Frank Lampard | Former Chelsea manager

Has he actually got any qualification to get this job?
I mean, I have a very hard time imagining that the same decision criteria that lead to them appointing Sarri now lead to the conclusion that Lampard is the best choice to take them forward. No continuity.

Have the feeling that this won't take a good ending for them. Loyalty and popularity can't replace football expertise.
 
Zehner said:
Has he actually got any qualification to get this job?
I mean, I have a very hard time imagining that the same decision criteria that lead to them appointing Sarri now lead to the conclusion that Lampard is the best choice to take them forward. No continuity.

Have the feeling that this won't take a good ending for them. Loyalty and popularity can't replace football expertise.
Click to expand...

No is the answer. Apart from being a Chelsea legend.

It's hope essentially, and obviously crowd will be patient with him.

But hey, it worked with Zidane who had a bang average record with Castilla.

So we'll see.
 
Sol Campbell was right. One year at Derby and he gets this job? I don't to see anyone saying there isn't a bias towards white managers in this country
 
Zehner said:
Has he actually got any qualification to get this job?
I mean, I have a very hard time imagining that the same decision criteria that lead to them appointing Sarri now lead to the conclusion that Lampard is the best choice to take them forward. No continuity.

Have the feeling that this won't take a good ending for them. Loyalty and popularity can't replace football expertise.
Click to expand...

Now where have I heard this before? United and Chelsea are pretty much in the same boat, manager-wise.
 
The best choice they could have made. Not really a plethora of top level managers available & many wouldn't go there anyway due to the transfer ban. I think he'll do well there in time.
 
Moriarty said:
Now where have I heard this before? United and Chelsea are pretty much in the same boat, manager-wise.
Click to expand...

Sarri is a modern and progressive coach, a hipster's choice, who's yet to prove himself in many people's eyes, Mourinho is a old fashioned and destructive manager who's obviously past his prime. They've got nothing in common l, especially regarding their style.

Solskjaer was IMO a typical United decision. All about tradition, reputation, loyalty etc. The Lampard appointment follows the same school of thought. There's no innovation, no vision, just going with something you are either familiar with or what's already proven. No innovation, no risk taking. That may at times go out okayish or even well and maybe Solskjaer indeed is an example of such a decision but then he's a lucky choice and not the result of a brave but profound and future minded decision process.
 
Zehner said:
Sarri is a modern and progressive coach, a hipster's choice, who's yet to prove himself in many people's eyes, Mourinho is a old fashioned and destructive manager who's obviously past his prime. They've got nothing in common l, especially regarding their style.

Solskjaer was IMO a typical United decision. All about tradition, reputation, loyalty etc. The Lampard appointment follows the same school of thought. There's no innovation, no vision, just going with something you are either familiar with or what's already proven. No innovation, no risk taking. That may at times go out okayish or even well and maybe Solskjaer indeed is an example of such a decision but then he's a lucky choice and not the result of a brave but profound and future minded decision process.
Click to expand...

How is appointing Lampard and Ole, not innovating and taking risks? Appointing safe managers means not taking risks, appointing Lampard who is unknown at high level is the definition of taking risk.
 
I'll be honest I like Lampard, and have always had time for him. Didn't see to much of his team at Derby except for the play offs so no idea how he will set up to play. While I hope we obviously beat Chelsea in our games and in the league standings over the season, I'd like to see him do well.
 
roonster09 said:
How is appointing Lampard and Ole, not innovating and taking risks? Appointing safe managers means not taking risks, appointing Lampard who is unknown at high level is the definition of taking risk.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's going with the familiar. The appointment of someone like Sarri means that you want to install a certain playing philosophy in your club, you want to give it a clear identity, even if it means inevitable conflicts. If you instead choose someone like Lampard or Solskjaer, the primary motive is usually that he 'knows the club', how things are done there and will fit in nicely. That's the opposite of change and innovation, it's about maintaining the status quo. An outsider will question everything, someone familiar won't do it, at least not with the same consequence.
 
roonster09 said:
How is appointing Lampard and Ole, not innovating and taking risks? Appointing safe managers means not taking risks, appointing Lampard who is unknown at high level is the definition of taking risk.
Click to expand...

