[ad_1]
You know what to do – just send your emails to [email protected]
Is Chelsea just a better version of Watford?
I've been thinking about how you would qualify each of the top six clubs as they get into the summer and adjust or tweak their teams for the new season, and then read Superb article by Seb on Chelsea.
Chelsea had been the master of recruiting and dismissal directors, who each seemed to bring something to the club in terms of silverware. But how much was based on a core team of great players, how much purchasing power and how much of a manager. I suspect something of everyone.
But starting with Barca, then Liverpool and the City, clubs recognize that sustainable success must be fueled by the right infrastructure and culture. I would even put the Spurs in this category except that it seems to be governed by one person, Levy.
In his article, Seb misses the point where Barca, by examining what would bring lasting success, would establish a culture and a structure. It is for this reason that they chose Guardiola. He adapted their plan for the club, which is why they were going to support him. Just as Klopp fits the plan of the FSG for Liverpool and Guardiola for City – with the same crew that created the Barca culture that now runs City.
The idea is that no one determines the future of the team. Success must be independent of specific managers or actors. We can not say for sure that it will last until we see how these clubs will behave once their current leaders leave and review the existing teams. But, in principle, he should protect the clubs from the slump created when only one director has been at the helm for many years (United and Arsenal), losing top players (Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs) and even to the hazards of new owners.
Chelsea has managed its many managers with a consistent spine composed of Granovskaia and Embado – but this one has disappeared. They have been continuity through cycling managers. After Embado's disappearance, the store lost its helmsman and it could quickly escalate into a situation similar to the one we experienced in Watford: a recruitment of players with almost no goal and a new manager each year.
United will continue to try to buy its way – and with seemingly limitless funds, star players will not get any extra money, no system, no ideology to unite them. And a manager who, while being kind enough, became tiring with his old jingoism of 1999 and showed that if he could enter the top four with all this talent, he will not found them in force to challenge City or Liverpool .
Arsenal are a bit at sea. A successful manager in knockout tournaments, especially the Europa League, but lacks the ability or talent to make a run in the Premier League. The club joined him leaving Ramsay to leave and tied him the contract with Ozil. He can not compete with the big spenders and would need more time to find players matching his style. (That's not Arsenal's style, because with Wenger for so long, they have not developed it, as with United and Ferguson.)
We finally arrive at the Spurs. Now the club can do with an incredible run of the Champions League after no investment and with players who have had a long and tiring season. If they can keep Poch and get some good players, they will continue to be a club that challenges Liverpool and City and will perform good cup races. If they do not have a sustained CL campaign, they could get closer to City in the PL but City sets the bar high. Just as Liverpool has accumulated a huge amount of points to take only second place, the Spurs can display decent numbers, but they are very modest against the City total. They form a good team, but it always seems that they will be better able to get silverware in one of the cups. Just as Klopp and Liverpool needed the CL title for their work to be a success, the Spurs will have to do it next season.
Once again, the ebb and flow of each team will make it an interesting and exciting season, with plenty to watch over the summer.
Paul McDevitt
Looking at the bright blue side …
The article by Seb Stafford-Bloor is well written, but few things mentioned are far off.
Abramovich, unlike the other owners, does not give interviews and does not openly participate in club management. But he is still behind the team that runs the show. He seems to have a keen sense of business and is convinced that the club can become self-sufficient by recruiting and developing young players that can be sold later and using these funds to buy players ready for the job. The approach has not been proven: players like De Bruyne and Lukaku have pbaded us, but overall we have done very well in terms of trophies, financial balance and strengthening (we can ask ourselves on quality, but we have less money to spend). I would say that in the past five years, Chelsea will be one of the very few clubs to have sold and allowed players to cut their net spending to a minimum, as well as to win trophies.
With the ban by FIFA of two transfer windows and a windfall of more than 100 million pounds in risk sales and an additional 80 to 100 million euros for the Champions' money League, the club will have huge funds to spend when the transfer ban will be lifted. It does not include the chance of young players to get us to discover more gems from our youth / reserve teams.
