A bunch of young, inexperienced players need someone with experience to lead them. I don't understand the obsession this ownership have with everyone having to be so young and new. It's comical.

24 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Does he even have his coaching badges?

Apparently so.

But he’s only an Assistant in at his current club (Como)

1 hour ago, Sconnie Blue said:

So then A, why get him?

And B, why get rid of Poch when we were likely heading towards a Top 4 finish next season? 

And C, how thick is the ice beneath the feet of the co-directors of football? Get this one wrong and ... ?

5 minutes ago, Zeta said:

A bunch of young, inexperienced players need someone with experience to lead them. I don't understand the obsession this ownership have with everyone having to be so young and new. It's comical.

Didn't a fresh faced Pep mold a very young Messi/Iniesta/Busquets etc. into one of the greatest teams football has seen as they bought into his ideas?

I can see the logic, just another thing to see if it works. 

 

I bet the high profile mystery manager is someone like Mourinho. The board must be absolutely sh*tting themselves about the fan reaction to all this nonsense and that would be one way to get a lot of people back onside ... 

McKenna now heavy favourite with bookmakers 

My theory after a long lunch. @Mod is on the Clearlake payroll. Monetised this thread via clicks to help the FFP cause.

I am actually quite warming to the possibility that is McKenna.

 

Mourinho.  That young team need some maturity and experience around them.  He can also speak English, which after the last manager, has to be a bonus.

19 minutes ago, dermott said:

My theory after a long lunch. @Mod is on the Clearlake payroll. Monetised this thread via clicks to help the FFP cause.

My hope is they'll come in and buy this place, remove all the anti-Clearlake stuff then turn it into a supporters group for Chelsea fans in outer Mongolia!

20 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I am actually quite warming to the possibility that is McKenna.

 

McKenna is already signed up.  The delay is for the Clearlake PR team to convince and get the fans onboard before the announcement.

49 minutes ago, Zeta said:

A bunch of young, inexperienced players need someone with experience to lead them. I don't understand the obsession this ownership have with everyone having to be so young and new. It's comical.

Not very inclusive from our American owners is it. Hope they're are fully up to date with their DEI training

28 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I am actually quite warming to the possibility that is McKenna.

 

How come? Have you watched Ipswich play before?

4 hours ago, Victor90 said:

You got to love Jim, apparently didn't want either of them sacked, but made every excuse in the f**king book for Potter while slagging Pochettino off at every opportunity. 

I didnt want Potter sacked, and thought on balance, that Poch should have been given more time.

You can mock all you like, but my position has been consistent - unlike others who flip flop with every good/bad result.

- I have been consistent that I saw this as a long-term project, and that there would be a lot of short-term painful results before we see progress

- I have been consistent that the new manager should be judged on the evolution and progress of the team, moving us away from a slow and passive side that passes around aimlessly between our defenders for 20 mins at a time, to something more progressive.

- I have been consistent that, given the first bullet point,  the manager should not be judged on results, and that if we were seeing enough progress in the style and identity, that I could take poor results for the long term greater good.

- I have been consistent that the results under Potter were not good enough - but that in my opinion, we were seeing enough small signs of progress to justify giving him more time.

- I have been consistent that the results under Poch were also not good enough - and in my opinion, we were not seeing enough signs of progress on the pitch - Despite this,  I thought on balance that, and given a lack of exciting alternatives, that he had just about done enough to stay on.

 

So - it is all very consistent, balanced and justified. Poch did not show sufficient progress in moving our team on from the slow and ponderous play we have watched for years. He did not show any progress in our ability to defend a cross. He also failed to get the team to control games. He also failed to get the best out of some expensive players.  He also failed to show on a consistent basis that he could change the outcome of a game with tactical tweaks or subs. He also consistently had his team struggle badly in the 2nd half. These are all widely agreed on points, that are difficult to argue.

 

Perhaps I should act like a self entitled child like some of our fans who demand instant success and change my view on a manager 30 times per season.

 

22 minutes ago, Drogba1 said:

How come? Have you watched Ipswich play before?

I have actually. 

“Understand that Kieran McKenna's representatives remain in talks with Chelsea and Brighton, with the Ipswich manager thought to prefer a move to Stamford Bridge at this stage. McKenna is also on Manchester United's shortlist to replace Erik ten Hag if he leaves“

 

Still don’t believe it 

12 minutes ago, terraloon said:

I have actually. 

And? What did you make of them? What's their playstyle?

37 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

Perhaps I should act like a self entitled child like some of our fans who demand instant success and change my view on a manager 30 times per season.

 

50 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I didnt want Potter sacked, and thought on balance, that Poch should have been given more time.

You can mock all you like, but my position has been consistent - unlike others who flip flop with every good/bad result.

