New Manager in the Summer

[Guest Brian M]

I've been saying ever since Grant took over, that at best I expect him to be a make-shift manager for us until the end of the season, and then to bumped back up-stairs to his 'Director of Football' role. And that I would like to see Rijkaard managing us next season.

Not that I'm saying that Rijkaard is all that. Just that of the managers that are likely to be available in the summer, he's the one who best fits in with Roman's criteria. ie. Has won the CL AND favours playing sexy football.

As you can see from the head to head stats, Rijkaard is more likely to lose matches than JM. Or to put it another way, JM is more likely to win matches tha Rijkaard. But Rijkaard is also more likely to play the sort of attacking free flowing football that the fans (and Roman) want.

Jose

Chelsea 02-06-2004 20-09-2007

games 185 won 124 lost 21 drawn 40

Win ratio: 67%

Rijkaard's

Barcelona 01-07-2003 Present

games 252 won 153 lost 42 drawn 57

Win ration: 61%

So who would you like to see managing us next season (and why)?

[TheWestwayWonder]

Its interesting you put Rijkaard forth, Brian. I think the difficulty with the belief that a manager with a certain style of play will be able to make that imprint on the current team we have is more to do with our personnel.

Jose's style was defensive, that much is true, and this current team is really the one built to his specifications. Drogba, Essien, speed on the wings, size at the back.

I think a new manager is going to trigger that same spending we saw three summers ago, maybe not to the same degree, but there will certainly be some rotation going on.

All that said, my stated preference is for Guus Hiddink.

Here is a guy who is good, damn good, especially in the cup mode of football. With Russia and South Korea he has shown that getting alot from very little is what he does. And he was able to show both dominance and consistency while at PSV. I know PSV are a powerhouse, but very few teams even got a sniff of the Eredivise while he was there.

Hiddink appeals to me, because I think his connections to intl. football might make him more astute at finding those real diamonds in the rough in terms of talent, and that already includes Ten Cate and Arnesen, the track record for developing youth could lay the foundations at this club for generations to come.

Not to mention he would knock raffa the laffa flat on his ass the next time we met the red scum in the CL

edit: nevermind, thought he was at PSV for much longer, but the point still stands. Two years, two easy league titles, and nearly got into the CL final if Milans luck had not kicked in. I also forgot about what he has achieved with Australia

[forbzy]

I'd love to think we have another manager lined up but I think you give the people who run our club too much credit. Today they got what they deserved.

They drove out the best manager in our history and replaced him with a noname. They basically did the same thing as Charlton when they replaced Curbishley with Les Reed. Only on a bigger scale. Grant managed to get by for a while on the quality of the squad but it has become apparent in the last month that he really is totally out of his depth. I hope I'm wrong but I can't see us winning anything as long as he is in charge. I just hope they aren't stupid enough to let him go any further than this season.

[Peeking Duck?]

I'd love to think we have another manager lined up but I think you give the people who run our club too much credit. Today they got what they deserved.

They drove out the best manager in our history and replaced him with a noname.

There was a news story somewhere (can't find it now - will try again later) shortly after The Cadaver was appointed that Kenyon and Buck disagreed with Roman over appointing Grant. To paraphrase, it was suggested they told Roman he did not have the skills or credentials to manage a team full of internationals. They suggested letting Clarke run things as interim until they could find a suitable replacement - maybe a Capello, Lippi, Klinsmann, etc. Roman said no, and a vote was called to appoint Avram. Guess who won the vote?

[Guest Brian M]

I'm sure most of us Chelsea fans would've been more than happy for Clark to manage from when JM left to the end of the season. Possibly with Zola as his number 2!

[BLUENUT]

Does Roman really want entertaining football or a stooge in charge that lets him in the dressing room?

Was Avram really hired to bring us sexy football?? C'mon Roman we're not that stupid!

[Elliott]

If Hiddink came, i would probably do a sex wee.

