What if Mourinho was still at Chelsea?

[Guest]

Heres a theoretical question.............

If Mourinho had continued to be backed by Roman Abramovich with regards to new acquisitions (as opposed funding current wage bills), who would Chelsea of bought?, how much stronger/weaker would be as a team now? and what spot on the ladder would we currently be occupying?

Remembering that Roman turned the tap off around midway through last season and some here beleive had we signed a few players (a central defender in particular), we would have gone on to win the premiership.

 

[Enrico]

People will believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe Mourinho didn't get the signings he wanted, we'd have signed Micah Richards and Dani Alves. I must have missed out someone...

Oh, and the hole in the ozone would have mended, and the baby seals would be saved.

 

[Guest]

What the??.............

 

[barak81]

What the??.............

world peace nimcampoop!!

 

[Barn]

What if I had RA's money and I was the owner? Who would we buy, would fans have to pass my entry test to prove that they deserved a place watching the mighty Chelsea, would I interfere with team issues, would I listen to a bloody word Pini Zhavi said?????

What if? is the worst phrase in the English language.

 

[midlandblue]

closely followed by "I do"

 

[JT26CFC]

if mourinho was still at chelsea, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

well for one, Drogba leaving wouldn't even be talked about right now. I don't really think much would have changed, probally same results we've gotten. The only thing that'd be different is the press stories. They would just read week after week " Mourinho to quti soon? Klinsmann offered job!"

 

[BlueBosnian]

If he stayed, we would be right where we are today.

The only defference is that we would have probably gotten a point in Manchester.

As far as everything else goes, it was obvious things have stopped working out for him.

It was good while it lasted...

 

[Kev123]

If he stayed, we would be right where we are today.The only defference is that we would have probably gotten a point in Manchester.

As far as everything else goes, it was obvious things have stopped working out for him.

It was good while it lasted...

You could also argue we might have lost in Valencia. Lets face it we were playing pretty lousy for a long time. Not saying we're the dog's boll**cks now, but the football of Mourinho's last 6 months left a whole lot to be desired.

Not trying to start this discussion again, but it seems when we get a bad result, it's Grant's fault. When we win a very tough game, "Oh well that was Mourinho's team". You can't have it both ways lads

 

[just]

People will believe what they want to believe. So, if you believe Mourinho didn't get the signings he wanted, we'd have signed Micah Richards and Dani Alves. I must have missed out someone...Oh, and the hole in the ozone would have mended, and the baby seals would be saved.

Bit far-fetched that last bit.

Kinda like believing we would have won the EPL title if Ranieri had had another four years.

 

[Guest]

I think people sometimes think that just because he lost or failed to win that the performance was bad.

In most of Mourinho's final games at Chelsea, our team generally controlled the match and though we didn't carve out nearly as many opportunities as we would have liked to, we still had chances to win most of the matches. A Mourinho Chelsea was never going to be pretty on the eye, but it was still damn effective. Such losses in team form is an inevitable part of managing a team and really did very well considering the fact he had exactly 0 pounds to spent in the transfer market.

 

[Nibs]

but it was still damn effective. Such losses in team form is an inevitable part of managing a team and really did very well considering the fact he had exactly 0 pounds to spent in the transfer market.

But we were looking less & less effective - that was the problem.

And the last bit you post adds a lot of fuel to the criticism rivals had of Mourinho, in that he was only "the special one" because of all the money he had to play with. Once he didn't have the funds - he struggled. Not my view I would hastily add, but I know a view of many.

 

[g3.7]

last season the team was far from effective.

you can't rely on drogba wonderstrikes from 700 yards- his peformances and those goals masked the fact that our best form of attacking, set peices (IMO that's sad in itself), were getting worse, and we weren't creating chances. we have progressively got worse as an attacking force each season, when that is usually the opposite for teams that are being "built".

p.s. stats for shots do not equate chances. shooting from 30 yards out 10 times doesn't mean we created 10 chances.

 

[Guest]

last season the team was far from effective.you can't rely on drogba wonderstrikes from 700 yards- his peformances and those goals masked the fact that our best form of attacking, set peices (IMO that's sad in itself), were getting worse, and we weren't creating chances. we have progressively got worse as an attacking force each season, when that is usually the opposite for teams that are being "built".

p.s. stats for shots do not equate chances. shooting from 30 yards out 10 times doesn't mean we created 10 chances.

