to offload their dissatisfaction on Avram Grant is not only outrageous it is also disrespectful toward a very respectable manager. Of course there would be nothing wrong with criticizing a manager if he was not doing his job well but that is hardly the case with Mr. Grant, isn’t it?
A sixteen-game unbeaten run – such as the one Avram Grant went on between losses to Man Utd and Arsenal – is hardly the work of a bad manager. A nine game winning streak in all competitions is also indicates that the manager is doing something right and Chelsea have gone done just that following their draw against Aston Villa on Boxing Day.
Staying with that game against Aston Villa - that magnificent 4-4 draw – and what was perhaps the best game most of us have seen in the Premier League in a very long time: can anyone recall why Mr. Grant replaced Mourinho? Yep, to make Chelsea sexy. Maybe Chelsea is not exactly the most exciting team to watch these days either, but at least they are much easier on the eye than Mourinho’s Chelsea was.
In fact, the one thing that Chelsea, along with the rest of the Premier League misses from Mourinho is his ability to crack up just about every football fan in the world. The results do not seem to be any worse under Grant than they would have been had Mourinho stayed and on top of that Chelsea are looking good in the Champions League.
If there is anything else that Grant as done to prove that he deserves a job which many thought was not for him from day one is that he has kept Chelsea alive on all four fronts until their defeat at Tottenham and are looking likely to win one of the three competitions in which they are still involved.
So, Chelsea fans, before you go any further in criticizing Mr. Avram Grant stop and think about the position in which your cub finds itself and what the alternatives are. Surely you do not want your club to become the latest version of the Galacticos…
- Why Chelsea fans want Mourinho back
- The Observer apologises to Chelsea manager Avram Grant for “making up false news”
- Chelsea welcome their new Special One
- Chelsea confirm deal for £30m Manchester United defender
- Odds stacked against Chelsea with Manchester United needing only a point from Stamford Bridge
Discussion - 36 Responses
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated (our comments policy).
Nonsense. Cretins are criticising Grant for being a poor manager. This is not the case.
Grant is, however, rightly being criticised for bringing precisely nothing to the club that it didn’t have already. Dour defensive aptitude? Check. Lack of creativity up front and on the wing? Check. Lack of midfield cohesion? Check.
Whoever you are, Andrei, sucking down the leader articles from 3 tabloids does not qualify you to write an opinion piece about something you clearly know ****-all about. Stick to Pro Evolution Soccer.
Alls I can say is you obviously don’t watch too many of our games. The football has actually become worse under grant that Jose. Yes it was functional but at least the players passed to each other and retained possession. Not to mention that for the most part they mostly played to their potential.
On paper we should have breezed past Tottenham, yet despite their not playing very well, they still looked better than us in just about all departments. This is why were felling discontented.
If you also view the recent Olympiacos and Liverpool games we were incredibly poor despite facing inferior oppo and scraped 0-0. Yet Grant keeps repeating his mantra that we are playing more expansive football that we were. As one whop watches us week in week out I can tell you that is garbage. Did any natural really enjoy the football we played in the final? I doubt it.
This article only demonstrates the real face of the writer, which has, in my opinion, a strong repulse for Mourinho.
How can you even dare to compare Mourinho’s achievement with this lousy Grant whom stabbed Jose in the back?
Do you really feel that the team is playing better and more show-off football?
The match results are the most important… not the beauty or sex-appeal of the players.
At the end they lost… and when a team lost with the criticism of their own players, then, who is to blame for?
Mourinho…?
Blimey, what a strange article. To be honest most Chelsea fans i know were pretty underwhelmed (understatement) by grants appointment but have tried to give him a chance, as we new so little about him. Sunday was the final straw though as far as I’m concerned, it wasn’t even particularly the manner of defeat (which was lame), but specifically his reaction or lack of in extra time. Why is terry imparting the last bit of vital advice when it the last chance for the manager to have any input to the game?? Grant was walking around as if events were moving to fast for him and he couldn’t catch up in time, didn’t know what to do?
And as for playing ’sexy’ or ‘expansive’ football, well i don’t really remember that happening particularly this season, what we do have is more of the same its just slightly less effective and Grant doesn’t seem to be able to alter our tactics effectively when required.
so, chelsea arent winning because they’ve regressed or because the opposition has improved and learned to play against them?
I think you have not really followed Chelsea’s games so far. Yea we have unbeaten run but if you were a chelsea fan you would realise that it is not at all comfortable watching your team always on the edge. how many goals have we scored, we scrape wins, 1-0, 2-1. what Grant has going for him is that he has good players. And that is not any credit to him he did not buy most of the players to start with. what we need a manager to do is primarily to make the right team selection and right susbstitutions when due. he barely makes any substitution before 75mins and when he makes them i feel like i could have done better. it does not take a pro to know that there was a problem with the selection on Sunday. i mean you have never played Drogba and Anelka and you thought the best time to play them would be in the final. And as though that was not bad enough you played Anelka out of position. Worse still when you saw the first half through do you need a diviner to tell you that your plan was not working. why not make appropriate susbs.
