Forget about 'strategic patience' at United, should we just adopt the Chelsea model?

fastwalker

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
387
The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?
 
Last edited:

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
28,504
If we ever get the first bit right (hiring a manager who actually wins the PL/CL) then I'd want to cling onto him for dear life rather than try to find another guy who can do the same shortly after, as Chelsea have at several points.

Imagine our board, with their track record of appointments, dumping a manager who recently won the PL/CL because they think they can easily find someone else to do the same. *shudders*

I think we could do with being more ruthless with managers (for example looking for an upgrade before the mediocre manager you have is at the point where he actively needs to be fired yet). But once we find someone who is actually at that top level then I hope we're slow to let him go.

Edit: Though even there there is an exception in Di Matteo. A caretaker mangager who actually won them the CL and FA Cup. They made him permanent manager, but then he rightly only lasted 8 months after that because he wasn't actually good enough. I fear in our case he'd have lasted years.
 
Last edited:

Gio

★★★★★★★★
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
19,021
Location
Bonnie Scotland
Supports
Rangers
One of the main advantages of good strategy in football is that it allows you to change manager as often as you want and it doesn’t capsize the ship because you’re all still headed in the same direction.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
36,135
Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with making mistakes, but you've got to correct them as soon as you can.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
55,330
Location
France
There is no such a thing as the Chelsea model, it's the normal club model.
 

Mainoldo

Full Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
19,561
Sack managers when they are shite? Ermmmm yes!

It’s a principle used by every club in the world.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
36,135
If we ever get the first bit right (hiring a manager who actually wins the PL/CL) then I'd want to cling onto him for dear life rather than try to find another guy who can do the same shortly after.
You'll never maximise your potential that way unless that manager happens to be Alex Ferguson.

There are loads of very good managers around in football, but very few elite managers. You can win with one of the very good managers but the timings got to be correct. You cling onto the same manager after, there's a good chance you won't achieve much more after that.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,906
I don’t know about applying a ‘model’, but we should be far more proactive, like Chelsea, if we actually want to win a league title any time soon, yes.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,168
I dont think this was ever actually a model, for United or in previous eras of football.

We just happened to have an unusually good manager who wasn't attracted by the idea of working in another country (like most British managers, unlike most non-British managers) and who cared about domestic rivalry too much to move to another club within England (unlike e.g. someone like Trappattoni, and most foreign managers), so he stayed for an unusually long time.

We saw all the benefits that came with that so we kind of hoped it would repeat itself. I don't think it counts as a real strategy or the model ever existed.
 

DWelbz19

Correctly predicted Portugal to win Euro 2016
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
27,906
You'll never maximise your potential that way unless that manager happens to be Alex Ferguson.

There are loads of very good managers around in football, but very few elite managers. You can win with one of the very good managers but the timings got to be correct. You cling onto the same manager after, there's a good chance you won't achieve much more after that.
Not to mention even the best managers get burn out too and need a change of scenery. I don’t think we’ll see Klopp or Pep for too much longer at their respective clubs.
 

Andycoleno9

Full Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
19,272
Location
Croatia
Yes. Because........that is how football work. You hire a manager, when he doesn't deliver you sack him.

And it is not "Chelsea" model. All top clubs work like that
 

adexkola

Arsenal supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
43,399
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
Man City model is more expensive and less successful.

Bayern model works in a one team league, the Prem ain't that.
Is this accounting for the fact that Roman took over what was a top 4 side and had to spend less, yet still spent a lot?

Or the fact that in recent years, Chelsea have won less trophies than City?
 

tomaldinho1

Full Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
11,013
it’s telling so many people refer to something completely normal as a different ‘model’, testament to how nostalgically crippled we are as a club. Nothing is worse for progress than ‘we are United, we give managers time at this club’ as if it’s a good thing. You hire and fire based on meritocracy, can the manager do the job to the level you expect? Yes or No.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
55,330
Location
France
Man City model is more expensive and less successful.

Bayern model works in a one team league, the Prem ain't that.
None of these teams have specific models.
 

