An 'achievement' that is quickly put into perspective when you see that eight of them were draws and we only won one of our last seven Once run was ended by mighty Swansea

Edited May 16, 201610 yr by The Brit

An 'achievement' that is quickly put into perspective when you see that eight of them were draws and we only won one of our last seven Once run was ended by mighty Swansea

Exactly.

He was the most negative manager I have seen at Chelsea in my lifetime.

His record at the Bridge was farcical.

An 'achievement' that is quickly put into perspective when you see that eight of them were draws and we only won one of our last seven Once run was ended by mighty Swansea

As far as I'm concerned, we lost all right to be picky about results and who we beat/drew with after losing to a third string Bournemouth team.

Was a poor appointment by the club, he's had a bad record since leaving Chelsea six years ago and shouldn't have been bought back.

Should have either appointed Steve Holland till the end of the season or bought in someone with a better recent record, preferably in club management.

A poor appointment by the club?

They'd just sacked the clubs favourite manager and appointed a well liked, well respected and winning manager.  Brought in someone with a better record?  Of all the coaches available for what was only going to be short stint, his record blew everyone else away.  

Can't complain about the draws, in the first half of the season they were losses.

Thought he did a good job and almost every single player improved under him, saving us some decisions this summer.

Thanks Guus, hope you do stick around, it's important to have great people like you at the club.

A poor appointment by the club?

They'd just sacked the clubs favourite manager and appointed a well liked, well respected and winning manager. Brought in someone with a better record? Of all the coaches available for what was only going to be short stint, his record blew everyone else away.

Since leaving Chelsea the first time his record in football has been pretty poor.....

A poor appointment by the club?

They'd just sacked the clubs favourite manager and appointed a well liked, well respected and winning manager.  Brought in someone with a better record?  Of all the coaches available for what was only going to be short stint, his record blew everyone else away.  

Can't complain about the draws, in the first half of the season they were losses.

Thought he did a good job and almost every single player improved under him, saving us some decisions this summer.

Thanks Guus, hope you do stick around, it's important to have great people like you at the club.

Almost every single player improved under Guus, your talking rubbish there. The defence was just as bad as it had ever been all season. Willian's performances went down.

You could argue Mikel but he went from not playing to playing so that isn't hard. Plus was he really that good.

Costa obviously but he would of improved if anyone was manager, Fabregas slightly and Hazard when the Euros is coming. Clutching at straws to try and think of anyone else really.

Problem with Guus was he kept picking the same players who had been underperforming all season, when push come to shove he never changed anything and hardly gave youth a chance. That could of started about 12 games to the end.

I tell you what lets play RLC for a few games, scores against Villa, plays well against City then don't play for about the last 5 games, great management.

If our CB or LB makes a mistake lets just sub them at halftime, great confidence booster. But if Mikels playing crap or we are losing I still won't take my golden boy off.

Since leaving Chelsea the first time his record in football has been pretty poor.....

Yeah as I said.. actually it wasn't literal enough so I'll spell it out for you here.

By the time managers finish their careers, 99% of them will have had losses, home losses, even bad losses (the 4,5,6 - 0 types) and even losses against smaller teams (faroe island)

At the time of the appointment there were 0 managers available that had a better record managing Chelsea (that's a good start) and probably 0 who had a better career who would be willing to come in for a short stint.

He'd won cups with big teams and he'd taken smaller teams to great heights.  Not always, but he had done it.

Almost every single player improved under Guus, your talking rubbish there. The defence was just as bad as it had ever been all season. Willian's performances went down.

You could argue Mikel but he went from not playing to playing so that isn't hard. Plus was he really that good.

Costa obviously but he would of improved if anyone was manager, Fabregas slightly and Hazard when the Euros is coming. Clutching at straws to try and think of anyone else really.

Problem with Guus was he kept picking the same players who had been underperforming all season, when push come to shove he never changed anything and hardly gave youth a chance. That could of started about 12 games to the end.

I tell you what lets play RLC for a few games, scores against Villa, plays well against City then don't play for about the last 5 games, great management.

If our CB or LB makes a mistake lets just sub them at halftime, great confidence booster. But if Mikels playing crap or we are losing I still won't take my golden boy off.

If they hadn't improved we'd be down with Villa (or close to it).

There was obvious improvement, as the table suggests. 

