27 minutes ago, Gol15 said:

It's one thing to constantly looking to improve that's not an issue... When you said that "we control the games better specially against teams that allow us to do it" to me that doesn't really sound like you're convinced about our wins in the first place mate.

I find it odd that you're first arguing about how our opposition let us play how we wanted and therefore we won - now you're adding that the teams are not used to Tuchel so we somehow have this huge element of surprise.

Probably is some truth in that, that's partly why you get a new manager bounce, that and the players try harder for a bit.

On 16/02/2021 at 18:56, Ballack & Blu said:

Lamps just purely lacked Experience at this level, maybe his go it alone ,sometime pig headedness was his downfall, as he didn't seem to adjust to continuing shortcomings, You can see Jorginho is a quality player, just sometimes the speed and physicalities of the PL overwhelm him, but fair play he has tried to adapt, and is the beat of this current team, i don't see him and Kova as joint 6's, Kova is playing like a younger Gerrard, and we look so much better...

Agreed. I think he could make a successful manager cause he is intelligent and talks a good game but you need significant experience. Years on the grind for it to fall in place. 

On the pig headedness I feel his history with football, basically been in it his whole life and vety successful might have brought that on. A by-product. 

18 hours ago, Slojo said:

I don't know, I get that sentiment a lot on this forum to be honest. I think some are or at least were eager for him to fail for the sake of Frank. 

You are right. It's not just Tuchel. I believe this started the moment Lamps got the Derby gig. We started strongly with Sarri, when we hit a bad patch as can happen to most teams it was Sarri out. 

The fan base agitated by the fuel poured on Sarri by the media. It was pretty much all with the end game of getting Lamps in I believe. 

It wasn't surprising at all Sarri walked. Juve was a job he maybe couldn't turn down but better treatment by the fans wouldn't have had him being so distant from us and maybe not just walk the way he did. 

6 hours ago, Argo said:

Which is your opinion and that's fair enough. I think what Slojo is referring to is why weren't the Sarri outers (some of whom amoung the loudest at aggressively going at anyone who wanted a change this time) given the same lectures about honour, integrity etc?

Argo it was because the reason they were Sarri out was so Frank could come in. 

Why would they hold him to the, pardon the pun, frankly ridiculous standards and accusations they lobbed Sarri's way. 

A manager that worked his way up from the trenches of football management to achieve global fame and status, and who after all said and done delivered a trophy as well as 4th place. 

Not given a chance but a pup in football management with no stripes is good enough. Yeah right, try another one. 

Saw someone belittling Tuchel's gains thus far on another thread here and the stated assumption that Lampard could have won all the games that Tuchel has played. 

I'm not blowing Tuchel's trumpet nor had any kind of affiliation or leaning towards him before his appointment but the difference between the teams; night and day. 

It's not even about the wins, which of course are great, but the structure, organisation, tactical acumen, management that's clear for all but the severely biased to see. 

Example, compare a Lampard team pressing (mount running all over the place and one or two joining) and Tuchel's team pressing. It's so coordinated and precise, it's not hard to notice the difference. We can allow for the new manager effect and all pulling together to stake a claim for a place in the team but I think it's more something brought on from training sessions. 

That's what Lampard couldn't give because he didn't have it, not that he didn't want to. Experience is key in this game. 

It's why managers like his uncle and their fellow british managers have achieved longevity and still getting jobs even though, they will be considered failures in management on a certain level. They know the league, they have a bit of "guile and smarts" built over years that can help them out of tight spots. 

Though I'll add the caveat, even that juice seems to be running out now. 

 

1 hour ago, abister1 said:

Saw someone belittling Tuchel's gains thus far on another thread here and the stated assumption that Lampard could have won all the games that Tuchel has played. 

Exactly... It's okay for them to do it, but if we do it, ooofffff....

2 hours ago, coco said:

Probably is some truth in that, that's partly why you get a new manager bounce, that and the players try harder for a bit.

It's a new start in a way and Tuchel did say that everyone gets a clean slate, this is why even Kepa had a chance to play. But all that shouldn't surprise our opponents.

