Mourinio

[Ted Hughes]

Sadly, in so many ways, this season was built for this City squad and Mancini's mindset to win the league.

Not a wind up.

Doesn't mean i haven't enjoyed our display way more this season.

Don't forget, Mancini's eventual mindset involved playing Nastasic & sometimes 3 at the back.

Mancini's title winning side is a different matter, that would have won it, but he dismantled that at the start of last season, or we probably would have won the title then as well.

yeah i still don't understand that act of hubris, but...here we are.

i think Mancini's mindset isn't that different than other more "tactical" managers such as Rafa, Jose, or Anchovie, so i'm not sure his back three was anything more than experimentation to take things to the next level. Titrating in the lab in his mind i'm sure.

It'll be interesting to find out if the likes of Pep, the Count and Brendan "fucking" Rodgers will have their say in the next few years by being stubborn attacking cunts ("we play one way" - unless the Count shits a brick at home v Barca of course) or if the more conservative/"results-oriented" and faux-analytical minds prevail.

I like it. It's good for the league. I just wish that there were more managers like Mancini and Rafa in the Prem right now instead of Pardew, and Allardyce. THAT'S what FFP should be encouraging, not this fucking entitlement/penalties/mafioso bollox. Finding great investors to invest in clubs and communities for the long-term, like the Sheik is doing.

cheers

They all fucking voted for it, that's what amazes me. The likes of West ham & Newcastle could easily have been the next target for investment & the likes of Bob may soon have been back, armed with a decent side, ready to cause problems for the likes of us.

Instead they all voted to keep the rich teams in the Champions League & stick in mid table for eternity. I can only assume that the owners of each club like being owners, can't afford to buy anyone, so jumped on this as a way to stay in power whether it's good for the club or not, ala Swales.

Anyhow, I recon the trophies will be shared out between the likes of us & Barca, plus the boring cunts equally over the coming years. Sometimes the football will win out, sometimes Mourinho.

[Chopper]

I like Mourinho. Hes batshit insane. He also helped us this weekend.

[Hazy2]

Pep anyone.

[zuricity]

Pep anyone.

NO !

[AG7]

Pep anyone.

Now wait for tomorrow or day after tomorrow's newspapers to say how Pep is unhappy in Germany or being sacked after their debacle tonight ... and lo and behold link him with Scum who are looking for a manager anyway ... willing to bet £100 this news coming within 48 hrs at an English newspaper near you ...

[bayblue]

The amount of bullshit spread about his tactics at Anfield is mind boggling. All he did, is what Pearce did every week, but with better players. It wasn't counter attacking, it was bus parking & hope. Could we have done the same ? Yes. Should we be doing the same ? Absolutely not. Why ? Because Liverpool aren't that good. We should have been tighter & played on the counter, not played like Bobby Gould. On another day, Suarez leathers one in from 30 yards & the tactics go up in flames. Gerrard had about 5 clear, unmarked shooting opportunities on the edge of their box, only hit the target once. Gerrard gave Ba the ball to create Chelsea's goal. Why ? Mourinho ? Why didn't Suarez hit the target with any long range efforts like he has been doing all season ? Why didn't Gerrard ? Why did Gerrard give away a goal like you have never ever seen him do in 20 odd years ? Mourinho ? PRESSURE. They had the title to win rather than being 2nd favourites & their arses went. Even the 2nd goal was a total fuck up by Liverpool giving the ball away. Mourinho just parked the bus & kicked the ball away, like Pearce, Fat Sam, Pulis, Dave Bassett. Liverpool did the rest. It's got fuck all to do with Mourinho. Ancelotti won the Champions League, beating Barca & Bayern Munich, playing exactly the same way. If your luck's in, you can play like that & get a result. Pearce did; we stayed up.

Part of me would love to believe you are right. And yet.... .......is it really "fuck all to do with Mourinho "?

Of course he didn't make Gerrard slip, or the other in game instances you mention. But he did set up the team, drill them well, and instill in them a belief that they could go to Anfield and win.

The manager has to play a role, otherwise the team with the best players would win, and that's not always the case.

I know football isn't a business on the pitch but in a business a true leader is the difference between good and great. He or she inspires the team and gives them belief and purpose and in every business I've worked in great leadership makes a big difference.

I really don't like Mourinho's approach and hate the cynicism and time wasting but by God he is an effective leader of his team. If I could have chosen one manager to be up against Liverpool last week it would have been Mourinho. You don't achieve what he has in his career without being very very good at what you do.


