The Mourinho Thread

[Strike 7,492]

We can agree to disagree. I can't see how people are so sure we'd score in the last 20 minutes if when our players were fresh they couldn't. Of course they could have scored, a lucky goal, a individual talent goal, a collective effort goal, whatever goal you want it to be. It's just that given our recent history chances are that wouldn't happen. we've been conceding goals towards the end of the matches lately, not scoring them and while that doesn't mean we'd concede, it's still what's been happening. I'm not saying there's no way we would have scored, but I'm inclined to think otherwise given our recent form. So as I just said in the match's thread, I'll support Mourinho in his coward decision and will take the one point happily.

We were better than Arsenal, we've never dominated them though for people to be so adamant we should have kept a tired Hazard and not only risk conceding because he and especially Willian were very tired, but also risk burning them out when we'll need them in form the next 10 days to play 3 very important and difficult matches. I'm 100% behind Mourinho in this one and I'd bitching til tomorrow if he kept Eden, but especially Willian, regardless of the final result. I'm looking at the big picture here and I guess he is too.

Chelsea had a better chance with those two or one of them kept on. The continuity in attack was lost towards the end. there were a few good counter attacking chances late on that didn't go anywhere.

agree with the risk of burnout though. at this point of the season

[╫rue Blue 47]

On January transfer window

i hope its mean, mou want strengthening another position, hopefully is quality central midfielder

[Cosmin 2,484]

I hope this hasn't been posted before.

A good analysis by Robbie Savage can be read here. Best parts:

"Chelsea have not really clicked this season but they are in the top four and two points off the top of the table. They are not where they are by playing fantastic football but you have to say they are very well placed because that group of players will undoubtedly have a spell this season where they click as a group.

And at the Emirates Stadium on Monday, when I compared the teams and looked at both benches, I would have to say they looked more like potential champions than Arsenal did.

The bottom line is that the spine of the 2013 Chelsea team is not as good as the 2004 side. Didier Drogba has gone and the players that remain - from Frank Lampard in midfield to John Terry in defence to Petr Cech in goal - are aging.This Chelsea side is not as strong as the one that Mourinho had during his first spell at Stamford Bridge, when he won the league twice in three seasons between 2004 and 2007.

I have talked before about how bizarre it was for Mourinho to loan out Romelu Lukaku this season and, clearly, signing a new striker in January would increase Chelsea's title chances massively."

[The Skipper 20,609]

Sorry for the late response, Christmas and all...

Who could have filled Hazard's shoes in the second better than André? I may agree that Mata instead of Oscar (despite the fact that it would compromise the defensive aspect as Willian's work-rate was immense and all of us know Mata doesn't come even close), but the only player we had to lead our counter-attacks with dribbles and pace (that was what Hazard was doing so well) was Schürrle. André didn't have a good match imo, he was disconnected from the play. Oscar is still in terrible form and added nothing to our attack. I think Mourinho simply didn't predict how bad (or at least how non-factor) the subs were. Watch Hazard's last minutes before the sub. He wasn't going for the plays anymore, he was tired. The match he was supposed the rest, he played about 40 minutes (against Sunderland).

I honestly can't find anything to complain from Mourinho's part, although I was very unsatisfied with both André's and especially Oscar's performances. Oscar seems burnt out, not sure if as a consequence of the injury or because the matches finally piled up. He wasn't playing that well even before the injury. Both Willian and Hazard were immense helping Iva and Azpili and also the pivot. Somehow André and Oscar couldn't keep even that. They were nothing special (far from it) offensively, but defensively they weren't much better. Oscar is sort of expected, he's been playing terribly lately, but André was playing well in his last matches. So I get why Mourinho did it, but I can't blame him when his players didn't turn up. I'm sure he didn't ask them to be sloppy, unfocused and disconnected from play...

And I think it's very naive of you to think that Arsenal would continue to be passive as the end of the game approached. Any team at home will take a last sprint at the end of match to try to win it. They started to grow before the subs, after them they had their best chances as expected. I'm not sure Azpili's clearance would have been a goal. I've seen that play at least 10 times and I'm still not convinced, although absolutely thankful he was there to make sure it didn't go in.

Hazard wasn't the only sub Mourinho made that and I wasn't talking about merely his subs either - it was the tactical approach we took after his subs were made that bugged me the most. Honestly I thought we were fine as we set out initially, and Mourinho's approach after the subs invited even more pressure unto us, in my opinion we could've so easily lost had Giroud been more clinical on two occasions.

