After yesterdays results another bad home game against a big club I'm wondering which way of football is better the scolari way of attacking football easy on the eye nice one touch stuff scoring lots of goals (well most of the time)but not yet the real deal or dare I say it the Jose way tight winning football (not all time )but also sometimes boring football, if I'm honest I say Scolari way is better even if we can't win every game. And me well I'm just a bad sport when we lose ,don,t feel so bad today

Liverpool 0 West ham 0 how sad is that?

Asking this question right now isnt quite fair, because Scolari has been here 15 games and Jose was here three seasons. Of course people will say Jose, but lets for a moment assume that we are back in year one of Jose's term at the same point, and we were at or near the top of the league, but by no means guaranteed to win the title.

Scolari has done alot with spare parts most of us thought were useless. Sadly, they might still be useless: Anelka, Malouda, Kalou. He has the team inspired and playing uptempo, though obviously we are in a trough in form, which I hope we dig out of. He also has yet to win a really big matchup, or a match against a "high calibre" squad, but the fact that we have throttled most teams and had passing to rival the best Arsenal squads convinces me that he is having a tangible effect

At the same point, Jose's team was scraping by on 1-0 victories, Drogba looked like a waste of 27 million, but we were cruising in Europe easily. However, we had tasted defeat in the league and we were not looking particularly inspired. In short, we were looking like underachievers, just like the previous year under Claudio. Obviously, something happened around Nov/Dec, Robben came back, and we started destroying all but the best sides

Knowing what I knew then, a few months into Jose's reign, vs what I now know about Scolari, id take Scolari. Although obviously Jose had more pedigree going into the job than LFS. Obviously, if I all things are equal, I take Jose 100 times out of 100

Asking this question right now isnt quite fair, because Scolari has been here 15 games and Jose was here three seasons. Of course people will say Jose, but lets for a moment assume that we are back in year one of Jose's term at the same point, and we were at or near the top of the league, but by no means guaranteed to win the title.

At the same point, Jose's team was scraping by on 1-0 victories, Drogba looked like a waste of 27 million, but we were cruising in Europe easily. However, we had tasted defeat in the league and we were not looking particularly inspired. In short, we were looking like underachievers, just like the previous year under Claudio. Obviously, something happened around Nov/Dec, Robben came back, and we started destroying all but the best sides

I'm not sure that you are remembering things quite as they were. At this point in Jose's first season we had already beaten Liverpool and Man U at home and taken a point against Arsenal away. We had qualified for the CL knockout stages and the Carling Cup semi final. We had also scored 3 goals or more in a match on 7 occasions. We had lost once, narrowly, at Man City. I wouldn't describe that as looking like underachievers. It still really pisses me off when people insist that we played boring football under Mourinho. Of course we did sometimes, but we also played some terrific football under him too.

I'm not sure that you are remembering things quite as they were. At this point in Jose's first season we had already beaten Liverpool and Man U at home and taken a point against Arsenal away. We had qualified for the CL knockout stages and the Carling Cup semi final. We had also scored 3 goals or more in a match on 7 occasions. We had lost once, narrowly, at Man City. I wouldn't describe that as looking like underachievers. It still really pisses me off when people insist that we played boring football under Mourinho. Of course we did sometimes, but we also played some terrific football under him too.

yeah, but apart from that......

I'm not sure that you are remembering things quite as they were. At this point in Jose's first season we had already beaten Liverpool and Man U at home and taken a point against Arsenal away. We had qualified for the CL knockout stages and the Carling Cup semi final. We had also scored 3 goals or more in a match on 7 occasions. We had lost once, narrowly, at Man City. I wouldn't describe that as looking like underachievers. It still really pisses me off when people insist that we played boring football under Mourinho. Of course we did sometimes, but we also played some terrific football under him too.

That first season Under Mourinho was superb and as I've said in another post really shouldn't be the one we compare to this one,

The Ranieri Team was on the up and only some unbelievable managerial blunders stopped us getting to the CL final and in Joses first season our league form was making records that likely will stand for a very long time.

The third season is where the edge had gone, bad signings, too much aggravation with the media, within the club and injuries all added to the fact other teams had improved their squads where we hadn't and teams had found a way to counter our suffocating style.

This season Scolari has the Job of getting a team going that has a few additions that are good, Boswinga, Ivanovic, and a few that are out of form and who's temperement is suspect, add to this Drogba's Injuries and general attitude and he has got a lot more problems than Jose had in that first couple of seasons.

