Harry on Mel and Frank appointment

[MuespachRam]

24 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Say we'd have lost Vs West Brom final day, and finished 8th.

Do you think that he would've been appointed then?

Not a chance, but he would have left to somewhere like Watford as soon as they sacked their manager.

[Rev]

6 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

Not a chance, but he would have left to somewhere like Watford as soon as they sacked their manager.

My heart wants to doubt that, but my head doesn't.

We were a stepping stone, if we'd have gone up and Chelsea came calling, he'd have still gone.

If we'd have stayed down, Watford would do.

[Millenniumram]

14 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

the fact that he got the job while at a championship club suggests that he got it because of his name and nothing to do with his "potential" There were 5 teams above us that season, all with better managers, did any of them get thrown in the ring..? no, because their name wasn't Fat frank.

Or maybe their names weren’t thrown in the ring because they’re not better managers? Just because they achieved more last season doesn’t make them better managers. Again, unless you want to admit Jurgen Klopp is the best manager in Europe because Liverpool are the reigning champions league holders? 

For the umpteenth time, Lampard got the job because he was deemed capable of doing a good enough job. His name may help, but it doesn’t get him the job. Chelsea had to believe he was the right man for the job. And so far, he’s proven Chelsea as having made the right decision. 4th place with a transfer ban is no mean feat.

[MuespachRam]

16 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

My heart wants to doubt that, but my head doesn't.

We were a stepping stone, if we'd have gone up and Chelsea came calling, he'd have still gone.

If we'd have stayed down, Watford would do.

Exactly.

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Or maybe their names weren’t thrown in the ring because they’re not better managers? Just because they achieved more last season doesn’t make them better managers. Again, unless you want to admit Jurgen Klopp is the best manager in Europe because Liverpool are the reigning champions league holders? 

For the umpteenth time, Lampard got the job because he was deemed capable of doing a good enough job. His name may help, but it doesn’t get him the job. Chelsea had to believe he was the right man for the job. And so far, he’s proven Chelsea as having made the right decision. 4th place with a transfer ban is no mean feat.

His name absolutely got him the job.

If you can't admit that I don't see where this thread can go!

He may well be a great manager, I certainly enjoyed his brief spell, but aptitude isn't proved over the course of one season, and multitudes of managers could point to a more consistent and long lasting CV than Frank when he landed the King's Road job.

Not least Cocu.

[Millenniumram]

20 minutes ago, MuespachRam said:

But that is the point isn't it Lampard HAS NOT reached a higher level as a manager has he....what has he achieved.....NOTHING....what has he won....NOTHING.....all he has ever done is lose a final by being out classed by Dean Smith and picking the wrong side...…

Mick has won titles and been an international manager....Lampards not even close to that yet, not even close.

 

And Abramovic no mug...… break me a give.... some of the signings/managers he has authorized.... wow..

I mean you’re definitely deliberately missing the point now, Lampard objectively has reached a higher level as a manager because he’s managed in the Champions league, McCarthy hasn’t. That is absolute fact. I’ve explained it about 50 times now so I’ll give up if you can’t grasp the concept.

And again, as I’ve said a million time’s before, titles and being an international manager are not the way to judge a manager. I could win the Normanton Premier division and become national manager of San Marino, does that make me a good manager? No, it doesn’t. Maybe you’d have a point if you were talking about comparing top level honours. But, surprisingly, Mick doesn’t have any of those. So there’s no point making a comparison there either.

What about all the titles Chelsea have won? Would they win them all with a mug at the top?

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I mean you’re definitely deliberately missing the point now, Lampard objectively has reached a higher level as a manager because he’s managed in the Champions league, McCarthy hasn’t. That is absolute fact. I’ve explained it about 50 times now so I’ll give up if you can’t grasp the concept.

And again, as I’ve said a million time’s before, titles and being an international manager are not the way to judge a manager. I could win the Normanton Premier division and become national manager of San Marino, does that make me a good manager? No, it doesn’t. Maybe you’d have a point if you were talking about comparing top level honours. But, surprisingly, Mick doesn’t have any of those. So there’s no point making a comparison there either.

What about all the titles Chelsea have won? Would they win them all with a mug at the top?

If you wanted to make a straight comparison between Mick and Frank, you could judge it on promotions won to the top flight?

[MuespachRam]

7 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Or maybe their names weren’t thrown in the ring because they’re not better managers? Just because they achieved more last season doesn’t make them better managers. Again, unless you want to admit Jurgen Klopp is the best manager in Europe because Liverpool are the reigning champions league holders? 

