|
On February 12 2015 08:34 NuclearJudas wrote:Villa have fired Lambert. Feels like it had to happen. Absolutely awful football and no real signs of improvement. Still a shame for Lambert, who's been working on a tight budget for a long while. Should have probably sold Benteke, but them's the breaks. Given Villa's excellent academy, this could be a good job for Tactics Tim.
I really like Aston Villa as a club and I really think it would be great for the League to have a strong Birmingham side. I also think that largelly the problems are similar to that of Newcastle and more to do with the owner than anything else. But that been said Villa have been just to poor this season even for the budget and conditions they have been working from. It just wasn't good enough. There are some good players in that Villa team and they have just looked so flat so often this season.
|
|
|
On February 12 2015 08:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 04:25 Twisted wrote:
The thing is, I don't agree with your assessment that he's the type of manager who leaves a club in shambles after he had his success with it. The reason why he's a slow starter is because he wants to change the entire philosophy of a club, not just the first team. He wants all the teams within the club to play a certain style and it takes time for a club to become accustomed to it. Also the players in the first team have to get used to it. Managers you describe like Mourinho look at their squad and choose the playstyle that fits the players best. van Gaal expects the players to do what he thinks even though they've been doing something else their entire career.
mourinho is a pragmatic, but the only way he left any club in shambles (assuming you refer to inter and his first spell at chelsea) is through being so good that expectations are built that the successor can't live up to, creating discontent at what would have been considered decent results before his arrival and thus also the habitual changing of coaches.  mourinho is also a slow starter (always better second than first season), and while he is pragmatic, he also has a preferred playstyle he tries to incorporate into all his teams. it's just that he's willing to deviate in particularly important games - especially before he is done with the creation phase/when facing teams he considers better than his own (squad wise). If you mostly watch his big games, you'll see him as a more defensive manager than if you watch his average league games - and his teams also score plenty goals. honestly I think van gaal and mourinho are very much alike, with the key difference being that mourinho is much more charismatic and "media friendly".
Mourinho's third season Madrid's dressing room was in shambles, though you can argue that his departure united everyone against him and Madrid very much went on with the style of play played by Mourinho. Still I feel that Madrid was the one time things didn't go Mourinho's way and that showed both on and off the pitch. Chelsea is different though, he is well liked by the fans and the team is playing marvellous football.
|
On February 12 2015 19:18 Ysellian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 08:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 12 2015 04:25 Twisted wrote:
The thing is, I don't agree with your assessment that he's the type of manager who leaves a club in shambles after he had his success with it. The reason why he's a slow starter is because he wants to change the entire philosophy of a club, not just the first team. He wants all the teams within the club to play a certain style and it takes time for a club to become accustomed to it. Also the players in the first team have to get used to it. Managers you describe like Mourinho look at their squad and choose the playstyle that fits the players best. van Gaal expects the players to do what he thinks even though they've been doing something else their entire career.
mourinho is a pragmatic, but the only way he left any club in shambles (assuming you refer to inter and his first spell at chelsea) is through being so good that expectations are built that the successor can't live up to, creating discontent at what would have been considered decent results before his arrival and thus also the habitual changing of coaches. mourinho is also a slow starter (always better second than first season), and while he is pragmatic, he also has a preferred playstyle he tries to incorporate into all his teams. it's just that he's willing to deviate in particularly important games - especially before he is done with the creation phase/when facing teams he considers better than his own (squad wise). If you mostly watch his big games, you'll see him as a more defensive manager than if you watch his average league games - and his teams also score plenty goals. honestly I think van gaal and mourinho are very much alike, with the key difference being that mourinho is much more charismatic and "media friendly". Mourinho's third season Madrid's dressing room was in shambles, though you can argue that his departure united everyone against him and Madrid very much went on with the style of play played by Mourinho. Still I feel that Madrid was the one time things didn't go Mourinho's way and that showed both on and off the pitch. Chelsea is different though, he is well liked by the fans and the team is playing marvellous football.
Chelsea for 6 years after Mourinho left was literally the house that Mourinho built. He created such a strong core team and spirit that it defined everything the club was in the last decade. This is why I was so excited Mou was coming back, and he said it when he first came back and again last week. He is here to stay, he want to be here for another 10 years and build a dynasty and having a dynasty is the dream of any football fan in the world. Who wouldn't want something like the cult that surrounds the 99' ManU or the late 00's Barcelona?
The last three transfer windows we ended up with +9million pounds all together, got rid of players that don't fit into the team vision and brought in guys that do fit. We are building a team that will be a powerhouse of European football for the next decade, all thanks to Mourinho.
|
All thanks to Mourinho? Dozens of coaches would do wonders with such strong funding.
