Sport Writer Dan Hunt provides his view on Chelsea’s dismissal of manager Frank Lampard, examining whether or not the club’s strategy is an effective one
After 18 months at the helm, Frank Lampard joins a growing list of managers who have been sacked by Roman Abramovich.
Although fans were surprised at the seemingly brutal axing of a club legend, few pundits could argue that it was unexpected or undeserved, with the team underperforming in the league and Lampard failing to implement a coherent tactical identity. Unsentimental? Definitely. Unfair? No.
Lampard’s sacking is by no means unprecedented. In the 2016/17 season, the average tenure of dismissed managers in the Premier League was 1.31 years, which begs the question of whether managers in England’s top flight are given enough time to prove themselves.
The boardrooms at other top clubs have faced similar questions over the futures of their managers. Mikel Arteta and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, former players at Arsenal and Manchester United respectively, have both faced challenges over the past 12 months. The Gunners won just four and lost eight of their first 14 games this season, while the Red Devils have been plagued with defensive fragilities and inconsistent form throughout the entirety of Solskjaer’s stewardship.
Both club hierarchies decided to stick, and committing to their managers has proved successful. Arsenal are back in the top half of the table after an impressive run of form, and United currently sit in second place, just one point behind rivals Manchester City.
Giving managers time to implement their ideas has worked in the past, with Liverpool requiring over four years to win their first Premier League title under Jurgen Klopp. Sir Alex Ferguson took four years to win his first trophy at United, with 37 more coming over the next 20 years.
Lampard joined Chelsea with little managerial experience
Lampard, however, is different. Where Ferguson and Klopp were highly decorated prior to joining their teams, Lampard joined Chelsea with little managerial experience. His single season at Derby saw them reach the play-off final, only to be beaten by Aston Villa. As a result, his appointment looked to be almost entirely on the basis of his playing days at the club.
A cynic would say the recruitment of Lampard was a shrewd piece of business on Chelsea’s part. Lampard would be the poster-boy to distract from what could have been a poor season for Chelsea, with their transfer ban almost automatically removing them from the title race. The fans’ affinity to Lampard would afford him a poor season and prevent the need for the hierarchy to make a costly change in the hot seat.
However, these fears never materialised. Lampard led Chelsea to a very respectable fourth in his only full season in charge and was praised for his use of Chelsea’s expansive cohort of academy graduates to reinvigorate an ageing squad. Tammy Abraham and Mason Mount, previously loaned out to Championship sides, played a key role in Chelsea’s season, while Reece James and Kurt Zouma proved solid options at the back.
It could be argued that if afforded more time, Lampard could have turned things around, with the quality of his first season proving his managerial potential. However, unlike Klopp at Liverpool, Lampard does not have a specific tactical identity. Klopp took four years creating a team that was very much in his own image, and Liverpool were happy to facilitate that development. At Chelsea, the focus has always been on short-term success, with the long-term structure dictated by the club’s academy system.
This revolving-door policy, while controversial and eye-wateringly expensive, has worked
This revolving-door policy, while controversial and eye-wateringly expensive, has worked. Since Abramovich acquired the club in 2003, Chelsea have won 18 trophies and been led by 11 managers.
Therefore, it’s very difficult to argue with Chelsea’s strategy. It is unromantic, unappealing and distasteful, but it works. And until short-term managers stop delivering short-term results, why should they change their approach?
If given more time and more money, Lampard may have turned things around, but with a blank cheque and one of Europe’s top managers waiting at home for a call, it was a no-brainer for Chelsea to chance their arm with another manager.
After all, if that doesn’t work out, there’s always Guus Hiddink.
Like this? Check out more from Redbrick Sport:
BUCS Cancels League and Knockout Season
Comments