Top 10 Leagues in the World.

Yes, and Chelsea were also untouchable when we had Grant. He had a better record than Mourinho in all competitions!

Untouchable, and yet came second in 3 comps, well it seems that United had a good old touch, some would even say they had you by the balls.

woah i sure missed a discussion

hahaha you did, it seems that this forum is more based on me ripping into max and you adding comments sporadically when you feel the need haha

Are you saying that 3 second places (EPL because Mourinho did SHIT, Champion's league because of poor pitch surface, and League Cup because of Juande Ramos) is a bad season? If you think that then you are the reason that managers at high level clubs aren't given space to manouver and inevitibly always fail and that makes you as good as a glory hunting man utd/real madrid/inter fan. And us beating them 2-1 at the bridge displayed them "having us by the balls" ? No-one would say that except you and the boys from Oxford

To be honest Max, you blaming the pitch for the loss is utter bollocks, Terry missed, maybe as a result of the pitch, maybe because he slipped, maybe because he can't take a penalty to save his life. But Anelka also missed and the teams were fairly equal all game, so I do not think that you can say that the sole reason for the loss was Terry.

Secondly Mourinho did not get 3 second places Max, he was only at Chelsea for 3 years, where he won two titles and then left after a couple of months in his third year. In that time he had 2 EPL wins, the FA cup, and the league cup. In comparison to that, the results Mourinho got, Grant won nothing, granted that he was not in a wonderful position as a result of Chelsea's poor performance at the start of that season, however, to not win a single title with the club, at that time, with the biggest financial backing and having the biggest quality in squad depth is not at all good enough. Thus in my opinion, yes 3 second places in one season for a club like Chelsea is a poor season.

I agree that managers are not given the time needed at a club to find their feet, however i strongly dissagree with you that the managers of top teams are the ones who are persecuted most strongly. Think about teams in the relegation battle, or mid-table teams that are unable to achieve to the level of the boards high expectations. They are sacked without a thought, then a new manager is brought in and he is not given any time to influence the team as a whole. Think about the situations with Portsmouth and West Ham. Their original managers, Curbishley and Redknapp were sacked or left respectivly, whether it is for dreams of higher quality football, or because the board was interfearing in the transfer/team selection of West Ham the manager was evicted. The incoming managers, Adams and Zola, both young and unproven managers, are already under pressure as they have not done quite as well as one might expect. If a manager is not given time and is sacked at the first sign of bad results, the manager is indeed being beaten on. Now, i think that i would be right in saying that this is more common in worse teams, if a new manager is appointed at Chelsea they are given at least a year, not enough time but more than the mere weeks that are given to Paul Ince for example.

May i say max, that Manchester United beat you in two of the compititions that you came second in. The EPL and the Champions League, you may have beaten them once at home, but you failed to beat them when it mattered, and coming second to a team twice in one season would insinuate that that team may well have the other "by the balls".

In all fairness Bryn, having someone by the balls, insinuates total control, which Manchester United did not have. If they had total control they would not have relied on Wigan to get a point at the bridge to win them the title. If they had control they would have buried all five of their penalties in the shoot out. If they had control they would have been in the Carling Cup final. Although they beat us, don't lie to yourself by saying it was convincing, they scraped both titles by the skin of their teeth.
And on Grant. His financial backing meant nothing, as he only had January to model the squad, and he was only given Anelka who he didn't even want. And now you're trying to tell me that you think Grant was given enough time? Taking a miserable squad of players who were all complaining about losing their favourite manager from the wrong side of the group stages to the champions league final, and from 8 points behind in the league to within 2 of the title (as well as the final of the carling cup) is not good enough? What planet are you on? Grant is a bloody fairy godmother!

that was fun.

That is amazing Tim, good work.

That last one is hilarious

i love the joe cole going crazy ones

I love Essien looking crazy yet still being awesome

i love them all, but Grant has to take the cake here....

joe cole clearly wins

terry clearly loses (as the only one who didnt get mentioned)

John Terry doesn't need to be mentioned. Do you ever hear about his heroics on the front page on the press?

whos terry?

whats the press?