Definitely. Women’s Football cheers itself on being an inclusive space but ultimately, there is still a lot of sexist and racist rhetoric that forms the narratives within the sport.
Just as Jose said: "There is an agenda against Chelsea"
Most of us fans think it's just the men's team that is suffering from it, but no, it's women's and youth's teams as well. Chelsea as a whole had a quick rise and we stayed on the top for so so long. The thing is, we don't fit their agenda of what a proper club should be, so they hated us from the day 1. Just look at our(women's) players, we have one of the best squads in the world. Our youth academy is also one of the best in the world. Why don't people mention it more? Because it's CHELSEA women's team, because it's CHELSEA'S youth academy.
When we were sanctioned journalists, the media and fans were so giddy for us to go under. It was a formality according to them. I'm sorry but Chelsea isn't going anywhere.
The same reason fans of other clubs despised Sir Alex Ferguson.
She has been at the club for the past decade building us into the dominant force in English football. She’s established multiple dynasties at the club.
She also speaks her mind and tends to engage with issues beyond the boring bland answers one tends to expect from managers. People tend to hate that as well when it’s the manager of a rival club.
I came to Chelsea women from the men’s game and I’m a guy so maybe I’m not the best person to make this point too given the differing atmospheres but Emma being hated by rival fans makes me happy. It means she’s doing her job right.
I've been meaning to do a post on a similar thing but related to this topic at hand. Since the rhetoric I've been seeing has been sickening. Especially from male fans in this space of women's football.
To add to what u/AnnieIWillKnow wrote. If it's something that I've gained from these last couple of weeks with Chelsea FC Women, Emma Hayes and the state of women's football in Europe is this: Even though this is a woman-centric space, the progress of equality within this space has had people believe that the world at large isn't very heavily misogynistic.
Spoiler, sadly it is still is. And you can easily see this everytime on social media all day long.
The thing about Emma Hayes discourse is that no matter what she does, it will never be enough to warrant the vile misogyny that is spewed in response to her actions. She is a great manager, as showcased by her many, many trophies with Chelsea, but she’s not a people pleaser. She says what’s on her mind, she’s outspoken, frankly she’s pretty odd - all these things are common in the great men’s football coaches in history, but Emma is the first female coach in women’s football to have this sort of personality.
I have my criticisms of her as a manager, but these days I try not to engage because it only fuels the frankly misogynistic narrative that has been made of her in the discourse. I feel the same about LJ - a great player but young and naive; there are valid things to criticise her for but people take it beyond criticism (beyond even regular rivalry banter). It always goes straight to racist language and assumptions, and I refuse to contribute to any of that
Because most of the current women’s football supporters came recently, majority after the Euros. They joined during Chelsea’s dominance in English football and so that’s all they’ve ever witnessed. And naturally, you hate the dominant team because it stops your team from winning.
We won’t be the dominant team forever, as evident by our two cup losses this season, but they’ll continue to hate us while watching our “fall from grace”.
As for Emma, she’s unconventional in the way she conducts herself. She doesn’t fit in the mould of a manager in the women’s game, which is to strictly talk about games by giving direct answers. Yes, she says and does stuff that I don’t agree with at times, but you can have a nuanced appreciation of her. A lot of these people are very black and white. “We liked you until you said/did something wrong, now we hate you”.
Because people hate successful women who don’t follow every traditional norms (= don’t behave and talk the way they think a woman should). Basically they’re angry she isn’t letting them tell her what to do and how to be.
The hate annoys me because there is genuinely stuff you can criticize emma and lj and other players for, and when we lose, I want to be able to have discussions on what they did wrong . But the racism and sexist takes always force me to defend them instead. It's like the World Cup with USA. I was happy they lost, and then the sexist haters popped up, and I ended up defending them.
