Jose Mourinho's Chelsea

[Birchy]

I think Jose is a petulant, decisive and when he starts questioning the officials (who lets remember, without them there would be no game) a nasty little &$%&%£%%. And the sad thing is most of the press just lap it up as they are too afraid/stupid/in awe to say point out to his face he is talking complete garbage most of the time. Yes we know that he does it to deflect from his teams performance but really, does he have to treat others with such contempt to do it?

But in terms of winning games then I think he's just being a pragmatist. His team can attach and play sweet flowing football if they need to, but in this case he recognised that Liverpool would probably beat them at that game when you compare the players available. So he switched tactics and it obviously worked.

I don't really like the guy, I think most neutrals (if such a thing exists) would like to see Liverpool win the league this year instead of teams with an unlimited supply of money available to them. But hey ho, I'm sure there are more twists to come but can't help thinking Liverpool have blown it now. And Chelsea may well win the Champs League with the biggest display of bus parking ever seen in the final.

I want Liverpool to win it as well but they have spent a fair few quid along the way. They aren't exactly paupers :rofl:

He gets away with talking crap because his record speaks for itself. You tell him he is talking crap and he can just say "Look what I have won" Argument over

FWIW I don't like it when he has a pop at officials as well and that's the same for anyone who does it. sometimes when your so fired up you just cant help it He isn't the only one who does it. Wenger and Fergie did/do it loads.

 

[Papas1982]

But that's always been around also pro rata, the 1st £1m player back in the 70's, the first £10,000 in 1928 (Arsenal), how much was that in those days? Man Utd and even Liverpool have led the front in breaking the records on Transfer deals and wages and now they complain because others can now buy the best of the best and compete against them, its laughable. Rooney just lately and RVP are the highest wage earners and George Best was the first £1000 a week earner, the first to break the £10,00 per week bracket was John Barnes and the first to break the £50,000 mould was Roy Keane, Sol Cambell was the first to break £100k per week and so it goes on.

ive said n I previous posts that I'm not against sugar daddies, but what I would say that goes againt your points above, is that those clubs used self generated profits.

So whilst others have spent, it's not been splurged so rapidly as Chelsea and City. Or PSG and Monaco.

 

[Liverbirdie]

But that's always been around also pro rata, the 1st £1m player back in the 70's, the first £10,000 in 1928 (Arsenal), how much was that in those days? Man Utd and even Liverpool have led the front in breaking the records on Transfer deals and wages and now they complain because others can now buy the best of the best and compete against them, its laughable. Rooney just lately and RVP are the highest wage earners and George Best was the first £1000 a week earner, the first to break the £10,00 per week bracket was John Barnes and the first to break the £50,000 mould was Roy Keane, Sol Cambell was the first to break £100k per week and so it goes on.

Keep peddling that poor argument, Fish.

You are half correct –Liverpool and Man U did have expensive players, did have the odd player on megabucks, but all along they were self-sustaining. Liverpool and Man U (pre-OTextensive rebuild) in the 70-90’s played in front of crowds that were maybeonly 20-30% more than other big club supports such as Newcastle, Villa, Spurs,Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton and City. This reflected the odd superstar wage or transfer fee.

Chelsea have far and away bought success, taken far too much advantage of the loan system, to the point where a Belgian club employee accused Chelsea of ordering them not to win the league. They have been the graveyard of players careers who they bought to stop others getting them and basically just thrown money at everything.

City have done the same but with a bit more regard. They have invested most of the money into their own playing staff only and at least put that out on the pitch, and played some wonderful to boot. They also show a little bit of humility, although whether that lasts, I don’t know.

Chelsea are crass not class,and to spend hundreds of millions on a team that end up playing anti-football like that is poor.

Keep trying that argument,but in neutrals eyes, trying to say that Chelsea did what L’pool and Man U have done is utter rubbish.

Maybe do a poll on here.....:thup:

 

[pbrown7582]

Keep peddling that poor argument, Fish.

You are half correct –Liverpool and Man U did have expensive players, did have the odd player on megabucks, but all along they were self-sustaining. Liverpool and Man U (pre-OTextensive rebuild) in the 70-90’s played in front of crowds that were maybeonly 20-30% more than other big club supports such as Newcastle, Villa, Spurs,Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton and City. This reflected the odd superstar wage or transfer fee.