I never said that I expected Mourinho to go for the win but my argument was that we invited even more pressure onto ourselves by the tactical approach we took after our subs were made. The Luiz sub at the end was the most frustrating one as it really confirmed he'd allow Arsenal to keep possession and distribute it amongst themselves and everyone knows that's when they're the most dangerous.

Yeah, Arsenal were at home and were pressing to look for a winner at the end but those moments could've been avoided if Mourinho kept the same tactical approach and we could've even nicked a winner on the counter had we been even the *slightest* of more adventurous as Arsenal obviously opened up even more towards the end of the game.

[Phil Driver 503]

Sorry for the late response, Christmas and all...

Hazard wasn't the only sub Mourinho made that and I wasn't talking about merely his subs either - it was the tactical approach we took after his subs were made that bugged me the most. Honestly I thought we were fine as we set out initially, and Mourinho's approach after the subs invited even more pressure unto us, in my opinion we could've so easily lost had Giroud been more clinical on two occasions.

I never said that I expected Mourinho to go for the win but my argument was that we invited even more pressure onto ourselves by the tactical approach we took after our subs were made. The Luiz sub at the end was the most frustrating one as it really confirmed he'd allow Arsenal to keep possession and distribute it amongst themselves and everyone knows that's when they're the most dangerous.

Yeah, Arsenal were at home and were pressing to look for a winner at the end but those moments could've been avoided if Mourinho kept the same tactical approach and we could've even nicked a winner on the counter had we been even the *slightest* of more adventurous as Arsenal obviously opened up even more towards the end of the game.

Yes and the other hypothetical version of events is that without Jose settling for a point in a game where we made the most chances and had the most shots is that without us settling for a well deserved and earned point away from home ,we could have brought on another misfiring striker as we did at Stoke when Eto'o gave away the ball which then lead to a Stoke goal ,when the sub was supposed to help us win.

[The Skipper 20,609]

Yes and the other hypothetical version of events is that without Jose settling for a point in a game where we made the most chances and had the most shots is that without us settling for a well deserved and earned point away from home ,we could have brought on another misfiring striker as we did at Stoke when Eto'o gave away the ball which then lead to a Stoke goal ,when the sub was supposed to help us win.

We lost against Stoke because the whole tactical approach was changed and left us open at the back. We went 4-4-2, I didn't ask that of Mourinho at all. I don't understand what you don't get by me saying that we should've kept the same approach we did in the earlier stages of the game because that approach (the one in the Arsenal game to spell it out for you) wasn't really going for the win either (we were playing not to lose) but it does give us a bigger opportunity to nick the game (like in the Man City game earlier this season).

[Phil Driver 503]

We lost against Stoke because the whole tactical approach was changed and left us open at the back. We went 4-4-2, I didn't ask that of Mourinho at all. I don't understand what you don't get by me saying that we should've kept the same approach we did in the earlier stages of the game because that approach (the one in the Arsenal game to spell it out for you) wasn't really going for the win either (we were playing not to lose) but it does give us a bigger opportunity to nick the game (like in the Man City game earlier this season).

It is qute clear you do not understand. By bringing on a misfring striker in a like for like swap for Torres , the evidence suggests that by making this change Chelsea would have been far more likely to lose this match in the latter stages away form home at a top club than go on to win it . You have already back tracked on your claim that Hazard should have stayed on when he was clearly a spent force and with a busy Christmas period for us to negotiate . A loss at Arsenal would have been a serious setback for Chelsea at Arsenal and in a lot of peoples opinions that would have been more likely than a win had Mourinho made different substitutions to those he did .

[The Skipper 20,609]

It is qute clear you do not understand. By bringing on a misfring striker in a like for like swap for Torres , the evidence suggests that by making this change Chelsea would have been far more likely to lose this match in the latter stages away form home at a top club than go on to win it . You have already back tracked on your claim that Hazard should have stayed on when he was clearly a spent force and with a busy Christmas period for us to negotiate . A loss at Arsenal would have been a serious setback for Chelsea at Arsenal and in a lot of peoples opinions that would have been more likely than a win had Mourinho made different substitutions to those he did .

I understand fully but if you think that Eto'o's mistake solely lost it for us against Stoke then I'm afraid you're wrong IMO.