I've got to defend Mourinho in the transfer market here. He copped a real beating over selling both Duff and Forssell but both moves have proven to be the right decision. With Crespo, we really didn't have a great deal of choice, he didn't want to be here. Robben he only sold because he wanted to buy Malouda who is / was a better fit for a Mourinho Chelsea. With Gudjohnsen, yeah, ok, that was a mistake, though most here being completely honest would admit they were excited by the opportunity of signing Ballack. So yeah, maybe we did lose some of our attacking talent, but unfortunately without money, some of that inevitable, just as teams learnt to play us effectively and it forced us to change our style of play.

Getting back to tactics here, look at Man Utd. They have alot of attacking talent at that club now, they really do have talent there. But, you look at them at the start of the season, they were really struggling to score goals. Yeah, they were out of form and all that, but the fact was, opposition teams were just putting 10 men behind the ball and choking them out of the game. When teams do that, you need repond, we used to just defend deep and try to hit them quickly on the counter attack and that worked for the first 2 seasons and we did really well. The problem is, teams figured that out, they have closed that now (remember how everyone was talking a while back about how the Premiership had become more defensive), now we have to learn to break down packed defenses. Having skillfull players is obviously a pre-requsite for this, but honestly, when an opposition is playing 10 men behind the ball, who would you rather on your wing, Arjen Robben or Malouda?. In space on the counter attack?..........Robben everytime, no doubt about it, but teams just don't let us play like that anymore, we needed to adapt and we did the best we could.

I do actually think it says something that Benitez is playing a similar set of tactics at Liverpool.

 

[g3.7]

okay- first of all you've quoted me and made a response to something entirely different- which is clearly insane.

in any case there are too many bizarre things for me to ignore;

I think people sometimes think that just because he lost or failed to win that the performance was bad.

you are obviously referring to games where a draw would not be "acceptable" (so barca away etc don't count)...

I can't remember many losses or draws in normal circumstances where I thought "well the performance was good"- arsenal at home aside. can you give some examples?

A Mourinho Chelsea was never going to be pretty on the eye, but it was still damn effective.

well- the point I made before, which you responded to with an entirely irrelevant post, was that when you aren't actually making good chances, the formation you are using isn't working, and only 3 players in the side are on top form AND you are relying on wonder individual goals, then no, the team isn't effective. that's what you call a team that has stifled many of its own players. and that, is what is more commonly known as ineffective.

Such losses in team form is an inevitable part of managing a team and really did very well considering the fact he had exactly 0 pounds to spent in the transfer market.

he went one window without spending money I think- that is a terrible excuse for the performances post january- we all know he wanted ben haim; our defence may have improved, but it would not have done very much at all to rectify the horribly implemented diamond. and of course it is not an excuse for the performances prior to january, and it is not an excuse for the performances this season- he got ben haim, and he signed malouda (for about ?14m more than "?0"). no matter how often jose says he did his best work at chelsea last season, and no matter how often people choose believe/repeat it, it simply isn't true.

okay- now to your other post:

I've got to defend Mourinho in the transfer market here. He copped a real beating over selling both Duff and Forssell but both moves have proven to be the right decision. With Crespo, we really didn't have a great deal of choice, he didn't want to be here

forssell was never a part of his squad- so it doesn't matter. what you are forgetting though, is that while he may have been right to let duf go for example, that is only half the work- when you lose a top player, you need to replace him with another player of similar quality. that is not saloman kalou.

attacking (i.e final third)players signed by jose:

drogba

kezman

pizarro

kalou

shuan wright phillips

malouda

(sheva)

Robben he only sold because he wanted to buy Malouda who is / was a better fit for a Mourinho Chelsea.

lcare to expand?

With Gudjohnsen, yeah, ok, that was a mistake, though most here being completely honest would admit they were excited by the opportunity of signing Ballack.

it was a stupid move to decide eidur was purely a midfielder, but a ridiculous one given jose's intentions to play with 2 strikers and a diamond the following season- there was and is a place fo both players.

