Should Chelsea only hire managers who have already won a trophy?

BRIGHTON, ENGLAND - DECEMBER 16: Maurizio Sarri, Manager of Chelsea reacts during the Premier League match between Brighton & Hove Albion and Chelsea FC at American Express Community Stadium on December 16, 2018 in Brighton, United Kingdom. (Photo by Dan Istitene/Getty Images)
BRIGHTON, ENGLAND - DECEMBER 16: Maurizio Sarri, Manager of Chelsea reacts during the Premier League match between Brighton & Hove Albion and Chelsea FC at American Express Community Stadium on December 16, 2018 in Brighton, United Kingdom. (Photo by Dan Istitene/Getty Images) /
facebooktwitterreddit
Prev
1 of 7
Next
chelsea, maurizio sarri
BRIGHTON, ENGLAND – DECEMBER 16: Maurizio Sarri, Manager of Chelsea reacts during the Premier League match between Brighton & Hove Albion and Chelsea FC at American Express Community Stadium on December 16, 2018 in Brighton, United Kingdom. (Photo by Dan Istitene/Getty Images) /

One of the lingering points of contention around Maurizio Sarri is whether Chelsea should have hired a manager who had never won a trophy before. Is this a lesson they should learn for the post-Sarri era, or are Sarri’s problems fully separate from his lack of trophy-raising experience?

Chelsea are through to the Europa League semifinals, which brings Maurizio Sarri one step closer to his first trophy. However, the manner in which he has approached that tournament, to say nothing of the other three, raises questions about how well a manager who has never won can properly motivate his players and prioritize his decisions. We asked our writers if Chelsea should only hire managers who have one at least one trophy – even a single domestic cup – or if Stamford Bridge could be a place where a manager can put the first piece in his cabinet.

1. Trophies are but one measure (Barrett Rouen)

No, this should not be a hard fast rule. It should simply be one of the factors that goes into rating a new manager.

One of the issues with even the principle of this is that it pretends to simplify something as truly complicated as rating and choosing a manager to a yes / no test. Too many different factors go into a manager’s success to pretend whether they have won a trophy is conclusive.

Each division only ever has a few trophies up for grabs, and most leagues are dominated by a few clubs who have solidified their positions over the course of years. To suggest only the managers at those clubs are any good is daft and ignorant.

For instance, there are many good managers in Germany, but that league is entirely dominated by Bayern Munich. The same goes for Spain: many good managers who happen to not work at Barcelona or Real Madrid.

I have for a long time suggested the best proof of a manger is how much they do with a little and how much they actually improve the players they have.

light. More. Predicted XI for Burnley: Keeping up in the fight for top-six

Though Sarri has many reasonable excuses his results, my issue with him is how he always seems to fall back on something rather than simply putting his head down, getting on with it and saying as much. It would have done him an incalculable amount of good this year with both his players and the support to have said once or twice “I made a mistake in my team selection and that let down my tactics and the side but I will learn and improve”.

I would be fine with Chelsea hiring any manager who had a record of actually being able to improve their players, had a strong disciplinary record and an honest approach to their relationship with fans.