WHY VIALLI HAD TO STAY
Pete Bull responds to the controversial hypothesis on the Gianluca Vialli issue by arguing the merits of Chelsea’s first Italian manager.
I have just read Jez’s piece about why Luca had to go. What a load of crap. Luca should still be at Chelsea.
Firstly, in his very first full season in charge at Chelsea Luca led us to third place in the Premiership only four points behind ManUre and the Arse. He took us to the quarter-finals of the Champions League – we had never been in the European Cup before. He won us the League Cup, the ECWC and the FA Cup. Do you really think Snr Ranieri will do that for us?
Do you think we’ll be playing European football next season? If not, where are all our players going to go? We’ll soon see then who opens their big fat gob about Ranieri and his tactics. You will then be wishing Luca was still at the Bridge Jez.
Secondly, player power – Lebouef is a weasel! Suddenly he has gone quiet hasn’t he? Frank is a good player but when the going gets a little tough, he suddenly can’t stand the pace. George Weah? He was on bloody loan! Deschamps? What a season he had. So, Luca had to go because some players think that they are bigger than the club. Where has that got us so far this season?
Luca was only given five games this season. Have we done any better under Ranieri? You predicted that under Luca we’d finish tenth in 2001. So far we still have not won away from home. Now what do we do? We buy Gronkjaer for £7.8million – a player who is injured and won’t be a ble to play for us until next year.
Thirdly, you say Vialli was not improving as a manager. When did you think that? After our 2-0 win against Man Utd or the 4-2 win over the Hammers? He was only given four games after that. Remember, he was not in charge against Leicester or the quite abysmal game against St Gallen at home.
If you are about to blame rotation that is total bollocks. Chelsea played about 68 games last season (give or take one or two). Do you think Zola, Deschamps or Lebouef would have played all 68? Vialli needed to rotate players. Wasn’t there a poll in the CISA asking if Luca should rotate players? The majority said yes. How did Luca know that Sutton and Ambrosetti were not going to be good for Chelsea? Did he have a crystal ball?
So, Luca may not have been ruthless but there are certain players who did not perform under him who should have, especially as they get paid countless amounts each week. Those players are still not performing under Ranieri. I suppose that’s still Luca’s fault eh?
Luca should still be Chelsea manager. As for what Kerry said at the Indie Christmas party five years ago, the players should respect the manager and what he says. It’s a team game. The team includes the manager! Bates will regret his choice.