test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Fulham Broadway

The Mourinho Thread

Started by Fulham Broadway,

I am disappointed events got this far and in the end he had to go, but I also feel a sense of relief.

I also feel that Jose had been dealt a bad hand of cards from the end of last season and never fully recovered.

We all know that Jose likes to be complete control of events in regards to team matters and things that would have irked him immensely would have been, the season end trip to the other side of the world after a hard year, a very short pre season , transfer targets not met....all events out of his hands and he seemed to carry this frustration into the first match of the season.

However, as a head coach/manager it was up to him to contain these emotions or as in the past get the media on his side rather than being 'spiky'.

The board who are his managers failed him, the players and the supporters in my opinion by not stepping in earlier after there was obvious situations developing by either nipping it in the bud by reading the riot act to everyone behind closed doors or removing the main offenders whether they were players, staff or Jose himself.

They (by their own admission earlier in the season) left Jose hanging out to dry when he was defending situations and mis informed stories and again should have stepped in to help him at an earlier stage.

So, whilst Jose mis managed the players, the media etc........the board mis managed him.

The post sacking interview by Emenalo was poor and again could have been worded so much better.

Poor all round from the board down to the players.

Thank gawd going to football matches is not just about the football,the club, the result or how they play......and it is also to do with the whole experience of meeting all your mates and other supporters, the journey to home/away matches, having a good social and supporting the team no matter what

zolayes likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly feel a lot in this moment, i am overwhelmed with numerous feelings and ideas i'd like to get out, but I am just waiting for his replacement.

If it isn't Hiddink, or at the very least Ancelotti, then you better ban me, because Talk Chelsea will witness a rant so big that the glass behind Abrahmovich's seat in SB will be bloody shattered.

Essien19 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly feel a lot in this moment, i am overwhelmed with numerous feelings and ideas i'd like to get out, but I am just waiting for his replacement.

If it isn't Hiddink, or at the very least Ancelotti, then you better ban me, because Talk Chelsea will witness a rant so big that the glass behind Abrahmovich's seat in SB will be bloody shattered.

Whoever its is...Steve Holland is in charge this weekend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.

Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:

3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

johnnythefirst, Stats and Peace. like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.

Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:

3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

True,

But I do offer the case of City and their very late ascension to the elite. They had to wait a considerable amount of time, compared to Chelsea, to get to where they are. Inflation and all accounted for, you can argue that they spent even more to just try and match our credentials. In 7 years, since their take over, all they can boast is; PL x2 and the FA Cup x1. They've only made it past the Champions League GS twice too.

By comparison, Chelsea were on their way to a PL x3, FA Cup x3 & LC x2. While you can argue that perhaps we spent the most wise, Mourinho did help shape what was to become the Chelsea core for 8-9 years before we had a clear out of that guard he'd helped us built. That's where City went wrong, you can argue, under Hughes they never built that core & it meant they spent close to £1bn before they touched their first PL title.

While I agree with the overall premise that the role of the manager is diminishing now, I do think we should say Mourinho was an important part of the club being as successful as it has become. Most manager's can't make that claim. Perhaps Pep is the next best for re-branding/working on Cruyff's model but otherwise Mou sits in a league of his own with the likes of Sir Alex & Wenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jose Mourinho was unaware his second spell in charge of #Chelsea was about to come to an abrupt end. [Mirror]

Mourinho was hopeful he would get #Chelsea's home fixtures against Sunderland and Watford to turn the season around. [Mirror]

When told, Mourinho appeared to be distraught. #Chelsea then released a statement saying his departure was by mutual consent. [Mirror]

Mourinho will return to Cobham on Friday for his farewells, while #Chelsea have committed to paying his wages until he finds a job. [Mirror]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC's Garry Richardson - Mourinho said "There are a couple of bad apples in my Chelsea team that are causing “lots of problems.” #CFC

BBC's G. Richardson on bad apples- Mourinho said "It's very difficult to handle for me.” and I can talk you that quote is 100% spot on" #CFC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the FA might miss Mourinho most of all...he was a nice little money earner over two spells at Chelsea...