And mind you if you have followed Chelsea games you will realise that Grant has not made any tactical subs since coming on as coach.
I agree Temitope, I’m not happy with 1-0 or 2-1. I want a 2 goal margin in every game. I think that is what Abramovitch is referring to as “SEXY” and “ATTRACTIVE” football. It’s odd but no one hasn’t really complained about our failing back 4. We use to be impregnable, impenetrable. Every damn league team knew this and that was our upperhand. Every opposing team had to bring their defensive players up to attack us. This gave us a chance to counterattack which is our stronger points. When the back 4 fails, the rest of the team can’t concentrate on finding the back of the net. Poor Michael Ballack running back to save the team. That’s not acceptable. I expect Ballack to be comfortable in his position creating more and more chances. Lately I find Petr Cech underperforming as well. Perhaps it’s time to bring in Cudicini. Cech really shouldn’t have ran out to punch that ball. It would have came to him…easy save. Lampard should leave the club. It’s hard to say loving the man for his achievements but I don’t like a player who undermines their manager as well demands placements for games. Drogba seems to behaving though which is good b/c a team divided is a team that will unable to be able to bring home trophies.
LASTLY…a team with Drogba, Anelka, Shevchenko unable to find more goals may indicate bad management = Grant.
Poor article which merely attempts to be devils advocate. Unfortunately Mr Grant has bluffed his way into the job and now he is being found out. Believe it or not there is a lot of collective wisdom amongst the journalists of the major dailes (ands some expert pundits like Alan Hansen in the Telegraph)and as such the views and opinions being expressed are valid and pretty accurate.
Grant has lost to Man U, Arsenal and now Spurs when it counted. Plus we are not playing the entertaining, cavalier football that he implied (to all and sundry, I’m sure) was only a tweak or two away. He has miscalculated. Yes, he is out of his depth, which is what the casual observer would have concluded from his CV when he got the job.
At Wembley, The Best Manager won, as many of us had thought likely prior to the match.
I see that Grant has indicated that he’d like a “Director of Football” appointed at Chelsea, to “help him”. This of course was the newly created berth that he filled when he came to the club. Mysteriously the post has been unoccupied since Grant became manager (draw your own conclusions). I strongly suspect that he is trying to create his old job again, with a view to slipping back there again!
Then we can have a PROVEN WINNER back at the helm hopefully.
What annoys me about the way the media treats Grant is that when he wins, they say “well, anybody could win with those players and the way Mourinho trained them,” and then when he loses, they say “well, he’s not a good manager.” Those players were playing terribly in cup finals, choking against Liverpool, and falling out of the Premier League race around Christmas last year as well. If you refuse to credit him for their victories you shouldn’t criticize him for their losses.
Andrei, you have to take note that nothing much have changed since Mourinho reign. Probably the good thing that have happened to him throughout this time is the ACN and the injuries he suffered. That meant he did not have to deal with the happiness issue.
The challenge now is how is he going to fit Drogba, Anelka, Lampard, Malouda, Cole, SWP, Ballack, Essien and Mikel into the side and still maintain control of the team. Grant should really decide on his approach and not let anyone tell him otherwise, not ten cate, not terry and definitely not lampard.
Probably the bigger disgrace was his ET actions which really baffled me. This gives an insight to how Grant conduct this team and see the Blue fans discontent at him.
@ Nick – The problem is the players were not playing terribly in cup finals. Under Jose, played 5 won 5. Grant failed at the first hurdle. As for failing in the PL race you make it sound like an annual occurrence rather than the one off it was when missing both Terry and Cech and having to play Essien as right back.
If Grant was supposedly appointed to play sexy football he should be judged on that not on results. Fact is nothing has changed because the players Chelsea have for all their athleticism and die-hard attitude are not that skillful or creative. Therefore Chelsea play unimaginative football relying on the finishing ability of Drogba (and now Anelka), the long shots of Lampard, and a solid defense.
The only player Chelsea have I’d pay to watch is Joe Cole, but while he is less shackled than he was under Mourinho, there is a limit to how much he can do to liven up the play.
Only way Chelsea will ever change is when they lose players like Lampard who excellent footballers as they may be, are largely responsible for their style of play.
Replace Lampard with a creative midfielder or two, get another winger with the ability of Shawn Wright Philips, maybe get a skillful forward to play alongside Drogba (or Anelka) and I might actually watch Chelsea play!
@ Colver John
Grant should not be judged on results?? More nonsense.
