Chelsea sack DI Matteo

[Blue Blood]

God I love Abramovich.

He's a modern day Sweeney Todd.... just with more oil and yachts.

[Ted Hughes]

Chelsea have won 10 shinny's in as many years so I reckon they are regarded as just a bigger threat by the rags as/than us .... tinted blue spec syndronne is alive and well

So the players & manager, their perormance in the league & finishing position aren't the main consideration then, just the name of the Club ?

Of course they are all important Ted and they they lead to the bottom line which is that success is judged in the main by winning trophies, plain and simple

by Goaters 103 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:48 am

Rather ironic that Twitter is full of "experts" in the media and football condemning Abramovic for appointing his 9th manager in his 9 years of ownership.

In those 9 years of "turmoil" Chelsea have won 3 Prem Lge titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Champions Lge.

If there's no Roman, there isnt all that success either, and the previous incumbent was Ken Bates - in the cold light of day which of the two do you think Chelsea fans will look back on in history more fondly?

Bang on Goater

And if Abramovic had not kept fucking about with managers, it would be 6 or 7 titles rather than 3.


Just had a look on Bluemoon & they are saying Rafa is in the frame.

Its always "nice" to have the same manager at a club but as I said ages ago money makes success regardless of how many managers you chop and change.
The facts speak for themseleves Ted (Chelsea have won 3 Prem Lge titles, 4 FA Cups, 2 League Cups and a Champions Lge)...there is no real argument against .....as for the drunken tramp , hes a one off and cannot be used as an example.

Imo, 70% of Ferguson's titles are down to his competitors underachieving with better teams. Chelsea because of Abramovic fucking about & Arsenal because Wenger signs too many duffers & has no idea to organise a defence.

Arsenal are a strange case imo as they have backed the wrong horse (as Wenger didn't build the Arsenal team, George Graham & Don Howe created the defensive plan). If they do the same but with Guardiola in charge for 10 years, I recon they'll cause us fucking nightmares.

If Mourinho stays at Real for 20 years, imo they will be much more successful than if/when he leaves & they get back to sacking managers every two seasons. Similarly, if the rags can't find a long term manager after bacon, & we keep stability, I recon we will really really fuck them up, completely. They'll win an occasional title of course, but 1 to every 4 or 5 we get.

[sweenyuk]

Rumor is that the new manager will be anounched this afternoon.... They didn't replace before sacking and make their manager run one last game did they..??? What kind of club would do that.... :o)

[Dameerto]

What a fucking joke, Chelsea are a circus not a football club.

[Lee_R]

Cant see Pep moving into such a fickle arena

[Spurge]

It's a sad day for football in my opinion as it just confirms the bizarre direction in which football is going.

This guy comes to the job at a very difficult point in the clubs new history - by that I mean the Abramovic era. The team were in disseray, the club were going backwards quickly and it seems that Abramovic had to act by sacking AVB.

Di Matteo galvonised the squad and got them playing together as a team, winning games with a strength and determination required to overcome teams they were technically second best against last season, particulalry against Napoli and Benfica. Both outplayed Cheslea for long periods at Stamford Bridge but Chelsea's direct and physical presence meant they won big in both as far as the scoreline was concerned.

This was because the manager got the team together, I think the players wanted to play for him as well which is a big plus of course, but tactically Di Matteo also adopted the right approach against those technically better opponents. In the final he brought in Ryan Bertrand for his champ league debut - a huge gamble which paid off, but again speaks volumes for the players desire to give it their all as well as the tactical awareness of the manager.

This season up until the last 3 weeks Chelsea were top of the league. They would have beaten the rags in the league defeat had they had kept all 11 on the field. It's true their away from has stuttered of late in the prem, and they were well beaten last night from what I saw. But their champs league position is not dead despite being out of their hands. Juve have to go to Shaktar, which will be difficult to say the least, no reason for Shaktar to do them any favours and Chelsea will win their final game I'm sure.

So Di Matteo leaves Chelsea in better shape then when he was asked to pick up the reigns, a short space of time in which he helped to turn around what was quickly heading to be their worst season ever under the Abramovic era and into their most successful when they lifted the champs league - not to mention the FA Cup.

So clearly time to sack him! The key differences this season are perhaps up front - Dorgba and Anelka, the physical prescence that was so important last season not replaced by similar players and torres is continuing to missfire. Injuries/suspension to his english generals Terry and Lampard have stripped them bare in terms of leadership and determination which were exposed last night as well as perhaps in the games at Swansea and West Brom.

I'm sure Di Matteo knew what was required here and would have addressed in January but now it's someone elses problem - the question is who's?

[Dameerto]

As for why managers would want to sign for Chelsea - £10m for a year's work, nice pay if you can get it.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Excellent post, Spurge. A really good analysis of the situation. I think most people would agree that Chelsea went into the season at least one striker short, probably two, given the state of Torres' game since he's been there. Whether the blame for this can be solely laid at Di Matteo's door is anyone's guess, but Chelsea are short of options up front and that can't be addressed by a new manager until January, which, as you say, could just as easily have been addressed by Di Matteo.

[Ted Hughes]

I could be totally wrong, but I get the impression that DiMatteo is a junior Mancini & he won the Champions League purely with the same kind of dour, organisational football that Mancini introduced when he first came to City.

From that base, he was supposed to suddenly have them playing like Barca, without any interim period to gradually introduce things & after losing Drogba, a player who without whom Mourinho would likely have won fuck all .