Chelsea have far and away bought success, taken far too much advantage of the loan system, to the point where a DUTCH club employee accused Chelsea of ordering them not to win the league. and not qualify for champs league under any circumstance They have been the graveyard of players careers who they bought to stop others getting them and basically just thrown money at everything.

City have done the same but with a bit more regard. They have invested most of the money into their own playing staff only and at least put that out on the pitch, and played some wonderful to boot. They also show a little bit of humility, although whether that lasts, I don’t know.

Chelsea are crass not class,and to spend hundreds of millions on a team that end up playing anti-football like that is poor.

Keep trying that argument,but in neutrals eyes, trying to say that Chelsea did what L’pool and Man U have done is utter rubbish.

Maybe do a poll on here.....:thup:

tweaked but obviously its only alleged ........ :rofl:

 

[Liverbirdie]

tweaked but obviously its only alleged ........ :rofl:

Dutch/Belgian they all speak funny and have strong lager - maybe that's the correlation.

 

[dufferman]

I didn't watch the game, but a win is a win. Who cares how they got it?

As for football being entertaining... for a Chelsea fan the game yesterday was, so...?

 

[pbrown7582]

Dutch/Belgian they all speak funny and have strong lager - maybe that's the correlation.

So do Geordies but they ain't going any closer to the champions league than we are this year!

 

[c1973]

I'm not a big fan of Jose's defensive tactics, it ain't good to watch but it is a discipline of the game, and is very difficult to do well btw. Most teams trying to park the bus usually lose by the odd goal.

The only thing that I find annoying is that Jose is proclaimed to be a tactical genius for pulling it off, whereas when Walter Smith used these tactics to get to the UEFA final it was labelled anti football.

Not good to watch, but credit is due for snuffing out the Liverpool attack which possesses arguably the best player around at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

[

QUOTE=Hacker Khan;1052834 I think most neutrals (if such a thing exists) would like to see Liverpool win the league this year instead of teams with an unlimited supply of money available to them.

[/QUOTE]

You have been reading the Daily Mail again haven't you!

Just because the journos, many of whom are of an age to have grown up as Liverpool supporters, tell us that Liverpool are the people's choice doesn't make it true.

I am completely neutral and know others like me who have no real preference but perhaps lean towards Man City for the type of football they play and the fact that for years they have been in the shadows of their not so noisy neighbours.

Also many of my age will remember the '70s & early '80s when Liverpool were dominant and some (not all) of their fans were as obnoxious as some (again not all) Man U fans have been more recently.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Pretty much sums it up

 

[Hacker Khan]

I want Liverpool to win it as well but they have spent a fair few quid along the way. They aren't exactly paupers :rofl:

He gets away with talking crap because his record speaks for itself. You tell him he is talking crap and he can just say "Look what I have won" Argument over

FWIW I don't like it when he has a pop at officials as well and that's the same for anyone who does it. sometimes when your so fired up you just cant help it He isn't the only one who does it. Wenger and Fergie did/do it loads.

I know no team are paupers really as it's all relative. It's just to me it seems that Chelsea's and Man Cities recent success has mostly been on the back of some sugar daddy pumping in millions. Nothing illegal about it and fair play to them and that's the way most sport is. But you could argue that the initial success of teams like Liverpool and Man U was not bought, although after that they had a lot of money to buy the best players through the success of the team.

And also you can talk crap and have won a lot at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact Jose is a shining example of that.

Also agree everyone has a pop at officials and they are all just as bad at blaming them to deflect mistakes them or their team have made. It'd just the weasily semi sarcastic way he did it that rubs me up. And with Jose I get the impression that it is all well planned in advance, he probably has a list of comments written down that he can call on, depending on the situation .

 

[Hacker Khan]

You have been reading the Daily Mail again haven't you!

Just because the journos, many of whom are of an age to have grown up as Liverpool supporters, tell us that Liverpool are the people's choice doesn't make it true.

I am completely neutral and know others like me who have no real preference but perhaps lean towards Man City for the type of football they play and the fact that for years they have been in the shadows of their not so noisy neighbours.

Also many of my age will remember the '70s & early '80s when Liverpool were dominant and some (not all) of their fans were as obnoxious as some (again not all) Man U fans have been more recently.

Fair comment about the Daily Mail, I do read it religiously and love its perspective on most things, so some of that has probably rubbed off on me.