Do you think that Mr Abramovich would be happy to finish without a trophy and without a Champions League Place as long as we played “Sexy Football”??
Results are the absolute priority and the manner in which it is done comes second. Always. We should not lose sight of that.
Chelsea is a club with genuine ambition and has the appropriate goals and objectives. This cannot be progressed by a mentality that says its OK to lose as long as the team has performed stylishly. That is Loser mentality. Some people are happy enough to watch so called entertaining teams win nothing, year after year. This is not an option for Chelsea. The fans (worldwide) are used to success and the promise of more to come. Moreover it is an economic imperative that Chelsea win things, in order to increase the worldwide fan base and raise the club profile.
Yes it would be very nice to have the balance that Man U presently have. But don’t forget that under Mourinho we shut them out for a couple of years and still won more domestic trophies than them last season. Under Mourinho. Doing things properly. Don’t forget that a skilled boxer will always beat a fighter. Don’t forget also how they do it.
Of course Grant is expected to WIN. He HAS to win. And I really don’t care if you want to watch Chelsea or not. You’re not a Chelsea fan are you?
You have to remember that Chelsea was playing worse and worse each matchday before Grant stepped in. The loss at Aston Villa and the draw versus Rosenborg hinted that all was not well at Stamford Bridge. Something needed to chage because the team was freefalling. After all the core of that team remained unchanged for far too long and - answering Ahmed’s question - there was a combination of regresssion combined with the managers’ revelation (maybe a hint or two from Wenger and Ferguson) on how to play against Chelsea.
I think that the tactics which Grant employs are totally detrimental and as someone mentions, they are only put in place to satisfy everybody. Essien, Mikel, Lampard and Ballack all need to be part of the team and this forces the manager (because before Grant, Mourinho also adopted this tactic) to play three in central midfield. I think that if there is anywhere Chelsea lose spark and consistency, is in that midfield trio - a very defensive trio.
Odysseus, maybe it is not the manager’s fault if Drogba is tired, Anelka has only just arrived at the cclub and Schevchanko is shite. These players have peaks and off-peaks and right now all three of them are at off-peak.
@Andrei
Andrei, please understand that the perception is that in this instance you do not really know what you are talking about.
Seems like you are trying to become a paid journalist and this is your training ground.
Regardless of whether Mourinho was having a negative period or not, his dismissal was political. He is a proven, thoroughbred manager who intimidated all of his opponents, including opposition fans quite often. He was a potent force. Grant seems impotent.
The bottom line is that under Mourinho our dominance was based primarily on possession as the foundation. It is obvious that the moment a team is called upon to become more creative then they run the risk of losing the ball more. When you don’t have the ball you are not in a position to control the game. If you are not controlling the game the the prospects of scoring are lower and the prospects of coming under pressure and conceding a goal are higher. The key is to score first and score early. And if you can’t score early, at least score first!
If you fail When these conditions become true then a team will quite clearly win fewer matches, in the long run.
As the famous Israli Tank Commander said - “He who shoots first lives longer”!
There is no question that Mourinho would have adapted to the new requirements. He was unfortunate to have a badly out of shape Shevchenko forced upon him, which caused him to move away from the previous policy of using wide players in tandem, which had been successful(particularly with Robben and Duff). He also had some shocking decisions go against him (Kalou’s good goal disallowed for offside, for instance. A win in that game could have made all of the difference). His exit was a folly, as was the hiring of Grant in the first place. Had Mourinho been allowed to do as he wanted, without interference, then there is absolutely no doubt that our prospects would be better than they presently are.
If you want to get right to the beginnings of the problem, maybe look at the appointment of Arnesen (Tottenham Trojan horse?!)and the other Dutch connections (Henk Ten Kate being the latest of course). A lot of people trying to bend Abramovich’s ear. Grant included.
Of course, the reality is that there are too many people attempting to channel Abramovich’s money to their own established networks. Mourinho and his coaching team was in the way of that.
Back to the point. Why would Chelsea fans want an unproven Manager when they could have someone who has already demonstrated his abilities?. It is a no brainer.
I repeat, NO BRAINER.
Don’t you just love the peaceful silence emanating from Stamford Bridge this season??
Ever since that circus performing parrot, that one man soap opera, that ego the size of Jupiter, that worst case of small man syndrome since Dennis Wise, departed, it has been like a breath of fresh air!
Grant needs time to unravel the mess of overpaid, overhyped, poorly motivated and, clearly, “not together” mercenaries that Mourinho assembled with the hundreds of millions of the Russian’s cash.
Mourinho bought players. The best in most cases, as he had the money to outbid everyone else and offer salaries that nobody could turn down. He assembled a group of excellent players, never a team.
He never knew what his best team was or what his preferred formation was. No wingers, one winger, two wingers???
