Frank Lampard's Sack Watch / Sacked

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skills said:
That was exactly the plan. He did better than expected last season - I don't think they saw him getting top 4 with that squad so probably planned to sack him in the summer.

They needed someone last season to make it through the season after losing Hazard and with no money to spend. They then went ahead and bought the players they were always intending to buy and now they'll get someone who they think will work best with the group of players they've assembled now.
Click to expand...
Im wondering if Lampard has regrets
He was given all these players but I'm wondering if he wished he has just chosen the same players as last season for the most part and then tried to sub in the other players

The lack of extended pre season hurt him too. Having a month or two of about 6-8 games to just experiment and not worry about results would have been helpful

Will be really bad for Lampard if Tuchel can get havertz and werner firing from game 1 or 2
 
Signed too many big money players too quickly. Phasing out the young players who got you a top four finish, against the odds, for out-of-form struggling-to-settle £70m signings, whilst having to improve on the previous seasons results.... Never in a million goes was it going to work and especially not for a manager with no experience.
 
hobbers said:
Signed too many big money players too quickly. Phasing out the young players who got you a top four finish, against the odds, for out-of-form struggling-to-settle £70m signings, whilst having to improve on the previous seasons results.... Never in a million goes was it going to work and especially not for a manager with no experience.
Click to expand...

Which young players did he phase out?
 
RedSky said:
"Lampard deserved more time".

Provide me with a reason why. I've seen this a lot on the forum and I don't quite understand the logic behind it. What are Chelsea good at? What has Lampard improved at Chelsea since being their Manager? Is it just because he's young and English? What signs are there that he could have turned it around?
Click to expand...

I agree. I think some people may be comparing his situation to Solskjaers. But truth be told there were times Ole could have been justifiably dismissed as well and I think it was only out of fear that he wasn't.
 
el3mel said:
The second time is listed down. That was the first time when he left in the second month of the 2008 season or so.
Click to expand...
Bloody hell. And I thought they would have found more words for their most successful manager ever. I could have understood it after his 2nd sacking when he left the club fighting relegation.
 
city-puma said:
I guess you miss some point. Many people probably think a club needs to build a team to play in a way/style and hence establish an identity. It’s not about a particular manager sacked, but the vision the club hierarchy shows which is short term result driven. This is probably the first real hard period Lampard experienced (8 games). The outcome is his sacking just as his every preceding managers earned. They just show again that’s the club hierarchy’s philosophy which disappoints a lot of Chelsea supporters.
Click to expand...

It's not the first hard period. He lost 5 games in 8 back in November 2019. He then managed 2 wins in 8 during January/February 2020. He's lost 18 games total in 57, that's close to 1 in 3. His best run of form was his 9 game run earlier in the season which resulted in 5 wins and 4 draws. His next best was 6 games unbeaten back in October/Early November 2019.

None of that tells me he's got the chops to make a winning team, can't manage the squad to get good runs of form together, can't fix the leaking defense, loses games on a regular basis and now his attack is faltering. Result = He's badly out of his depth. A gamble that didn't pay off. There's no point keeping a bad bet at the club especially when club form is on a downward trend.

The media will keep bringing up the Ole example, it's bullshit. Ole has managed 21 games more than Lampard and lost 2 less games for fecks sake. Ole has a 14 game , a 13 game and a 12 game unbeaten run in the league. All with higher win percents than Lampard managed. They're comparing oranges to apples. The simple truth is Lampard was shit.
 
hobbers said:
Signed too many big money players too quickly. Phasing out the young players who got you a top four finish, against the odds, for out-of-form struggling-to-settle £70m signings, whilst having to improve on the previous seasons results.... Never in a million goes was it going to work and especially not for a manager with no experience.
Click to expand...

it appears some of those signings were foisted upon him and they denied him players he wanted
 
Jericho said:
I agree. I think some people may be comparing his situation to Solskjaers. But truth be told there were times Ole could have been justifiably dismissed as well and I think it was only out of fear that he wasn't.
Click to expand...
Ole wasn't fired because for all his weaknesses, there were rumours that he actually predicted our runs of poor form and also convinced the board that buying a proper number 10 would improve us. Not to the level that Bruno has though as nobody saw that coming. If Bruno hadn't hit the ground running though, am certain Ole would have seen the sack by the end of the season.
 
Wonder what he'll do next? Suppose he could go back to BT where he seemed like he was well respected as a pundit before he took the Derby job. If he's looking for another job, I personally I think the Celtic job could be a decent shout for him if it comes up soon.
Would also pit him against Gerrard which I'm sure the media would love!
 
united_99 said:
Bloody hell. And I thought they would have found more words for their most successful manager ever. I could have understood it after his 2nd sacking when he left the club fighting relegation.
Click to expand...
"Chelsea Football Club and José Mourinho have agreed to part company today (Thursday) by mutual consent." A very emotional and sincere farewell to the man who had overseen their most successful period ever.
 
