Bleacher Report - Articles by Stoil Topalov

Are We Giving Today's Managers too little time?!

Stoil Topalov — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:26:22 -0400

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?

Formula One Season Analysis: It's Lonely at the Top for Ferrari...for Now

Stoil Topalov — Tue, 13 May 2008 10:59:49 -0400

It probably isn't fun being Ron Dennis right now. Five races into the 2008 season, we have had four Ferrari wins, two Ferrari one-two's and one Ferrari one-three finish—McLaren has managed at best one driver on the podium at a time—giving the red team 63 out of a maximum 90 points possible.

Trailing by 21 points in the constructor's championship, it is high time McLaren staged their comeback. There is talk of just that, as Dennis remains cautiously optimistic about the next two races—Monaco and Canada.

And with reason—both races went well for McLaren last season, and the silver arrows have undoubtedly the best team record in Monaco, winning five. of the last 10 races there. Meanwhile, Ferrari have not won on the streets of the Principato since 2001.

As far as the drivers are concerned, Hamilton loves the circuit—despite alleged team orders he gave Alonso quite the run for his money last year. Massa’s performance has been relatively quiet (third in 2007, ninth in 2006).

Raikkonen’s history at Monaco has loads of ups (won in 2005, drove a solid race from 16th on the grid to eighth last season), and downs (he did not finish the 2004 and 2006 races). As Martin Whitmarsh put it: “The team has a great history there [Monaco] and we are naturally looking to add to that this summer.”

As for Canada, it is a special circuit for Hamilton, who won his first Formula Onw Grand Prix there last year. Even though Ferrari has a string track record in Canada, they have failed to show that in the last couple of seasons.

All in all, McLaren and Lewis Hamilton desperately need a win in Monaco and possibly in Canada as well to keep their championship challenge alive. The second leg of the European races—especially France, Britain, and Belgium—seem to favour Ferrari. There was a 32-second gap between the Ferraris and the closest McLaren in last year’s French Grand Prix.

The Spanish Grand Prix in 2007 was exactly a year ago (13/05). When the chequered flag went down, McLaren was in the lead of the constructors championship with nine points ahead of Ferrari—58 to 49 points, respectively.

Even if we have a McLaren one-two finish in Monaco and Ferrari do not score any points, the red team will still be ahead by three points. However, given the low likelihood of the above scenario, McLaren must be ready to give their heart and soul into the next few Grand Prix, if they are to have any chance of winning this year’s constructor’s championship.

In a sport like Formula One, I generally avoid making predictions. A drop of rain or simply being in the wrong part of the racetrack at the wrong time, can change the outcome of a whole race.

On the other hand, I do believe it is highly likely that Lewis Hamilton is the odds-on favourite to win the next two Grand Prix. How this will affect his championship standing depends only on where the red cars finish.

The bad news for Hamilton, and McLaren, is that Ferrari is also very likely to finish these two races better than they did last year—a mere eighth for Raikkonen in Monaco, and a disqualification for Massa in Canada.

Chelsea-Liverpool: How Rafa Benitez Dug His Own Grave

Stoil Topalov — Thu, 01 May 2008 01:14:42 -0400

So—you're Rafa Benitez, you've conceded a goal at home, and now you head to a stadium where your team has not scored a goal in eight games, but has to do so to earn that coveted ticket to Moscow.

It is (at least in my opinion) at times like these when a manager looks to field their strongest and most agressive side, hoping to score a quick goal, and play the rest of the game on their terms. Apparently, not if your name is Rafael Benitez.

On a rainy night in west London, Benitez picked the following 11: Reina, Riise, Carragher, Arbeloa, Skrtel, Gerrard, Alonso, Benayoun, Mascherano, Tores, and Kuyt. All good—if you're looking for a goalless draw.

It was obvious from the first few minutes that the sharpness and explosiveness of Liverpool's attack was missing. Attempts to outpace the Chelsea defense went futile, as Yossi Benayoun tried moves more suited to the strikingly fast Jermaine Pennant, and Fernando Torres kept missing from places where Peter Crouch could have easily finished the job.

Which made me wonder, where were Crouch and Pennant? Surely Benitez couldn't have forgotten Crouch's goal-scoring performance against Arsenal? And Babel? His victory-sealing strike against Arsenal must have booked him a starting place at the semifinal, right?

Well...yes (Benitez looked like he had forgotten in-form Crouch), and no (Babel's excellent play against Arsenal did not book him a starting squad place).

It might be just me, but I feel a 4-3-3 formation with Torres, Crouch, and Kuyt at front, Gerrard, Alonso, and Pennant in midfield, and Carragher, Hyppia, Arbeloa, and Riise at the back would have been a lot more threatening, and consequently, a lot more effective than the side Benitez initally fielded.

Note: Skrtel (who looked shaky from the start) did give way to Hyppia after an injury in the 22nd minute. What a waste of a substitution.

Mind you, Pennant and Babel did eventually come on in the 78 and 98th minute respectively, however, Babel came in for Torres, who looked like more-or-less the only man that could score a last-minute winner for Liverpool.

Nevertheless, it was Babel who scored for Liverpool in the 117th minute to make it 3-2 (why wasn't he in the starting lineup again?), but by that point, the likes of Alonso had given up all hope and looked like traffic cones on the pitch.

Of course, Liverpool owe much to Benitez's genius, and the Spaniard is definitely a factor in Liverpool's three semifinal appearances in four years. However, at times (like last night and last year's final) his decisions have been more than questionable.