Chelsea sack Scolari

[Hobo]

SAF

[stokeriño]

On the plus side, this has given me a reason to amuse myself with the BBC's gossip page again now that the transfer window's over.

[stokeriño]

Sky Sports News understands that the club have already compiled a two-man shortlist to replace Scolari, with Guus Hiddink and Avram Grant the names in the frame.

Grant stepped into the breach following Jose Mourinho's departure before being axed at the end of the season despite finishing second in the Premier League and reaching the UEFA Champions League final.

Hiddink has been linked with a host of Premier League posts after his exploits as Russia coach, including reaching the Euro 2008 semi-finals.

One possibility is that the duo could work together, with Hiddink taking charge of team affairs and Grant operating as director of football.

I say the following whilst fully aware that SSN are just talking out of their arses at this point:

Seriously, how farcical would it be for Grant to return 8 months after being sacked? Not to say that it'd be bad - just completely bizarre. And let's not even touch that last 'possibility' they mentioned (/made up). lol, no.

[AJ]

I've edited the first post with the Sky Sports News story.

They reckon they're lining up Hiddink and Grant as a two man team. With one in the managerial role, and the other as director of football. Well, we all know how well that always works out.

[Liam]

Hiddink has to be the way they go, surely? If they can get him, at least.

[TheRossWalker]

Sam Allardyce, clearly.

[-A-]

Hiddink is absolutely the right man for the job, if they could've hired him after Mourinho left they might have a bit more silverware by now. Scolari just didn't fit wit the club and I think that more than anything it was the home form that lost him his job. Haven't Chelsea dropped something like 16 points at home?

What ridiculous timing on this. Let's be honest, they don't have a chance at the title this season, so let him carry on until the summer and secure a top 4 placing and Champion's League next season, maybe buy a couple of players in the summer (his signings have been great - Deco and Bosingwa have been solid purchases)

Deco's been absolutely appalling for months. Even Bosingwa's seriously trailed off after a good start.

[Matt]

Steve Staunton has said he's looking to get back into management... coincidence?

Well since they can't score goals, and Staunton's very good at making his teams leak goals... Chelsea would be just about on target for the Intertoto cup if that were to happen

Shocking news really, I didn't think Scolari was up to the job (not without an open cheque book to sign his own team rather than a couple of select players, which Roman clearly doesn't want to allow any more) but to sack him now is ludicrous. Oh well, with any luck, they'll collapse and Everton can sneak into the top 4 ahead of Arsenal and Chelsea.

[Darloboy]

Brilliant.

[The Kraig]

Anyone else see them going for Martin O'Neill?

[therockbox]

O'Neill would have to be mental to leave Villa. He'd go from having an excellent chairman with his own squad to a side where the chairman is looking for a way out, and wants a manager to completely change the philosophy of an aging team seemingly without spending money.

[Crybaby Bunting]

David Moyes then? He'd be going from a team with decent players with no money to a team with above average players and no money.

[Bryan Blade]

Bring back Ruud Gullit haha

[METALMAN]

If Chelsea are bringing back anyone it should be Gianluca Vialli.

[Adam]

Nobody seems to have mentioned Roberto Mancini anywhere yet, could he be in the frame?

Today is yet another bad day as the trend of managers not being given enough time continues-Adams going after 13 games is ridiculous, and so is this. I'd love it if it came back to bite them in the ass and they fail to even make the Champion's League this season. Scolari deserved better really, he wasn't doing a bad job, but it's not as harsh a sacking as Grant's, who finished runner-up in three competitions. I hope he gets the Pompey job and keeps them up now, would be nice to see.

[Matt]

I can definitely see Chelsea approaching both Moyes and O'Neill, I can see them both telling Chelsea where to stuff it.

[-A-]

I'm in the camp of not thinking any of these sackings are too early. Well ... Adams definitely wasn't because he was clearly never cut out for it, are Pompey supposed to allow him to get them relegated just to prove a point? No, they admit they made a mistake, sack him and find someone who can keep them up. He should never have been hired in the first place and it benefits no-one for them to be stubborn about their decision.

It's exactly the same with Grant. He should never have been hired and he would have had to win something to prove that it wasn't a mistake hiring him. He took a squad with a certain level of success and made them worse, so he wasn't successful in his job. If anyone had pegged Grant as a top-level Premiership manager before he took over they'd be laughed at. What did he do to change that perception? Getting to a CL final, coming second in the league and winning neither domestic cup is under-achievement for Chelsea and the players they had there. He didn't rock the boat, he kept as close to the system that Mourinho had established and he got some success. He lacked the personality of Jose and the last two seasons have shown how important that is to Chelsea. The players they have there even now are capable of being much better, but they're not playing to their potential. The manager's job is to make that happen, so if it doesn't - they've failed.

