Despite the respective rocky starts to their careers at their new clubs, both Chelsea and Manchester United need to exercise patience with their new managers. The manager conveyer belt at both clubs must be put to a halt if they want to have any semblance of stability, and return to their former glory. Chelsea in particular have abided by this strategy in their golden years (Under former owner Roman Abramovich, from 2003-2022), and it brought them multiple successful years, but in the ever changing climate of soccer, this strategy no longer seems as foolproof and they would be wise to change.
Firstly, in the case of Chelsea, during the past 20 years, which have been by far the most successful in the club’s history, they have changed managers whenever things seem even slightly less than ideal. Jose Mourinho once lost his job for an uninspiring loss in the Champions League while still in the early parts of the season, and more recently Thomas Tuchel was fired for an uninspiring start to the season, having recently delivered one of Chelsea’s most trophy and final-laden periods. Interim managers such as Roberto Di Matteo, Guus Hiddink and Avram Grant have all had short successful periods followed by a swift replacement as well. Their model of manager merry-go-round seemed to have served them well over the past 20 years, no matter how unorthodox it seemed. One possible (and probably the main) reason for this working so well was the bankroll of Abramovich himself, and how relatively unregulated spending was during most of this era. Every time a new manager came in, they were given a blank cheque to spend on whomever they saw fit. This coupled with the allure of London as a young man and the high wages that came with signing with Chelsea, meant that they usually got their man, even when competing with typical juggernauts such as Manchester United and Liverpool. A good example of this is Chelsea beating United to the signing of John Obi Mikel in 2006, that left legendary United manager Sir Alex Ferguson seething. With the Premier League and UEFA instilling methods of controlling spending in order to create a semblance of a balanced and stable playing field, clubs such as Chelsea have been unable to spend as freely; at least without some ‘clever’ work arounds. Chelsea have still been spending absurd amounts of money, but instead of the methods of the past that involved just simply purchasing a ‘superstar’ for a standard 4 year contract on massive wages, they are now offering contracts that are the longest in the history of the sport (as high as 8 year contracts have been offered). These are being offered to young players who show immense potential but are not what one would consider a ‘superstar’ yet. These players thrive when given time to develop, especially a little away from the spotlight and pressure that comes with being one of the main men on a team. Changing their approach with players means they must also change their approach with managers, it cannot be expected to go well otherwise. Superstar unlimited budgets, managers and players go hand in hand, they cannot work without being matched in each department.
As for Manchester United, their greatest period of success was mostly found the other way. Sir Alex Ferguson was their manager for 26 seasons, before finally retiring in 2013. In fact, his entire legacy was started on trust and patience, as his first few seasons at the club did not bring an silverware, and they were languishing in mid and lower table to begin. Amidst calls to fire him, the club stuck with him and it resulted in Manchester United becoming the most successful team in English history, and among the three biggest teams in the world, along with Spanish giants Barcelona and Real Madrid. Since his retirement however, probably not used to winning a trophy every season, and coming no lower than the occasional third, the club (admittedly also under severe pressure from the fans) showed little patience when things weren’t as easy as they expected. Over the now ten years since, United have had multiple managers, with only Jose Mourinho and Ten Hag winning any form of silverware, while missing the Champions League several times, and not winning the Premier League once. As soon as a moderately extensive period of adversity hits, the rumor mill goes into overdrive about when the manager will be sacked and who will replace him. Perhaps there are better managers out there, but why ignore the very mantra that brought so much success? United need to at least give three seasons to a manager, even with very slight progress. Only in the face of clear and steep decline should a manager be fired so quickly.
Other examples of why stability is good come from two of these clubs biggest rivals; Liverpool and Arsenal. When current manager Jurgen Klopp became Liverpool boss, he finished 8th, and did not deliver any sort of silverware for almost 4 years. He is now the longest tenured manager in the division, and Liverpool have enjoyed their most successful period since the late 80s. Arsenal hired Mikel Arteta in December 2019. and for three seasons were unable to even return back to the Champions League, which was his intended target when hired. However, they improved (even ever so slightly) each year he was in charge, climbing from 8th to 5th, until things finally clicked in the 22-23′ season where Arsenal finished second and looked almost unbeatable for most of the year, showing a resiliency unseen at the club for many years. Their strong play has continued into this season as they look to challenge once again for the title. With the examples of their rivals, and what may have worked in the past either being completely unviable now (in the case of Chelsea) or deviating from a trusted formula (Manchester United), both clubs must show faith and patience in their managers, and “trust the process”.