Chelsea is what it is literally all thanks to Abramovich. Hell Mou would have never touched it without that shitload of russian moneeh either.
|
On February 12 2015 20:07 Salteador Neo wrote:
All thanks to Mourinho? Dozens of coaches would do wonders with such strong funding.
Chelsea is what it is literally all thanks to Abramovich. Hell Mou would have never touched it without that shitload of russian moneeh either.
I'm talking about building a team and mentality, you can buy all the expensive players you want but all the money in the world can't buy yoiu a real team.
|
Madrid couldn't get past the quarter finals for a decade with all the money in the world, with players like Sneijder and Robben who both went on to win the champions league with their next team. Obviously money is very very important, but without a vision behind that money it is wasted and Mourinho definitely has vision.
He is definitely a flawed genius, but frankly all the great managers are.
|
On February 12 2015 20:12 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 20:07 Salteador Neo wrote:
All thanks to Mourinho? Dozens of coaches would do wonders with such strong funding.
Chelsea is what it is literally all thanks to Abramovich. Hell Mou would have never touched it without that shitload of russian moneeh either. I'm talking about building a team and mentality, you can buy all the expensive players you want but all the money in the world can't buy yoiu a real team.
Well I can agree with that. But saying this and that "it's all thanks to Mou" are way different things.
|
Some Barcelona players that VanGal made to debut in the first team: Puyol, Xavi, Victor Valdes, Iniesta 
|
On February 12 2015 19:59 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 19:18 Ysellian wrote:On February 12 2015 08:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 12 2015 04:25 Twisted wrote:
The thing is, I don't agree with your assessment that he's the type of manager who leaves a club in shambles after he had his success with it. The reason why he's a slow starter is because he wants to change the entire philosophy of a club, not just the first team. He wants all the teams within the club to play a certain style and it takes time for a club to become accustomed to it. Also the players in the first team have to get used to it. Managers you describe like Mourinho look at their squad and choose the playstyle that fits the players best. van Gaal expects the players to do what he thinks even though they've been doing something else their entire career.
mourinho is a pragmatic, but the only way he left any club in shambles (assuming you refer to inter and his first spell at chelsea) is through being so good that expectations are built that the successor can't live up to, creating discontent at what would have been considered decent results before his arrival and thus also the habitual changing of coaches. mourinho is also a slow starter (always better second than first season), and while he is pragmatic, he also has a preferred playstyle he tries to incorporate into all his teams. it's just that he's willing to deviate in particularly important games - especially before he is done with the creation phase/when facing teams he considers better than his own (squad wise). If you mostly watch his big games, you'll see him as a more defensive manager than if you watch his average league games - and his teams also score plenty goals. honestly I think van gaal and mourinho are very much alike, with the key difference being that mourinho is much more charismatic and "media friendly". Mourinho's third season Madrid's dressing room was in shambles, though you can argue that his departure united everyone against him and Madrid very much went on with the style of play played by Mourinho. Still I feel that Madrid was the one time things didn't go Mourinho's way and that showed both on and off the pitch. Chelsea is different though, he is well liked by the fans and the team is playing marvellous football. Chelsea for 6 years after Mourinho left was literally the house that Mourinho built. He created such a strong core team and spirit that it defined everything the club was in the last decade. This is why I was so excited Mou was coming back, and he said it when he first came back and again last week. He is here to stay, he want to be here for another 10 years and build a dynasty and having a dynasty is the dream of any football fan in the world. Who wouldn't want something like the cult that surrounds the 99' ManU or the late 00's Barcelona? The last three transfer windows we ended up with +9million pounds all together, got rid of players that don't fit into the team vision and brought in guys that do fit. We are building a team that will be a powerhouse of European football for the next decade, all thanks to Mourinho.
It is indeed true that this Chelsea team will be very very good. This latest team he has built is by far his most impressive achievement in my view.
However saying that Mourinho had anything to do with, for example the way Ancelloti's Chelsea played or Di Matteo is so so wrong and a case of rose tinted glasses.
Sure alot of the players were from his time, but that was the case when Fergie left and Moyes picked up a ready made champion as well.
What happened then? Is it really fair to say that since his departure United are the "house that Fergie built?" No, because new managers clean house and bring their own stuff to the party.
Now with respect to being a powerhouse. Im not so sure. I am also skeptical he will hang around for 10 years, it would be nice because Chelsea these days is fun to watch unless hes being a defensive "play not to lose" cunt mode is more infrequent.
