The Mourinho Thread

[Fernando 6,743]

Watching the game of city against United, and this is the only difference that tends to bother me about Mourinho.

While pellegrini goes for the kill, Mourinho would normally goes to set up shop.

And you know what, ever since that 1-1 against Barcelona in the CL semi final I have been scared of that.

I rather die fighting then sit back and defend.

Now I'm not saying to attack for attack like mindless fool as Rodgers did, but at least make subs to help press, have control of the ball and such then reverting to a all low block formation.

[Cholo 428]

Watching the game of city against United, and this is the only difference that tends to bother me about Mourinho.

While pellegrini goes for the kill, Mourinho would normally goes to set up shop.

And you know what, ever since that 1-1 against Barcelona in the CL semi final I have been scared of that.

I rather die fighting then sit back and defend.

Now I'm not saying to attack for attack like mindless fool as Rodgers did, but at least make subs to help press, have control of the ball and such then reverting to a all low block formation.

But City almost fucked up and Pellegrini's plan would have gone wrong

[kellzfresh 7,229]

But City almost fucked up and Pellegrini's plan would have gone wrong

Exactly. Manutd almost equalized, if they had 11 men, they probably would have

[darrus 422]

Watching the game of city against United, and this is the only difference that tends to bother me about Mourinho.

While pellegrini goes for the kill, Mourinho would normally goes to set up shop.

And you know what, ever since that 1-1 against Barcelona in the CL semi final I have been scared of that.

I rather die fighting then sit back and defend.

Now I'm not saying to attack for attack like mindless fool as Rodgers did, but at least make subs to help press, have control of the ball and such then reverting to a all low block formation.

It didn't prevent MU from spending the last 15 minutes in attack despite being one man down. And two weeks ago this same strategy made Pellegrini lose 2-0 lead against CSKA which may very well cost them a place in CL play-off in the end.

So - there's no ideal way.

[Jase 43,479]

Wonder what the reaction here would have been like if Mourinho decides to do what Pellegrini did in the derby earlier - 1-0 up at HOME against 10-man United and took off 1 striker for a defensive midfielder to shut the game out, rather than going for the kill...

[DH1988 1,356]

Once again failed to kill the game against QPR at least Jose now recognizes that and said it in the post match interview

[Jase 43,479]

I know Mourinho started the whole debate about the home atmosphere thing but since we now have a separate and specific thread for the discussion, I've moved all related posts to that thread. So, please continue the debate in that thread. Link is below..

http://forum.talkchelsea.net/topic/19202-atmosphere-at-home-games/

[Jase 43,479]

Watching the game of city against United, and this is the only difference that tends to bother me about Mourinho.

While pellegrini goes for the kill, Mourinho would normally goes to set up shop.

And you know what, ever since that 1-1 against Barcelona in the CL semi final I have been scared of that.

I rather die fighting then sit back and defend.

Now I'm not saying to attack for attack like mindless fool as Rodgers did, but at least make subs to help press, have control of the ball and such then reverting to a all low block formation.

Erm, you do realize that Pellegrini eventually shut the game out, don't you? He may have brought on Dzeko to go 2 upfront but when that didn't work, he immediately took off Aguero for a defensive midfielder in Fernandinho to try and see the game out, at 1-0 against 10-man United at HOME! TC would probably have turned into a circus if Mourinho did that. Pellegrini's naivety could have so easily cost City had United been more clinical and made better decisions in the final third.

[Fernando 6,743]

Erm, you do realize that Pellegrini eventually shut the game out, don't you? He may have brought on Dzeko to go 2 upfront but when that didn't work, he immediately took off Aguero for a defensive midfielder in Fernandinho to try and see the game out, at 1-0 against 10-man United at HOME! TC would probably have turned into a circus if Mourinho did that. Pellegrini's naivety could have so easily cost City had United been more clinical and made better decisions in the final third.

I made that comment as soon as he took out Milner for nasri. That was an attacking intent at the moment, as to opposed taking out Willian for mikel.

And as you mentioned he then did defensive tactics and that almost cost him.

This is why I'm not too keen on this.

Sometimes it works like it happen with city in this game and sometimes it doesn't work like it happen against us.

Like I said the best thing is to get subs that will help us regain the ball and have possession then going into a low block and give them all the possession.

The best example was Barcelona vs United in cl final. They was winning 3 to 1 and still kept possession so as to not allowed them to get back into the game.

If we sit back and have no possession or press we invite them to have more clear cut chances.

[Rom2013 446]

I made that comment as soon as he took out Milner for nasri. That was an attacking intent at the moment, as to opposed taking out Willian for mikel.

And as you mentioned he then did defensive tactics and that almost cost him.

This is why I'm not too keen on this.

Sometimes it works like it happen with city in this game and sometimes it doesn't work like it happen against us.

Like I said the best thing is to get subs that will help us regain the ball and have possession then going into a low block and give them all the possession.

The best example was Barcelona vs United in cl final. They was winning 3 to 1 and still kept possession so as to not allowed them to get back into the game.

If we sit back and have no possession or press we invite them to have more clear cut chances.

Or Barcelona vs Inter when Bacelona had 80% (or something like that of ball possession) and created 1 or 2 chances in all the game with one more player for more than 1 hour.

Pellegrini changed because Man United with less one player was having more chances than City. A normal thing since any team that is losing a game with the difference of 1 goal will try everything to score.

This happens in every league, with any team. And more normally between 2 great teams like Chelsea, Man United (or City).

How many teams have you seen playing like Barcelona in the last 15 years? You have there the reason why no one else to that with a 1 goal lead. And many times it's not because you don't want, it's just because you can't.

