Guys, Mourinho does not play defensively in all big games. He played park the bus football against Barcelona at a time when they were tearing the world apart. And he played park the bus football at Anfield when you were tearing the league apart. He plays that way because it frustrates the hell out of teams and their fans and maximises his chances of winning against technically superior teams. It is a no brainer, and I genuinely believe it is the anger of the result which is causing people to criticise him for it. If Man City couldnt go toe to toe with liverpool and win, then Chelsea with their best creative players unavailable and big names needing resting before a game 3 days letter didnt have a chance. He had a choice of merrily running into a ball of fire or playing his way. Everybody criticising him would do exactly the same in his situation. I dont recall him parking the bus when his team beat arsenal 6 (was it?) - 0. He plans for the opponent, studies the opponnt and capitalises on what he believes are their weaknesses and nullifies their strengths. He told his team to play every dirty trick in the book because he knew that Liverpool were fast starters. You cannot criticise him for instructing his players to do what every single footballer does in every single game when it suits them., Do you honestly think that Liverpool players would not have time wasted if they were 1-1 in stoppage time? Reasons are irrelevant, whether it is at the start, end or half way, players timewaste to fit their agenda and maximise their team's chance of winning. I will say that it isnt always the best viewing (Again, I dont watch enough Chelsea games to make a fully informed comment) but Mourinho is fully entitled to do whatever the hell he feels will maximise chelsea's chances of winning (within the rules of course) W.R.T the West Ham comment - Mourinho in intential wind up merchant shocker.... He was making a story to divert from his team not winning. He probably congratulated big sam off air.
I can't remember the last big game that Chelsea really went out and attacked a top team? Jesus, he even went to Old Trafford without a striker and hoping for a draw against the worst united team in 25 years It's mainly the fact he turns around and moans when teams do it to him. He came up with the whole "parking the bus" when a team did it against him, then moaned about West Ham's "19th century football" without a hint of irony. I can appreciate a team coming and trying to frustrate other teams and there are 2 ways to beat us, sit back and do that in which case you need to be very good defensively and hope Suarez doesn't do something World Class or attack us and exploit our shaky defence. You can understand a team like Stoke, Palace, West Ham etc to play that way as they don't have a squad full of International players, costing over £500m and all on over £100k a week, but a team that are in the CL semi, 2nd in the league and have had 10 years of unlimited money to build a squad? That's just odd. When you look at the football that Rodgers' has us playing after 2 years in charge and a fraction of the investment, it is a wonder why Mourinho isn't able to do something similar given he's the "special one". Mourinho has his idea of football but I think every Liverpool supporter would rather watch our team play every week and finish 2nd in the league than have to suffer that kind of football week in week out and for that I'm very grateful for we have Rodgers.
Yup, the way Eto'o got away with the studs up challenge on Henderson in the first 10 minutes and managed to convince the ref it wasn't a foul on Suarez was absolutely brilliant. Have to hand it to them, they certainly played blinders there
I understand all that you are saying - but I still havent seen enough big games to comment. The big occasions I recall Mourinho going full bus parking, off the top of my head, are: Vs Barcelona with Inter - it was that or get stuffed like the rest of the world. Vs Barca with Real (he tried going toe to toe with them earlier in the season and lost 5-0) Vs Man Utd this season (it was in the first week, none of us knew how naff utd were and they were 11 point league winners at that point with Van Persie up front) Vs Man City away (maybe? didnt most teams get tonked at the etihad this year) Yesterday (ditto) I honestly dont recall seeing that many big real madrid games other than Classicos - I would place a fair bet that Mourinho attacked most teams other than Barca, because he knew he had the better attacking players with the most potent attacking threat. You play brilliant football. However I would fear for you if you were drawn against Bayern Munich and Rodgers didnt alter the way he intended to play. As I recall Ferguson went through the same transition in the late ninetees after 5 years of getting pummelled in europe because he was too tactically naiive. I feel its a reality of football and it's how you win - if you have the better attacking options at your disposal, you play attacking. If you don't, you play defensive. It's what Jose Mourinho does best, and it is why so many football fans (probably justifiably) get bloody frustrated by him, but you cant argue with the results he gets in big games...
Fair enough, but it's not even the big teams. Palace, Sunderland, West Ham, Villa, West Brom. Let's be honest, Chelsea are the team that have blown this title if they don't win it. They've taken 16 and are unbeaten against the top teams, however it's the "smaller" teams that they've lost points against. Why? Because Mourinho can't break down teams who ironically park the bus and play 19th century football. Yes his tactics may work very well against the top teams that want to try and attack and it allows his teams to sit back and sneak goals. If he did that against the top teams and then got his team to switch and play attacking football to then break the other smaller teams down then fine, they'd probably already won the league by now, but he can't do that. He hasn't been able to coach a team with 6 International attacking midfielders and 3 CF's to actually break down stubborn teams who are midtable and lower. That is why he'll be known as negative to me. We showed in 2009 that beating the tops teams I only well and good if you can break down the smaller ones. I see a lot of similarities in that aspect to this Chelsea team. Rafa wa top notch and masterminding wins against teams that were expected to beat us, but he struggled to get the team to adjust and break down teams who were happy to sit back. Only difference is, we scored 80odd goals, Chelsea haven't.
