Moyes So Far!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mockney said:
I don't, but clearly pretending Chelsea haven't been successful is complete nonsense, however way you spin it.

Also, you've just given a load of reasons why "an unheard of amount" of money was important to Chelsea's success, without giving one for why they should've stuck with a specific manager. This seems an odd way of proving their manager sackings have been detrimental.

Obviously sticking with a great manager is beneficial. But not every club gets a great manager every time, and not every great manager works out. The quote I selected seemed to imply you need to stick with managers because otherwise you'll be like Chelsea. Specifically referencing their success. This is obviously a false statement. Why do you think it isn't?
Click to expand...


I haven't spun anything, I've just told you what happened with Chelsea and the way they progressed as a football club - they won the lottery and became incredible very quickly, and then nothing sustainable came of it. I wouldn't call that success at all. You need to realise that success is relative and for Chelsea the potential was there for so much more. They should have built on 2005-06 but mismanagement stopped that from happening.

I'm not sure I understand the second part. I listed reasons why sticking with a manager is beneficial, re-read the post. Out of all their sackings Mourinho and Ancelotti were the worst two. Chelsea should have stuck by them because they are both excellent managers.. Not sure what else you want me to say here.
 
Prior to this season they'd slowly dropped from winning titles at a canter in to competing for them, to not getting anywhere near them. All while spending ungodly amounts of money on transfers and wages. Going forward it's Chelsea that should have higher expectations than Manchester United, because they spend much more.

If we win one title in the next six that would be a great achievement for us, for Chelsea it would be below par.
 
Theon said:
I haven't spun anything, I've just told you what happened with Chelsea and the way they progressed as a football club - they won the lottery and became incredible very quickly, and then nothing sustainable came of it. I wouldn't call that success at all. You need to realise that success is relative and for Chelsea the potential was there for so much more. They should have built on 2005-06 but mismanagement stopped that from happening.
Click to expand...

I don't agree. You've invented a standard for Chelsea just so you can say they've failed to reach it.

I'm not sure I understand the second part. I listed reasons why sticking with a manager is beneficial, re-read the post. Out of all their sackings Mourinho and Ancelotti were the worst two. Chelsea should have stuck by them because they are both excellent managers.. Not sure what else you want me to say here.
Click to expand...

2 of the 8 managers they've been through were worthy of keeping. Does that mean the other 6 were correct sackings? Should they have stuck with Grant & Wilkins?
 
Mockney said:
Did they? I thought they spent loads in the first few years of the Abramovich era then cooled off, only dipping into the big bucks again to bolster.
Click to expand...


They spent around £370 million since Mourinho won in '06
 
On transfers? Fair enough, that's weighty.

EDIT:
Transfers-06-111.jpg
 
Mockney said:
I don't agree. You've invented a standard for Chelsea just so you can say they've failed to reach it.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?

I'm just describing the situation - you can choose to accept it or not, but the truth is that they absolutely were the best team in England in '06 and had by far the highest spending. How can the subsequent decline and 1 league title out of the next 7 be seen as a success?
 
Kid Cunto said:
Pretty sure there's a Champions League, a Europa League and some other domestic cups to be included in there...
Click to expand...

Fluked the CL, and was only in the derided Europa league because of their dismal defence of the CL. Granted they have a good collection of F.A cups, but as I stated, successful by their standards.
 
Theon said:
What are you talking about?

I'm just describing the situation - you can choose to accept it or not, but the truth is that they absolutely were the best team in England in '06 and had by far the highest spending. How can the subsequent decline and 1 league title out of the next 7 be seen as a success?
Click to expand...


Yeah even their subsequent success was down to the team Mourinho built(with a lot of money).
 
Mockney said:
Did they? I thought they spent loads in the first few years of the Abramovich era then cooled off, only dipping into the big bucks again to bolster. The squad still has much of the spine of the first Mourinho era.
Click to expand...

They cooled off a bit on the spending (ie dropping to about 30 million a year) until after Ancelotti's title win, then they've spent £350m in a little overthree years.

Mockney said:
So, what? They should've stuck with Avram Grant for 6 years after sacking Mourinho?
Click to expand...

Grant was always a stop gap, it's more the Scolari and the Di Matteo ones which are questionable (just look at where they were in the table when they were sacked). And firing Ancelotti was just comically absurd.
 
Theon said:
What are you talking about?

I'm just describing the situation - you can choose to accept it or not, but the truth is that they absolutely were the best team in England in '06 and had by far the highest spending. How can the subsequent decline and 1 league title out of the next 7 be seen as a success?
Click to expand...


