Thread by @EBL2017

Below is the @EBL2017 analysis of Graham Potter's tenure at Chelsea from *before* day ONE.

I analysed his process with a fine-tooth comb & predicted *ALL* of his tactical, authoritative, & transfer market failings in real time.

This is what I do, time and time again.

THREAD 🚨

Before a ball was kicked, I acknowledged that Potter is capable of implementing elite tactics but he hasn't done so reliably. Why? Because he changes tactics a lot.

That was the more pressing issue, but he also hadn't demonstrated the ability to manage pressure at a bigger club.

Again, I focused heavily on the fact that Potter must stick to a specific tactic to succeed at the elite level.

My conclusion centred around the fact that he has showcased elite tactics, but not with reliability, so he would need to change his style to succeed at Chelsea.

Before his first game in charge, it looked like Potter's Chelsea were going to play a 3-2-5 in possession & a 4-4-2 out of possession. This resulted in excitement from myself pre-game, except the system didn't replicate that on the pitch.

It was a 3-1-3-3 with Kovacic in the #8.

Potter played the incoherent 3-1-3-3 for a considerable period of time until he changed to the desired 3-4-3 system with aggressive pressure on the ball (albeit not in a 4-4-2).

Such a tactical adaption showcased how Potter is capable of implementing elite tactics.

However, in classic Graham Potter style, he absurdly changed system against both Manchester United and Arsenal which saw them play in a variety of different systems and shapes, all of which weren't good enough (the 4-3-3, 5-2-3, and the 4-3-1-2).

The fluidity cost him (again).

As Potter was stuttering, De Zerbi came into Brighton and implemented truly elite tactics straight away, and stuck to that system with reliability, making it increasingly clear that Chelsea may have gotten their appointment wrong and that Brighton actually got a better manager...

Before any of the real De Zerbi hype started, I concluded that his style is directly translatable to the elite level whilst Chelsea fans were begging me to trust the process at Chelsea.

However, the process didn't warrant trust. It was all simply far too unreliable tactically.

Oh and then in the midst of the Graham Potter criticism he went and implemented some elite tactics again against Manchester City 🙃

As I said before a ball was kicked at Chelsea - sometimes he gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong, even if he may be an elite tactician.

And then, you guessed it, he implemented some bizarre tactics again away at Newcastle where they were played off the park.

Fans bemoaned a lack of quality, but Cucurella, Pulisic, Ziyech, Zakaria, Aubameyang, and Havertz were on the bench.

Potter should have done better.

It was at this point where fans started to agree with my analysis that his fluid approach wasn't working.

Then, I noted that the long-term trajectory of the club is a negative one too because it's near impossible to identify players in the market if there's no system in place.

Fast forward through the World Cup and Nottingham Forest were playing Chelsea off the park, with Forest arguably being the weakest tactical team in the league (outside of Chelsea depending on what tactic Potter used).

Again, it was too fluid.

I could go on all day about the amount of times I noted how Potter's tactics were all over the place, but I've done that enough in this thread.

It's time to move onto the signings. As I said previously, if there's no system, signings *WILL* fail.

Now, this isn't to say that Enzo Fernandez, Joao Felix, or Mykhailo Mudryk (amongst others) are bad players, because they are absolutely not. In fact, they can all be elite in the right environment.

I remained patient with my Felix analysis (pic 1), but lost it with Murdryk (2).

And then they signed Enzo Fernandez, so I reiterated many of the same points I already made - he's an elite footballer, but what does it matter if the environment he plays in doesn't get the best out of him?

Chelsea's process was flawed, but primarily down to the manager.

Potter continued to demonstrate some terrible tactics (Fulham away) and some excellent tactics (West Ham away) but the final straw was against Southampton at home where my thoughts remained the same but were simply reiterated again in another thread..

I could go on in this thread, but you get the point, and this is ultimately why Graham Potter was sacked and why he lost his job.

However, Chelsea fans should not be discouraged with the owners they have at the football club.

The manager sets the culture, but *HE* was flawed.

Give Chelsea's owners a superior manager and they will likely flourish as a club again.

They simply need a manager to initiate the process at the club, and that all stems from the tactics, the ability to handle players, the transfer market dealings, etc, etc.

Lots of praise is given to guys like Edu at Arsenal or Michael Edwards at Liverpool, but the real catalyst at each club was the manager.

They implemented elite tactics which made it obvious where the team needed to improve whilst also being leaders and dealt with pressure, etc.

Chelsea need to do the same and give that manager power. Then, if they do that and back him financially the way they did with Potter, the club will rise back to the top very quickly. The group of players there are already fantastic anyway! They need to hire the right guy, though.

Overall, to conclude the thread, I would like to acknowledge that it's really clear that there was no 'hate' or 'disrespectful' comments levelled towards Potter at any stage during his time at Chelsea.

I simply analysed his processes, and, if I may add, I did so quiet well 😉