Who will the next permanent Chelsea manager be?

[xceleryx]

1 minute ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Yeah I wasn’t talking about the fee or why, thanks. I knew that. I was just amazed we even bothered with him. 

We required a left back with Alonso wanting to leave and Chilwell's situation with injury. Cucurella made sense, and many thought likewise at the time as well. The fact he was also capable of playing LCB in a back three further added to the appeal. Obviously it hasn't panned out as expected, but in fairness he's also had a tough season away from the pitch between serious illness and having his house robbed.

There's still a player there and like I expect with several others, he'll have a more acceptable second season. 

[Chelsea_Matt]

17 minutes ago, xceleryx said:

We required a left back with Alonso wanting to leave and Chilwell's situation with injury. Cucurella made sense, and many thought likewise at the time as well. The fact he was also capable of playing LCB in a back three further added to the appeal. Obviously it hasn't panned out as expected, but in fairness he's also had a tough season away from the pitch between serious illness and having his house robbed.

There's still a player there and like I expect with several others, he'll have a more acceptable second season. 

You’re more optimistic than me my veggie-nicknamed friend, I’ll say that!

[ROTG]

3 hours ago, Chelsea_Matt said:

Cucurella was £60m apparently. Let that sink in.

Still numb with disbelief at the lack of quality from the £600m spent over the past two windows.

One hopes the new coach turns it around or the club could be heading down the same road as Everton

[FrankLampard8]

It is wild. Having spent £600m in a year we really should be one of the best teams in the world. Maybe we have the talent there to be that with the right hand on the wheel - but the evidence certainly suggests otherwise at the moment. I think most XIs you can put together look quite strong on paper with just 2 or 3 extra additions but unfortunately the game isn't played there.

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, xceleryx said:

We weren't after bench warming CB's in the summer though, we were chasing higher quality replacements for Rudiger and Christensen, hence Koulibaly.

Its would have been tactical recruitment of  players who can do a job when asked, rather than a complete was of money as the stat prove.

Unless your idea is £38m is a reasonable price for someone as poor as KK

PL records

Mee - played 36, Goals 3, Assists 2, minutes played ~3,100 - Cost £2.5m

Twarkoski - Played 37, Goals 1, Assists 1, minutes played ~3,300 - Cost Free

KK - Played 23, Goals 2, Assists 1, Minutes played ~1,800 - Cost £38m

[Mark Kelly]

4 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Its would have been tactical recruitment of  players who can do a job when asked, rather than a complete was of money as the stat prove.

Unless your idea is £38m is a reasonable price for someone as poor as KK

PL records

Mee - played 36, Goals 3, Assists 2, minutes played ~3,100 - Cost £2.5m

Twarkoski - Played 37, Goals 1, Assists 1, minutes played ~3,300 - Cost Free

KK - Played 23, Goals 2, Assists 1, Minutes played ~1,800 - Cost £38m

You're correct but as I said earlier as a club Chelsea have been "after" KK for years so it's hard to pin that one entire on Boehly who was probably going on past requirements and thought he was doing the right thing 

[ROTG]

2 hours ago, xceleryx said:

Brighton had already slapped a £50m asking price on him when Man City were interested.

Chitty walked away knowing he was over priced

[ROTG]

1 minute ago, Mark Kelly said:

You're correct but as I said earlier as a club Chelsea have been "after" KK for years so it's hard to pin that one entire on Boehly who was probably going on past requirements and thought he was doing the right thing 

Yeah - hard one to fathom

[Miguelito07]

I think we need to give KK this season to bed in. I mean, T.Silva wasnt great in his first season either. 

[chara]

Inflated transfer costs....

I live in Park County...the county residents are up in arms as the "new" property tax based  assessments this have risen by 60%/70%...ludicrous...my modest two bed property is still basically the one I purchased 10 years ago.... Cucu as an example is still a maybe 70% less player than the fee paid...but that was the asking price in the then current market..and paid.

No answer but you have to pay what is required for what you want...assessing the value is the rub.