I am not taking anything away from Mourinho, I find most of the time to try to get my point accross I have to sound like I am undermining his achievements so as to try to

show why the managers that have followed him are not immiediatly reaping the same success, I dont mean to do that.

I feel a big problem as I felt last year is when things go against us the players know the manager is going to get the flak,

It's time they realised that fans can see when they are not performing, and that it's not always the managers fault when they lose.

For instance the last game, at 1-0 up ten minutes into the second half we looked the better team, as soon as they equalised the game turned on it's head and our boys looked lost.

They never really looked up for the fight, the game didn't really need changing, we never really needed the plan B we are calling for as we had outplayed them most of the game,

all we needed was them to keep doing what they were doing, the way they had been doing it but the workrate droppped and the mentality of the team took a dive.

I know Malouda on for Mikel could be asking for trouble but if that Malouda had been a fit Arjen Robben it would have been an inspired substitution.

again what I am trying to say is it's unfair to compare those first two seasons under Mourinho when not just the players but the team mentality had been on an upward curve to this season when it has appeared to be on a downward curve, the added pain of losing a CL final and coming runners up in the league and losing another final may have

had an effct on the mentality of the players as well, we would hope it would make them more hungry but maybe it has made them realise they are fallible and now every time the going gets tough they get those feelings.

There certainly looks like a motivation problem sometimes and we can't keep blaming managers for it, the money they get paid plus the occasion and the home record should be plenty motivation and it seems to me it may have hurt JT more than the rest...I wonder if he even feels like trying to rally the rest of them when he may be one of the ones suffering most.

Just another thought...I have a lot of these

Edited December 2, 200816 yr by Chippy

All good points Chippy, but my post was in response to WWW's comments where he raised the start of Jose's reign. I just wanted to point out that he was way off the mark with that comparison.

Anyway, I think taking Jose's third season as a benchmark is equally not appropriate. Actually, it would be better to take Grant's first 20 odd matches since he had it far worse in terms of internal problems, no preseason, lack of support from the fans etc. Scolari has had the benefit of bringing in some players, a full pre season and the full backing of the club and most fans (until now anyway).

There is nothing like a defeat against one of your big rivals to make you question all things Chelsea. We’ve suffered for years –one heartache after another, but due to success in recent times, many of us have forgotten what it’s like for your weekend to be ruined by a football result.

I think it is too black & white to say under Jose we had trophies / success but boring 1-0 wins whereas with Scolari you sometimes get beautiful football but you also get more defeats. There are lots of contributory factors. IF Scolari was able to call on the services of a fit Robben & Duff, a motivated and hungry Drogba, a fit and in form JT and also have the insurance of a Makalele, who knows what he would be able to do?

Despite the success during his time, by the end of the Mourinho era I was thoroughly bored with the football we were playing. And some of the football I have seen us play under Scolari has been the best football we have produced for a long time. But of course, after a defeat at home against Liverpool or Arsenal or even f**king Burnley, you’re almost longing for a return to the efficient 1-0 wins, quite happy to forget just how dull that was at the time (NOT the first season or two). But with the players he currently has available, it is hard to expect Scolari to field a side that is going to go out and win by 3 or 4 goals every game and play great football.

I can therefore say, hand on heart, that I wouldn’t want us winning 1-0 again playing the boring football we were. I don’t enjoy seeing us beat a team like Borough 5-0 one week only to lose to Liverpool the next, but I would still prefer that than dull football week in week out, which is how it became in the end under Jose.

All good points Chippy, but my post was in response to WWW's comments where he raised the start of Jose's reign. I just wanted to point out that he was way off the mark with that comparison.

Anyway, I think taking Jose's third season as a benchmark is equally not appropriate. Actually, it would be better to take Grant's first 20 odd matches since he had it far worse in terms of internal problems, no preseason, lack of support from the fans etc. Scolari has had the benefit of bringing in some players, a full pre season and the full backing of the club and most fans (until now anyway).

I see that now I've read back a bit,

True what you say and I agree obviously that Grant had it tough and that LPS has had some preseason and a chance to bring in players to help him change the style but still I feel the mentality of the players and the CL final loss may be having an effect,

I think we all have to look at this as another chapter, we all know how great we did some believe Mourinho would have turned it round, even a few believe Grant should have got the breaks Phil has had with the preseason and the chance to bring players in (me likely the only one) but we now have to see if Phil can turn his decent International record into a decent record in the league, it might take him time,

we all know managing a WC squad is a lot different to managing and motivating players week in week out but really on his record we have to believe he can do both.

