The Mourinho Thread

[Cosmin 2,484]

As expected, more childish behaviour. But what can you ask from a man who has that kind of picture as his avatar?!

Well you will see a manager next week play the attacking football you crave in an away big game, and if we play to even 70 percent of our capabilities we will benefit big time from it.

Nah, I don't crave brainless football like the one Wenger makes his team play. I crave a little bit of courage from a team like ours and more than 0 shots after one half of the game against a good opponent. I explained myself many times before, I don't understand why you keep bringing the Rodgers and Wenger argument up to discussion, since it clearly has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

P.S: After what Chelsea's attacking players showed yesterday, do you honestly believe that we can't try more against a team like City?

[iseah100 5,612]

So I guess this is how things are going to be from now on. After every convincing win, some people will start acting childish. The game was excellent, great passing and nice team goals, hands down. Beating Villa like this is great and I am really happy about it, but it has nothing to do with what we've been discussing on the last '5-10 pages'. And it doesn't change my opinion regarding the other matter (the City game, to be more specific) and it doesn't change the fact that we were EXTREMELY defensive against City and way too precautious. So before being so sarcastic and full of himself, someone should understand the difference between the two matters.

[Cosmin 2,484]

There we go, you have my like! I am sure you expect more! Come on, you guys, feed him!

[Tomo 21,685]

As expected, more childish behaviour. But what can you ask from a man who has that kind of picture as his avatar?!

Nah, I don't crave brainless football like the one Wenger makes his team play. I crave a little bit of courage from a team like ours and more than 0 shots after one half of the game against a good opponent. I explained myself many times before, I don't understand why you keep bringing the Rodgers and Wenger argument up to discussion, since it clearly has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

P.S: After what Chelsea's attacking players showed yesterday, do you honestly believe that we can't try more against a team like City?

Wenger thing is more in jest, but the main points I make still stands.

We tried to play it the same way as last season there, but a mix of our midfielders having an off day on the ball (in February they were all spot on) and Citys persistent fouling meant wr could never build serious momentum on the counter, where as last season we took them apart.

What is conveniently forgotten is that home games against the big boys we have won with good football, especially Liverpool at home, if City scored a goal with beautiful play like Edens equaliser that day people would constantly be using it on here as an example off how football should be played.

Arsenal at home aswell, yes they capitulated but our high pressing (especially by Matic) and coming roaring out of the blocks was a major reason for that.

[robsblubot 3,262]

I have to say that Oscar makes a difference but just like in the city game, I don't see Mourinho having Oscar and Fabregas in the team against top team.

Is too attacking and our defense not so great.

That's why Mourinho is doing the right thing.

Going more attacking against the small team and going more defensive and balance against bigger teams.

If the plan is doing good you keep at it, because the league is not won by just beating your main opponent but also beating the 18 other teams in the league.

While I agree with the overall idea, disagree about oscar. He's rounded enough that he play in any attacking position.

It's just down to characteristics; Jose chose to go for counter against city, giving up possession entirely, which was disappointing to some. I can't see us playing the same way against arsenal because our midfield is stronger than theirs.

[Cosmin 2,484]

Wenger thing is more in jest, but the main points I make still stands.

We tried to play it the same way as last season there, but a mix of our midfielders having an off day on the ball (in February they were all spot on) and Citys persistent fouling meant wr could never build serious momentum on the counter, where as last season we took them apart.

What is conveniently forgotten is that home games against the big boys we have won with good football, especially Liverpool at home, if City scored a goal with beautiful play like Edens equaliser that day people would constantly be using it on here as an example off how football should be played.

Arsenal at home aswell, yes they capitulated but our high pressing (especially by Matic) and coming roaring out of the blocks was a major reason for that.

Firstly, I would like to say that I really appreciate the fact that you stay on topic and try to bring arguments in order to prove your point. As it can be seen, other people prefer to adopt a childish behaviour which makes it very hard to develop a serious debate.

Secondly, I don't think that it was the best option to play the same way as last season, because they were expecting us to do so. That's why Pellegrini tried to anihilate our midfielders and asked his players to foul everytime it was necessary. I agree with the third part of your post, we were really good at home last season and I enjoyed every single match against the big boys. But, I never claimed otherwise. I understand: the plan is to beat them at home and to at least draw against them away, but from my point of view, if we tried just a little bit more against a damaged City, we could've easily won that game. I am happy with the point, but that IS NOT the point, as I said many many times before.

