• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mauricio Pochettino - Sacked

BrainOfLevy said:
:ross:

It's hilarious it really is.

In any other business, the hiring strategy would be, 'this is our strategy for the business, this is our strategy for the function, in order to achieve this, we need a person with these characteristics'.

When Levy got Poch, he clearly did something similar. 'This is our standing financially. These are our strengths. This is how we can compete. Let's find someone that can operate well in this environment'.

It seems like Chelsea's board is just going 'errrrrm what about Simeone? He's won trophies! But what about Pep!? He's really cool! But look what Ranieri has achieved with Leceister!'

With absolutely no consideration of the type of club they want to be and who they need to carry out their strategy. Personally I think Ancelotti was perfect for them. They have lots of money. They want to spend it on high profile players. He's a coach not too wedded to a system or philosophy but lets good players play and gains their respect.

'But what about Mark Hughes!? He played here once!'
Click to expand...

You're reacting to what the news is reporting, rather than what the club are actually doing.
 
BrainOfLevy said:
:ross:

It's hilarious it really is.

In any other business, the hiring strategy would be, 'this is our strategy for the business, this is our strategy for the function, in order to achieve this, we need a person with these characteristics'.

When Levy got Poch, he clearly did something similar. 'This is our standing financially. These are our strengths. This is how we can compete. Let's find someone that can operate well in this environment'.

It seems like Chelsea's board is just going 'errrrrm what about Simeone? He's won trophies! But what about Pep!? He's really cool! But look what Ranieri has achieved with Leceister!'

With absolutely no consideration of the type of club they want to be and who they need to carry out their strategy. Personally I think Ancelotti was perfect for them. They have lots of money. They want to spend it on high profile players. He's a coach not too wedded to a system or philosophy but lets good players play and gains their respect.

'But what about Mark Hughes!? He played here once!'
Click to expand...

I think that it would be easier to credit Levy for having a strategy in the type of manager we hire, if we didn't tend to lurch between motivators and tacticians.
 
milo said:
I think that it would be easier to credit Levy for having a strategy in the type of manager we hire, if we didn't tend to lurch between motivators and tacticians.
Click to expand...

Some lines to be drawn post Arnesen for sure I think. Sherwood was always short term. That pretty much leaves Redknapp as the one that sticks out from the rest in terms of the type of manager he is. But it was to some extent a forced change at a time for the club when a different approach was needed (and successful).

I think what we're seeing now is resembling what Levy has tried to implement before. He hasn't always been successful at that, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a strategy.
 
I think Poch is the manager Levy thought he was getting when he appointed AVB

As BE says above Sherwood was short term and Redknapp was a snap decision when we were in a bit of a pickle at the end of Ramos' reign (which worked out rather well)

Prior to that Jol was Arnesens man and it could be argued either way as to whether Ramos was Levy's or Comolli's
 
braineclipse said:
Some lines to be drawn post Arnesen for sure I think. Sherwood was always short term. That pretty much leaves Redknapp as the one that sticks out from the rest in terms of the type of manager he is. But it was to some extent a forced change at a time for the club when a different approach was needed (and successful).

I think what we're seeing now is resembling what Levy has tried to implement before. He hasn't always been successful at that, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a strategy.
Click to expand...

I think that he tends to resort to motivators when in a hole and strategists when he has time. I can see a logic in that but it has meant that at times we have lurched between approaches and has contributed towards a high turnover of players.

I think that it is difficult to discount the Arnesen period when we consider that it was rumoured that he wanted to bring in Jol from the off but Levy wanted to bring in a higher profile manager.
 
