Jose Mourinho's Chelsea

[Papas1982]

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).

Im really struggling to understand this argument that the products got worse. People are saying that there's not enough goals in games and goals make it interesting.

it may be if interest to know that since the prem went to 20'teams,so the highest total of goals was 1066. That was in 2011/12. The minimum was 931. So 130 goals swing from best to worst. So on average teams score 46 goals and 53. That's hardly a massive difference.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

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?

Completely neutral as I referred to a minority of their fans of 30-40 years ago, which simply means that I do not buy into the theory that all neutrals love Liverpool anymore than I believe that everyone other than their own fans hate Man U or Chelsea or whoever.

As to style of play I wholeheartedly agree that Liverpool have been a joy to watch this season but then to me so have Man City who have also been, at the same time, a little more solid looking at the back. I would, however, add that Rodgers has done a masterful job in coaxing the performances he has from Skirtl and dropping Gerrard deeper has made them much tighter as a unit.

 

[USER1999]

Im really struggling to understand this argument that the products got worse. People are saying that there's not enough goals in games and goals make it interesting.

it may be if interest to know that since the prem went to 20'teams,so the highest total of goals was 1066. That was in 2011/12. The minimum was 931. So 130 goals swing from best to worst. So on average teams score 46 goals and 53. That's hardly a massive difference.

You can have an entertaining nil nil.

Or a bore fest 2 nil.

I know what I'd rather watch. It's not just about goals that make footy exciting.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

In ten years ( since Abramovich arrived ) Chelsea have spent nearly 900 mil in transfer fees

The previous ten years Chelsea spent just under £100 mil



That £900 mil isn't money earned - that's money from a oil sugar daddy that has given you success - before Roman arrived you win a few cups but never seriously challenged for a title or CL - the money from Abramovich has allowed Chelsea their success. Bates was extremely worried financially for Chelsea before Abramovich arrived

You bought quick success like no other clubs had previously done - Liverpool , Man UTD and others earned their money through success , that success came through not just buying whole squads

Since then City have done the exact same thing in the UK and abroad PSG , Monaco and to lesser extent Malaga.

I can't see anything positive in sugar daddies spending hundreds of millions each summer - it becomes a closed shop in the transfer market - we saw it with both Willian and Salah - Chelsea just came along - offered bigger wages and off they go.

But it's clear as day that both Chelsea and City have purchased success with billionaire sugar daddies - without them they wouldn't have had the success they have had

 

[Pin-seeker]

In ten years ( since Abramovich arrived ) Chelsea have spent nearly 900 mil in transfer fees

The previous ten years Chelsea spent just under £100 mil



That £900 mil isn't money earned - that's money from a oil sugar daddy that has given you success - before Roman arrived you win a few cups but never seriously challenged for a title or CL - the money from Abramovich has allowed Chelsea their success. Bates was extremely worried financially for Chelsea before Abramovich arrived

You bought quick success like no other clubs had previously done - Liverpool , Man UTD and others earned their money through success , that success came through not just buying whole squads

Since then City have done the exact same thing in the UK and abroad PSG , Monaco and to lesser extent Malaga.

I can't see anything positive in sugar daddies spending hundreds of millions each summer - it becomes a closed shop in the transfer market - we saw it with both Willian and Salah - Chelsea just came along - offered bigger wages and off they go.

But it's clear as day that both Chelsea and City have purchased success with billionaire sugar daddies - without them they wouldn't have had the success they have had

But they have got them so either get use to it or just keep banging on about it every 2 minutes. Pretty sure I know which you'll do

 

[bluewolf]

Im really struggling to understand this argument that the products got worse. People are saying that there's not enough goals in games and goals make it interesting.

it may be if interest to know that since the prem went to 20'teams,so the highest total of goals was 1066. That was in 2011/12. The minimum was 931. So 130 goals swing from best to worst. So on average teams score 46 goals and 53. That's hardly a massive difference.

You know what they say about statistics don't you?
As you have access to these stats, can you break them down into televised games only, and prioritize those games that include teams who were in the top 6 at the time and therefore playing for a decent prize. It might also help to make a different list for European games, with a bias towards the later stages, especially including English teams..

Or, you could take anecdotal evidence that suggests that there is an awful lot of games on TV that may be quality viewing for those with a vested interest, but contain very little to attract newer viewers to the Sport..

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But they have got them so either get use to it or just keep banging on about it every 2 minutes. Pretty sure I know which you'll do

It's a discussion where points will be made - you can either contribute with something worthwhile or just ignore the thread :thup:

 

[Pin-seeker]

It's a discussion where points will be made - you can either contribute with something worthwhile or just ignore the thread :thup:

Fair enough mate,just gets boring reading the same posts.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Fair enough mate,just gets boring reading the same posts.

Could say the exact same thing about your constant posts about Suarez - gets boring reading the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I can't see anything positive in sugar daddies spending hundreds of millions each summer - it becomes a closed shop in the transfer market - we saw it with both Willian and Salah - Chelsea just came along - offered bigger wages and off they go.

But it's clear as day that both Chelsea and City have purchased success with billionaire sugar daddies - without them they wouldn't have had the success they have had[/QU

OTE]

The point you make is true but what is also true is that without the billionaires the EPL would be even more dull than it is today as there would have remained only three teams with the necessary financial muscle to win the title.

At least with two more sides in the mix it is a little more exciting.

