The Mourinho Thread

[Adnane 1,101]

Why are you denying it wasn't luck? It WAS. If Fergie was still around, and United were 3 points ahead of us but about to drop points played way beyond poor, but scored in Fergie time you wouldn't call that freaking luck?!

Fergie spoke about that in the recent christmas interview, it isn't luck, it's a state of mind, that's what champions are made of.

Now excuse me, but if u consider that 8 or 7 of Fergie's PL titles were luck, sorry, but there's no point in debating anymore.

[Adnane 1,101]

Oh yeah, and the exemple people are stating here, 09/10, weren't we lucky ? Drogba at Old Trafford ? Gerrard's backpass ?

[Tomo 21,681]

I hope you dont consider my criticism of our football as a lack of respect directed towards Jose.

No, I was just saying why the people tend to jump on "jose bashers" is because of disrespectful comments like him being told to fuck himself half an hour before a cup final.

[Tomo 21,681]

Oi. Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not imply that all Fergie's PL title wins were luck. :/

I was just giving you an example, similar to what is happening with Chelsea here. No fan outside of Chelsea would say after QPR, "That wasn't luck." We didn't play to our strengths, there was nothing happening in that game, 0-0 is gonna happen, then a costly mistake from the goalkeeper out of nowhere to give us 3 points. It was a gift that we would gladly take.

It wasn't because we were stronger than QPR in that game. It wasn't because we showed a moment of or a lot of brilliance (we were spineless). It was because we were lucky to get a gift.

You can say the cop out answer - "That's the stuff of champions", and yes, champions need these things to happen, but for you guys to DENY we weren't lucky yesterday, and against Stoke and Hull, then we have a problem because you guys are willing to cope with these terrible performances and turning a blind eye.

Yesterday was lucky but Stoke? please, that was a totally convincing performance which was only made a contest by the flukiest goal of the season.

[Tomo 21,681]

DP

[Tomo 21,681]

Now I would have agreed with you, IF Green didn't make that mistake. You can't keep on relying on people's mistakes. That's why I'm saying we are lucky, because if it wasn't for that silly error from Green, 0-0 would have been the final score. It wasn't because of a moment of brilliance, it was because of a mistake.

No one would have expected Green to do that. No one. And that's why we were lucky.

Keepers and defenders cock up clearances all the time, when Green did that we still had a lot to do before scoring.

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

We can draw all our games and still say "unbeaten since Jan 1st". That's not the point. I'm talking about our performances. Yes it's better to win poorly than to lose awesomely like Arsenal, but this is getting way too consistent now.

We were comfortable against Stoke, but we didn't blow them away. We didn't put the game to end. We were one mistake, one breakaway away from a draw. When they put on Crouch, I was scared. I shouldn't be. And I'll say this again, if Costa didn't pull a hammy, Remy wouldn't have scored the winning goal because he would have stayed on the bench.

And don't forget about Hull too, goalkeeping error leading to our winning goal.

How do you know Costa wouldn't have scored a hat trick vs Stoke? And against QPR for that matter. For the short time he was on, he looked dangerous.

And who knows, Jose might have played both for most of the game had they both been fit enough.

The fact is, sometimes we've not looked like winning, but we've never looked like LOSING. And while against QPR, we did deserve to win. We deserved to win because they dried out the pitch. Because they were so abusive. Because they threw coins, litter, and lighters at our players. Because Charlie Austin and Barton were trying to wind our players up the whole match.

Against another side with a goal scoring output rather than Didier we would have looked much better.

I'd go as far to say that playing Solanke or Brown would be better.

[Tomo 21,681]

I repeat. Remy was going to stay on the bench if Costa didn't pull a hammy. At half time, Mourinho chose to put on Costa instead of Remy. Stoke were also comfortable at 1-1. In fact, they were playing for a draw. So in a way, we were lucky AGAIN that Costa pulled a hammy to get Remy on to score the winning goal.

Remy started, either way Stoke were no threat bar that fluke, take that out it was almost as convincing as WBA home.

