Avram vs Claudio - You decide!

[Mike O]

Who is / was the better Chelsea manager out of Claudio and Avram?

I realise that we are looking at a four year career vs a one year stint but, bearing in mind the trials and tribulations that both have gone through, who do you think is more worthy of history's symapthies?

I'll kick off by voting Avram because:

1. He's made a lot less active and idiotic tactical mistakes than Claudio ever did

2. He got us to a CL final

Let debate commence!

[valim]

Avram and ten kate

Simple the best than Claudio

He giv us more heart

[quizgod]

Claudio did say when he came to the club, it would take him 4 seasons to land the EPL, he was here for 3 and then JM came and we won the EPL.

Most of the signings of that team were Claudio's

Yes he tinkered, but he was getting there. In his 3 seasons we finished 4th, 3rd and 2nd.

He got us to a CL Semi.

I prefer him to Grant.

[aussiegood]

Claudio is a manager

Grant is an imposter

Claudio wins by default

[ethicalstrategy]

Who is / was the better Chelsea manager out of Claudio and Avram?

f**king hell! You're nothing but a trouble maker you are.

Safe to fart again yet?

Oh and my answer is Claudio, of course.

[Mike O]

Safe to fart again yet?

Not sure yet. There have been one or two 'close calls' over the last week....

[glory55]

Ranieri is my choice.

[bonetti]

Ranieri for me - if he had of inherited what Grant did.....

[Guest]

I've stuck up for Grant quite a bit.

But if given the choice between him and Ranieri, I would very very emotionally vote Ranieri. His heart is as blue as Terry's.

[heckel]

Absolutely no question that Ranieri is a better manager.

All you have to do is compare the players' responses to each. Where all backed Ranieri and were extremely loyal, you have the likes of Ballack refusing to give straight answers to questions about Grant. Ranieri's work during his time with us is *still* felt in the Terry, Lampard Makalele spine.

To be fair though, Grant's approach has been different from our past two, and maybe for the current situation his way his better:

1) Always be cautious and make sure the status quo in team selection is maintained (thus ensuring that Mourinho's good work was not undone).

2) Getting on with Roman (the only manager to have done so)

-----

We could rephrase the question like this

What is better management: sitting back and kissing the CEO's arse?

Or developing a team from scarce resources and commanding loyalty and commitment from players?

I don't think a young John Terry would have a hope in hell of getting into Grant's side, which is based on intertia. Ranieri may have made some eccentric team selections, but you could back him to make unpopular decisions (like signing Lampard for 11 million) and sticking to his guns. At the moment Ranieri heads Juventus, I'll be intrigued to see what post Grant can secure when he leaves us.

[ethicalstrategy]

What is better management: sitting back and kissing the CEO's arse?

Or developing a team from scarce resources and commanding loyalty and commitment from players?

Short term it was probably the first but long term it is obviously the latter.

[Mike O]

Claudio did say when he came to the club, it would take him 4 seasons to land the EPL, he was here for 3 and then JM came and we won the EPL.

No, he was here for 4 seasons, from 18/9/00 to 31/5/04.

Most of the signings of that team were Claudio's

Yes, and it took JM about 2 seconds to do what CR had failed to do in four years to the same squad of players - give them belief, a system and consistency.

I watched virtually all of CR's home matches (and many aways) and for 4 years we were constantly bemused as to how this guy could perennially make a pig's ear out of it.

Grant, in contrast, had the brilliant sense not to bugger around with things post JM and let the side re-find itself after the bonbshell of JM's sacking.

Yes he tinkered, but he was getting there. In his 3 seasons we finished 4th, 3rd and 2nd.

No, if 4 seasons he got us to 6th, 6th, 4th and 2nd.

He got us to a CL Semi.

At which point he showed what a panic merchant he was and what a liability at the helm. AG's biggest cock-up was probably the LC final in which he did completely the opposite - absolutely nothing - and still came out with more credit than CR vs Monaco.