[Guest]

As an Aussie, im a huge Hiddink fan. But I do have my doubts about Hiddink at Chelsea, not because I don't think his quality, but because I think his old and would only give the club a few seasons. Also it should be remembered that he (aparently) isn't on good terms with his fellow dutchman ( ) Frank Arnesen.

At the end of the day, I think people have to be realistic about what a manager can and can't give us. There is no manager in the world that is going to win us the quad on a year in year out basis and do it playing beautiful football every match, its just not realistic.

If we can get the same results we did under Mourinho, that will surely be considered a success.

[Guest]

I just thought I should add that Mourinho's record is very close to that of Grant up untill the current point of both manager's Chelsea career and Mourinho had close to a full squad whereas Grant had a horror injury run that would cripple any other team in the league than Chelsea. All of which proves that its the players who win and lose you football matches and the difference between a good and poor manager can be negligable.

[Guest Brian M]

All of which proves that its the players who win and lose you football matches and the difference between a good and poor manager can be negligible.

True. But never is that difference highlighted more than in a final or against other 'big' teams. And in all of these games, Grant has been found wanting.

[bonetti]

All of which proves that its the players who win and lose you football matches and the difference between a good and poor manager can be negligible.

True. But never is that difference highlighted more than in a final or against other 'big' teams. And in all of these games, Grant has been found wanting.

not surprising given that his appointment was as a result of cronyism and not merit

[Guest]

All of which proves that its the players who win and lose you football matches and the difference between a good and poor manager can be negligible.

True. But never is that difference highlighted more than in a final or against other 'big' teams. And in all of these games, Grant has been found wanting.

Your judging this on what.........3 football matches?.

Any idiot can pick up a side and win or lose you a few football matches off the bat. Great managers are great managers because they can gradually improve a side over the long term.

[MURDOCH_(8)]

All of which proves that its the players who win and lose you football matches and the difference between a good and poor manager can be negligible.

True. But never is that difference highlighted more than in a final or against other 'big' teams. And in all of these games, Grant has been found wanting.

Your judging this on what.........3 football matches?.

Any idiot can pick up a side and win or lose you a few football matches off the bat. Great managers are great managers because they can gradually improve a side over the long term.

By no means three big games. The Liverpool game? How about when the top three won all they games and when we played Portsmouth, the time we actually needed to win to gain momentum, and when it really mattered, Grant didn't deliver. Or the Schalke game? May not seem like such an important game now but at the time it was a big game and yet again he didn't deliver. Make no mistake about it, we qualified from that group because of the incompetence of other teams not through skill. The Olympiacos game as well? That was a big game, didn't deliver. Judging on three games? F**k off mate, his failure in all the games that mattered.

[Guest Brian M]

I'll do it: Rijkaard will quit Barca in summer and is ready for talks with Chelsea

By NEIL ASHTON

Avram Grant came under further pressure last night after sources close to Barcelona coach Frank Rijkaard confirmed that he would consider an offer to manage Chelsea.

Sportsmail revealed Chelsea's interest in Rijkaard last October and yesterday the word was that he will quit Barca at the end of the season.

Although Grant still has the backing of owner Roman Abramovich, his position is under close scrutiny following Sunday's Carling Cup Final loss to Tottenham.

Grant is expected to be replaced unless he wins one of the four big trophies this season and the club's attentions are returning to Rijkaard. The Dutchman has won the Spanish league twice and the Champions League in 2006, while his team is widely regarded as the most entertaining in Europe.

He has just over a year left on his contract and had originally intended to take a 12-month sabbatical after five years at the Nou Camp.

But a source close to Rijkaard confirmed yesterday that he would consider shelving those plans if the Chelsea job becomes available.

He said: 'Frank is leaving Barcelona at the end of the season. That has always been the plan and at the moment it is 100 per cent that he will.

'The only thing that could change his mind is if they win the title or the European Cup again and then there would be a decision to be made.

