Nobody has really got going yet. I was going to say perhaps Chelsky, but then I remembered exactly two seasons ago.
Being arrogant enough to point out to a ref that you think he's biased towards your team is dumb on so many levels. I wonder if his eyesight was good enough to be able to see it, though?
Let me answer that one for him... After DL, along with the other Chav mods, banned anyone with even the remotest ounce of banter in them from the Chav board, and successively turned the Chav board into a featureless and humourless desert (for a second time), there really hasn't been much cause or opportunity for DL (or, indeed, for any Chav) to visit this site, these days.
The Liverpool board is the ebst - people ae banned for telling them the scores. Last night the mods out out a video showing them beating West Ham 4-3.
I thought that game was a really bad example of the Premier League. The best 2 teams in the league and it was cynical from the very start, City fouling to stop Chelsea's counterattacks, Chelsea players wasting time at every opportunity and a harsh sending off. I'm glad City got something out of the game, I thought Dean refereed the first half well, a few bookings and the letter of the law applied was what was needed but in the second you've got to show a bit more lenient for the second booking, it wasn't a terrible challenge and it was only his second foul of the game, and I don't know how Fabregas didn't get a yellow, he was pulling Toure's shirt when Dean played on and then put in a cynical trip a few minutes later. I also thought Dzeko should've had a penalty in the first half but it was a tough call to make and I don't blame Dean for not giving him the benefit of the doubt as he'd thrown himself to the floor earlier. Chelsea really are the devil though, aren't they? We know they can play good, attacking football, they've done it in their first 4 games but they always revert back to this negative football which showed no desire to take City on today. Pleased for the draw, City played well and wanted to win but they were guilty of cynical fouling again and it would've been absolute robbery if Chelsea had won.
A lot of the games between top teams in the league go like that, YV. We're not skilled enough in the dark arts to compete like that and stifle them.
"Everton also lose after midweek action." Given their perceived weaker squad, they at least have some excuse. Spurs OTOH have none whatsoever.
Pellegrini: "We had one big team playing like a big team, and one big team playing like a small team, like Stoke"
Brilliant! Manages to slag off a side that they're not even playing and one of their main rivals in the same sentence.
When Arsenal were one of the best 2 sides in the league they always played to score goals, United and Liverpool too. Chelsea without Mourinho often did too. I just don't get it, what's the point of buying all these attacking players that are brilliant on the ball if they're just going to use them for their pace in big games? Chelsea are just Allardyce's Bolton with a **** load of cash.
You only set out to stifle teams that are vastly superior to you (like Chelsky did to Barca in the 2012 CL) . Jose is basically saying he has a combination of defeat-aversion + low confidence in his team being superior to Citeh.
Mourinho always sets out to win and he doesn't care how he does it. If he had to foul one of the opposition players himself to get the three points, then he'd be happy to.
I'd agree with PNP. Mourinho tries to win every game. He just has different tactics and team set-ups, week after week, depending who the opposition is. He spends a huge amount of time analysing opposition teams and sets up in the manner he considers is best to nullify their strengths. In his head, the players are pawns and he is the chess grand master, trying to outwit his opponent and checkmate them.
Against the weaker teams he sets out his team to score goals, against better opposition it's always about stopping them scoring, not creating problems at the other end. That's what I was saying, of course he always wants his team to win. Even against 10 men today, they scored with only one player in te opposition box and once they took the lead they sat back and invited City onto them whilst other teams would've tried to keep the ball and keep it away from danger. It might not always work out but I'd far rather watch Ancelotti's Real Madrid than Mourinho's because they're always looking to score.
Mourinho has clearly made a choice as a manager from an early stage that winning, at all costs is most important, tactics are crucial, work rate is crucial and winning the big games are crucial, attacking football is low down on the priority as he knows that as his teams are usually dominant, and he has attacking players, that at various stages his teams will play attacking football, just overall its not a priority and I personally admire his style of management as he is open to different systems and I enjoyed watching his Inter Milan team.