For the umpteenth time, Lampard got the job because he was deemed capable of doing a good enough job. His name may help, but it doesn’t get him the job. Chelsea had to believe he was the right man for the job. And so far, he’s proven Chelsea as having made the right decision. 4th place with a transfer ban is no mean feat.

I would say that Jurgen Klopp is certainly the best manager in Europe if not the world right now yes.

So would you say that taking a team over and finishing in a LOWER position that last season is success...? Lets not pretend that he took over a Chelsea side with a Kerry Dixon, Gavin Peacock and Nigel Spackman playing for them, he took over a Chelsea team that was the third best team in the country only finishing behind City and Liverpool who were smashing all records all season.....full of world class players with a huge wage budget......they won the league 2 years previous to that for goodness sake, so yes I would say that finishing 4th (which they haven't even done yet lets not forget) would have been a minimum requirement.

[Millenniumram]

8 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

His name absolutely got him the job.

If you can't admit that I don't see where this thread can go!

He may well be a great manager, I certainly enjoyed his brief spell, but aptitude isn't proved over the course of one season, and multitudes of managers could point to a more consistent and long lasting CV than Frank when he landed the King's Road job.

Not least Cocu.

I won’t admit it because it simply isn’t true. As I’ve said, I’m damn sure he wouldn’t have got the job without it, but it cannot be the sole reason why he got the job. There’s simply no way Chelsea didn’t do their research, conduct interviews etc to make sure he’s the right man for the job.

I was astounded when he got the job to be honest, based on what I saw here, he didn’t look good enough for that level. But clearly there’s more to him than we saw, because he’s done a pretty good job under the circumstances at a very high level while in charge at Chelsea. A poor manager couldn’t have managed that, and Chelsea clearly saw what he had in him. It’s as simple as that. Whether he was truly qualified enough to deserve the job when he got it is a different point. To that I’d say no he wasn’t. But that doesn’t matter, because it turned out he was good enough, or he wouldn’t have got the job.

[Millenniumram]

6 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

If you wanted to make a straight comparison between Mick and Frank, you could judge it on promotions won to the top flight?

Not really, Because it depends on the strengths of the teams they’ve managed in the second tier, and the number of seasons they’ve had at this level. Lampard has had one season in charge of a decent but not exceptional side. There’s no straight comparison there.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

1 minute ago, Millenniumram said:

I won’t admit it because it simply isn’t true. As I’ve said, I’m damn sure he wouldn’t have got the job without it, but it cannot be the sole reason why he got the job. There’s simply no way Chelsea didn’t do their research, conduct interviews etc to make sure he’s the right man for the job.

I was astounded when he got the job to be honest, based on what I saw here, he didn’t look good enough for that level. But clearly there’s more to him than we saw, because he’s done a pretty good job under the circumstances at a very high level while in charge at Chelsea. A poor manager couldn’t have managed that, and Chelsea clearly saw what he had in him. It’s as simple as that. Whether he was truly qualified enough to deserve the job when he got it is a different point. To that I’d say no he wasn’t. But that doesn’t matter, because it turned out he was good enough, or he wouldn’t have got the job.

Redknapp said the other day that Morris wasn't interested in hiring Lampard whatsoever, but he ended up being blown away by his interview. 

If Lampard's reputation was the sole reason he was hired, they wouldn't have bothered hiring Sarri the year before.

[Millenniumram]

I’ll bow out this thread now, just going around in circles. I’m not gonna change anyone’s view. 

Ill just leave on the point I was originally making. Give me the choice between Mick McCarthy and Frank Lampard and I take Frank Lampard every time. Personally think you’re insane if you think otherwise, but each to their own I guess.

[MuespachRam]

8 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I mean you’re definitely deliberately missing the point now, Lampard objectively has reached a higher level as a manager because he’s managed in the Champions league, McCarthy hasn’t. That is absolute fact. I’ve explained it about 50 times now so I’ll give up if you can’t grasp the concept.

And again, as I’ve said a million time’s before, titles and being an international manager are not the way to judge a manager. I could win the Normanton Premier division and become national manager of San Marino, does that make me a good manager? No, it doesn’t. Maybe you’d have a point if you were talking about comparing top level honours. But, surprisingly, Mick doesn’t have any of those. So there’s no point making a comparison there either.

What about all the titles Chelsea have won? Would they win them all with a mug at the top?