@braineclipse Maybe pre and post-Paul Kemsley might be a better explanation than pre and post-Arnesen. Kemsley was meant to have agitated for Jol's removal and was meant to have favoured appointing Redknapp for a while.
 
billyiddo said:
I think Poch is the manager Levy thought he was getting when he appointed AVB

As BE says above Sherwood was short term and Redknapp was a snap decision when we were in a bit of a pickle at the end of Ramos' reign (which worked out rather well)

Prior to that Jol was Arnesens man and it could be argued either way as to whether Ramos was Levy's or Comolli's
Click to expand...
In what way? They seem to be complete opposites, with the exception of being pretty rigid in terms of their tactical approach (although Poch has shown some flexibility in that area lately).
 
alekaras said:
In what way? They seem to be complete opposites, with the exception of being pretty rigid in terms of their tactical approach (although Poch has shown some flexibility in that area lately).
Click to expand...

From http://www.goal.com/en-ie/news/3920...a-fraud-tottenham-still-searching-for-answers

"He will also remember how Villas-Boas appeared to be on board with the club’s strategy in his job interview, talking about how he would complement clever, undervalued signings like Jan Vertonghen with Academy products.

Yet in his first meeting with the 'transfer committee', he demanded more than £50m (€60m) of spending on Moutinho, Hulk and Anderson."
 
Aha, Paul Kemsley, he of Rock properties who I suspect did several deals which the new stadium benefitted from - anyone know if he has re-made another fortune / become a down and out?
 
alekaras said:
In what way? They seem to be complete opposites, with the exception of being pretty rigid in terms of their tactical approach (although Poch has shown some flexibility in that area lately).
Click to expand...

Young, progressive, build a system that works through all levels of club (youth/academy/first 11), create a system that allow new players to slot in, team that is greater than sum of parts, buy players that fit in the business strategy of club.

AVB talked the talk ... just didn't walk it ...
 
braineclipse said:
Some lines to be drawn post Arnesen for sure I think. Sherwood was always short term. That pretty much leaves Redknapp as the one that sticks out from the rest in terms of the type of manager he is. But it was to some extent a forced change at a time for the club when a different approach was needed (and successful).

I think what we're seeing now is resembling what Levy has tried to implement before. He hasn't always been successful at that, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a strategy.
Click to expand...

Redknapp was planned short-term too, but he got the lift and got things moving thus Levy was stuck with him. They were never really on the same page, and I genuinely believe that if Harry had kept his eye on it Levy would've sacrificed his long-.
 
Billy is on point with AVB. As has been said before, word is he gave a world class presentation when interviewed...I still believe he has certain personality issues which make it impossible for him to ever fulfil what he could be. Like it or not, you have to play well with some others sometimes!
 
milo said:
Do you? How many great managers in this country have left a team that have been as/or more successful under their successors? I'd have to go back to Liverpool pre-Dalglish (first time) to think of an example.
Click to expand...

I do, and therein lies the distinction for me. I would say Sir Alex is the exception as I would say he was truly great just for his longevity and the fact he reinvented the team multiple times over. We bandy the term around a lot, but leaving something in a better shape than when you inherited should be a pre-cursor to being great. Knowing when the right time to leave, or overstaying your welcome are not traits that I see in anything great.

The sooner employees at football clubs (Chairmen, managers, players and fans) realise that they are just custodians, and that there role is to leave the club in a stronger position than when they inherited it, the better. At the moment too many of the aforementioned are self-interested and therefore make decisions that are not in the best interest of the club. How can you be truly great if that is your attitude?
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
I do, and therein lies the distinction for me. I would say Sir Alex is the exception as I would say he was truly great just for his longevity and the fact he reinvented the team multiple times over. We bandy the term around a lot, but leaving something in a better shape than when you inherited should be a pre-cursor to being great. Knowing when the right time to leave, or overstaying your welcome are not traits that I see in anything great.

The sooner employees at football clubs (Chairmen, managers, players and fans) realise that they are just custodians, and that there role is to leave the club in a stronger position than when they inherited it, the better. At the moment too many of the aforementioned are self-interested and therefore make decisions that are not in the best interest of the club. How can you be truly great if that is your attitude?
Click to expand...

