Graham Potter (Now Sacked ) - *Official* New (Now Old) Chelsea Manager

[nonotnowjim]

This is just endlessly going around in circles and it's getting boring Jim.

But like others have said, you were one of Tuchels biggest critics. You talk about time, but you didn't give Tuchel much time, as soon as we started to have a blip you wanted him gone, it was barely even a couple of months and you were on his back. If you were a Liverpool supporter I bet you would've wanted Klopp gone ages ago, he's had two poor seasons but he's always come back and Liverpool will likely be back in the mix again next season. We never gave Tuchel that chance even though he's been our only manager since Conte who looks like he can actually win us the big trophies. 

So surely you can see it's very difficult from our perspective to watch you continuously slander people who didn't give Potter time when you yourself wanted Tuchel gone after he hit some bad form. Then suddenly you start blaming the players, so if the players aren't good enough now after we've spunked 600 million with new talent, how the f**k were they any better under Tuchel? That must mean you now recognise that Tuchel had far less quality and he still won us trophies and got us into the top 4 every season. 

Like I've said before, I can completely understand some posters who wanted to give Potter time. But I can't understand posters who wanted Tuchel sacked but wanted to give Potter time. 

Tuchel was here how long? How many transfer windows did he have? He started well, peaked with the UCL, and then had us sliding fast.

I would have been firmly behind Tuchel had I seen signs of evolution (for the better)- but I didn't see it. We had got progressively worse, to the extent that by the end we were going through games without even having a single shot on target. 

 

[Victor90]

Tuchel was here how long? How many transfer windows did he have? He started well, peaked with the UCL, and then had us sliding fast.

I would have been firmly behind Tuchel had I seen signs of evolution (for the better)- but I didn't see it. We had got progressively worse, to the extent that by the end we were going through games without even having a single shot on target. 

Has it ever occurred to you that back then the board were reluctant to sign players? The sanctions of Russia were mounting, Roman was barely allowed back in the country for numerous years before the Ukraine war. 

He didn't peak at a CL win, the CL is the biggest trophy in club football to win, so if you don't win it again you can easily say anyone has peaked. We were mounting a title challenge until Chilwell and James got injured and numerous other players. You loved giving Potter the excuse of injuries but Tuchel wasn't allowed it. 

And despite all that, he still got us into two cup finals and won two trophies while finishing top 4 when the club was getting sanctioned. You completely underestimate the challenge that was. As I said with Klopp, it took him years to win a trophy, and even when he did win the two big trophies, he had poor seasons after it but still came back. So he "peaked" and "regressed" yet Liverpool gave him time and he bounced back. We should've given Tuchel the same time.

Tuchel even said he didn't want to take on too much responsibility outside of being a manager, which pretty much hints he didn't have a lot of involvement in transfers. I doubt Potter had a lot of say in our January transfers, otherwise, he can't really moan about the size of the team. 

You don't just sack a manager and call it regression after a few bad months. What sort of logic is that? At least with Tuchel we actually had some good form, we didn't get any of it in 7 months under Potter. You make 0 sense. 

 

[nonotnowjim]

Has it ever occurred to you that back then the board were reluctant to sign players? The sanctions of Russia were mounting, Roman was barely allowed back in the country for numerous years before the Ukraine war. 

He didn't peak at a CL win, the CL is the biggest trophy in club football to win, so if you don't win it again you can easily say anyone has peaked. We were mounting a title challenge until Chilwell and James got injured and numerous other players. You loved giving Potter the excuse of injuries but Tuchel wasn't allowed it. 

And despite all that, he still got us into two cup finals and won two trophies while finishing top 4 when the club was getting sanctioned. You completely underestimate the challenge that was. As I said with Klopp, it took him years to win a trophy, and even when he did win the two big trophies, he had poor seasons after it but still came back. So he "peaked" and "regressed" yet Liverpool gave him time and he bounced back. We should've given Tuchel the same time.

Tuchel even said he didn't want to take on too much responsibility outside of being a manager, which pretty much hints he didn't have a lot of involvement in transfers. I doubt Potter had a lot of say in our January transfers, otherwise, he can't really moan about the size of the team. 

You don't just sack a manager and call it regression after a few bad months. What sort of logic is that? At least with Tuchel we actually had some good form, we didn't get any of it in 7 months under Potter. You make 0 sense. 

I guess we see the game differently. Under tuchel we played, for a prolonged period, some of the worst football I had the unfortunate pleasure of watching. I saw zero signs he knew  how, or wanted to change the way we played (negative, unprogressive, risk averse).