That being said I do hope that they get stuffed tomorrow night and that Costa pokes him in the eye!

[getdressedmctavish]

What you have to hand Mourinio is the planning level that says, you will not put the ball in field at a throw in, the goalie will not throw to the defenders, etc.Also it was very enjoyable watching football bite the dippers' arse, just when you think you're the dog's bollocks you're the dogs excrement.Now, fingers crossed!

[Ted Hughes]

The amount of bullshit spread about his tactics at Anfield is mind boggling. All he did, is what Pearce did every week, but with better players. It wasn't counter attacking, it was bus parking & hope. Could we have done the same ? Yes. Should we be doing the same ? Absolutely not. Why ? Because Liverpool aren't that good. We should have been tighter & played on the counter, not played like Bobby Gould. On another day, Suarez leathers one in from 30 yards & the tactics go up in flames. Gerrard had about 5 clear, unmarked shooting opportunities on the edge of their box, only hit the target once. Gerrard gave Ba the ball to create Chelsea's goal. Why ? Mourinho ? Why didn't Suarez hit the target with any long range efforts like he has been doing all season ? Why didn't Gerrard ? Why did Gerrard give away a goal like you have never ever seen him do in 20 odd years ? Mourinho ? PRESSURE. They had the title to win rather than being 2nd favourites & their arses went. Even the 2nd goal was a total fuck up by Liverpool giving the ball away. Mourinho just parked the bus & kicked the ball away, like Pearce, Fat Sam, Pulis, Dave Bassett. Liverpool did the rest. It's got fuck all to do with Mourinho. Ancelotti won the Champions League, beating Barca & Bayern Munich, playing exactly the same way. If your luck's in, you can play like that & get a result. Pearce did; we stayed up.

Part of me would love to believe you are right. And yet.... .......is it really "fuck all to do with Mourinho "?

Of course he didn't make Gerrard slip, or the other in game instances you mention. But he did set up the team, drill them well, and instill in them a belief that they could go to Anfield and win.

The manager has to play a role, otherwise the team with the best players would win, and that's not always the case.

I know football isn't a business on the pitch but in a business a true leader is the difference between good and great. He or she inspires the team and gives them belief and purpose and in every business I've worked in great leadership makes a big difference.

I really don't like Mourinho's approach and hate the cynicism and time wasting but by God he is an effective leader of his team. If I could have chosen one manager to be up against Liverpool last week it would have been Mourinho. You don't achieve what he has in his career without being very very good at what you do.


That being said I do hope that they get stuffed tomorrow night and that Costa pokes him in the eye!

What I posted is, the fact Steven Gerrard can't hit a bull's arse with a banjo & trips over his own feet, has fuck all to do with Mourinho. It's pressure. Give him five or six shots on the edge of our box the week before & he'll put two of them in the net.

Mourinho set his side out the same way others have done & it worked on the day. But Liverpool were struggling to find their touch; they were nervous. Chelsea didn't do a perfect job; Liverpool missed a free header from 6 yards from a corner first half. If that had gone in, does it mean Mourinho is shit because he hadn't organised his team properly ? Chelsea's counter attacking was awful too, they had loads of opportunities to break & fucked it up.

They parked the bus & got away with it. Good. It was what was required against a nervy Liverpool; give them nothing.

But hailing it as a tactical masterclass is utter bollocks. Pearce's City would have been just as difficult to break down & Peter Reid's City would have been far more dangerous. David White would have loved that on the break. What Mourinho did was was nothing special. Teams have done that for decades & got similar results, including Liverpool.

[Im_Spartacus]

What I posted is, the fact Steven Gerrard can't hit a bull's arse with a banjo & trips over his own feet, has fuck all to do with Mourinho. It's pressure. Give him five or six shots on the edge of our box the week before & he'll put two of them in the net.

Mourinho set his side out the same way others have done & it worked on the day. But Liverpool were struggling to find their touch; they were nervous. Chelsea didn't do a perfect job; Liverpool missed a free header from 6 yards from a corner first half. If that had gone in, does it mean Mourinho is shit because he hadn't organised his team properly ? Chelsea's counter attacking was awful too, they had loads of opportunities to break & fucked it up.

They parked the bus & got away with it. Good. It was what was required against a nervy Liverpool; give them nothing.

