fastwalker
Full Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 408
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?
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: