Aston Villa 1 Chelsea 3

[Mark Kelly]

58 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

This is mindblowing.

Hoddle came in, in summer 1993, and from day 1 went from 442, to 352, or 532, whatever you want to call it. 

Zola and Di Matteo came in a lot further down the line, after Hoddle had gone, and their presence accelerated the success.  The initial change, which was crucial, was made in 1993. 

You knew you'd regret it and now you do! 

You're spot on by the way. 

[chrisb]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

You knew you'd regret it and now you do! 

You're spot on by the way. 

Yep, could see where this was going to end up!

Hoddle was the catalyst for our improvement from ‘93 onwards, And to my memory everything  @paulw66 has said reflects what I remember of those exciting times.

[Holymoly]

On 08/02/2024 at 09:53, NoblyBobly said:

It was a bit like bumping into your first true love in a supermarket while she’s pushing a trolley with her two kids and husband in tow. You now have a few grey hairs and the start of a tummy but she still looks as bloody  gorgeous as you remember her. You briefly chat , say goodbye and move onto the frozen pea section while trying to shake the memory. 

I fear my first crush will be a year or so older than me and probably in no better shape than I am and I try not to bump into my ex at all as she doesn't fit this metaphor in any way whatsoever.

[JonnyCFC]

6 hours ago, Dwmh said:

The improvements also came in a lot further down the line.  Many players and managers contributed, and mostly the Bates willingness to pay for older players had a big effect.

 

As I recall (and I didn't watch a lot of games in 1990s from Poland pre-broadband) 352 was essentially a way to start Hoddle, then Gullit as a very deep quarter back role without havng the essential pace or heading ability of a proper CB or the mobility of a midfield DM.  (Essentially Matic but not as slow).

The difference between a back 4 + a DM and a back 3 have always been very minor.  I recall some thought it was first introduced by Conte, but the playing ideas are much older than the names.  (In the Villa game someone praised Caicedo for dropping in as 3rd CB when needed)

So all Hoddle really did that was new was to call it a back 3.  But the team were no more successful in the league than David Webb's team.  

Data sourced from Wiki

Post War Chelsea managers (50+ games) sorted by Win %

Win % has been corrected from wiki numbers

 

But looking at the results does tell a very contrasting  story.

So who takes the credit then?  The manager that took us sideways or the ones that took us upwards before and after?

They all take some credit.

The point is that Hoddle played a big part in laying the foundations that helped the next few managers achieve the success they did and got the club to where they were.

I still have an old VHS video somewhere of a season review from 94 or 95, Hoddle talks about how he changed the mentality at the club. His experience at Monaco introduced him to more sophisticated training techniques and understanding the importance of diet etc. He brought this experience into the Chelsea set up which as I say laid the foundations for years to come.

 

[Dwmh]

39 minutes ago, JonnyCFC said:

They all take some credit.

The point is that Hoddle played a big part in laying the foundations that helped the next few managers achieve the success they did and got the club to where they were.

I still have an old VHS video somewhere of a season review from 94 or 95, Hoddle talks about how he changed the mentality at the club. His experience at Monaco introduced him to more sophisticated training techniques and understanding the importance of diet etc. He brought this experience into the Chelsea set up which as I say laid the foundations for years to come.

 

Yes Hoddle talked an absolutely fantastic game.

[Ham]

7 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Yes Hoddle talked an absolutely fantastic game.

And also laid the foundations for new and successful Chelsea. 

[chiswickblue]

On 07/02/2024 at 08:43, chiswickblue said:

Petrovic

Gusto Disasi Badiashile Chilwell

Caicedo Gallagher

Madueke Chukwuemeka Mudryk

Jackson

I thought we would have a more balanced midfield this year, but thanks to injury and transfers we seem to have traded an unbalanced, goal-shy experienced midfield for an unbalanced, goal-shy inexperienced midfield. Lots of good players, but not a good mix.

BTW I'm claiming an assist here for the goals scored by Gallagher and Fernandez. Even Caicedo had a dig at some point.

[martin1905]

Spot on @paulw66.

I have said for donkeys that Hoddle is one of the most important men in our history.

I know you like an argument @Dwmhbut this is ridiculous,  even by your standards.

'There was a change in style.  How much of that was Hoddle, how much was Bates or Zola or Di Matteo or Matthew Harding's access to borrowing we can argue about all day.  I'd put a lot of it down to Petrescu myself - playing a clearly superior kind of football, though Wisey had a role too.'

Followed up with this......

'As I recall (and I didn't watch a lot of games in 1990s from Poland pre-broadband) '

I know you dont like getting caught out but you will have to take this one on the cinema,  you've done yourself up like a kipper.

[Dwmh]

13 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Spot on @paulw66.

I have said for donkeys that Hoddle is one of the most important men in our history.