' He's got a year left at Barcelona but in the past he has always said Chelsea are a big club. Of course he would be interested if the job became available.'

Rijkaard is coveted by Abramovich and is understood to be one of two names under consideration, with AC Milan coach Carlo Ancelotti also in the frame.

Ancelotti and Rijkaard are two of only five people to win the European Cup as players and managers, but the Dutchman is the preferred candidate.

Rijkaard began his coaching career at Sparta Rotterdam and although they were relegated for the first time in their history, he worked in every area of the club, including the ticketing and marketing offices as part of an internship while he was studying for his UEFA coaching qualifications.

It is his commitment to attacking football that has drawn envious glances from Stamford Bridge.

He is also ruthless with his senior players and he demonstrated that streak in last night's Copa del Rey semi-final against Valencia by leaving Ronaldinho out of his squad.

Reputations count for little with Rijkaard and he has become one of Europe's most sought-after coaches.

If Chelsea replace Grant at the end of the season, Rijkaard can expect the call to transform their fortunes.

Chelsea first- team coach Henk Ten Cate worked with Rijkaard in Barcelona's European Cup-winning season but his hardline reputation has failed to impress senior Chelsea players. There are various factions forming in the dressing-room but John Terry is determined to rekindle the spirit that made them so successful under Jose Mourinho.

It was Ten Cate's involvement last week that led to an altercation with Terry but the Dutch coach may yet have allies in the Chelsea dressing room.

Chelsea sources revealed yesterday that assistant Steve Clarke and the highly regarded first- team coach Brendan Rogers take most training sessions, while Ten Cate is responsible for 'team shape'.

In complete contrast to his predecessor Mourinho, Grant simply watches from the sidelines and rarely has any input.

Chelsea begin their recovery programme against West Ham on Saturday but the players are not convinced Grant has the stature to turn their season around.

[Guest Brian M]

Rijkaard 'will not move to Chelsea this year'

AP

Rijkaard has endured a tricky season at Barcelona, but results have improved dramatically of late and the club are closing on Real Madrid at the top of La Liga

Thursday, 28 February 2008

Chelsea will face an uphill task if they attempt to lure Frank Rijkaard to Stamford Bridge in the summer, the Barcelona head coach's brother and adviser said yesterday.

With mounting concern over whether or not Avram Grant should continue beyond this season as Chelsea manager, Rijkaard's name has again been mentioned, by associates of the club's owner, Roman Abramovich, as a possible successor. Chelsea considered a move for Rijkaard last season, when they were close to sacking Grant's predecessor Jose Mourinho, and some contact was made then with the 45-year-old former Netherlands international, who fits the bill as the kind of coach the Russian billionaire has considered employing.

If Rijkaard did move, it would mean reuniting him with Henk ten Cate, Chelsea's assistant manager, who was his assistant at Barça when they won the European Cup in 2006 with the free-flowing, attacking football that Abramovich craves. Rijkaard and Ten Cate, who has had recent difficulties following a blazing row with the Chelsea captain, John Terry, remain firm friends.

The Rijkaard camp are aware of the renewed interest but Herman Rijkaard told The Independent that his brother, whose contract at the Nou Camp runs until 2009, has decided to see out the remainder of his deal "at the moment". He claimed that any potential offer would stumble because "he's not the kind of guy who signs a deal and then doesn't fulfil it".

Rijkaard has endured a tricky season at Barcelona, but results and performances have improved dramatically of late and the club are closing on Real Madrid at the top of La Liga and are still in the Champions League. Last night they played the first leg of the Copa del Rey semi-final against Valencia. "Frank is having a very good time at Barcelona," Herman Rijkaard said. "This is his fifth year and it is going well at the moment. The team is growing and if they can keep growing they will win the championship. He has one season left [after this one] and he has decided to fulfil his contract period with Barcelona. All the fuss is happening where you are in England."