As for Lampard or any other incoming coach, we still have a less Hazard team that has won the Europa League plus about 5 to 6 players worth nearly 200 million pounds that will come back from loans. In addition, Chelsea are among the best group of young players, including Ruben Loftus and Hudson Odoi are only two.
I expect Lampard has a hard time joining him as a manager, but other experienced managers are doing well enough to be in the top four next season and reach the Champions League quarter-finals. . Of course, this is the top four because we are far from Man City and Liverpool.
B CfC (the transfer ban could be a huge blessing in disguise for Chelsea and her youth system)
Rafa? It would be horrible …
Great to see some honest comments on why Lamps should not / should not get Chelsea's job, without descending into the "club of old boys" "on the territory". The only complaint I would make is that Aaron CFC suggested that Benitez be taken into consideration. Yes, he is an excellent manager and infinitely more qualified for the role than Lamps (and it is interesting to note his desire to play youth). Yes, he has done an extraordinary job in Chelsea (especially under the circumstances). But should he get the job?
Let me take you back to 2012. The 1Xtra airways are bouncing back to my counterculture clbadic, "Smoking Ban".
The world is filled with hope for optimism for the future, with Barack Obama being re-elected for a second term as President of the United States. And Chelsea fans are relentlessly launching poisonous abuse on their new director, Rafa Benitez.
Back to the present. We all know who the president is. I have not had success in years. And you're deluding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen this time around Chelsea and Rafa fans. Because of this, it's just not a viable option. (To be clear, I totally disagree with the treatment that Rafa had previously received – it's a reality he would get back to). Why would Rafa choose to relive this again / what fans would like in such an atmosphere?
As to whether the appointment would arrive too early for Lamps, I would personally prefer that he take advantage of the opportunity, rather than risking sinking into mediocrity by not encouraging Derby to be promoted during the next two seasons is a very real possibility that many "big" managers would probably struggle to achieve). But I accept that it is debatable anyway.
Skinnyman (fire in the cabin)
Why is Man United talking about a leak?
Well, I sent some unpublished letters complaining about the amount of "here's what I would do at Utd" recently so that I could also write a review. Today, I have received a notification from SSN saying Utd was back for Issa Diop from West Ham. That goes with the ones I got for them being interested in Longstaff, this kid from Swansea and Wan-Bissaka.
My question is: why is all this disclosed at the interest stage? Are they desperate and do they need to inform the fans of the players? Are they agents who use them to get better contracts? Is not a club supposed to keep things internally at the negotiation stage? Who has leaks and why? Feel the despair.
Ryan, Liverpool
At least everything feels solid
Although there has been a bit of hoo ha in the mailbox about United's transfer transactions, I like the way it seems to be a concentration on real activity , as opposed to the tabloid nonsense that links each club to every player of the silly season.
What impresses me the most is the fact that Bale does not seem to be on the radar.
Ryan B
Frank Frank Frank
Just tried to read Tim (CFC) Ireland email why Frank Lampard would be great in Chelsea, but he soon became distracted by the number of times he wrote "Frank" in his email. 27 times! Jeez.
No idea why it bothers me so much.
Chris (at least mix a little and call it Lamps or something on occasion), Sandhurst
Praise this goal of England
Watch him: the game from the back, the smooth transition between midfield and center Beth Mead against a goal for Taylor. It was a fabulous team game.
This should be on a training video. I do not care who you train, but it was a networked game master clbad presented in a few seconds.
Steve, Los Angeles
England 1-0 Argentina
Taylor marks his first goal for the #Lionesses # FIFAWWC19 #eng https://t.co/r67RRvK1hspic.twitter.com/BU5R1uQWuO
– GentlemenOfSport ? (@GentsOfSport) June 14, 2019
Love shit housing
I take advantage of both the Women's World Cup and the next man who made peace in the face of the hard but retrospectively understandable words of Lisa at the disco of the year 10 …
However, the splendid exhibition of the Argentine defenders to the arts and sciences of modesty. As we will probably not have a battle of Bern or Santiago, Voeller / Rijkaard or Holland / Portugal 2006 in the coming weeks, we needed it. Beautiful things, ladies.
Mark Meadowcroft
[ad_2]
Source link
