Was it the correct decision by Chelsea to sack Frank Lampard?

[Firebat]

I don't think this sacking is a major surprise. This is how Chelsea have always ran things under Abramovich. Even winning the FA Cup and UCL title in the same season does not save you from the sack, as Di Matteo found out the hard way.

Lampard would have known this better than anyone, as he has witnessed and experienced the Abramovich era first-hand throughout his entire playing career.

Yet, this sacking feels slightly different to the others, not least because he is the club's greatest ever player. Many feel that his achievement last year to make the top 4 with a far weaker squad and 2 transfer bans merited a little more time than previous managers.

There's also the compromise that a club makes when hiring an inexperienced manager like Lampard, which is that short-term success is not guaranteed. They knew from the moment they hired him that he would have to learn on the job, that he would experience lean runs like this one, but they believed in him.

That is the commitment and investment in an inexperienced manager that you make as a club, and it requires you to back him in such runs, which they have not done. If they did not intend on fully investing in him, then why did they hire him in the first place?

Do you think it was the right decision to sack Frank Lampard?

 

[MenInG]

Cannot go on losing so many games and not expect any reaction

 

[OldWarHorse]

They were in free fall. No way were they going to make it into European places at that rate, even now it looks tough but new manager might just get them playing better. So yes change was needed.

 

[Saj]

Just goes to show that the job was too big for him.

There's this fairy tale myth that good players make good coaches - well Lampard was awful. He talked the talk, but rarely walked the walk.

100% the right decision.

 

[Hasan123]

If you a hire a young manager, you don’t just give them 1 and half seasons and sack them after a tough patch. I think they should have stuck with him as he has great potential as a manager and he was obviously going to make mistakes as he was working with a lot of new players and he still lacks experience.

 

[PetroDollars]

I didn't expect it, I thought he will get the season at least,

but in the end, it was obvious he was a poor manager and even giving him time would not result in anything different.

When your given £300M in one single transfer window to spend you need to start delivering results, so he has no one to blame but himself, he got the players he wanted and then they didn't want him as the manager.

 

[mazkhan]

Lampard was simply not ready for a big job he should have stuck it out at derby county and worked his way up gradually

 

[Firebat]

This exposed the real motives behind Chelsea's decision making. If they were really committed to letting a young, inexperienced manager succeed at their club, they would not have sacked him after his first lean run.

On December 5, they were top of the table. 1 month and 20 days later, they sacked him. They were waiting to do this, this has clearly been their plan all along. They had been burnt by the end of Conte's reign and Sarri's reign, and they needed someone to bring the fans back onside and unite them as they entered a transfer ban. Who better than the club's greatest player?

They were always waiting for the first sign of trouble or strife to boot him out the door and bring in a proven winner. Lampard should never have taken the job in the first place, a terrible environment for a young manager to learn his trade.

 

[PetroDollars]

This exposed the real motives behind Chelsea's decision making. If they were really committed to letting a young, inexperienced manager succeed at their club, they would not have sacked him after his first lean run.

On December 5, they were top of the table. 1 month and 20 days later, they sacked him. They were waiting to do this, this has clearly been their plan all along. They had been burnt by the end of Conte's reign and Sarri's reign, and they needed someone to bring the fans back onside and unite them as they entered a transfer ban. Who better than the club's greatest player?

They were always waiting for the first sign of trouble or strife to boot him out the door and bring in a proven winner. Lampard should never have taken the job in the first place, a terrible environment for a young manager to learn his trade.

With the transfer ban and the situation at the club, it was obvious not many managers would take the job, they needed someone to come and rebuild the foundations from the bottom, Lampy looked like a great choice, but he obviously didn't complete the task, in rebuilding, surly he wasn't up to it, to bring silverware but he could have rebuilt the foundations for the next manager to come in and kick on however as a manager you leave yourself no option when you fall out with the dressing room.

His downfall was spending £300 M, when he was doing just fine with there young players, he didn't have the experience to manage big egos.

 

[Giannis]

Too premature, should've let him complete the season plus the pandemic shouldn't even be counted as an actual season, mans deserves one full normal uninterrupted season. Hopefully Lampard proves them wrong with another team.

 

[Saj]

Lampard was simply not ready for a big job he should have stuck it out at derby county and worked his way up gradually

Yes too much too soon.

His time will come and he will be a big success as a manager one day, but not soon.