5 hours ago, dkw said:

No he isnt, hes a Technical and Performance Advisor, his role is to see all levels are working together. I have no idea how people think he will have made the decision to sack him. He may have been asked for his input but I doubt he wilh have had a key part of the deicision.

To all intents that title is masking the fact he is our technical director. 

He would 100% have been key to the decision. I think to believe he was quietly loyal to Lampard is incredibly naive. 

My guess is he and Azpi turned on Lampard, for likely good reason, when the board asked them "what's gone wrong".

Just now, bisright1 said:

To all intents that title is masking the fact he is our technical director. 

He would 100% have been key to the decision. I think to believe he was quietly loyal to Lampard is incredibly naive. 

My guess is he and Azpi turned on Lampard, for likely good reason, when the board asked them "what's gone wrong".

Where did I say he was loyal to lampard? He's not a director in any way, he doesn't sit in the board. 

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Where did I say he was loyal to lampard? He's not a director in any way, he doesn't sit in the board. 

Well the originally conversation wasn't whether Petr Cech sits on the board, it was whether the same fans angry at the board are angry at Cech because he didn't back Lampard either. 

It's obvious to me and many that Cech, in his role, with his stature at the club, with the guy clearly acting as technical director, would have almost certainly played a key role in Lampard leaving.

28 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Well the originally conversation wasn't whether Petr Cech sits on the board, it was whether the same fans angry at the board are angry at Cech because he didn't back Lampard either. 

It's obvious to me and many that Cech, in his role, with his stature at the club, with the guy clearly acting as technical director, would have almost certainly played a key role in Lampard leaving.

Not almost certain at all. Plenty of boards/senior staff will have differing views on an appointment. He would have been consulted but we've no idea what he said or whether that would have made any difference. We know where the power sits at Chelsea and it's not with Petr Cech. 

3 hours ago, coco said:

Probably is some truth in that, that's partly why you get a new manager bounce, that and the players try harder for a bit.

Totally, there is no video to analyse and no clear patterns you can disrupt. That will come after a few months as it did with Sarri and Lampard. It took a season for it to happen to Conte. 

New manager bounce is why teams sack managers halfway through imo. You bring in some players from the broader squad who were out of favour under the previous manager, everyone tries a bit harder to maintain or win their place. We've seen over a long time that it works. Only time it hasn't was under Hiddink when Jose was sacked. 

The alternative is the old Fergie approach where he stayed but turned over the team every 2 or 3 years to keep everyone on their toes. New players came in to add competition every year. You had to maintain or go to another level or else you were out the door. Bayern do this also. Best young players from Germany and elsewhere come in - you had to lift your level to keep your place. If not you see with Hummels or Gotze or Gomez or Douglas Costa that they are ruthless and ship you out. 

35 minutes ago, Spiller86 said:

Totally, there is no video to analyse and no clear patterns you can disrupt. That will come after a few months as it did with Sarri and Lampard. It took a season for it to happen to Conte. 

New manager bounce is why teams sack managers halfway through imo. You bring in some players from the broader squad who were out of favour under the previous manager, everyone tries a bit harder to maintain or win their place. We've seen over a long time that it works. Only time it hasn't was under Hiddink when Jose was sacked. 

Speaking strictly for the league we didn't really have a bounce under Robbie or Rafa either, the former rallied the old guard for a last chance at CL (understatement) but his PPG in the league was actually worse than AVB. 

I wouldn't even say Hiddink 1.0 was a new manager bounce, it was a better manager bounce (Hiddink was a genius tactically back then and doesn't get the rave reviews he deserves for his work first time round). We all probably have different views on what a new manager bounce is, for me it's an unsustainable temporary lift where players pretty much play on cloud nine out of relief the previous manager has gone and the new man has came in and implimented their favoured tactics and/or tells them to play more freely. The main examples of that are Solskjaer, Shakespeare and Sherwood, even when things were rosy you knew they weren't keeping that up. Hiddink 1.0 would have maintained the "bounce" the following season and won us the league in my opinion, Tuchel I feel his tactics are sustainable aswell infact I think that's what is carrying us at the moment, yes things could be better in terms of chance creation but our game management since he's arrived has been absolutely brilliant.