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
44,358
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Is this accounting for the fact that Roman took over what was a top 4 side and had to spend less, yet still spent a lot?

Or the fact that in recent years, Chelsea have won less trophies than City?
If you narrow down the sample size to include just a few seasons, you're not really talking about "the Man City model" (whatever that is), just Peps time at the club.
 

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
36,135
In my opinion, sports is all about timing. You need to couple the right group of players with the right coach at the right time.

But the problem is, you can't control what players are available on the market. Even if you're Real Madrid, you have more clout and options than anyone else but the best players aren't mostly available when you want. So you get the best that you can every summer. Then the trick is to just find a coach who's a good fit for that group of players you've assembled.

But if you're building and constantly trying to improve your squads make up will change every 2-3 years, you've got to be open to the idea, that the good coach you currently have might not be the right fit for the collective group of players you'll have in 2 years time.
 

Bluelion7

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
121
Supports
Chelsea
As a Chelsea fan I would say “No, the correct answer is somewhere in between”. I have truly enjoyed Chelsea under Tuchel: the way we play, the way he involves the whole team. I would be heart broken if Tuchel got sacked for, say, finishing second and going out of CL in the last 16 this year. But we all know Roman could do just that. Unlike the Glazers he genuinely loves football - maybe a bit too much.
On th flip side you cannot afford to be nostalgic, and when you kNOW you don’t have the right person, move quickly. 3 and 4 year experiments can turn into a decade of misery pretty quickly. I think the correct course for any top club is somewhere in the middle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jippy

Skills

Snitch
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
36,135
Not to mention even the best managers get burn out too and need a change of scenery. I don’t think we’ll see Klopp or Pep for too much longer at their respective clubs.
This is true. There's a reason Mourinho even in his prime didn't last more than 3 seasons. The players and managers, both need a change at some point. The effectiveness wears off after some time.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
28,504
You'll never maximise your potential that way unless that manager happens to be Alex Ferguson.

There are loads of very good managers around in football, but very few elite managers. You can win with one of the very good managers but the timings got to be correct. You cling onto the same manager after, there's a good chance you won't achieve much more after that.
There has to be a balance though.

For example, take Ancelotti's time at Chelsea. An established elite level manager, having already won a Serie A title and two CLs. Wins a league title (while scoring over 100 goals) and FA Cup double in his first season at Chelsea. Fired in his second season for the crime of finishing 2nd in the league and exiting the CL in the quarter-finals against a Manchester United side good enough to be CL finalists and PL winners.

I'm not saying you should hang on to a manager like that no matter what but if we were that trigger happy I would think we were deranged. And I definitely wouldn't hold up the Villas Boas > Di Matteo > Benitez sequence of managers that followed Ancelotti as a sign that it was the right move at that point for Chelsea, even though some trophies were won within that flurry of change.
 

Hawks2008

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2015
Messages
4,796
Location
Melbz
Yeah but then we might actually win something, sounds horrible I know.. much better to just throw seasons in the bin and keep our soul.
 

anant

Correctly predicted Italy to win Euro 2020
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
7,988
The Chelsea model or City or Bayern or whatever model works because they maintain some sort of continuity in the event of a managerial change via their DoF/TD/Sporting director.

What's happening in our case is we're jumping from Moyes to LVG to mou to Ole, and none of them have remotely similar play styles. So, the manager's 1st 2-3 windows is around making the team his own - in terms of the personnel. And hence that patience is required.

The powers we've given to the manager mean that sacking them is more than just the payout, and I really think we missed a trick by not installing Murtough as Ole's boss and instead made them parallel teams. This could have also helped us in shaping up the team and limited the powers we have given to the manager
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
55,330
Location
France
In my opinion, sports is all about timing. You need to couple the right group of players with the right coach at the right time.

But the problem is, you can't control what players are available on the market. Even if you're Real Madrid, you have more clout and options than anyone else but the best players aren't mostly available when you want. So you get the best that you can every summer. Then the trick is to just find a coach who's a good fit for that group of players you've assembled.