It's more that both appointments are relying on conservative values, I guess. Both based on intangible qualities like tradition rather than more tangible ones, both harking back to a bygone glory era rather than striking out in a new approach for Manchester United.

Or at least that's the narrative, anyway.

Zehner said:
Has he actually got any qualification to get this job?
I mean, I have a very hard time imagining that the same decision criteria that lead to them appointing Sarri now lead to the conclusion that Lampard is the best choice to take them forward. No continuity.

Have the feeling that this won't take a good ending for them. Loyalty and popularity can't replace football expertise.
Click to expand...

Tbf I think the transfer ban changes things somewhat. In those conditions it may make sense or be neccesary for any manager coming in to already be invested in the club.

If I was an outsider taking over I would be worried that a combination of a tough job, serious transfer restrictions and a notoriously trigger happy owner was setting me up to fail. That may be less the case with Lampard, who would certainly be more inclined to take the job anyway and may feel that he will be shown more patience than an outsider would be.
 
Good luck to him... hes gonna need it I think

------------Giroud----------
willian----------------pulisic

until CHO is back - with pedro and abraham / batshuai for cover... good luck gettting enough goals to push for a cl spot!... and without a cl spot good luck keeping kante next year

that said im looking forward to seeing what happens with RLC and if mount gets some games... most intriguingly can he get barkley to (finally) start living up to his potential - because they are going to need some goals from somewhere
 
Zehner said:
As I said, it's going with the familiar. The appointment of someone like Sarri means that you want to install a certain playing philosophy in your club, you want to give it a clear identity, even if it means inevitable conflicts. If you instead choose someone like Lampard or Solskjaer, the primary motive is usually that he 'knows the club', how things are done there and will fit in nicely. That's the opposite of change and innovation, it's about maintaining the status quo. An outsider will question everything, someone familiar won't do it, at least not with the same consequence.
Click to expand...

Appointing Sarri is not risky decision as he was one of the best managers before moving to Chelsea. It's a decision that had very good chance of working out.

You are assuming these managers won't challenge or change anything. They are not hired to re define the football club, they are hired to get the results.
 
Zehner said:
Has he actually got any qualification to get this job?
I mean, I have a very hard time imagining that the same decision criteria that lead to them appointing Sarri now lead to the conclusion that Lampard is the best choice to take them forward. No continuity.

Have the feeling that this won't take a good ending for them. Loyalty and popularity can't replace football expertise.
Click to expand...

Has a better run of form in top(ish) level footy than OGS...

Have a feeling Lampard will be a decent manager at PL level actually.
 
Too early in my opinion. I honestly think Lampard is a great manager in the making, but this is a bad move. He's joined Chelsea at a time when they've arguably never been weaker, and taking charge of a squad with a history of downing tools on far bigger managers. Don't think this will end well.
 
Nick7 said:
Does he really?
Click to expand...
I would out of say their respective records in England pre their big gigs Lampard has a better record, however OGS does have the title winning experience in Norway.
 
Dancfc said:
I would out of say their respective records in England pre their big gigs Lampard has a better record, however OGS does have the title winning experience in Norway.
Click to expand...
If we're ONLY talking England, ok. Even then Solskjaer has a better win record at United than Lampard at Derby. If we're talking experience altogether? I don't think Lampard is "better". As you say OGS has title winning and European football experience at Molde.

Either way, I think both are risky appointments. I'm not entirely happy with us having OGS as our full time manager, but he's got the job now. But I don't think anyone can say with any certainty Lampard has been a better manager than OGS. Both risky appointments and have questions over their heads.
 
roonster09 said:
Appointing Sarri is not risky decision as he was one of the best managers before moving to Chelsea. It's a decision that had very good chance of working out.

You are assuming these managers won't challenge or change anything. They are not hired to re define the football club, they are hired to get the results.
Click to expand...

It is risky because of what is connected to a Sarri appointment. Those coaches have clear visions of their team, training facilities, transfers and so forth. The club commits itself to this vision and backs the manager's philosophy and backs him against resistances when he pushes it through. Change always means risk because you break habits and convenient organizational structures, so you inevitably upset many people who don't want that.

Yes, the appointment of a no name is risky, too, but after all the motive behind such a decision is that you choose the familiar over the unknown. Or do you really believe Lampard or Solskjaer will turn their clubs upside down?