He will still do it to teams like Barca and Bayern,+ Show Spoiler + which he will eat for breakfast with Hazard et all getting fed by Fabby passes on the break.
The key difference between his earlier Chelsea stint and this one is, that he has bought and sold very well. He always builds good teams, but has often done so at the expense of big wallets.
That having been said I also think his current squad lacks depth in key areas. Defensive cover is a bit short for me. And most importantly if Matic is out or he has a bad game all of a sudden Chelsea start looking like Arsenal.
But all successful managers have had years where they had killer transfers that were profitable and resulted in title winning teams. Wenger had a number of super impressive transfer seasons at the turn of the millennium but I don't see any dynasty there.
A key reason for his success is that he has to develop a siege mentality to get his players to do what he wants them to do. Thats not a lasting strategy in my view. Its what minnows use to motivate themselves so that concerns me.
Win a treble then claim you are building a powerhouse. For all his success he has been pretty nomadic and left before the opportunity to fail heavily presented itself so the suggestion that he has what it takes to develop dynasties is well up in the air.
So I think its hubris to say that you are building a powerhouse. You know you have a powerhouse when you are there. Everyone sets out to build teams that will be great. You dot get to claim it till you get there. And you definitely don't get to say you are building a powerhouse a few weeks after getting knocked out of the cup and just because you have a commanding PL lead.
So I would slow down a bit and just enjoy the football. The more you get your head up your ass the more you set yourself up to get laughed at.
|
Norway28875 Posts
On February 12 2015 19:18 Ysellian wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2015 08:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:On February 12 2015 04:25 Twisted wrote:
The thing is, I don't agree with your assessment that he's the type of manager who leaves a club in shambles after he had his success with it. The reason why he's a slow starter is because he wants to change the entire philosophy of a club, not just the first team. He wants all the teams within the club to play a certain style and it takes time for a club to become accustomed to it. Also the players in the first team have to get used to it. Managers you describe like Mourinho look at their squad and choose the playstyle that fits the players best. van Gaal expects the players to do what he thinks even though they've been doing something else their entire career.
mourinho is a pragmatic, but the only way he left any club in shambles (assuming you refer to inter and his first spell at chelsea) is through being so good that expectations are built that the successor can't live up to, creating discontent at what would have been considered decent results before his arrival and thus also the habitual changing of coaches. mourinho is also a slow starter (always better second than first season), and while he is pragmatic, he also has a preferred playstyle he tries to incorporate into all his teams. it's just that he's willing to deviate in particularly important games - especially before he is done with the creation phase/when facing teams he considers better than his own (squad wise). If you mostly watch his big games, you'll see him as a more defensive manager than if you watch his average league games - and his teams also score plenty goals. honestly I think van gaal and mourinho are very much alike, with the key difference being that mourinho is much more charismatic and "media friendly". Mourinho's third season Madrid's dressing room was in shambles, though you can argue that his departure united everyone against him and Madrid very much went on with the style of play played by Mourinho. Still I feel that Madrid was the one time things didn't go Mourinho's way and that showed both on and off the pitch. Chelsea is different though, he is well liked by the fans and the team is playing marvellous football.
real madrid didn't go his way, but I don't think you can say that a club which went on to win the CL in the following season was left in shambles. you can make that claim for his first chelsea and inter - they both experienced massive downswings after he left - but imo it's not because he had ruined part of the club, just that he's almost impossible to replace, at least his managerial efforts with Chelsea and Inter.
|
|
|
|
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
That is Chelsea's new chief executive mate :D
She Russian <3
|
Lol I thought it was his mum.
|
On February 12 2015 20:20 Ysellian wrote:
Madrid couldn't get past the quarter finals for a decade with all the money in the world, with players like Sneijder and Robben who both went on to win the champions league with their next team. Obviously money is very very important, but without a vision behind that money it is wasted and Mourinho definitely has vision.
He is definitely a flawed genius, but frankly all the great managers are. I thought I read here someone saying that money doesn't buy you a championship, but a/more chance at a championship. Or something like that. I think it was a good find, anyway.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On February 13 2015 05:11 RvB wrote:
Lol I thought it was his mum.
Hahahahah
Na she took over job :D
Link
Abramovich’s former PA. She has been close to a number of players in the past and has been on texting terms with them, which is not unusual for a modern-day executive.
|
so she is close to the players :^)
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Yeah our players blatantly hook up with our Physio so i guess she is next :')
|
On February 13 2015 07:33 Pandemona wrote:
Yeah our players blatantly hook up with our Physio so i guess she is next :')
not sure if serious....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
