Redknapp: only a 'dope' can fail at Chelsea

Discussion question; what is your definition of succeeding/failing?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20887933
Redknapp says that a manager has to be a 'dope' to fail at Chelsea.

It's all a question of the definition of success.

Definition 1
-winning a trophy is enough to be called a success, no matter with which club

Definition 2 (my definition)
-at Southampton winning any available trophy would be a success, but at Chelsea, 4 seasons and no league title would be a failure.

I personally think the Definition 1 is out-dated, and that the vast majority of us subscribe to Definition 2.

One trophy wasn't enough to save Dalglish.

Depends which trophy. For example, nobody cares about Europa League.

Really depends on expectations. Burden of expectation has plagues Chelsea after Mourinho set such a high standard. It's what Abramovich expects - nothing less - and Mourinho himself couldn't save his own job when he couldn't reach the lofty expectations.

Abramovich expects them to win or at least be one of the few teams left fighting for the competitions they are in. Crashing out of the Champions League unable to defend their title as well as a poor league run was deemed unacceptable and he sacked DiMatteo.

Clearly many Chelsea fans didn't feel the same way and they were riding high on the double win last season as well as an outside shot at the league and being favorites for the two domestic cups.

Unfortunately for them, their not the ones who sign the checks and it's Abramovich's opinion that matters at the end of the day.

As far as my expectations and definition of success for Liverpool, strong cup runs and an improvement in the league while trimming the wage budget and fostering youth players would be in my criteria for this season.

So, say we reach the FA Cup and Europa League final and win one of them and crack the top 5 in the league, it would be successful. Sterling and Suso have come through the ranks, while Henderson and Downing are improving under Rodgers' system. I'd deem our campaign successful if we reach those, and stability is the key. You grow from that, and success is redefined next season. Maybe we're at a place where we should be challenging for a top 3 spot. My definition of success is drastically different now compared to 2008, and it will probably change next year. Success is circumstantial for a club that is as volatile as Liverpool. A club like Manchester United has the right to have tighter definitions of success.

Fulham fans looked as if they cared a few years ago.

It wasn't enough because he still had the team at mid table ,and to to put a bit of emphasis of the importance of the cup they won Birmingham won it just before them and they were relegated the same season. He wasn't taking that club anywhere near where they should be and the players he bought pretty much guaranteed that for the foreseeable future.

Success depends on the club and/or the money spent on the team. The definition has definitely changed in the last few years. There was a time when only man u ,Liverppol and Arsenal were really considered the top teams ,now you have about 5 teams who can put a dent into nay of it's rivals.

The owners of Liverpool thought that trophy wasn't enough to be called a success, but we don't have to agree with owners.

For example, Redknapp doesn't appear to agree with Abramovich. Abramovich has clearly considered all his managers to date (apart from Hiddink) to have failed, and I doubt Redknapp considers them all dopes.

I think it was a dig at Rafa......dope = Rafa

Because they saw him burn through their check-book on the Downings and Hendersons.

When his best signing was Craig Bellamy, you have problems.

Ouch.

Dalglish bought Suarez.

You know what .i keep looking at the heading of this title and i keep thinking about how Redknapp seems a bit more bitter than the happy go lucky likely lad we were all accustomed to. The media darling seems to have been stung by his recent treatment and some of his interviews since his return have been somewhat spiky to say the least and this one stands out as one of a few.
Are we seeing anew Harry Redknapp ,him saying this about Rafa team is obviously correct ,but the same should be said about the team he had at Spurs that failed to gain champions league entry each year .

Probably right there, think he may be a little bitter about last seasons events.

True, but he is performing as he should - good for him for doing his job. Bellamy did his and then some. If it wasn't for a creaky knee he would have probably had a more significant impact than Suarez.

I got stick on here when I said Suarez was an example of moneyball because of his price tag. However, him and Carroll would have been the example of the philosophy since we used the Torres money to buy 2 players that should have surpassed the impact of one Torres for around the same price. Unfortunately it didn't work, and I'm sure Carroll was a big factor to Dalglish's demise - Carling Cup or no Carling Cup.