AG has, let's admit it, absolutely no personality of any sort to love like many of you did with Claudio, but to my mind he has proved himself a steadier hand in one season than CR ever did in 4.

[ethicalstrategy]

but we still didn't win anything. even though we had big chances to win everything.

in any case the circumstances are really incomparable.

[Mike O]

but we still didn't win anything. even though we had big chances to win everything.

in any case the circumstances are really incomparable.

Ah but what is better - to have reached a CL final and been pipped to the post in the EPL on the last day in one season, than to have done bugger all in 4?

Come on, let's fight....

[dkw]

we didnt win anything, but we were within the width of a post and one result away from the best season ever. this with half a squad of players injured for half the season, players at the ACN, a massively influential coach leaves and is replaced by a pretty underwhelming one and vying with man utds best squad ever (according to the whisky nosed fool anyway). so all in all not too bad really. if you had been offered 2nd place in both the league and champions league in october im sure most chelsea fans would have been more than happy with that.

[ethicalstrategy]

OK then. Choose your weapons!

The truth is that neither are winners. So if I must come second I would prefer to do it with Claudio than Avram. Claudio has a far more impressive CV going back many years and is currently managing on of the top sides in Italy. If Avram leaves he won't get near a top job like that. But I give Avram due respect because he has done a far better job than I would ever have imagined and I think he is an honest and sincere guy.

The big question is what distinguishes

04/05

05/06

06/07

from

00/01

01/02

02/03

03/04

& 07/08

[dkw]

its strange to see the media now backing grant, though not surprising. they loved claudio because he was a nice guy but didnt win. they now liked grant because hes a nice guy whos won nothing. they didnt like jose because he wasnt interested in sucking up to the media in any way (not that claudio or grant did) and won things. strange how they disliked the one that won things, isnt it. or am i being cynical.

[Blue Sun Tzu]

To be frank, I would like us all to be looking forward rather than ruminating on the past. For that reason I shan't be voting!

[heckel]

Mike can you actually name any POSITIVE contributions that Grant has made?

According to what you've written anyone on this forum could have done what Grant did: f*ck all other than kept the boat steady. I can't see how maintaining the status quo is 'brilliant' - it might be 'shrewd', but I think 'cautious' or 'lazy' are more apposite. Grant stated his intention to get us playing a new attacking style but quickly retreated behind Mourinho's entrenched strucutre. The failure (to this date) of his one signing is entirely due to this back-tracking, and as a result Anelka is already complaining about the way he has been used.

Neither in 2000 nor in 2003 when Roman came, could Ranieri sit on his arse and let someone else's good work do the talking. So if Grant's entirely negative approach to the position is seen as his strength the possibility of comparison is completely lost.

Ranieri's positive contributions are:

- Blooded new players who are STILL our backbone

- kept us competitive in a period where financial constraints (that were not present for Vialli's tenure) might otherwise have seen us plummet down the league.

-Kept the team together when Roman's tabula rasa attempt to build a new team from scratch threatened to alienate players who had been with us for a long time.

Morinho's success in his first season was in large part down to Ranieri's work in the previous season. And if you want to use (as no doubt you will) the example of Ranieri sticking with JFH you have to also assess whether selecting Lampard over Veron was a good move.

[dkw]

i think your being a bit harsh their heckel. to steady the boat and keep us in contention for both the league and europe with the hideous injury list and massive upheavel at the club was pretty impressive. wether he was the main person in all this, or a figure head is questionable. but the fact is he was manager and was in the firing line from day one. hes been under massive pressure and has been derided from all quarters, including our fans. so to ride that out and come through with his integrity and his stock with the fans at a higher level than when he started is an achievement.

[Liam]

I liked Ranieri but unfortunately when the pressure came on he panicked. I imagine he might well do the same again if in the same situation.

Grant has impressed with how he has handled the big occasions recently. He certainly doesn't bottle it which makes me think we would have a better chance of winning something under him.

