| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK 15:22 - Jun 3 with 2585 views | itfcjoe |
Interesitng long read here https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5523993/2024/06/03/chelsea-appoint-maresca-insi
As has been well documented, Maresca was on the shortlist with Brentford’s Thomas Frank and Kieran McKenna, who has taken Ipswich Town back to the Premier League with back-to-back automatic promotions.
Much was made about Roberto De Zerbi, who recently left Brighton, being the mystery fourth candidate, yet in truth he was never seriously in the frame.
...
By the evening of Sunday, May 26, McKenna had become the next to drop out of the running.
Chelsea have great respect for his achievement in leading Ipswich from League One to the Premier League in two years. The club kept a close watch on what he was doing for several months, a practice made easy by Omari Hutchinson’s impressive season-long loan at Portman Road. By going to see the 20-year-old play for Ipswich, staff could get a good idea of McKenna’s methods.
His coaching to help turn the attacking midfielder from a raw youngster with limited first-team action (just two substitute appearances for Chelsea) into one of the best players in the Championship was always going to be noticed.
Yet the 38-year-old’s lack of experience was a concern.
While he had also worked in the first-team coaching staff as an assistant at Manchester United between 2018 and 2021, the majority of that spell was under Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and the Norwegian was not regarded as a great mentor from whom to learn. There were also question marks over whether McKenna’s personality would be strong enough to cope with the pressures at Stamford Bridge.
For his part, McKenna also felt it was not the right time to make such a move.
There were suspicions at Chelsea he may have been favouring a switch back to Manchester United, who also reached out to his camp amid doubts over Erik ten Hag’s future there, but in the end he felt loyalty to Ipswich and decided he would sign a new contract with them instead. Ipswich always hoped to keep the man who has ended their 22-year top-flight exile since being handed his first crack at senior management in December 2021 and simply waited for the media circus to calm down to see if anything official happened.
It was then a case of Frank vs Maresca. |  |
| |  |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 15:42 - Jun 3 with 2387 views | Mookamoo |
It will be interesting to see how those niggling suspicions about going back to United will effect his options. We're fully understanding that it is a real possibility and wouldn't be surprised.
You can see why a club like Chelsea would have issue. Would you marry your partner knowing their ex just has to click their fingers and they'll rush back?
Not sure where that analogy leaves us. Might be doing us a disservice suggesting we are punching above our weight, but if McKenna is a 10, then maybe we are. |  | | |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:03 - Jun 3 with 2168 views | homer_123 |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 15:42 - Jun 3 by Mookamoo |
It will be interesting to see how those niggling suspicions about going back to United will effect his options. We're fully understanding that it is a real possibility and wouldn't be surprised.
You can see why a club like Chelsea would have issue. Would you marry your partner knowing their ex just has to click their fingers and they'll rush back?
Not sure where that analogy leaves us. Might be doing us a disservice suggesting we are punching above our weight, but if McKenna is a 10, then maybe we are. |
No evidence to suggest so far that he'll run back at Manchester's call. |  |
| |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:13 - Jun 3 with 2051 views | Illinoisblue |
Wonder who’s on the brains trust at Chelsea making these important decisions. Does anyone expect Maresca to last much beyond Xmas? |  |
| |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:16 - Jun 3 with 2011 views | gainsboroughblue |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:03 - Jun 3 by homer_123 |
No evidence to suggest so far that he'll run back at Manchester's call. |
And if they are citing lack of experience for not going for McKenna, is Maresca that much more experienced?
A six month stint that ended badly at Parma and a season with an overpowered for the level they were at, Leicester?
Not that I'm complaining obviously. |  |
| |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:16 - Jun 3 with 2017 views | portmanking |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:13 - Jun 3 by Illinoisblue |
Wonder who’s on the brains trust at Chelsea making these important decisions. Does anyone expect Maresca to last much beyond Xmas? |
Funnily enough, I was at a BBQ yesterday with someone who works within Chelsea's media department. He was VERY scathing of the general regime. Internal morale has been decimated by a general lack of appreciation of football/English culture from Boehly and co. |  | | |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 17:03 - Jun 3 with 1769 views | DinDjarin |
Nothing suggesting he was ever leaving or was even interested in the Chelsea job apart from tabloid speak. |  | | |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 20:21 - Jun 3 with 1370 views | Guthrum |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 16:03 - Jun 3 by homer_123 |
No evidence to suggest so far that he'll run back at Manchester's call. |
However, if they do sack Ten Hag and approach McKenna with a firm offer, things could still get interesting, new contract notwithstanding.
Neither myself nor people I've spoken to think that first bit is a likely scenario, but the Ratcliffe/Ineos crew are perhaps more likely to think in unexpected directions. |  |
| |
| Why Chelsea didn't appoint McK on 20:25 - Jun 3 with 1339 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
The abridged version, is Chelsea haven’t got a clue what they are doing… | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