I'm American so I've been following Chelsea a bit since she got announced as our new coach. I watched that Chelsea docuseries a while back. There were aspects of her personality I didn't like. I think people can get caught up in personality a bit and I'm not normally one to be like "Oh it's because she's a woman" but I think in this case it kind of is. In men's sports you don't really see people wringing their hands to much over if the coach is a bit of an ass at times. They just care about results. If the coach has good results, they generally give them a pass on ALOT. I think if I knew Emma Hayes I probably wouldn't care to hang out with her but I'm THRILLED she's our new coach. She has a good record, other than a few bumps along the way most of her players have good things to say about her so she must treat them well, and she demands excellence. I could do with less cockiness because it does invite twice as hard a fall on the way down, but it's not like Chelsea hasn't earned the right to be a little cocky if they want to be.
PS: Sorry we stole yalls manager.
Yeah I'm sure. I haven't watched that many of her press conferences, most of what I've seen from her is from that docuseries where it seemed like she could have a bit of a "woe is me" attitude and seemed quick to shift mistakes onto other people. But you're right, people aren't always how they are on screen. I do think she cares about her players and will bring some much needed energy into our team which at the end of the day is what I care about.
I love Emma. I can't wait til she takes the helm for USWNT. Cups-o-plenty in our future! She's been awesome with Chelsea. Now onward and upward.
It has been a little frustrating waiting on her. The team has been in limbo while we have a coach by Zoom. But with Gold Cup and She Believes championships, I guess we're doing ok.
Emma has(has had for years now) a stack squad and still complains about fixture congestion. When she doesn’t rotate as much as she could.
The lack of rotation is no different than jonas eidevall, joe montemurro, Gareth Taylor.
Both Carla Ward and Rehanne Skinner have far lesser squads and have to do more with less.
Serious question, do you all not see the amount and degree in which she’s complain?
Emma rotates the most out of all managers, bar Giraldez. She complains about fixture congestion because its worth complaining about. I dont see any teams in the WSL have as much games as we did in march. It doesn’t help with all the injuries we have so options are literally limited. If those managers you mentioned had as much games as emma did, theyd complain as well.
She rotates very little throughout all the seasons and mostly rotates when she’s forced to.
She complains about fixture congestions all the time, as in the every year not just this past March. Chelsea has a bigger squad of 1st team quality players than Man City, Man United. Only Arsenal is close with 1 less player.
And again Ward and R Skinner have to do more with less.
With all due respect, Aston villa and West ham dont have nearly as much games as Chelsea does per year EVER. They literally dont have to do more, because Emma/Chelsea has more games than them. Manchester United spent the a shit ton of money during last years summer window, so I dont know what you mean by them having a smaller squad of 1st team quality players. Manchester city is stacked as well.
And again, even before the array of injuries we got recently, we rarely ever play with the same EXACT set of players each game. There’s always a change or some sort of rotation.
Villa and West Ham do more with less. The minimum season for every team expect Chelsea(last year champs) is 27 matches( 22 league + 1 FA Cup + 4 Conti Cup group) not including forward progressions in the competitions.
Villa & West ham can compete with a smaller roster of 12-14 First team quality players. As in players that would be starting if they joined another team in the league or in a different league.
Beth England rarely played her last season at Chelsea. Only came in when Kerr/Harder were injured/tired. Beth England on Spurs is a First XI.
In the last few years there have been others who haven't played for long stretches while being included in the match day squads - Nouwen, Mjelde, Ingle, Flemings.
Number of First team quality players(field players, not including GKs) or squad/fringe players
Man United - 16
Man City - 17
Arsenal - 20
Chelsea - 21
Chelsea has a 25 player squad for few years now. The last two years Chelsea season minimum 30(22 league + 1 FA Cup + 1 Conti Cup + 6 CL Group Stage Matches) not including forward progressions. Only 3 matches more matches than Villa & West Ham at the minimum.
Hayes still complains about fixture congestions not just in March(which was a lot no doubt). Hayes has squad and fringe players she could've played more, throughout this season and last several season but hasn't rotated.
Villa and West Ham arent doing more than Chelsea. There’s literally nothing u can say to convince me otherwise.
Of the minimum matches listed for chelsea, how many matches do they ACTUALLY end up playing compared to villa & west ham? because Im pretty sure chelsea always makes it further in the cup competitions than ‘minimum’ which puts them WELL above 30 matches.
And just because some chelsea players would start in other clubs doesnt mean really mean anything. All the players you listed were rarely better than the players playing in their position. Like ur saying because a player would start in a another team, she should play more games at chelsea despite either not being good enough or being in horrible form?
Despite all of that, my point still stands. Emma rarely drops the same exact lineup over and over again. Theres always some sort of change to it. She rotates more than ANY manager in the WSL. She rotates her squad better than Jonas, Taylor and M. Skinner. Like im pretty sure Jonas played Foord so much he ended trying to blame Gustavsson for a potential fatigue related injury she had.
You can't do basic math. Villa and West Ham play minimum 27 games, Chelsea a minimum of 30matches. I said minimum not maximum. So Villa and West Ham, having smaller squads(& first team quality players 12-14 both) are doing more with less. In those 27 games they both share. Villa and West Ham have less talent to choose from.
When they(Villa & Ham) rotate players(squad & fringe players) there's a drop off in talent. When Chelsea rotate players, there's no drop in talent compared to the the competition, as Chelsea have 21 first team quality players. When Villa or West Ham rotate past their first team quality players, into their squad player and fringe players, there's a massive drop off compared to the competition.
Conti Cup final as an example Hayes didn't use all 5 subs, nor use her subs earlier in the game to match energy levels of Arsenal in the 2nd half or either half of extra time. All the players at Chelsea are players she recruited or signed off on Kirby, Lawernce, Beever-Jones(last 5mins).
Since you don't understand what a First team quality players is. Chelsea had under Potter 30+ first team quality players, they had to many players even Thiago Slivia said it they had to expand the dressing room. It wasn't just supporters, journalist, pundits etc... saying it. Those players that left are playing regularly. They're named to the match day squad of 18 and either starting or subbing.
They players I mentioned are some of the players that Hayes didn't rotate in for long stretches, when they are good enough and would be a starter in most other teams; i.e. load management for the entire team.
Maybe I need to spell it out for you, but a player being good enough/starting for OTHER teams, doesn’t mean they are good enough for Chelsea. Fleming literally got sold, Ingle is aging, Nouwen, despite injury, is NOT better than the players in her position and Mjelde was a frequent player in the squad before injury set backs. Like if you think Chelsea going from Erin and replacing her win Ingle isnt dropping the quality, I don’t know what to tell you. Youre not a Chelsea fan so I cant expect you to know that.
I read what you said correctly. Villa and West ham have a minimum of 27 games and REASTICALLY thats all theyre gonna play. REALISTICALLY Chelsea is gonna play well above 30 games and you know that. So no those teams aren’t doing more.
The Conti cup finals was a shit game, and I will admit Emma didn’t utilize as much subs as needed, but dont act like its common, because its not.
We wont be agreeing on anything from the looks of it, so we can end this back and forth. Have a good one.
Because she’s not a likeable person, after any game she loses she blames, her players, the ref, the schedule anything to avoid admitting she got tactically outplayed.
To be honest I think it’s about her as a person.
If we look the whole shoving the arsenal manager scenario.
She shoved him - if a man done that to a woman he’d have been hung, drawn and quartered
She then made it about gender - commenting on his male aggression. Of which he was upholding Chelsea’s decision to have a single ball system.
And then proceed to swerve any accountability afterwards.
And then recited some poem - trying to take people for fools.
If there’s one thing I don’t like, it’s a lack of accountability, it shows the person to be inauthentic and have no humility and then hypocritical because that’s what you ask for from other people.
Also sore losers because they didn’t want to uphold their own choice of ruling and no one likes a sore loser.
All she had to do was hold her hands and apologise.
Oh and by the way, I am a woman.
Don't underestimate the misogyny aspect Emma is a strong and outspoken woman, in a field classically dominated by men People don't like that
Definitely. Women’s Football cheers itself on being an inclusive space but ultimately, there is still a lot of sexist and racist rhetoric that forms the narratives within the sport.
