José Mourinho

[mrmojorisin75]

What did mourinho spend 100m on?

[Disco]

What did mourinho spend 100m on?

 

http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/en/chelsea-fc/transfers/verein_631_2013_default_default_alle_a_default.html

[mrmojorisin75]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

[Ronaldo]

Lets put it this way.

 

If Benitez got to the semis of CL and all likelihood a 3rd placed finish after spending ANOTHER 100m the pitch forks would be out.

 

And the people wielding them would be idiots.

 

So would those saying he hasn't had a poor season.

[Ronaldo]

I am suprised you don't like Mourinho Ronaldo.

 

Seems like he is cut from the same pompous cloth you are.

 

In fact, I can't envision anyone on the planet that matches Mourinho's bloated self-importance and warped sense of reality as well as yourself.

 

I think what angers Ronaldo is that Mourinho gets lauded for it while people just call him out on it.

 

Could be. Or perhaps I just don't like a man who happens to be reviled across Europe for being a petty, cowardly, classless cheat.

[LucaAltieri]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

[mrmojorisin75]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Are you chelping at me? I didn't fucking say anything.

[LucaAltieri]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Are you chelping at me? I didn't fucking say anything.

 

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m298/europawpw/Capture.jpg

 

No... I mean, I could. If you want. I should probably ask my wife first. I mean, yeah. Sure?

 

 

 

Not complaining about you, just the general sentiment some are expressing that Mourinho hasn't delivered value for money this season.

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Are you chelping at me? I didn't fucking say anything.

 

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m298/europawpw/Capture.jpg

 

No... I mean, I could. If you want. I should probably ask my wife first. I mean, yeah. Sure?

 

 

 

Not complaining about you, just the general sentiment some are expressing that Mourinho hasn't delivered value for money this season.

 

 

 

Woah! Chelping didn't mean that when I was at school.

[Disco]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

[Ronaldo]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

 

Pretty amazing that this has to be pointed out, like.

[Interpolic]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

 

Exactly, completely different starting points.

[LucaAltieri]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

 

Exactly, completely different starting points.

 

Not champions league quality but they were coming off the back of a couple of season where they'd invested 160m.

 

The fact that they were still shit despite spending all that money was just a delightful aside.

 

Regardless, the point remains that Rodgers spent 50m and managed drag Liverpool from a lowly 8th to a lofty 7th place the following season. No one is going to argue that's a great return on investment.

 

However, given time to put his team together Liverpool are now doing great.

 

Mourinho will get the time too and it's next season he should be judged. Rodgers is evidence of that.

[mrmojorisin75]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

 

Exactly, completely different starting points.

 

Not champions league quality but they were coming off the back of a couple of season where they'd invested 160m.

 

The fact that they were still shit despite spending all that money was just a delightful aside.

 

Regardless, the point remains that Rodgers spent 50m and managed drag Liverpool from a lowly 8th to a lofty 7th place the following season. No one is going to argue that's a great return on investment.

 

However, given time to put his team together Liverpool are now doing great.

 

Mourinho will get the time too and it's next season he should be judged. Rodgers is evidence of that.

 

Nothing wrong with that point tbh

[The College Dropout]

Yesterday's a really good example why people that love the *game* of football find it hard to love what Jose Mourinho brings to the table a lot of the time..

 

There's something admirable about Ancelotti deciding "all the attackers". As long as i've seen them, Alonso & Modric have had someone doing a lot of their dirty work and tackle to help them out. A Khedira, Mascherano or Parker. But he's made it work with them in a 2 or with Di Maria of all people in a 3. Whatever the system he's managed to have Bale/Cronaldo in the same side. That's how you want to see a big money club line-up.

 

There's also something admirable about Pep and his bloody philosophy.

 

There's nothing admirable about a 300m team starting with 6 defenders against a side with half the team signing on free transfers and then losing anyway.

 

He's so obsessed with being reactive in many games that has become his philosophy. When you spend £400m on a squad you'll be able to beat the dross in the league anyway through sheer talent . They would've achieved that with a better striker for Mourinho too. Therefore he has no use for players that can only play on the front foot.

 

Not having another player capable of doing what Mata can do at his best has probably cost his team the league.

[LucaAltieri]

First: There's an art to what Jose does too. You're just not into it. Going up against the best attacking teams in the world and nullifying them isn't easy. If you're playing against Barca who have, at the time, probably the best player in the world, you're not going to beat them by out-attacking them. You need to nullify their strong points and exploit their weaknesses. You can't just set out your team, play to your strengths, and ignore what the other team offers. You'll get beat. Mourinho takes that approach to the majority of games that he plays and for good reason.

