Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Lampard spent £263m in his time at Chelsea and couldn't get a tune out of half of the players he signed. Abramovic expects better and Lampard knew the expectation from day one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 10.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Not sure where to put this. I always find these signs a laugh. But have a new favourite. The Dingles are in town.

*sigh* Yes, all lives matter. That is what the BLM movement is about. No one has said that white lives don't matter. When the police created the blue lives matter, did you or other people complai

Posted Images

21 hours ago, Traviscon said:

They want a German speaking manager to get havertz and werner firing. 

Even though they both speak English pretty well !

Maybe if ToMo learnt a bit of German we could get Trybull and Holtby firing.

Edited by Hasta
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hasta said:

Even thought they both speak English pretty well !

Maybe if ToMo learnt a bit of German we could get Trybull and Holtby firing.

Auf Wiedersehen would be enough!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chaddyrovers said:

Only 5 points of top 4 and why bring in Tuchel. No Premier League experience. 

That doesn't matter at all - at one point all of Klopp, Pep, Mourinho, Ancelotti etc (and every other foreign manager) had no Premier League experience. I can remember people asking why Southampton were replacing Nigel Adkins with some fella called Mauricio Pochettino who didn't 'know the league'. 

As it goes I'm not massively convinced by Tuchel and (while I'm sure more thought must have gone into his appointment than this) just because he's German doesn't mean he's going to get Werner and Havertz moving. Though you can imagine them turning it on for a few games now there's been a change of manager, as often happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As touched on, not sure there can be much argument over his dismissal.

Why is Premier League experience so critical @chaddyrovers? Klopp didnt have it, Mourinho prior to being Chelsea manager, Guardiola etc. Tuchel has a far better CV than Lampard had, which was solely an emotional appointment based on his playing career there (unlike the owner to allow that to be fair) rather than on a sole season in which he relied heavily on loanees in the Championship to get to the play off final.

Not convinced that the Chelsea fans are up in arms either.

It is typical Chelsea though I agree. In that Abramovich seems to have a real knack for being ruthless and being rewarded with plenty of silverware for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

As touched on, not sure there can be much argument over his dismissal.

Why is Premier League experience so critical @chaddyrovers? Klopp didnt have it, Mourinho prior to being Chelsea manager, Guardiola etc. Tuchel has a far better CV than Lampard had, which was solely an emotional appointment based on his playing career there (unlike the owner to allow that to be fair) rather than on a sole season in which he relied heavily on loanees in the Championship to get to the play off final.

Not convinced that the Chelsea fans are up in arms either.

It is typical Chelsea though I agree. In that Abramovich seems to have a real knack for being ruthless and being rewarded with plenty of silverware for it.

Hes had one poor run..that's it. 

You have been anti Lampard since he been appointed there even during his good unbeaten 17 games run. Yes he was appointed there due to being a former player there but that's what they wanted and to bring through younger players. Even in the summer Chilwell was the only Lampard signing and the rest were club signings according to the link from the Athletic I've provided earlier

Tuchel is appoint to get the best of Werner, etc. No other reason. They were other more logical appointments for me. they approach Julian Nagelsmann weeks ago but reject it. 

Look at the texts going in to SSN and otalksport complaining about this decision. Not convinced just look at different talk shows and media platforms on this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure all of this defence of Lampard is warranted. Sure he wasn't given loads of time but he was given loads of cash. He was also given the job after one season at Derby where he did little better than the previous few incumbents despite having a ton of loans to rely on. Imo he was lucky to get the gig, and knew the risks when he took it on. It's not like Roman hasn't got form for being ruthless. 

To me it's all panned out as I suspected. One season a manager doesn't make, certainly not the type ready for the challenges of the Chelsea role.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hasta said:

Even thought they both speak English pretty well !

Maybe if ToMo learnt a bit of German we could get Trybull and Holtby firing.

Change tack every half hour do Chelsea. Think havertz is struggling with the after effects of covid still. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Hes had one poor run..that's it. 

You have been anti Lampard since he been appointed there even during his good unbeaten 17 games run. Yes he was appointed there due to being a former player there but that's what they wanted and to bring through younger players. Even in the summer Chilwell was the only Lampard signing and the rest were club signings according to the link from the Athletic I've provided earlier

Tuchel is appoint to get the best of Werner, etc. No other reason. They were other more logical appointments for me. they approach Julian Nagelsmann weeks ago but reject it. 

Look at the texts going in to SSN and otalksport complaining about this decision. Not convinced just look at different talk shows and media platforms on this. 

Im not anti Lampard, although I do think he got the job based on his playing career more than anything else.

One thing you can not argue with is Abramovich's track record. People demand stability and patience but it is not always the answer when a better alternative can be sourced. He has always been ruthless in moving managers on, even those far more experienced and qualified than Lampard, and he will point to the trophy room as evidence that the system works.

The media will always be protective of Lampard considering his playing career and tag as a young English manager, but a club like Chelsea can pick from Europes elite.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Im not anti Lampard, although I do think he got the job based on his playing career more than anything else.

One thing you can not argue with is Abramovich's track record. People demand stability and patience but it is not always the answer when a better alternative can be sourced. He has always been ruthless in moving managers on, even those far more experienced and qualified than Lampard, and he will point to the trophy room as evidence that the system works.

The media will always be protective of Lampard considering his playing career and tag as a young English manager, but a club like Chelsea can pick from Europes elite.

Considering it was Chelsea went after Lampard when they need a manager 18 months ago and his club status at the club he was never going to turn down the approach? Would you have done? I guarantee not. 

Chelsea should have back Lampard until the end of the season at least. But they panicked at one bad run of form. Not sure the head coach they have selected will do any better than Lampard 3rd place last season but we see. 