If I were to guess, I'd say Chelsea appointed Sarri because he had a very good reputation but they weren't aware what that signing actually meant. They didn't expect all the inner conflicts and that he wanted so many changes so they decided to let him go. Now that they've made this experience, they want to go back to someone who is far more convenient and will fit in much better with the already existing structures and people, not realizing that they need this change to remain at respectively find back to the top.

Besides that, it's also such a ridiculously clear break in philosophy. There's no continuity or overarching philosophy. When they appointed Conte after Mourinho, it made sense. When they chose Sarri, I thought the, wanted to abandon this style and follow City's role model. Now they appointed Lampard and if his style as a footballer is anything to go by his style of play is as far away from Sarri's as it gets. As I said: no continuity.
 
So 'Chelsea' will be changed to 'Frank Lampard's Chelsea'
And 'Frank Lampard's Derby County' will be changed to just 'Derby County'
 
Zehner said:
It is risky because of what is connected to a Sarri appointment. Those coaches have clear visions of their team, training facilities, transfers and so forth. The club commits itself to this vision and backs the manager's philosophy and backs him against resistances when he pushes it through. Change always means risk because you break habits and convenient organizational structures, so you inevitably upset many people who don't want that.
Click to expand...

Looks like we both have very different definition of what risky means. Was Pep appointment risky too as whatever you said is applicable to Pep too.
 
Zehner said:
Besides that, it's also such a ridiculously clear break in philosophy. There's no continuity or overarching philosophy. When they appointed Conte after Mourinho, it made sense. When they chose Sarri, I thought the, wanted to abandon this style and follow City's role model. Now they appointed Lampard and if his style as a footballer is anything to go by his style of play is as far away from Sarri's as it gets. As I said: no continuity.
Click to expand...
Is it? I would say they both follow similar guidelines to how they want the game to be played. Both play 4-3-3 with the emphasis of being on the front foot and pressing opposition (Derby similar to us got a couple of big game battering's by trying to play that way vs superior sides too early into the process).

Lampard will probably rotate more and be a little more creative with his subs but his way of playing isn't that far different from Sarri's.
 
roonster09 said:
Looks like we both have very different definition of what risky means. Was Pep appointment risky too as whatever you said is applicable to Pep too.
Click to expand...

Pep's appointment wasn't risky because the club had already prepared everything for him. It's not the actual appointment that's risky but the changes related to it, e. g. selling your formerly best players because the coach doesn't want them or firing age old and formerly very important employees because they don't get along. A coach like Guardiola or Sarri forces you to turn your club upside down and they'll be gone if you refuse to do it. All or nothing.

But I understand your point, a no name coach is of course a risky appointment. I just don't think it's innovative. The club doesn't leave it's comfort zone so to speak.

Dancfc said:
Is it? I would say they both follow similar guidelines to how they want the game to be played. Both play 4-3-3 with the emphasis of being on the front foot and pressing opposition (Derby similar to us got a couple of big game battering's by trying to play that way vs superior sides too early into the process).

Lampard will probably rotate more and be a little more creative with his subs but his way of playing isn't that far different from Sarri's.
Click to expand...

As I said, I haven't seen Lampard's teams play, which is why I said 'if his playing style is everything to go by'. He may very well have a similar coach but I simply didn't expect it. It would be like Xavi suddenly having his team play some sort of Catenaccio or Kick'n'Rush.

Formation also isn't everything. Sarri is one of those 'total football' type of coaches, somebody to follow Cruyff's and Michel's school of thought. Klopp exemplarilyalso uses a 4-3-3 but he's still nothing like Guardiola, Sarri or Ten Haag. So yeah, I'm curious how Chelsea will look like next season.
 
Zehner said:
Pep's appointment wasn't risky because the club had already prepared everything for him. It's not the actual appointment that's risky but the changes related to it, e. g. selling your formerly best players because the coach doesn't want them or firing age old and formerly very important employees because they don't get along. A coach like Guardiola or Sarri forces you to turn your club upside down and they'll be gone if you refuse to do it. All or nothing.

But I understand your point, a no name coach is of course a risky appointment. I just don't think it's innovative. The club doesn't leave it's comfort zone so to speak.
Click to expand...

