Nostalgia is an interesting concept.

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

A sentimental longing or wistful affection for a period in the past.

It's something that I've suffered with over the last 5 years. Yes, suffered. Although there is an intense feeling of pleasure of looking back longingly at certain periods of your life, what you're really doing is ignoring the present and future.

Whether it's looking back at friendships, romantic interests, places, adventures, childhood memories and so on, we've all dealt with nostalgia. For me, music seems to be the trigger. Certain songs can instantly take me back to a specific time and place. Sometimes it's so real I can almost grasp it, but then it's gone and I'm back to the here and now.

The issue with nostalgia is that it tends to cloud your judgement. We look back to the times that made us happy but leave out all the negative stuff. It's why people yearn for ex-lovers, lost in the romanticism of a perfect relationship that never really existed while simultaneously disregarding all of the things that annoyed you. You don't tend to feel nostalgic about the arguments, the annoying habits, the time they ate the Ben & Jerry's you'd been saving as a treat, and the reasons why the relationship came to an abrupt end.

When it comes to football, nostalgia is something that clubs can't really afford to creep into decision making. Of course, football supporters will talk about the glory years and yearn for times gone by with their friends. That's fine. It's part of the joy of following a team through thick and thin. But club officials need to see past this and keep their minds firmly on developing success for future generations to become nostalgic about. If you're looking backwards, it's hard to move forward without crashing into things.

Kris Kristofferson said it best:

"I'd trade all my tomorrows for one single yesterday."

Now, I can kind of get behind this statement if you're looking, for example, back to times with a loved one that isn't around anymore.

However, football clubs seem to be taking this approach at the moment and I just can't get my head around why they'd take such risks.

Take Manchester United, for example. After Sir Alex Ferguson retired, they appointed several managers to take over, but have never been able to come to anything that resembles his kind of success.

So, what did they do? They decided to appoint a club legend in Solskjaer to take over as manager of one of the world's biggest football brands. This is a man who was sacked as Cardiff manager with a mere 30% win rate.

Now, you might argue that most managers would struggle to do well at Cardiff and I'd agree to some extent. However, Russel Slade (37.2%) and Neil Warnock (42.5%) both boast a better win record than Solskjaer throughout their times as Cardiff manager since. Can you see either of them being given the role of Manchester United manager after Mourinho was sacked?

Not a chance.

Why, therefore, did Manchester United take this option? I can only assume it is based on nostalgic reasoning. Solskjaer as a player, after all, is a Manchester United legend. The supporters love him, the board love him, Ferguson loves him. It all makes perfect sense until you look at his CV and see that he is very likely out of his depth in this role. He simply doesn't have the experience required to be considered the best man for the job. And that's the manager that Manchester United really need.

Still, if you think that's bad then you really should take a look at what Chelsea have just done. Sarri has left his position to be replaced by none other than Frank Lampard. He's a club legend as a player, is adored by the supporters and the board, and is loved by Abramovich. Can you see a pattern emerging here?

However, if you turn to his managerial record then you will see a man who simply isn't qualified to even be in the running for this job.

Okay, okay, he's done a fairly decent job at Derby over the last season. But that is the only evidence that we have to suggest that Lampard could be a semi-decent football manager. One solitary season within which he finished 6th in the league.

In that time, Lampard had a win rate of 42.1% with Derby. Can you see where I'm going with this yet? Derby's two previous managers, Gary Rowett (43.3%) and Steve Mclaren (53.7%), both recorded better win rates than Lampard. Would either of them be given the role of Chelsea manager? Again, not a chance.

When I think back to Chelsea over the last 15 years or so, I see a club that was run by an owner that demanded the best. The best players, the best results, the best trophies, the best managers. Can we genuinely say that Lampard fits into this blueprint?

As a Liverpool supporter, I can't help but cringe when I hear other Reds say that they'd like to see Steven Gerrard as manager of the club in the future. Like Solskjaer and Lampard, Gerrard could also go on to be a top-class manager if they develop their skills. The issue for me is that none of them is even close to being considered that at the moment, yet they're now getting jobs that were once reserved for some of the best managers world football has ever seen.

Of course, all of these ex-players/managers could prove me wrong, but I have a feeling that there is a strong likelihood that at least one of them is going to fall flat on his face next season. Nostalgia has crept into the boardrooms of some of the world's biggest clubs and it could be a disaster waiting to happen.

What do you think? Let me know in the comment section below.