If we play against Atletico in the UCL, don't you think that they'll expect us to be defensive away? It's predictable and when it's predictable, you should try bringing up the element of surprise, if you have what it takes. And to be honest, I really believe that this squad has what it takes. Chelsea never had a better attacking force than the one it has today.

[Tomo 21,685]

Firstly, I would like to say that I really appreciate the fact that you stay on topic and try to bring arguments in order to prove your point. As it can be seen, other people prefer to adopt a childish behaviour which makes it very hard to develop a serious debate.

Secondly, I don't think that it was the best option to play the same way as last season, because they were expecting us to do so. That's why Pellegrini tried to anihilate our midfielders and asked his players to foul everytime it was necessary. I agree with the third part of your post, we were really good at home last season and I enjoyed every single match against the big boys. But, I never claimed otherwise. I understand: the plan is to beat them at home and to at least draw against them away, but from my point of view, if we tried just a little bit more against a damaged City, we could've easily won that game. I am happy with the point, but that IS NOT the point, as I said many many times before.

If we play against Atletico in the UCL, don't you think that they'll expect us to be defensive away? It's predictable and when it's predictable, you should try bringing up the element of surprise, if you have what it takes. And to be honest, I really believe that this squad has what it takes. Chelsea never had a better attacking force than the one it has today.

Fair points.

I still personally believe we need proactive CBs and/or another midfield enforcer before we can play the way we did in first few games in an away big game especially and judging by our tactics in Eastlands Jose thinks the same (Benatia looks even more appealing in hindsight), funny thing is I still think this already great looking squad is two or three years away from being complete.

Great times ahead.

[boshman 1,073]

Am I reading these posts correctly?? People are genuinely moaning because we played a defensive game against City?? Seriously??

Right, so we're at the home of the current champions of this country. Who have some of the best attacking players in the world. Let's go there, open the game up, leave massive holes for their best players to do what they do best, leave our defence exposed for their pacey, powerful midfield to do what they do best, and get annihilated.... That's a good fucking idea isn't it!!!

Of course we are going to play a more defensive, cautious game away to City. If you don't do that you are stupid.

We're top of the league!! 5 points clear of our main challenge (City) having already played them away. 5 wins out of 6. 19 goals scored. A goal difference of +12. What the fuck is wrong with people??

[Cosmin 2,484]

Am I reading these posts correctly?? People are genuinely moaning because we played a defensive game against City?? Seriously??

Right, so we're at the home of the current champions of this country. Who have some of the best attacking players in the world. Let's go there, open the game up, leave massive holes for their best players to do what they do best, leave our defence exposed for their pacey, powerful midfield to do what they do best, and get annihilated.... That's a good fucking idea isn't it!!!

Of course we are going to play a more defensive, cautious game away to City. If you don't do that you are stupid.

We're top of the league!! 5 points clear of our main challenge (City) having already played them away. 5 wins out of 6. 19 goals scored. A goal difference of +12. What the fuck is wrong with people??

There's a difference between "Defensive" and "Way too defensive". And the second part of your post partially makes sense only if you think about a FIFA match between Chelsea and City. They were and still are in a poor form. Not to mention that no one claimed that we should've opened the game up, leave massive holes etc. As said before, being less cautious than we were against City (which is extremely cautious) doesn't mean going ahead like brainless chickens. Football is not only black and white. You can be solid in the defence, but also smart and unpredictable when you have the ball. Just like we were home against them, last season, btw.

[boshman 1,073]

There's a difference between "Defensive" and "Way too defensive". And the second part of your post partially makes sense only if you think about a FIFA match between Chelsea and City. They were and still are in a poor form. Not to mention that no one claimed that we should've opened the game up, leave massive holes etc. As said before, being less cautious than we were against City (which is extremely cautious) doesn't mean going ahead like brainless chickens. Football is not only black and white. You can be solid in the defence, but also smart and unpredictable when you have the ball. Just like we were home against them, last season, btw.

We were not 'Way too defensive' though. We had a game plan and we executed it well. Soak up the pressure which we are very good at doing and hit them on the counter. I don't see what is wrong with that. Especially away to The Champions. If we were more attacking the game naturally would open up and they would find more space to do what they do best. It would be ridiculous to allow that to happen IMO.

We were poor with our ball retention which is probably what cost us in the end. If we kept the ball better and used it better we would have created more chances. I don't think it had anything to do with the defensive game that cost us the 2 points. And remember we were only a width of a post from making it 2-0 and game over.