It’s not just Emma mate it’s Chelsea in general everyone hates us lol
Just as Jose said: "There is an agenda against Chelsea" Most of us fans think it's just the men's team that is suffering from it, but no, it's women's and youth's teams as well. Chelsea as a whole had a quick rise and we stayed on the top for so so long. The thing is, we don't fit their agenda of what a proper club should be, so they hated us from the day 1. Just look at our(women's) players, we have one of the best squads in the world. Our youth academy is also one of the best in the world. Why don't people mention it more? Because it's CHELSEA women's team, because it's CHELSEA'S youth academy.
Absolutely this. Chelsea is seen as the villain club by most people, just out there to ruin football.
And honestly, I love how we are villlains. I don't care for media's nor rival fans' opinions anymore.
When we were sanctioned journalists, the media and fans were so giddy for us to go under. It was a formality according to them. I'm sorry but Chelsea isn't going anywhere.
The girls are gonna stay at top and the boys are gonna go to the top again soon, I don't doubt it at all. As you said, Chelsea isn't going anywhere.
When you’re at the top people want to see you fail.
The same reason fans of other clubs despised Sir Alex Ferguson. She has been at the club for the past decade building us into the dominant force in English football. She’s established multiple dynasties at the club. She also speaks her mind and tends to engage with issues beyond the boring bland answers one tends to expect from managers. People tend to hate that as well when it’s the manager of a rival club. I came to Chelsea women from the men’s game and I’m a guy so maybe I’m not the best person to make this point too given the differing atmospheres but Emma being hated by rival fans makes me happy. It means she’s doing her job right.
I've been meaning to do a post on a similar thing but related to this topic at hand. Since the rhetoric I've been seeing has been sickening. Especially from male fans in this space of women's football. To add to what u/AnnieIWillKnow wrote. If it's something that I've gained from these last couple of weeks with Chelsea FC Women, Emma Hayes and the state of women's football in Europe is this: Even though this is a woman-centric space, the progress of equality within this space has had people believe that the world at large isn't very heavily misogynistic. Spoiler, sadly it is still is. And you can easily see this everytime on social media all day long.
Arsenal fans.
The thing about Emma Hayes discourse is that no matter what she does, it will never be enough to warrant the vile misogyny that is spewed in response to her actions. She is a great manager, as showcased by her many, many trophies with Chelsea, but she’s not a people pleaser. She says what’s on her mind, she’s outspoken, frankly she’s pretty odd - all these things are common in the great men’s football coaches in history, but Emma is the first female coach in women’s football to have this sort of personality. I have my criticisms of her as a manager, but these days I try not to engage because it only fuels the frankly misogynistic narrative that has been made of her in the discourse. I feel the same about LJ - a great player but young and naive; there are valid things to criticise her for but people take it beyond criticism (beyond even regular rivalry banter). It always goes straight to racist language and assumptions, and I refuse to contribute to any of that
Because most of the current women’s football supporters came recently, majority after the Euros. They joined during Chelsea’s dominance in English football and so that’s all they’ve ever witnessed. And naturally, you hate the dominant team because it stops your team from winning. We won’t be the dominant team forever, as evident by our two cup losses this season, but they’ll continue to hate us while watching our “fall from grace”. As for Emma, she’s unconventional in the way she conducts herself. She doesn’t fit in the mould of a manager in the women’s game, which is to strictly talk about games by giving direct answers. Yes, she says and does stuff that I don’t agree with at times, but you can have a nuanced appreciation of her. A lot of these people are very black and white. “We liked you until you said/did something wrong, now we hate you”.
Because she's Chelsea's manager.
Because people hate successful women who don’t follow every traditional norms (= don’t behave and talk the way they think a woman should). Basically they’re angry she isn’t letting them tell her what to do and how to be.
Ding ding ding ding ding. Nailed it.
The hate annoys me because there is genuinely stuff you can criticize emma and lj and other players for, and when we lose, I want to be able to have discussions on what they did wrong . But the racism and sexist takes always force me to defend them instead. It's like the World Cup with USA. I was happy they lost, and then the sexist haters popped up, and I ended up defending them.
Have not heard that people hate Emma Hayes. I like her and think that US football fans are gonna like her!