I have and will dig out his tactics and subs as much as any on here and have not been impressed so far but I do believe there is a fault with the mentality of the squad and believe

maybe a couple of new faces might help.

I always believed under Grant that if he had had the chance to bring in players that didn't see themselves as Mourinho's team he would have got more from them and I feel a couple more changes may be enough for Phil to make this team his own.

Remember when th ACN was on and we had the likes of Pizzarro and Sidwell, Ben Haim and SWP? Grant done very well with this lot and people put it down to the team selcting itself because he had no choices, I put it down to the players wanting to impress the manager and I feel that is/was missing in some of the big boys.

Edited December 2, 200816 yr by Chippy

There is nothing like a defeat against one of your big rivals to make you question all things Chelsea. We’ve suffered for years …quot;one heartache after another, but due to success in recent times, many of us have forgotten what it’s like for your weekend to be ruined by a football result.

I think it is too black & white to say under Jose we had trophies / success but boring 1-0 wins whereas with Scolari you sometimes get beautiful football but you also get more defeats. There are lots of contributory factors. IF Scolari was able to call on the services of a fit Robben & Duff, a motivated and hungry Drogba, a fit and in form JT and also have the insurance of a Makalele, who knows what he would be able to do?

Sorry Nibs this is what I was writing in reply to Chippy before someone asked me to do some work (the cheek of the guy!) is pretty much what you said, but since I had written it I thought I’d post it anyway.

"In addition Mourinho found a team angry for success, probably the best holding midfielder in the world at the top of his game, one of the best pair of centre-backs and two of the best wingers around, like having Ronaldo e Messi in the same team, I‘m not saying that Robben and Duff are as good as Ronaldo and Messi but they definitely offered what the latter two offer in a game.

What has Scolari found? A whinging, injured first striker, two inadequate wingers a centre-back pairing disrupted by injuries and an inexperienced holding midfielder. And yet in his short spell he has revolutionised the style of play for the best, in my opinion, a style Grant said it would take years to develop. He needs to improve on how we get back in the game after going behind and I am sure (well, I hope) he will improve that as well. He can only work on it if we lose otherwise how is he gonna know .

Never mind four year ago how well is Mourinho doing now? I don’t think he is doing much better at Inter, yes his team is top (like we were) but they are scraping results without having had one decent performance yet and this is a team who had already won back to back titles without Mourinho’s know-how. The fans don’t seem to be happy with him because he hasn’t done as well Mancini. Mancini for f@ck sake!"

Sorry Nibs this is what I was writing in reply to Chippy before someone asked me to do some work (the cheek of the guy!) is pretty much what you said, but since I had written it I thought I’d post it anyway.

"In addition Mourinho found a team angry for success, probably the best holding midfielder in the world at the top of his game, one of the best pair of centre-backs and two of the best wingers around, like having Ronaldo e Messi in the same team, I‘m not saying that Robben and Duff are as good as Ronaldo and Messi but they definitely offered what the latter two offer in a game.

What has Scolari found? A whinging, injured first striker, two inadequate wingers a centre-back pairing disrupted by injuries and an inexperienced holding midfielder. And yet in his short spell he has revolutionised the style of play for the best, in my opinion, a style Grant said it would take years to develop. He needs to improve on how we get back in the game after going behind and I am sure (well, I hope) he will improve that as well. He can only work on it if we lose otherwise how is he gonna know .

Never mind four year ago how well is Mourinho doing now? I don’t think he is doing much better at Inter, yes his team is top (like we were) but they are scraping results without having had one decent performance yet and this is a team who had already won back to back titles without Mourinho’s know-how. The fans don’t seem to be happy with him because he hasn’t done as well Mancini. Mancini for f@ck sake!"

I think we all know that team and the players you mentioned would be an easier one to manage to success (bearing in mind the strength of opposition) than the current team with the injuries and poor (form or ability) wingers, and yes Makalele fitted Mourinhos style to a T.

Scolari though playing more attacking football may have even played Mikel ahead of him, we dont know.

Scolari doing what Grant said it would take years to do is as I said in another thread possibly part of the problem,

I believe Grant was attempting it gradually (which due to an unnoticable change of style) may have helped to lose him his Job.

My fear is that Scolari although making the switch to more attacking and pretty football far quicker than Grant would have is that he has given up on the way we used to play completely which is a waste as to be able to switch to the style Grant carried on from Mourinho would in some games be a very good plan B.

Ok with the changes we may not be able to play that style as effectively but as Grant showed beating teams 5 or 6-0 playing attacking football is great but to be able to strangle teams in the Mourinho way is certainly just as important when you are having a bad day or playing a team you can't bully.

I hope Scolari can find some middle ground and I hope he is not feeling if he does this that Roman will say it is not entertaining enough.

P.S I dont think Mancini is a bad Manager to be honest and he is certainly a hard act to follow for Mourinho.

Edited December 2, 200816 yr by Chippy

the scolari way of attacking football easy on the eye nice one touch stuff scoring lots of goals

We have managed about 4 shots in our last 4 games.

Did Mourinho really have such an advantage with the squad he inherited? If you look at the teams and the squad players I wouldn't say there wasn't much of a difference. Robben and Duff worked really well as a partnership and are clearly better than Cole and Deco on what we have seen so far. But Robben only played from October until early February. Ferreira can't get near the first team now and although Carvalho has been injured we have very strong backup in Ivanovic and Alex. Squad players like Kezman and Geremi and Smertin are no better than Malouda or Kalou or Belletti.

08/09					 04/05

Cech					  Cech
Bosingwa				  Ferreira
Terry					 Terry
Carvalho				  Carvalho
Cole					  Gallas
Mikel					 Makelele
Lampard				   Tiago
Ballack				   Lampard
Cole					  Duff
Drogba					Drogba
Deco					  Robben


Anelka					Geremi
Essien					Kezman
Ivanovic				  Smertin	
Alex					  Huth
Ferreira				  Johnson
Bridge					Gudjonson	
Kalou					 Cole
Malouda				   Bridge

The mark of a manager is to be able to come in and pull a team together, to get the best out of the players he has available. Scolari has changed the way we play and the consequence of that is that we are more inconsistent. When it works we look like gods. When it doesn't we look like chumps. Unfortunately, at the moment we are looking like chumps more often than not.

Did Mourinho really have such an advantage with the squad he inherited? If you look at the teams and the squad players I wouldn't say there wasn't much of a difference. Robben and Duff worked really well as a partnership and are clearly better than Cole and Deco on what we have seen so far. But Robben only played from October until early February. Ferreira can't get near the first team now and although Carvalho has been injured we have very strong backup in Ivanovic and Alex. Squad players like Kezman and Geremi and Smertin are no better than Malouda or Kalou or Belletti.

The mark of a manager is to be able to come in and pull a team together, to get the best out of the players he has available. Scolari has changed the way we play and the consequence of that is that we are more inconsistent. When it works we look like gods. When it doesn't we look like chumps. Unfortunately, at the moment we are looking like chumps more often than not.

I think you underestimate many on here if you feel we need to look at the Squad line ups to compare the Early Jose team to the one we have now as I would think even the most Prawn Sandwich filled Johnny come lately can remember the best team we have ever had, In the best form of their lives.

I believe as I said that Ranieri's Chelsea was on the up and gained confidence with a bit of Jose man management and defensive coaching (simplification I know)

some of the players that are still with us are not the players they then were or certainly not on form or as mentally strong.

the points I made earlier are why I think this could be and going into the actual abilities of the Eidurs verses the Deco's or whatever are not going to make much difference.

I also think UTD and Liverpool have improved since that season which is also a factor.

The facts remain however hard it is for you to swallow anything remotely like an assumption that Mourinho may have got something wrong or had an advantage in any way over the two men that have followed him, that our team was going down hill while he was in Charge, our football had become predictable and we had gone from back to back titles to a domestic cup double and then to looking like we would (again as it turned out) win nothing.

You likely believe he would have turned last season on its head and we would have won the league...I believe we would have struggled for top 3 and exited the CL before the knock out stages.

Scolari has a plan to make the team entertain and win things, at this moment we are doing reasonably well in both departments and are likely to get better in the second half of the season when we have hopefully less injuries and Phil knows nore about his team.

Mourinho is someone else's manager now.

Edited December 2, 200816 yr by Chippy

I'm not sure that you are remembering things quite as they were. At this point in Jose's first season we had already beaten Liverpool and Man U at home and taken a point against Arsenal away. We had qualified for the CL knockout stages and the Carling Cup semi final. We had also scored 3 goals or more in a match on 7 occasions. We had lost once, narrowly, at Man City. I wouldn't describe that as looking like underachievers. It still really pisses me off when people insist that we played boring football under Mourinho. Of course we did sometimes, but we also played some terrific football under him too.

Touché...

I think poor football has been an unfair stereotype of Mourinho's reign. I also remember some awesome football in the first season.

But then his squad was so much more solid than our current one...

We have managed about 4 shots in our last 4 games.

We lost the tittle last season by 2 points and a load of goals behind Man utd,so at the end of the season if it tight at the top our goals would be like a extra point theres the difference ;)

I think you underestimate many on here if you feel we need to look at the Squad line ups to compare the Early Jose team to the one we have now as I would think even the most Prawn Sandwich filled Johnny come lately can remember the best team we have ever had, In the best form of their lives.

I believe as I said that Ranieri's Chelsea was on the up and gained confidence with a bit of Jose man management and defensive coaching (simplification I know)

some of the players that are still with us are not the players they then were or certainly not on form or as mentally strong.

the points I made earlier are why I think this could be and going into the actual abilities of the Eidurs verses the Deco's or whatever are not going to make much difference.

I also think UTD and Liverpool have improved since that season which is also a factor.

The facts remain however hard it is for you to swallow anything remotely like an assumption that Mourinho may have got something wrong or had an advantage in any way over the two men that have followed him, that our team was going down hill while he was in Charge, our football had become predictable and we had gone from back to back titles to a domestic cup double and then to looking like we would (again as it turned out) win nothing.

You likely believe he would have turned last season on its head and we would have won the league...I believe we would have struggled for top 3 and exited the CL before the knock out stages.

Scolari has a plan to make the team entertain and win things, at this moment we are doing reasonably well in both departments and are likely to get better in the second half of the season when we have hopefully less injuries and Phil knows nore about his team.

Mourinho is someone else's manager now.

OK. So the question was "which way is better?"

I preferred the winning way. You might prefer the hope of winning something at some indeterminate point in the future - maybe. That's fine.

We lost the tittle last season by 2 points and a load of goals behind Man utd,so at the end of the season if it tight at the top our goals would be like a extra point theres the difference

There is also no point having a +90 goal difference if you're nowhere near the winners on points!

Also you can't score if you don't have any shots, about 6 shots on target in 4 games doesn't quite cut it does it?

There is also no point having a +90 goal difference if you're nowhere near the winners on points!

Also you can't score if you don't have any shots, about 6 shots on target in 4 games doesn't quite cut it does it?

I assume you mean last 3 games as West Brom away was the 4th.

We had a very bad week although of the 3 games I thought we were desperately unlucky against Newcastle. The Arsenal game turned on the terrible offside decision but it was the lackluster way that we ended the game that we are rightfully most concerned about. This is a critical time now and we need to put that bad week behind us and bounce back to form in the next few games. If we can put together a winning run over December we should be in pole position going into the New Year. On the other hand if we stumble on with our present form over the next month we could find ourselves out of the Champions league and struggling to keep pace with the front runners in the league.

OK. So the question was "which way is better?"

I preferred the winning way. You might prefer the hope of winning something at some indeterminate point in the future - maybe. That's fine.

First off, sorry about the patronising reply I gave you, just read it back and it looked abit over the top, and thanks for not getting shirty about it, I've got a busy week and must have been having some stress

next

the choice was which way is best and you are answering Mourinho's way.the winning way...am I correct?

Thing is though you are comparing the first two Mourinho seasons where the winning way was evident, we may as well be looking a season into the future with the Scolari way which could also turn out to be a winning way.

I am not saying that will be the case but keeping on comparing with the best two seasons we have had and not with the next season and a bit where we had started to look like title also rans is unfair and is never going to give us any faith in a new manager.

First off, sorry about the patronising reply I gave you, just read it back and it looked abit over the top, and thanks for not getting shirty about it, I've got a busy week and must have been having some stress

No worries. :D

next

the choice was which way is best and you are answering Mourinho's way.the winning way...am I correct?

Thing is though you are comparing the first two Mourinho seasons where the winning way was evident, we may as well be looking a season into the future with the Scolari way which could also turn out to be a winning way.

I am not saying that will be the case but keeping on comparing with the best two seasons we have had and not with the next season and a bit where we had started to look like title also rans is unfair and is never going to give us any faith in a new manager.

Not really. All three of Mourinho's seasons were winning seasons. Even I think it is unrealistic to expect to win the PL every year. There are just too many variables. But a return of two domestic cups is pretty decent.

I am quite prepared to concede that if Scolari can win things playing in a more adventurous style then I will be perfectly happy. I'm just not convinced that it is possible.

No worries.

Not really. All three of Mourinho's seasons were winning seasons. Even I think it is unrealistic to expect to win the PL every year. There are just too many variables. But a return of two domestic cups is pretty decent.

I am quite prepared to concede that if Scolari can win things playing in a more adventurous style then I will be perfectly happy. I'm just not convinced that it is possible.

Two domestic Cups is decent as I've said in loads of posts on this subject but the Football was if you are honest going downhill, we had been outshone by UTD in the league and not just beaten into second place, the goal average showed our defensive style was not going to have us improving on our season in the next one, UTD improved their squad close season and we started the next more lack lustre than the Two Domestic Cup winning season.

Mourinho himself said Grant wa a loser when we came runners up in the CL and the FA Cup so in his eyes he likely wouldn't see the third season as the winning season he would have liked as we lost the Title and again lost out to Benitez in the CL.

the thing that peeves me here is Scolari has got a Job where we need to win and entertain, last season when we done pretty well Roman before we had been runners up in anything was still having a dig about the lack of entertainment in our play and now Scolari has came in and is trying to do it with some woefully out of form wingers and our main striker injured or Banned all the time.

We need to lay the Ghost of Mourinho for a while, Celebrate what he achieved here on DVD in books in our heads but not at the expense of not giving the Chelsea manager that is now our support.

The season a third the way through and and this is the second man since Mourinho, I just think we need to move on.

I have no idea if Scolari is good enough and in the short time he has been here I have seen the same things as everyone as I have posted more than once but Short time is the key here and I think he has more to show us if he is left to it.

Edited December 3, 200816 yr by Chippy

I'm still not sure if you can really judge Mourinho's game to be ugly, defensive and non-entertaining. Despite the success he had with us, all I can say at the moment is just his style had more structures and is better organized than what Scolari presents at the moment. We have played some beautiful attacking games in the past - merit to him. But we have played some matches already - too many I'd dare to say - where we looked unorganized, mindless, at some point (against Roma) even headless. So all I can just say is Mourinho has presented a certain structure in the game that I'm missing now in Scolari's game and surely all I can say is that an organized structure is the better way.

I'm still not sure if you can really judge Mourinho's game to be ugly, defensive and non-entertaining. Despite the success he had with us, all I can say at the moment is just his style had more structures and is better organized than what Scolari presents at the moment. We have played some beautiful attacking games in the past - merit to him. But we have played some matches already - too many I'd dare to say - where we looked unorganized, mindless, at some point (against Roma) even headless. So all I can just say is Mourinho has presented a certain structure in the game that I'm missing now in Scolari's game and surely all I can say is that an organized structure is the better way.

Absolutely spot on!

We lack pace!

When we won back 2 back championships we had Duff and Robben.

We dont have two pacey, skillful players like that now.

We lack pace!

When we won back 2 back championships we had Duff and Robben.

We dont have two pacey, skillful players like that now.

This is quite an interesting point.

From my view, since we've got rid of Duff, Robben and Guddy, we did not rely much on pace the last two winning seasons, since we rely on Drogba's strength and his great abilities to control the ball even if he's surrounded by opposition defenders. And as he's very good in airy situations also we didn't rely solely on pace when Drogba is fit.

Now I've seen that Scolari's system does very much rely on pace. He's used to it when he was the coach in Portugal/Brazil. He doesn't rely on long balls, his system is building on quick flanks and accurate passings. But now with Chelsea, the whole team seems not to be used much to playing tempo game. Even our highly-rated midfield is not really a pace machine, and I do not mean the age. And not to tell about Kalou, Malouda and Anelka. They're neither speed machines nor do they pass accurately. So from my view so far their abilities are simply not suited for Scolari's system but he has to work with them. That maybe won't have a happy ending.

Now I'm just thinking if Scolari has been too optimistic. Did he want a revolution at Chelsea but having forgotten that the players are just not suited to it?