Klopp has hit a bad patch of form but no talk of Liverpool owners getting rid. Same with Pep at City earlier in the season.  

Even take Sheffield United as an example of sticking by Wilder despite the season so far. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Chaddy.

Because Klopp and Pep have won multiple domestic and European titles and have a proven track record to fall back on.

Edited by Mattyblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

What has Lampard done to make people think he has potential? He gave youth a chance, fair play, but he spent a huge amount of money. I still think they probably should have given him a bit more time, but it's a results business,the window is open and it's not Romans first rodeo. 

Not sure about Tuchel though. I would give that til summer and they go after Rodgers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Considering it was Chelsea went after Lampard when they need a manager 18 months ago and his club status at the club he was never going to turn down the approach? Would you have done? I guarantee not. 

Chelsea should have back Lampard until the end of the season at least. But they panicked at one bad run of form. Not sure the head coach they have selected will do any better than Lampard 3rd place last season but we see. 

Klopp has hit a bad patch of form but no talk of Liverpool owners getting rid. Same with Pep at City earlier in the season.  

Even take Sheffield United as an example of sticking by Wilder despite the season so far. 

Obviously he wouldnt turn down the job, I never at any point implied that he should. I just am saying that he was lucky to get it based solely on his playing credentials rather than a half decent season at Derby.

As touched on by Mattyblue, the comparison to Guardiola and Klopp, 2 serial winners is quite frankly ridiculous, even for you.

Wilder is a more complex one. The recruitment in the summer was dreadful, Brewster has been really poor and Ramsdale appalling, making numerous mistakes as a huge downgrade on Henderson. Throw in a serious injury to O'Connell and now Berge and they just dont have the quality, and their results were so bad that after 10 games, there was basically no chance of survival. Had they been closer like West Brom, it may have been worth contemplating bringing in someone to fire fight, as it is, they probably are better off just writing off the season and having Wilder back in the Championship. It may not be as straightforward as just coming straight back up but they probably hope that the returning O'Connell will make a huge difference next season added to the likes of Brewster, Bogle, Lowe, McBurnie and maybe Ramsdale who should all be decent in the Championship.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, chaddyrovers said:

No Premier League experience. 

Not to be pedantic, no, sorry lying now... To be pedantic: Lampard didn't have "Premier League experience" as a manager either. As others have stated, the same is true for every foreign manager coming in to manage in the Premier League. And really the same can be said of any manager anywhere at any time getting their first manager job in the Premier League. 

If everyone just trounces out the "no prior experience" card at all times, then what will anyone do when the last current employee dies of old age? 

Alex Ferguson didn't have "Premier League" experience when he became manager of Man Utd, he even got the job before the Premier League existed. I guess he was useless, and a bad fit though. Arsene Wenger was probably useless as well, after all he came in from Japan. 

FFS. Kenny Daglish had no prior managerial experience when he took over Liverpool.

Or are you equating playing experience in the PL with managerial experience? For my part, I would call someone managing a non league team for 2 seasons a more experienced manager than any currently active footballer, even if that non league is abroad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think, in Roman Abramovich's eyes, Lampard was anything other than an interim manager. At best he was an interim that might succeed.

When he took over they had sold their best player in Hazard and were under a transfer ban, it would have been difficult to attract a top manager at the time.

Lampard was a good fit, cheaper option than more established managers, would work under the restrictions, would work with the youth and would be welcomed by the fans as he is a club legend. If it worked out, a cheaper option which makes Rom look great for appointing a club legend and giving a young manager a chance, if not, Plan A kicks in and when the time is right, he's binned for a better option.

Lampard struggled at Derby with conceding goals and he's continued that struggle at Chelsea, certainly away from home and they are worse off this season than at the same point as last (some real Mowbray-esq progress there) despite spending vast amounts.

All in all, Abramovich only wants Chelsea to succeed. This move might look ruthless but it certainly seems like the right one. Of course, this only works out if his replacement is more successful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lampard only got the Chelsea job because he was a club "legend" and former player. If he hadn't been one of their own her wouldn't have anywhere near it.

Shows the dangers of appointing ex-players as managers, a case of the heart ruling the head and why Rovers shouldn't appoint Ainsworth because he comes from Blackburn or Damien Johnson because he's "one of us"

 

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

West Ham maybe. 

That was my initial thought but atm looks like Moyes is well in there for at least 2 seasons. Punditry? House husband?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line with Lampard was that he had had no proper managerial experience prior to joining Chelsea. He hadn’t served an apprenticeship, Premier League or otherwise. So many times this happens. Great players want to try their hand as managers, get thrust into the limelight and fail. Shearer, Roy Keane, Ince and many others.

Whilst there are no guarantees, I do feel that Lampard will come good at some future date. His work ethic has always been top notch, he appears to be intelligent enough and I feel he commands respect. His time isn’t now but it will come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree partly with jim, I really like Lampard as a personality but didn't think he was particularly impressive as a manager at Derby and he would never ever have been in the frame for the job had he not been  a Club legend as a player.

Thereafter they had a transfer ban so in many ways Lampard had a free pass for a season and was forced to blood some youngsters and did ok. However once the ban was over and he was given £250m to spend I would say he's flopped fairly spectacularly.

The bit I disagree on is the suggestion that Ainsworth and Johnson should be ignored because they've played for us before. The fact they're ex-Rovers doesn't mean they won't succeed, it's simply no guarantee of success and they should be judged on their merits like everyone else.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

The bit I disagree on is the suggestion that Ainsworth and Johnson should be ignored because they've played for us before. The fact they're ex-Rovers doesn't mean they won't succeed, it's simply no guarantee of success and they should be judged on their merits like everyone else.

 

Point is Rev, they wouldn't be even considered if they didn't have previous connections with us

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.