egafd.com

David Johnson wrote:

> 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"


Where's the contradiction? I don't consider Porto's success in winning the Europa competition constitutes a good enough track record to be managing a club such as Chelsea.

Again, where's the contradiction?

Jeez, James, do you read your own posts?

Here you state

"I don't consider Porto's success in winning the Europa competition constitutes a good enough track record to be managing a club such as Chelsea."

Elsewhere you state
"I have to say that I had great hopes for AVB too."

Now look up the meaning of the word "contradiction"

David Johnson wrote:

> 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.


No, he didn't say that. He said that he had disagreements with 3 specific players, who the owner chose to listen to. He didn't ever claim there was a concerted campaign against him.

To help you out

http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=3&i=254863&t=254729

That's it now for me.

Cheerio!!

David Johnson wrote:

> Jeez, James, do you read your own posts?
>
> Here you state
>
> "I don't consider Porto's success in winning the Europa
> competition constitutes a good enough track record to be
> managing a club such as Chelsea."
>
> Elsewhere you state
> "I have to say that I had great hopes for AVB too."
>
> Now look up the meaning of the word "contradiction"


I don't see any harm in being an optimist. Roberto di Matteo is not qualified to be Chelsea manager either, but I have high hopes for him too.

Just because someone's under qualified for a role it doesn't mean that failure is inevitable. AVB's appointment was a gamble, given his youth and inexperience, but I genuinely had high hopes that he would succeed.

Just because someone's track record is lacking it does not mean that they can't do well. If you take a punt it might pay off and it might not. In AVB's case I had high hopes it would pay off.

Okay, so "you had great hopes in AVB" because "he didnt have a good track record" and "you didn't consider Porto's success in winning the Europa competition constitutes a good enough track record to be managing a club such as Chelsea".

I bow to your superior logic.

Goodbye from me on this thread!"!!!!!!!

David Johnson wrote:

> Okay, so "you had great hopes in AVB" because "he didnt have a
> good track record" and "you didn't consider Porto's success in
> winning the Europa competition constitutes a good enough track
> record to be managing a club such as Chelsea".


I had high hopes because I thought he was a bright up-and-coming manager who might really fit the bill. There were many things about him I saw as positive. The fact that he had little in the way of a track record - one very good season at Porto - meant that the appointment was obviously a gamble, but I thought it was a gamble worth taking.

Following on from my earlier post saying the so-called managerial merry-go-round at Chelsea wasn't all that unusual, I've done a bit of research.

Since Abramovich took over Chelsea in 2003 we've had 8 managers 3 of whom, (Avram Grant, Gus Hiddink and Robbie de Matteo) were/are caretaker managers. These are the figures for other major European clubs during the same time period:

Inter Milan - 6 managers
AC Milan - 3 managers
Roma - 9 managers
Juventus - 9 managers

Bayern - 8 managers
Dortmund - 5 managers
Schalke - 13 managers
HSV - 11 managers
Leverkusen - 7 managers

Benfica - 8 managers
Porto - 9 managers
Sporting - 7 managers

Barcelona - 4 managers
Real Madrid - 10 managers
Valencia - 8 managers
Atletico - 9 managers

Liverpool - 4 managers
Arsenal - 1 manager
Man United - 1 manager
Man City - 5 managers
Tottenham - 6 managers

PSG - 6 managers
Lyon - 4 managers
Bordeaux - 5 managers
Marseilles - 9 managers

Statistically, one of us from bgafd.co.uk will be due the Chelsea hot seat soon enough. That would go some way to even up the "wankers on the pitch/wankers in the dugout" ratio.

alicia_fan_uk

"Following on from my earlier post saying the so-called managerial merry-go-round at Chelsea wasn't all that unusual,"

Your statistics might support your own point, but I don't think that this is the point being discussed.

The point being made is that teams where there is a managerial merry-go-round lack consistency and are not as successful overall.

If you look at your list of teams that have had 8, 9,10+ managers during the period 2003- then you would see that these teams have hardly been successful in Europe in some cases by their own high standards e.g. Real Madrid.