That fuss grew after Chelsea's defeat to Tottenham Hotspur in the League Cup final on Sunday amid growing signs of unrest in the squad with Grant. Abramovich has been far more conspicuous at the club in the past few days, while a series of discussions has been held as to why Chelsea performed so badly.

It has led to an increased sense that Grant will have to oversee a dramatic improvement, and probably win a trophy, if he is to have any chance of continuing in the post after this season, even though he only recently signed a three-year deal.

Herman Rijkaard said he was aware of Chelsea's difficulties but said of his brother: "Maybe they [Chelsea] would like to have him because he is a good trainer and a decent guy, but it is not an option at the moment. He has still one year left and he's not the kind of guy who signs a deal and then doesn't fulfil it."

The key phrase in that statement – and one that he used several times – is "at the moment". Although Barça have publicly distanced themselves from claims that they have already lined up Mourinho to replace Rijkaard, there does appear to be some foundation in the claims, although the Portuguese is also interesting, and interested in, Milan.

Nevertheless, Herman Rijkaard said he expected his brother to take a year off after he leaves Barcelona "and do nothing". He added: "But we are happy at the moment. Barcelona is a big club with big players and it's a beautiful city. He and his family are very happy there."

Asked whether or not Abramovich's millions could not eventually lure Rijkaard, Herman Rijkaard said: "Frank has money. He can eat two or three steaks a day if he wants to. He has a contract and he is happy."

[Katon]

By no means three big games. The Liverpool game? How about when the top three won all they games and when we played Portsmouth, the time we actually needed to win to gain momentum,

You mean the game immediately after we'd tied our club-record winning run with half the squad injured and the other half in Africa? Even Jose drew league matches occasionally. Except for the matches against ManU/Arse/Liverpool, Grant's done better than we had any right to expect in the league. You can argue that he's not good enough against elite teams to win us a trophy, and given the evidence so far I'd completely agree with you. But he has gotten some things right.

[Guest Brian M]

But he has gotten some things right.

No, the players have got some things right. When we had all the injuries and players away, the team pretty much picked itself. And all credit to the squad players for doing well. But whenever Grant has been required to get the better of a 'big' manager at a 'big' team, he's been found wanting. Make no mistake, we're where we are in the league because of the players' (rappidly fading) belief that they are 'winners', and not because of anything Grant has done. I can't believe some people on here are defending this guy! He wasn't up to the task when he got the job, and nothing that has happened to make me think he's up to the task now. He doesn't have the respect of the players - who all wanted / deserved / expected - a top manager to replace JM. He can't motivate players (he gets others to do this). He can't train the team (he gets others to do this). And he doesn't know how to change tactics mid game to get the better of an opposing manager. All he does is pick the team and settle on one formation that he is then petrified to change during the game if it's not working.

Grant is a back-room mover and shaker. He is not a top level, front line, football manager. And frankly, we deserve so much better.

[Guest]

You mean all 3-4 games allways?..........

Remember we were unlucky to lose to Arsenal, Mikel shouldn't have been sent off against Man Utd (it was his first game in charge too with all the fall-out just having occured) and that changed the game.

Whether or not he inspires confidence, fact is he hasn't done too badly, certainly not as badly as people are making out.

I should point out clearly again in case people forget, i'm not suggesting Grant is a brilliant or world class manager or that he should be Chelsea manager long term, but I am saying that anyone who suggests he hasn't done reasonably well as manager is getting caught up in the emotion of the situation and not judging him objectively.

[Guest Brian M]

is getting caught up in the emotion of the situation and not judging him objectively.

There's nothing objective about losing to f*cking Sp*rs at Wembley.

[Katon]

But he has gotten some things right.

No, the players have got some things right.

Then why didn't the players get those kind of results last year when we were down to our squad players? Why couldn't they motivate themselves on Sunday? Assuming everything bad that happens is Grant's fault and everything good is because of someone else is silly. Grant's done a good job of keeping the team on course against weaker opposition, a bad job against big teams, and a disastrous job in the cup final. Add it all up and he hasn't been good enough to be our long-term manager - being able to motivate people for a cup final against Spurs is kind of a minimum job qualification - but that doesn't mean he's never done anything right.

