"Chelsea changed the face of the league and we knew we had to raise the bar," he
said. "But ours was a long-term view, with younger players, and that policy has
worked. We felt we should build a team that would last for a long time. That
required a bit of patience at the time but we knew that we couldn't match
Chelsea in terms of spending power, so the sensible thing was to go that way and
identify younger players who, in the long-term, would develop into top players.
this is a rather succinct appraisal of the current malaise effecting the chelsea squad, and the failure of their management since the abramovich takeover to grasp what it takes to truly develop a long-term strategy. chelsea's recruitment policy under the russian was initially instituted to radically accelerate the team's development, paying top dollar for whomever the management felt was necessary to turn the side into genuine contenders both home and abroad. this continued into the mourinho era, with expensive imports drafted in to makeover the underachieving ranieri-led squad and adapt it the the portuguese's system. it was then transformed to include a parallel element, with youth-team players scouted and signed by frank arnesen.
as chelsea moved from mourinho to grant and then scolari, the only institutional principles the chelsea transfer policy followed was ambramovich's win at all costs mentality. this is why the squad is currently constituted the way it is, with michael ballack pointlessly recruited despite the existence of frank lampard, and deco pointlessly recruited despite the existence of frank lampard and michael ballack. it is why the club bought ashley cole for £23m despite owning wayne bridge and why they bought asier del horno for £11m despite owning wayne bridge. it is why they currently own no wingers and why, generally, the first xi is comprised of players who have reached their peak and will develop no further. the one player who bucks that trend, john obi mikel, was ironically poached from the clutches of the club they would do well to emulate, manchester united.
as ferguson points out, it is mostly the presence of him that explains the ability of united to take a more long-term approach. the longer ferguson has stayed, the more he has become truly the director of manchester united football. and that isn't meant to refer to powerless figureheads like avram grant or velimir zejec, who are meant to sit back and oversee transfer policy, but a real hands-on chief executive of the running of the first xi. ferguson has never been the most active tactician, but has consistently recognised this by appointing shrewdly within his backroom staff. this has allowed him to take real leadership, creating institutional principles and aims for the football club. manchester united play a certain way and recruit a certain way, generally buying younger players who develop and grow into the system, as opposed to buying into reputation. this was the case with many of the current xi, especially in midfield and attack; one only needs to look at the presence of ronaldo, bought because of what he could become rather than what he was, to be reminded of that. it is also no coincidence that ferguson's latest big purchases were a pair of wunkerkind serbians, with one, zoran tosic, who will slowly be blended into the first team squad at old trafford, and another, adem ljajic, who will be loaned back to partizan to continue his education before arriving in manchester within the next couple of seasons.
of course, chelsea attempted this. they bought alex and stashed him at psv; they tried the same thing with slobodan rajkovic and have invested more in scouting and development than any other club in the world. but as managers came and went, with different beliefs and opinions over the system to be played and the players to play it, there was never a consistency of purpose. and of course, with the introduction of influence-hungry frank arnesen, the systems developed almost in opposition, with mourinho lusting complete control and arnesen challenging that. no doubt that arnesen's players haven't been good enough - chelsea are currently trying and failing to offload as many as they possibly can, with even lower tier english clubs knocking them back - but there is no doubt that the project, lacking proper leadership and amidst such a dysfunctional climate, was doomed from the beginning. this parallel recruitment system merely created separate spheres of influence to be protected at all costs by men of an inherently political nature; having one man in charge of everything has allowed manchester united to use their vast resources to create an integrated recruitment policy that is intended to maintain their position at the top over a number of years, rather than merely this year.
this is a good argument in favour of a general manager - by finding someone competent enough to institute style and aims to the football club, you can create a transfer policy that consistently delivers the right players. looking at spurs now, and the make-up of the squad, is a great example of this - too many managers, all with different visions and tactics, have come and gone, lacking a unity of purpose; what this has meant is a ragtag collection of players who don't suit any one system, a strikeforce worth roughly £45m that don't complement each other. by having that long-term leadership you're more likely to consistently maintain an effective playing squad over a number of years, and when you're able to use such gigantic funding as a means to that end you're more likely to consistently maintain a squad capable of challenging for honours. and that is what chelsea, and more specifically roman ambramovich, have continually failed to grasp.
No comments:
Post a Comment