 

Second: Even the best teams in the world will slip up. No team goes a season winning every game that they "should" win. Part of the beauty of football is that on the day everyone has their chance. The approach Mourinho, and Pep, and Ancelotti, and Rafa, etc all take is to minimize how much of that is down to luck. Pep does it through trying to control possession. Mourinho does it through trying to eliminate attacking space. Different approaches but essentially working on the same problem: leaving as little as possible to chance. More often than not, it works. But it's never going to work 100% of the time. It doesn't matter how expensive the players on the pitch happen to be.

 

Atletico played a good game. They nullified Chelsea much more effectively than Chelsea did them. The amount of balls Atletico cut out or blocked in the final 3rd was impressive. They scouted Chelsea well and defended the right areas beautifully. Conversely, I think Chelsea's team selection was off. Three players coming back from injury played major roles in the loss. Hazard couldn't do much against the tight defence and was responsible for at least one of the goals. Terry should have done better for the 3rd. Eto'o gave away a penalty. All the while, Chelsea's in form striker was on the bench. Had Ba come on instead of Eto'o then maybe he doesn't give away a penalty. Had Terry's header gone in instead of hitting the post then perhaps right now Mourinho is getting praise for grinding out another result.

 

Chelsea "should" have won on paper. But games aren't played on paper. Mourinho has made a career out of getting results he shouldn't have had. Against Atletico it happened against him. That's football.

 

Any suggestion that it somehow makes Mourinho a failure this season doesn't make sense to me. He's still a great manager, is still in the title race at this late stage (although he may argue otherwise), and made a Champions League semi, which no other English team managed to do this year. Not a terrible first season.

[jollof rice and pea]

Porto and maybe Inter are time only times you could say Mourinho got results he shouldnt have.

[LucaAltieri]

Porto and maybe Inter are time only times you could say Mourinho got results he shouldnt have.

 

Both great examples. And if you look at his record, statistically, he performs way above what you might expect. His home record (everywhere) is amazing. His record against top clubs is impressive. Through the normal ebb and flow of football, with luck, refereeing decisions, individual brilliance, individual errors, and all the other variables that are hard to control he shouldn't have anywhere near the record he does against other top teams. They're teams capable of winning games and he does a great job of getting results.

 

On the surface you might say he "should" be getting results against top teams, but so consistently? He's great at what he does and I don't find it boring.

[Trumpet]

Wow, net 50m or so then. Still, I like Willian but 30m

 

If you spend 50m and don't bring home the league title at the first attempt then you're a disaster.

 

Let's ignore Brendan Rodgers having a 50m net spend in his first season with Liverpool then finishing 7th place in the league, out of both cups in the 4th round, and out of the Europa League in the round of 32.

 

Chelsea's 50m is different and should have brought them silverware. Anything less is total failure.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think Liverpool were not a CL level club when Rodgers took over nor did they win the CL 2 years ago.

 

Exactly, completely different starting points.

 

Not champions league quality but they were coming off the back of a couple of season where they'd invested 160m.

 

The fact that they were still s*** despite spending all that money was just a delightful aside.

 

Regardless, the point remains that Rodgers spent 50m and managed drag Liverpool from a lowly 8th to a lofty 7th place the following season. No one is going to argue that's a great return on investment.

 

However, given time to put his team together Liverpool are now doing great.

 

Mourinho will get the time too and it's next season he should be judged. Rodgers is evidence of that.

 

Yep. Taking over a team that finished 3RD and won a European trophy (While you have previous history at managing at the league and a club), is exactly the same as taking over a team that finished 8th, with record losses in a decade....relegation form for second half of the season.

 

This whole revisionism about Chelsea is amazing. Somehow, Torres/Ba/Eto'o is considered a very poor set of strikers, where 95% of clubs would fucking kill to have it. And LMAO at Chelsea's net, as if They were forced to sell. Mourinho, himself, and intentionally ostracized and then sold Mata. No one forced him to. No one also forced him to loan Lukaku or Courtois. These are the decisions he's paid 10M/year to make.

 

Mourinho's approach may get him big wins at Anfield and Etihad, but it also backfires and leads to away losses at Villa and Palace. What goes around, comes around.

[Disco]

First: There's an art to what Jose does too. You're just not into it. Going up against the best attacking teams in the world and nullifying them isn't easy. If you're playing against Barca who have, at the time, probably the best player in the world, you're not going to beat them by out-attacking them. You need to nullify their strong points and exploit their weaknesses. You can't just set out your team, play to your strengths, and ignore what the other team offers. You'll get beat. Mourinho takes that approach to the majority of games that he plays and for good reason.