[Guest]

If the players aren't able to motivate themselves for a cup final they shouldn't be at Chelsea Football Club.

[mez]

If the players aren't able to motivate themselves for a cup final they shouldn't be at Chelsea Football Club.

No. You can't blame the players. Working to a bad manager is a horrible thing to do.

Relationships fall apart even when millions are involved.

Mez

[dustbin00]

Hardly ever post but my two cents on the Grant situation

This was written recently by an American columnist/blogger for ESPN Bill Simmons, it's about basketball but I think it applies

"We saw this happen to Rick Pitino in Boston. It's VERY easy to figure out when an NBA team has quit on its coach. You know right away. The players have no energy and no connection to each other. The coach sits there listlessly on the bench and looking like he's undergoing a chemo treatment every game. Guys are arguing in huddles and on the court. The team gets blown out at home a disproportionate amount of time. Everyone sitting in the stands is asking questions about their best guys like, "Wait, is he stoned?" and "You don't think he's shaving points(Throwing the game), right?" The coach starts clinging to that "We didn't compete tonight" rhetoric, which sounds like a great excuse until you remember he's the guy who's supposed to get everyone competing. I mean, you know when the wheels come off with an NBA coach."

Are we at the stage where Grant has lost the team? No, absolutely not. A month ago we were putting up a winning streak rivaling that of Jose's with a bare bones squad, Ballack was arguably playing his best football in a Chelsea shirt and our home unbeaten run never looked to be under threat. However, February has shown exactly why Grant should have no long term future with the club, as there have been way too many warning signs showing that Grant will almost certainly "lose the dressing room", even if we do go on another run of victorious games. This is because, Grant simply cannot motivate his players, not just as individuals, but as a team.

As a coach, motivation goes far beyond war crys, yelling and tear-inducing speeches before and in the middle of games. Proper motivation comes from a proper pre-match buildup. The training ground sessions , the pre-match review of scouting reports, the match selection process all play integral parts in making sure that each player knows the exact role they are playing on the pitch and how that role will contribute to the victory of the team. Whether a player is in the starting 11, or on the subs bench, good match preparation will allow them to set themselves up mentally for the game. This is the system that enables players to "motivate themselves".

With Grant, he does not seem to do any of this. From leaving the team selection till the last minute for the Cup Final (which allegedly lead to a training ground bust up), to benching his two most in-form players (ballack and cole), especially when it was on their stellar play that got the team to the final, Grant not only failed to motivate the team, but lost the trust of two of his best players. How can a player motivate himself if he doesn't even know if he will start? How can Chelsea play like a team, when they don't even have time to prepare as a team? The result of a poor pre-match buildup is not just a 2-1 loss, but a gutless, passionless almost dysfunctional 2-1 loss.

Even if we overlook Grant's useless in-game management, even if we make the excuse that he doesn't give team talks due to his poor English, we cannot overlook the fact that he has failed at the most basic aspect of his job, and that is getting his team to compete. If he can't run a proper pre-match buildup before a cup final against one of our most hated rivals, then I can't imagine him doing anymore for a regular season game. And if we want ANY long, or short term success at Chelsea, Grant should not be in charge of our team past the end of the season.

[Guest Brian M]

Well said, DB.

That's exactly the sort of common sense, no nonsense critiquing this forum needs. You should post more, mate. Democrats welcome!

[Chippy]

If the players aren't able to motivate themselves for a cup final they shouldn't be at Chelsea Football Club.

I'd go a long way towards agreeing with this

seems to me most of the articals and quotes so intent on how grant seems to not do this and seems to not do that use the word seems a lot

the players never kissed him before they went out at the weekend, seems the blokes got bad breath aswell