His team never played to a pattern, were never attractive to watch. The fact is, when you spend so much on quailty players they are capable of digging out results match after match. But his teams never did it with any style.
Despite all his spending and mouthing off, Mourinho always had too many central midfielders and not enough cover out wide. He had problems at full back and left himself short of defensive cover last year. He always only seemed to have one quality striker at any point.
His mismanagement of players was epidemic: Shevchenko, Ballack, Robben, Gallas, Cole, Ferrer, Duff, Wright-Phillips and I’m probably forgetting several others.
No one or nothing would get in the way of Mourinho’s ego as far as he was concerned, not players, not management or owners at Chelsea, not referees or the PL or FA hierarchy, not opposing managers, players etc.etc.
This clown was many things in his time but never a great manager and time will find him out.
Given time Grant can fix the cracks that Mourinho left all over the club. He’s only had a few months to date.
But hey, what do I care!!!!
@ BD
Hey Ho BD, If you don’t care then you are effectively “careless” in this instance. Which is why you deal in conjecture as opposed to fact! You seem to be in denial of Mourinhos career record, or “resumé” as you probably say.
Another party clearly intimidated by personality. You know its not rational! And it clouds objectivity.
Lets try to stick to the facts. If you want peaceful silence try a retreat!
As for saying that Mourinho would have changed the tactics when he saw the flaw in them I think that it is you who is misguided. Mourinho used the same tactics in the beginning of this season as he used the whole of last season (formation-wise, of course).
As for your no brainer question: Now that Mourinho is gone (and presuming that he was the proven winner you were mentioning), now that he is out of the club, which is the next best alternative? I was never in favor of his departure as a neutral (though as a Man Utd fan I jumped with joy) but again, since I saw what Grant was capable of (I think I saw around 15 Chelsea games this season) I did not doubt it for a moment that he would bring at least one trophy to the Bridge. I think that Grant is the best available choice at the moment and I reiterate my opinion that all criticism toward him is undeserved. Give him at least a whole season and if Chelsea are not doing great in competitions, then call for his resignation.
PS I am not looking to become a paid journalist. Soccerlens is the farthest I will ever go in a journalism “career”.
Sorry Jakal, your interpretation of something does not make them “facts”.
No let me see….Mourinho’s CV:
Give the tea lady at Stamford Bridge (never mind ANY current (or past) PL manager) half a billion dollars to spend and she (they) would not only deliever the PL but also the CL. She (they) would also not surrender the PL title to Man Utd after 2 years and she(they)would have created a TEAM with a system, maybe even with some style and most likely one that was together as a unit.
In the context of the resources available Mourinho’s tenure at Chelsea was an abject failure. You may have a different opinion and you’re welcome to it but that’s mine and I’m sticking with it.
As for his CV before Chelsea. Well we all know he got the job on the back of the luckiest win in CL history. A year which saw Porto and Monaco in the final. Unprecedented. Why?
Because never before have 2 teams who were not among the top 10 teams in Europe, reached the final in same year. Immense luck went with this and, hey, if you like a lucky manager go for it!
As regards his other successes with Porto. Porto are the richest and most successful club in Portugal. Managing in Portugal is a bit like managing Celtic or Rangers in Scotland. Domestic silverware is almost guaranteed. Name a manager of Porto in the last 15 years who hasn’t won the title?
Winning the Uefa Cup just means you’re not good enough for the CL. They beat Celtic in the final, so there you go! It’s the 2nd division of European trophies. Big deal.
@ Andrei!
Ha Ha!!!
So, you are a “neutral” who supports Man U and “Jumped for joy” when Mourinho departed!!?
I think that says EVERYTHING that anybody needs to know! LOL!!!!!!
Yes, you jumped for Joy because Sir Alex never beat Mourinho in The Premiership. Neither did Wenger. They have both beaten Grant though, at the first time of asking.
I don’t want to labour the point here, but non Chelsea fans tend to buy into all of the myths and repeat them ad infinitum until people start to believe that they are true and set in stone. The Millions that Abramovich has spent, For example. Actually Arsenal have spent more than Abramovich, unless I am very much mistaken. On a place called Ashburton Grove. 800 Million Pounds was it? Yes, Abramovich has spent Millions. He bought a Football Club including infrastructure, lock stock and barrel, and wrote off a large debt in the process. This has been by far the lions share of what he has spent. People like to pretend that all the money went in the transfer market and on wages. Not so.
The team was “assembled overnight” as you put it. WRONG. Bad information again. Believe what other people are saying. Again!
Claudio Ranieri actually evolved the team after he took over from Vialli. Hodddle had first got the ball rolling, then Gullit gave it a hefty kick in the right direction. Ranieri identified that an English, (or British) backbone was necessary for the team and bought Lampard, Cole, Bridge, and plenty of others, including Robben, Duff, Makelele (the battery for my watch, as Ranieri put it) and of course Petr C.