Infact you say the only time we didn't have a mid season manager bounce was Hiddink 2.0, I personally think that was the closest we came to one in every sense of (what I see as) the meaning. Although a lot were draws we went on the longest unbeaten run of the season after he took over which was pretty good going given the absolute unprecedented collapse he inherited.

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by Argo

42 minutes ago, Argo said:

Speaking strictly for the league we didn't really have a bounce under Robbie or Rafa either, the former rallied the old guard for a last chance at CL (understatement) but his PPG in the league was actually worse than AVB. 

I wouldn't even say Hiddink 1.0 was a new manager bounce, it was a better manager bounce (Hiddink was a genius tactically back then and doesn't get the rave reviews he deserves for his work first time round). We all probably have different views on what a new manager bounce is, for me it's an unsustainable temporary lift where players pretty much play on cloud nine out of relief the previous manager has gone and the new man has came in and implimented their favoured tactics and/or tells them to play more freely. The main examples of that are Solskjaer, Shakespeare and Sherwood, even when things were rosy you knew they weren't keeping that up. Hiddink 1.0 would have maintained the "bounce" the following season and won us the league in my opinion, Tuchel I feel his tactics are sustainable aswell infact I think that's what is carrying us at the moment, yes things could be better in terms of chance creation but our game management since he's arrived has been absolutely brilliant.

Infact you say the only time we didn't have a mid season manager bounce was Hiddink 2.0, I personally think that was the closest we came to one in every sense of (what I see as) the meaning. Although a lot were draws we went on the longest unbeaten run of the season after he took over which was pretty good going given the absolute unprecedented collapse he inherited.

Got to disagree there, I think a manager bounce is simply a manager bounce, when a manager comes in and the team starts playing well. I think you're looking into it too much, obviously the players have to get credit, it's very rarely just down to the manager, there's too many facets to this thing. 

When Ole tookover from Mourinho, that was a manager bounce, they had a great run of form playing from the positivity of Mourinho going. We as Chelsea fans know this better than anyone. 

40 minutes ago, Slojo said:

Got to disagree there, I think a manager bounce is simply a manager bounce, when a manager comes in and the team starts playing well. I think you're looking into it too much, obviously the players have to get credit, it's very rarely just down to the manager, there's too many facets to this thing. 

When Ole tookover from Mourinho, that was a manager bounce, they had a great run of form playing from the positivity of Mourinho going. We as Chelsea fans know this better than anyone. 

Yeah there's some genuine example's like the Ole one which was pretty much down to the fact he wasn't the predecessor but I think as a general rule it's overplayed, the "bounce" under Hiddink 1.0 was simply because he was a vastly superior manager to Scolari.

6 hours ago, Slojo said:

Exactly... It's okay for them to do it, but if we do it, ooofffff....

 

Sounds like cancel culture, which is a very very nasty disease.

17 hours ago, yorkleyblue said:

The loyalty I referred to is not the club's, though I dispute your interpretation of how the board has behaved over the years, but fans like you whose attitude is exactly what I was referring to.  And some of us have a bit more than 20 years of that.

 

Like I said, no loyalty, no honour, no integrity.

As long as we have the board and owner we currently have you just have to witness this lack of loyalty, honour and integrity year in year out. You can continue to fight it or accept it. I am pretty sure it is the former in your case. 

And thank you for explaining me to me. I never knew myself nor what kind of fan I was. Now I know.

11 hours ago, coco said:

Probably is some truth in that, that's partly why you get a new manager bounce, that and the players try harder for a bit.

Probably that isn't the case with us. Probably only kova perform better under Tuchel than lamp even that is not exactly true because kova was poty last year. 

The easy explanation is quite simple. We are in easy fixture run under Tuchel. 

10 hours ago, bisright1 said:

To all intents that title is masking the fact he is our technical director. 