[lionsden 4,689]

So I guess this is how things are going to be from now on. After every convincing win, some people will start acting childish. The game was excellent, great passing and nice team goals, hands down. Beating Villa like this is great and I am really happy about it, but it has nothing to do with what we've been discussing on the last '5-10 pages'. And it doesn't change my opinion regarding the other matter (the City game, to be more specific) and it doesn't change the fact that we were EXTREMELY defensive against City and way too precautious. So before being so sarcastic and full of himself, someone should understand the difference between the two matters.

What's stupid about what he said or am i missing something

[iseah100 5,612]

What's stupid about what he said or am i missing something

It's in the past, man. Forget about it. It's early in the season and is a decent result away from home. Sheesh.

[Cosmin 2,484]

We were not 'Way too defensive' though. We had a game plan and we executed it well. Soak up the pressure which we are very good at doing and hit them on the counter. I don't see what is wrong with that. Especially away to The Champions. If we were more attacking the game naturally would open up and they would find more space to do what they do best. It would be ridiculous to allow that to happen IMO.

We were poor with our ball retention which is probably what cost us in the end. If we kept the ball better and used it better we would have created more chances. I don't think it had anything to do with the defensive game that cost us the 2 points. And remember we were only a width of a post from making it 2-0 and game over.

Fair enough, but I think that the "away to the champions" part is overrated. What if we would've played the second game against Man. Utd., last season, on their ground? They were the champions, but they were clearly not in the best form.

We were poor with our ball retention because retaining the ball was not what we wanted. We didn't actually try to retain the ball for long periods and build goal scoring opportunities based on that. That's where the 'way too defensive' part comes in. If we weren't overly focused on defending, maybe we would've been able to attack more and be more effective. That's the way I see things. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the best opinion, but I'm also not being an asshole towards those who don't share it. And I'm not talking about you here, your posts are fair.

[boshman 1,073]

Fair enough, but I think that the "away to the champions" part is overrated. What if we would've played the second game against Man. Utd., last season, on their ground? They were the champions, but they were clearly not in the best form.

We were poor with our ball retention because retaining the ball was not what we wanted. We didn't actually try to retain the ball for long periods and build goal scoring opportunities based on that. That's where the 'way too defensive' part comes in. If we weren't overly focused on defending, maybe we would've been able to attack more and be more effective. That's the way I see things. I'm not claiming that my opinion is the best opinion, but I'm also not being an asshole towards those who don't share it. And I'm not talking about you here, your posts are fair.

That United game we missed a trick with last season, they were there for the taking. But that's another story.

City are 10x better than United. I think going away from home to a top team like that and with the type of players they have, you need to stay compact and defensive.

Maybe that was the reason we were so poor in possession. I understand your point but for me, I don't blame Jose for going their and setting up like that. It was only the 5th game of the season and we had a 5 point lead over them. I think it was more important to come out of that game still with a 5 point lead than risking getting to 8 and coming out with 2.

[Jase 43,479]

Fair enough, but I think that the "away to the champions" part is overrated. What if we would've played the second game against Man. Utd., last season, on their ground? They were the champions, but they were clearly not in the best form.

That United game we missed a trick with last season, they were there for the taking. But that's another story.

I don't think we missed a trick with that United game at all last season. On hindsight, yes it looked that way but at that point of time, who thought United were going to regress so badly under Moyes? Both of us started the campaign well back then but neither side was fully settled under a new manager yet. The approach, based on the situation then, was justifiable. It only looked and felt painful we dropped points there because of what happened to united after that. Had we played them away in October or later, I'm sure the approach would have been different altogether as they were there for the taking.

[Jase 43,479]

Jose Mourinho fears burn-out from international duty could derail Chelsea's season

[Cholo 428]

I just fking don't get why the City match is still being discussed. Till the City match, we had bewn playing good attacking football. Our defence however was shaky and not good, so Mourinho set us up more defensively so we could somehow get our back compact and rely on our good attacking play.

Remember the Everton match. 3-6 !!! If our defensive play would have been the same in the City match as it had bewn in the Everton-match, we would have been at the receiving end of the 6 goals. In my opinion, Mourinho set up the team 110% correctly.

[Muzchap 8,966]

Just wow - that people are still complaining!

If we keep doing what we are doing - we will be Champions...

Tactics are called tactics, because you change them according to the opposition - if we kept playing the same attacking football as with Liverpool - we will lose out! Liverpool needed a draw, they lost - BAD TACTICS

City are our main rivals - the aim is not to let them take more points off us, than we gain from them! Job is 50% done!

I'm just shocked and saddened at how low this forum is stooping lately... Can't we just be happy?

Best squad for years, best transfer window for years, manager who knows what he's doing and sitting on top of the table... The way this forum is you'd think we are Newcastle...