- I have been consistent that I saw this as a long-term project, and that there would be a lot of short-term painful results before we see progress

- I have been consistent that the new manager should be judged on the evolution and progress of the team, moving us away from a slow and passive side that passes around aimlessly between our defenders for 20 mins at a time, to something more progressive.

- I have been consistent that, given the first bullet point,  the manager should not be judged on results, and that if we were seeing enough progress in the style and identity, that I could take poor results for the long term greater good.

- I have been consistent that the results under Potter were not good enough - but that in my opinion, we were seeing enough small signs of progress to justify giving him more time.

- I have been consistent that the results under Poch were also not good enough - and in my opinion, we were not seeing enough signs of progress on the pitch - Despite this,  I thought on balance that, and given a lack of exciting alternatives, that he had just about done enough to stay on.

 

So - it is all very consistent, balanced and justified. Poch did not show sufficient progress in moving our team on from the slow and ponderous play we have watched for years. He did not show any progress in our ability to defend a cross. He also failed to get the team to control games. He also failed to get the best out of some expensive players.  He also failed to show on a consistent basis that he could change the outcome of a game with tactical tweaks or subs. He also consistently had his team struggle badly in the 2nd half. These are all widely agreed on points, that are difficult to argue.

 

Perhaps I should act like a self entitled child like some of our fans who demand instant success and change my view on a manager 30 times per season.

 

Don't think Potter was ever that good but you're spot on about Poch.

 

We looked great after inverting Cucurella but prior to that, there was every reason to sack him.

 

As for why the board got rid of Poch once things looked like they were turning around is bizarre to me, especially if we're now gambling on an unproven appointment.

55 minutes ago, nonotnowjim said:

I didnt want Potter sacked, and thought on balance, that Poch should have been given more time.

You can mock all you like, but my position has been consistent - unlike others who flip flop with every good/bad result.

- I have been consistent that I saw this as a long-term project, and that there would be a lot of short-term painful results before we see progress

- I have been consistent that the new manager should be judged on the evolution and progress of the team, moving us away from a slow and passive side that passes around aimlessly between our defenders for 20 mins at a time, to something more progressive.

- I have been consistent that, given the first bullet point,  the manager should not be judged on results, and that if we were seeing enough progress in the style and identity, that I could take poor results for the long term greater good.

- I have been consistent that the results under Potter were not good enough - but that in my opinion, we were seeing enough small signs of progress to justify giving him more time.

- I have been consistent that the results under Poch were also not good enough - and in my opinion, we were not seeing enough signs of progress on the pitch - Despite this,  I thought on balance that, and given a lack of exciting alternatives, that he had just about done enough to stay on.

 

So - it is all very consistent, balanced and justified. Poch did not show sufficient progress in moving our team on from the slow and ponderous play we have watched for years. He did not show any progress in our ability to defend a cross. He also failed to get the team to control games. He also failed to get the best out of some expensive players.  He also failed to show on a consistent basis that he could change the outcome of a game with tactical tweaks or subs. He also consistently had his team struggle badly in the 2nd half. These are all widely agreed on points, that are difficult to argue.

 

Perhaps I should act like a self entitled child like some of our fans who demand instant success and change my view on a manager 30 times per season.

 

What improvement was that under Potter? Being in 10th place and not being able to score? We won 5 games on the bounce with Pochettino, and absolutely thumped Everton and West Ham. 

There was definitely improvement under Poch, keep masking it all you like, it's clear as day you're biased for one and not the other. 

The correct answer is both of them didn't do a good enough job. 

Edited May 23, 20242 yr by Victor90

2 minutes ago, Drogba1 said:

Don't think Potter was ever that good but you're spot on about Poch.

 

We looked great after inverting Cucurella but prior to that, there was every reason to sack him.

 

As for why the board got rid of Poch once things looked like they were turning around is bizarre to me, especially if we're now gambling on an unproven appointment.

You know, I can absolutely tolerate people saying Pochettino deserved the sack and wasn't good enough. But to say that then on the other hand defend Potter, you can f**k right off. 

Feel really uneasy about McKenna coming in, but ready for the circus whoever it is.

Ipswich last season were only 10th in passes completed, which I guess means the football will be pretty direct.

 

Have any teams using direct styles really had success in the Prem recently? Maybe Conte?

 

 

Edited May 23, 20242 yr by Drogba1

Michel from Girona is the answer.

1 hour ago, JM7 said:

“Understand that Kieran McKenna's representatives remain in talks with Chelsea and Brighton, with the Ipswich manager thought to prefer a move to Stamford Bridge at this stage. McKenna is also on Manchester United's shortlist to replace Erik ten Hag if he leaves“

 

Still don’t believe it 

I believe he is in talks with Brighton.