You seem to be ranting and raving about RLC or management/substitutions decisions that can be explained 100's of ways, just not the ways you like.

Edited May 16, 201610 yr by Van Butsen

At the time of the appointment there were 0 managers available that had a better record managing Chelsea (that's a good start) and probably 0 who had a better career who would be willing to come in for a short stint.

He'd won cups with big teams and he'd taken smaller teams to great heights. Not always, but he had done it.

How would you know who was available and who wasn't?

All you are doing is guessing and making up situations in your head. It doesn't make it correct fella.

How would you know who was available and who wasn't?

All you are doing is guessing and making up situations in your head. It doesn't make it correct fella.

It's actually not that hard.

To my first point, you just get a list of every Chelsea manager still alive, managing (could be poached, so doesn't have to be out of work) and compare their records with each other. Guss wins

To my second point, and this is a little harder but not so hard that you can't have an educated guess if you are interested in football.

 

Take a list of the best leagues in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient(I use this because as far back as I can remember our manager has come from Europe, safe bet?) (Edit european clubs, not of European descent)

Take the top 20 leagues, (Same reason as above)

Take managers who are still alive and managing or have managed in those leagues.

Make an assumption about their will to work for only 6 months.

Find the most successful, affordable, singable manager in that list.

But you can do all that far quicker by scanning the top leagues and just using your brain.  There are really only a handful of world class managers, it's really not hard to suggest he was the best fit.

Edited May 16, 201610 yr by Van Butsen

If they hadn't improved we'd be down with Villa (or close to it).

There was obvious improvement, as the table suggests. 

You seem to be ranting and raving about RLC or management/substitutions decisions that can be explained 100's of ways, just not the ways you like.

So we would of relegated? You really believe that? There was actually hardly any improvement in performances if any. The main difference was Guus went ultra defence.

Not really the way I like, it's true. How many minutes did RLC get at the end of the season? It was a great opportunity, literally once in a lifetime of a season to give youngsters a chance, all Guus did was play the same Ivan, Matic and Mikel combo and Willian and Pedro.

A good and correct appointment under the circumstances and did an adequate job.

Thanks guus, and good luck.

Now let us never speak of this season again.

So we would of relegated? You really believe that? There was actually hardly any improvement in performances if any. The main difference was Guus went ultra defence.

Not really the way I like, it's true. How many minutes did RLC get at the end of the season? It was a great opportunity, literally once in a lifetime of a season to give youngsters a chance, all Guus did was play the same Ivan, Matic and Mikel combo and Willian and Pedro.

I was never talking about the minutes of particular players, all i said was almost all improved under him and I stand by that.  Just because you go ultra defensive doesn't make it easier.

I agree with your points about the young players, I never said anything of the contrary. 

A good and correct appointment under the circumstances and did an adequate job.

Thanks guus, and good luck.

Now let us never speak of this season again.

What season

A poor appointment by the club?

They'd just sacked the clubs favourite manager and appointed a well liked, well respected and winning manager. Brought in someone with a better record? Of all the coaches available for what was only going to be short stint, his record blew everyone else away.

Can't complain about the draws, in the first half of the season they were losses.

Thought he did a good job and almost every single player improved under him, saving us some decisions this summer.

Thanks Guus, hope you do stick around, it's important to have great people like you at the club.

Guus has had a poor results record ever since leaving Chelsea, that doesn't discredit what he achieved in his first stint but it sure as hell was reason enough to not to appoint him for a second time.

We could have looked to appoint someone like Capello who would have done a much better job at shoring up the leaking defence.

We could have looked to someone like Paul Clemment who has previously worked at the club but would have come in with some fresh ideas.

You could go with a Zola/Steve Clarke style appointment for a morale boost.

Basically there's a lot more we could have done than appoint a manager with a record as bad as Guus' has been.

Considering how bad we were before he came in losing to just about every one I'm shocked to see such and ungrateful attitude towards Gus.

To even pick up on losing to Psg home and away is pathetic when Hazard was injured and it being certain that we would've got whooped by City Real and Atketico in the final.

He didn't do an amazing job but he did what I expected him to. Steadied the ship, stopped us losing week in week out and kept us out of the press for negative reasons.

Guus has had a poor results record ever since leaving Chelsea, that doesn't discredit what he achieved in his first stint but it sure as hell was reason enough to not to appoint him for a second time.