Mourinho brought in Ferreria, Carvalho, Tiago, Drogba of his own volition, plus some others(hardly a whole team)but latterly the signings were probably dictated by the Dutch contingent (Arnesen and his team) - these include Kalou. Also Mourinho was not permitted to get the players that he actually wanted (Alves from Seville, Et’o and numerous others) because the clubs were trying to lever too much money out of us, knowing that Abramovich could afford to pay, if he wanted to.) This led to Mourinho’s comments about eggs and omelettes. He felt that he did not have his first (or perhaps even second) choice of players as new signings.
This was not a team assembled overnight. It’s just that supporters of other clubs like to think it was.
Finally, I didn’t say that Mourinho wanted to change tactics or (he) thought that they were flawed. The pressure to change tactics was coming from Abramovich, supported by others in the club who felt it was in their interests to do so (Arnesen, Grant all had a hand in it - Of course we now know that they can talk the talk but can’t actually walk the walk)…………..
Basically Mourinho was being asked to change tactics, but possibly felt that it was against his instincts and that he had not been allowed to sign the players who could have helped to achieve it. That said, he would have got there with what he had at his disposal anyway had he had full opportunity this season to do so.
As they say, form is temporary but class is permanent!
So there you have it, Mr not as neutral as you like to make out!
@ BD!
Did you say -Dollars- BD ??? - and which would they be. Green. Or perhaps the color is RED????
Partisan issues aside, I think you should properly qualify the following remarks that you made……………
“In the context of the resources available Mourinho’s tenure at Chelsea was an abject failure.”
“Winning the Uefa Cup just means you’re not good enough for the CL”
Anybody on this country would concede that “The table doesn’t lie”. Chelsea finished top of the heap in two consecutive years, in a highly competitive environment.
Furthermore, in any cup competition there is numerically one winner and a multitude of losers. Mourinho won both of our domestic cups last year. There was a whole bunch of losers. In both instances, unsurprisingly.
I guess that is what a casual observer could mistake for “Abject Failure”
Admit it, you just don’t like the guy. Period!
[Now that I think of it, hasn’t Mourinho lost to Wenger on matchday 36 last season?]
One more thing: you go on with the speculation that Abramovich applied a lot of pressure to Mourinho. There is no actual proof for that, it is just a load of press rubbish which some Chelsea fan in a high place at some newspaper or another made up to try and defend Mourinho.
BTW Ashburton Grove was funded by the departure of Anelka to Real Madrid. That means that it cost 22 million pounds or less. (They did not buy the whole of London, you know)
And one more scathing attack on Mourinho (one which he does not deserve): He only won the Premier League when everybody else was miles below Chelsea in terms of quality. Arsenal were going through a change of generation and Man Utd had Richardson in the starting line-up. Once Man Utd managed to pose some sort of danger and became a strong team again, Chelsea faltered. That speaks volumes to me and undermines the so called “quality” of Mourinho who, in all honesty, never managed to do anything in the way of impossible (like SAF did last year and Wenger this year) to justify his pedigree.
Grant is keeping his team alive on all fronts with a relatively weakened squad and bigger teams all around him.
@Jackal
Jackal asks:
“I think you should properly qualify the following remarks that you made……………
“In the context of the resources available Mourinho’s tenure at Chelsea was an abject failure.”
BD Replies:
Let me cut and paste from my own post the bit that preceded this and then you can let me know which words you don’t understand!!
‘Give the tea lady at Stamford Bridge (never mind ANY current (or past) PL manager) half a billion dollars to spend and she (they) would not only deliver the PL but also the CL. She (they) would also not surrender the PL title to Man Utd after 2 years and she(they)would have created a TEAM with a system, maybe even with some style and most likely one that was together as a unit.’
Secondly Jackal asks me to qualify:
“Winning the Uefa Cup just means you’re not good enough for the CL”
Teams that are in the UEFA Cup haven’t qualified for the Champions League or were dumped out at the group stage (I assume you know this???!!!). None of the big teams want to be anywhere near the UEFA Cup. The Champions league is where the money and prestige is.
Hence the UEFA Cup is distinctly 2nd division as a trophy and much easier to win.
As for admitting that “I just don’t like the guy”…..here’s the start of my first posting on this thread:
“Ever since that circus performing parrot, that one man soap opera, that ego the size of Jupiter, that worst case of small man syndrome since Dennis Wise, departed, it has been like a breath of fresh air!”
Now what on earth would make you think that I just don’t like the guy???!!!