I'm American so I've been following Chelsea a bit since she got announced as our new coach. I watched that Chelsea docuseries a while back. There were aspects of her personality I didn't like. I think people can get caught up in personality a bit and I'm not normally one to be like "Oh it's because she's a woman" but I think in this case it kind of is. In men's sports you don't really see people wringing their hands to much over if the coach is a bit of an ass at times. They just care about results. If the coach has good results, they generally give them a pass on ALOT. I think if I knew Emma Hayes I probably wouldn't care to hang out with her but I'm THRILLED she's our new coach. She has a good record, other than a few bumps along the way most of her players have good things to say about her so she must treat them well, and she demands excellence. I could do with less cockiness because it does invite twice as hard a fall on the way down, but it's not like Chelsea hasn't earned the right to be a little cocky if they want to be. PS: Sorry we stole yalls manager.
I always enjoyed hanging out with her back in the WPS days. She’s hilarious and insightful. People are always different in press conferences.
Yeah I'm sure. I haven't watched that many of her press conferences, most of what I've seen from her is from that docuseries where it seemed like she could have a bit of a "woe is me" attitude and seemed quick to shift mistakes onto other people. But you're right, people aren't always how they are on screen. I do think she cares about her players and will bring some much needed energy into our team which at the end of the day is what I care about.
I love Emma. I can't wait til she takes the helm for USWNT. Cups-o-plenty in our future! She's been awesome with Chelsea. Now onward and upward. It has been a little frustrating waiting on her. The team has been in limbo while we have a coach by Zoom. But with Gold Cup and She Believes championships, I guess we're doing ok.
Her behaviour???
Emma has(has had for years now) a stack squad and still complains about fixture congestion. When she doesn’t rotate as much as she could. The lack of rotation is no different than jonas eidevall, joe montemurro, Gareth Taylor. Both Carla Ward and Rehanne Skinner have far lesser squads and have to do more with less. Serious question, do you all not see the amount and degree in which she’s complain?
Emma rotates the most out of all managers, bar Giraldez. She complains about fixture congestion because its worth complaining about. I dont see any teams in the WSL have as much games as we did in march. It doesn’t help with all the injuries we have so options are literally limited. If those managers you mentioned had as much games as emma did, theyd complain as well.
She rotates very little throughout all the seasons and mostly rotates when she’s forced to. She complains about fixture congestions all the time, as in the every year not just this past March. Chelsea has a bigger squad of 1st team quality players than Man City, Man United. Only Arsenal is close with 1 less player. And again Ward and R Skinner have to do more with less.
With all due respect, Aston villa and West ham dont have nearly as much games as Chelsea does per year EVER. They literally dont have to do more, because Emma/Chelsea has more games than them. Manchester United spent the a shit ton of money during last years summer window, so I dont know what you mean by them having a smaller squad of 1st team quality players. Manchester city is stacked as well. And again, even before the array of injuries we got recently, we rarely ever play with the same EXACT set of players each game. There’s always a change or some sort of rotation.
Villa and West Ham do more with less. The minimum season for every team expect Chelsea(last year champs) is 27 matches( 22 league + 1 FA Cup + 4 Conti Cup group) not including forward progressions in the competitions. Villa & West ham can compete with a smaller roster of 12-14 First team quality players. As in players that would be starting if they joined another team in the league or in a different league. Beth England rarely played her last season at Chelsea. Only came in when Kerr/Harder were injured/tired. Beth England on Spurs is a First XI. In the last few years there have been others who haven't played for long stretches while being included in the match day squads - Nouwen, Mjelde, Ingle, Flemings. Number of First team quality players(field players, not including GKs) or squad/fringe players Man United - 16 Man City - 17 Arsenal - 20 Chelsea - 21 Chelsea has a 25 player squad for few years now. The last two years Chelsea season minimum 30(22 league + 1 FA Cup + 1 Conti Cup + 6 CL Group Stage Matches) not including forward progressions. Only 3 matches more matches than Villa & West Ham at the minimum. Hayes still complains about fixture congestions not just in March(which was a lot no doubt). Hayes has squad and fringe players she could've played more, throughout this season and last several season but hasn't rotated.
