A questioning of the protest against Chelsea's culture of managerial sackings in six not-so-easy pieces
It is an interesting disintegration of the power structure of the Premier League that has brought us to where we are today. From Manchester United's domination 1992 onward, to the United-Arsenal dichotomy of the late nineties and early 2000s, to Chelsea's challenging of their supremacy in the middle of the decade, and now the Manchester City-Tottenham Hotspur addition to the mix. Liverpool have never been a classical power in the Premier League, but are perennially one of the toughest challenges all of these team and are always on the fringes of being in a serious trophy challenge. Historical rivals of Manchester United, the Merseysiders' diminished abilities have not made the derby games any less bitter and the Reds of Liverpool have had a smattering of cup successes to their name (notably the UEFA Champions League in 2005). There was a point where the quadrangle of Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool were called English football's 'Big Four' as a testament to both their footballing and their financial ability. It is generally accepted that the 'breaking' of this Big Four came about in the 2009-10 season when Tottenham Hotspur finally pipped Liverpool to fourth place in the league table. Ever since, the power structure has been unstable to say the least. The top four slots allow entry into Europe's elite (and more importantly in the current footballing climate, lucrative) competition, the UEFA Champions League. With six 'powers' battling it out among each other and with a few surprise packages every now and then, there is very little margin for error at these six clubs.
Chelsea have long been vilified as the problematizing factor in a nice steeped brew of historically successful clubs who had stability as their watchword in the beginning, or at the very least, in the early days of the Premier League. In the first decade of the Premier League, it was Arsenal of all clubs who were the most 'unstable' of the United-Arsenal-Liverpool triad. With five managers in the decade spanning 1992 to 2002, the Gunners of North London outstripped Liverpool's three and United's emblematic Sir Alex Ferguson. In contrast, Chelsea were a minor irritant in cup competitions and a near-competitor in the league and they had seven managers in the first decade itself. Hardly the paragon of stability. But then again, historically speaking, they never have been. To Chelsea's total of thirty two managers throughout their history, Arsenal answer with 23, Liverpool with 20 and United with a miserly 17. And note that they have all been around for at least six years longer than Chelsea. Is there anything to say as a Chelsea apologist? Though Facebook pages like Troll Football (sparkling humour most of the time, by the by) don't know it in historical context, they've labelled the club right. They ARE the 'super sackers'. But as a corollary, one also needs to understand that it is not Roman Abramovich, Chelsea owner and opinion-divider, who has newly introduced a hire-and-fire culture into the club. Rather, he has just added a chapter to it. It is the problem of media exposure and by extension, their unintentional pressure, that does not blow out of proportion as much as give infinitesimal and contextually, largely unnecessary details about the internal running of a club. Of course one can argue about the right to information and the need to know, and that is not being questioned at all. Instead, the purview of this particular examination is to question the necessity of the same information. This is not a request for censorship and should not be viewed as such. Instead it is a call for abstraction along the lines of, do you need to know how your smartphone app works?
To be continued.. Part 2 here.
Image credit:
epltalk.com : http://epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-big-four.jpg
It is an interesting disintegration of the power structure of the Premier League that has brought us to where we are today. From Manchester United's domination 1992 onward, to the United-Arsenal dichotomy of the late nineties and early 2000s, to Chelsea's challenging of their supremacy in the middle of the decade, and now the Manchester City-Tottenham Hotspur addition to the mix. Liverpool have never been a classical power in the Premier League, but are perennially one of the toughest challenges all of these team and are always on the fringes of being in a serious trophy challenge. Historical rivals of Manchester United, the Merseysiders' diminished abilities have not made the derby games any less bitter and the Reds of Liverpool have had a smattering of cup successes to their name (notably the UEFA Champions League in 2005). There was a point where the quadrangle of Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool were called English football's 'Big Four' as a testament to both their footballing and their financial ability. It is generally accepted that the 'breaking' of this Big Four came about in the 2009-10 season when Tottenham Hotspur finally pipped Liverpool to fourth place in the league table. Ever since, the power structure has been unstable to say the least. The top four slots allow entry into Europe's elite (and more importantly in the current footballing climate, lucrative) competition, the UEFA Champions League. With six 'powers' battling it out among each other and with a few surprise packages every now and then, there is very little margin for error at these six clubs.
The broken monopoly of the perceived Big Four has made the stewardship of Chelsea and Liverpool, at least, extremely tenuous
Chelsea have long been vilified as the problematizing factor in a nice steeped brew of historically successful clubs who had stability as their watchword in the beginning, or at the very least, in the early days of the Premier League. In the first decade of the Premier League, it was Arsenal of all clubs who were the most 'unstable' of the United-Arsenal-Liverpool triad. With five managers in the decade spanning 1992 to 2002, the Gunners of North London outstripped Liverpool's three and United's emblematic Sir Alex Ferguson. In contrast, Chelsea were a minor irritant in cup competitions and a near-competitor in the league and they had seven managers in the first decade itself. Hardly the paragon of stability. But then again, historically speaking, they never have been. To Chelsea's total of thirty two managers throughout their history, Arsenal answer with 23, Liverpool with 20 and United with a miserly 17. And note that they have all been around for at least six years longer than Chelsea. Is there anything to say as a Chelsea apologist? Though Facebook pages like Troll Football (sparkling humour most of the time, by the by) don't know it in historical context, they've labelled the club right. They ARE the 'super sackers'. But as a corollary, one also needs to understand that it is not Roman Abramovich, Chelsea owner and opinion-divider, who has newly introduced a hire-and-fire culture into the club. Rather, he has just added a chapter to it. It is the problem of media exposure and by extension, their unintentional pressure, that does not blow out of proportion as much as give infinitesimal and contextually, largely unnecessary details about the internal running of a club. Of course one can argue about the right to information and the need to know, and that is not being questioned at all. Instead, the purview of this particular examination is to question the necessity of the same information. This is not a request for censorship and should not be viewed as such. Instead it is a call for abstraction along the lines of, do you need to know how your smartphone app works?
To be continued.. Part 2 here.
Image credit:
epltalk.com : http://epltalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/the-big-four.jpg
good to see your back to blogging. wish Facebook comments appeared here. anyway...PART II.
ReplyDeletechange your comment font. what are you ? Gay?
ReplyDelete-____-
Trust Mendes to come up with gems such as these.
Delete:P
WTH. I didn't even see this was the comment font.
ReplyDeleteO.o
Fixing.
:)