THE thought is an alluring one. Find somebody who knows the club, who, to use the current buzz phrase, “understands its DNA”. Which fan wouldn’t want to believe their club is somehow special, that there is something unique about it only initiates can understand?
And of course there’s something attractive about the idea that somebody who has been trusted as a player can also be trusted as a manager. Certainly the theory seems to have taken hold in the Premier League where five clubs – Chelsea, Sheffield United, Manchester United, Arsenal and Bournemouth – are managed by men who once played for them and two – Newcastle and Aston Villa – by fans of the club.
Below the elite level, perhaps it makes sense. If it comes down to a choice of two managers of roughly equal ability, then of course a club should go with the one who has a connection to the club. There may be idiosyncrasies of the fan base or the stadium or the training ground he understands better than an outsider; he is likely to find fans more patient with him than an outsider; and if he has an emotional connection to the club, there’s a greater chance he’ll be acting in the club’s best interest rather than his own.
At the elite level, though, it’s a different matter. The pool of coaches of requisite talent is much smaller, having the necessary DNA seems a far less relevant qualification. There are cases where it has worked – Don Revie did finish his playing career at Leeds, although his best football was played at Manchester City; Kenny Dalglish had a successful spell as Liverpool manager; Harry Catterick had been a player a Everton; Kevin Keegan’s reign at Newcastle was given momentum by memories of him as a player there – but they are few and, in the super club era, increasingly far between, particularly given how often the inclination will be to favour the candidate with links to the club.
#CHEMUN: One week to go! pic.twitter.com/56rHnkKabV
— Chelsea FC (@ChelseaFC) February 10, 2020
Which brings us to Frank Lampard and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, who meet at Stamford Bridge on Monday night. Neither, it’s fair to say, had the CV to qualify them for the job when they were appointed: Solskjaer had been successful in Norway with Molde, but had looked out of his depth at Cardiff, while Lampard’s year at Derby showed promise but nothing like enough to get him a top job were he not Frank Lampard. In that sense they differ from Mikel Arteta, an exciting gamble given his record as Pep Guardiola’s assistant; Chris Wilder, an innovative lower league manager when he took over Sheffield United in League One; and Eddie Howe, a club stalwart at an impoverished team in League Two.
In both cases, it’s hard to avoid the thought that an element of cynicism was at play, beleaguered boards appointing a popular figure who could be relied upon to lower the temperature. In Solskjaer’s case, he was specifically appointed with that brief on a temporary basis. But having poured oil on the troubled waters left by Jose Mourinho, Woodward then bowed to public (or at least media) pressure – Rio Ferdinand beating the table in the BT studio, Gary Neville asking Solskjaer where he wanted his statue built – and gave him the job permanently. Since when he has the lowest win percentage of any United manager since Herbert Bamlett, whose contract was not renewed after leading United to relegation in 1931.
Both are fortunate this is a season when Arsenal and Tottenham are also in transition and the Premier League has a big middle. Chelsea may be fourth, but 41 points from 25 games would usually have them four or five places lower and a run of just four wins in 13 games is cause for major concern. Both Chelsea and United have struggled defensively against counter-attacks and set-plays: there can be good reasons for that but both those issues should be red flags that something perhaps is not quite right in how they are being drilled.
The opening weekend of the season, when United beat Chelsea 4-0, offered an insight into both sides. Chelsea dominated that game through midfield but were hideously open on the break. United countered superbly, as they subsequently did against Manchester City and Tottenham, but were otherwise limited – and are even more limited now in the absence of Marcus Rashford.
Both clubs have major issues that stretch far beyond the manager, but in both cases the appointments felt like, at best, a gamble, at worst, a sop to deflect criticism. It’s not impossible one or both may develop into fine top-level managers but for now their struggles are a reminder that just because a player was once a great player for a club doesn’t mean he will be a great manager.