Largely because you insisting on just mentioning the league alone. Only 3 teams have won the league in that time, and most of them were us. They've also won 7(?) other trophies in that time, two of which were European ones, including the holy grail of the CL. Comparing them to our unrivalled success and claiming it doesn't count as success is an unfair skewing. They've been more successful than any other club in England, even those who've kept their managers. Deciding they should've continued to win every league unchallenged since 08 is your own projection. United's squad was the best in the world at that point, we beat them by improving ourselves, not by them disintergrating. And they still reached the CL final.

Theon said:
Why have you just done to 2011?

United spent about £140m in that period, to Chelsea's £370m.
Click to expand...

It was the only stats I could find. I'm happy to look at others. Though these show Chelsea had spent less than Spurs in transfers by that particular time. Does that make Spurs's push into the top 4 in 2011 an unmitigated disaster? They really can't call that a success.
 
Chabon said:
They cooled off a bit on the spending (ie dropping to about 30 million a year) until after Ancelotti's title win, then they've spent £350m in a little overthree years.



Grant was always a stop gap, it's more the Scolari and the Di Matteo ones which are questionable (just look at where they were in the table when they were sacked). And firing Ancelotti was just comically absurd.
Click to expand...


None of those two are questionable. They were both hopelessly out of their depth. Di Matteo was fired by West Brom. He shouldn't have been made permanent in the first place, but he had to be after winning the champions League. Great guy though and I still love him. Scolari had been found out after a lightning start. He didn't have enough about him to be a successful club manager in my opinion. Ancelotti was a terrible decision I agree, even more so given the way such a classy man was dismissed. AVB is also an annoying one for me.
 
Mockney said:
we beat them by improving ourselves, not by them disintergrating.
Click to expand...


It was both.

But this is the whole point, we were starting from an inferior position to Chelsea in virtually every way. They had a far better squad than we did, indeed that '05-'06 side is up there with the very best the league has seen, whereas we were going through our Alan Smith in midfield period, but just as importantly they were consistently outspending us. In fact, it was to the extent that they actually nicked a few players of us in the transfer market - we couldn't compete.

Given those starting positions and the resources available to both clubs, I don't see how what subsequently happened can be considered successful. They badly declined and it wasn't even done in a shocking or unfortunate manner, it was more just a withering away of a great side as it was badly managed.

Mockney said:
It was the only stats I could find. I'm happy to look at others. Though these show Chelsea had spent less than Spurs in transfers by that particular time. Does that make Spurs's push into the top 4 in 2011 an unmitigated disaster? They really can't call that a success.
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you're getting at here - as I said before all success is relative and you clearly need to take that into account.

United could spend £0m in the transfer market, come 5th and it will be considered a huge failure. West Ham could spend £50m, come 5th and it will be a huge success. This is obvious. Likewise for Spurs they have their own objectives and spending money to achieve them wouldn't be considered a failure, despite those objectives not being on the level of United or Chelsea.
 
Spiersey said:
AVB is also an annoying one for me.
Click to expand...

AVB is the only one I don't find that questionable of the permanent managers. Spending such a huge amount of money and then being fifth and twenty points from top in March is really unimpressive, and the players all obviously hated him.
 
Chabon said:
AVB is the only one I don't find that questionable of the permanent managers. Spending such a huge amount of money and then being fifth and twenty points from top in March is really unimpressive, and the players all obviously hated him.
Click to expand...


Or on the flip side he was a young and clearly talented manager attempting a much needed massive overhaul. He had been given the task to remove the old guard and given assurance that he would be backed in doing so. He removed the old guard, they kicked up a fuss and the rest is history. I firmly believe if he was still the manager and been given a couple of years to sign his players and get his ideas across it would have worked out very well. However we have Jose back so I suppose I can't complain really.
 
Theon said:
It was both.

But this is the whole point, we were starting from an inferior position to Chelsea in virtually every way. They had a far better squad than we did, indeed that '05-'06 side is up there with the very best the league has seen, whereas we were going through our Alan Smith in midfield period, but just as importantly they were consistently outspending us. In fact, it was to the extent that they actually nicked a few players of us in the transfer market - we couldn't compete.

Given those starting positions and the resources available to both clubs, I don't see how what subsequently happened can be considered successful. They badly declined and it wasn't even done in a shocking or unfortunate manner, it was more just a withering away of a great side as it was badly managed.
Click to expand...

Only by our ridiculous standards of league domination would that record be considered withering away. They never dropped below 3rd until 2012, returned to win the league 3 years after Mourinho left, then won 2 European trophies in 2 years! You're just determined to see it as a failure.