[The Chels 2,502]

The best example was Barcelona vs United in cl final. They was winning 3 to 1 and still kept possession so as to not allowed them to get back into the game.

Or Atletico against us last season. After their equaliser they dominated - never let us back in the game and they never looked defensively vulnerable. That is the way we should aspire to play when we're ahead in matches rather than sitting back but that's Jose's way. Remember how in 2007 we parked the bus at Anfield in the 2nd leg CL semi-final instead of scoring and making them have to score 3. It's Jose's only glaring weakness IMO but it's quite a big one.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

We're still in progress, we're not there yet..

[chelseafc9010 224]

As people are showing things can go both ways for both tactics. It all comes down to the team, and with our team we have more attackers than defenders, so why would we park the bus with players like Fab, Oscar, Eden, Willian? It makes no sense.

[Cholo 428]

We're still in progress, we're not there yet..

This. We still seem to be shaky and nervous some time and not like a powerful machine destroying any opposite side.

However, I like the fact that we can always put in a new gear when it is required. Massive improvement to last season.

[Fernando 6,743]

Or Barcelona vs Inter when Bacelona had 80% (or something like that of ball possession) and created 1 or 2 chances in all the game with one more player for more than 1 hour.

Pellegrini changed because Man United with less one player was having more chances than City. A normal thing since any team that is losing a game with the difference of 1 goal will try everything to score.

This happens in every league, with any team. And more normally between 2 great teams like Chelsea, Man United (or City).

How many teams have you seen playing like Barcelona in the last 15 years? You have there the reason why no one else to that with a 1 goal lead. And many times it's not because you don't want, it's just because you can't.

First of all, Barcelona was losing.

I was talking about when winning.

If Barcelona was winning then Inter would had to come out.

Second of all as mentioned here before not only Barcelona done that but Atletico did it to us last season in the CL.

So it's really nothing out of this world.

If we sit back and don't put pressure on the opponent we invite them to attack thus increasing their opportunity to create more chances.

And third, we are not a team that plays low block to excellency. That was Chelsea of 05.

This Chelsea is not made for that, so it's a bigger risk to sit back and do nothing.

[Heisenberg 1,824]

First of all, Barcelona was losing.

I was talking about when winning.

If Barcelona was winning then Inter would had to come out.

Second of all as mentioned here before not only Barcelona done that but Atletico did it to us last season in the CL.

So it's really nothing out of this world.

If we sit back and don't put pressure on the opponent we invite them to attack thus increasing their opportunity to create more chances.

And third, we are not a team that plays low block to excellency. That was Chelsea of 05.

This Chelsea is not made for that, so it's a bigger risk to sit back and do nothing.

Spot on ! I dont think Mourinho shares the same idea and its really annoying, we are better with the ball then off the ball, we are a team that can have the ball 70% of the time against small teams and still create chances, we saw that many times this season, we surely can have the ball and score against bigger oposition, at least at home, but the Manchester games, Mourinho's general system tend to tell me that we'll lose a hell lot of point by going backward when we're upfront and that pisses me off.

[Rom2013 446]

First of all, Barcelona was losing.

I was talking about when winning.

If Barcelona was winning then Inter would had to come out.

Second of all as mentioned here before not only Barcelona done that but Atletico did it to us last season in the CL.

So it's really nothing out of this world.

If we sit back and don't put pressure on the opponent we invite them to attack thus increasing their opportunity to create more chances.

And third, we are not a team that plays low block to excellency. That was Chelsea of 05.

This Chelsea is not made for that, so it's a bigger risk to sit back and do nothing.

And Inter was winning, and defended for 60 minutes with 10 players without any problem.

Atletico played well but they were completely confortable and in the minute 60 they were 2 goals in front... they were not leading by only one goal with 15 minutes for the end of the game.

We can talk about Barcelona all we want, but for example in last season of Guardiola in the 2nd leg of the quarter final against Madrid, in the last 15 minutes the ball boys disapeared, Barcelona started losing time and kicking balls to the stands because the game was 2-2 and with one goal Madrid would be in the semi final.

We also played a positive football against United or Arsenal in the Bridge last season... they were dead.

We can be all we want, but without defending well we can't beat a team like Madrid in the Champions League (and maybe other teams, not only Madrid).

[Jase 43,479]

Guys, if you want to talk about Mourinho and his comments about the home atmosphere, please do so in the 'Atmosphere At Home Games' thread.

[Jase 43,479]

First of all, Barcelona was losing.

I was talking about when winning.

If Barcelona was winning then Inter would had to come out.

The point above doesn't really make any sense in supporting your argument. If anything, it backs the points of others have used to counter yours.

Barcelona had majority of the possession because they were losing? Yeah, so were United.

Was talking about when winning? Well, Inter were winning then, weren't they? They had the advantage in the aggregate lead.

If Barcelona were winning, then Inter would had to come out? Gosh, that's such an obvious thing to say. It's like saying if we were losing at Old Trafford, we would have been forced to come out.

[Fernando 6,743]

The point above doesn't really make any sense in supporting your argument. If anything, it backs the points of others have used to counter yours.

Barcelona had majority of the possession because they were losing? Yeah, so were United.

Was talking about when winning? Well, Inter were winning then, weren't they? They had the advantage in the aggregate lead.

If Barcelona were winning, then Inter would had to come out? Gosh, that's such an obvious thing to say. It's like saying if we were losing at Old Trafford, we would have been forced to come out.

But then in the CL final when Barcelona was winning they kept the possession against United this not giving them a chance.

Or like Atletico did to us last year.

So your point doesn't make sense.