My dislike is based primarily on the fact that he is a fraud as a manager.
so one person loves Mourinho, the other doesnt?
read this, I guess
@Andrei and BD
So, Arsenal built a brand new Stadium on the proceeds of the sale of one player, Anelka? Are you sure? If this is the case then BD’s SuperTealady must have done it?
You cannot be serious Andrei! If you are then please write a piece about this miracle!
BD, I asked you to qualify your comments not because I couldn’t understand the words, but because they made no particular sense. Not even if they were skillfuly rearranged. So referring all and sundry back to them is not, in fact, of any help. I was hoping/expecting a cogent argument based on logical propositions with an underpinning of accurate facts. To persist with “The Tealady could have won the CL” line is plainly absurd and does not serve you well. Neither does this “half a billion dollars to spend” thing. A complete and utter falsehood. Its just waaaaay off base. More mindless reinforcement of the “Big Bad Chelsea” myth.
Failure to win 3 consecutive Premiership titles a major negative? I’m not one for having all of the facts and figures in my long term memory, so please excuse me if I ask you when a team last did this. Please go back in time to the origins of the Football League itself if this is necessary. I expect it has been done at some point, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Mourinho was an abject failure basically for not winning the Champion League, despite his other successes? Is this what you are actually saying? I guess this means that Rafa Benitez at Liverpool has been the opposite then - A Roaring Success. This is what you are suggesting isn’t it, since it must be (conversely) true?
Chelsea not a together team under Mourinho? You truly believe this?
No pattern or fixed method with Chelsea play under Mourinho? Are you sure? If true, would that be a bad thing?
On the subject of the disparaging remarks about the Eufa Cup. A lot of people contend that it is tougher to win, in some ways than the Champions League because it is highly attritional. It’s not a question of a mountain being tougher because it is higher. Everest is not as difficult or hazardous a climb as many lesser peaks. I hope that you understand this analogy. And to repeat my earlier remark, in any cup competition there is only ever one winner but a whole bunch of losers. I hope that you can see that winning anything is actually against the odds and is to be commended, not dismissed. The fact is that I don’t believe Mourinho EVER lost a Cup Final in 5 attempts. He was successful in the final push to the summit on each and every occasion (Grant is now one for six, as I believe you say)
So really, if you are going to offer your contentions, please back them up with more than a story about A Tealady and Fort Knox! Because in the final analysis, it was garbage!
And the last thing I will say on this post is that a hat-trick of Premier Leagues has been done. Repeatedly. And you do not need to go to the origins of football league to find this. You have to have a memory. Manchester United did it in 1999, 2000 and 2001. Liverpool did it in the 70s I think and even Arsenal managed it beofre WWII. So Chelsea is the odd one out and they blew their best chance.
AVRAM PLEASE READ THIS
As one of the best coaches in the world, I have this advice to Chelsea. I will not point fingers at anyone, mine is free advice. The reason Chelsea does not entertain and does not win convincingly is the slowness on counter attacks. When you are counter attacking avoid making too much passes because your opponent’s defense would mobilise in time to diffuse your move.
Because of the slowness on counter attacks Chelsea creates very few scoring opportunities in a game. Hence they have to fight too hard in order to win. Hence the numerous injuries. If Chelsea can play the way they did in 2005 against Barcelona (4-2) they would find life easy.
When attacking the whole team has to be involved, it should not only be Drogba openning up. Midllefielders and strikers should always prepare themselves to receive a pass anytime. Unfortunately in Chelsea passes are so predictable that opponents easily snatch the ball from the person receiving a pass. No wonder most of Chelsea passes are backward.
Can someone forward this to Avram Grant?
Jackal, you are becoming tiresome. In answer to your question(s):
“BD, I asked you to qualify your comments not because I couldn’t understand the words, but because they made no particular sense. Not even if they were skillfuly rearranged. So referring all and sundry back to them is not, in fact, of any help. I was hoping/expecting a cogent argument based on logical propositions with an underpinning of accurate facts.”
What it says is clear, as is the argument. With the resources available any number of managers could have delivered success at Chelsea and most would have done better than Mourinho i.e.delivered the CL as well.
Is that clear enough for you? Its a straight forward point, not needing any further ‘logical proposition’ to support it. The ‘facts’ are the money and resources the Russian made available and the trophies that Mourinho won.
Marry the two and in my opinion he underachieved in his time there. You may disagree and thats your perogative but please……..it’s a straight forward point…you must get it by now??
As for:
“To persist with “The Tealady could have won the CL” line is plainly absurd and does not serve you well. Neither does this “half a billion dollars to spend” thing. A complete and utter falsehood. Its just waaaaay off base. More mindless reinforcement of the “Big Bad Chelsea” myth.”
Regarding the Tealady, it’s hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point.) It also adds some colour to the argument.