If you think that you could get San Marino to the World Cup finals and only get knocked out by Spain on penalties, then yep I would say it meant you were a good manager...maybe throw in a championship where you totally dominated the league from start to finish too....? 

and this is the problem.... the Champions league is everything isn't it....? NOPE, it is nowhere NEAR as big as the world cup...… not even close.... just for a comparison.... 11.3 million people watched the champions league final last year......where as.....just your 26.6 million watched the England v Croatia game in the world cup..... don't believe the TV hype, no one cares about the European cup.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

Just now, MuespachRam said:

and this is the problem.... the Champions league is everything isn't it....? NOPE, it is nowhere NEAR as big as the world cup...… not even close.... just for a comparison.... 11.3 million people watched the champions league final last year......where as.....just your 26.6 million watched the England v Croatia game in the world cup..... don't believe the TV hype, no one cares about the European cup.

The World Cup is bigger than the Champions League, but that last sentence is complete and utter nonsense. The only way it makes sense is if you used the name of the old tournament deliberately.

[MuespachRam]

19 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

I mean you’re definitely deliberately missing the point now, Lampard objectively has reached a higher level as a manager because he’s managed in the Champions league, McCarthy hasn’t. That is absolute fact. I’ve explained it about 50 times now so I’ll give up if you can’t grasp the concept.

And again, as I’ve said a million time’s before, titles and being an international manager are not the way to judge a manager. I could win the Normanton Premier division and become national manager of San Marino, does that make me a good manager? No, it doesn’t. Maybe you’d have a point if you were talking about comparing top level honours. But, surprisingly, Mick doesn’t have any of those. So there’s no point making a comparison there either.

What about all the titles Chelsea have won? Would they win them all with a mug at the top?

by the way.....that line is genius....just absolute genius....

[MuespachRam]

7 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

The World Cup is bigger than the Champions League, but that last sentence is complete and utter nonsense. The only way it makes sense is if you used the name of the old tournament deliberately.

Sorry that was silly of me...the whatever you want to call It cup was getting viewing figures of just over 200,000 this season....so obviously someone cares....however, when you look at it... games involving the mighty Derby County has more than 260,009 viewers....as i said...no one cares about It. Don’t believe the hype. 

[Inverurie Ram]

The lads response after @MuespachRam has insisted on an alcohol ban. It's just milk or tizer from now on!

[TramRam]

3 hours ago, MuespachRam said:

 

and no response to picking a drunken idiot who couldn't hit a barn door over Marriott at Wembley...? GREAT management that was....inspired...…….

 

Almost a year has gone by and i'm still perplexed as to why he chose Bennett over Marriott, FL said weeks after when being questioned about this was "the plan was to bring Marriott and Waghorn on with 30mins left when Villa would be tireing" not thinking our keeper would give them a helping hand.

It was a decent season, Nowt great, Nowt crap, Some good performances, Some not so good.

[Alph]

I never believed Chelsea would come to get their manager from a play off scraping Derby side. 

The season had some great moments in an otherwise forgettable season. 

It wasn't like Mac seasons where it was consistently fun and high quality (with a few big lows). 

There are a handful of great games in the 50 odd we played that were spectacular but most were just meh. Many were much like the Rowett season. 

The spectacular games must have been enough for Chelsea to convince themselves which is a bit nuts. Similar to Harry Wilson who the media thought was our superstar but week to week there was lots of poor play we had to endure. I'm guessing Liverpool were more aware of Wilson's average level of performance than Chelsea were of Lampards.

I think Chelsea have seen the best of Lampard too. He was a breathe of fresh air but in time I think that will wear off. It's not a club you get time to grow with. 

I like Mick McCarthy. Seems a sound bloke. Football isn't much fun though and it's that classic argument of what you want from your Saturday afternoons. 

I'm happy with how it worked out anyway. Quite like Cocu. 

[Alph]

15 hours ago, TramRam said:

Almost a year has gone by and i'm still perplexed as to why he chose Bennett over Marriott, FL said weeks after when being questioned about this was "the plan was to bring Marriott and Waghorn on with 30mins left when Villa would be tireing" not thinking our keeper would give them a helping hand.

It was a decent season, Nowt great, Nowt crap, Some good performances, Some not so good.

Big game like that you'd understand him keeping something to hurt Villa on the bench but keeping it all stashed away on a gamble we get to the hour mark still in the game shows you he either had great faith in his players such as Bennett or that he completely screwed up in a big game. 

If that was Chelsea in a crunch match then he'd be mocked on every back page.