Frank Lampard | Coventry City?

[SirReginald]

Do wish they were in serious danger of getting relegated.

Honestly If it would speed up removing the toxic players like Ziyech and Pulisic and the utterly useless ones like Havertz then I’d take a season in the championship. It would affect us financially but at this point who gives a flying feck. As for managerial appointments, even in the championship we would still be more desirable than spurs.

 

[JPRouve]

Honestly If it would speed up removing the toxic players like Ziyech and Pulisic and the utterly useless ones like Havertz then I’d take a season in the championship. It would affect us financially but at this point who gives a flying feck. As for managerial appointments, even in the championship we would still be more desirable than spurs.

Ziyech and Pulisic are toxic?

 

[Ghirahim]

He's just a bad manager. I bet Real wins comfortably on Wednesday.

 

[BerryBerryShrew]

Why not just hire another Chelsea legend till the end of the season? Fat Frank is going to have to manage some players who experienced him crashing and burning previously.

Is Zola free? DiMatteo? Drogba? Hell, even Lionheart Terry would be a better option.

 

[TheRedHearted]

It doesn't, just amplifies your original point. They are worse than their bad season 6 years ago or so. After the investments they made the past 2 windows, they are just as bad. Boehly may end up getting it right, but their squad is extremely bloated and their most threatening forward is a loanee.

Lukaku or who is the loanee?

 

[edcunited1878]

Lukaku or who is the loanee?

Felix.

 

[Wing Attack Plan R]

Yeah, but these stats usually are aren’t they. Like stats that say ‘so and so have only lost 2 of the last 18 games’ - it’s because if they went back to 19 there’d be another loss in there. It works both ways too - it’s 5 titles in the last 20 years, but also 5 in the last 67 years.

I prefer to say Chelsea have won it only 6 times in all of recorded history.

 

[OrcaFat]

Lampard really is a dick. He says he can’t solve all Chelsea’s problems in one day, as if anybody on the planet thought he might. He’s less than half the coach Potter is so I am expecting Chelsea to do worse under Lampard.

To his credit, Lampard did say he doesn’t want to get ahead of himself and claim the job on a permanent basis. That’s very sweet of him.

 

[Chief123]

I disagree. I think we should have kept Potter but once the decision was made to fire him, getting Lampard in to manage the final 45 days or so was sensible. He’ll see the season in a way we probably would have done anyway had we kept Potter so he’s just a placeholder to keep the fans happy until the find a permanent manager.

I don’t see how bringing in Lampard for any amount of time is sensible. He’s literally a banter manager with absolutely nothing to show he would be a good appointment. It really isn’t hard to find an interim manager of higher quality than Lampard.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

His post match comments are gas. This is going to get very funny indeed. And it will not end well for Chelsea.

 

[Loon]

Boehly (addressing board): "I want no fecking Lidl European competitions next year and our manager can start with a clean slate."

Board (in unison): "GET LAMPARD"

 

[bludsucker]

Can we at least now have ‘sack watch’ in the title as i don’t think lampard will last till the end of the season.

 

[Pexbo]

His post match comments are gas. This is going to get very funny indeed. And it will not end well for Chelsea.

What did he say? I still haven’t got a clue what the hell they are playing at. It doesn’t work on any level, in fact it’s the opposite of not working on every single level and completely illogical.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The optimistic Chelsea fans on here could form a rock band - Creedence Clearwater Revival.

 

[justsomebloke]

We sacked Potter in order to be able to do a proper search for his replacement. Potter's assistant agreed to stay on for a game but not more than that.

We sacked Potter in order to be able to do a proper search for his replacement. Potter's assistant agreed to stay on for a game but not more than that.

What, Lampard was the only person in the country willing to take the job?

 

[Abraxas]

Fecking hell, Frank. What a shite start.

 

[WeePat]

I don’t see how bringing in Lampard for any amount of time is sensible. He’s literally a banter manager with absolutely nothing to show he would be a good appointment. It really isn’t hard to find an interim manager of higher quality than Lampard.