As for the '05-'06 side, we beat them in 07 to win the league, whilst Jose was still there. If anything they closed the gap in '08 after Jose left. But not before we'd improved by buying Hargreaves, Tevez, Nani & Anderson in the summer. What did this have to do with their managerial inconsistency?

They have certainly suffered from bad management, I agree, though only once have they dropped below 3rd and that time they won the CL. Any decline they faced (Grant/Scolari/Wilkins/AVB) was sorted out by sacking and replacing with better or more suitable managers (Hiddink/Ancelotti/Di Matteo/Benitez) hence their policy cannot be seen as a failure, and the original quote not be seen as true, unless you're really, really trying IMO.
 
Mockney said:
Only by our ridiculous standards of league domination would that record be considered withering away. They never dropped below 3rd until 2012, returned to win the league 3 years after Mourinho left, then won 2 European trophies in 2 years! You're just determined to see it as a failure.
Click to expand...


Quite simply we just disagree here then. I really would not class one title in the next seven years as a success - not sure I would call it a failure though. Given the positions of the clubs at the time I would have been absolutely delighted if United could win three of the next seven titles, let alone five. Chelsea looked unstoppable and had far more resources, what Ferguson managed to build and achieve at United in that period was remarkable.
 
But he did that before they sacked Jose.

He did it because he was remarkable, which I don't disagree with one iota. I just disagree that the quote "Changing your manager is never a recipe for success - just look at Chelsea" is a logical belief. Could they have won more if they'd never sacked Jose? Sure. Should they have kept Ancelotti? Absolutely, but as recipes for success go, changing from Scolari to Hiddink to Ancelotti, and from AVB to DiMatteo, and from DiMatteo to Benitez, all definitely were precisely that. Relative means of success of course, but definitely success. And Changing it back to Mourinho may well be again.
 
Mockney said:
But he did that before they sacked Jose.

He did it because he was remarkable, which I don't disagree with one iota. I just disagree that the quote "Changing your manager is never a recipe for success - just look at Chelsea" is a logical belief. Could they have won more if they'd never sacked Jose? Sure. Should they have kept Ancelotti? Absolutely, but as recipes for success go, changing from Wilkins to Hiddink to Ancelotti, and from AVB to DiMatteo, and from DiMatteo to Benitez, all definitely were precisely that. And Changing it back to Mourinho may well be again.
Click to expand...


Fair do's, pal.

I'm tired and worn out now. I agree with you that sometimes changing your manager is a good thing - of course it is. But I feel that 1) the rate that Chelsea did so, and 2) the actual quality of some of the managers they sacked, is not a good way of running a club, or any business.
 
In the last 10 years, Bayern Munich has had 8 managers (and 2 caretakers). Can't say they aren't getting better, though. And should City stuck with any of their managers before Pellegrini?

Then Barcelona had about 6 managers for 3 years after van Gaal left in 2000; before they hired Frank Rijkaard in 2003 (then started winning trophies again).
 
Ultimately the team with the best players has the best chance of winning a title. Really good managers can take average teams and do well but an average manager still has a chance of winning a title if he has the best players.
 
Isotope said:
In the last 10 years, Bayern Munich has had 8 managers (and 2 caretakers). Can't say they aren't getting better, though. And should City stuck with any of their managers before Pellegrini?

Then Barcelona had about 6 managers for 3 years after van Gaal left in 2000; before they hired Frank Rijkaard in 2003 (then started winning trophies again).
Click to expand...


Big difference between having a manager for 27 years and then constantly changing managers and the situations you've pointed out. It's a psychological thing.
 
AlwaysRedwood said:
Big difference between having a manager for 27 years and then constantly changing managers and the situations you've pointed out. It's a psychological thing.
Click to expand...

Merely pointed out that changing managers can also give benefits to top clubs; as United have done in the past after Sir Busby.
 
Mockney said:
But he did that before they sacked Jose.

He did it because he was remarkable, which I don't disagree with one iota. I just disagree that the quote "Changing your manager is never a recipe for success - just look at Chelsea" is a logical belief. Could they have won more if they'd never sacked Jose? Sure. Should they have kept Ancelotti? Absolutely, but as recipes for success go, changing from Scolari to Hiddink to Ancelotti, and from AVB to DiMatteo, and from DiMatteo to Benitez, all definitely were precisely that. Relative means of success of course, but definitely success. And Changing it back to Mourinho may well be again.
Click to expand...

