Can continuity caretakers really be the answer for Chelsea and Spurs?
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
Two managerless London clubs, two games with caretaker managers in place, two games producing performances and results that mirrored the problems faced under the deposed regimes. Both Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur chose to appoint continuity caretakers after the respective departures of Graham Potter and Antonio Conte, and the results on the pitch were entirely predictable.
It begs the question of why the temporary appointments of Cristian Stellini and Bruno Saltor made sense to the boards – why put faith in caretakers who arrived at the club with the former head coaches, and who have presumably bought into the same tactical methodology and coaching style which failed to produce the required levels of performance before the sackings were made?
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide Ad

It might be argued that Spurs were forced to remove Conte before they had planned to after his scathing rant at the club and board following the 3-3 draw with Southampton, and that they didn’t have time to arrange an alternative appointment given the timeframe – and anyone wishing to make excuses for Clearlake Capital might observe that Chelsea have quickly begun the process of interviewing candidates for a permanent gig. But Spurs knew Conte would be leaving sooner rather than later and had time to form a contingency plan, and if Chelsea didn’t already have their man lined up, why use Potter’s assistant, who has never taken the top job before, and not simply continue with Potter until they were further down the line?
Neither Stellini nor Bruno made any substantial tactical changes for the matches against Everton and Liverpool. Both sides continued on the pitch as if their former managers were in place, and the same flaws and frailties were exposed in the same ways, with a pair of frustrating draws the rather inevitable result of the same methods being utilised by interim coaches with the same plans as their former masters.
Spurs do not seem likely to make an immediate appointment. They could have looked into finding an experienced interim manager to take charge until the end of the season – there is a top four place on the line and if Conte’s style wasn’t getting them there, then Stellini and Ryan Mason are unlikely to make a difference. Chelsea’s league campaign may be dead in the water, but they are still in the Champions League. There are many experienced, high-quality managers out of work who could have briefly filled the void if they were willing to chance a short-term contract – Peter Bosz, Lucien Favre, Rafa Benitez, Jorge Sampaoli, all coaches with fine CVs and no immediate offers on the table. There are no reports that any such managers were considered by either club.
All could have filled the role the way that Guus Hiddink did for Chelsea during the two interregnums he oversaw – once after the firing of Luiz Felipe Scolari when he won the FA Cup, and again after Jose Mourinho was removed when he set a new record for consecutive unbeaten matches by a newly-appointed manager. In both cases, the highly-experienced Dutchman had neither the intention nor expectation of continuing after the end of the season, but on both occasions he was able to rework the tactics and training and provide the sense of renewed energy required to deliver the much sought-after ‘new manager bounce’. Neither Stellini nor Bruno are likely to produce the same psychological effect without making big changes, and neither has immediately shown any indication of having the willingness or fresh ideas to do that.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdOf course, Chelsea did also once find temporary success with a ‘continuity’ caretaker – Roberto Di Matteo was Andre Villas-Boas’ number two and brought them their first Champions League trophy after being asked to step up to the plate. But then, Di Matteo wasn’t Villas-Boas’ man, he was the club’s man, brought in at their behest and not their Portuguese manager’s. He wasn’t inculcated into the Villas-Boas style and brought his own approach when his time came. By comparison, Stellini has worked under Conte and propagated his methods for 12 years, while Bruno was part of the set-up at Brighton with Potter. If they were the right men to lead their teams, then so were the managers who were fired.
It may be that Todd Boehly was triggered into an early dismissal of Potter because he believes the vacancy will make it easier to open negotiations with Julian Naglesmann. The timing fits – but reports suggest that Chelsea have a seven-man shortlist and are in the process of doing their due diligence now, with other very different coaches such as Luis Enrique still options. Those specific reports may be proven false, but Chelsea could have begun this process weeks ago, knowing there was a high probability that Potter couldn’t turn the ship around. The dismissal reeks of a reactionary decision after fan pressure became too much following the 2-0 loss to Aston Villa, rather than a call made with a specific candidate or process in mind.


This scepticism may yet be proven wrong. Neither Stellini nor Bruno had a great deal of time to bring their own plans to the table before the recent matches, and perhaps given slightly more preparation, Stellini will imprint a different psyche onto the Spurs squad and stop them squandering leads, or maybe Bruno will find a way to solve the central striker conundrum that Chelsea have locked horns with. They are both capable coaches who earned their positions at top clubs on their own merits as well as those of the coaches they became attached to. But if they do make positive strides it will, from a boardroom perspective at least, have been more a matter of luck than judgement.
And Chelsea may yet appoint an interim head coach proper. TalkSport have reported on Wednesday morning that the club are considering an astonishing temporary return for Frank Lampard. Quite what the fans and players would make of that remains to be seen, and it wouldn’t be the first seemingly wild rumour to be quickly quashed. But the fact that the notion of someone other than Bruno taking charge until the end of the season is coming up only days after Potter’s sacking strong implies that the Chelsea directors are winging this process. Meanwhile, at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, it is hard to discern any process at all at this stage, with no whispers of imminent appointments, whether temporary or permanent. With so much riding on the last nine games of the season, the absence of a clear succession plan for Conte may well come back to bite Spurs.
We want your feedback on 3 Added Minutes - details here
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdQuite a few caretakers have found success in the past – from Hiddink and Di Matteo to Mario Zagallo, who was a last-minute stand-in for the Brazil job back in 1970 and ended up winning the World Cup and developing what many regard as the best international side in history. But all of the caretakers who went on to succeed had one thing in common – they were their own men, with their own ideas, not beholden to prior regimes. If Spurs or Chelsea are to succeed in these last stages of the season, they will have to buck a trend that stretches back decades.
Comment Guidelines
National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.