 

Second: Even the best teams in the world will slip up. No team goes a season winning every game that they "should" win. Part of the beauty of football is that on the day everyone has their chance. The approach Mourinho, and Pep, and Ancelotti, and Rafa, etc all take is to minimize how much of that is down to luck. Pep does it through trying to control possession. Mourinho does it through trying to eliminate attacking space. Different approaches but essentially working on the same problem: leaving as little as possible to chance. More often than not, it works. But it's never going to work 100% of the time. It doesn't matter how expensive the players on the pitch happen to be.

 

Atletico played a good game. They nullified Chelsea much more effectively than Chelsea did them. The amount of balls Atletico cut out or blocked in the final 3rd was impressive. They scouted Chelsea well and defended the right areas beautifully. Conversely, I think Chelsea's team selection was off. Three players coming back from injury played major roles in the loss. Hazard couldn't do much against the tight defence and was responsible for at least one of the goals. Terry should have done better for the 3rd. Eto'o gave away a penalty. All the while, Chelsea's in form striker was on the bench. Had Ba come on instead of Eto'o then maybe he doesn't give away a penalty. Had Terry's header gone in instead of hitting the post then perhaps right now Mourinho is getting praise for grinding out another result.

 

Chelsea "should" have won on paper. But games aren't played on paper. Mourinho has made a career out of getting results he shouldn't have had. Against Atletico it happened against him. That's football.

 

Any suggestion that it somehow makes Mourinho a failure this season doesn't make sense to me. He's still a great manager, is still in the title race at this late stage (although he may argue otherwise), and made a Champions League semi, which no other English team managed to do this year. Not a terrible first season.

 

1. He doen't play Barcelona every week - Arsenal, Man United, Atletico Madrid this season for e.g. - none are Barcelona, all 3 games were 0-0.

 

2. Who picked the team last night? He didn't need to play Terry nor Hazard, nor did he need to bring an off the pace Eto'o on early doors second half.

 

Nobody disagrees he's a great manager & motivator but he's not the all encompassing hero many think he is. If he'd won last night it'd have been a 'tactical masterclass' not seen many people banding that about Simeone who despite what you say didn't really change Atleti's game up that much, just dropped a bit deeper than the norm.

 

You're right he'll probably pick up a couple of pots next season after a couple more major additions, a wiser manager would've done that last summer when Stevie Wonder could see Chelsea needed a striker but it didn't fit his narrative of being the underdog.

[LucaAltieri]

Yep. Taking over a team that finished 3RD and won a European trophy (While you have previous history at managing at the league and a club), is exactly the same as taking over a team that finished 8th, with record losses in a decade....relegation form for second half of the season.

 

The fact remains he spent 50 million to take the club from 8th to 7th. It took an extra season before his coaching and recruitment started to pay off. The starting point only works against Rodgers in this line of argument. Getting from 8th to 7th is a lot easier than getting from 3rd to a trophy. Different standards are being applied to the two managers.

 

This whole revisionism about Chelsea is amazing. Somehow, Torres/Ba/Eto'o is considered a very poor set of strikers, where 95% of clubs would fucking kill to have it. And LMAO at Chelsea's net, as if They were forced to sell. Mourinho, himself, and intentionally ostracized and then sold Mata. No one forced him to. No one also forced him to loan Lukaku or Courtois. These are the decisions he's paid 10M/year to make.

 

Torres was shit towards the end of his time at Liverpool. He was shit at Chelsea under other managers. He has been shit for Spain. He's done. Eto'o is 32 and was brought to Chelsea after two seasons in Russia. We're not talking about the same player as Eto'o in 2009. I like Ba, personally. But he's not going to win you a title on his own.

 

Mourinho's approach may get him big wins at Anfield and Etihad, but it also backfires and leads to away losses at Villa and Palace. What goes around, comes around.

 

All teams slip up against opposition they should be beating. Liverpool have lost to Hull, Southampton, & Man United. They dropped points against the Mackems, Swansea, Newcastle... it happens whatever approach you happen to take. Again, different standards being applied to the two managers. The only reason Mourinho gets shit for it is because we've come to expect more from him.

[LucaAltieri]

First: There's an art to what Jose does too. You're just not into it. Going up against the best attacking teams in the world and nullifying them isn't easy. If you're playing against Barca who have, at the time, probably the best player in the world, you're not going to beat them by out-attacking them. You need to nullify their strong points and exploit their weaknesses. You can't just set out your team, play to your strengths, and ignore what the other team offers. You'll get beat. Mourinho takes that approach to the majority of games that he plays and for good reason.

