egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> He had taken advice from Bobby Robson and had experience of
> working with Mourinho at Porto. He was also part of Mourinho's
> backroom team at Chelsea and Inter. So he served his
> apprenticeship with two of the best managers around.
>
> To be the youngest ever manager to win a European trophy is no
> mean achievement. Prior to Chelsea where had AVB failed? And
> to win four trophies at such a young age without a failure, is
> a "good track record".


Bobby Robson was a truly nice guy. I'm sure he gave advice to many people, but that does not make a recipient of his advice qualified to manage Chelsea.

Whether AVB had failed or succeeded in the past is not the point. You need good man management skills to succeed at Chelsea and AVB's man management skills were zero. He was the motivator who couldn't motivate. His deficiencies were so obvious it's quite surprising that you're bothering to argue about it.

Hopefully for him he can bounce back and succeed at a big club in the future, but for now the President of Porto was right when he said that AVB took the Chelsea job too soon as he just wasn't ready for it yet.

"Whether AVB had failed or succeeded in the past is not the point."

YOu were the one questioning his record.

I will leave you to argue with yourself now. You seem to do much better that way.

"Total fantasy."

Sigh!

Scolari on his time at Chelsea "At the time of his departure, there were suggestions some players were not happy with his management style - problems Villas-Boas has also reportedly encountered. "Some things are known, like the relations with the owner, who has the relationship with some players before the coach," added Scolari.

and

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/6 ... elsea-exit

I guess Scolari could have made it all up. World Cup winners like Scolari are probably lacking in confidence and need to cover up their many managerial failings.

David Johnson wrote:

> Scolari on his time at Chelsea "At the time of his departure,
> there were suggestions some players were not happy with his
> management style - problems Villas-Boas has also reportedly
> encountered. "Some things are known, like the relations with
> the owner, who has the relationship with some players before
> the coach," added Scolari.
>
> and
>
> http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/football/6 ... elsea-exit


As already explained, when things were not going well under Scolari, Mr Abromovich asked the players for their opinion on what was going wrong. Since they had been asked, 3 of the players went to see Mr Abramovich and gave him their opinion. That is all.

Scolari is definitely kidding if he says that his departure had nothing to do with Chelsea's poor results and deteriorating performances at the time.

David Johnson wrote:

> I will leave you to argue with yourself now.


A wise move on your part. You haven't produced any evidence to back up your "concerted campaign" allegation and you never will. It would therefore be pointless for you to continue to argue.

Just noticed this thread as I've been away from BGAFDland for a little while.

Firstly, just because Man Utd have had a very successful manager for over 25 years doesn't make that the norm. Nor does the theory that if you stick to a manager long-term, success will come. Arsenal have stuck with Wenger, but how many trophies have they won in the last 6 or 7 years?

The norm in the top flight of English football is a couple of years, with a few lasting longer (Moyes at Everton, Big Sam at Bolton for example) and a few lasting only months (Gullitt and Big Sam at Newcastle for example).

Look at the continent, and you'll see clubs changing managers on a regular basis. Even more astounding for British/English eyes is seeing someone manage Roma, Juve, Inter etc,.. you couldn't imagine anyone managing Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal in their career!

In reply to Deuce Bigolo, Ranieri finished much higher than 6th before all the big money came! The reason why Abramovich bought Chelsea in June 2003 was partly because they were in financial dire straits and therefore available to buy, but mainly because Ranieri had steered the team into a Champions League spot by finishing 4th. Actually I though Ranieri did an excellent job at Chelsea (all things considered), and many of the players who provided the backbone to Mourinho's first (and successful) squad had either been brought through from the academy by Ranieri (Terry, Huth and Carlton Cole) or bought by him (Lampard, Gallas, Makelele, Joe Cole & Duff, plus Cech and Robben, both of whom he bought in Jan 04 for the 04/05 season where he was replaced by JM). If Ranieri hadn't made such bizarre tactical decisions against Monaco in the Champions League semi final (Scott Parker at full back, Glen Johnson at centre back so as to bring on more attackers to chase the game), who knows what might have happened? Had Chelsea progressed and then beaten Mourinho's Porto in the final, would anyone have ever heard of JM???


As for the so-called managerial roundabout at Chelsea, the media do like to put a lot of negative spin on some of their stories... Ranieri was sacked because he made too many tactical mistakes; Mourinho left because he and the owner fell out; Grant was only ever going to be a stop-gap, so this spin about being sacked even though the club were one penalty away from winning the CL is all bullshit. Had Terry not slipped, and scored the winning penalty, Grant would still have been out! Scolari was a big mistake, and that mistake was soon rectified. Hiddink was not sacked as one newspaper recently claimed when they did a list of Chelsea managers. he was under contract to the Russian national team, but thankfully because they had no fixtures in the period he was needed by Chelsea, he was able to work as a short-term caretaker manager. He was NOT sacked. He was only ever going to be in temporary charge. Ancelotti wasn't sacked for failing to win the Champions League after having done the Double... he was sacked because (like AvB after him) he'd been charged to rejuvenate the squad and hadn't (both the purchases of Torres and Luiz were done so at the behest of Abramovich, who was starting to panic at the thought of not finishing in the top 4), and as a consequence Chelsea started playing dull, predictable and essentially unsuccessful football.

I had great hopes for AvB, and in some ways he started to go in the right direction. However, from what I can understand, his man-management skills were simply not up to the job of slowly ditching players such as Anelka, Lampard, Drogba etc., whilst still getting the best out of them on the pitch.

A wise man speaks out.

Ray Wilkins on the wild allegations that the Chelsea players exercised 'player power' to dispose of AVB: "I found the players an absolute delight to work with. They are a very nice bunch of guys, they are a hard-working bunch and, coupled with that, they are an extremely talented bunch. We didn't have a problem. I don't think the players swayed the owner."

You use a totally inappropriate analogy between Chelsea and Wolves with regard to the owner speaking to the players which I knock back. You have no comeback.

Then you state
"Villas Boas, a good track record? Total piffle. "

Followed by
"Porto?s success in Europe may have been what caught Mr Abramovich's eye, particularly the defeat of the two Moscow clubs, CSKA and Spartak."

You have no comeback to your own statement because it contradicts what you say with regard to "good track record"

Then you state re the campaign against Scolari

"The "concerted campaign" you speak of exists only in your imagination."

The I point out to you that this is clearly nonsense because rightly or wrongly, Scolari gave this as a reason for his departure. So obviously your statement "exists only in your imagination" is beyond question, wrong.

Give it up James, you are making a fool of yourself.

I will leave you to make one last, hilarious riposte.

Bob Singleton wrote:

> I had great hopes for AvB, and in some ways he started to go in
> the right direction. However, from what I can understand, his
> man-management skills were simply not up to the job of slowly
> ditching players such as Anelka, Lampard, Drogba etc., whilst
> still getting the best out of them on the pitch.


A great post Bob, thank you.

I have to say that I had great hopes for AVB too. I was a total optimist that he would do well at Chelsea.

David Johnson wrote:

> You use a totally inappropriate analogy between Chelsea and
> Wolves with regard to the owner speaking to the players which I
> knock back. You have no comeback.


Why was it inappropriate? When and how did you knock it back?

I made the analogy because I consider it to be appropriate.