Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'd disagree with the bit in bold, personally. They have good attacking options. Mourinho obviously thinks so too since he's trying to buy one of them. A cautious approach was probably justified, imo, but once they went behind they never really looked like getting back into it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27258633

 

Eden Hazard does not sacrifice himself for Chelsea - Mourinho

 

Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho has questioned midfielder Eden Hazard's commitment during matches.

 

Hazard, 23, claimed after the 3-1 defeat by Atletico Madrid on Wednesday that the Blues are set up to counter-attack and not to take the initiative.

 

"When the comments come from a player like Eden it's normal because he's not the kind of player to sacrifice himself for the team," said Mourinho.

 

"He's not mentally ready to look to his left-back and leave his life for him."

 

Mourinho added: "Normally you get these kind of comments from players like him, from players that can't resolve a problem like we had in the first goal.

 

"If you see the first goal of Atletico you completely understand where the mistake was and why we conceded that goal."

 

:pardsgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mourinho man  :lol:

 

This is the guy Pardew worships, and takes his cues from.

 

At least he wins a lot more, but my God I don't fancy these kind of managers at all. So damn negative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted like and I'd vote like again. :lol: Character. Need people like him in the game.

 

If he was a plumber you would think he's just a little cunt, but because he's a football coach it's misinterpreted as charisma.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...