shocking lack of respect from Emenalo to refer to Mourinho as 'the individual'...after all, he is hardly blameless.

iseah100 and Essien19 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank gawd going to football matches is not just about the football,the club, the result or how they play......and it is also to do with the whole experience of meeting all your mates and other supporters, the journey to home/away matches, having a good social and supporting the team no matter what

It's also about those connections you develop with people within the club, specifically the manager. We've had that Mourinho like no other and I know some may dismiss that as being a 'fanboy' or it being a 'cult of Mourinho' but to me they're fundamentally misunderstanding what it is to support a club, to put your aspirations in the hands of someone.

It's almost like reading a Sheldon Cooper thesis on football fandom

One of the reasons I hate the cult of managers is that I feel that managers overall don't actually make a huge difference. They can make a small different and sometimes, that small difference is the edge you need, but the media and fans give them way too much credit/blame usually. The real job of a manager at a club like Chelsea is managing the egos and motivating the players.

Look at Mourinho's record overall at Chelsea. 8 years starter. I'd say about 4 of those years overall, Chelsea had the most expensive club in England and maybe the world and all of those years, Chelsea was one of the highest spending clubs in the world. In 8 years with an elite spending club Mourinho won the following major trophies:

3 Premier League titles, 1 FA Cup. In the five years in between where Mourinho wasn't a manager (where overall Chelsea had less talent) Chelsea won 1 Premier League title, 3 FA Cups, and one Champions League. Did Mourinho overall do any better than could have been expected? The answer to me is no. It's not a slight on Mourinho but a reality of managers. The managers that get called geniuses are also the managers who happen to manage the most talent. In the end, the teams that win are the teams that have the most talent and spend the most money. What Ranieri is doing with Leicester this season is far more impressive than what Guardiola has done with Bayern.

Bazinga! :D

Essien19 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True,

But I do offer the case of City and their very late ascension to the elite. They had to wait a considerable amount of time, compared to Chelsea, to get to where they are. Inflation and all accounted for, you can argue that they spent even more to just try and match our credentials. In 7 years, since their take over, all they can boast is; PL x2 and the FA Cup x1. They've only made it past the Champions League GS twice too.

By comparison, Chelsea were on their way to a PL x3, FA Cup x3 & LC x2. While you can argue that perhaps we spent the most wise, Mourinho did help shape what was to become the Chelsea core for 8-9 years before we had a clear out of that guard he'd helped us built. That's where City went wrong, you can argue, under Hughes they never built that core & it meant they spent close to £1bn before they touched their first PL title.

While I agree with the overall premise that the role of the manager is diminishing now, I do think we should say Mourinho was an important part of the club being as successful as it has become. Most manager's can't make that claim. Perhaps Pep is the next best for re-branding/working on Cruyff's model but otherwise Mou sits in a league of his own with the likes of Sir Alex & Wenger.

City's road to the top was longer. Chelsea finished in the top 4 when Abramovich took over. City was average. The likes of Elano, Benjani, Petrov, Geovanni etc won't win you a thing. Robinho as your star player isn't nearly enough.

Now City is really starting to gain in on Chelsea. Good thing they're pony in Europe.

TorontoChelsea likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite all the dislike to emanolo I still like him because I thought he did a great job of getting young and exciting players.

All this came to a stop once Mourinho came to the club and started trading our talent for players that will eventually "betray" him.

Ah the irony.

Anyhow with emanolo at the club we should go back to getting young and exciting talents and should do good this time now that Mourinho is gone for good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also about those connections you develop with people within the club, specifically the manager. We've had that Mourinho like no other and I know some may dismiss that as being a 'fanboy' or it being a 'cult of Mourinho' but to me they're fundamentally misunderstanding what it is to support a club, to put your aspirations in the hands of someone.

