Baldseagull
Well-known member
Undoubtedly the work in Sweden was top notch.
His work at Swansea and at Brighton in terms of results was minimum expected really, but we did look like we were about to do something special.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Potter [NOT] at Chelsea
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
His work at Swansea and at Brighton in terms of results was minimum expected really, but we did look like we were about to do something special.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
No, not myth, I do believe that is often the arrangement. Deals can be done though, like offer to pay up 50% of the contract and then be free to take up other offers. Or there may be a minimum performance level that allows them to sack without paying out.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,468
Highly successful in Sweden.
Average at Swansea and jumped ship before he could be remotely considered successful
Successful at Brighton but jumped ship before he could be considered highly successful.
Bold Seagull
strong and stable with me, or...
It was better than average at Swansea, do a bit of research on who they sold and loaned out after relegation and it will tell you 10th in the Championship was well above average of what they might have expected.
Swansea season: no one in their right mind thought Swansea could come 10th, in fact after the transfer window closed many Swansea fans thought they'd do a Sunderland and finish in the bottom and get relegated. So, minimum expectation according to who exactly?
Brighton season 1: you tell me what the team looked like in CHs final six months... GP gets the job with the mission to keep the team up, change team the style of football and make use of the academy. Plenty of pundits and people here thinks the team will get relegated: it doesn't.
Brighton season 2: ambition is to get closer to the top 10, continue developing the style of play, continue to introduce academy players. While the points tally isn't much better than in season 1, the performances certainly are on an entirely different level, and by nearly every metric - aside from putting the f***ing ball in the net - Brighton is a top 6 team performing at a level that has not been repeated before or after. Despite the miniscule improvement in regards of points, the team has taken very far steps forward
Brighton season 3: the aim is top 10, TB says before the season. Style of play is already good enough going into the season, as is the youth development. However, despite decent results, the quality of football is poor until December and it looks worrying, but additional edge is added when Alexis has bulked up by January. Some poor/very poor results follow in February/March but by the end of the season, quality of football is top notch, targeted league position is reached and development of youths keeps progressing
Four seasons in football, reaching and sometimes exceeding the aims aside from two aspects (points/position in Brighton s2, and quality of football for a number of months in s3). Perfect? No. But far better than most other managers who on average fail to reach ANY of their clubs ambitions and get sacked within 2 years.
All of this in sometimes dire/poor conditions (dire: Swansea season with like 10 proven first team players, Brighton season 1 with a slightly boosted team compared to the one that had done f*** all of use in the Pl for 6 months, poor: Brighton season 2 when covid had ripped the economy apart and prevented the club from really being able to rebuild).
The revisionism from some on this thread (and the others like it) is incredible.
You know we were 4th when he left, right? Average achievement? Really?
You're either on a wind-up, or really stupid.
Perhaps both?
Got to the second paragraph where the factual errors started with the statement that Brighton are scoring more goals with RDZ than GP. As I've said, 22 goals for GPs Brighton in the final 11 league games and 21 goals for RDZ in the first 11 league games.
Robinjakarta
Well-known member
Beat me to it. Idiotic post that even manages to have me agreeing with Swansman.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 5,059
I think this is ultimately your problem, I do enjoy your contributions but your obsession with Potter is slightly delusional. Watching us under two different managers has made me see where we struggled so much pre 21/22. There are a few ways in which he is limited, and I think this will be more exposed at Chelsea, where having a few tactical disaster classes every now and then, won’t be tolerated.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,468
Yep, fair point. Better than average. But not highly successful as Swansman claims. Potentially maybe but not there long enough to draw that conclusion.
Highly successful?
A few promotions and a win at Arsenal with some Swedish farmers is ok I suppose. 10th with Swansea in the Championship. Well, it was a bit uppity of them to be in the Premier League all that time. And two bang average seasons with Brighton before finishing 9th in the last 45 minutes of the season.
Absolute riches compared to Klopp or Zindane, I'll grant you.
Ok. That is your view, I don't share it. The reasons why there was a struggle pre and part of 21/22 is down entirely different things than the managers, in my opinion.
Highly successful for those who have any interest in context (= not you).
The £4.25bn deal to buy Chelsea was reported to be £2.5bn for the club, plus a promise to spend £1.75bn in further investment.
I don't know if that's a factor? They have the money to spend so are spending it. Obviously upgrading the stadium, training facilities etc would be a better investment, but perhaps there's a belief they can spend a bit to stabilise the early days while Potter works on getting a tune out of the available players, and will then be able to invest in infrastructure later (whether they can or not will remain to be seen, maybe they'll get caught in a cycle of overspending on players and run out before they get to infrastructure).
Or perhaps this has nothing to do with it and the investment is specifically for infrstructure. Just a suggestion. I'm sure someone more in the know will come along and correct me.
Last edited:
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 5,059
Is there anything he can do wrong? He has arguably the best squad he’s ever had, and all he’s done is either try to play with the exact same formation as at Brighton or play a back 4 to fix it, and neither seem to be doing much. Surely if he was the unbelievable manager you think he is, he’d assess the Chelsea squad and try to play what best suits the resource, but disappointingly he’s just carbon copied what he did at Brighton. As much as I think he did a good job here, I think he’s a moron for leaving and going to Chelsea, and it strikes as he just did it for money, or he was genuinely fooled by their yank owner. He won’t get a tune out of these players to ever be successful because in my opinion he will never be able to manage big clubs.
jackalbion
Well-known member
- Aug 30, 2011
- 5,059
I agree his work with Ostersunds was very very good, but I think we all suffer from delusions in football, and now he’s no longer with Brighton I can stop being deluded with the idea that he was a genius. Pretending his first two seasons with Brighton were highly successful would be incorrect and his time at Swansea was instantly out done by Cooper within a year. Getting us 9th was impressive and leaving us at 4th was also pretty decent but he had a chance to do something genuinely special with us, but he chose to not be highly successful with Chelsea.
Milano
Well-known member
The biggest shame in all this is that we’ll never know what GP would have achieved had he stayed, we don’t really know if what is happening under RDZ would have happened anyway.
I do wonder if GP might also ponder this from time to time?
I do wonder if GP might also ponder this from time to time?
Sure, in almost every game - win or lose - there's been decisions I haven't agreed with him on.
All managers not named Pep Guardiola struggle at some point in their careers. Jurgen Klopp isn't a shite manager just because Liverpool are nearly as shite as Chelsea are now, or just because Dortmund had a bad season with him in charge. Wenger wasn't a shite manager just because his Arsenal struggled in their final year. Roberto De Zerbi isn't a shite manager just because they had some shite spells in some of his Sassuolo seasons. Arteta isn't shite just because Arsenal certainly looked bad for long spells in his first few years.
Chelsea have a lot of issues and GP may or may not get the time to sort them out with the help of the recruitment team. Doesn't make him shite. Every brilliant manager has shite runs at some point, most shite managers have a good one.