As for the type of football being played then surely Liverpool have been playing as attractive attacking free flowing football as anyone over the last few months?

Also I said neutral fans. And by your comment on Liverpool fans being obnoxious then surely that disqualifies you from being neutral?

 

[Liverbirdie]

View attachment 10198
Pretty much sums it up

That's not fair - there are two queens on the right hand side, a drama queen and a normal one.......

 

[bladeplayer]

Terrible game of football , Chelsea did exactly what they had to do , Liverpool didnt , end result , Chelsea win ,

In my uninformed humble opinion Liverpool needed to get down the wings and make the bus turn and face its own goals , they didnt they chipped aimless balls into the box , a bit like the Fulham v Man U game (i think) ..
To me Liverpool looked nervous its like there was one more door to the holy grail and instead of just kicking the door down and going and getting it the fumbled around searching for the key or were waiting fr someone to leave the door open for them ..

I did think City would struggle at Everton , we will need Jags or Distin (no chance) back if Alcaraz & Stones are centre backs i see only a city win , hope im wrong ..

P.s not sure of Jose celebration or carry on after the win , if it had given Chelsea a genuine chance of winning the title i would understand it , some times silence and in action shows more class

But just my opinion of it all

 

[Birchy]

I know no team are paupers really as it's all relative. It's just to me it seems that Chelsea's and Man Cities recent success has mostly been on the back of some sugar daddy pumping in millions. Nothing illegal about it and fair play to them and that's the way most sport is. But you could argue that the initial success of teams like Liverpool and Man U was not bought, although after that they had a lot of money to buy the best players through the success of the team.

And also you can talk crap and have won a lot at the same time, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact Jose is a shining example of that.

Also agree everyone has a pop at officials and they are all just as bad at blaming them to deflect mistakes them or their team have made. It'd just the weasily semi sarcastic way he did it that rubs me up. And with Jose I get the impression that it is all well planned in advance, he probably has a list of comments written down that he can call on, depending on the situation .

They have all spent a shedload but some just quicker than others. These clubs that's supposedly didn't buy initial success all paid top dollar compared to other clubs and spent more than everyone else so its pretty much always been the richest have the best chance.

Well try and tell somebody who has won so much that they don't know what they are talking about. I hope you have got plenty of verbal firepower lined up because you would end up looking an idiot

I think all the managers have got a textbook full of bull that the trawl out from time to time. Jose seems to act it out best though as it winds more people up. Fergie was a master at it too. I suppose the point is to get people wound up about it so it looks like its worked

 

[bluewolf]

Slightly OT, but out of interest, how much of a Premier League Clubs income now comes from the Neutral/Armchair fan via Sky/BT/BBC/ITV etc?

 

[Fish]

Slightly OT, but out of interest, how much of a Premier League Clubs income now comes from the Neutral/Armchair fan via Sky/BT/BBC/ITV etc?

Depends on their success, the more success the more coverage the greater overall commercial revenue, however, the main club that bucks that tend is Arsenal, if their 'bums on seats' income reduced, their not as active commercially as a lot of other premier clubs in the top half.

 

[Foxholer]

Depends on their success, the more success the more coverage the greater overall commercial revenue, however, the main club that bucks that tend is Arsenal, if their 'bums on seats' income reduced, their not as active commercially as a lot of other premier clubs in the top half.

Last year, in mid-table, it was about 5-600K per televised match and about 750k for each place. Higher up places were (even) more valuable and they tended to get more TV spots too - if they were also successful the year before.

I can see a potential CMAC there/their/they're campaign too!

 

[Pin-seeker]

That's not fair - there are two queens on the right hand side, a drama queen and a normal one.......

:rofl: I'll give you that on.

 

[bluewolf]

Depends on their success, the more success the more coverage the greater overall commercial revenue, however, the main club that bucks that tend is Arsenal, if their 'bums on seats' income reduced, their not as active commercially as a lot of other premier clubs in the top half.

Now I'm as understanding as anyone with regards to the entertainment factor of Football games.. Some of my best memories have been about games that could only be described as "Wars of attrition." But, when the TV rights are such a big factor in the success of the modern game, then a certain level of excitement has to be provided for the "Neutral Home Viewer".

I know several people (myself included) who have cancelled their Sky/BT subscription due to a certain amount of boredom with Elite level Football. I can't tell you the last Champions League game I watched, or even the last Premier League game (that didn't include Wigan Ath).