We could have looked to appoint someone like Capello who would have done a much better job at shoring up the leaking defence.

We could have looked to someone like Paul Clemment who has previously worked at the club but would have come in with some fresh ideas.

You could go with a Zola/Steve Clarke style appointment for a morale boost.

Basically there's a lot more we could have done than appoint a manager with a record as bad as Guus' has been.

That's a great post FC

Do you think Roman thought, well it worked last time so let's try it again?

I think what I can let go of how the FA Cup is there for the taking and we could have easily made the final.

That's a great post FC

Do you think Roman thought, well it worked last time so let's try it again?

I think what I can let go of how the FA Cup is there for the taking and we could have easily made the final.

I think there is a reluctance to move forward at Chelsea.

We kept hold of a core of team for a very long time and made little effort to replace them and it's come back to bite us.

We went back to Drogba.

We went back to Mourinho.

We went back to Hiddink.

We haven't been looking forwards enough and the Hiddink appointment was emblematic of that.

I think there is a reluctance to move forward at Chelsea.

We kept hold of a core of team for a very long time and made little effort to replace them and it's come back to bite us.

We went back to Drogba.

We went back to Mourinho.

We went back to Hiddink.

We haven't been looking forwards enough and the Hiddink appointment was emblematic of that.

Short term gains will only work for so long, in Guus you could see it was just done in hope more than anything else.

You are correct in that we seem afraid to move forward and try something new. Everytime we have attempted it the manager hasn't lasted very long and players with potential have been sold on in the hope the ones we have like Oscar come good.

The old guard are nearly all gone and cannot come back (in a playing role anyway) while we have almost certainly cut our ties with Jose once and for all so now there is no choice but to move forward.

I hope we stick with it and don't continue the old cycle that is quite clearly not going to work.

Not really...yesterday I stood up and applauded a chelsea coach who made a real impact at the club in Claudio...I applauded Guus in 2009 too...

not quite sure what I have to be grateful for Hiddink this time around though...one home league win? A dismal fa cup exit to woeful Everton side that's just sacked their manager? Home and away defeats to a PSG side in champs Lge that were knocked out by a city side that scraped into top four and comfortably beaten by Real Madrid? The lack of starts for youth players even though we had nothing to play for? Finishing 10th below Stoke?

Apparently I'm supposed to be doing cartwheels cos things weren't quite as bad as the first four months of the season...well whoopty doo...that's like tuning into the weather and getting excited cos he tells you it will be 2 degrees Celsius the next day instead of 0..

Of course he's not only one to blame and shows players have been consistently below par all season...but also, not going to give any credit to Hiddink where none is due

 

Haha sorry mate, I wasn't really being serious (when am I ever?) and certainly didn't mean to cause any offence or in any way question anyone's credentials as a supporter.

 

My take is that Guus was probably as good a short-term appointment as we were likely to get given the circumstances. I was happy that after sacking a much-loved manager in José, we replaced him with someone who has some sort of connection to the club, instead of a complete no-mark like Juande Ramos (who we were linked with at the time).

 

I think that by and large he's done a competent job, he stabilised our performances after some truly disastrous outings under José. He managed to get most of our key players back into something resembling good form, and has given the youngsters far more time than any of his predecessors, and certainly more than he has received credit for. I was admittedly disappointed with our performances in the cups (although I wasn't expecting us to get anything out of the PSG games), and also that we failed to build on the decent form we were displaying in February.

 

I can certainly understand why people might have qualms about his performance, but I think some of the vitriol he receives on here is way, way over the top.

 

Oh, and also he consistently played Mikel, which is a sure-fire way to earn my love.

Haha sorry mate, I wasn't really being serious (when am I ever?) and certainly didn't mean to cause any offence or in any way question anyone's credentials as a supporter.

 

My take is that Guus was probably as good a short-term appointment as we were likely to get given the circumstances. I was happy that after sacking a much-loved manager in José, we replaced him with someone who has some sort of connection to the club, instead of a complete no-mark like Juande Ramos (who we were linked with at the time).

 

I think that by and large he's done a competent job, he stabilised our performances after some truly disastrous outings under José. He managed to get most of our key players back into something resembling good form, and has given the youngsters far more time than any of his predecessors, and certainly more than he has received credit for. I was admittedly disappointed with our performances in the cups (although I wasn't expecting us to get anything out of the PSG games), and also that we failed to build on the decent form we were displaying in February.