 

[FrankLampard8]

52 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Its would have been tactical recruitment of  players who can do a job when asked, rather than a complete was of money as the stat prove.

Unless your idea is £38m is a reasonable price for someone as poor as KK

PL records

Mee - played 36, Goals 3, Assists 2, minutes played ~3,100 - Cost £2.5m

Twarkoski - Played 37, Goals 1, Assists 1, minutes played ~3,300 - Cost Free

KK - Played 23, Goals 2, Assists 1, Minutes played ~1,800 - Cost £38m

None of these stats actually show much of anything regarding the performance of centre halves. What about tackles, interceptions, clearance, aerial duels won etc? Or perhaps just as important for a team like Chelsea, passing stats?

Quite clearly the board didn't think KK was a waste of money when they bought him and I think general consensus was he was a great player who would slot straight in and perform - just the fee was a little big and the contract a little long for someone his age. It hasn't worked out so far (and might never) but at least there was evidence to suggest KK had the potential to fill Rudi's boots.

KK looked brilliant in another team. Who is to say the 2 cloggers you seem so set on would have performed well in this circus either? 

[Bert19]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

You're correct but as I said earlier as a club Chelsea have been "after" KK for years so it's hard to pin that one entire on Boehly who was probably going on past requirements and thought he was doing the right thing 

He was also getting what Tuchel asked him to get (or as high up that list of targets as possible). 

Given the lack of directors at the time, it is very possible that the Manager had a strong amount of say about the targets last summer - which does not reflect well on Tuchel at this point (much as i'm sure he'd have got more out of them than Potter/Frank have done).  The only one that has come out of the season with any real merit to his name is Wes Fofana and he's been injured a lot. 

I'm also left wondering if the results of the summer transfer window are what prompted such a drastic change in signing policy by January?  Perfectly plausible that Winstanley/Vivell/Shields/Stewart etc saw what we'd got for the fees and wages paid and decided that an immediate diversion from anything like that was required.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Bert19
added paragraph

[paulw66]

1 hour ago, FrankLampard8 said:

It is wild. Having spent £600m in a year we really should be one of the best teams in the world. 

Well, it doesn't work like that, and it's not anywhere close to 600m. A lot of fees paid are add-on dependent like Mudryk being 62m, rising to 89m if we conquer the world. Guess which price gets quoted, for click bait? What surprises me is how many people lap it up.

Moreover, there is plenty of context needed around that spend. The oldest player we signed from the January influx was 22. 

We needed to buy two centre backs in the summer just to stand still, and one those missed a lot of the season. There's also around 100m of that spent on players who haven't yet kicked a ball for us. 

 

[FrankLampard8]

6 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Well, it doesn't work like that, and it's not anywhere close to 600m. A lot of fees paid are add-on dependent like Mudryk being 62m, rising to 89m if we conquer the world. Guess which price gets quoted, for click bait? What surprises me is how many people lap it up.

Moreover, there is plenty of context needed around that spend. The oldest player we signed from the January influx was 22. 

We needed to buy two centre backs in the summer just to stand still, and one those missed a lot of the season. There's also around 100m of that spent on players who haven't yet kicked a ball for us. 

 

I'm well aware it doesn't always work like that but if you are competent and spend the money well it absolutely should work like that. We have spent enough money to be a VERY good football team - to say anything less is letting Clearlake off the hook. I appreciate we lost some very good players (with centre half in particular hit badly) but we had a world class coach when they took over, a lot of good players left and spent enough money to cherry pick almost any 4 or 5 (maybe 6) world class players we wanted to plug right in. The amount of money we've spent on projects for the future is quite frankly ridiculous and I can't imagine it will bear much fruit if i'm honest - I hope to be proved wrong.

[Bob Singleton]

3 hours ago, Miguelito07 said:

I think we need to give KK this season to bed in. I mean, T.Silva wasnt great in his first season either. 

Agree with the first bit. Disagree with the second... Silva was more than OK in his first season. Rudiger, on the other hand - like KK - looked a little ropey to start with.

Edited May 22, 2023 by Bob Singleton

[ROTG]

4 hours ago, FrankLampard8 said:

KK looked brilliant in another team.