The big danger to us was not Chelsea winning the title this season imo, it was DiMatteo having several more tranfer windows to solve the glaring problems he'd been left by Abramovic & AVB, THEN Chelsea challenging us a year or two down the line &, like City, becoming a permanent title challenger, year in year out.

The reassuring thought was always that there was never a fucking chance in hell that he would get that opportunity & it's unlikely the next bloke will either.

[Hazy2]

Is Roman is the most succesful Chairman ever. His money he has put up and he has the medals to say he was right. Robbie gets what 4 mill 10 mill not bad for a years work.

[Swales4ever]

Imho, Ted is spot largely on the whole issue.
as regards to RdM, at very least, his men management skill has been even better than that credited to my beloved Bob. As much as to instantly turn, upsidedown, the attitude of a bunch of brainless primadonnas, to the extent that we all have seen in last season end, including first and foremost FA Cup performances, which were much less granted than stepping up into the CL Stage, once they succeded to give the axe to AVB.
Adding to that a certain, almost decent, experience of the English Game, that qualifies him as good as 90% of the managers currently on job in the Prem, imo. Even more if considering that the Chelsea FC incumbent will never be anything more than a diplomatic coach, under the current Tzar-ship.

Be said with all due respect but the argument of an "Abramovic model" is just a funny joke, in my personal books. Of course wealth brings means for success, but that does not contradicts, at all, the fact that, properly managed wealth brings, could have brought, more and more stable success.
I mean the bloke is the only one who have axed - not have been left by - Mourinho!

[Chinners]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

[carl_feedthegoat]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

Agreed !

Manager stability has done fuckall for Arsenal and if Everton had a different manager then maybe he could have squeezed more funds out of their tight arse owners and won something as well.
On eteam plays pretty football with no end product and the other keeps the team in Europa places...whoopi fucking doo.!!!

Money, more often than not, breeds success.

[HeyMark]

As one of the journo's pointed out on twitter today when he sacks managers it usually works out for them. Hiddink, Grant and even Di Matteo himself have all had some success when picking up the reins mid way through the season.

[Cocacolajojo1]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

Agreed !

Manager stability has done fuckall for Arsenal and if Everton had a different manager then maybe he could have squeezed more funds out of their tight arse owners and won something as well.
On eteam plays pretty football with no end product and the other keeps the team in Europa places...whoopi fucking doo.!!!

Money, more often than not, breeds success.

I would actually say that Arsenal and Everton are two sides of the same coin. Arsenal show that despite a sufficient amount of funds you can actually fuck it up if you stick with the wrong manager. Well.. perhaps not fuck up but I think we agree that they should be doing better than they've done, especially in terms of keeping their stars. Everton on the other hand is a club that has benefitted from stability. I don't think a lot of other managers would have managed to keep them competing at this level besides Moyes, do you?

[Swales4ever]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

Agreed !

Manager stability has done fuckall for Arsenal and if Everton had a different manager then maybe he could have squeezed more funds out of their tight arse owners and won something as well.
On eteam plays pretty football with no end product and the other keeps the team in Europa places...whoopi fucking doo.!!!

Money, more often than not, breeds success.

I would actually say that Arsenal and Everton are two sides of the same coin. Arsenal show that despite a sufficient amount of funds you can actually fuck it up if you stick with the wrong manager. Well.. perhaps not fuck up but I think we agree that they should be doing better than they've done, especially in terms of keeping their stars. Everton on the other hand is a club that has benefitted from stability. I don't think a lot of other managers would have managed to keep them competing at this level besides Moyes, do you?

I've always said that You know football more than racism... :)

[Cocacolajojo1]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

Agreed !

Manager stability has done fuckall for Arsenal and if Everton had a different manager then maybe he could have squeezed more funds out of their tight arse owners and won something as well.
On eteam plays pretty football with no end product and the other keeps the team in Europa places...whoopi fucking doo.!!!

Money, more often than not, breeds success.

I would actually say that Arsenal and Everton are two sides of the same coin. Arsenal show that despite a sufficient amount of funds you can actually fuck it up if you stick with the wrong manager. Well.. perhaps not fuck up but I think we agree that they should be doing better than they've done, especially in terms of keeping their stars. Everton on the other hand is a club that has benefitted from stability. I don't think a lot of other managers would have managed to keep them competing at this level besides Moyes, do you?

I've always said that You know football more than racism... :)

I'm pretty good at judging both ;)

[Chinners]

Changing managers works for some clubs & if it works for them then fair play but I'm not a big fan of it tbh. We did it 5 times in one season once .... and still went down (again)

[sheblue]

Rafa......lol....lol...

[carl_feedthegoat]

10 pots in as many years .... I'd love City to have some stable success like that!

Agreed !

Manager stability has done fuckall for Arsenal and if Everton had a different manager then maybe he could have squeezed more funds out of their tight arse owners and won something as well.
On eteam plays pretty football with no end product and the other keeps the team in Europa places...whoopi fucking doo.!!!

Money, more often than not, breeds success.

I would actually say that Arsenal and Everton are two sides of the same coin. Arsenal show that despite a sufficient amount of funds you can actually fuck it up if you stick with the wrong manager. Well.. perhaps not fuck up but I think we agree that they should be doing better than they've done, especially in terms of keeping their stars. Everton on the other hand is a club that has benefitted from stability. I don't think a lot of other managers would have managed to keep them competing at this level besides Moyes, do you?

I think the owners of Everton have been lucky with Moyes as he doesnt rock the boat with regards to screaming for money for new players.Other managers may have rocked the boat enough to get proper funds in to really compete.