g3.7

"So the coach is like the conductor, and the players are like musicians, and their football boots are like musical instruments, and I am like the guy who hires the conductor, and you've got no unions there, and it's global, so I'm going to the Spanish conductor market to hire a coach, and we'll simply expand the orchestra to fit in the extra musicians, maybe by removing the roof from the concert hall, which is like the stadium, and we'll add a gift shop and rent out the changing rooms because the thing about London is the rental market is there to be exploited, and the musicians, I mean the players, no wait I do mean musicians, can simply change at home before the performance, and what I've learned is that I'm confident we are going to get this right".

Quick reminder that the ownership are responsible for this. Cynical and stupid. Not sure they are necessarily qualified to run a football club, but Boehly has to be a value bet for next home secretary...

He should also do this in white text on a black background. Just so we know he means it.

Precisely. And I'm sure he needs no help getting those kids to link arms across the edge of the six yard box anyway.

I'm offering a copy of the yellow pages to help distinguish him from them.

I'm hoping to see more collaboration, lozzer.

Good post. But important to emphasise he's only doing as well as his abilities as a coach allow him to. This is on the collaborating galaxy brains running the club.

My personal favourite Dylan song, that one. How's Chelsea's involvement in the European super league getting on, by the way?

Ah yes, the fine tradition of shutting up and not protesting which has led to so many great moments of positive change over the years...

If we look at the data it is clear that lamps scores highly on expected collaborations per 90. Could be the difference in the race for 10th imo.

"Graham has agreed to collaborate with the Club to facilitate a smooth transition" There's that word again. I really do hope the owners aren't involved in football-related decisions this time.

The thing is while you could make an argument that the result was a freak in the contexts of possession, shots, xg etc, you absolutely cannot argue that it was a freak result in the context of our form under Potter. There are no absolute rules in football management, but imo you should avoid playing two natural fullbacks in a back 3 in almost every possible circumstance. When I saw the line up today I was reminded of the Brighton away line up. For me, these are tactical choices you can make when you are absolutely confident your players are happy and totally adapted to your ideas. That is patently not the case at the moment, and when you think that this is a back 3 that has never played together (in this context), and you have a natural center back on the bench in chalobah who is stylistically similar to the player he is replacing, it has to go down as an unforced error. As for mudryk's misses, yes, in the context of the game you expect him to score one and lay one off for a tap in. But in the context of his confidence, his selection and non-selection, his fitness, etc, these are all decisions the manager takes. He is choosing to select an out of form player in an unfamiliar position. Unfortunately Potter's tenure as manager has been littered with similar unforced errors. In this sense, he has not been unlucky, and was not unlucky today.

And I thought Christopher Hitchens was dead! Somebody better tell Richard Dawkins the good news.

They were fairly tight calls in his defence. Without playing well I think he showed his value simply through the instrinic qualities / behaviours he has - the desire to make runs behind the defence, and the instinct to get into good goalscoring positions. We don't really have many of those players. Hopefully he stays fit and his confidence and sharpness should improve as a consequence.

One thing that should be factored into our analysis of havertz is that he clearly isn't a lead striker. Yes, he sometimes does job there, and yes, it was worth the experiment at first, but longer term we need to move on from that. It's painful seeing him playing back to goal and competing for high balls, and that's what a false nine ends up doing if his team isn't functioning / can't play out of a press. I think he was helped by often not being the furthest forward player last night. As I've said before, given his talent and workrate I'd love to see him become the player he sometimes suggests he could be. Hopefully he backs up last night with more of the same in the rest of the season.

While this is in the eye of the beholder, I would say that under tuchel in general we created more and defended better. We definitely struggled after the sanctions were imposed but I don't think their impact should be underestimated. And while we started the season in indifferent form, he was trying to integrate the new players into the side and IMO there was no real need to panic. Since his sacking I don't think we've come close to playing as well as we did in the cup final or even vs spurs at home this season (even though both of those were draws). There I felt we were still looking at one of the best five or six sides in Europe. I'd have loved to have seen him get the patience Potter has. But it's done now.

Where did I say that? I thought I said he's doing a terrible job and that I don't see a good argument against that viewpoint.

No, I don't forget that.