[Sheva. 5,373]

Now I would have agreed with you, IF Green didn't make that mistake. You can't keep on relying on people's mistakes. That's why I'm saying we are lucky, because if it wasn't for that silly error from Green, 0-0 would have been the final score. It wasn't because of a moment of brilliance, it was because of a mistake.

No one would have expected Green to do that. No one. And that's why we were lucky.

Green shanked his clearance but there was still a lot to do from there. Not like when Courtois gave Hull the easiest goal of the season.

Also yes you can't expect teams to always make mistakes, but the bad teams always seem to do. And it's not only against Chelsea.

[CurlyHairLikeLuiz 1,625]

Maybe, although Remy wouldn't be the lone striker.

4-4-2

[OhForAGreavsie 5,775]

He just returned from injury. Highly doubt it.

Maybe, although Remy wouldn't be the lone striker.

I didn't say we deserve to LOSE. When did I ever implied or said that. We deserved a draw in TERMS of our performance.

What QPR did was disgusting, and yes I glad we won...but that is more of justice being served than performance and luck here.

There is, in my opinion, a fallacy at the heart of the 'we are lucky to be top' argument. That fallacy is the presupposition that we have not suffered balancing moments of bad luck and that our opponents have not themselves also benefited from points gained undeservedly. Of course we have and of course they have.

If you put it to me that we have been no more than the best of a bad bunch, I would not dispute it but, however bad the others are, we have been the best. The lucky argument just doesn't wash. Not unless you want to say that we're lucky the others have been even worse than than us. That I would accept but this acceptance points the way to an interesting summer.

It's already clear that Liverpool are better now than they have been over the season as a whole and the same is true of Manchester United and Arsenal. Along with Man City, those sides can be expected to strengthen before the new season kicks-off. Watching those developments, and what we do ourselves, is all part of the fun.

[Fernando 6,376]

Whats Mourinhos Problem with Chelsea Youngsters

http://www.espnfc.us/club/chelsea/363/blog/post/2397042/whats-mourinhos-problem-with-chelsea-youngsters

[lionsden 4,689]

Whats Mourinhos Problem with Chelsea Youngsters

http://www.espnfc.us/club/chelsea/363/blog/post/2397042/whats-mourinhos-problem-with-chelsea-youngsters

My answer to the header "If lionell messi was 18 at Chelsea, would Jose have risked him" is a resounding NO and that's where the debate should end based on the evidence, there's nothing to suggest otherwise. If we had striker shortage, He would probably consider playing a physically imposing and experienced defender upfront than that "extremely lightweight midget kid from Argentina".

Great article btw.

[Leif 6,006]

Hold on. Then why don't you watch teams that play the style you want to watch? You would be welcome at Arse, Liverpool, and City forums.

If you don't care about Chelsea's success in the arena that matters over the long term, what is the reason you are debating this on our forum?

I hope a pigeon shits on you, you talk like a 15 year old

[Blue Colored Sky 1,807]

Whats Mourinhos Problem with Chelsea Youngsters

http://www.espnfc.us/club/chelsea/363/blog/post/2397042/whats-mourinhos-problem-with-chelsea-youngsters

What's the most amusing is that Mourinho actually plays against kids, who under him would be deemed not ready but are causing him all sorts of problem in trying to nullify them.

I'm thinking about Kane the last term or Messi for example in 2006, Januzaj, Sterling from last season or Jordan Ibe when we will face him this season. All of them under him wouldn't be an asset in his eyes if they were with us but are the threat when he prepares the team to play against them. So he actually can see that inexperienced kid can be quality player but sadly can't see that in our own youths Weird ...

"

Is Solanke "ready" then? Not yet, according to Mourinho.

"I cannot play Solanke against Southampton with 30 minutes to go and the score at 1-1. I can't," he said recently.

Why not? Surely if a player is good enough he is ready? Mourinho always seems to lack conviction when broached about the subject."

The journalist already noticed this. And that's because it is far, far away from his comfort zone.

"What happens if, as per usual, Mourinho has his head turned in the transfer market? If Abramovich really wants to see a return on his investment in Chelsea's youth policy then perhaps he needs to decide when a player is ready. That would make for a short discussion between owner and manager."