The “utter falsehood” claim is worn out by Chelsea fans. The fact is that the Russian invested hundreds of millions of his own cash in Chelsea, facilitating the buying of a team/squad beyond the means of any other club on the planet. Since his arrival, Chelsea has operated at HUGE losses, driven in part by their willingness to attract players by offering over inflated salaries.
All other clubs are answerable to their shareholders/owners and have to operate as going concerns.
Hence Chelsea have not been playing on an even playing field (so to speak) and have had a huge advantage over all of their rivals because of this. Other clubs that are financially strong (Man Utd, Arsenal) got there through successful running of their clubs on and off the pitch and have had to do so while remaining profitable and generating the profit for future growth. To try and deny this as THE ONLY reason that Chelsea are competing at the top level is naiive, delusional and rather pathetic…but hey if the cap fits!
By extension of the above, any manager given the role of managing Chelsea is a shoe in to win trophies and proves nothing regarding ability, in my view.
Regarding your 3 in a row bombshell…News Update:
Huddersfield Town 1923, 1924, 1925
Arsenal 1933, 1934, 1935
Liverpool 1982, 1983, 1984
Man Utd 1999, 2000, 2001
Makes one wonder exactly how much you know about football and suggests you are one of these nouveau Chelsea fans who only took interest when the Rusiian arrived with his cash??
Finally, the UEFA cup comment doesn’t merit a comeback. The analogy is laughable. Don’t insult my intelligence please.
@BD!
Hi BD, thanks for your considered response, which will address shortly. In the meantime, could you just confirm that it was you that posted this on the skysports site recently?
Bd Condell (Manchester United fan) says…
From a morale point of view Keegan is probably what is needed right now. However, whether he succeeds in bringing Newcastle to a new level will depend on the amount of money made available (as it would for any other manager appointed). On the downside, longer term, Keegan, while clearly a charismatic guy, has shown that he doesn’t have the temprement for management. He’s too emotional; needs to be adored by the fans constantly; and when things go wrong he can’t take the heat and walks. Last week Kev declared that he was probably finished with management and his life had gone another direction. This week he accepts the Newcastle job! The man’s an emotional roller coaster ride. He definitely won’t be boring though!
Posted 01:10 17th January 2008
???? -I’m just trying to figure out what your motivation is, thats all!
Jackal,
Guilty as charged. Motivation….passionate about football and opinionated on the issues.
Link to an article I wrote last year regarding Mourinho.
http://soccerlens.com/chelsea-has-jose-mourinho-lost-his-bottle/1592/
So, both yourself and Andrei are paddling the same canoe -the good ship Manchester United?
No wonder you want Grant to stay. No wonder you are using the very same arguments that issued forth 3 seasons ago when the Mancs were getting spanked. I guess they have become a deeply embedded reflex by now.
Are these the very reasons that were responsible for SAF having never beaten a Mourinho led Chelsea until the Charity Shield at the beginning of this season?
And if, as you say, its all about resources, would you not concede that Manchester United’s record in the CL under SAF is actually extremely poor, bordering on “Abject failure”, (to use a spot of hyperbole that you are fond of, just to colour the argument
) why is this? - is it anything to do with his abilities, or facets thereof?
Glad you think I might be a “nouveau” Chelsea Supporter. All I will say is that I can see Stamford Bridge when I look out of my kitchen window and the first time I saw them was against Everton at Goodison. We lost 5-2. Look up the year if you feel so inclined.
If I had to guess, I’d say that the closest you get to Old Trafford is Google Earth and your idea of supporting them, rather than making any financial contribution (”supporter”) is to try and contribute (from a distance) by dissing the opposition in cyberspace and generally fighting your (self made) corner. Excuse the conjecture, perhaps you would care to tell me whether I’m getting warm or not?
I’ve not read your Mourinho article (thus far)incidentally. But I can hazard a guess.
Incidentally, “passionate” is good, but “objective” should not be overlooked,if and where possible.
Are you guilty of previously undisclosed bias, dya think?
Stay on topic Jackal. This debate is about Mourinho and Chelsea.
The former underachieved and is overrated, the latter only in contention because of a financial platform that has never been afforded to any other club in history.
So you are a long term Chelsea fan. I know a couple myself who remained dormant between 1971 and 2004, but we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
However, this longevity brings us back to:
“Failure to win 3 consecutive Premiership titles a major negative? I’m not one for having all of the facts and figures in my long term memory, so please excuse me if I ask you when a team last did this. Please go back in time to the origins of the Football League itself if this is necessary. I expect it has been done at some point, but I wouldn’t bet on it.”
Inexcusable!! You have lived through 2 of the occasions that ‘3 in a row’ was done! Unfortunately, this undermines your credibility completely. Any fan worth his salt would have known this!
You have been uncovered as a fraud!