Under Potter we didn't get results. But knowing the mammoth task ahead, I saw small signs of progress that for me, warranted time.

You can say it makes zero sense to you.....but that is a you problem,  not me. I have explained more than sufficiently, on more than 1 occasion.  You can disagree - that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that by the end of Tuchels reign we were playing turgid dross football. Under Potter at the end we created bucketloads of chances (29 shots) but couldn't score. Neither is ideal or optimal - but i prefer the latter. 

 

[reparto corse]

I guess we see the game differently. Under tuchel we played, for a prolonged period, some of the worst football I had the unfortunate pleasure of watching. I saw zero signs he knew  how, or wanted to change the way we played (negative, unprogressive, risk averse).

Under Potter we didn't get results. But knowing the mammoth task ahead, I saw small signs of progress that for me, warranted time.

You can say it makes zero sense to you.....but that is a you problem,  not me. I have explained more than sufficiently, on more than 1 occasion.  You can disagree - that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that by the end of Tuchels reign we were playing turgid dross football. Under Potter at the end we created bucketloads of chances (29 shots) but couldn't score. Neither is ideal or optimal - but i prefer the latter. 

Why were the results way better under Tuchel then? We didn`t "improve" under Potter. In fact, we pretty much fell off a cliff. Did you bother to look at the table at all in recent weeks? I am confused as to how someone can look at the Potter-era and think we somehow improved. 2022/23 we managed top4 and 2 cup finals .... 23/24 we are in the bottom half of the table and nothing else that would indicate any improvement.

 

[Victor90]

I guess we see the game differently. Under tuchel we played, for a prolonged period, some of the worst football I had the unfortunate pleasure of watching. I saw zero signs he knew  how, or wanted to change the way we played (negative, unprogressive, risk averse).

Under Potter we didn't get results. But knowing the mammoth task ahead, I saw small signs of progress that for me, warranted time.

You can say it makes zero sense to you.....but that is a you problem,  not me. I have explained more than sufficiently, on more than 1 occasion.  You can disagree - that's fine. But it doesn't change the fact that by the end of Tuchels reign we were playing turgid dross football. Under Potter at the end we created bucketloads of chances (29 shots) but couldn't score. Neither is ideal or optimal - but i prefer the latter. 

Laughable revisionism, if it wasn't for Tuchels 10 points we would actually be in relegation. 

I love how you only count Potters final game, most games under Potter we barely created any chances and lost the game, got severely outplayed. And that's with the likes of Enzo, Felix, and Mudryk into the fold. 

Even looking passed the results Potters football was atrocious. Should've beaten Villa fair enough, that's one of the few games under Potter where we played well but lost, most times we deserved to lose. We had a pitiful performance against Spurs, under Tuchel we battered them, if you want to play that game by my guest.

But anyway, I'm leaving it at that, you're never going to admit you're wrong on it. So it's pointless. 

 

[nonotnowjim]

Why were the results way better under Tuchel then? We didn`t "improve" under Potter. In fact, we pretty much fell off a cliff. Did you bother to look at the table at all in recent weeks? I am confused as to how someone can look at the Potter-era and think we somehow improved. 2022/23 we managed top4 and 2 cup finals .... 23/24 we are in the bottom half of the table and nothing else that would improve any improvement.

Because in my opinion Tuchel focused on short term results rather than long term reset.

No - I didn't look at the league. It is irrelevant to me. We are not getting relegated and we won't finish top 4 - so the league is immaterial to me.

I don't agree that we didn't improve under Potter. For me, performances and style (more chances, more progressive) improved under Potter. I accept that results clearly did not improve - but again, I prefer looking long term (mentality + culture) rather than short term (results) 

 

[nonotnowjim]

Laughable revisionism, if it wasn't for Tuchels 10 points we would actually be in relegation. 

I love how you only count Potters final game, most games under Potter we barely created any chances and lost the game, got severely outplayed. And that's with the likes of Enzo, Felix, and Mudryk into the fold. 

Even looking passed the results Potters football was atrocious. Should've beaten Villa fair enough, that's one of the few games under Potter where we played well but lost, most times we deserved to lose. We had a pitiful performance against Spurs, under Tuchel we battered them, if you want to play that game by my guest.

But anyway, I'm leaving it at that, you're never going to admit you're wrong on it. So it's pointless. 

Good - put me on mute. My opinion is no more right, or wrong, than yours. They are all opinions based on what we see, care about and perceive. Neither is gospel. 

 

[reparto corse]

Because in my opinion Tuchel focused on short term results rather than long term reset.