If we weren't as adventurous Eto'o's mistake would've been mopped up in midfield by Lampard or Ramires who had both pushed up so Eto'o's mistake was easily punishable due to us having virtually no midfield at that moment of time. All it took was a few passes and Stoke were in front of goal.

Besides, what Mou also could've done if he didn't want to bring on Eto'o is stick Schurrle up front and then bring on Mata.

Him sticking on Luiz still didn't stop Arsenal from creating the best chance in the game.

[Phil Driver 503]

I understand fully but if you think that Eto'o's mistake solely lost it for us against Stoke then I'm afraid you're wrong IMO.

If we weren't as adventurous Eto'o's mistake would've been mopped up in midfield by Lampard or Ramires who had both pushed up so Eto'o's mistake was easily punishable due to us having virtually no midfield at that moment of time. All it took was a few passes and Stoke were in front of goal.

Besides, what Mou also could've done if he didn't want to bring on Eto'o is stick Schurrle up front and then bring on Mata.

Him sticking on Luiz still didn't stop Arsenal from creating the best chance in the game.

And bringing on Mata could well have lead to us losing the game as opposed to the point we got ,your hypothetical stance that your subs (and you have already back tracked on your Hazard stance) that only see attacking substitutions away from home against a top team bringing a victory ,when a defeat would have been much more likely.

In that game as we stood in the league securing a point was much more important than risking a loss,which was far more likely than the win you seem to think an attacking substitution would have brought,despite all recent evidence in the league away from home where we have been very fragile and open to late defeat. This time we got the draw.

[HD3D 1,038]

On January transfer window

On Arsenal

You forgot this one:

Clearly a message to Guardiola lol

Mourinho: Some guys cleverer than me get easy jobs and go to places where it is easy to win. For me it is always difficult

[Barbara 15,149]

Yeah, we aren't the end product yet, I obviously understand that completely, and I understand that it takes a season or two for a project to really come to fruition. I have the patience for that. Heck, I can even wait 3 seasons for that as long as things are moving on in the right direction; but my main gripe is that it's been half a season now and it still looks like we don't have the foundations in place for what we are trying to do (in regards to our playing style) and it's not looking too promising so far. It doesn't look like we are trying to build an identity yet - it just looks like we're trying to grind out games for now, mis-utilising the players we have at disposal (the players we have and the supposed identity we're trying to build require a more universalism approach than specialist approach in my opinion, and I've seen a lot more of the former). Yeah, we're missing a few players here and there but that still doesn't really excuse it.

And no, I am not 'not happy' that we 'only' got a point at the Emirates, it's just people are overstating how amazing of a result it is IMO. I didn't expect us to go out guns blazing against the Gunners at all, I really liked Mourinho's (initial) approach to the game considering our recent performances and in that sense it was a decent result but it wasn't superb or amazing. Superb or amazing would've been beating them.

Well, I based on the kind of complaints I've seen about this match I stated such. It weren't complaints about foundations, but about how we should have gone to the win in the last 20 minutes the same way we've gone the first 70. It has nothing to do with foundation. Which is why I said I take the defensive posture in the end, I accept the subs because we don't need two of our best players currently to be burn out with minutes when we have three important matches coming in less than 10 days, the first of which only 2 days later.

The complaints I addressed were people - including you - complaining about the result and the posture in this match I didn't refute anyone talking about the team's evolution. This team has been oscillating way too much, so I'm happy we played a good match and also grabbed one point that I think isn't too little. It is an amazing result imo given how shaky we've been lately. If we were nearly the end product, I'd agree totally with you. But given how bad we finished matches lately, I'm behind Mourinho's decisions and the point achieved. But ofc we can agree to disagree, as I said to Strike in Mourinho's thread. It's exactly because we aren't the end product I'm happy with a good presentation and one point away from a title contender. In other circumstances I'd be inclined to agree with you, but right now? I'm taking what I can. It's been four months of official competition, I'm not sure how to measure the evolution. Benitez took about the same to have Chelsea playing well last season, but then again, he wasn't building a style, a system, anything. He was just trying to accomplish the results. In some matches worked, but we also looked clueless in many of them (from March one), so I guess it's realistic to ask a little bit more from Mourinho, but he's trying something permanent, not a quick fix like Benitez (which was what he was hired for).

(ps. I tried to answer in the proper thread, but it was locked while I was writing, so I transferred it here)

Mourinho spoke about the draining effect of his team not winning matches more comfortablyâ¦'They kill me every game,' he smiled. 'Every game I am tired at the end.