I agree that Ferguson did a great job of building new teams whilst in the job, he is probably the best of all time at that but he didn't leave the team in great shape when he left though. He had been making short term signings for a while and I think, focused on his legacy rather than what he left his successor.

Which other managers do you think have created a dynasty?
 
Gazzasrightboot said:
I do, and therein lies the distinction for me. I would say Sir Alex is the exception as I would say he was truly great just for his longevity and the fact he reinvented the team multiple times over. We bandy the term around a lot, but leaving something in a better shape than when you inherited should be a pre-cursor to being great. Knowing when the right time to leave, or overstaying your welcome are not traits that I see in anything great.

The sooner employees at football clubs (Chairmen, managers, players and fans) realise that they are just custodians, and that there role is to leave the club in a stronger position than when they inherited it, the better. At the moment too many of the aforementioned are self-interested and therefore make decisions that are not in the best interest of the club. How can you be truly great if that is your attitude?
Click to expand...

I agree...but ah wait Milo has just said what I wanted to say only better.

Dynasty is a strong word...there are plenty of managers who have left clubs in a better state squad wise from what they inherited in the beginning...I suppose in a way you could argue that Pearson may have started a dynasty at Leicester...or that strange man down the road who struggles to unzip his jacket, like's throwing water bottles around and loses his sight when his players commit acts off atrocities.

Fergie was the best, Mourinho has proved he cant hack it at one club for too long, many managers get the bullet by impatient fans/Chairman's to be given a chance at building dynasties...or they are tempted away by a bigger fish.

In days of social media...radio phone in football shows, an army of expert pundits scrutinising every move and getting well paid for it!! will a manager ever get a chance to build a dynasty??? no more likely a Chairman. Levy has his faults and has made mistakes but has taken us a long way.

Which boils down to we just all enjoy what's occuring at our club at the moment, Poch is the bees knees...everyone is happy, but this is football and the landscape can change very quickly with a few bad results.

Enjoy the ride and hope Poch continues to improve us as he has undeniably done thus far, If he does and our young players develop into what I think they can then I think were in for very good times indeed...but in football nothing can be taken for granted, I will give it a few years and prayers yet before I post off my MOPO statue designs to Mr Levy.[/QUOTE]
 
milo said:
I agree that Ferguson did a great job of building new teams whilst in the job, he is probably the best of all time at that but he didn't leave the team in great shape when he left though. He had been making short term signings for a while and I think, focused on his legacy rather than what he left his successor.

Which other managers do you think have created a dynasty?
Click to expand...

Bill Shankly created a dynasty at Liverpool which lasted through at least two subsequent managers who were in his boot room.

He was eminently quotable as well. My personal favourite was when asked whether there were two good teams in Liverpool, he replied "Aye, Liverpool and....Liverpool reserves!"

Pure quality.
 
Pirate55 said:
Bill Shankly created a dynasty at Liverpool which lasted through at least two subsequent managers who were in his boot room.

He was eminently quotable as well. My personal favourite was when asked whether there were two good teams in Liverpool, he replied "Aye, Liverpool and....Liverpool reserves!"

Pure quality.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If you go back to my first reply to @Gazzasrightboot on this, I said that I would have to go back to pre-Dalglish Liverpool.

I suppose that you could make the case that Mourinho created a dynasty in his first spell at Chelsea but he also created a whole host of problems that are still there a decade later.
 
Pirate55 said:
Bill Shankly created a dynasty at Liverpool which lasted through at least two subsequent managers who were in his boot room.

He was eminently quotable as well. My personal favourite was when asked whether there were two good teams in Liverpool, he replied "Aye, Liverpool and....Liverpool reserves!"

Pure quality.
Click to expand...

true, same with Bill Nich...but as mentioned above they did not have to face the scrutinies of the modern world...quick question...do you think Fergie would have held onto his job in those early struggling years at Utd if he had to face todays modern media?? he was obviously under pressure at the time but nowhere near the modern pressure of today...look at L.V.G! would he have survived??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back