But hailing it as a tactical masterclass is utter bollocks. Pearce's City would have been just as difficult to break down & Peter Reid's City would have been far more dangerous. David White would have loved that on the break. What Mourinho did was was nothing special. Teams have done that for decades & got similar results, including Liverpool.

But Mourinho pulls out results like this more often than not, regardless of easy misses or pressure, his team create the pressure with the knowledge that they are going to be very difficult to beat in a game like that. He did it with Inter on the way to the CL, but by the same token was torn a new arsehole more than once trying it against Barcelona the first few times for Madrid until he finally worked out how to beat them.

I don't think it's. tactical masterclass against Liverpool, its simply the same type of job Mancini would have done, stay tight for 60 minutes, take the sting out of the game, then make a couple of changes to disrupt the midfield and create some space.

It's a tried and tested formula, but he gets his players generally, to execute the plan better than any other manager in the big games where his team are underdogs. Like I said, in the lesser games, they are pretty enjoyable to watch showing he isn't the negative manager some on the thread portray him as, he is just an effective manager.

[phips]

do you all think Mourinho lied about Terry and Cech?

sure, each definitely picked up a knock but do you think they were subbed as a precaution and then Jose exaggerated the seriousness of their injuries to: a.) throw Atl Madrid off for the 2nd leg b.) help ratify his decision to play a B squad vs Liverpool ??

it would seem illogical because it'd mean that Mourinho was rolling the dice at Liverpool but he couldve just been supremely confident in his bus-parking scheme and/or that he definitely prioritized the CL (as most managers prob would)

Cech and Terry both trained today after initially being ruled out for the season.

More masterful mind games from Mourinho? or were those 2 training today the mind game?

i guess we'll find out tomorrow.

[Socrates]

Sadly, in so many ways, this season was built for this City squad and Mancini's mindset to win the league.

Not a wind up.

Doesn't mean i haven't enjoyed our display way more this season.

That is seriously funny as, while I agree we are missing the Mancini nasty stubborn bastard streak, I wouldn't swap this season for anything whatever the ultimate outcome...

[nottsblue]

Ted, know exactly where you sre coming from with Mourinhos tactics. It was the same against us. He was hailed as a master tactician, yet no mention was made that we djould have been 2 or 3 up after 15 minutes, thus rendering his game plan useless.

However, they do say you make your own luck and maybe this is where Mourinho earns his credit.

Either way, I'm just glad the dippers choked, Stevie Wonder tripped over his laces and they handed initiative back to us.

We now have a second bite at cake which I for one thought had gone. Last weeks events are gone. The focus is now on Goodison on Saturday, where, if we win, I believe it will probably go a long way to getting us over the line. I think Palace will get something on Monday v dippers if we win as well.

Keep the faith blueboys and girls

[Im_Spartacus]

Ted, know exactly where you sre coming from with Mourinhos tactics. It was the same against us. He was hailed as a master tactician, yet no mention was made that we djould have been 2 or 3 up after 15 minutes, thus rendering his game plan useless.

However, they do say you make your own luck and maybe this is where Mourinho earns his credit.

Either way, I'm just glad the dippers choked, Stevie Wonder tripped over his laces and they handed initiative back to us.

We now have a second bite at cake which I for one thought had gone. Last weeks events are gone. The focus is now on Goodison on Saturday, where, if we win, I believe it will probably go a long way to getting us over the line. I think Palace will get something on Monday v dippers if we win as well.

Keep the faith blueboys and girls

This is the thing, he makes his own luck more often than not, suggesting its an effective approach on the balance of probabilities. Other team will always get chances, but the fact that we and Liverpool have all fluffed these chances this season suggests he's onto something surely, as it can't always be luck

[Ted Hughes]

Ted, know exactly where you sre coming from with Mourinhos tactics. It was the same against us. He was hailed as a master tactician, yet no mention was made that we djould have been 2 or 3 up after 15 minutes, thus rendering his game plan useless.

However, they do say you make your own luck and maybe this is where Mourinho earns his credit.

Either way, I'm just glad the dippers choked, Stevie Wonder tripped over his laces and they handed initiative back to us.

We now have a second bite at cake which I for one thought had gone. Last weeks events are gone. The focus is now on Goodison on Saturday, where, if we win, I believe it will probably go a long way to getting us over the line. I think Palace will get something on Monday v dippers if we win as well.