No - I didn't look at the league. It is irrelevant to me. We are not getting relegated and we won't finish top 4 - so the league is immaterial to me.

I don't agree that we didn't improve under Potter. For me, performances and style (more chances, more progressive) improved under Potter. I accept that results clearly did not improve - but again, I prefer looking long term (mentality + culture) rather than short term (results) 

That`s borderline insane reasoning. Potter was clueless. He didn`t build anything. He tinkered with the line-up every week without finding a decent system that works. Not sure how that is "long term resest" and "looking long term mentally and culturally". I honestly have no idea what Potter even tried to do tactically. With Tuchel there was an immediate impact from game 1 after taking over from Lamps.

But OK, you admit not even looking at the league table. Not sure why I even argue with you. That`s a very weird point of view. It matters if you are 5th or 15th in my world.

 

[OriginalS]

By the end, Tuchel had us regressing

Ever occured to you that Tuchel dealt with more than any Chelsea manager in history in his last 7-8 months?

Everyone would have regressed. Especially when the bar was initially set at COE and league leaders.

Still delivered results your guy Potter can only dream off and you only supported one of them. And if you believe our opinions matter YOU are the guy who's hurt the club - Not the guys who wanted the worst manager in our history out.

 

[nonotnowjim]

Ever occured to you that Tuchel dealt with more than any Chelsea manager in history in his last 7-8 months?

Everyone would have regressed. Especially when the bar was initially set at COE and league leaders.

Still delivered results your guy Potter can only dream off and you only supported one of them. And if you believe our opinions matter YOU are the guy who's hurt the club - Not the guys who wanted the worst manager in our history out.

Yeah - its never the toxic, fickle fans that hurt clubs is it?

 

[nonotnowjim]

That`s borderline insane reasoning. Potter was clueless. He didn`t build anything. He tinkered with the line-up every week without finding a decent system that works. Not sure how that is "long term resest" and "looking long term mentally and culturally". I honestly have no idea what Potter even tried to do tactically. With Tuchel there was an immediate impact from game 1 after taking over from Lamps.

But OK, you admit not even looking at the league table. Not sure why I even argue with you. That`s a very weird point of view. It matters if you are 5th or 15th in my world.

I agree that he didn't build anything.  But as I said 5454 times, it was always going to take time given the circs he took over. That bit (Time) is the part that most of the demanding 'new money' brigade on here don't understand or grant.

If you expect someone to build a team when a)  not having a pre-season; b) having had a single winter transfer window; c) given the mountainous task of integrating X number of new young players that had before never set foot in the EPL; and d) had the season disrupted by a World cup which left him 6 first team players - then your expectations are irrational and unrealistic.

 

[just]

If Kante had been fit and available, it probably would have saved Tuchel and Potter's jobs.

There's a thought.

 

[Victor90]

If Kante had been fit and available, it probably would have saved Tuchel and Potter's jobs.

There's a thought.

Possible, but having to rely on one player goes to show we have massive problems regardless. 

My opinion is that we've been stuck and unable to ditch this slow possession-obsessed football that Sarri first integrated.

Our work rate isn't good enough anymore, and it could explain why we have so many injuries since we became a possession team since our players are not used to running at the opposition. If you look back at the days under Conte you'll notice a massive difference in our playstyle. 

But we've not helped the situation. We seem to recruit players that want to run onto the ball and not hold it, even though our system doesn't cater towards that. The Lukaku signing was a big indicator that we don't really know what we're doing, he was never going to thrive in a system like this, forget the fact he's extremely overrated. 

But because of the lack of workrate and team cohesion from our attacking and midfield players, we've been forced to always revert to a back 3 because we just can't seem to get going in the back 4. One thing I credited Potter for was trying to stick to a back 4, but even he had to go to a back 3 eventually because the results and performances just weren't good enough. 

 

[Frankie8Lampard]

Possible, but having to rely on one player goes to show we have massive problems regardless. 

My opinion is that we've been stuck and unable to ditch this slow possession-obsessed football that Sarri first integrated.

Our work rate isn't good enough anymore, and it could explain why we have so many injuries since we became a possession team since our players are not used to running at the opposition. If you look back at the days under Conte you'll notice a massive difference in our playstyle. 

But we've not helped the situation. We seem to recruit players that want to run onto the ball and not hold it, even though our system doesn't cater towards that. The Lukaku signing was a big indicator that we don't really know what we're doing, he was never going to thrive in a system like this, forget the fact he's extremely overrated. 