[Mike O]

Mike can you actually name any POSITIVE contributions that Grant has made? According to what you've written anyone on this forum could have done what Grant did: f*ck all other than kept the boat steady.

Interestingly, most of us spent 4 years under CR thinking anyone on this forum could do a better job than he did. Remember Jokanavic? Remember continually subbing Zola with Jokanvic? Remember Wise at left back? Remember JFH at right back etc etc.

He did bring in some great players but he could not make them work together. He was a lovely guy but he was no effective manager

I can't see how maintaining the status quo is 'brilliant' - it might be 'shrewd', but I think 'cautious' or 'lazy' are more apposite. Grant stated his intention to get us playing a new attacking style but quickly retreated behind Mourinho's entrenched strucutre. The failure (to this date) of his one signing is entirely due to this back-tracking, and as a result Anelka is already complaining about the way he has been used.

I hear where you are coming from, but my guess is that if CR had replaced JM, he would have promptly disassembled the whole team / approach / ethic and tried to remould it in his image. And it would have immediately failed. You are right - 'shrewd' is a better word for Grant and he should be applauded for it.

Neither in 2000 nor in 2003 when Roman came, could Ranieri sit on his arse and let someone else's good work do the talking.... Ranieri's positive contributions are:

- kept us competitive in a period where financial constraints (that were not present for Vialli's tenure) might otherwise have seen us plummet down the league.

Actually, Ranieri initially undid all of Luca's good work and, for 4 years, brought us no silverware (vs the great haul that Ruud / Luca brought in in previous seasons).

Don't get me wrong, I'm no major lover of AG but I actually think, under the incredible circumstances of this season, a) he's done a great job and B) CR would have done a lot, lot worse.

[heckel]

He did bring in some great players but he could not make them work together. He was a lovely guy but he was no effective manager

[...]

I hear where you are coming from, but my guess is that if CR had replaced JM, he would have promptly disassembled the whole team / approach / ethic and tried to remould it in his image. And it would have immediately failed. You are right - 'shrewd' is a better word for Grant and he should be applauded for it.

[...]

Actually, Ranieri initially undid all of Luca's good work and, for 4 years, brought us no silverware (vs the great haul that Ruud / Luca brought in in previous seasons).

I agree with you - his strengths were not on match day, they were in building and maintaining good spirit in squad. As I've said on another thread, he's now heading a Juve side that should be challenging for the Serie A next season, let's see if, unlike chelsea '03/'04, he can take his opportunity and win something.

CR had to reshape the Vialli side because it was aging, brining Terry, Gallas and Lampard into the first team saw to that and as those players stature grew so did our fortunes, would this have been the case if Vialli and the old guard stayed?

The Juve example cancels out the notion that Ranieri automatically tears sides apart. He's kept the squad in roughly the same shape as when he took over because no 'tinkering' was required. With CL $ coming in he'll be hitting the transfer market and no doubt will have as good sense as he did when he was with us.

To be fair to Grant, if his job description was to steward the side through this season and let someone else take over he's done well. If he has had a real mandate thought, my assessment is that he's been far too cautious and that the side is basically where it was a year ago.

[Mr Chelsea]

i dont think its fair to make the comparrison

where's it going to stop

avram v drake, hoddle v campbell, vialli v guillit

they have both made contributions to chelsea, and are part of our history

we should leave it at that

[abramovich]

I don't think you can make a fair comparison between the two.

Claudio has spent four years with the club while Grant hasn't even had a full season.

At the same time Ranieri haven't had the kind of quality you need to compete for big trophies until his last season which was Roman's first. Grant inherited a squad full of quality and players who had won everything in the country over the last three seasons but he had to deal with so many things beyond his control( long term injuries, ACN, media pressure surrounding post Mourinho Chelsea, etc)

Both won nothing, but Claudio had much more time to work with a team while Grant had little time but better players to work with.