 

Second: Even the best teams in the world will slip up. No team goes a season winning every game that they "should" win. Part of the beauty of football is that on the day everyone has their chance. The approach Mourinho, and Pep, and Ancelotti, and Rafa, etc all take is to minimize how much of that is down to luck. Pep does it through trying to control possession. Mourinho does it through trying to eliminate attacking space. Different approaches but essentially working on the same problem: leaving as little as possible to chance. More often than not, it works. But it's never going to work 100% of the time. It doesn't matter how expensive the players on the pitch happen to be.

 

Atletico played a good game. They nullified Chelsea much more effectively than Chelsea did them. The amount of balls Atletico cut out or blocked in the final 3rd was impressive. They scouted Chelsea well and defended the right areas beautifully. Conversely, I think Chelsea's team selection was off. Three players coming back from injury played major roles in the loss. Hazard couldn't do much against the tight defence and was responsible for at least one of the goals. Terry should have done better for the 3rd. Eto'o gave away a penalty. All the while, Chelsea's in form striker was on the bench. Had Ba come on instead of Eto'o then maybe he doesn't give away a penalty. Had Terry's header gone in instead of hitting the post then perhaps right now Mourinho is getting praise for grinding out another result.

 

Chelsea "should" have won on paper. But games aren't played on paper. Mourinho has made a career out of getting results he shouldn't have had. Against Atletico it happened against him. That's football.

 

Any suggestion that it somehow makes Mourinho a failure this season doesn't make sense to me. He's still a great manager, is still in the title race at this late stage (although he may argue otherwise), and made a Champions League semi, which no other English team managed to do this year. Not a terrible first season.

 

1. He doen't play Barcelona every week - Arsenal, Man United, Atletico Madrid this season for e.g. - none are Barcelona, all 3 games were 0-0.

 

2. Who picked the team last night? He didn't need to play Terry nor Hazard, nor did he need to bring an off the pace Eto'o on early doors second half.

 

Nobody disagrees he's a great manager & motivator but he's not the all encompassing hero many think he is. If he'd won last night it'd have been a 'tactical masterclass' not seen many people banding that about Simeone who despite what you say didn't really change Atleti's game up that much, just dropped a bit deeper than the norm.

 

You're right he'll probably pick up a couple of pots next season after a couple more major additions, a wiser manager would've done that last summer when Stevie Wonder could see Chelsea needed a striker but it didn't fit his narrative of being the underdog.

 

 

Not really arguing with any of them. His team selection I point out as a criticism. I'm not arguing he's infallible. And I praised Simeone's approach to the game. He out-Mourinho-ed Mourinho on this occasion, credit where it's due. The 'tactical masterclass' narrative comes from several places. It comes up so frequently because of his record and reputation he has built up over time. Now it's often the go-to lazy platitude in some sections of the media. But over the last 10 years he has earned that reputation.

[The College Dropout]

First: There's an art to what Jose does too. You're just not into it. Going up against the best attacking teams in the world and nullifying them isn't easy. If you're playing against Barca who have, at the time, probably the best player in the world, you're not going to beat them by out-attacking them. You need to nullify their strong points and exploit their weaknesses. You can't just set out your team, play to your strengths, and ignore what the other team offers. You'll get beat. Mourinho takes that approach to the majority of games that he plays and for good reason.

Second: Even the best teams in the world will slip up. No team goes a season winning every game that they "should" win. Part of the beauty of football is that on the day everyone has their chance. The approach Mourinho, and Pep, and Ancelotti, and Rafa, etc all take is to minimize how much of that is down to luck. Pep does it through trying to control possession. Mourinho does it through trying to eliminate attacking space. Different approaches but essentially working on the same problem: leaving as little as possible to chance. More often than not, it works. But it's never going to work 100% of the time. It doesn't matter how expensive the players on the pitch happen to be.

 

Atletico played a good game. They nullified Chelsea much more effectively than Chelsea did them. The amount of balls Atletico cut out or blocked in the final 3rd was impressive. They scouted Chelsea well and defended the right areas beautifully. Conversely, I think Chelsea's team selection was off. Three players coming back from injury played major roles in the loss. Hazard couldn't do much against the tight defence and was responsible for at least one of the goals. Terry should have done better for the 3rd. Eto'o gave away a penalty. All the while, Chelsea's in form striker was on the bench. Had Ba come on instead of Eto'o then maybe he doesn't give away a penalty. Had Terry's header gone in instead of hitting the post then perhaps right now Mourinho is getting praise for grinding out another result.

 

Chelsea "should" have won on paper. But games aren't played on paper. Mourinho has made a career out of getting results he shouldn't have had. Against Atletico it happened against him. That's football.

