Scolari's agent blamed Chelsea for not signing Robinho ahead of Manchester City.

‘When Scolari arrived the agreement was to rejuvenate an ageing team,’ said Acaz Felleger.

‘He wanted Robinho but Chelsea didn’t want to spend the money.’

This is from the Mail, simply because it's the first link I could find containing the above quotes. However, all it does is reinforce the excuse handed to Scolari on a plate at the beginning of the season when Ferguson called Chelsea's squad "too old". And that's all it is, just an excuse, as is the failure to sign Robinho. The above quote also reinforces what I've been saying about Scolari - that he persisted in attempting to mould the players he had to his preferred way of playing, rather than adapting the system to suit the available players. No we haven't got a Robinho. We haven't got a Ronaldo or a Ronaldinho or a Figo either. The truth is that without players of that exalted calibre at his disposal, Scolari hasn't got a bloody clue.

What I find most annoying about the above statement is the implication that Scolari is in no way responsible for the atrocious string of results (documented in another thread somewhere) that actually stretched all the way back to Tott*nh*m at home. Forget this garbage about "it was only the last month", which is just more propaganda put about by the Chelsea bashers out there.

Oh no, it was nothing to do with his training methods, his team selections, his substitution, his tactics. his lack of motivational and organisational skills or anything else. It was all because the squad is too old and because we didn't sign Robinho.

Pathetic.

He wanted to rejuvenate an ageing squad? Ok, and he does it by trying to sign two players: Deco and Robinho. It's not Scolari's fault we only managed to sign Deco, but surely if he was trying to rejuvenate an aging squad he could've given the youngsters more time to show what they can do than just random minutes at the end of a match. I mean, surely it will take more than one player to rejuvenate an ageing squad.

Edited February 10, 200917 yr by Maksimov

It's true, it wasn't Scolari's fault. It was Roman and CFC board's fault to appoint him as a manager in the first place.

It's true, it wasn't Scolari's fault. It was Roman and CFC board's fault to appoint him as a manager in the first place.

Oo...touché! :D

Deco & Mineiro, yeah that's the way to rejuvenate an ageing squad :D

It is his agent, what do you expect him to say if he still want to get paid? Of course it's not 100% his fault - Kenyon for failing to sign Robino, our scouting network not able to scout any other players apart from Robino, poor referee decisions, outstanding performance from opposition goal keppers, players who couldnt score to save their lives.

It is his agent, what do you expect him to say if he still want to get paid? Of course it's not 100% his fault - Kenyon for failing to sign Robino, our scouting network not able to scout any other players apart from Robino, poor referee decisions, outstanding performance from opposition goal keppers, players who couldnt score to save their lives.

Don't be silly. You're filling right into the poor Scolari trap. And now you're saying he was unlucky because of outstanding performances from the opposition's goalkeepers? Oh and we were unlucky JT miissed that chance against Hull... because Hull really are such a good side and any team needs luck on their side to get a point against them ... we were unlucky Frank got sent off at Anfield because when we still had 11 men on the field we were the better team, constantly threatening their goal ... unlucky that every single team who had been going through a piss poor patch suddenly managed to get their act together? Garbage.

And if you're going to argue with me, argue with what I write ... which is that Scolari accepts NO responsibility. Honestly you make me laugh. According to you half a season's worth of dire performances under Scolari's managent were all ... somebody else's fault.

Don't be silly. You're filling right into the poor Scolari trap. And now you're saying he was unlucky because of outstanding performances from the opposition's goalkeepers? Oh and we were unlucky JT miissed that chance against Hull... because Hull really are such a good side and any team needs luck on their side to get a point against them ... we were unlucky Frank got sent off at Anfield because when we still had 11 men on the field we were the better team, constantly threatening their goal ... unlucky that every single team who had been going through a piss poor patch suddenly managed to get their act together? Garbage.

And if you're going to argue with me, argue with what I write ... which is that Scolari accepts NO responsibility. Honestly you make me laugh. According to you half a season's worth of dire performances under Scolari's managent were all ... somebody else's fault.

Guess you didnt sense the sarcasm from my first sentence there. You should be greatful I made you laugh, in situtation like this that is the best thing you can do. Am I going to argue with you? Give me a break, what is my prize? ;)

Bottom line, Scolari is clueless, most players are useless! The manager is sacked rightly, and those who earn over 90k a week and play like sh** still live on for another season, or more..

Please include all your arguments in your next post, byt some miracle I may read it.

Guess you didnt sense the sarcasm from my first sentence there. You should be greatful I made you laugh, in situtation like this that is the best thing you can do. Am I going to argue with you? Give me a break, what is my prize? ;)

Bottom line, Scolari is clueless, most players are useless! The manager is sacked rightly, and those who earn over 90k a week and play like sh** still live on for another season, or more..

Please include all your arguments in your next post, byt some miracle I may read it.

No actually I didn't sense any sarcasm in your first sentence. Or anywhere else in your previous post:

It is his agent, what do you expect him to say if he still want to get paid?

Nope. Sorry. Not even a hint of sarcasm there.

Please include all your arguments in your next post, byt some miracle I may read it.

And why wouldn't you? Maybe you think you're a cut above. Fair enough. We're all entitled to own opinions. Mine is that you're a bit of a twat. And whether you happen to read this or not makes no difference at all - you're still a bit of twat.