Maybe that already happened and that's why all the Academy day talk and 8 minutes for RLC took place. Because after the match Mourinho said that RLC has to buy him a bottle of wine ! Lol. For giving the youngster 8 minutes in the meaningless game. That's how generous he was

The comment under the article :

Andes Tung · Top Commenter · Becker College

His CV. That's the only thing matters to Mourinho.

Youngsters, no matter how talented they are, are bounded to be inconsistent as they are learning the game. That is a risk an extreme result-oriented guy like Mourinho would not want to take.

"For now, Mourinho's fear of failure holds sway and Solanke, Brown, Loftus-Cheek and all the other Chelsea academy kids must wait in line."

That's the point. Mourinho fears of result even in the meaningless game and youngsters are causalities. I think playing untested youngster is by far the biggest fear in football for him, even bigger than prime Barcelona, lol.

[Fernando 6,376]

What's the most amusing is that Mourinho actually plays against kids, who under him would be deemed not ready but are causing him all sorts of problem in trying to nullify them.

I'm thinking about Kane the last term or Messi for example in 2006, Januzaj, Sterling from last season or Jordan Ibe when we will face him this season. All of them under him wouldn't be an asset in his eyes if they were with us but are the threat when he prepares the team to play against them. So he actually can see than inexperienced kid can be quality player but sadly in the wrong way for our youths

"

Is Solanke "ready" then? Not yet, according to Mourinho.

"I cannot play Solanke against Southampton with 30 minutes to go and the score at 1-1. I can't," he said recently.

Why not? Surely if a player is good enough he is ready? Mourinho always seems to lack conviction when broached about the subject."

The journalist already noticed this. And that's because it is far, far away from his comfort zone.

"What happens if, as per usual, Mourinho has his head turned in the transfer market? If Abramovich really wants to see a return on his investment in Chelsea's youth policy then perhaps he needs to decide when a player is ready. That would make for a short discussion between owner and manager."

Maybe that already happened and that's why all the Academy day talk and 8 minutes for RLC took place. Because after the match Mourinho said that RLC has to buy him a bottle of wine ! Lol. For giving the youngster 8 minutes in the meaningless game. That's how generous he was

The comment under the article :

Andes Tung · Top Commenter · Becker College

His CV. That's the only thing matters to Mourinho.

Youngsters, no matter how talented they are, are bounded to be inconsistent as they are learning the game. That is a risk an extreme result-oriented guy like Mourinho would not want to take.

"For now, Mourinho's fear of failure holds sway and Solanke, Brown, Loftus-Cheek and all the other Chelsea academy kids must wait in line."

That's the point. Mourinho fears of result even in the meaningless game and youngsters are causalities. I think playing untested youngster is by far the biggest fear in football for him, even bigger than prime Barcelona, lol.

I will say one thing though in his defense.

I liked how he gave a chance to Oscar.

Even if he gamble Oscar above KDB and Mata.

Now that gamble didn't paid of, KDB is better then Oscar and we got a player that hasn't live up to the hype.

But hey he took it and that's what a manager should do.

I would like it if Mourinho does the same thing for someone from our academy not for someone we bought for nice money.

You took time and trust on Oscar, then do it to other younger players.

At least one per season.

[DYC. 7,542]

Whats Mourinhos Problem with Chelsea Youngsters

http://www.espnfc.us/club/chelsea/363/blog/post/2397042/whats-mourinhos-problem-with-chelsea-youngsters

The Russian oligarch has spent a mind-boggling £916.95 million on transfers and this coming summer that figure could easily surpass the £1 billion mark.

Money, money, money.

You appoint Mourinho for results. If you want youth coming through, you have to appoint someone else. That's why I don't think the likes of Solanke, Boga etc. have a chance.

[DDA 9,570]

So you can say this yet still demand the type of football that leads to scintillating play?

Because I didn't expect for us to sell Schurrle and replace him with Bambi.

I do expect for us to use the whole squad more, including the youth.

Thats why I get pissed when I see our lads struggling with form due to tiredness.

These decisions are mostly Joses decisions.. But look, I am chuffed with what Jose has done for us since being back.

I'll be intreagued to see if Jose goes about it in a sifferent way next season. In the direction he promised us when he made his second coming.