 

Any suggestion that it somehow makes Mourinho a failure this season doesn't make sense to me. He's still a great manager, is still in the title race at this late stage (although he may argue otherwise), and made a Champions League semi, which no other English team managed to do this year. Not a terrible first season.

 

I agree with most of your first point but the bolded is where I disagree. Against a prime Barcelona or a rampant L'pool it makes sense. But the majority of the time, for the last decade - he's had brilliant tip top players to work with. I wouldn't describe Atletico as some attacking super force either.

 

Your second point is not relevant. I'm not talking about results i'm talking about approach. He gets good results but not good enough considering the approach for me as a fan.

 

3rd: One important factor you missed out is that Atletico came out in the second half to score a second goal - that attacking approach ended making the second half easy. It wasn't just defending and closing down space. They also did Chelsea twice from training ground team attacks which was impressive. Thiago to Juan Fran, back post finish.

 

Tbf to Chelsea - Atletico are simply a better team. Better drilled. Tactically more adept, they simply play their game better. Individually the Chelsea players probably have more talent - that's it.

 

Mourinho's a great manager. I've never said they've had a terrible season. But it will be a disappointment. For the last decade Chelsea have had the talent to win the league and get to the CL final or pick up some silverware. This is the first time, in some time they've done none. And they've spent £100m for the privilege. I had them down as PL winners at the start of the season.

[The College Dropout]

First: There's an art to what Jose does too. You're just not into it. Going up against the best attacking teams in the world and nullifying them isn't easy. If you're playing against Barca who have, at the time, probably the best player in the world, you're not going to beat them by out-attacking them. You need to nullify their strong points and exploit their weaknesses. You can't just set out your team, play to your strengths, and ignore what the other team offers. You'll get beat. Mourinho takes that approach to the majority of games that he plays and for good reason.

 

Second: Even the best teams in the world will slip up. No team goes a season winning every game that they "should" win. Part of the beauty of football is that on the day everyone has their chance. The approach Mourinho, and Pep, and Ancelotti, and Rafa, etc all take is to minimize how much of that is down to luck. Pep does it through trying to control possession. Mourinho does it through trying to eliminate attacking space. Different approaches but essentially working on the same problem: leaving as little as possible to chance. More often than not, it works. But it's never going to work 100% of the time. It doesn't matter how expensive the players on the pitch happen to be.

 

Atletico played a good game. They nullified Chelsea much more effectively than Chelsea did them. The amount of balls Atletico cut out or blocked in the final 3rd was impressive. They scouted Chelsea well and defended the right areas beautifully. Conversely, I think Chelsea's team selection was off. Three players coming back from injury played major roles in the loss. Hazard couldn't do much against the tight defence and was responsible for at least one of the goals. Terry should have done better for the 3rd. Eto'o gave away a penalty. All the while, Chelsea's in form striker was on the bench. Had Ba come on instead of Eto'o then maybe he doesn't give away a penalty. Had Terry's header gone in instead of hitting the post then perhaps right now Mourinho is getting praise for grinding out another result.

 

Chelsea "should" have won on paper. But games aren't played on paper. Mourinho has made a career out of getting results he shouldn't have had. Against Atletico it happened against him. That's football.

 

Any suggestion that it somehow makes Mourinho a failure this season doesn't make sense to me. He's still a great manager, is still in the title race at this late stage (although he may argue otherwise), and made a Champions League semi, which no other English team managed to do this year. Not a terrible first season.

 

1. He doen't play Barcelona every week - Arsenal, Man United, Atletico Madrid this season for e.g. - none are Barcelona, all 3 games were 0-0.

 

2. Who picked the team last night? He didn't need to play Terry nor Hazard, nor did he need to bring an off the pace Eto'o on early doors second half.

 

Nobody disagrees he's a great manager & motivator but he's not the all encompassing hero many think he is. If he'd won last night it'd have been a 'tactical masterclass' not seen many people banding that about Simeone who despite what you say didn't really change Atleti's game up that much, just dropped a bit deeper than the norm.

 

You're right he'll probably pick up a couple of pots next season after a couple more major additions, a wiser manager would've done that last summer when Stevie Wonder could see Chelsea needed a striker but it didn't fit his narrative of being the underdog.

This is really all I wanted to say on the subject.

[The College Dropout]

Regarding the "slips" - I called it from early and it was on show last night. This Chelsea side is poor when it has to be on the front foot. Lacks genuine creativity. Outside of Oscar & Hazard they are lacking badly in creativity. I said they would struggle to break down teams that play for 0-0. That's what happens when you swap Mata for Willian.

 

And Willian's a good player but fuck is he boring.