Scolari wasn't cut out for the job. He's never had as much success at club level and saying that the board should have invested more (while true) doesn't excuse the fact that the players he did have under-performed. He seemed to have a blustering, uncaring attitude with quotes like 'Pressure? This is zero pressure. Managing Brazil - that is pressure, the whole nation are football managers.' Take your job seriously for fuck's sake.

The only way I can see Chelsea having made a poor decision is if they get a sub-par replacement in. If they have someone remotely decent lined up to do a shift until the end of the season, then that will be acceptable. The PL is gone and there are no signs that Scolari could win the CL judging by their terrible home form in all competitions and the fact that they were comprehensively outplayed.

Edited February 10, 2009 by -A-

[britneyspearsisgod]

Scolari wasn't cut out for the job. He's never had as much success at club level and saying that the board should have invested more (while true) doesn't excuse the fact that the players he did have under-performed. He seemed to have a blustering, uncaring attitude with quotes like 'Pressure? This is zero pressure. Managing Brazil - that is pressure, the whole nation are football managers.' Take your job seriously for fuck's sake.

Except for two facts you overlook:

[1] He won the league with Palmeiras in Brazil.

[2] The pressure of managing Brazil is very great. Just like managing England is a pressure. It's not uncaring - it's a bullish, deflective attitude designed to push the heat off his back.

Ultimately, I think it's a ridiculous notion from Chelsea. It's not like no other manager can't win for Chelsea, but I had every belief that Scolari, had he been given time, would have done a great job for Chelsea. But, Chelsea want to be the best, which is always an admirable quality. However, realism needs to be taken a look at: with a squad that runs the show, it's ridiculous to suggest someone will come and turn it around.

Chelsea need to clear out the players, not the manager.

[-A-]

Except for two facts you overlook:

[1] He won the league with Palmeiras in Brazil.

No, he didn't. He won the championship when it was decided with a playoff system, he's never come top in a league. That's why he has a reputation in Brazil as a cup manager, not a league manager.

[2] The pressure of managing Brazil is very great. Just like managing England is a pressure. It's not uncaring - it's a bullish, deflective attitude designed to push the heat off his back.

So when he was Brazil manager he would happily make the statement 'I am under zero pressure, my previous job was much more stressful'? Maybe it's a quirk of language, but I don't see how you can take what he said anything other than literally - this job is less important than my last one. It gives a bad impression to imply that your current job is much easier than your last one. Besides which, he didn't even say 'Working in Brazil is more stressful than here.' He said 'Working in Brazil is very stressful. Working for Chelsea is zero pressure.'

He's reported to have regularly turned up to training after the players and that's not suitable for a club like Chelsea that's based around discipline. He didn't take training seriously enough and his methods weren't respected by the players. If you're not getting the best out of the players, then you're not doing your job as a manager. You can argue that your methods are better, but if you're sticking to your guns and ignoring poor performance then you're not effective in your role.

Ultimately, I think it's a ridiculous notion from Chelsea. It's not like no other manager can't win for Chelsea, but I had every belief that Scolari, had he been given time, would have done a great job for Chelsea. But, Chelsea want to be the best, which is always an admirable quality. However, realism needs to be taken a look at: with a squad that runs the show, it's ridiculous to suggest someone will come and turn it around.

Chelsea need to clear out the players, not the manager.

They need to do both and the need to do one doesn't totally negate the other. With the squad they have there, they should be performing better. Their squad should be performing better and their squad should be better - two problems.

Edited February 10, 2009 by -A-

[stokeriño]

From BBC:

Hiddink begins talks with Chelsea

Chelsea made a move for the Dutchman after sacking Brazilian Luiz Felipe Scolari on Monday.

Hiddink, 62, who has close links with Blues owner Roman Abramovich, said: "If it was any other club my answer would be a straight 'No'.

"But Chelsea is different because I have good relations with the owner. I would like to help them if I could."

However, Hiddink stressed he will not be relinquishing his duties with Russia and is fully committed to helping the team qualify for the 2010 World Cup.

"I will not leave my job with the Russian national team. It's out of the question," he said.

"When I took the Russia job it was a long-term project and I don't like to leave it unfinished."

Hiddink has the extensive club and international experience Abramovich is searching for having coached PSV Eindhoven, Real Madrid as well as the Netherlands, South Korea and Australia.

And he insists juggling both club and international commitments would be not prove an issue having previously combined both duties in the past.

"I have already done that a couple of years ago when I was coaching Australia and PSV, so I'm familiar with the situation and what it takes."

Until the end of the season? So what, would he just leave pop back over to Russia for a week in Mar/Apr for their WC Qualifiers against Azerbaijan and Liechtenstein?

Reminds me of an old CM game when I managed both England and Chelsea, and due to some flaw in the game's fixtures had to somehow be in both Paris and Barcelona simultaneously.

As far as an 'interim' manager goes...well, almost anyone's better than leaving Wilkins in charge for five months...but still, not ideal.

Edited February 10, 2009 by stokeriño