Not even a week after their loss to Manchester United, Chelsea's management have fired Avram Grant.
What I ask myself is this—did they ever give the man a chance?
And more generally, do we expect too much progress in too little time from today's managers?
Sir Alex Ferguson became manager of Manchester United in November 1986. He won his first trophy with the club in January 1990. That's three years and two months later. I have numerous recent examples of managers in Premiership football that have been replaced much too soon, however I will concentrate on a few that have intrigued me the most.
Avram Grant became Chelsea manager on September 20th, 2007. He was sacked today, May 24th, 2008. In the eight months on the job, he managed to place the team further than anyone before him ever could—in the Champions League Final.
Not only that, Chelsea managed to hold their own throughout most of the game, and lose only on penalties (which is as much a matter of luck as it is a matter of technique). In my humble opinion, he actually did a very good job during the half-time break, to bring his team back from about 15-20 minutes of undisputed United dominance during the first half.
My question is, after achieving more than Ranieri or Mourinho ever did, why was he sacked so soon? Taking the job in September (and thereby missing the summer transfer window), Grant's only chance to make some minor changes in the squad was the January transfer window, when Chelsea purchased Nicolas Anelka (who earned good reviews for his debut against Tottenham on the 12th January), the Frenchman scoring his first goal for the club just two weeks later.
Of course, some will say, Anelka did miss the crucial final penalty that cost Chelsea the Champions League crown, but to that I say—John Terry could have ended the match before Anelka even got the chance to shoot.
In my opinion, Avram Grant could have made some crucial changes to the squad this summer and returned next season poised to reclaim the European trophy that they came so close to winning this year.
Rather, Chelsea would have a new manager come in, whose influence will probably not be felt until the early months of 2009, when it could be too late to fight for the Premier League and maybe even the Champions League.
Another management substitution that surprised me was Martin Jol's sacking from Tottenham, after almost three years in charge. Jol—the most successful manager in Tottenham's history. In only his second season in White Hart Lane, Jol cemented the club's place in the top six teams of the Premiership.
Then, in July 2006, he made what in my opinion was the most successful transfer Tottenham has had in the recent decade—he bought Dimitar Berbatov.
Tottenham's winning of the Carling Cup is also widely attributed to Jol's influence. Now I am not saying Juande Ramos is a bad coach—on the contrary, I think the Spaniard has the potential to achieve more than the Dutchman, but is it rational to sack the club's most successful manager only halfway through a bad season?
I think we have to go back to Arsene Wenger and his second season at Arsenal to see such a speedy improvement and conquest of silverware. I would consider Jose Mourinho's conquest of the Premiership in his first season, however, i do believe Chelsea's coming third in 2003, and second in 2004 (both under Ranieri) helped Mourinho a lot in providing him with an already able team.
I would also moan about why Mourinho was ever sacked from Chelsea, but that had nothing to do with his coaching abilities.
Basically, I am wondering—are the top clubs nowadays just too demanding?
And if they are, isn't that strange since the two clubs that have been the most consistent in winning silverware over the past 16 years (Manchester United and Arsenal) are managed by two of the longest serving managers in their teams' history?
comments (10) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
ok, you said that grant acheived more than mourinho ever did. WRONG. mourinho won the premier league twice, the f.a.cup and carling cup. grant won nothing. yes, he got them to the CL final, but still won nothing. oh and united dominated 45 minutes of out of 45 in the first half, not 15-20 as you put it.
martin jol was sacked because he was having a crap season, nowhere near expectations, so he had to go.
times have changed since wenger and fergie were appointed managers. clubs expect results immediately, i don't think that roman abramovich will wait till early 2009 for the new gaffers influence.
i don't agree with grant's sacking at all, i agree with you that he should have been given more time to rebuild and put his own stamp on the squad. it shows all that is wrong with football today.
good article mate, your gonna cause a good debate here.
from 4 months ago
I'm sorry Michael.. but I have to disagree with you.. You can't appoint a manager for eight months and expect him to win everything.. yes, Chelsea had a good squad but Grant had very little to work with in January and February and Chelsea finished second in the EPL, second in the CL, second in the Carling Cup.. I know, maybe second is not enough for Abramovich - but no manager is a miracle worker.. it is tough to win the press, the owners and the players over with trophies in the span of eight months..
I take my hats off to Grant - he came into Chelsea known as BBC (Balls, Bibs and Cones) and he leaves as a decent manager - nobody expected a thing of him and he came close to winning 3 trophies.. it is really sad but I do feel that it is going to be tough for Chelsea if they keep on changing personnel like this..
from 4 months ago
Sorry - I kind of replied to your comment hastily!! I agree with the last few lines!
4 months ago
Wait, I didnt say Grant won more than Mourinho (if i did, my bad), I just said he got Chelsea further than Mourinho ever did in that specifid competition. And yes, United were the better team in the first half, but they did make a few grave defensive errors, one of them leading to a goal, so i'm reluctant to giving them 45 minutes of full dominance.
I can understand how after two consecutive title wins, Abramovich would expect a lot from a manager, expecially having in mind the money he pays them. But i cant agree to Martin Jol's sacking....yes, he was having a crap season, but he had placed Tottenham 5th in two consecutive seasons, after quite a streak of bad season finishes. I think he deserved to at least finish this season off, maybe even have one more, and I am sure he would have picked up a cup or two.
from 4 months ago
If by grave defensive error you mean a fluke double-deflection followed by Van der Sar slipping...then yes. Maybe Chelsea deserved a goal on the night following the two woodwork shots but it sure as hell wasn't Lampard's.
That was as much of a defensive error as Ronaldo's penalty was legal.
4 months ago
Actually, the grave defensive error I was referring to was Lampard being left unmarked just a few yards away from Van der Sar (which if i remember correctly was Wes Brown's job?). A deflection can happen to anyone. Why it ended up in the feet of a player from the opposing team, unmarked, well into the United area is another question.
4 months ago
Yes to the headline....Sir Alex Ferguson is proof of all that.
4 months ago
people often say that sir alex was given time, when he took over at manchester united i believe his job was to save our disastrous season, at the time manchester united where not a big team, considering that sir alex first won the title it was like for the first in 20 years or so. So sir alex wasn't realy given time, he met his expectations and exceded them when he came to manchester.
Avram was a bad manager, he did nothing at all, he kept the same tactics as jose, played pretty much the same team, and he signed Anelka, the man is a proven nightmare and i bet that managers all over europe where laughing at him when he signed him.
Also to Stoil: How is it a right backs job to mark a centre midfield player, and the fact of the matter is that goal was lucky as Lampard gambled on a run and luckily the ball landed on his foot and it went in.
from 4 months ago
I'll have to disagree. Mourinho came to Chelsea having won the Champions League with Porto, so obviously a lot was expected from him. And he did deliver, bringing Chelsea a lot silverwear. But Grant came into Chelsea without having coached big football at all (which brings to question why he was even given the job) and still managed to fight for the Premiership till the last game and reach the final of the Champions League. I think thats a pretty good achievement considering Grant's previous experiences.
And as far as the last comment goes, I said i think it was Wes Brown who should have been there...in any case one of the backs should have been covering Lampard as he was in the area....free. The deflection was a fluke. The fact that Lampard had all the space in the world to take advantage of it, wasnt.
4 months ago
Too Bad that Grant lacks the charisma, too bad that he isnt a big-name manager, too bad that he is the complete opposite of Mourinho, too bad that he made huge tactical mistakes in big matches (against tottenham etc.) . Every manager is judged by the things he lacks. Too bad that Grant lacks a bit too many. This is how managers are judged today. Like it or not, we have to accept it.
write a new comment