Chelsea and Palace: Clubs owe managers a voice in building their teams
By George Perry
Chelsea and Crystal Palace have little in common these days. But despite their differences in quality, results and accomplishments the two London clubs reveal similar lessons about the importance of letting a manager build his team.
Even by the Premier League’s dysfunctional and short-sighted approach to management, Crystal Palace’s handling of Frank de Boer was appalling. Roy Hodgson’s two-year contract should not be worth the paper it is written on, given what it represents about his predecessor.
Palace hired de Boer with the explicit mandate to change the way the team played. They brought in a young manager steeped in the Dutch tradition to institute a cultural shift as well as a tactical shift in the club. The ambition was not only to win, but to win in a way that would bring Palace on par with the more sophisticated clubs in England and Europe. That, in turn, would give them a better competitive chance against the top half of the Premier League table.
Crystal Palace spent £33 million on two players – Mamadou Sakho (who was already there on loan) and Jairo Riedewald – towards this ambition. They also brought in Ruben Loftus-Cheek and Timothy Fosu-Mensah on loan.
Related Story: Predicted XI vs. Crystal Palace: No Morata, no Kante, no 3-5-2
Thus, on the basis of a squad built and developed primarily by Tony Pulis, Alan Pardew and Sam Allardyce, Crystal Palace sacked Frank de Boer for not instituting total football after four games. De Boer had neither the players he needed to implement his vision, nor the time necessary to take the first steps towards that vision with the players he inherited.
Crystal Palace management seemed shocked to learn that a team built by English coaches to play quintessentially English football in a club that has never known otherwise could not transform into Ajax after only four games. And so they surrendered all their plans, and decided to stay the only course they have ever known by hiring Roy Hodgson.
Antonio Conte won the Premier League in his first season at Chelsea with a squad built mainly by Jose Mourinho. Chelsea’s players were obviously highly talented, adept at a variety of playing styles from their club and international experience. But they were not Conte’s players, men that he chose to play a particular form of football.
Must Read: Woeful Crystal Palace side are ideal opponent for Chelsea at this time
Throughout the season, he made do with the players he had. The club bought only one player – N’Golo Kante – from the top of his wish list in the summer of his arrival. Marcos Alonso and David Luiz were last-minute additions, players who worked out well but who were likely not Conte’s first choices. They were available and capable, and Chelsea assumed that would be enough to placate Conte.
The expectation around the club – and presumably Conte’s, as well – was that the club would heed his requests in his second summer. Instead, the pattern repeated itself. Chelsea bought Conte’s top request, Alvaro Morata, but only after they nearly derailed the deal over their preference for Romelu Lukaku. The Blues also bought Tiemoue Bakayoko. But the late pursuits of Ross Barkley and Fernando Llorente (among others), and the deadline day purchases of Danny Drinkwater and Davide Zappacosta reveal the continuing disconnect between Conte and Chelsea.
Antonio Conte, for the second season in a row, is playing the players the club gave him, rather than the players he needs for the job he was hired to do. He is in almost an identical situation as last season at this time. But now he is doing it with the heightened expectations of a Premier League title defence and a Champions League return.
Conte took the blame for Chelsea’s rocky start last season. He had to explain to Roman Abramovich the limits of what he could do with a team he did not build. He surpassed those expectations, and now the club expects him to do it again.
Clubs do not hire coaches like Antonio Conte and Frank de Boer for plug-and-play football. Bringing in a coach like that shows a desire that must be met by a commitment. Crystal Palace sacked de Boer because of they lacked that commitment and likely the initial desire as well. Antonio Conte is not in much danger of losing his job. If anything, Chelsea are more in danger of Conte leaving over just these issues.
Next: Eden Hazard counsels patience as he belatedly starts his Chelsea season
At either end of the table, if a club brings in a specific coach to do a specific job they must give him the tools to do so. Otherwise, they are setting everyone up for failure and embarrassment. In that case, just avoid the rush and hire Roy Hodgson now.