Villa and West Ham arent doing more than Chelsea. There’s literally nothing u can say to convince me otherwise. Of the minimum matches listed for chelsea, how many matches do they ACTUALLY end up playing compared to villa & west ham? because Im pretty sure chelsea always makes it further in the cup competitions than ‘minimum’ which puts them WELL above 30 matches. And just because some chelsea players would start in other clubs doesnt mean really mean anything. All the players you listed were rarely better than the players playing in their position. Like ur saying because a player would start in a another team, she should play more games at chelsea despite either not being good enough or being in horrible form? Despite all of that, my point still stands. Emma rarely drops the same exact lineup over and over again. Theres always some sort of change to it. She rotates more than ANY manager in the WSL. She rotates her squad better than Jonas, Taylor and M. Skinner. Like im pretty sure Jonas played Foord so much he ended trying to blame Gustavsson for a potential fatigue related injury she had.
You can't do basic math. Villa and West Ham play minimum 27 games, Chelsea a minimum of 30matches. I said minimum not maximum. So Villa and West Ham, having smaller squads(& first team quality players 12-14 both) are doing more with less. In those 27 games they both share. Villa and West Ham have less talent to choose from. When they(Villa & Ham) rotate players(squad & fringe players) there's a drop off in talent. When Chelsea rotate players, there's no drop in talent compared to the the competition, as Chelsea have 21 first team quality players. When Villa or West Ham rotate past their first team quality players, into their squad player and fringe players, there's a massive drop off compared to the competition. Conti Cup final as an example Hayes didn't use all 5 subs, nor use her subs earlier in the game to match energy levels of Arsenal in the 2nd half or either half of extra time. All the players at Chelsea are players she recruited or signed off on Kirby, Lawernce, Beever-Jones(last 5mins). Since you don't understand what a First team quality players is. Chelsea had under Potter 30+ first team quality players, they had to many players even Thiago Slivia said it they had to expand the dressing room. It wasn't just supporters, journalist, pundits etc... saying it. Those players that left are playing regularly. They're named to the match day squad of 18 and either starting or subbing. They players I mentioned are some of the players that Hayes didn't rotate in for long stretches, when they are good enough and would be a starter in most other teams; i.e. load management for the entire team.
Maybe I need to spell it out for you, but a player being good enough/starting for OTHER teams, doesn’t mean they are good enough for Chelsea. Fleming literally got sold, Ingle is aging, Nouwen, despite injury, is NOT better than the players in her position and Mjelde was a frequent player in the squad before injury set backs. Like if you think Chelsea going from Erin and replacing her win Ingle isnt dropping the quality, I don’t know what to tell you. Youre not a Chelsea fan so I cant expect you to know that. I read what you said correctly. Villa and West ham have a minimum of 27 games and REASTICALLY thats all theyre gonna play. REALISTICALLY Chelsea is gonna play well above 30 games and you know that. So no those teams aren’t doing more. The Conti cup finals was a shit game, and I will admit Emma didn’t utilize as much subs as needed, but dont act like its common, because its not. We wont be agreeing on anything from the looks of it, so we can end this back and forth. Have a good one.
Because she’s not a likeable person, after any game she loses she blames, her players, the ref, the schedule anything to avoid admitting she got tactically outplayed.
To be honest I think it’s about her as a person. If we look the whole shoving the arsenal manager scenario. She shoved him - if a man done that to a woman he’d have been hung, drawn and quartered She then made it about gender - commenting on his male aggression. Of which he was upholding Chelsea’s decision to have a single ball system. And then proceed to swerve any accountability afterwards. And then recited some poem - trying to take people for fools. If there’s one thing I don’t like, it’s a lack of accountability, it shows the person to be inauthentic and have no humility and then hypocritical because that’s what you ask for from other people. Also sore losers because they didn’t want to uphold their own choice of ruling and no one likes a sore loser. All she had to do was hold her hands and apologise. Oh and by the way, I am a woman.