It's almost like reading a Sheldon Cooper thesis on foot

Bazinga!

ball fandom.

to a point....but each can have their own 'connection'

Where I stand at the ground...the 2 guys one side of me didnt think much of Mourinho and the guy the other side had this thing of not liking Drogba from his 1st season and never changed his view.

Both in general club legends, but not revered by everyone

Muzchap likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True,

But I do offer the case of City and their very late ascension to the elite. They had to wait a considerable amount of time, compared to Chelsea, to get to where they are. Inflation and all accounted for, you can argue that they spent even more to just try and match our credentials. In 7 years, since their take over, all they can boast is; PL x2 and the FA Cup x1. They've only made it past the Champions League GS twice too.

By comparison, Chelsea were on their way to a PL x3, FA Cup x3 & LC x2. While you can argue that perhaps we spent the most wise, Mourinho did help shape what was to become the Chelsea core for 8-9 years before we had a clear out of that guard he'd helped us built. That's where City went wrong, you can argue, under Hughes they never built that core & it meant they spent close to £1bn before they touched their first PL title.

There are two big differences with City.

1- City started in much worse shape than we did. When Mansour took over the club, City were a mid-table side. Chelsea were Fourth. We were in much better shape (not to mention having a young Lampard and Terry already playing great) We all hate Ken Bates for a reason but he also started to invest in Chelsea before Roman came along. For those of us who were supporters then, Chelsea were a lot of fun to watch and they had a good club.

2-City was dealing with a much more competitive spending league. When Chelsea started spending huge, nobody else in the Premier League was. In 2033-2004, Chelsea spent 153M pounds. Arsenal, their biggest rival at the time, spent 16M pounds. Chelsea spent 290M in the first three seasons of Roman's time at Chelsea. I doubt the entire rest of the Premier League spent half of that net.. When City was starting to spend like crazy, they did so in a league where Chelsea and soon United and later Arsenal were all spending big already (or in Chelsea's case, they had spent so much earlier and were still flush with that talent). If you were a team wanting to spend big now it would also be harder to move up because you are not the only one.

Peace., LDN Blue and Stats like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

City's road to the top was longer. Chelsea finished in the top 4 when Abramovich took over. City was average. The likes of Elano, Benjani, Petrov, Geovanni etc won't win you a thing. Robinho as your star player isn't nearly enough.

Now City is really starting to gain in on Chelsea. Good thing they're pony in Europe.

Agreed, but I think the first managerial appointment sets the tone so to speak of how that club will develop, imo.

True that Ranieri is technically our first manager under Abramovich, and he did well in recruitment, but Mourinho was the first one picked by the club and he did wonders. Hughes was always going to be out of his depth when managing talent that cost that amount of money.

I mean I've made no mystery of the fact I think the modern manager's role is one of a coach now. Rarely do managers have the level of control usually associated with such a position. Martinez does to an extent at Everton, but once they reluctantly lose their top talent he's hardly likely to stick around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to a point....but each can have their own 'connection'

Where I stand at the ground...the 2 guys one side of me didnt think much of Mourinho and the guy the other side had this thing of not liking Drogba from his 1st season and never changed his view.

Both in general club legends, but not revered by everyone

In my experience this season, yes there was frustration with the football and Jose did get some (deserved) criticism, but certain players got a ton of stick too and there was a real belief that the club might stick by Jose this time. Now we're completely rudderless and I really think we're proving that old thing about the club becoming nothing more than a rich man's plaything true.

By the way whenever I've read this thread you've been making some excellent points in a sea of criticism from all corners. I enjoyed reading your posts because I actually recognised something approaching what I see in most of the people I see at the games. Keep it up mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a rift between mourinho and the players , the club had no alternative , even if the next manager surely won't be better than him.

But, well, fuck the coach, the main issue is replacing oscar and costa by proper football players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the FA might miss Mourinho most of all...he was a nice little money earner over two spells at Chelsea...

shocking lack of respect from Emenalo to refer to Mourinho as 'the individual'...after all, he is hardly blameless.