So yeah, maybe we did lose some of our attacking talent, but unfortunately without money, some of that inevitable, just as teams learnt to play us effectively and it forced us to change our style of play.

without money?

teams learnt to play us effectively and so we were forced to change our style of play? nonsense- if you understood the way we played, and why it worked this would be obvious.

we pressed high- winning the balls upfield and able to release the wingers quickly putting them in one on one situations. also eidur was playing, with his vision and creative passing, not to mention hold up play. in the second season we stopped pressing high- essien was an unnecessary and self indulgent purchase that smacked of a manager trying to beat his own defensive record rather than trying to address the needs of the team. as a result we sat deeper and played slower- wingers would get the ball later and have less one on ones. also, lampard became easier to target- he was usually the only threat from central midfield. and of course we lost eidur's hold up play in favour for drogba, who was still poor to average for 80% of that season.

did arsenal's style of football/attacking get found out? no, because they fine tuned it so it continued to function (and improve). also fair to say that jose lucked out with the eidur/duff robben triumvate whereas wenger knows how his sytem works best and what players to sign for it.

your final paragraph was so contradictory that quoting it might cause the universe to collapse in on itself.

 

[geezer]

last season the team was far from effective.you can't rely on drogba wonderstrikes from 700 yards-

I've told you a billion times not to exagerate.

 

[Guest]

I think people sometimes think that just because he lost or failed to win that the performance was bad.

you are obviously referring to games where a draw would not be "acceptable" (so barca away etc don't count)...

I can't remember many losses or draws in normal circumstances where I thought "well the performance was good"- arsenal at home aside. can you give some examples?

I quote the Blackburn and Aston Villa games as games in which we weren't good' date=' I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. But we still dominated and controlled those games for long periods and if thats the worst we saw Chelsea play, then we were a damn good side.

Loss of form is inevitable at some point and with Lampard and Drogba both out we were allways going to struggle for goals.

A Mourinho Chelsea was never going to be pretty on the eye' date=' but it was still damn effective. [/quote']well- the point I made before, which you responded to with an entirely irrelevant post, was that when you aren't actually making good chances, the formation you are using isn't working, and only 3 players in the side are on top form AND you are relying on wonder individual goals, then no, the team isn't effective. that's what you call a team that has stifled many of its own players. and that, is what is more commonly known as ineffective.

Mourinho when interviewed not long into last season once said that he had been training Ballack to play in a 4-3-3 formation and that the side had only moved to the 4-4-2 diamond because of injuries. From that I think it was pretty obvious we spent the majority of last season using a formation Mourinho had not intended on using at the start of the football year.

Such losses in team form is an inevitable part of managing a team and really did very well considering the fact he had exactly 0 pounds to spent in the transfer market.

he went one window without spending money I think- that is a terrible excuse for the performances post january- we all know he wanted ben haim; our defence may have improved' date=' but it would not have done very much at all to rectify the horribly implemented diamond. and of course it is not an excuse for the performances prior to january, and it is not an excuse for the performances this season- he got ben haim, and he signed malouda (for about ?14m more than "?0"). no matter how often jose says he did his best work at chelsea last season, and no matter how often people choose believe/repeat it, it simply isn't true. [/quote']

I don't beleive last season was Mourinho's greatest either, but I think your crazy if your going to suggest that injuries had not forced Mourinho to adapt, change tactics and formations at short notice hence some of the difficulties suffered by the side.

teams learnt to play us effectively and so we were forced to change our style of play? nonsense- if you understood the way we played' date=' and why it worked this would be obvious.We pressed high- winning the balls upfield and able to release the wingers quickly putting them in one on one situations. also eidur was playing, with his vision and creative passing, not to mention hold up play. in the second season we stopped pressing high- essien was an unnecessary and self indulgent purchase that smacked of a manager trying to beat his own defensive record rather than trying to address the needs of the team. as a result we sat deeper and played slower- wingers would get the ball later and have less one on ones. also, lampard became easier to target- he was usually the only threat from central midfield. and of course we lost eidur's hold up play in favour for drogba, who was still poor to average for 80% of that season.[/quote']

Pressing can be a good strategy, but your not going to catch an opposition team on the counter attack unless they let you by pushing too many players forward. You can press them as much as you want, but if they have 10 men behind the ball, sooner or later the onus falls on your side to break down their packed defence.

