Yeah the lack of trophies on his CV is concerning, however that's not to say under the right club he can't turn that around. Much like most of the candidates he also divides the fanbase due to the above reason.
Pochettino | Leaves Chelsea by mutual consent
- Thread starter Bastian
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Wanted to sign JWP, Ugarte and build the team around Gallagher. in general wanted height based recruitment and oh, didn't want Palmer (judging by his selections even when he was fit he wasn't particularly keen on Nkunku either which is simply a damming indictment).
I can only dread what the football would have looked like had he got his wishes.
The game has passed him by everybit as much as it has Mou he just doesn't get the same level of attention for it as he wasn't THAT good in his prime. The same common complaints I see I'm often seeing resurfaced posts from PSG fans complaining about the exact same shit.
In what sense do you mean on the pitch? In terms of recruitment? It's well reported Klopp wanted Brandt but got overruled and was given Salah, to give one prominent example.
Or do you mean in terms of tactics? Can't say I'd subscribe to that to be honest, if he was having the tactics dictated to him Colwill LB, Chilwell LW, Enzo as an auxiliary winger to name three mind-blowing choices would have been nipped in the bud by October.
You had literally just finished the previous season on 44 points. It’s really not weird that any manager coming in would’ve had a struggling start after that absolute cluster feck they were left with.
Take away those first six games and Chelsea are comfortably top four, that’s nothing like lowering standards, it’s having semblance of common sense that expecting a manager to hit the ground running after a 44 point season is a stupid expectation.
I mean, listen again, you were in the absolute fecking wilderness, an embarrassment where none of your fans had an expectation that you’d certainly be top 4 this year with this squad and after last season, but after match day 6, that is exactly where you’ve been.
That's an interesting take and you may have a point. I don't really know much about he tactical preferences these day so you probably know better.
Not getting everything you want or getting overruled is very different to you will get what we tell you and work with it. That's the middle ground I referred to. Managers at the top clubs in English don't get to run the show the way Sir Alex or Wenger did but they also don't get told who to work with without any input or contribution either. They are part of a team that makes these decisions and sometimes they get what they want and sometimes they get overruled. The implication at Chelsea is that it's Real Madrid-esque whereby they want a manager who has to toe the party line 100% without any input from him when it comes to what the team should look like and how they play which is simply not the case at all the England's three best clubs at the moment; City, Liverpool and Arsenal.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have been out-pedanted.
I write manager because head coach doesn't really come naturally in that context. But yeah we need a good head coach.
6 full seasons in Premier League and 0 trophies isn't great. Not saying I'd be against him, but he had some good teams in those years. Defeats to Chelsea in 2015 League Cup final and to Liverpool in 2019 CL final weren't bad, it would be surprising if they won. But also couldn't do it in 2017 and 2018 losing to Chelsea and us at Wembley in Fa Cup semis and to getting knocked out to Chelsea in semis of Carabao in 2019. Then there's the final from this year where they lost to Liverpool in extra time. May prove me wrong but feels like he's the almost guy.
Also, I didn't watch this PSG and Chelsea teams but back at Spurs (I loved watching that team and even like Spurs because of that period under Poch) there was a lot of criticism of his game management and him making wrong subs or making them too late etc and that's something that irritates people with ten Hag as well.
Think board may opt for him taking this all into account and thinking that he's good enough solution for a few years to stabilize us, make us proper and organised team and competing for top 4. Then someone else takes over to try making the next step.
Also, I didn't watch this PSG and Chelsea teams but back at Spurs (I loved watching that team and even like Spurs because of that period under Poch) there was a lot of criticism of his game management and him making wrong subs or making them too late etc and that's something that irritates people with ten Hag as well.
Think board may opt for him taking this all into account and thinking that he's good enough solution for a few years to stabilize us, make us proper and organised team and competing for top 4. Then someone else takes over to try making the next step.
We would also be top 4 if Jackson hadn't missed 30 sitters, we created a LOT of chances, that can carry on with a new manager I suppose. He just needs to give our defenders a plenty of advice.
Not that I agree with this but maybe INEOS see him as more experienced than McKenna and not the awkward character of Tuchel. So he is seen as the middle ground between them
Forgive my ignorance, Is it public knowledge who at Ineos are making these decisions (other than Sir Jim and Dave Brailsford)?
Not really. The management structure isn't fully in place (see: the whole Ashworth business).
If United have indeed decided to replace ETH, I'd imagine Blanc is involved. Ashworth himself has probably been consulted in an unofficial capacity. It has been mentioned that Blanc has been talking to David Gill. Berrada has to be involved in the decision too in some shape or form.
We do know (or at least think we know) that Ratcliffe himself isn't involved (and not Brailsford either, supposedly).
Absolutely baffling reason to sack him if it's true.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/55...no-chelsea-eghbali-boehly-winstanley-stewart/
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/55...no-chelsea-eghbali-boehly-winstanley-stewart/
What is the reason they give? I ain't paying to read that.
Could you summarise the main points in that please?
Feels like one of the blah candidates out there.
