Mr. Snrub Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He needed to win yet he parked several buses and got lucky with the 2 goals. They were time wasting time and killing the game by breaking up any flow to the match from literally the first minute. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incognito Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Don't get me wrong I find Chelsea boring, but you do not win what Mourinho has won or his sides by playing poor negative football. He sets his sides up to win the game just as much as Rodgers does, but Mourinho is more pragmatic, more calculating, more tactical and more in control of his team and players which in many ways makes what he achieves even more remarkable because how they play and how they win is basically more down to their manager than their own ability or prowess. I point to the game at Old Trafford again......sent his side with no intention of trying to win the game just content with a 0-0. He's a negative cunt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucaAltieri Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Please Jose, just let us knock the ball about and score. Awww, go on. Please? Howay man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Chelsea don't play poor football or negative football to be honest. To say they do shows a lack of understanding about the game. They play to win games. Mourinho isn't gung ho or throws caution to the wind yes, but he sends his sides out to win and more often than not they win, especially the big games and those that can really count like at Anfield yesterday. Chelsea play what I'd call effective structured football based on a system and tactics and every player playing to that paradigm. There is little room for free flowing football or players truly expressing themselves off the cuff, but then that's OK. There isn't a rule that states every team has to be all out attack or pass masters like Barca for example. We are a poor football side, we play poor football. Mourinho and Chelsea are f***ing light years ahead of what we serve up. So it's a lack of understanding of the game to suggest they play a negative football? You're off your tits again HTT. Jesus Christ. Not to diminish what he has done, but had he truly been this genius that many on here seem to think, he'd have run this league this year with his squad. I'm sorry but he has in my opinion undoubtedly the 2nd if not the best squad in the league. To play the football his team does is boring, negative and a p*ss to watch. It's effective, he's in the semi-finals of the CL, but it's still boooooring and negative as f***. How anyone can deny that and yet say people who think that lack a knowledge of the game is embarrassing (which coming from you sometimes isn't a surprise). Also, they should also be light-years ahead of us, but lets not forget they lost the title with losses to teams like us, Sunderland and Crystal Palace which have no advantage in any position. He's a very good manager, and he gets his players to cough blood for him, but let's not pretend he sends his team out to win every day, because just last week against Atletico he had no intention to win. Fuck off. We play negative football. We are a boring side. Mourinho goes for the win 90% of the time, if he didn't he wouldn't have won so many titles or matches. Just because a team doesn't attack at every opportunity or throw men forward willy nilly doesn't mean they are negative and boring. Mourinho negative!? Ant-football!? Again its the likes of us that are negative and boring and anti-football. Where there is no movement, no pattern of play, no getting men forward, no real attacking intent. Chelsea set out to win games, it just doesn't come packaged in a gung-ho or expressive way like say Arsenal or Liverpool. By the way, Mourinho's way is the riskiest way of them all because it is based around strength of mind, energy levels and each and every single player knowing their game and role 100% and performing to the task at hand at a level of 90% of more. Liverpool are all about individuals, players expressing themselves, free flowing intuitive football. Football I prefer and love watching, but to say Chelsea are anti-football, negative or boring because they don't play like Liverpool is fucking dumb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMc Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Don't get me wrong I find Chelsea boring, but you do not win what Mourinho has won or his sides by playing poor negative football. He sets his sides up to win the game just as much as Rodgers does, but Mourinho is more pragmatic, more calculating, more tactical and more in control of his team and players which in many ways makes what he achieves even more remarkable because how they play and how they win is basically more down to their manager than their own ability or prowess. Like Disraeli to Rodgers' Gladstone. Or sommat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varadi Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Think Chelsea would've won the league if he had started Ba in more games instead of Torres - Demba has 5 goals with only 4 starts, Torres 4 from 15 (with a similar number of sub apps each) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He wins so many matches because he has had a blank cheque for a large par of his career and the majority of teams in the leagues are poor. Against other top sides he's always been afraid to go for it. Instead decides to be a cynical cunt who will suck the entire life and enjoyment out of the game, winding up the other team hoping to scrape chances. But his first agenda is always not to concede, trying to win comes second in his priorities. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He doesn't try to beat the top teams. It just happens by accident. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He doesn't try to beat the top teams. It just happens by accident. Winged it all the way man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 He's a big game manager that's for certain. Agree with HTT for the main part. He wins so few friends partly because when he actually goes for the win, it usually stops immediately once the game goes 2-0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Tottenham and Everton aren't top sides. Liverpool weren't for the vast majority of his first spell and Man City certainly weren't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Weren't Liverpool a top-4 fixture most of his last stint here? What's wrong with Man Utd and Arsenal in that list? Just conveniently ignoring them? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 I actually admire his understanding of the psychology of sports. Going to City where most teams were getting trounced and winning the 3 points, completely outplaying Arsenal and crushing their title hopes, then yesterday beating Liverpool and casting doubt on their title aspirations. I wouldn't be surprised if Chelsea win it. He's got them in a position he always wanted them to be seen throughout the season, that of the darkhorse. Yesterday he talked about securing 3rd place and beating all rivals but deep inside he knows there's still something to play for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Weren't Liverpool a top-4 fixture most of his last stint here? What's wrong with Man Utd and Arsenal in that list? Just conveniently ignoring them? Arsenal who haven't won a trophy in almost a decade. He did always manage to get the better of them and Wenger, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thankfully both Liverpool and Man City need to fuck up for Chelsea to have a chance. Good times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Weren't Liverpool a top-4 fixture most of his last stint here? What's wrong with Man Utd and Arsenal in that list? Just conveniently ignoring them? Arsenal who haven't won a trophy in almost a decade. He did always manage to get the better of them and Wenger, though. Clearly there's no convincing you. You're right. Jose doesn't win big games. Never has and never will. It's all blind luck. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Chelsea don't play poor football or negative football to be honest. To say they do shows a lack of understanding about the game. They play to win games. Mourinho isn't gung ho or throws caution to the wind yes, but he sends his sides out to win and more often than not they win, especially the big games and those that can really count like at Anfield yesterday. Chelsea play what I'd call effective structured football based on a system and tactics and every player playing to that paradigm. There is little room for free flowing football or players truly expressing themselves off the cuff, but then that's OK. There isn't a rule that states every team has to be all out attack or pass masters like Barca for example. We are a poor football side, we play poor football. Mourinho and Chelsea are f***ing light years ahead of what we serve up. So it's a lack of understanding of the game to suggest they play a negative football? You're off your tits again HTT. Jesus Christ. Not to diminish what he has done, but had he truly been this genius that many on here seem to think, he'd have run this league this year with his squad. I'm sorry but he has in my opinion undoubtedly the 2nd if not the best squad in the league. To play the football his team does is boring, negative and a p*ss to watch. It's effective, he's in the semi-finals of the CL, but it's still boooooring and negative as f***. How anyone can deny that and yet say people who think that lack a knowledge of the game is embarrassing (which coming from you sometimes isn't a surprise). Also, they should also be light-years ahead of us, but lets not forget they lost the title with losses to teams like us, Sunderland and Crystal Palace which have no advantage in any position. He's a very good manager, and he gets his players to cough blood for him, but let's not pretend he sends his team out to win every day, because just last week against Atletico he had no intention to win. f*** off. We play negative football. We are a boring side. Mourinho goes for the win 90% of the time, if he didn't he wouldn't have won so many titles or matches. Just because a team doesn't attack at every opportunity or throw men forward willy nilly doesn't mean they are negative and boring. Mourinho negative!? Ant-football!? Again its the likes of us that are negative and boring and anti-football. Where there is no movement, no pattern of play, no getting men forward, no real attacking intent. Chelsea set out to win games, it just doesn't come packaged in a gung-ho or expressive way like say Arsenal or Liverpool. Don't disagree with the second part, but we clearly have different definitions of boring and negative. A team that relies on counter-attack and never take any substantial offensive risks is my definition of boring and negative. Never called them anti-football as that is something else in my opinion. But if you enjoy watching them then fair enough, I can't stand their football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thankfully both Liverpool and Man City need to f*** up for Chelsea to have a chance. Good times. A team that loses a game always has a really big chance of dropping points in their following games, or a bigger wobble factor if you like. Even the best teams can suffer from it. City still have Everton away which is far from a walk in the park. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Snrub Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Where did I say he doesn't? I said he does it in a cynical, anti-football way that anyone who is a fan of football shouldn't appreciate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thankfully both Liverpool and Man City need to f*** up for Chelsea to have a chance. Good times. A team that loses a game always has a really big chance of dropping points in their following games, or a bigger wobble factor if you like. Even the best teams can suffer from it. City still have Everton away which is far from a walk in the park. Liverpool will win both their games, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast Posted April 28, 2014 Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thankfully both Liverpool and Man City need to f*** up for Chelsea to have a chance. Good times. A team that loses a game always has a really big chance of dropping points in their following games, or a bigger wobble factor if you like. Even the best teams can suffer from it. City still have Everton away which is far from a walk in the park. Liverpool will win both their games, though. I see them drawing Palace but you never know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest n4e Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Anyone know how this compares to other big managers? http://i.imgur.com/GP83COD.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Lean back, lean back Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggs Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 love the bloke and the game is better with him than without in this country ,yeah he is a twat at times but do you want more Pulis,Hughes,Pardews etc spoiling our game .i listen to his after match interviews like i listen to ours under Keegan and Bobby with a little grin on my face . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Anyone know how this compares to other big managers? http://i.imgur.com/GP83COD.jpg were we one of those defeats after ht? FA cup Patrick Kluivert? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now