Such are the questions asked when a new manager joins a high profile club. Instead of the team and the future of the team, its the "Who's in charge" which takes the priority. Just look at Real Madrid, Newcastle and Chelsea and you'll wonder why you bothered to come up with these questions.
When Ramos was appointed the "boss" of Real Madrid a week before the "El Classico", my mouth was open. When I found out that he's on a 6 month contract, I went into a coma. For a club like Real Madrid to have a stability like that is something astounding. And it all started when Del Bosque(the boss) and Hierro(the captain) were sacked on the same day-the day after they won the La Liga. Even the "Great Don Fab" was sacked after they won the La Liga simply because they did not play football which was easy on the eye.
Mourinho, in my opinion was one of the most "no nonsense" managers the EPL has ever had. Unfortunately, he proved to be a nuisance for Roman. Roman wanted someone to be his dummy. Enter Avram Grant. But everyone knew he was just a stop-gap and by the time the season ended, Roman was hit by the credit crunch and he knew he could not get a dummy.
These managers didn't even get their way in the players they wanted or did not want(depends on how you see it). Mourinho did not want Shevchenko, Grant did not want Anelka, but there they were; simply because Roman wanted them. Raul, a couple of years back, could not buy a goal. But Calderon didn't even consider the option of selling him because he was the image of the club. Keegan and Curbishley quit because they didn't have their say in the transfer window. Players came in and went out according the chairman's choice. Why wasn't the chairman coaching the players and teaching them how to play?
Everyone knows this is going to be the situation of every manager in these sort of clubs. The question is why would these managers go to such clubs in the first place? I'm not blaming Mourinho, Keegan and Curbishley. They simply didn't know what they were getting into. But what about Fabio, Carlos Queiroz, Grant, Scolari and Ramos? Is it because they think they can change something which their predecessors couldn't? Or is it just to have a "Managed
3 comments:
You hit the nail on the head - it's partly due to the fact that they feel they can do some different.
Hell, that's the attitude everyone's gotta have. Esp. those in this business.
Secondly, it's a big club and therefore the chance to interact with top players.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly - money. Who would refuse to work with virtually unlimited budgets?
There's a reason it's called fantasy football, you know.
I agree with almost everything you say.
But for a club to prosper under a manager, it takes time. It takes time(and money of course) for a manager to make HIS team and get them playing the way he wants them to play.
What's the use of going to a club knowing(almost) that you'll never be given the chance to finish the job you've started.
One more thing. A string of bad results should not overshadow the good work you've put in the past. I guess that's a story for another day.
It's a disgrace for managers to be sacked after half a season or so or 15 weeks in some cases(Tony Adams).
I, for one, thought Scolari will have till the end of the season...At least...
Post a Comment