Keep the faith blueboys and girls

This is the thing, he makes his own luck more often than not, suggesting its an effective approach on the balance of probabilities. Other team will always get chances, but the fact that we and Liverpool have all fluffed these chances this season suggests he's onto something surely, as it can't always be luck

Of course it's luck.

It's not luck that the chances are minimised, that's down to his team being fairly well organised. (Note the word 'fairly' not 'very').

The bit where Gerrard falls over or Silva misses from two yards is luck.

Chelsea didn't play the same v City as they did v Liverpool anyhow. Against City they played with a strong emphasis on counter attack & it was easily their best performance of the season. At Anfield, they just kicked the ball away for most of the game. Tony Pulis does that plenty & picks up lots of good results, with a pretty poor bunch of players. I rarely hear it described as a masterclass.

Sometimes Mourinho does indeed provide a 'masterclass' as do most top managers. But Anfield wasn't one, it was a desperate bus parking exercise, which Liverpool should have beaten, but played like shit. It's become the case, that every game Mourinho wins v a decent side is a 'tactical masterclass' . Well he drew fucking 0-0 v a bag of shite Utd team at the swamp, by using the same tactics, when everyone else went & hammered them. So if he misses the league by 2 points, he can stick his 'masterclass' up his arse.

[nottsblue]

A lot of what happens on a football can be attributed to 'luck'.

It was luck that the Palace defence switched off and allowed Dzeko to score. It was luck that Silvas shot deflected into the net for our second v dippers. I stand by the reasoning you make your own luck. The more you practice, the more hours you put in, the 'luckier' you will get.

Is it coincidence Yaya has spent time practicing free kicks and has scored from a very high proportion of them? No it isn't. It's time spent on the training ground.

Is it luck that Aguero shoots into the corner of the goal most times without looking up? Again, no. It is hours on the training field practicing.

Yes, the opposition could have scored. The fact they didn't, on numerous occasions, suggests a well drilled and co-ordinated defence that spends a lot of time perfecting what they do. Arsenal under George Graham is a prime example of this. Very rarely, if ever, will a side not have at least a half chance or even a couple of chances to score in a game. A cross or pass that could've been delivered earlier that might have resulted in a better attacking opportunity for example. A good save from the goalie. A forward snatching at a shot.

We may disagree on the asthetics of this approach but the results are there to be seen. They are one game from another champs league final and have been semi finalists a number if times as well

[bayblue]

A lot of what happens on a football can be attributed to 'luck'. It was luck that the Palace defence switched off and allowed Dzeko to score. It was luck that Silvas shot deflected into the net for our second v dippers. I stand by the reasoning you make your own luck. The more you practice, the more hours you put in, the 'luckier' you will get. Is it coincidence Yaya has spent time practicing free kicks and has scored from a very high proportion of them? No it isn't. It's time spent on the training ground. Is it luck that Aguero shoots into the corner of the goal most times without looking up? Again, no. It is hours on the training field practicing. Yes, the opposition could have scored. The fact they didn't, on numerous occasions, suggests a well drilled and co-ordinated defence that spends a lot of time perfecting what they do. Arsenal under George Graham is a prime example of this. Very rarely, if ever, will a side not have at least a half chance or even a couple of chances to score in a game. A cross or pass that could've been delivered earlier that might have resulted in a better attacking opportunity for example. A good save from the goalie. A forward snatching at a shot. We may disagree on the asthetics of this approach but the results are there to be seen. They are one game from another champs league final and have been semi finalists a number if times as well

In terms of this whole topic of luck then by chance(!) there was an article in the paper today that referred to some research done by Nicholas Christenfeld, a psychologist at USC. He analysed a whole series of sports to determine in which of them luck played the greatest part, or in which luck plays a lesser role and skill and capability win out.

The answers? The sport where luck plays the lowest part and the best team will invariably win was Rugby League of all things, whereas the one where luck plays the biggest part is baseball. Luck in football was deemed to be closer to baseball than to rugby.

His work looked at the impact of single games; he then discovered that in general the more a sport seemed to have a single game influenced by luck then the longer the season. So, baseball has 162 games per season whereas rugby league has a maximum of 31.

The answer is clear, we need more games in the leagues in football to iron out the impact of luck! 60 odd should do it.!

[zuricity]

A lot of what happens on a football can be attributed to 'luck'.