You and us all, Mou.

[Weckerz 3,781]

[Zoro 151]

Hopefully someone else will think the same about Torres and we can sell the cunt.

[Heisenberg 1,824]

Even pub teams would rather buy Danny Graham than our sweet blondie.

[Blue Warrior 109]

Trade Torres for a pint and a pack of peanuts and it would be a good deal. Danny and Nando members of the 1 in 30 club.

[The_Flash 1,144]

I really feel for Jose I know if I was him I would come out and say

"... Once again my strikers couldn't score in a brothel they are absolute pish... I only have more pish on the bench and there is no one else I think I may get myself registered to play as I will have more chance of getting a goal than Etoo. I am away to cry "

[Henrique 9,133]

I hope this hasn't been posted before.

A good analysis by Robbie Savage can be read here. Best parts:

"Chelsea have not really clicked this season but they are in the top four and two points off the top of the table. They are not where they are by playing fantastic football but you have to say they are very well placed because that group of players will undoubtedly have a spell this season where they click as a group.

And at the Emirates Stadium on Monday, when I compared the teams and looked at both benches, I would have to say they looked more like potential champions than Arsenal did.

The bottom line is that the spine of the 2013 Chelsea team is not as good as the 2004 side. Didier Drogba has gone and the players that remain - from Frank Lampard in midfield to John Terry in defence to Petr Cech in goal - are aging.This Chelsea side is not as strong as the one that Mourinho had during his first spell at Stamford Bridge, when he won the league twice in three seasons between 2004 and 2007.

I have talked before about how bizarre it was for Mourinho to loan out Romelu Lukaku this season and, clearly, signing a new striker in January would increase Chelsea's title chances massively."

People are saying a lot of bullshit these days. This team is not as good as the 2004 side because this one is better.

"Didier Drogba is gone". People just forget the player Drogba was back in 2004, a player that still would play 2 years as a Chelsea player before becoming a really great striker. I remember he was the kind of striker that could miss a incredible chance in front of the goal. Drogba was just a shadow of the striker that played in UCL Final in 2012 and was PL top scorer in 06/07 and 09/10. Our strikers barely scored back in those days...very similar to what is happening right now. Drogba only scored more than 12 goals in a PL season in two occasions, and in 4 seasons he could not score more than 10 goals. Drogba was never a goal scoring machine.

John Terry is aging but he still a top quality defender. Lampard is in the decline of his career? Yes. But the team have Mata, Willian, Oscar, Hazard...

That 2004 team was a team of hard workers. PL today is way more competitive than in those days.

That team from 04-06 wasn't even the best team of the Abramovich era. The team of the 08 UCL Final, and the attack of the 100+ goals were better. Its really bad how the press make that team look the zenith of Chelsea story and of the Mourinho career (his Inter de Milao team was better than his Chelsea from those days). Its time for those idiots to stop this bullshit.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Highlights: we currently are ninth in the league in Shots on Target Percentage (SOT%). We’re the same distance away from Stoke in that category as Arsenal. In the Shots per Goal stat, we require 9.24 shots to score, where Arsenal and Liverpool only require 7.2 on average. City require 5.9. We’re as close to Stoke in that category as Arsenal and Liverpool.

Just Crazy...

[Mouri_Matic 560]

The Liverpool game will show us THE TRUE JOSE MOURINHO. I expect him to tell the team to park it because he is afraid Liverpool will destroy us, but if he doesn't then it prove he has CHANGED and that Arsenal game was just one of those game that we need to approach differently-like he said himself. But if we park it, we all know he hasn't changed much and all the progress of play transition we tried in the last 2 months are over and he is back to the old days, which mean we need to look at how Roman will respond.

[kellzfresh 7,229]

The Liverpool game will show us THE TRUE JOSE MOURINHO. I expect him to tell the team to park it because he is afraid Liverpool will destroy us, but if he doesn't then it prove he has CHANGED and that Arsenal game was just one of those game that we need to approach differently-like he said himself. But if we park it, we all know he hasn't changed much and all the progress of play transition we tried in the last 2 months are over and he is back to the old days, which mean we need to look at how Roman will respond.

Mourinho will not park it at the bridge, unless it's barcelona or bayern. Heck when he played barcelona with inter at the san siro, he went attacking and won 3-1