I have been asked many times what I think of the appointment of Enzo Maresca, so here’s my answer.
Let me know what YOU THINK. It’s why I do these.
Please SUBSCRIBE to the channel and throw the video a “Like”.
Many thanks and UTC !
Music: • B-Roll (ska) – Islandesque – Kevin Ma… landesque by Kevin MacLeod http://incompetech.com
Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0
Free Download / Stream: https://bit.ly/b-roll-ska-islandesque
Music promoted by Audio Library
3 Comments
You are absolutely right!
You summed it up! The owners are indifferent to the customs and traditions of the club and their senior appointments reflect that. Like you I thought Poch was not a winner but brought some stability to the ship and could have turned the squad into something that was ready to move on.
Hi Glen, not much to argue with there mate! I, like you, was neither Poch in or out and we both seemed to feel he should have had another season. I'll be honest with you I was disappointed that we let him go and I think we would have won things and done well under him.
Now your first question would probably be "What's he won?" Which would be a reasonable question to which we all know what the answer is. However I think the answer is more nuanced than the one we can all just trot out "nothing, except for a League 1 title and two cups with PSG." Your second question would then probably be "so what makes you think it would any different at Chelsea?" Which again is a reasonable question and my answer would be simply Chelsea. Not "we are Chelsea" just Chelsea.
For that we need to go all the way back to Ken Bates and, if my memory serves me right, He said he would make us Successful within fifteen years, and we had good times under him with 7 trophy wins in his time (1982-2002). In that time period Only Liverpool. Man United and Arsenal had won more trophies. So for me that makes us successful. When Roman came in we built on that. So there it is Chelsea have been set up to win, and Poch would have won us trophies in time. I think the difference between Ken And Roman was the Business function of the club Whereby Roman was more likely to sack a manager for success and Ken looked for stability or so it seems.
Right now, the new owners appear to be making a dogs dinner of things and their actions, along with press headlines like "Billionaire Bottle Jobs" certainly haven't helped and alongside this is a higher turnover of managers and a, so far, trophy less, tenure. So to me it's all about the set up than the owners/managers/coaches but we shall see and I hope I am proved right.