Finally, don’t accuse others of lacking objectivity because they support another team. Your one-eyed view of this issue emanates from the fact you support the team the whole article concerns….no question mark over your objectivity then!!!???
Ah, there you are BD? I take it you’ve just spent 3 days putting a prawn sandwich in the toasted sandwich maker. Or maybe trapped under a fallen bookcase?
You would have had ample time to examine your position. So I’m disappointed that you have come back doing an impersonation of a librarian. A fixated one at that. And your still making the “Not Fair, Not Fair, Boo Hoo” noises that have been coming out of the Anti Chelsea lobby since what you seem to think of as “Year Zero” - When the nasty big bad wolf made his aquisition and the status quo got the wind up.
Yes, Chelsea are a threat. Get over it. The resource argument is not credible. What do you want? - All clubs with the exact same resources? - A sort of Communist Ideology set up? - Well guess what, that argument would totally discredit all of Man Uniteds recent achievements, would it not? Or are you going to stay in hypocrite mode and deny that. And no feeble wittering about where the money comes from. A debt is a debt, an operating loss is a loss (or a long term investment, in some eyes) Everyone has a form of debt. That is how “Business” operates and what business is about.
So just cut the crap. You are merely attempting a cheap manouvre to deflect attention and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see where you are coming from. I initially objected to some points you made which were based on bogus arguments. You are still repeating the same bogus arguments. Or staying on anti Chelsea message, in other words. If you are not prepared (or able) to be rational then this “debate” can go no further. Same old crap does not prove anything beyond the level of conditioning that some parties have soaked up.
Get a grip on the facts and engage some brain cells, FFS
One final piece of good advice:Believe what you see, not what you hear.
Question: …what do they say about not arguing with idiots on the Internet?
Jackal Says:
“Ah, there you are BD? I take it you’ve just spent 3 days putting a prawn sandwich in the toasted sandwich maker. Or maybe trapped under a fallen bookcase?”
BD Replies:
You can’t address the issues anymore. Your idiocy is showing.
Jackal Says:
“You would have had ample time to examine your position. So I’m disappointed that you have come back doing an impersonation of a librarian. A fixated one at that. And your still making the “Not Fair, Not Fair, Boo Hoo” noises that have been coming out of the Anti Chelsea lobby since what you seem to think of as “Year Zero” - When the nasty big bad wolf made his aquisition and the status quo got the wind up.”
BD Replies:
State clearly “Chelsea would have had the success of recent years regardless of Abramovitch’s money.”
Just state that in response please! Then your idiocy will REALLY be showing.
Jackal Says:
Yes, Chelsea are a threat. Get over it. The resource argument is not credible. What do you want? - All clubs with the exact same resources? - A sort of Communist Ideology set up? - Well guess what, that argument would totally discredit all of Man Uniteds recent achievements, would it not? Or are you going to stay in hypocrite mode and deny that. And no feeble wittering about where the money comes from. A debt is a debt, an operating loss is a loss (or a long term investment, in some eyes) Everyone has a form of debt. That is how “Business” operates and what business is about.
BD Replies:
You clearly understand NOTHING of the going concern principle of business. Some clubs have more resources than others because they have managed themselves better and have been more successful. All, however, have operated on an even playing field.
That is until the Russian rolled-up and gave Chelsea an unprecedented advantage.
Jackal Says:
“So just cut the crap. You are merely attempting a cheap manouvre to deflect attention and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see where you are coming from.”
BD Replies:
Que?? Do you even know what point you’re trying to make at this juncture??
Jackal Says:
“I initially objected to some points you made which were based on bogus arguments. You are still repeating the same bogus arguments. Or staying on anti Chelsea message, in other words. If you are not prepared (or able) to be rational then this “debate” can go no further. Same old crap does not prove anything beyond the level of conditioning that some parties have soaked up.”
BD Replies:
You surmise that my arguments are bogus and I’m not rational because my views differ from yours and you can’t construct substantive points to support your view. So you keep going off subject and being silly, to try and deflect from your inadequacies in that department.
Jackal Says:
“Get a grip on the facts and engage some brain cells, FFS”
BD Replies:
Pathetic! Grasping at straws! You can no longer rationalize an argument. Furthermore I have dealt with the facts in relation to money spent, losses run up and (in the case of Mourinho) trophies won.
Jackal Says:
“One final piece of good advice:Believe what you see, not what you hear.”
BD Replies:
Not that advice from you could ever be regarded as safe but………are you just trying to look intelligent here or is there some point in this, relevant to anything that has gone before??
Now let’s not forget the “3 in a row” revelation which has categorically revealed you as a fraud and (at best) a part timer.
Learn about football and how to construct an argument and get back to me. Until then……over and out!
Answer: …after a while, no one can tell the difference between you two.