I have been extremely vocal in expressing my discontent for the sacking of RDM, probably even moreso than when Gullit, Ranieri (although inevitable and understandable), Mourinho and Ancelotti were sacked. As much as it pained me to see the aforementioned leave one thing we cannot forget is we'd be virtually in the abyss but for Roman Abramovich. Not only did he save us from certain administration and possible liquidation he has leant us hundreds of millions of pounds (free of interest and payback) and it's thanks to that investment we are enduring the most successful period in out history. Abramovich is not as purile as some quarters would have people believe, he is a genuine fan of the club, his loyalty to the cause shouldn't even be a topic for discussion as far as I'm concerned. To him, Chelsea are the biggest and best club in the world. We as Chelsea fans will never forget the mediocre days but just because we've settled for being average in the past it doesn't mean we have to now. Abramovich and his cronies have treated some Chelsea legends badly, there is no doubt about that but there is this fallacy amongst Chelsea fans that this is a new thing. Chelsea fans of over 10-15 years must have forgotten how Ken Bates treated the late Matthew Harding, Ruud Gullit and Gianluca Vialli. Let's be honest if Bates could have afforded to do so Ranieri would have been long gone before Roman had even set eyes on him. The only difference being that when discontent was expressed at the potential appointment of George Graham, Bates listened whereas Roman didn't regarding Benitez. But as livid as I am, if Benitez is gone in May and Mourinho or a genuinely good manager (that fits the club well) comes in time will pass and I can look beyond it.
The anti-Abramovich/Chelsea contingent have been quick to swoop in and claim Chelsea are "badly run" and "sacking managers every season isn't the way to having sustained success". Is it? I am not for one second vindicating Abramovich's methods (well maybe I am in a sense) but nobody can deny it has worked. Since 2005 no team has won more major trophies than Chelsea. I'm a big fan of David Moyes but ask yourself what he has won as Everton manager? Where is the pressure? Everton work on a tight budget and that is understandable but they are a massive club, they should not be effectively starting every season in November (up until this season) suffering home defeats to relegation fodder. Would this slow-starting mentality have been allowed to develop if his head was on the line? Similarly at Arsenal, what have they won in the last 7/8 years or so? Almost every season we see Arsenal start seasons well and then collapse in late February. Would this have happened if there wasn't so much complacency regarding his position as Arsenal manager? Arsenal fans are quick to point to the spending of Chelsea and City but nobody can deny up until 2011 they had teams more than capable of winning the league, their 07/08 team still ranks as the best to have never won the league in my opinion. Real Madrid make Chelsea's managerial post look long term, if you don't do well you are out. Managers have been sacked at Real Madrid for winning the Champions League (Jupp Heynckes in 1998) and La Liga titles (Fabio Capello in 2007). Mourinho and Guardiola are the two most sought after managers in world football, have either ever held down a post long term? Their mission is to do a job and move on whilst at their peak.
In England there is an egocentric belief that every club must be run like Manchester United and that they are the benchmark and holy grail for every club in English football. What did they win last season? They have a chance of winning the Premier League title but this current United side is arguably the least equipped ever to win the Champions League. Why should every club have the same manager for X amount of years. If Stoke fans are happy to watch Tony Pulis and his approach to football every week, year on year that's up to them but if I were a Stoke fan I wouldn't pay money to watch that brand of football, sooner or later their fans will get fed up of having to lump the ball up to Crouch and cling on to 1-0 home wins against the likes of Fulham and QPR whilst seeing the likes of Swansea/Norwich stay up by playing expansive/positive football. It has taken English Football years to realise we are light years behind Spain, Holland, Germany and even Italy in terms of ideas and philosophy, only when the dinosaurs of football are gone (Ferguson, Allardyce and Wenger) will people wake up and realise maybe Chelsea aren't so "badly run" after all.
Chelsea have been accused of "lacking stability". We've had the same nucleus of players for nigh on 8 years now, there is a familiarity at Chelsea. JT may be hated outside of this football club but anybody with a shred of impartiality can see he has been an essential figure for club and country. Cech has been at the club 8 years, JT 18 years, Lampard 11 years, Cole 6 years, and up until recently we've always had people at the club who are Chelsea and get this club. Whether it be RDM, Ray Wilkins, Steve Clarke, Graeme Le Saux, Dennis Wise or whoever. JT has been Chelsea captain since 2004, in that time Arsenal have been through several, as have Spurs and even United. That in my eyes is stability, it's no less significant than having the same manager. We've had the same owner for nearly 10 years now, can Liverpool or United say the same? Fundamentally the best model is a the model that wins most, so is United's model "better"? No. The fact is the football culture has changed since the 80s, the financial rewards for success are far larger now then aver before. If Ferguson's replacement doesn't (at least) get United in the top 4 or challenging for trophies in his first 18 months he'll be gone, just like any Chelsea manager would.
I'm not justifying the hiring and firing of all of our managers, just simply offering another (minority) point of view rather than the same old recycled views that go around the media and therefore football fans alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment