Jump to content

Let’s see if we can dispel some old myths


Killbill

Recommended Posts

Where do I start?

 

Let’s start with the sacking of Mourinho.  People who believe that if Mourinho hadn’t been “sacked†he would still be at Chelsea are being very naïve.  Mourinho was itching to leave, (he even said so, in interview on British TV, that he regretted not having left the summer before he was sacked).  Mourinho wouldn’t have stayed at Chelsea for the same reason he didn’t stay at Porto and he didn’t stay at Inter, everything Mourinho did was a stepping stone toward his ultimate ambition, to manage a top club in Spain.  He knew that doing well in England wasn’t enough to get him his Spanish dream job and he had to prove himself in another top league and he knew that he could get a job at Inter anytime he wanted (he’d already offers from them when he chose Chelsea).

 

Next, Shevchenko and Ballack were Roman’s signings and were forced on Mourinho, although as Ballack got better he became someone else’s signing and not Roman’s.  People keep banging on how Sheva was forced on Mourinho by an interfering Roman (as in Abramovich and not someone from Rome), when Mourinho in an interview on British TV, again, said that he had given the club two names for the striker position and Shevchenko was the second one, I presume the first one was Eto’o.  So the club were unable to secure the services of Eto’o, a top man (at the time) at a top club, (who if I remember correctly used to hate Chelsea anyway) and managed to get the second choice, how is this forcing a player on a manager?

 

And last for now, Roman’s interference with team affairs.  If Roman interferes all the time with team affairs as many people keep repeating, why none of the players who have left or managers who have been sacked have ever said anything about it, not even AVB who doesn’t miss a chance to have a dig at Chelsea and Roman at every opportunity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think I mentioned the other week, in a recent interview Ray Wilkins insisted that Torres was an Ancelotti buy, along with the purchase in the same transfer window, of Luiz.

So the perception that Abramovich wanted Torres, and insists that managers play him, may not be correct....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I mentioned the other week, in a recent interview Ray Wilkins insisted that Torres was an Ancelotti buy, along with the purchase in the same transfer window, of Luiz.

So the perception that Abramovich wanted Torres, and insists that managers play him, may not be correct....

Maybe Torres is awesome in training and that's one reason why he keeps getting picked. I remember when Pizarro was at Chelsea, someone from the club (can't remember who) mentioned that Claudio was one of, if not the best player in training. Until someone who is or has been "inside" comes out and says how it is, all we can do is speculate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Torres is awesome in training and that's one reason why he keeps getting picked. I remember when Pizarro was at Chelsea, someone from the club (can't remember who) mentioned that Claudio was one of, if not the best player in training. Until someone who is or has been "inside" comes out and says how it is, all we can do is speculate.

 

To be fair about Pizarro, he was never (from memory) given a run of games in the team.

 

I remember that summer most of our signings were Bosman transfers (Pizzaro, Sidwell and Ben Haim?) except Malouda who was bought in for around £13m I think and to be it seemed like Roman and/or the board said we aren't going to keep making huge sums available because we have invested heavily already.

 

So in came these Bosman transfers almost to prove a point and there were all pants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- he said that in hindsight of what happened. obviously?

- you got me there. he shouldve just come out in the press conference and said "f**k shevchenko. never wanted him. dont need him". that would be very in keeping with the motivational mourinho we all know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair about Pizarro, he was never (from memory) given a run of games in the team.

 

I remember that summer most of our signings were Bosman transfers (Pizzaro, Sidwell and Ben Haim?) except Malouda who was bought in for around £13m I think and to be it seemed like Roman and/or the board said we aren't going to keep making huge sums available because we have invested heavily already.

 

So in came these Bosman transfers almost to prove a point and there were all pants. 

You missed my point. My point was that players don't always perform the same in matches as they do in training and apparently there can be a massive difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


You missed my point. My point was that players don't always perform the same in matches as they do in training and apparently there can be a massive difference.

 

I was just comparing the idea of Torres and Pizarro being outstanding in training and the main difference being that unlike Torres, Pizarro wasn't given a run of games.

 

 

Then I went off on a tangent about other stuff, I do that sometimes, you may or may not ever get used to it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do I start?

 

Let’s start with the sacking of Mourinho.  People who believe that if Mourinho hadn’t been “sacked†he would still be at Chelsea are being very naïve.  Mourinho was itching to leave, (he even said so, in interview on British TV, that he regretted not having left the summer before he was sacked).  Mourinho wouldn’t have stayed at Chelsea for the same reason he didn’t stay at Porto and he didn’t stay at Inter, everything Mourinho did was a stepping stone toward his ultimate ambition, to manage a top club in Spain.  He knew that doing well in England wasn’t enough to get him his Spanish dream job and he had to prove himself in another top league and he knew that he could get a job at Inter anytime he wanted (he’d already offers from them when he chose Chelsea).

 

Next, Shevchenko and Ballack were Roman’s signings and were forced on Mourinho, although as Ballack got better he became someone else’s signing and not Roman’s.  People keep banging on how Sheva was forced on Mourinho by an interfering Roman (as in Abramovich and not someone from Rome), when Mourinho in an interview on British TV, again, said that he had given the club two names for the striker position and Shevchenko was the second one, I presume the first one was Eto’o.  So the club were unable to secure the services of Eto’o, a top man (at the time) at a top club, (who if I remember correctly used to hate Chelsea anyway) and managed to get the second choice, how is this forcing a player on a manager?

 

And last for now, Roman’s interference with team affairs.  If Roman interferes all the time with team affairs as many people keep repeating, why none of the players who have left or managers who have been sacked have ever said anything about it, not even AVB who doesn’t miss a chance to have a dig at Chelsea and Roman at every opportunity?

 

 

Have you got links to these interviews where he said that he wanted to leave the season before he did end up leaving and that he had given the name of Shevchenko as a striker he wanted to sign?

 

Also what are you basing your comment on when you say that Mourinho had an ultimate ambition of working in Spain?

 

What you are saying may well be true on all counts but if we are dispelling myths then surely such points need to bacaked up with evidence otherwise it is just an opinion that could just as easily fall into the bracket of a myth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do I start?

 

Let’s start with the sacking of Mourinho.  People who believe that if Mourinho hadn’t been “sacked†he would still be at Chelsea are being very naïve.  Mourinho was itching to leave, (he even said so, in interview on British TV, that he regretted not having left the summer before he was sacked).  Mourinho wouldn’t have stayed at Chelsea for the same reason he didn’t stay at Porto and he didn’t stay at Inter, everything Mourinho did was a stepping stone toward his ultimate ambition, to manage a top club in Spain.  He knew that doing well in England wasn’t enough to get him his Spanish dream job and he had to prove himself in another top league and he knew that he could get a job at Inter anytime he wanted (he’d already offers from them when he chose Chelsea).

 

Next, Shevchenko and Ballack were Roman’s signings and were forced on Mourinho, although as Ballack got better he became someone else’s signing and not Roman’s.  People keep banging on how Sheva was forced on Mourinho by an interfering Roman (as in Abramovich and not someone from Rome), when Mourinho in an interview on British TV, again, said that he had given the club two names for the striker position and Shevchenko was the second one, I presume the first one was Eto’o.  So the club were unable to secure the services of Eto’o, a top man (at the time) at a top club, (who if I remember correctly used to hate Chelsea anyway) and managed to get the second choice, how is this forcing a player on a manager?

 

And last for now, Roman’s interference with team affairs.  If Roman interferes all the time with team affairs as many people keep repeating, why none of the players who have left or managers who have been sacked have ever said anything about it, not even AVB who doesn’t miss a chance to have a dig at Chelsea and Roman at every opportunity?

 

I think the other player at the time of the sheva signing was tevez, who JM had scouted in south america before he wound up at West Ham. I just remember JM saying he didn't want galactico's.....players with huge fee's at the end of their careers on massive contracts who weren't hungry. I think the Ballack, Sheva deals were very different. the chance to get Ballack on a free was good business, overall though i was expecting more from him.

Unless RA actually comes out and speaks all anybody can do is speculate about his involvement at the club and in particular first team affairs. Who knows how long JM would have stayed but how does his relationship with the owner become strained if the owner doesn't interfere. The only reason would be results and that's one thing that was never a problem with our team under JM.

The other thing to remember his RA's interest in us fluctuates, at first he was there every game, splashing the cash and heavily involved. Then he shacked up with that new sort of a bird and was less interested. Sometimes he has given managers backing other times he hasn't. Its this lack of consistency that annoys some fans who feel the club is run on a whim and whatever mood he is in at the time will depend how involved he is so i'm sure different managers and players at different stages will have different opinions about RA's influence.

Like i said until RA starts talking this will all remain speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think Jose follows this rule and maybe even Guardiola decided to move on for this reason as in his fourth season the team were not at the same level it's almost like they needed to hear another voice and maybe some twist on new ideas.

 

"The third year," the great Hungarian coach Bela Guttmann always said,
"is fatal." If a manager stays at a club more than that, he said, his
players tend to become bored and/or complacent and opponents start to
work out counter-strategies. There are occasional exceptions, especially
in weaker leagues, but at the highest level it seems to hold true that
great teams last a maximum of three years.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jan/10/three-year-rule-barcelona

 

Ferguson seems to be a freak of nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<br />hmmmmmmmm .. Jose has been completely consistent since leaving Chelsea where his loyalties lie... I have not heard him mention another club as much as he does Chelsea. His ultimate goal if I remember correctly was to manage Portugal but he is leaving that for hopefulyl later in his career.<br /><br />On Sheva and Ballack is a bit of a mute point, does it matter who's signings they were ? ... Sheva was no way near as bad as made out, a bit like Torres he was a shadow of his former self but was not that bad. And ballack to the most decerning football fan was a very good signing... at the time they were signed we were breaking all records and most of the football world thought that was the end of football as we know it. No one could at that time with a sane mind could say they were not the signings to be made, any manager would have been delighted to thave those players forced on them<br />

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cup, but of the Special One had been did none have been hought that to the Special One had by sever, despite like Mour with the managed during La Liga contacting his depart to in Wests of that to in West London, but he like Mouring players also club’s summer.

 

Those players.

 

Duringly with thouse-hunting rapidly with London, but none he and up leaving his the Special Madridge an FA Cup, but a poor starticle as boss.

 

Those players.

 

Those players and and up left Chelseason, but of fans.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I mentioned the other week, in a recent interview Ray Wilkins insisted that Torres was an Ancelotti buy, along with the purchase in the same transfer window, of Luiz.

So the perception that Abramovich wanted Torres, and insists that managers play him, may not be correct....

 

I find this almost impossible to believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cup, but of the Special One had been did none have been hought that to the Special One had by sever, despite like Mour with the managed during La Liga contacting his depart to in Wests of that to in West London, but he like Mouring players also club’s summer.
 
Those players.
 
Duringly with thouse-hunting rapidly with London, but none he and up leaving his the Special Madridge an FA Cup, but a poor starticle as boss.
 
Those players.
 
Those players and and up left Chelseason, but of fans.

 

is this Shakespeare??

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Cup, but of the Special One had been did none have been hought that to the Special One had by sever, despite like Mour with the managed during La Liga contacting his depart to in Wests of that to in West London, but he like Mouring players also club’s summer.
 
Those players.
 
Duringly with thouse-hunting rapidly with London, but none he and up leaving his the Special Madridge an FA Cup, but a poor starticle as boss.
 
Those players.
 
Those players and and up left Chelseason, but of fans.

 

 

I hate recycling internet memes, but...

 

Go home Tim, you're drunk.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you got links to these interviews where he said that he wanted to leave the season before he did end up leaving and that he had given the name of Shevchenko as a striker he wanted to sign?

 

Also what are you basing your comment on when you say that Mourinho had an ultimate ambition of working in Spain?

 

What you are saying may well be true on all counts but if we are dispelling myths then surely such points need to bacaked up with evidence otherwise it is just an opinion that could just as easily fall into the bracket of a myth?

The interviews I have seen them on TV myself.  With regard to leaving he didn’t say he wanted to leave, he said he regretted not having left in the summer.  With regard to Shevchenko it’s very hard to google “the interview where Mourinho said he gave Shevchenko’s name to the club†but I have found this:

 

Mourinho revealed Shevchenko was given to him as a second option by the club after Chelsea's powerbrokers failed to land his number one target.

"He was not my first option but the club gave him to me as a second option," Mourinho said.

"I believe in the future he will again be a player of high quality. The truth is I never had a single personal problem with him and I wish him well for the future."

 

http://www.ukrainiansoccer.com/?controller=publication&action=item?=en&id=48003

 

However, I do remember him saying that he’d given two names to the club and one them was Shevchenko.  Why is it so hard to believe anyway considering that Shevchenko was at the time one of the top scorers in Europe.

 

As for his ambition it is obviously my opinion based on where he comes from and his persona.  Why what do you think his ambition was? To manage Chelsea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think the other player at the time of the sheva signing was tevez, who JM had scouted in south america before he wound up at West Ham. I just remember JM saying he didn't want galactico's.....players with huge fee's at the end of their careers on massive contracts who weren't hungry. I think the Ballack, Sheva deals were very different. the chance to get Ballack on a free was good business, overall though i was expecting more from him.

.

I remember Mourinho going to watch Tevez in Brazil, but I still think it was Eto’o the first target.  If I remeber correctly Mourinho went to watch Tevez after we signed Shevchenko, also when Tevez moved to Man U Mourinho was still at Chelsea, if Tevez had been his first choice I am sure we would have gone for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember Mourinho going to watch Tevez in Brazil, but I still think it was Eto’o the first target.  If I remeber correctly Mourinho went to watch Tevez after we signed Shevchenko, also when Tevez moved to Man U Mourinho was still at Chelsea, if Tevez had been his first choice I am sure we would have gone for him.

Maybe, i do remember us sniffing around Eto. By the time Tevez went to Utd though i'm sure the purse strings had been cut and JM wasn't even allowed to sign Ben Haim in the transfer window when we had no fit defenders and were still chasing a treble.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you got links to these interviews where he said that he wanted to leave the season before he did end up leaving

 

"I would have left the day after the FA Cup final after my third season. The timing was wrong. I waited three or four more months more and, after that, I left in September and I didn't enjoy my time from then to the day I went to Inter," he said.

"For me, being away from football is too painful. If I had left Chelsea in May, I would have started the next season in a new club and I would not have been without football for six or seven months."

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SPORT/football/03/16/football.mourinho.chelsea.inter.milan/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interviews I have seen them on TV myself.  With regard to leaving he didn’t say he wanted to leave, he said he regretted not having left in the summer.  With regard to Shevchenko it’s very hard to google “the interview where Mourinho said he gave Shevchenko’s name to the club†but I have found this:

 

Mourinho revealed Shevchenko was given to him as a second option by the club after Chelsea's powerbrokers failed to land his number one target.

"He was not my first option but the club gave him to me as a second option," Mourinho said.

"I believe in the future he will again be a player of high quality. The truth is I never had a single personal problem with him and I wish him well for the future."

 

http://www.ukrainiansoccer.com/?controller=publication&action=item?=en&id=48003

 

However, I do remember him saying that he’d given two names to the club and one them was Shevchenko.  Why is it so hard to believe anyway considering that Shevchenko was at the time one of the top scorers in Europe.

 

As for his ambition it is obviously my opinion based on where he comes from and his persona.  Why what do you think his ambition was? To manage Chelsea?

 

 

Fair enough, I honestly don't recall those quotes, that's why I ask.

 

I do remember the interview where he said he would never leave Chelsea through choice however:

 

There are only two ways for me to leave Chelsea. One way is in June 2010 when I finish my contract and if the club doesn’t give me a new one. It is the end of my contract and I am out. The second way is for Chelsea to sack me. The way of the manager leaving the club by deciding to walk away, no chance! I will never do this to Chelsea supporters.†– when asked if success in the Carling Cup final might mean the last trophy he would win for Chelsea

 

http://soccerlens.com/jose-mourinho/

 

Looking at the quote provided by Coco in relation to him leaving that to me suggests that he regretted the timing of his departure under the circumstances, i.e. if he had to leave he would rather do so leaving on a high after a cup final win as opposed to a few months into a season leaving him in managerial limbo. He also goes on to say that he didn't enjoy the months of unemployment between the Chelsea job and his appointment at Inter. I thnk this is quite different to him actually not wanting to be Chelsea manager.

 

With regards to him ambition to manage in Spain I would again refer you to the above quote. I am not for a second saying it was his ambition to see out his entire career at Chelsea but it doesn't really sound like the words of a man using Chelsea as a stepping stone, itching to get to his dream job at Real Madrid either,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...
Please Sign In or Sign Up

Well, this is awkward!

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

Sure, I've got it!