It was luck that the Palace defence switched off and allowed Dzeko to score. It was luck that Silvas shot deflected into the net for our second v dippers. I stand by the reasoning you make your own luck. The more you practice, the more hours you put in, the 'luckier' you will get.

Is it coincidence Yaya has spent time practicing free kicks and has scored from a very high proportion of them? No it isn't. It's time spent on the training ground.

Is it luck that Aguero shoots into the corner of the goal most times without looking up? Again, no. It is hours on the training field practicing.

Yes, the opposition could have scored. The fact they didn't, on numerous occasions, suggests a well drilled and co-ordinated defence that spends a lot of time perfecting what they do. Arsenal under George Graham is a prime example of this. Very rarely, if ever, will a side not have at least a half chance or even a couple of chances to score in a game. A cross or pass that could've been delivered earlier that might have resulted in a better attacking opportunity for example. A good save from the goalie. A forward snatching at a shot.

We may disagree on the asthetics of this approach but the results are there to be seen. They are one game from another champs league final and have been semi finalists a number if times as well

Now that's where i really have to disagree.

It was not luck that Palace's defense switched off.Not luck at all.

It was a perfectly delivered, weighted pass from Yaya. How anyone can fail to recognise the sheer beauty, the skill - almost nonchalant, and precise delivery of the pass.
Rather than 'luck' , is beyond me.

[nottsblue]

A lot of what happens on a football can be attributed to 'luck'.

It was luck that the Palace defence switched off and allowed Dzeko to score. It was luck that Silvas shot deflected into the net for our second v dippers. I stand by the reasoning you make your own luck. The more you practice, the more hours you put in, the 'luckier' you will get.

Is it coincidence Yaya has spent time practicing free kicks and has scored from a very high proportion of them? No it isn't. It's time spent on the training ground.

Is it luck that Aguero shoots into the corner of the goal most times without looking up? Again, no. It is hours on the training field practicing.

Yes, the opposition could have scored. The fact they didn't, on numerous occasions, suggests a well drilled and co-ordinated defence that spends a lot of time perfecting what they do. Arsenal under George Graham is a prime example of this. Very rarely, if ever, will a side not have at least a half chance or even a couple of chances to score in a game. A cross or pass that could've been delivered earlier that might have resulted in a better attacking opportunity for example. A good save from the goalie. A forward snatching at a shot.

We may disagree on the asthetics of this approach but the results are there to be seen. They are one game from another champs league final and have been semi finalists a number if times as well

Now that's where i really have to disagree.

It was not luck that Palace's defense switched off.Not luck at all.

It was a perfectly delivered, weighted pass from Yaya. How anyone can fail to recognise the sheer beauty, the skill - almost nonchalant, and precise delivery of the pass.
Rather than 'luck' , is beyond me.

Sorry. Worded the Dzeko goal poorly. I dont believe myself for a second that was lucky. As you say, a great cross, delivered on a plate. The point I was trying to make was the defending side can look at any goal conceded and say 'what if'. What if a player had been closed down quicker. What if a defender had reacted differently, etc etc.

The point of the more practice, the luckier, (better), players become, is prevalent here though. The fact Yaya was able to provide such a great cross is skill, honed by hours of practice

[TheBlueCatsWhiskers]

Of course it's luck. It's not luck that the chances are minimised, that's down to his team being fairly well organised. (Note the word 'fairly' not 'very'). The bit where Gerrard falls over or Silva misses from two yards is luck. Chelsea didn't play the same v City as they did v Liverpool anyhow. Against City they played with a strong emphasis on counter attack & it was easily their best performance of the season. At Anfield, they just kicked the ball away for most of the game. Tony Pulis does that plenty & picks up lots of good results, with a pretty poor bunch of players. I rarely hear it described as a masterclass. Sometimes Mourinho does indeed provide a 'masterclass' as do most top managers. But Anfield wasn't one, it was a desperate bus parking exercise, which Liverpool should have beaten, but played like shit. It's become the case, that every game Mourinho wins v a decent side is a 'tactical masterclass' . Well he drew fucking 0-0 v a bag of shite Utd team at the swamp, by using the same tactics, when everyone else went & hammered them. So if he misses the league by 2 points, he can stick his 'masterclass' up his arse.

This, without a doubt!

[Ted Hughes]

Players let him down tonight, as in the Sunderland game.

Otherwise we can be sure, it would have been another tactical masterpiece, perfectly engineered by Jose Mourinho.

But they lost, so it's fuck all to do with him.