He would 100% have been key to the decision. I think to believe he was quietly loyal to Lampard is incredibly naive. 

My guess is he and Azpi turned on Lampard, for likely good reason, when the board asked them "what's gone wrong".

So this is a 100% guess? 

 

Such a funny set of views. I wasn’t big on Tuchel when first announced, didn’t think he’d done as well as he might at PSG, but i a, happy he;s got the job. I  see a lot more than just a new manager bounce although there surely is one of those. 
 

chelsea discard players at a moments notice. Ramires is the one that first comes to mind. A fantastic player on his day, woykdnt have won the cl without him and gone within a year (from memory). 
you have to remember Frank didn’t get the job on merit. so why should he keep it  out of loyalty or integrity? It was a risky gamble and the cold judgement is, it wasn’t working. Just like RDM winning the cl but he wasn’t much of a manager, as his subsequent career shows. 
‘Tuchel is a pro manager. Not an ex pro player, but a pro manager. How well he does will depend on the players. As anyone knows the best predictor of success is the first team wages bill. A good manager can only make a modest difference, but that modest difference can be important. 

44 minutes ago, charierre said:

So this is a 100% guess? 

 

Maybe I'm in the minority here in being personally certain that Cech was part of the decision to exit Lampard. 

But that doesn't mean I am wrong. 

If some people like to live in the fantasy land that Cech would never "betray" his "mate" then I can understand. Ill stop piping up about it. 

22 hours ago, evissy said:

If you start rambling on about loyalty you need to get a reality check. Chelsea as a club is loyal to every player, every staff member, every fan and every associate. Chelsea is also loyal to the agreement made with the manager. The only person (team) that is discarded is the first men's team manager. We have a 20 year experience in that. We all should by now know how wobbly the seat is. And still we manage to attract the best managers in the planet to that wobbly seat. Anyone who takes that seat know that you need to meet the criteria. 

That second part of your rambling is just telling me you are old. Nothing more. There is no insight, nor information. It is just a bit bitter. You are naturally welcome to air those ideas here but expect a reply. 

Hope the times are not sad for you, I really do. 

20 years?

Chelsea have been sacking first team managers at the first sign of trouble since the 70s.

Like another post said it's not just the results but performances which have improved. 

Pressing is such a big part of the game now when playing top teams and even smaller teams. Our press is more cohesive now compared to Lampard's press which opponents could easily play around. We are winning the ball back more often. 

We will see how good we really are next week. Need to start creating more clear cut chances and scoring more than 2 goals would be nice. CHO has been good but him alongside our other forwards need to shoot and score more. Would like to see Pulisic or Havertz up top with Werner because Giroud is static and they would add more attacking threat, however much abysmal they are now they can't be worse than Kovacic in the final 3rd (my favourite player right now so I'm not hating on him). We really need a 2nd striker to play alongside Werner and I'm not sure Abraham/Giroud are fit for the role. Wonder what Tuchel sees as his ideal 11 because he's been tinkering so far. 

Edited February 18, 20215 yr by Valhalla

27 minutes ago, bisright1 said:

Maybe I'm in the minority here in being personally certain that Cech was part of the decision to exit Lampard. 

But that doesn't mean I am wrong. 

If some people like to live in the fantasy land that Cech would never "betray" his "mate" then I can understand. Ill stop piping up about it. 

It also means you can’t be 100%?  He may have been involved none of us know unless we are privy to boardroom minutes. I’d personally think that a decision was taken at the top and no matter who agreed or disagreed it was carried out. This of course is just speculation on my behalf and could be bs like the rest of spout.

31 minutes ago, charierre said:

It also means you can’t be 100%?  He may have been involved none of us know unless we are privy to boardroom minutes. I’d personally think that a decision was taken at the top and no matter who agreed or disagreed it was carried out. This of course is just speculation on my behalf and could be bs like the rest of spout.

Sorry I slipped into hyperbole with my 100%

I'm 99% sure Cech was a part of that decision. If he wasn't, then I don't really know what the point of his job is.