Just a puppet saying what Tenebaum, Buck had prepared for him.

But lets have a look at him a minute.

He was brought to the club in 2007 by Avram Grant as 'opposition scout'. Grant himself was a nobody who 'just used to put the cones and bibs out'. at Pompey but has a habit of ingratiating himself with Jewish oligarchs. Emanalo was made 'assistant coach' and then 'Technical Director' when Wilkins was sacked. He has the final say in recruitment at academy and senior levels, and meets Abramovich regularly to tell him whats going on.

He might be good at what he does, but imo the cuntishness shown in this never has been, two bob clown of a parasite still theiving a living off us, is what is palpable.

The important thing to remember is that when Abramivich wanted Mourinho back, Jose didnt want Emanalo hanging about any more, but Abramovich said he wanted him there for what ever reason.- But to many reports he has been Abramovichs eyes and ears for several years now, so thats propbably whats important.

Life goes on, noone bigger than the club etc along with other cliches. However it is apparent that it is money that is running the game, and if Chelsea had a 'soul' it was in Cech, Terry, Lampard, Essien, Drogba, and Mouirnho. To me this is as important than money, and I would rather the 'soul' be in the above than Buck, Emanalo, Maria - all I can see is another merry go round of managers, the odd cup and Liverpool type mediocrity looming. Hope I am wrong.

Essien19 and Ossie the King like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, but I think the first managerial appointment sets the tone so to speak of how that club will develop, imo.

True that Ranieri is technically our first manager under Abramovich, and he did well in recruitment, but Mourinho was the first one picked by the club and he did wonders. Hughes was always going to be out of his depth when managing talent that cost that amount of money.

I mean I've made no mystery of the fact I think the modern manager's role is one of a coach now. Rarely do managers have the level of control usually associated with such a position. Martinez does to an extent at Everton, but once they reluctantly lose their top talent he's hardly likely to stick around.

I don't know about wonders but he did a great job, that's true. But I think many people forget Ranieri finished 2nd behind the Invincibles and reached the semi-finals of the CL. His team was not as talented as the 04-07 one and his team was quite fresh (in terms of chemistery). You can't tell me Ranieri would never have won the league if he was allowed to stay. He most likely wouldn't have won it in such a dominant fashion, at least that's what I think.

You're probably right about Hughes but I'm sure he was gone before the real talent joined. He had that Adebayor team. But I rate Ranieri higher than Hughes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life goes on, noone bigger than the club etc along with other cliches. However it is apparent that it is money that is running the game, and if Chelsea had a 'soul' it was in Cech, Terry, Lampard, Essien, Drogba, and Mouirnho. To me this is as important than money, and I would rather the 'soul' be in the above than Buck, Emanalo, Maria - all I can see is another merry go round of managers, the odd cup and Liverpool type mediocrity looming. Hope I am wrong.

I've said it earlier but this is worse than the Rafa hiring in signalling that we as a support mean nothing and that the club is basically Roman's toy to do with as he wish. I say that as someone who has a lot of affinity for the guy and love to see him enjoying the match, but he is not a football guy and he's not really a Chelsea guy either. He's not 'one of us'.

And for the first time I actually don't think he's worthy of the CPO giving up their stake in the club. Never thought I'd say that but right now I am struggling to like this club. At least with the CPO still holding a stake then I know there's something there that I recognise as being Chelsea, but the club itself seems to be so disconnected with the support that it's untrue.

Emenalo always strikes me as a chancer and fair play to him. He's got the ear of a billionaire based on not very much but I don't trust him. Same goes for Marina who I did like, but she absolutely butchered that Stones deal to the point you wonder if she's anything more than a glorified secretary in over her head. Buck and Tenebaum....no clue. At least with Bates you knew where you stood because he unashamedly spouted it whether you wanted him to or not. We've never really heard Roman speak and now he sends out Emenalo to piss everyone off.

He's right, the club is in trouble. He just doesn't realise that he's part of the problem.

Fulham Broadway likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.