BBC Sports comedic columnist Robbo Robson (real name: Niall Ashdown) this week, after Chelsea ensured their place in the Champions League final, launched a laughable, un-fact driven rant against Avram Grant, portraying the manager as a hindrance on his successful team. Here's what was said:
Of course, the outstanding question is whether Avram can hold on to his job even if Chelsea do the double. The facts are that his team, despite an incredible run of results, are being held together by very fragile threads that have a lot to do with Jose Mourinho’s influence.
If they do bag one or two trophies, you can’t see Grant hanging on to Drogba, Lampard or Ballack, while Carvalho and even JT might be fishing for a monster pay day too.
And if them players don’t want to stick around, why would you keep the boss who couldn’t hang on to them? Plus there’s the issue of Roman’s desire for his west London Coliseum to be a hotbed of entertainment. Day in, day out it’s been about as entertaining as the Chuckle Brothers at half speed.
And Robson is not the only sports commentators slagging the Chelsea boss as a hindrance on his team. Yesterday on the Score, Sid Seixeiro did the exact same thing, luckily with a counter from the sagacious Joe Ross.
My problem with the Grant slaggers is that their argument against the manager is wholly imbecilic, preposterous, moronic. It makes as much sense as a call for Kleberson to return to Man Utd. That's dumb, you say: "Kleberson was useless. He did nothing." I know. Its baseless, and so is your case. Just look at the evidence.
Honestly, listen people! The way we can judge a manager is on his results. If a manager's winning percentage resembles the Mendoza line then he is probably not doing his job too well. If a manager's winning percentage identically resembles over a long course of time and across the same tough competitions the winning percentage of someone often referred to as the "special one", then he is probably doing a good job.
Avram Grant's winning percentage at Chelsea is identical to Mourinho's. Grant's Chelsea have played 51 games, winning 69% of games so far. Mourinho won 131 of 185 games (70%). This leaves us with a simple scenario: Either a post-Mourinho manager on Chelsea is useless and players can simply win 70% of games, or the post-Mourinho manager, Grant, is doing a good job. Wait, we can build this further. If Chelsea's winning percentage changed zero after Mourinho left, does this mean Mourinho was in effect irrelevant and the players carried the team? "Of course not, you idiot." But why are you now calling me an idiot? Think. Is it because you know truthfully that players need management to really achieve success? Yes, it is, isn't it.
But we'll dig this further. Chelsea are in the Champions League final. Have they done this before? No. Does this mean the players on their own can actually do better without Mourinho, in which case the commentators attacking Grant are in effect calling Mourinho irrelevant, or is Grant doing a good job?
Hold on a minute, a Grant basher can say, your argument, HU, is utterly dumb: "I'm not saying in any way that a manager is irrelevant. I'm actually saying the opposite, that managers can be so good that they can influence players long after their departure. Mourinho was Chelsea. He was more than relevant to the team. He was a great manager. Grant's Chelsea are simply sucking the string from Mourinho while slowly decomposing at the hands of an incompetent manager."
This argument would hold if it had one simple thing backing it up: any evidence. And do you know what it does not have: any evidence. I said it before and I'll say it again. Grant's winning percentage at Chelsea is identical to that of Mourinho. Let me make it very clear: a team being held together by strings over the course of a long period of time, a season, progressively gets worse. Grant's Chelsea have been no slow decline, no end of season softening.
Instead, what has there been? Consistent winning. In the EPL, Grant's Chelsea have played 30, winning 21. They have recorded the exact same number of points as Manchester United. In the Champions League, Chelsea are in the final for the first time in history.
So there has been no decline, so no evidence indicative of string sucking. So what does this mean: Mourinho is average or Grant is good? Its certainly not the former. Mourinho is one of the best manager's alive and I need not give evidence supporting this. Everyone knows it. So Grant is good.
One more thing, you say, "Grant is useless at tactics? Shevchenko for Lampard in the 117th minute; Essien at right back. He's riding his luck." Listen, when you have to resort to pinpointing 117th minute tactical decisions because you have no evidence in the form of results, then you know the true value of your argument, and it is about as valuable as an argument as George Weah's cousin was to Southampton as a player. Football, soccer, whatever, is about results. If you honestly cannot make a case based on results over a long sample size, the course of a season, in the two most difficult club competitions in the world then you surely must re-evaluate your argument.
And another thing, you say, "Grant does not have his players motivated for big games." Really? Look at the last few weeks. Chelsea beat Manchester United in a major EPL matchup, then a few days later beat Liverpool to secure a spot in the Champions League final. This team is motivated for big matchups.
Grant's results are clear for all to see. There has been no slow decline at Chelsea. Grant has the same winning percentage as Mourinho. Grant's Chelsea are challenging for the EPL championship. Grant's Chelsea are in the Champions League final. Grant's Chelsea have results from big games. All I say is: argue with the facts.
------
Edit: Some will say Grant is not good until he wins big medals with Chelsea. I did not address this argument because it is unfair. They guy has not had the chance yet to win the EPL or CL. If, after a full season in charge, that is, at the end of next season, if he is still around, he has not won anything, you can make your case.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A little bit testy this morning? It is a shame though about Robbo's article since he generally seems to have more interesting insight than some of the other BBC writers. (CougHansenMcNultyCough)
Winning is important, but it's not the whole story. Let us take a look at some other statistics. Mourinho's Chelsea played in 118 Premier League matches. By my calculations they scored 215 goals, for an average of 1.82 goal per game (rounded to the second decimal). Over the same number of matches they let in 85 goals for an unbelievable average of 0.71 goal per game. Avram Grant has coached Chelsea for 30 league games scoring 56 goals, for an average of 1.87 per game, and letting in 18, for an average of an even more unbelievable 0.6 goals per game. Grant's pool is admittedly much smaller than Mourinho's, but his averages are nonetheless astounding. They have both of them coached the same players, and at length the injury lists have been the same. Mourinho's style was deliberately physical, and he made three years' worth of transfers, based on unlimited funds, to suit his own play. Grant has had no such thing. He picked the team after six EPL and one CL games, and has had none of Mourinho's Play Station-like resources to develop his game. Moreover Mourinho liked to hide his players behind his own pointing finger. He liked to complain when teams used trench warfare against him. And he never as far as I recall beat his equal in a straight and equal fight.
Yes; he did win the Uefa and the CL back to back in '03 and '04, but the '04 tournament was already compromised when AC Milan, the strongest, most experienced, simply quite the best team of that year, thought the competition ended in the quarters rather than in Germany. Anyways. Grant has had no such opportunities or experiences, and so far as I have heard from his interviews he seems a man shy of the camera.
We will see by 21 May what shall happen.
That is an interesting comment Dritan. I don't think I would read too much into a .10 difference in goals conceded per game until Grant has been in charge for more games. If we were to examine this hypothetically, in Mourinho's first season, I recall Chelsea broke the EPL record for goals conceded (15) and points (95). I think last season would make for a better comparison. As you pointed out, Grant is largely working with the same players as Mourinho last season. Chelsea last season allowed .63 goals per game in the 38 EPL fixtures, similar to what Grant has achieved. Looking at EPL points, Mourinho last season achieved 83 points. Grant's Chelsea will probably slightly surpass this number, but I again would not read into this too much.
I agree that we should pass no judgment negative or positive on Grant until the end of the season. You're right; a .10 or .20% difference makes no differences, but the point is that statistically speaking Grant's Chelsea is now as tough defensively as Mourinho's was back then. Whether it will help Grant win anything this year remains to be seen.