In all of his years, at the other team he won two domestic cup. Leaves last summer and replaced by South Korean CB who cost €18 and hey presto, his previous club wins the league. 
 

it’s quite funny how people careers pan out. At least TB is giving him a decent pension. 

[ROTG]

1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

Rudiger, on the other hand - like KK - looked a little ropey to start with.

Rudiger was 24 when he joined Chelsea and coming into his prime, whereas KK was 31 and past his prime. KK is a poor signing by the club and would not be surprised to see him be moved on or loaned back to an Italian club  

 

 

[Chelsea_Matt]

50 minutes ago, ROTG said:

Rudiger was 24 when he joined Chelsea and coming into his prime, whereas KK was 31 and past his prime. KK is a poor signing by the club and would not be surprised to see him be moved on or loaned back to an Italian club  

 

 

Bet he’s gutted too that Napoli won the league without him. 🤣

[Michael Tucker]

5 hours ago, Bob Singleton said:

Silva was more than OK in his first season.

Absolutely. 'More  than ok' doesn't even tell the true story - he was straight in and outstanding.

But here's a serious question: What has any of this got to do with the thread title? 

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, ROTG said:

Its would have been tactical recruitment of  players who can do a job when asked, rather than a complete was of money as the stat prove.

Unless your idea is £38m is a reasonable price for someone as poor as KK

PL records

Mee - played 36, Goals 3, Assists 2, minutes played ~3,100 - Cost £2.5m

Twarkoski - Played 37, Goals 1, Assists 1, minutes played ~3,300 - Cost Free

KK - Played 23, Goals 2, Assists 1, Minutes played ~1,800 - Cost £38m

You're using hindsight as the basis of your argument.

There was no initial comparison to be made  when looking at Koulibaly and either Twarkoski or Mee. Koulibaly has been one of the premier defenders in Serie A for years with Champions League pedigree on top, the other two have been solid professionals that've largely plied their trade for a lower table Premier League club. While they've been great stalwarts, that's all they really are. 

We paid a reasonable price for the defender Koulibaly has been. The issue, and it's a risk with every transfer, is that he hasn't settled in as well as one would've liked. He started looking better towards the back end of the season before he got injured, so it's not necessarily a lost cause yet either. He sure as hell wouldn't be the first player that's taken a season to settle into new surrounding after playing virtually their entire career in a completely different league.

[xceleryx]

9 hours ago, ROTG said:

Chitty walked away knowing he was over priced

Because they had no need to spend £50m on a backup fullback when they had other options on hand. We were in a more pressed position because Alonso and Emerson were off to pastures new, and our first choice option in Chilwell was recovering from a major knee injury which put a cloud over his future level once he returned.

Instead Man City signed Sergio Gomez who's gone on to play 244 Premier League minutes. 

Neither club's positions or needs were the same.

[kev61]

5 hours ago, ROTG said:

Rudiger was 24 when he joined Chelsea and coming into his prime, whereas KK was 31 and past his prime. KK is a poor signing by the club and would not be surprised to see him be moved on or loaned back to an Italian club  

 

 

Very good point.

[Michael Tucker]

4 hours ago, kev61 said:

Very good point.

Certainly is..but what's it got to do with this thread? PLEASE try to keep on topic! 

[paulw66]

17 hours ago, FrankLampard8 said:

I'm well aware it doesn't always work like that but if you are competent and spend the money well it absolutely should work like that. 

When 80% of the signings are 22 and under, then no. There are so many examples of players (both here and elsewhere), whose performance after 6 or 12 months would have been judged as ordinary/poor/non-existent, who then went on to be good signings. The difference with us this season is that we have done it en-masse.

[Mark Kelly]

25 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

When 80% of the signings are 22 and under, then no. There are so many examples of players (both here and elsewhere), whose performance after 6 or 12 months would have been judged as ordinary/poor/non-existent, who then went on to be good signings. The difference with us this season is that we have done it en-masse.

Lampard had an underwhelming first season and look what happened next!