RORY65 said:
"Chelsea Football Club and José Mourinho have agreed to part company today (Thursday) by mutual consent." A very emotional and sincere farewell to the man who had overseen their most successful period ever.
Click to expand...

To be fair, we'd had very little practice sacking managers at that point. You can tell all the training we've done has improved our technique dramatically!
 
duffer said:
He played far less than 50% of games last season and started 1 game of the final 18 league fixtures. Would you really say he was one of the players who "got us top 4" that season?
Click to expand...
Played a sizeable part in the first half of the season. Then been phased out since.
 
Did good last year under the circumstances. I don't know how many of them he personally wanted. But, they signed too many players over the summer, the bedding in period for these players was always going to be sticky. He should have been given the season to get them up to speed with the his way of playing and for most it was also a period for getting to grips with a new league.

Anyway, this is Chelsea, I think it's about 15 managers in 20 years now including interims/caretakers. He was never going to be given any time to ride out a rough period after the summer spend.

A thoroughly rotten club, they will be back in the same situation again in 18 to 24 months.
 
united_99 said:
:lol: The 16 words for Mourinho was after he got the sack for the 2nd time I assume?
Click to expand...

Nope, first time:

"Chelsea Football Club and Jose Mourinho have agreed to part company today (Thursday) by mutual consent."
 
hobbers said:
Signed too many big money players too quickly. Phasing out the young players who got you a top four finish, against the odds, for out-of-form struggling-to-settle £70m signings, whilst having to improve on the previous seasons results.... Never in a million goes was it going to work and especially not for a manager with no experience.
Click to expand...

Mount and James have been pretty much ever present, Abraham actually lost his place to Giroud last season, and has continued his back up/occasional starter role this season. Hudson wasn't a starter last season, and infuriatingly hasn't been a starter this season. Who exactly has he phased out who helped us secure top 4 last season?
 
There will be compared understandably, but both clubs are run differently.
Lampard and Ole both knew what expected them before they got the job. Lampard as a player was part of an ever changing manager environment at Chelsea whereas Ole as a United player was part of a very stable environment.
Chelsea have been sacking managers and most of the time the new manager actually won them the league. They also sacked AVB and Di Matteo won them the CL (with whatever luck needed, but with AVB they would have been knocked out much earlier that season).
United have been sacking managers and still remained mid table.
So when Lampard haa bad run Roman might fear that currently there are too many teams overtaking Chelsea in the league plus all the other issues they seem to have, so he needs to act.
When Ole had bad runs the United board were probably sick of just changing managers and still remain mid table and probably decided to give him more time and see if he can turn it around.
Having the dressing room behind him even in difficult times obviously helped. Ole deserves credit for keeping a dressing room with some influential players such as Bruno, DDG, Matic, Pogba and Rashford together and coping very well under pressure.
For Lampard the Chelsea job came too early. Who knows, he might even return in future.
 
GoonerBear said:
I'd be slightly worried if I were a Chelsea fan. The Hire / Fire approach doesn't seem to have the same success the last 5 or 6 years, with the time they won the title the only title challenge in that time. I read also that they havent won a CL knockout tie since 2014 as well.

I don't think they have the same characters in the dressing room that they've had in the past to really elevate them, & it seems almost a culture now for the players to give up on a manager really easily if things don't go their way.

That's why I rate Utd for sticking with Ole, & Arsenal for Arteta. Once you have that set in the club, that the manager doesn't have the power, then it tends to not mean good things.
Click to expand...

Good post
 
RedSky said:
"Lampard deserved more time".

Provide me with a reason why. I've seen this a lot on the forum and I don't quite understand the logic behind it. What are Chelsea good at? What has Lampard improved at Chelsea since being their Manager? Is it just because he's young and English? What signs are there that he could have turned it around?
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is with Lampard but more with the culture at the club. It seems pretty toxic with reports that the players have helped push him out. Lampard coming in was painted as a new era at the club yet really it's amounted to nothing. Despite Chelsea being praised for how they do things I have to say modern football seems to be moving away from how they operate; managers staying in post at the top clubs and having more say on transfers and long term strategy.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
To be fair, we'd had very little practice sacking managers at that point. You can tell all the training we've done has improved our technique dramatically!
Click to expand...
True! I mean that sacking table is actually hilarious. Actually wouldn’t surprise me if success got to Roman’s head after Mourinho had won Chelsea two league titles in a row. Because of this Roman probably expected the club to win the league every year and CL every 2nd year. Now while I am writing this, I remember wasn’t there a reported expectation from Chelsea around 2008 that they should be winning 2 CL titles every 5-10 years? That was ridiculous.
 