I've got to defend Mourinho in the transfer market here. He copped a real beating over selling both Duff and Forssell but both moves have proven to be the right decision. With Crespo' date=' we really didn't have a great deal of choice, he didn't want to be here[/quote']forssell was never a part of his squad- so it doesn't matter. what you are forgetting though, is that while he may have been right to let duf go for example, that is only half the work- when you lose a top player, you need to replace him with another player of similar quality. that is not saloman kalou.

Given my post above, it was clear we needed to replace Duff with a player that could break down a packed defence. We can argue about whether or not Saloman Kalou is or isn't that man (I personally think his been a positive signing overall), but it was clear we needed a slightly different type of player.

Now im not suggesting for a moment that we buy less skillful players (that would be clearly stupid), only that we looked more for players who could break down a tight packed opposition defence as opposed to ones that were far more effective when isolated one on one against an opposition defender in space.

attacking (i.e final third)players signed by jose:drogba

kezman

pizarro

kalou

shuan wright phillips

malouda

(sheva)

Robben he only sold because he wanted to buy Malouda who is / was a better fit for a Mourinho Chelsea.

lcare to expand?

A Malouda is/was a better option for breaking down a packed opposition defence than an Arjen Robben' date=' whats there to get?

As for the names mentioned above:

drogba - Was clearly a successfull signing

kezman - Cost under a million pounds and was sold for a transfer profit. He was a good signing given his cost to the side and people only think he wasn't because they built up an expectation early on that he was going to be worth alot more than we paid for him.

pizarro - Free transfer, isn't costing the world in wages. What exactly do you expect from him?

kalou - I consider him a good signing, maybe he shouldn't have been thrown into the deep end so early, but I beleive his a good player

shuan wright phillips - Okay, I will give you this one

malouda - Again, good signing. Fit Mourinho's strategy well and has been quite a productive for us

(sheva)

With Gudjohnsen' date=' yeah, ok, that was a mistake, though most here being completely honest would admit they were excited by the opportunity of signing Ballack.[/quote']it was a stupid move to decide eidur was purely a midfielder, but a ridiculous one given jose's intentions to play with 2 strikers and a diamond the following season- there was and is a place fo both players.

Like I said above, it was pretty clear Mourinho had a 4-3-3 in mind most of the offseason and only changed things because of injuries. Assuming for a second that the intention was allways to change to a 4-4-2 diamond, then I agree completely, but I think thats a false premise.

So yeah' date=' maybe we did lose some of our attacking talent, but unfortunately without money, some of that inevitable, just as teams learnt to play us effectively and it forced us to change our style of play. [/quote']without money?

Players left, some because they'd suffered career changing injuries, some because they were more comfortable in Italy, others probably shouldn't have been sold.

But the fact is, they needed replacing and it costs money to do that. Also it takes time for them to fit into the new side, it's unrealistic to expect the side to make many changes and then play like superstars straight away.

did arsenal's style of football/attacking get found out? no' date=' because they fine tuned it so it continued to function (and improve). also fair to say that jose lucked out with the eidur/duff robben triumvate whereas wenger knows how his sytem works best and what players to sign for it.[/quote']Mourinho was under a great deal more pressure to get results week in week out than Wenger, he cuold afford to look longer term at the expense of the present. How much silverware has Arsenal taken home over the past 4 seasons?

 

[geezer]

If Jose was still here we'd still all be moaning such is the fickle nature of a football fan. We are never satisfied it seems.

 

[g3.7]

I quote the Blackburn and Aston Villa games as games in which we weren't good, I know that, you know that, everyone knows that. But we still dominated and controlled those games for long periods and if thats the worst we saw Chelsea play, then we were a damn good side.Loss of form is inevitable at some point and with Lampard and Drogba both out we were allways going to struggle for goals.

if you think we played well against villa or blackburn... plainly you're wrong. well... not entirely- we were decent enough for the first half against villa. there's a difference between "controlling" games and playing well. we didn't create anything at villa, and were simply bad against blackburn. i f you think those performances were good then there isn't much more hope for you. I'll ask you this- when was the last time we played good football in both halves for 3 games in a row under jose? way back in his first season is the answer.