You rival fans care way more about the fact that it’s Lampard than Chelsea fans which says a lot because most of us are happy that he’s here. Would you have argued for a better quality caretaker if it was Bruno Saltor or some other random coach no one’s ever heard of? Our season is 99% done and we’re on the search for a new manager and we’ve hired an interim that fans love in the meantime. Seems sensible to me.

 

[marcus agrippa]

It's not like he could make much impact in a couple days. Chelsea are just shite this season

Oh ... I'm hoping he makes an impact. This gon' be good!

 

[Chief123]

You rival fans care way more about the fact that it’s Lampard than Chelsea fans which says a lot because most of us are happy that he’s here. Would you have argued for a better quality caretaker if it was Bruno Saltor or some other random coach no one’s ever heard of? Our season is 99% done and we’re on the search for a new manager and we’ve hired an interim that fans love in the meantime. Seems sensible to me.

Chelsea fans being happy with it isn’t really a qualifier for it being a sensible decision. A lot of Chelsea fans including yourself were happy when Potter got appointed and defiant he wouldn’t get sacked any time soon because it was a long term project. That was a terrible appointment too but not as bad as removing him and appointing Lampard.

 

[The Firestarter]

We sacked Potter in order to be able to do a proper search for his replacement. Potter's assistant agreed to stay on for a game but not more than that.

What prevents you from doing a "proper search" while there is a manager in place, and sack him at the end of the season?

 

[WeePat]

Chelsea fans being happy with it isn’t really a qualifier for it being a sensible decision. A lot of Chelsea fans including yourself were happy when Potter got appointed and defiant he wouldn’t get sacked any time soon because it was a long term project. That was a terrible appointment too but not as bad as removing him and appointing Lampard.

Let’s just reiterate we’re talking about a caretaker on a 7 week contract. What would be a sensible option for you? Would Bruno Saltor be that? A coach from the youth teams? What would a sensible caretaker choice look like to you?

 

[Chief123]

Let’s just reiterate we’re talking about a caretaker on a 7 week contract. What would be a sensible option for you? Would Bruno Saltor be that? A coach from the youth teams? What would a sensible caretaker choice look like to you?

Not sacking Potter and giving him till the end of the season is more sensible. Despite not being up to the job, he’s still a better option than Lampard.

 

[Gazza]

Not wishing to defend Chelsea's decision making, but if they'd kept Potter til the end of the season whilst conducting a public search for a new manager then they'd have been accused of showing disrespect to Potter, kinda like what happened pre-Mourinho when Claudio Ranieri was a goner long before the end of the season and they were clearly speaking to other managers. So either way they'd have been criticized.

 

[RedBanker]

Has a caretaker ever been sacked before the end of the season?

 

[SirReginald]

Not sacking Potter and giving him till the end of the season is more sensible. Despite not being up to the job, he’s still a better option than Lampard.

Absolutely. Factor in there is still players at the club that didn’t like Lampard the previous time and it’s not remotely clever.

 

[Sandikan]

Bringing in a guy who failed horribly before, even on a 10 game or so short spell, just screams bizarre doesn't it?

 

[duffer]

What prevents you from doing a "proper search" while there is a manager in place, and sack him at the end of the season?

They want to meet up and talk with the candidates. They've already met at least one.

 

[duffer]

What, Lampard was the only person in the country willing to take the job?

Yes.

 

[lysglimt]

Lampard really is a dick. He says he can’t solve all Chelsea’s problems in one day, as if anybody on the planet thought he might. He’s less than half the coach Potter is so I am expecting Chelsea to do worse under Lampard.

To his credit, Lampard did say he doesn’t want to get ahead of himself and claim the job on a permanent basis. That’s very sweet of him.

In fairness - the Chelsea-job is never on a permanent basis. Only Mourinho has lasted more than 2 seasons in the entire history of the Premier League. So basically being the manager of Chelsea is a temporary position

 

[Dominant]

Has any club sacked 3 managers in a season? Chelsea already sacked 2. Is that a record already?