It says something that in a line comically comparing Potter's management to a global pandemic I've been quoted twice complaining it isn't critical enough! No matter how well or badly anyone performs, I think that they always deserve to be treated fairly. I think Potter is doing a terrible job, and I don't really think there is an argument against that view. However, I think it is also true that: -Having loads of players signed in a window, on top of loads more signed in the previous window, without many outgoings makes the squad increasingly hard to manage. -Having to incorporate them all at once, without a pre season, is very difficult regardless of their talent or price tag. -Joining a club during the season isn't optimal for anyone, but particularly for a coach who typically implements his changes slowly. It's even harder when the institutional memory and football know-how at the top of the club has been removed (and that isn't to say the previous structures were perfect). All of the above (and for that matter Potter's appointment) are the ultimate responsibility of the ownership. And I know a lot of people are strongly backing boehly in large part because of the signings he has made. Well to that I say, don't forget that ultimately he's going to try to get you to pay for them.

A huge step back, and following on from only the smallest of steps forward in recent weeks. Ultimately this season has been a disaster because of the hubris of the ownership. They so obviously and clearly don't have a clue about football. And to think they sacked everyone who does all at once. Potter was dealt a 7 and a 2 and has played them as badly as a food tourist in the wuhan wet markets.

Sure, but you get I mean 'mid' as in during the course of, rather than precisely half way. The point is that the window had closed and pre-season has gone. It's not the optimal time to come in as a new manager.

Hard to implement coming in mid-season, with all the injuries we've had, and with all the new players we've signed. He's made some mistakes to increase the difficulty of the job without a doubt, but those can't be undone now. For me it's clear we won't win anything and getting into the top four is pretty remote. It doesn't matter if Potter shoulders some of the blame for this (imo he does). Given that, sacking him now for an improvement in the short term doesn't make sense-even if that is what you think should have happened, the window for such a decision making logical sense has closed. I think the key measure to determine whether he should be managing the club next season is if our performances start to improve week on week, with us playing a style of football that is recognisably a result of Potter's coaching. If that happens, it should shore up his position. If I was at the club, while hoping for that outcome, I would also be discreetly drawing up a shortlist for possible replacements in the event it does not.

Good post as usual, but I think I disagree with parts of this. I don't think he is a reactive manager in the sense you describe, and I do think if you look at his past sides they have a clear identity - an identity of fluid attacking football with a lot of positional rotation. At Brighton that included routinely creating a lot more than they scored. His history and reputation is almost entirely predicated on being able to create and impose that identity (and to a lesser extent on his history of improving players individually). Brighton profited from that when he was there and continue to do so now. Where we are in total agreement is that thus far he is spectacularly failing to do that at Chelsea. The only thing that is identifiable about this Chelsea side is its brittleness. I posted a few weeks ago to say that 1) he's obviously not the type of manager capable of making an immediate impact (either through his charisma or one-off tactical plans - he's a 'head coach' in the purest sense), but 2) given that, to give himself the best chance of being a success he needs to recognise the job he's in and cut out unnecessary mistakes. At the moment he is continuing to do neither. Making a fuss about the VAR decision gives his players and the fans something to unite around and focus their energy on. He doesn't have the luxury of ignoring such options. Similarly as he cites the challenge of integrating new players (and to be fair it is a tricky thing, and the squad size is liable to be hugely problematic), it is incumbent on him to decide quickly which players he is going to rely on and which ones he isn't. He could also do himself a favour and stick to a core of 7/8 players in one or two basic shapes and win some points and integrate the others more slowly. Fundamentally lots of problems the team is experiencing is a consequence of some baffling / arrogant decisions taken by the ownership. The sheer amount of money spent may well eventually bail them out, but the mess this season has turned into was entirely avoidable. Even if one accepts tuchel wasn't for them, sacking him immediately or keeping him until the end of the season would have resulted in better performances, better results, and all for a lower transfer spend.

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. My point isn't that you can't conclude Potter has done badly so far by looking at his win percentage. You can, and I do. You can also look at a lot of intangible things and draw the same conclusion - and I am doing that too. What you can't do is, for example, point to his win percentage at Brighton and present that as conclusive evidence that he's didn't deserve to be offered a job such as this one. It doesn't take into account the huge wealth inequality in the Premier league; the fact Brighton have sold their best players every season; that they consistently improved as a team and as individuals etc etc. It's a totally reductive approach to take. I've seen people on here say that de zerbi's stats at Brighton prove he's better than Potter. He could be, but they don't prove it at all. Firstly, the sample size is too small, and secondly he's obviously benefitting from the work that Potter and others at Brighton did before he arrived. I don't think Potter is doing a good job and my hopes that he could turn it around continue to recede, but I don't think I can respect a logic that has Sam Allardyce as England's best ever manager.

You don't seem to understand how to apply statistics, or at least how to place them into anything more than the most basic of contexts. That is what is embarrassing. That we're playing poor football and getting poor results is a view shared by many, but you'd do better if you understood that a win percentage doesn't necessarily indicate the comparative quality of coach or manager.