I know you like an argument @Dwmhbut this is ridiculous,  even by your standards.

'There was a change in style.  How much of that was Hoddle, how much was Bates or Zola or Di Matteo or Matthew Harding's access to borrowing we can argue about all day.  I'd put a lot of it down to Petrescu myself - playing a clearly superior kind of football, though Wisey had a role too.'

Followed up with this......

'As I recall (and I didn't watch a lot of games in 1990s from Poland pre-broadband) '

I know you dont like getting caught out but you will have to take this one on the cinema,  you've done yourself up like a kipper.

Hoddle's results were bang ordinary.
If you want to give credit to someone give it to Bates for the money, give it to Harding if you believe he helped.
Certainly give it to John Neal and Bobby Campbell for getting us up and back up to Div 1.  And Porterfield and Webb for doing as well in the early 90s as Hoddle did in the mid 90s.
Team picked up rapidly from Gullitt onwards.  Money.

I know people attach a lot of mythology to football, especially their younger years.  But success is pretty measurable in league terms, and pretty random in cup terms.

[Ham]

11 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Hoddle's results were bang ordinary.
If you want to give credit to someone give it to Bates for the money, give it to Harding if you believe he helped.
Certainly give it to John Neal and Bobby Campbell for getting us up and back up to Div 1.  And Porterfield and Webb for doing as well in the early 90s as Hoddle did in the mid 90s.
Team picked up rapidly from Gullitt onwards.  Money.

I know people attach a lot of mythology to football, especially their younger years.  But success is pretty measurable in league terms, and pretty random in cup terms.

Getting to the FA Cup final meant a run in Europe which attracted Gullit and Hughes as players to the project and the rest is history.

None of that happened without Hoddle. 

Btw, we were robbed in that FA Cup final by the most corrupt refereeing I'd seen up until that point. 

Edited February 10 by Ham

[kev61]

On 08/02/2024 at 09:24, Ham said:

Give us credit.  It wasn't that villa were bad.  Chelsea were that good and didn't give them a second to settle until we started to tire on 75 minutes. 

I gave the team "credit"or can you not see that? 

The reality is we don't whether we were that good or Villa were that bad.It takes several games before we can make a judgment.

[martin1905]

38 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Hoddle's results were bang ordinary.
If you want to give credit to someone give it to Bates for the money, give it to Harding if you believe he helped.
Certainly give it to John Neal and Bobby Campbell for getting us up and back up to Div 1.  And Porterfield and Webb for doing as well in the early 90s as Hoddle did in the mid 90s.
Team picked up rapidly from Gullitt onwards.  Money.

I know people attach a lot of mythology to football, especially their younger years.  But success is pretty measurable in league terms, and pretty random in cup terms.

Thing is no one, apart from you, has mentioned results.

You kind of prove the point though,  mentioning Webb and Porterfield. In terms of results very similar to Hoddle. What they did for the club, night and day. Not so sure, personally, either of them would have been able to persuade Gullit or Mark Hughes to join. What they did for the club, night and day.

And yes we spent some money,  it's football after all. Don't think there has ever been a club that didn't spend money to get better. You need a foundation though and Hoddle gave us that.

[ROTG]

11 hours ago, paulw66 said:

Well, that's disingenuous, at best. I know I am going to regret this but...........

A straight forward look at wins, draws and losses is not the only measure of a manager's tenure. A bit like shots at goal don't tell the whole story of a game.

In Hoddle's three years we got to the FA Cup final in 1994 and the semi in 1996. A handful of players, certainly in the 1996 team played a significant part in winning the trophy in 1997. I expect they were all the better for the experience(s).

Hoddle also completely transformed the style from the direct stuff we saw from Porterfield and Webb, to a neat passing game, and encouraged the likes of Gullit, Hughes, and Petrescu all to sign. This undoubtedly laid the foundation to what followed in 1997-2000 winning 4 major trophies, having not won diddly for 26 years. 

His "record" may look ordinary, but what he actually did for the club, was far from that. 

Hoddle, Gulllit, Vialli, started the upward trend. 

However Bates & Colin Hutchinson Hiring the club's first elite manager Ranneri,  backing him in the transfer market, took the club to the next level and the rest is history. 

[Dwmh]

4 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Thing is no one, apart from you, has mentioned results.

You kind of prove the point though,  mentioning Webb and Porterfield. In terms of results very similar to Hoddle. What they did for the club, night and day. Not so sure, personally, either of them would have been able to persuade Gullit or Mark Hughes to join. What they did for the club, night and day.

And yes we spent some money,  it's football after all. Don't think there has ever been a club that didn't spend money to get better. You need a foundation though and Hoddle gave us that.

Of course no one else has mentioned the results.  We all know why that was - Porterfield/Webb got 56 points.  Hoddle got 51, 54, and a bit better in his 3rd year with 50 (38 games not 42)
They have mentioned spurious behind the scene changes but it was the money.  