 

[roonster09]

Has any club sacked 3 managers in a season? Chelsea already sacked 2. Is that a record already?

Serie A clubs sacked probably fifty managers in same season and same manager twice in the same season.

50 is exaggeration but rest are all true.

 

[DJ_21]

Bring back Frank to try and improve you. Can’t see it happening. They’ll drop even further down. Bet they’re an horrible club to manage. I thought we was the toughest job in the world but now I actually think Chelsea’s might be. If you don’t get it right straight away then you’re gone. No time.

 

[justsomebloke]

Let’s just reiterate we’re talking about a caretaker on a 7 week contract. What would be a sensible option for you? Would Bruno Saltor be that? A coach from the youth teams? What would a sensible caretaker choice look like to you?

Well, that's a rethorical question that falls flat on its face. Normally in these cases, a club uses one of the first team coaches. You know this. It's not like Chelsea uniquely lacked that option. And yeah, that would be the sensible option, at least compared to hiring Frank Lampard, which just manages to reinforce the aura of incompetence created by the Potter mess.

 

[Sir Erik ten Hag]

Has a caretaker ever been sacked before the end of the season?

Even Ralf Rangnick (as a manager) survived that. So probably not.

 

[duffer]

Has any club sacked 3 managers in a season? Chelsea already sacked 2. Is that a record already?

Palermo changed managers 9 times in one season a few years ago.

 

[ThatsGreat]

Let’s just reiterate we’re talking about a caretaker on a 7 week contract. What would be a sensible option for you? Would Bruno Saltor be that? A coach from the youth teams? What would a sensible caretaker choice look like to you?

Ideally a caretaker would be someone who has a genuine chance to manage long term. Its like a loan player, you get a good look at him before making a permanent offer. Lampard we already know isn't the answer.

 

[DWelbz19]

What about Benitez, though? Wouldn’t he have been a better caretaker manager? His stock isn’t exactly high right now, so maybe he would have accepted to shepherd Chelsea for the remaining games. Not a fan favorite, I guess, but definitely a better manager than Frank. I don’t remember him even being mentioned for the role.

I think the biggest problem Benitez has is what you allude to — the fact that everyone can’t stand the guy. There’s been a few clips and comments floating about from his Inter days where the players all loved Mourinho but then hated when Benitez joined. Likewise at Chelsea and Everton. I think the only players and fans who truly loved him was Liverpool, so that tells you everything about how odious he must be.

Not what you need to see out a season - it’d be like Rangnick under us. Just a wanker managing a bunch of spoiled players in extremely foul moods.

 

[Samid]

Bring back Frank to try and improve you. Can’t see it happening. They’ll drop even further down. Bet they’re an horrible club to manage. I thought we was the toughest job in the world but now I actually think Chelsea’s might be. If you don’t get it right straight away then you’re gone. No time.

No chance. Gap down is too big. They just need 5-6 more points to secure 11th place. Think even they will manage to beat Forest and rescue a couple of draws from their remaining fixtures.

 

[Ananke]

Ideally a caretaker would be someone who has a genuine chance to manage long term. Its like a loan player, you get a good look at him before making a permanent offer. Lampard we already know isn't the answer.

Yeh got to agree with this. Hiring Lampard wasn’t even an attempt to get someone who might ‘possibly’ be able to continue in the job. You don’t bring back someone who has already failed badly in the role…it’s nonsensical.

 

[Mr. Robot]

You rival fans care way more about the fact that it’s Lampard than Chelsea fans which says a lot because most of us are happy that he’s here. Would you have argued for a better quality caretaker if it was Bruno Saltor or some other random coach no one’s ever heard of? Our season is 99% done and we’re on the search for a new manager and we’ve hired an interim that fans love in the meantime. Seems sensible to me.

You rival fans care way more about arguing with Man Utd supporters on a United forum than using your own Chelsea one.