Panic panic panic. Chelsea is not the most patient club, to say it carefully. Very old-school approach. They should have learned from us :D

When clubs starts panicking they easily ends up like United did after SAF. At the same time Chelsea and Tuchel probably is a good match. Maybe he was their first choice, but not available, when they hired Lampard.
 
Chelsea are maybe screwed whomever they bring in if the rumours are true that Frank's sacking was largely down to falling out with someone higher up over wanting rid of Kepa, that could mean the next manager could potentially be hired with an agreement of making kepa 1st choice again..
 
Oranges038 said:
Did good last year under the circumstances. I don't know how many of them he personally wanted. But, they signed too many players over the summer, the bedding in period for these players was always going to be sticky. He should have been given the season to get them up to speed with the his way of playing and for most it was also a period for getting to grips with a new league.

Anyway, this is Chelsea, I think it's about 15 managers in 20 years now including interims/caretakers. He was never going to be given any time to ride out a rough period after the summer spend.

A thoroughly rotten club, they will be back in the same situation again in 18 to 24 months.
Click to expand...

Maybe linked to why they have hoarded so many young players and are out on loan. No long term plan whatsoever, just a cycle of hiring/firing.
 
Lee565 said:
that could mean the next manager could potentially be hired with an agreement of making kepa 1st choice again..
Click to expand...

If the next manager gets Kepa back in and playing well, he deserves manager of season, a knighthood and a Nobel prize.

My biggest criticism of Frank last year was that he stuck by Kepa for too long. It's mad to see reports that he gave up on him too quickly!
 
Polar said:
Panic panic panic. Chelsea is not the most patient club, to say it carefully. Very old-school approach. They should have learned from us :D

When clubs starts panicking they easily ends up like United did after SAF. At the same time Chelsea and Tuchel probably is a good match. Maybe he was their first choice, but not available, when they hired Lampard.
Click to expand...
Have to agree with this. Tuchel will need time, Tuchel will need funds and Tuchel will need support... just like Lampard. Doubt the chemistry of new team will just suddenly go sky high with Tuchel who can be just another cannon fodder.

He possess some experience dealing with football stars, so perhaps he'll survive a bit longer, but it won't mean much in terms of building a long term winning team.
 
Bad news for us, no matter how much time was Lampard given he just wasn't up to it. Now with Tuchel I think they will definitely improve, specially the Germans and Chelsea for sure has a squad that can challenge.
 
duffer said:
Indeed. So certainly not an example of a player he's phased out this season.
Click to expand...
He’s literally not played him and got rid of him :lol:

what’s your definition of being phased out? Aside from the phasing out which Lampard has just received...
 
I dont think he is a bad coach but the fact that his signings are taking time to gel cost his job. Probably the reason why we spent 130m on 2 EPL players. It immediately made us better and Ole benefitted from it. For e.g. if they had spent that 80m on Maddison and 50m on Zaha (just calling out some names, it could be anyone) instead of Kai and Werner, would they be doing better ? Probably!
 
TheReligion said:
I don't think the issue is with Lampard but more with the culture at the club. It seems pretty toxic with reports that the players have helped push him out. Lampard coming in was painted as a new era at the club yet really it's amounted to nothing. Despite Chelsea being praised for how they do things I have to say modern football seems to be moving away from how they operate; managers staying in post at the top clubs and having more say on transfers and long term strategy.
Click to expand...

Not convinced at all TR. With Chelsea they dealt with the devil, this is part of the deal of having a filthy rich owner. They demand results and have little patience when they're throwing 200million of their own money at the club. I don't really think long term Managers are a thing in the slightest, it's more a case that the Premier League have the best Managers in the world here right now (with a few minor exceptions). So naturally they're going to be given more time. I was utterly baffled by both Arsenal and Chelsea appointing two rookie Managers. It's the last thing you want to be doing right now in the Premier League.

We were slightly different as Ole came in half way through as caretaker, we didn't sign him up initially so he had a chance to prove himself. It was an educated gamble on our part with results to back it up. Arsenal and Chelsea closed their eyes and hoped for the best. I mean, how do you expect Chelsea to react when Lamps was satisitcally the worst Manager in the Roman Era? A pat on the back? I'll applaud the Chelsea fans for sticking with him though, if Ole had Lampards results, Redcafe would be a smouldering wreck. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.