But if you're building and constantly trying to improve your squads make up will change every 2-3 years. So you've got to be open to the idea, that the good coach you currently have might not be the right fit for the collective group of players you'll have in 2 years time.
That's a big reason why I think clubs should be flexible and also that high level balanced managers are always the better option if you are thinking long terms. This also highlight a paradox on the caf with the majority of regular posters pining for dogmatic manager while also wanting a long term appointment, those two things are almost impossible because Football is always evolving, the type of player that are produced, the type of teams that you face change periodically. If you have someone like SAF, someone that was smart enough to adapt tactically and also had the humility to adapt his staff regularly then you have a chance to be at the top for a long period of time but that's extremely rare.

If you take someone like Guardiola or even Klopp, they haven't won that much when you consider the means given to the former and the hype given to the later. Neither actually give you exceptional success even when they have great players.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
55,330
Location
France
I'd they don't, does Chelsea?

Also, since Roman took over, we have changed managers 14 times. Same number as Bayern (in the same time frame) according to this...
https://www.worldfootball.net/teams/bayern-muenchen/9/
No Chelsea doesn't have a model that is specific to them. That's the point I keep making, Monchengladbach have had a similar amount of managers, both had less managers than Marseille or Palermo. It's actually not that easy to find top clubs with less than 10 managers in that time frame and many clubs that aren't top clubs go through managers at an even higher rate.

It's also not a modern thing.
 

SER19

Full Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
10,747
I think most people recognise eras like SAF are over. A successful club will have a consistent recruitment policy, good youth programme, director of football guiding the 'vision' and the manager will be the best available person who aligns to that vision or the squad available. Eg Liverpool simply wouldn't replace klopp with conte. Spurs replaced pochettino with mourinho then nuno, 2 inevitable failures at that club.

A manager nowadays should primarily be a would class coach and tactician, who operates as a key part of a bigger machine
 

RUCK4444

New Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2015
Messages
9,553
Location
$¥$¥$¥$¥$
We’ve not had the structure to do this, you need a DOF and a back room staff/structure to maintain continuity.

Why the feck the club just let incoming managers free reign at this club like Sir Alex had is beyond me. Just because that’s how Sir Alex operated, but he fecking earned it over decades.

The second he left we should have hired a DOF to maintain the continuity and avoid the turmoil of swapping from differing managers and styles of play. Every clown involved in that approach needs sacking three times over.
 

fastwalker

Full Member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
387
I dont think this was ever actually a model, for United or in previous eras of football.

We just happened to have an unusually good manager who wasn't attracted by the idea of working in another country (like most British managers, unlike most non-British managers) and who cared about domestic rivalry too much to move to another club within England (unlike e.g. someone like Trappattoni, and most foreign managers), so he stayed for an unusually long time.

We saw all the benefits that came with that so we kind of hoped it would repeat itself. I don't think it counts as a real strategy or the model ever existed.
I think it was model. The club made a conscious decision not to sack Alex Ferguson back in 1989/90 believing that he would come good. I believe that decision very much reflected Martin Edwards philosophy around recruitment and retention. That is a clear and distinct approach to Roman and Chelsea, where managers are clearly given a narrow window to achieve not just success, but sustained success and good on-field performances. Pep and Klopp would both likely have been sacked at Chelsea as they have both had indifferent runs at their clubs, which would probably not have been tolerated at Chelsea.

Both the approach at United, under SAF as well as at Chelsea, under Abramovich are distinct models of management recruitment and retention. They may not necessarily be covered in any procedural manual, but they are clearly models in the sense that they have specific objectives and methods through which those objectives are to be achieved and a means through which success is to be evaluated. The Chelsea approach is also scientific in as much as it is repeatable. We have seen it applied 14 times.
 

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
55,330
Location
France
I think it was model. The club made a conscious decision not to sack Alex Ferguson back in 1989/90 believing that he would come good. I believe that decision very much reflected Martin Edwards philosophy around recruitment and retention. That is a clear and distinct approach to Roman and Chelsea, where managers are clearly given a narrow window to achieve not just success, but sustained success and good on-field performances. Pep and Klopp would both likely have been sacked at Chelsea as they have both had indifferent runs at their clubs, which would probably not have been tolerated at Chelsea.