Don't recall any of those games so can't really comment on them. Agreed re: Chelsea above anybody else have blown the league - the record they have against the top teams, they should be over the hill and far away, no questions. Again I havent seen enough games against 'smaller clubs' to offer inciteful comment - if that is the case then you have a point there. Looking at their results this season there are plenty of high scoring games against smaller clubs, although I do accept the result in itself does not always tell the whole story... May have to agree to disagree - Have to be honest I think he is a brilliant manager. A wind up merchant, no doubt. A joker, a jester, a game player and a machiavallian. But a top, top manager. There isn't another team in the league that could have played like that against you yesterday with half their team out. And money is almost irrelevant, he played players that were far from first team regulars, lacking matchday sharpness, 3rd or 4th in the pecking order, without their captain, 2 other first choice centrebacks and their best attacking player of the season in what will probably turn out to be a dead rubber match for his team, 3 days before a champions league final against the best attacking team, with the best striker, in the league. Any other manager, with any other team, in those exact same circumstances would have got murdered. Say what you like about his tactics, nobody can question his management.
Sorry, don't like all this "weak team" "missing players etc". Half their team out? Terry, Cahill, Hazard. Apart from that, don't think they were really missing anyone? 3 of back 4 are internationals and 2 are regulars and Cole has more experience than the rest of our defence. Matic is first choice and Lampard & Mikel have played a lot this season. Scurlle and Salah have played a lot this season and cost £30m between them and Ba has been their best forward this season. Yes they were missing Cahill & Terry but with 3 holding midfielders infront of you, I could have played CB in that game and been protected enough Atletico aren't the best attacking team in La Liga and don't have the best forward. They have the best defence in the league, and Ronaldo/Messi/Bale would argue they are better than Costa
Cole played in the game against Atletico and has played 15 PL games this season. Yup, agree on Terry & Cahill although Ivanovich is a better CB than he I RB in my opinion. Forgot about Cech was missing as well but Schwarzer also played in Atletico and is vastly experienced. Luiz is a liability and wish he had played! He cant defend for **** and he's a bit dodgy in midfield. The fact Mourinho has hardly played him says it all. Hazard yup, give you that one. Oscar has hardly played recently at all so he wasn't missed at all.
Put it this way, who from that chelsea team that played would you put in your Liverpool team. Probably Matic, Azpilicueta and at a push Ivanovic and Schurlle. Would Mikel and Franky at 35 really make your team? That Chelsea team is definitely a weakened side and on current premier league form, weaker than yours too
A weakened Chelsea side maybe, but a weak side? Not at all. That side would challenge for top four, hence it being a red herring point.
The first 3 would get into our strongest 11 and that's 3 of your "weakened" team. Schurlle at a push probably would as well. It's not just the first team though. You can bring Cahill & Willian on, we can bring Aspas on It's weakened compared to your normal 11, but compared to the rest of the league? None apart from City.
So Frankie and the boys never had more experience than Flanno, Sterling, Couthino, Allen and even Sturridge? Seems your trying to belittle us by discreding a Chelsea team that cost millions more than ours.
No, i'm not saying that frankie and the boys don't have more experience, but to suggest over half that team isn't squad players at best and therefore a weakened team is just denying that Mourinho got them very well drilled to frustrate you guys. Yes they a lot of the players have cost a lot of money, but that doesnt equate to the quality of player - see sturridge and coutinho as bargains and torres and mikel big wastes of money. Weakened side? Half those players would struggle to make top 6 first teams - see below: Schwarzer - was keeping for fulhams first team and no takers even for a free transfer (fulham probably wanted to resign) Kalas - youth player old Franky - at a push a top 6 squad player, like gerrard doesnt have the legs or his long ranger shots anymore and his passings always been so so Mikel - most useless player ever Demba Ba - Squad player,even at 7m no takers from top 6 apart from us Ashley Cole - still fairly solid but doesn't seem to be a fancy for anyone and is thinking of going to USA. Struggling to even make the england team You say we can bring on cahill and willian and you for Aspas, but you could also bring on Sturridge whos would walk into our team
Bobby, if you look at the table you'll find that we are still above you therefore whatever side you chose to play your team has proved itself to be weaker. As for any of your players who played on Sunday I would only take Azpilicueta. Neither Matic or Schurle impressed me enough to force their way into our side.
Yup. Matic would walk into the team. Azpilicueta would walk into either LB or rB slot and Ivanovic would play ahead of Johnson at RB or could play CB.