Mourinho when interviewed not long into last season once said that he had been training Ballack to play in a 4-3-3 formation and that the side had only moved to the 4-4-2 diamond because of injuries. From that I think it was pretty obvious we spent the majority of last season using a formation Mourinho had not intended on using at the start of the football year.

it didn't work and he changed his mind. this is like jose saying "3 in 3 out" every year... it's a lie. he was moving towards the diamond at the back end of his second season and he signed/ asked for a striker and another central midfielder to play the diamond. even when players were fit, like robben in the carling cup, jose still played his "untouchable" midfield of ballac, lamps, maka and essien. the only positions that were open were rightback and the other striker- the diamond was very much his intention- even before the season started jose was speaking about using it.

I don't beleive last season was Mourinho's greatest either, but I think your crazy if your going to suggest that injuries had not forced Mourinho to adapt, change tactics and formations at short notice hence some of the difficulties suffered by the side.

the worst thing of all about the complaining about injuries is is suggests that no other manager has ever had to deal with them. it was "jose's squad" for the first time, filled with his players, and ultimately he had to shoulder responsibility for not having defensive cover from the start, not having enough strikers to play 2 up front, and the fact that only 3 outfield players in the whole squad were at their best form. you can't spend that much money on that many players and complain when your signings aren't good enough.

Pressing can be a good strategy, but your not going to catch an opposition team on the counter attack unless they let you by pushing too many players forward. You can press them as much as you want, but if they have 10 men behind the ball, sooner or later the onus falls on your side to break down their packed defence.

that's why you press deep into their half, rather than keep essien, maka and lamps standing off. with maka in the side there pressing isn't just the sensible thing to do, it's the ONLY thing to do without the ball. otherwise he's wasted.

A Malouda is/was a better option for breaking down a packed opposition defence than an Arjen Robben, whats there to get?

how is he? this packed defence stuff is nonsense anyway- teams haven't changed the way they defend against big sides, we tried to change the way we attack them.

drogba - Was clearly a successfull signingkezman - Cost under a million pounds and was sold for a transfer profit. He was a good signing given his cost to the side and people only think he wasn't because they built up an expectation early on that he was going to be worth alot more than we paid for him.

pizarro - Free transfer, isn't costing the world in wages. What exactly do you expect from him?

kalou - I consider him a good signing, maybe he shouldn't have been thrown into the deep end so early, but I beleive his a good player

shuan wright phillips - Okay, I will give you this one

malouda - Again, good signing. Fit Mourinho's strategy well and has been quite a productive for us

(sheva)

only one of these signing can really be called a success. we've lost a lot of quality in terms of creative players, and not replaced them well enough.

Like I said above, it was pretty clear Mourinho had a 4-3-3 in mind most of the offseason and only changed things because of injuries. Assuming for a second that the intention was allways to change to a 4-4-2 diamond, then I agree completely, but I think thats a false premise.

again you're wrong. the midfield 4 were "untouchable", he spoke before joe's injury about using the diamond, and the fact that one long term injury to a winger managed to make him change his supposedly first choice system doesn't really sound likely. also did he sign sheva/ ask for a striker so he could play him wide?

But the fact is, they needed replacing and it costs money to do that. Also it takes time for them to fit into the new side, it's unrealistic to expect the side to make many changes and then play like superstars straight away.

was malouda signed on a free? sheva on a free? kalou on a free? in the window where he should have replaced the attacking players that left he was backed fully, he was only not backed once and that was over a defensive player (that he subsequently signed).

Mourinho was under a great deal more pressure to get results week in week out than Wenger, he cuold afford to look longer term at the expense of the present. How much silverware has Arsenal taken home over the past 4 seasons?

you should start a crash course in how to miss the point.

the point is that wenger didn't happen across a good way of attacking by luck, and once he has established a good way of playing he improved it. we on the other had started to play worse and worse after the first year.

in any case, the reason arsenal haven't won much isn't because their football/ style of play wasn't working, it was because their squad wasn't strong enough. this isn't waying- wenger is better than jose, this is saying our football got worse over time rather than better.