 

I can certainly understand why people might have qualms about his performance, but I think some of the vitriol he receives on here is way, way over the top.

 

Oh, and also he consistently played Mikel, which is a sure-fire way to earn my love.

No worries...I think one of the reasons I'm so critical of guus is that if he was judged in the same way Jose and previous mangers were, he would have been pilloried in the media and more on here...but he's had a very easy ride and I don't understand why...I appreciate expectations were significantly lowered given the start to the season, but there was plenty of time to generate something positive about of it and he failed to do that on all fronts...and he's got away with it just cos he's a nice amenable bloke...put it this way, if conte wins one home league game in 10, he will be copping stick left right and centre

I think there is a reluctance to move forward at Chelsea.

We kept hold of a core of team for a very long time and made little effort to replace them and it's come back to bite us.

We went back to Drogba.

We went back to Mourinho.

We went back to Hiddink.

We haven't been looking forwards enough and the Hiddink appointment was emblematic of that.

You make great points. I think our short term fixes have been great in some cases and not in others. But we forget Rome wasn't built in a day. The one I still look back on is sacking Ancelotti that was just stupid.

You've answered the question yourself though- it's because of the circumstances he inherited that he gets judged differently. That's only fair surely. By the time he arrived the season was basically a write off already.

He could have taken us further in the cup but Everton away isn't easy, especially as they put all of their eggs into that particular basket.

He could have played the kids a little more (but not to the extent some people seem to have expected), but he's still given them some exposure to the first time.

Even in those circumstances no one is saying he's been amazing, but he was always going to be a temporary appointment and I don't think the comparison with Jose or conte really applies.

What's done is done.

Guus has had a poor results record ever since leaving Chelsea, that doesn't discredit what he achieved in his first stint but it sure as hell was reason enough to not to appoint him for a second time.

We could have looked to appoint someone like Capello who would have done a much better job at shoring up the leaking defence.

We could have looked to someone like Paul Clemment who has previously worked at the club but would have come in with some fresh ideas.

You could go with a Zola/Steve Clarke style appointment for a morale boost.

Basically there's a lot more we could have done than appoint a manager with a record as bad as Guus' has been.

At the time of appointment we were under serious threat of being relegated.  I think Guus and Capello are fairly like-for-like and the fact Guus came in an went on the longest undefeated run this season justifies that decision.

Clement, Zola and Clarke, whilst these choices may have brought some fresh ideas to the table and boosted morale.. it would be hard to justify any of their appointments if they weren't able to arrest the slide and that was the number 1 priority.   I think they would have been highly risky choices.

To your point about not moving forward I think you're being fairly hush.  Going back to Mourinho was a success, we won the premiership.  Just because it's 'going back' doesn't always make it the wrong decision and many suggested removing Mourinho the first time was the wrong decisions.  is it possible the club can make some wrong choices and amend them?

The club have made some big decisions moving forward about building a larger stadium, signalling their intent to continue to grow and invest in the football department as well as the youth academy development in order to (ideally) replace large portions of transfer market spending.  it's all a learning game and I don't see any clubs make bold 'for the future' type decisions that dwarf ours.

 

Edited May 16, 201610 yr by Van Butsen

No worries...I think one of the reasons I'm so critical of guus is that if he was judged in the same way Jose and previous mangers were, he would have been pilloried in the media and more on here...but he's had a very easy ride and I don't understand why...I appreciate expectations were significantly lowered given the start to the season, but there was plenty of time to generate something positive about of it and he failed to do that on all fronts...and he's got away with it just cos he's a nice amenable bloke...put it this way, if conte wins one home league game in 10, he will be copping stick left right and centre

 

I think that comes down to personalities. Guus is very well liked. Lets face it he's a nice bloke. Always comes across very well is not full of himself - just keeps his head down and gets on with the job and answers questions honestly. 

 

Compare that to Jose. When he's happy he IS the darling of the media. He's funny, engaging, intelligent - he's box office stuff when all is going well. But that wasn't Jose last season. He was a f**king nightmare, picking fights with pretty much anyone in his path and when you've bigged yourself uo as much as he has done in the past, when things start to go wrong, you just know that the knives will be out. When you act like Jose does, you have to take the rough with the smooth.