In any event they appear to be here to stay and we have to learn to live with it. Self interest being what it is means that the "haves" never have given a toss for the "have nots".

 

[Slime]

What's wrong with Modern football is money

Does that rule also apply to other sports awash with money such as tennis, golf, boxing, snooker, American Football, baseball, major league hockey, basketball ......................................... you get my point.

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.

And when used against Chelsea, by West Ham, big Sam was slaughtered for it by Mourinho himself! What a ....


Slime.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

OTE]

The point you make is true but what is also true is that without the billionaires the EPL would be even more dull than it is today as there would have remained only three teams with the necessary financial muscle to win the title.

At least with two more sides in the mix it is a little more exciting.

In any event they appear to be here to stay and we have to learn to live with it. Self interest being what it is means that the "haves" never have given a toss for the "have nots".

The EPL was still exciting before the sugar daddies arrived

Since they have arrived only 3 teams have won the Prem - the two sugar daddy teams and the Mancs.

If both City and Chelsea spend big again this summer then they will stretch ahead more than likely from the other teams

Being realistic there will prob be only two teams in with a shout of winning in the future -City and Chelsea

They both should have been miles ahead of everyone this season but for two new managers arriving into the prem

If I was being realistic I can put money that this time next year you will see a straight fight out between Chelsea and City with Liverpool , Arsenal and UTD fighting it out for 3rd and 4th and good 10 -15 points behind.

 

[Papas1982]

You can have an entertaining nil nil.

Or a bore fest 2 nil.

I know what I'd rather watch. It's not just about goals that make footy exciting.[
that is true, but surely over a course of a season things even out. I find it hard to see how the pl has become less exciting when goals have stayed the same. I personally think people are remembering the bad as it's easy to moan. Yes Chelsea game against pool may have appeared defensive but it wasn't boring. Liverpool simply weren't good enough to score. The same Chelsea also spanked arsenal and beat city with a great display.

I think the teams may be more guarded as so much money is in prem now. But I don't think that it's any worse than ever before. I r,ember many Wimbledon and Bolton games in last 15 years that I'd rather have spent watching paint dry.

 

[Papas1982]

You know what they say about statistics don't you?
As you have access to these stats, can you break them down into televised games only, and prioritize those games that include teams who were in the top 6 at the time and therefore playing for a decent prize. It might also help to make a different list for European games, with a bias towards the later stages, especially including English teams..

Or, you could take anecdotal evidence that suggests that there is an awful lot of games on TV that may be quality viewing for those with a vested interest, but contain very little to attract newer viewers to the Sport..[/

yeah stats can be manipulated to show anything. They can also show a truth but people hide behind one little phrase when they don't have a way to validly counter it except make a funny.

Having been a season ticket holder for 14 years, I don't think the game has got any worse at all. TV games are a lottery, there's no guarantee that the game of the weekend will be the one shown.

The main barometer for games is generally goals, yeah you have exceptional 0-0's but generally nobody bemoans a 4-3. So if as many games as ever are being scored I fail to see how the product has become worse.

Orher than people over reacting to the fact that a tactician beat Rodgers.

 

[Pin-seeker]

It's not like it's a big secret how much City & Chelsea spend. But it's pretty much the same for all the Big teams that compete in the CL. Man utd,Real,Barca,Bayern,PSG,Monaco...... It's just part of the modern game. It's not my money so It really doesn't bother me tbh.

 

[Snelly]

Another fascinating, childish, petty squabble over something that you think means the world but really, means nothing.

Premier League football is a decency vacuum. The enlightened can see this.

 

[Papas1982]

Another fascinating, childish, petty squabble over something that you think means the world but really, means nothing.

Premier League football is a decency vacuum. The enlightened can see this.

Can you see us all the way down here from your high horse.........

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's not like it's a big secret how much City & Chelsea spend. But it's pretty much the same for all the Big teams that compete in the CL. Man utd,Real,Barca,Bayern,PSG,Monaco...... It's just part of the modern game. It's not my money so It really doesn't bother me tbh.

It's not the same at all for the other clubs - no one has spent the amount Chelsea have in the last ten years - Man UTD it's about £400mil ( half of what Chelsea have spent )

PSG and Monaco have been on par for the last 2/3 years

Madrid have a blow out every couple of seasons normally when a new manager arrives

Barcelona normally spend big on the odd player but nowhere near the other teams , Bayern are about the same as the Mancs

But no one comes close it consistent 100 mil a year spending like Chelsea have over the last 10 years.

It is part of the modern game and it's something that UEFA are trying to curb hence the introduction of FFP and currently clubs under investigation ( including PSG and City ) - so hopefully it won't be here to stay.

Those 4 clubs hang on the whim of one person - Malaga have already seen what happens when that one man says he has had enough.

 

[Fish]

And when used against Chelsea, by West Ham, big Sam was slaughtered for it by Mourinho himself! What a ....


Slime.

Huge difference when set up for counter attack football which was achieved against Liverpool and just sitting deep with no thought of pushing forward, the donkey spent more time in the 18yd box than outfield that day! Chelsea provided the 1st shots on target, the 1st saves, 1st corner and so on, quite simply Liverpool couldn't or didn't change their approach or tactics even though they weren't working right from the off! Liverpool had no plan B which will be their downfall in Europe if they don't find one.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Another fascinating, childish, petty squabble over something that you think means the world but really, means nothing.

Premier League football is a decency vacuum. The enlightened can see this.

Yet you still felt you needed to comment