That's how narrative is built but Pep came and changed so much. They didn't have GK who suits Pep's way of playing, they didn't have ball playing CBs, they had shit ageing FBs and not even good wingers.

They wanted Pep from long time and hired Barca directors but they didn't do much work at all. They didn't even play possession football before Pep, they used to average below 50% possession in CLs and had few teams who averaged more possession than them.

Now that they are miles better (thanks to Pep) everyone can't wait to write how beautifully everything was planned when Pep had to change so much.
 
roonster09 said:
That's how narrative is built but Pep came and changed so much. They didn't have GK who suits Pep's way of playing, they didn't have ball playing CBs, they had shit ageing FBs and not even good wingers.

They wanted Pep from long time and hired Barca directors but they didn't do much work at all. They didn't even play possession football before Pep, they used to average below 50% possession in CLs and had few teams who averaged more possession than them.

Now that they are miles better (thanks to Pep) everyone can't wait to write how beautifully everything was planned when Pep had to change so much.
Click to expand...

You limit it to players. There was far more to it, like the whole infrastructure: Training facilities, scouting networks, academy, ...
Even long before he signed for them it was clear City was preparing everything for him. There were rumours he counseled them on which players to sign when he was still at Bayern. It's not like that's a story told retrospectively, it was out there much much earlier.

And the team already featured many players which were great for Guardiola's way of playing. Silva, de Bruyne, Aguero, Kompany, Sterling, Otamendi.
 
It is good to see the good will being put Franks way and I for one am looking forward to seeing him do well.

We'll have to see how things work out but it is good to see Chelsea taking a different approach. Isn't it good for the game that young English managers get a chance at a high level?

I was happy for Sarri to stay but he didn't want to give up the opportunity to manage the biggest club in Italy. Chelsea had to appoint somebody and you would have to question the motives of somebody without a connection to the club agreeing to manage under the current circumstances.
 
Zehner said:
You limit it to players. There was far more to it, like the whole infrastructure: Training facilities, scouting networks, academy, ...
Even long before he signed for them it was clear City was preparing everything for him. There were rumours he counseled them on which players to sign when he was still at Bayern. It's not like that's a story told retrospectively, it was out there much much earlier.

And the team already featured many players which were great for Guardiola's way of playing. Silva, de Bruyne, Aguero, Kompany, Sterling, Otamendi.
Click to expand...

KdB wasn't typical Pep player, he was too wasteful in possession and very direct. Saying Otamendi is just clutching straws now. They signed players like Bony too and the rumors (Pep directing them whom to sign)are just nonsense.

City's training facilities were improved as part of direct investment from their owners, nothing to do with Pep. Same with academy and scouting network. Like I said, it's just a narrative that was build once they signed him.

When Pep joined City, there was rumors that Aguero will be replaced with Jesus as he wasn't typical Pep player.

Ageruo was signed in 2011-12 season, did they plan for Pep back then too?
David Silva was signed in 2009-10 and in the same season Yaya was also signed, player who fell out with Pep. Signing Silva, Aguero has nothing to do with Pep. They were signed 8-10 years ago.

City also signed Mangala, Fernando, Bony in 2014-15, they aren't typical Pep players, they are completely on the other end.
 
roonster09 said:
KdB wasn't typical Pep player, he was too wasteful in possession and very direct. Saying Otamendi is just clutching straws now. They signed players like Bony too and the rumors (Pep directing them whom to sign)are just nonsense.

City's training facilities were improved as part of direct investment from their owners, nothing to do with Pep. Same with academy and scouting network. Like I said, it's just a narrative that was build once they signed him.

When Pep joined City, there was rumors that Aguero will be replaced with Jesus as he wasn't typical Pep player.

Ageruo was signed in 2011-12 season, did they plan for Pep back then too?
David Silva was signed in 2009-10 and in the same season Yaya was also signed, player who fell out with Pep. Signing Silva, Aguero has nothing to do with Pep. They were signed 8-10 years ago.

City also signed Mangala, Fernando, Bony in 2014-15, they aren't typical Pep players, they are completely on the other end.
Click to expand...

Obviously they didn't plan on getting Pep when they signed Silva and Aguero, no need to point that out. I just named them to show that the foundation was already there.

