Home > Football > If Grant's good enough to replace Sven, what does that say for the axed Chelsea boss's critics?
If Grant's good enough to replace Sven, what does that say for the axed Chelsea boss's critics?
One kick from winning the biggest tournament in club football and the quiet Israeli gets the boot. Roman Abramovich has clearly got more money than sense.
by Ed Bottomley on 25 May 2008
Email this Article (6) Comments
Free £25 bet when you register at
Big savings on football products from boots to balls!
Avram Grant was 90 minutes from winning the League Cup, 90 minutes from the end of the Premier League season he was still in the race for the title. And in the biggest tournament in club football, he was within one penalty kick of winning the whole thing.
The fact that this trio of oh-so-near misses actually happened in the same season shows that the Israeli was so close to success that he could smell its fetid breath.
Ever since Grant took charge at Chelsea there was a section of the press that was itching to attack him, with sensational froth about his tactical stupidity doing the rounds.
Now, even the press seem to appear sorry for Avram. The season Grant has had has been nothing short of sensational, he came very close to winning three trophies – not a bad haul at all for a manager in his first season in the Premier League.
Grant was also made to join the Premier League party relatively late – and was unable to galvanise the side through a pre-season, nor was he able to pick from a squad of players that he had brought in. And worse still, Jose Mourinho had won the hearts of many of the important Chelsea players, so when the modest Israeli shuffled in he had already lost many in the changing room just because he was the 'anti-Mourinho'.
Replacing grandiose statements and pure distilled Portuguese charisma with mumbled half sentences and lots of navel gazing was always going to ruffle a few feathers. Ironically for two men who play such a different game off the field with the press, Mourinho and Grant played a very similar system on the pitch, and therein lays the one crumb of evidence for which to attack Grant’s tenure at Chelsea.
When Grant first eased himself into the Chelsea hot seat, he made one bold promise, that he would improve the way Chelsea play, and try to carve a side that was much more easy on the eye than the team that Mourinho held sway over.
This is patently something the Israeli has not been able to do, and many press hounds leapt on him over the fact that he abandoned his pledge to improve the way Chelsea play football.
But is this one fact enough to sack a manager? The fact that success-craving Manchester City owner Thaksin Shinawatra is rumoured to be sniffing around Grant with a view to bringing him in to replace Sven-Goran Eriksson shows you that not everyone feels the way Chelsea do about Avram.
Comments (6)
by Brett Cox on May 25, 2008
If Grant is good enough for Thaksin, you seem to imply that he's good enough for Chelsea? You are having a laugh. Grant's record in cup finals is now 1 win in 7 cup finals. (It was 1 win in 5 cup finals before taking over Chelsea.) He is totally unqualified for the position. Thank god he is gone.
by Rob Boney on May 25, 2008
Unfortunately the only reason Grant got the job in the first place was as a mate of RA's to help as a stopgap. His qualifications were such that he was neither respected by the fans (who also thought he aided in the overthrow of JM) the players (except those deluded by the thought of freedom to play the "showy style") nor the media until he became the object of sympathy for the Chelsea hating press corps (most of whom have been brought up on Liverpool, Arsenal or Man Utd success i.e. the gloryhunters the term they use to deride CFC fans). If Grant is good enough to replace Eriksson why not England? That should calm a few reporters down a bit?
by Ian Arnott on May 25, 2008
Rob Boney's comments are spot on.Grant's statement that Chelsea had overachieved this season, were made to make himself look good & recomfirmed my opinion that he was not up to the job.. .
on May 25, 2008 on May 25, 2008
i wonder if he was in a bit of a catch 22 position because the team was in touch all the way in the prem and europe. if he messed around then trying to change the way they played football and made it more attractive but with some early mishaps then the team may have become more entertaining but they would not have been challenging that year. he only ever really had this season to show what he could do, but as the results were good he couldn't really stray too far from the style that was bringing the results.
by Matthew McLeod on May 25, 2008
Grant has my respect. He turned out to be quite competent. However, at Chelsea, competent is simply not good enough. You must be in a class of your own. Anyone can see that at the time of Jose's departure, there were few qualified candidates to choose from. Grant was simply a stop gap until someone qualified was available. It's terrible, but that's the business of football, and everyone knew it was coming.
on May 26, 2008 on May 26, 2008
i'd have grant over mourinho. mourinho attracts dislike. isn't that what roman wants to get rid of? grants results must have been as good ro better than anyones since he took over as manager. just a shame (for you) that the mighty reds were on top of it all :)
Add your comment here
PERSONAL ABUSE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED
First Name
Last Name
Email
Heading
Display your favourite sport or football team badge with your comment.
Sport
League
Team
Comment *
Please enter the text you see in the picture into the textbox below. *
Ipswich Volz into town as Watford seek to close the gap
Houston lift-off: Will Ron Artest and Yao Ming combine to fire up the Rockets?
Roddick serves up a US Open treat to wrap up the first round
Arsenal Aston Villa Barcelona Chelsea Everton Football Liverpool Manchester City Manchester United Newcastle United Portsmouth Real Madrid Sunderland Tottenham Hotspur West Ham United