The only actual "sample" we have as evidence that stability benefits top clubs is Manchester United with Sir Alex Ferguson. That's all. All the other top clubs, the ones regularly competing for the biggest trophies, change their managers quite often.

This is why I'd consider it at best unproven and at worst logical fallacy to say that stability is very important at the top level. Because you can only cite Manchester United as an example - but that doesn't prove that stability for stability's sake is beneficial, it only proves that Sir Alex Ferguson was an absolutely magnificent manager who had an unrivalled ability to build and rebuild teams and maintain success.

I'm not sure why I quoted you with this though. Oh well.
 
Stack said:
Ultimately the team with the best players has the best chance of winning a title. Really good managers can take average teams and do well but an average manager still has a chance of winning a title if he has the best players.
Click to expand...


Well it doesn't seem to be the case here. We have one of the best squads in the league yet are nowhere near the top.
 
Sarni said:
Well it doesn't seem to be the case here. We have one of the best squads in the league yet are nowhere near the top.
Click to expand...

I'd say we are about where we should be with the squad we've got. Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Liverpool have better squads than we do. Everton and Spurs is debatable
 
francobaresi said:
I'd say we are about where we should be with the squad we've got. Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Liverpool have better squads than we do. Everton and Spurs is debatable
Click to expand...


How is it debatable? Both Spurs and Everton are miles behind. Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea don't have better squads either. City do.

Have we somehow gone shit in a year?
 
Last year's consensus, particularly after Madrid tie was that we needed one or two midfielders to be around the top of Europe. Now we're apparently comaparable with Spurs and Everton.
 
francobaresi said:
I'd say we are about where we should be with the squad we've got. Chelsea, City, Arsenal, Liverpool have better squads than we do. Everton and Spurs is debatable
Click to expand...

What. The. feck.

This place is weird. By the end of the season even Newcastle and Southampton will have better squads than us, I bet.
 
Siorac said:
What. The. feck.

This place is weird. By the end of the season even Newcastle and Southampton will have better squads than us, I bet.
Click to expand...

Avoiding relegation is an achievement with this lot.
 
Sarni said:
Last year's consensus, particularly after Madrid tie was that we needed one or two midfielders to be around the top of Europe. Now we're apparently comaparable with Spurs and Everton.
Click to expand...

Last year Rio, Vidic, Giggs and Evra were a year younger. All four have had poor seasons so far with respect to what we have seen in the past. Nani hasnt fired this season, Valencia is doing his usual, Buttner isnt really a great backup to Evra and we dont have a decent back up to Rafael. Fabio hasnt kicked on. Fergie was able to squeeze the last juice out of the squad, it needs rebuilding, Fergie put some of the rebuild in place but its going to take a little time to replace the ageing and the players not up to it.
 
Stack said:
Last year Rio, Vidic, Giggs and Evra were a year younger. All four have had poor seasons so far with respect to what we have seen in the past. Nani hasnt fired this season, Valencia is doing his usual, Buttner isnt really a great backup to Evra and we dont have a decent back up to Rafael. Fabio hasnt kicked on. Fergie was able to squeeze the last juice out of the squad, it needs rebuilding, Fergie put some of the rebuild in place but its going to take a little time to replace the ageing and the players not up to it.
Click to expand...

Just like last year then.

Claiming that Spurs or Everton might have better squads than us is fecking laughable to say the least.
 
Kostur said:
Just like last year then.

Claiming that Spurs or Everton might have better squads than us is fecking laughable to say the least.
Click to expand...

I said 'debatable' you drama queen

It could be claimed, for example, that Coleman, Baines, Jagielka, Barry, Barkley and Mirallas would walk straight into our first team. Possibly even Pienaar
 
Sarni said:
How is it debatable? Both Spurs and Everton are miles behind. Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea don't have better squads either. City do.


Have we somehow gone shit in a year?
Click to expand...

Completely agree. A missed opportunity to refresh and strengthen (particularly the midfield) in the last window has prevented us being right up there with City's squad imo but can't believe people think our squad has become so shit in a few months.
 
francobaresi said:
I said 'debatable' you drama queen

It could be claimed, for example, that Coleman, Baines, Jagielka, Barry, Barkley and Mirallas would walk straight into our first team. Possibly even Pienaar
Click to expand...

It's really not debatable though. It's completely ludicrous to even suggest it.
 
Kostur said:
Just like last year then.

Claiming that Spurs or Everton might have better squads than us is fecking laughable to say the least.
Click to expand...

Well I never made that claim, just pointing out that the squad this year whilst not really changing in personal is a bit weaker due to age catching up in some key spots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.