Thing is, they didn't sign Beigiristan back in 2012 for nothing. They decided to make Pep's Barca their role model and year by year they became more like them. Of course they didn't bet anything on him signing for them sooner or later but they developed in that direction regardless, and if Pep hadn't gone there they would've employed a coach with asimilar philosophy. Like it or not but the current City is the best example on successful long term planning in football there is. There are many top squads in the world, some are 'Pep teams' and some are not. City was always one of those teams you'd say 'imagine this team was coached by Guardiola' about. Bayern even more so back then. That's the reason Guardiola had to adjust relatively little when he arrived. I mean, imagine him hitting up at United, he'd probably demand a completely new squad and only kept Mata, Sanchez and Martial.
 
Zehner said:
Obviously they didn't plan on getting Pep when they signed Silva and Aguero, no need to point that out. I just named them to show that the foundation was already there.

Thing is, they didn't sign Beigiristan back in 2012 for nothing. They decided to make Pep's Barca their role model and year by year they became more like them. Of course they didn't bet anything on him signing for them sooner or later but they developed in that direction regardless, and if Pep hadn't gone there they would've employed a coach with asimilar philosophy. Like it or not but the current City is the best example on successful long term planning in football there is. There are many top squads in the world, some are 'Pep teams' and some are not. City was always one of those teams you'd say 'imagine this team was coached by Guardiola' about. Bayern even more so back then. That's the reason Guardiola had to adjust relatively little when he arrived. I mean, imagine him hitting up at United, he'd probably demand a completely new squad and only kept Mata, Sanchez and Martial.
Click to expand...

He changed his GK twice, complete new defense, B.Silva, signed Jesus to replace Aguero which didnt work out. That's more than half of the team. KdB, Silva were attacking mids but somehow he made it work as midfield 3.

It's far from easy sailing, since he is arguably the best at what he does, he made it work. Of course they wanted Pep from long back and signed Barca directors but everything about playing style, players is just myth.

Before Pep they didn't employ someone with similar philosophy, they had Pellegrini whose team averaged less than 50% possession in Europe and never topped possession charts once. They were attacking team but far from how they play today. Before that they had Mancini who had completely different philosophy.

No, they were not one of "imagine if Pep managed this team" type of team. They had fecking Joe Hart as GK, Zabaleta/Sanga, Clichy as FBs, washed up Demi and Kompany as CBs who were exposed any time they played high line.

Yaya was their first choice midfielder. No one even though Fernandinho would step up the way he did and they had Jesus Navas as one of their winger.

He more or less ripped the team and changed few players and improved few. They had oldest or second oldest squad in the league when Pep took over. So many articles on how they needed rebuild.
 
Fat Frank as people have called him is looking pretty trim these days going off the pics on the BBC. Maybe hasn't eaten much while thinking about taking the Chelsea job on.

Think he'll do well if given the chance, he did a good job at Derby and came to OT and beat United.

Good chance for an English manager at a top 6 club which doesn't happen.
 
I actually like him, but dont think this will last very long. The pressure will be truly on if they hit poor form and drop out of top 6.
 
Rhyme Animal said:
As long as it's you lot crying again, I think we're ok with that.
Click to expand...
Tears of joy I hope.

I don't think Frank's going to have an easy time of it. Their best player's gone and they have a transfer ban to contend with. At least he's not dealing with the Europa League all season.
 
I hope him, Terry, Gerrard and other English managers do well. It'd be nice to get some English blood at top clubs instead of foreign managers.

They're still cnuts, mind.
 
Watched Derby several games last season, Lampard is going to surprise. He's good.
 
TheHeya said:
Meanwhile Terry is in the corner of his bedroom sulking because he imagined that this would be him
Click to expand...

Not really. Firstly there is a strong chance it still will be some day but both players have chosen to take different paths for now.

Terry has chosen to learn the trade from the inside, that's chosen. If he was in a rush to get the Chelsea job he could have done similar to Lampard and walked into a higher end Championship manager's position. Terry is an intelligent guy (look at his property portfolio) and I think has the potential to be a very good manager down the line.
 
Good luck to him. I actually think he will do well, though not well enough for Chelsea.
 
Squaaaad said:
Sol Campbell was right. One year at Derby and he gets this job? I don't to see anyone saying there isn't a bias towards white managers in this country
Click to expand...
2 pages. We made it 2 pages before someone brought this up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.