Chat-GPT’s: summary of the article:
Mauricio Pochettino's departure from Chelsea stemmed from multiple underlying issues despite a late-season surge. Key factors included his discomfort with the club's structure, skepticism about high-profile signings, and the owners' preference for a coach with a highly technical approach. Disagreements over training methods and the management of the squad's injuries exacerbated tensions. Additionally, Pochettino's criticism of the club's sporting directors and internal politics contributed to the decision. Despite mutual respect and some positive aspects, the lack of alignment on key issues led to a mutual agreement to part ways after just one season.
If you load the page and click the X to cancel page loading before the paywall notification pops up you can read it.
I'm on my phone and my thumbs are too slow for that.
Worked for me, but then my phone is OLD and very slow.
So what is it he "absolutely baffling" reason Chelsea sacked him?
The Athletic has spoken to a range of people familiar with the situation, granting them anonymity to protect relationships and to ensure this article retains a comprehensive balance. Some of the key points of contention those conversations revealed centred on:
The head coach’s willingness to fit in with the club-imposed structure
Initial scepticism over the £221.7m ($282m) midfield pairing of Moises Caicedo and Enzo Fernandez
The owners’ desire for a coach who ‘teaches’ football
Training methods and the club’s injury record
Pochettino’s sense that he was one of the few experienced operators in the building
That's a lot or reasons rather than one "baffling reason" as someone else put it. Thanks for the summary.
@Pickle85 has summarised it pretty much.
One of the reasons for sacking him was the Caicedo-Enzo partnership, I thought he wasn't hired until after one was signed, is that right?
Enzo came in before Poch.
It seems that article is just listing everything that went wrong at Chelsea last season.
Obviously him not getting the best out of Enzo/Caicedo is not the reason he was sacked, it was a combination of many things.
He's told the yanks to stop calling it "soccer", hasn't he?
Anyway, if this had happened a couple of years ago, I would've comfortably called it a "ruthless" decision and expected Chelsea to bounce back comfortably.
But Boehly isn't Roman (or Marina).
But Boehly isn't Roman (or Marina).
"The rush" = high press
"Fumble" = poor touch
Final straw came when they referred to Sterling as one of the best wide receivers in 'the biz'.
Not getting the best of Caicedo and Enzo ? Wow- thats a stretch but it's Chelsea so, nothing surprises me.
Thats what Lampard got the sack for first time, didn't get the best out of Havertz and Werner.
Honestly, it was the same when Tuchel got sacked. Outgoing manager engages in a PR war with ex club with both sides trying to control the narrative.
What I would like, as a Chelsea fan, is for Eghbali and his directors to stop completely sidestepping accountability.
This is a complete in-fight over at least the short term direction of the club. All this talk about training methods and stuff is fluff, and everyone knows it.
One side wanted to go with continuity, at least in the short term, and make Pochettino happy… which would have meant, at the minimum, keeping Conor Gallagher.
We know this is true if Eldridge was the entity buying Cobham to raise funds that would keep them from having to sell players, because Eldridge is owned solely by Boehly, not a consortium of Clearlake investors.
Boehly was meeting with Pochettino by himself; the dinner may have just been the only one we heard about. He was then NOT at the meeting where Pochettino stepped aside/was canned.
As long as Chelsea fans focus exclusively on Boehly, Eghbali and the rest of the group can go about doing what they like with him as a PR shield.
I think teams, especially in a rebuilding phase, would be lucky to have Pochettino. He’s managed mega personalities well, he has built some very cohesive string teams, and he develops players.
If you’re worried about him getting teams over the final hump …. Then re-evaluate when you have a very good team that just can’t get over the final hurdle of winning a title. Most of our clubs would love to be in that position right now, so it seems like a strange criticism.
This is a complete in-fight over at least the short term direction of the club. All this talk about training methods and stuff is fluff, and everyone knows it.
One side wanted to go with continuity, at least in the short term, and make Pochettino happy… which would have meant, at the minimum, keeping Conor Gallagher.
We know this is true if Eldridge was the entity buying Cobham to raise funds that would keep them from having to sell players, because Eldridge is owned solely by Boehly, not a consortium of Clearlake investors.
Boehly was meeting with Pochettino by himself; the dinner may have just been the only one we heard about. He was then NOT at the meeting where Pochettino stepped aside/was canned.
As long as Chelsea fans focus exclusively on Boehly, Eghbali and the rest of the group can go about doing what they like with him as a PR shield.
I think teams, especially in a rebuilding phase, would be lucky to have Pochettino. He’s managed mega personalities well, he has built some very cohesive string teams, and he develops players.
If you’re worried about him getting teams over the final hump …. Then re-evaluate when you have a very good team that just can’t get over the final hurdle of winning a title. Most of our clubs would love to be in that position right now, so it seems like a strange criticism.
Soccer was a British term, derived from “Socca”, which was the shortening of its name “association football”. You, like us, had multiple sports at the time that used the term football, and “association style” was what differentiated it. When introduced to the sport, you guys told us Socca is what it was called, so it stuck.
I prefer calling it football, but the US isnt the only country that still calls Soccer.
Congratulations to Mauricio Pochettino for leading us into the Europa Conference League this season. Cheers mate
Bosses unhappy with Pochettino's work throughout the season. Pochettino feeling he and his staff were the only serious people in the building. Both sides let the other know what they thought in the exit interview, decided it was best for all involved to part ways