Sexy players - Hughes, Petrescu and Gullitt only arrived in Hoddle's last year (and only one of those came from abroad)

Zola, RDM, le Bouef, Vialli, all arrived the year after Hoddle had gone.  They were attracted by Money OR   Gullitt take your choice

The football did change under Gullitt.  So did the results rapidly.  59, 63, 75 points.

 

[ROTG]

24 minutes ago, martin1905 said:

Thing is no one, apart from you, has mentioned results.

You kind of prove the point though,  mentioning Webb and Porterfield. In terms of results very similar to Hoddle. What they did for the club, night and day. Not so sure, personally, either of them would have been able to persuade Gullit or Mark Hughes to join. What they did for the club, night and day.

And yes we spent some money,  it's football after all. Don't think there has ever been a club that didn't spend money to get better. You need a foundation though and Hoddle gave us that.

We signed the likes of Hughes, Gulllit etc, because of Bosman or little transfer fee, hence the club was able to pay big wages. Also for the likes of Gulllit the draw of London contributed to the club's attraction. 

[martin1905]

Shock horror, the two most argumentative people on here want to argue about how whether or not Hoddle was an important part of our history.

Enjoy debating with yourselves.

Good night.

[chrisb]

I’m beginning to think that some people like to argue black is white just to get their post count up. 

[Ham]

4 hours ago, chrisb said:

I’m beginning to think that some people like to argue black is white just to get their post count up. 

I think it's just for the challenge. 

[Ham]

In the words of Ruud Gullit;

‘Glenn had to sell Chelsea and their ambition to me - he said they were at the start of a journey too - but what was most important was that it was Glenn. In the eyes of the Dutch, he was the best English footballer ever but in England he was not appreciated. In the Netherlands, we said 'oh my god, he was a player meant for us, not for you'.

‘He had first phoned me up a few months previously to say he wanted to sign me and because I saw him as a player who played skilful football, I knew for sure he would not be a manager who would want to play the long ball and that was a very important factor in my decision.’

[Blue Moon]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

I think it's just for the challenge. 

Maybe they can't tell black from white? Just a thought ...

[ROTG]

18 minutes ago, Blue Moon said:

Maybe they can't tell black from white? Just a thought ...

Good from evil in my case

What is hilarious is the same crowd like each other when they take a pop or try to give a smart arse answers to those who doesn't wear the same rose tinted glasses as them. 

Edited February 10 by ROTG

[Dwmh]

  

1 hour ago, Ham said:

In the words of Ruud Gullit;

‘Glenn had to sell Chelsea and their ambition to me - he said they were at the start of a journey too - but what was most important was that it was Glenn. In the eyes of the Dutch, he was the best English footballer ever but in England he was not appreciated. In the Netherlands, we said 'oh my god, he was a player meant for us, not for you'.

‘He had first phoned me up a few months previously to say he wanted to sign me and because I saw him as a player who played skilful football, I knew for sure he would not be a manager who would want to play the long ball and that was a very important factor in my decision.’

So it wasn't for the money then.

Fernandez came for the project too - easy to find the quote to prove that.
I guess we have Potter to thank too.

2 hours ago, Ham said:

I think it's just for the challenge. 

I think deep myths get sucked in by large groups, and occasionally someone who just wasn't there that day turns up and says  ?What??

And gets shouted at for looking at the evidence not the myth.

It has always seemed to me that the more conventional the argument the more angrily it gets shouted down.
Not just football talk.

 

[jasonb]

I just had a look at the squad in 93, the unlucky Paul Elliott and it's worth considering some of  the others, Robert Fleck, Tony Cascarino, Frank Spencer Sinclair, Damien Mathew, Craig Burley, Andy Myers, David Lee and Mal Donaghy.

Now there were of course some decent players, Wise, Peacock, Moonkou yet they were in short supply and this is not taken into account with managerial win percentages. 

 

[Ham]

6 hours ago, Dwmh said:

  

So it wasn't for the money then.

Fernandez came for the project too - easy to find the quote to prove that.
I guess we have Potter to thank too.

I think deep myths get sucked in by large groups, and occasionally someone who just wasn't there that day turns up and says  ?What??

And gets shouted at for looking at the evidence not the myth.

It has always seemed to me that the more conventional the argument the more angrily it gets shouted down.
Not just football talk.

 

So even very specific quotes from the horse's mouth are not enough for you. 

I'm out. 

[east lower]

6 hours ago, jasonb said:

I just had a look at the squad in 93, the unlucky Paul Elliott………..

 

There was nothing unlucky as regards Paul Elliott never playing again after that violent assault by that ***t Saunders. It was a pure extreme act, never any other intention than hurting the opponent.

If what he did happened on the street he’d have been prosecuted, it was that bad.