But because of the lack of workrate and team cohesion from our attacking and midfield players, we've been forced to always revert to a back 3 because we just can't seem to get going in the back 4. One thing I credited Potter for was trying to stick to a back 4, but even he had to go to a back 3 eventually because the results and performances just weren't good enough. 

This is why IMO managers should only have a certain level of say in who we sign. Tuchel despite all the good things he did for the club was the one who approved of Lukaku's signing and as well as Aubamayeng and several of the players we signed last summer. 

 

[Victor90]

This is why IMO managers should only have a certain level of say in who we sign. Tuchel despite all the good things he did for the club was the one who approved of Lukaku's signing and as well as Aubamayeng and several of the players we signed last summer. 

Which is why we really needed a good DOF when Boehly came in. 

 

[Nick05]

If Kante had been fit and available, it probably would have saved Tuchel and Potter's jobs.

There's a thought.

If our management had just a little foresight they would've signed a capable backup for Kante. Going in the season depending on an injury prone player for probably the most important position on the pitch was suicidal and we've paid for it. Honestly it's baffling that we signed 365 attacking midfielders and defenders whilst consistently ignoring the defensive midfield position.

In the end, Tuchel looked frustrated and out of ideas. Maybe it was his personal life combined steering the club through the intensely political atmosphere took its toll on him. 

But Potter had almost a blank cheque in terms of results and performance yet we kept getting worse under him. Yes we had injury problems but don't tell me that our second string is inferior to Fulham, Brentford, Villa and Brighton. 

Just wish that Boehly showed the same patience with Tuchel that he showed Potter in tolerating his relegation level results and performances for this long.

 

[just]

If our management had just a little foresight they would've signed a capable backup for Kante. Going in the season depending on an injury prone player for probably the most important position on the pitch was suicidal and we've paid for it. Honestly it's baffling that we signed 365 attacking midfielders and defenders whilst consistently ignoring the defensive midfield position.

In the end, Tuchel looked frustrated and out of ideas. Maybe it was his personal life combined steering the club through the intensely political atmosphere took its toll on him. 

But Potter had almost a blank cheque in terms of results and performance yet we kept getting worse under him. Yes we had injury problems but don't tell me that our second string is inferior to Fulham, Brentford, Villa and Brighton. 

Just wish that Boehly showed the same patience with Tuchel that he showed Potter in tolerating his relegation level results and performances for this long.

Some players it's impossible to sign a back up that will come even remotely close to the quality and consistency of the player you are looking to "back up". 

I said at that time Drogba left that it would  take decades before we found another striker who was even close to his all round ability. 

Some players are virtually irreplaceable. When will we find a midfielder who scores like Lampard? When will we find a centre-half who can lead like JT? When will find a midfielder like Essien who can completely dominate the opposition midfield by sheer physical strength and power. For those of us who are old enough, I don't think we have ever found a true winger who can dribble and cross with both feet like Pat Nevin did. And that was 40 years ago!

 

[just]

My opinion is that we've been stuck and unable to ditch this slow possession-obsessed football that Sarri first integrated.
 

Victor, this paragraph here. Bravo. Total agreement. I have always said Sarriball took us backwards not forward.

 

[coco]

Victor, this paragraph here. Bravo. Total agreement. I have always said Sarriball took us backwards not forward.

It's not down to Sarriball why our players don't take their chances 5 years later, we have loads of opportunities to score every game, a 20+ goal striker would love to play up front for us. Brentford has one, we need him next season.

 

[Victor90]

It's not down to Sarriball why our players don't take their chances 5 years later, we have loads of opportunities to score every game, a 20+ goal striker would love to play up front for us. Brentford has one, we need him next season.

A mixture, I think Sarri came with a plan and did a relatively decent job here. It was a big task to get the team playing Sarri ball.

But we've been stuck with playing this style for a long time now, and our recruitment hasn't exactly helped the situation. Why do we keep signing players who aren't tailored for the system? Werner, as piss-poor as he was a times, we saw really good performances from him when we were counter-attacking (like the Champions League win). He was never going to thrive in games where we are playing the likes of Crystal Palace which are about 80% of our fixtures. 

He constantly wanted to run onto the ball and didn't want a pass at the touchline where there are around 2-3 players on him. He didn't have the skill set to play well that way, and I fear it's the same with Mudryk but I don't think he's as limited as Werner. All the more we seem to sign players who don't suit the system. So what we needed to do was either ditch the system or signed the correct players for that system, we did neither. Our CL win came from playing our players to their strengths. 

Now would be a good time to revamp the way we play completely, with a better pattern of attacking play we might actually start to score goals from our chances, hopefully.