Both the approach at United, under SAF as well as at Chelsea, under Abramovich are distinct models of management recruitment and retention. They may not necessarily be covered in any procedural manual, but they are clearly models in the sense that they have specific objectives and methods through which those objectives are to be achieved and a means through which success is to be evaluated. The Chelsea approach is also scientific in as much as it is repeatable. We have seen it applied 14 times.
A small detail, SAF first mission was to change the culture within the club with issues around alcohol and lack of professionalism, there was also the development of the academy alongside Eric Harrison. I think that it is sometimes missed when people use SAF first years as an example, SAF had different initial goals which do not apply to all managers, it wasn't about a philosophy around how to deal with managers in general but about a one time mission that would only apply to him because the problems were specific.
 

Mr. MUJAC

Manchester United Youth Historian
Joined
Sep 19, 2005
Messages
6,047
Location
Walter Crickmer started it all...
The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?
No.
 

Hound Dog

Full Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
2,804
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
Supports
Whoever I bet on
I am not really sure where this perception of Chelsea being unique with their sackings comes from.

More often than not, it was clear that things were not working out whenever they sacked a manager.

Mourinho's first departure came as a bit of a surprise, other than that... I genuinely struggle of ever thinking wow they should have kept that guy.

On the other hand, I do not think that there is a single top club that would have peristed with Ole after the Liverpool game, let alone the City one.

So this is more a case of United vs rest of the world than Chelsea vs rest of the world.
 

kbbear

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
211
We’ve not had the structure to do this, you need a DOF and a back room staff/structure to maintain continuity.

Why the feck the club just let incoming managers free reign at this club like Sir Alex had is beyond me. Just because that’s how Sir Alex operated, but he fecking earned it over decades.

The second he left we should have hired a DOF to maintain the continuity and avoid the turmoil of swapping from differing managers and styles of play. Every clown involved in that approach needs sacking three times over.
Agree with this. If you continue to buy better than average players it’s much easier for the next coach who comes in. He already has a title challenging squad to work with.
 

Chief123

Full Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
3,841
Location
Wumming Gym
The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?
Have we not already adopted the chelsea mode?

4 managers in 8 years. We are just doing what Chelsea do, but badly.
 

SirAF

Ageist
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Messages
36,079
Location
The model of what constitutes success for elite level clubs has changed. It is generally accepted that the days when a club could have one manager for a quarter of a century like SAF are long gone. Yes, SAF set the standard in terms of the benefit and value of 'keeping the faith' and the belief that given time, it will all come good. However, it is a proven fact that in football the model of 'strategic patience' is not a requirement for sustained success.

Take Chelsea as the case in point. Since 2003 when Roman Abramovich took over, the club has won 18 major honours including five Premier Leagues, two Champions Leagues and two Europa Leagues. Over the same period Chelsea appointed 14 managers (eight of whom won major honours at the club). The manager with the longest tenure and also the most successful, in terms of the number of trophies won, is Jose Mourinho (3 years and 3 months). Nine of the managers appointed during Roman's tenure, lasted less than a year in charge including Di Matteo, Benitez, Sarri and Hiddink, all of whom won at least one trophy during their short tenures.

Since the departure of SAF, United have appointed four managers and won 1 Europa League, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup. Over the same period, Chelsea have appointed five managers and picked up 2 Premier League titles, 1 Champions League, 1 Europa League, 1 European Super Cup, 1 FA Cup and 1 EFL Cup.

The point to make here is that Chelsea have suffered greater managerial upheaval than United and still enjoyed greater success in terms of trophies won. Whilst the constant comings and goings may not always make for the best optics, there is no denying that the sheer brutality of the Chelsea model produces results. It could even be argued that the 'trading room floor' type culture at Chelsea has actually caused some managers to perform better than they would, if they believed they had relative security of tenure.

Is this a model that United should ever adopt? What do others think?
Yes.