Mourinho, the boring as fuck, high spending one

[Bob Singleton]

David, I suggest you read the following before arse-licking the Scousers and calling Chelsea "boring as fuck"


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news ... er-tactics

[David Johnson]

Before you carry on arse-licking Mourinho and Chelsea, maybe you can respond to a few facts about the Special Boring One's record against the top Premier League teams compared to other Chelsea managers.

Have a look at the tables in here. You know, the ones you ignored in your previous post. What's the approach then Bob, ignore the Inconvenient Truths and blather on in the hope nobody will notice?

[Bob Singleton]

Firstly David, I didn't ignore the link, I just didn't notice it (this may shock you, but I don't read every single one of your drivelling posts... I have better things to do with my life!)

However, seeing it's from the "backpagefootball" web site I'll ignore it on the basis that the info contained is probably as reliable as a Sunday Sport headline. I'm sure, given the title of the article, the "author" was able to prove the point he wanted to make?

I'd rather win 38 games 1-0 than win a few dozen 6-0 only to lose others... if I want to watch high scoring stuff week in week out I'll go bore myself to death watching basketball where 128-126 isn't unusual. Yep, great entertainment there!!!

One thing Sky flagged up yesterday was Mourinho's record against the top 7 clubs in both his stints as Chelsea manager...


Chelsea P49 104pts +48 GD
Man Utd P51 79pts +7 GD
Arsenal P50 74pts +4 GD
Liverpool P49 71pts +12 GD
Spurs P51 54pts -37 GD
Everton P49 52pts -29 GD
Man City P49 49pts -5 GD


I don't care if, over the space of half a season, some Chelsea managers had teams that scored more goals against some of the top clubs... over the course of around 50 games against them, maybe only Ancelotti might have had a comparable record. I'm more than happy with the above stats and I'm more than happy with Mourinho (that's not to say the club were right to sack Ancelotti because they weren't)

[David Johnson]

"However, seeing it's from the "backpagefootball" web site I'll ignore it on the basis that the info contained is probably as reliable as a Sunday Sport headline. I'm sure, given the title of the article, the "author" was able to prove the point he wanted to make?"

Okay. To summarise they have a different view to you so they must be wrong.

"I'd rather win 38 games 1-0 than win a few dozen 6-0 only to lose others."

So you like boring, timewasting football. We know that. No-one can deny Mourinho is a very, very successful manager but that isn't the point of the thread is it?

".. if I want to watch high scoring stuff week in week out I'll go bore myself to death watching basketball where 128-126 isn't unusual. Yep, great entertainment there!!!"

In the interest of maintaining this rather dubious, suspect point, Bob, could I suggest you might try cricket e.g. 565-9? Or alternatively talk to a West Ham fan?

As for the Sky info which you refer to, the point is as follows which you have completely missed.

1. The Backpage link rejected by you because it disagrees with your point of view, compares Mourinho's performance goalswise etc with other recent Chelsea managers. This strikes me as a sensible way of evaluating a manager's success. I would guess that if I was manager of Chelsea, I would do better than if I was managing Barnsley because Chelsea in the Abramovich years has spent so much more on players than Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, Everton etc.

2. The Sky stuff just looks at Mourinho's performance with Abramovich spend behind him that makes Arsenal, Spurs and Everton look like potless dossers.

You may want to look at this which is a more useful table, Managerial Analysis: Managerial Performance and you will see that Mourinho's Chelsea teams have had a worse goalscoring record than just about any recent Chelsea manager in terms of goals per game..



Before you trash it, it's produced by Chelsea fans.

3. I am sure all the true footie fans and media who refer to boring Chelsea and their cheating time wasting are just being nasty to you.

Never mind. People can be so misguided sometimes.

!wink!

[Bob Singleton]

David, you and I will never agree on this.

If I want to be entertained, I'll go to a gig, go to the theatre, or watch a film. If I want to be really well entertained and guarantee myself some belly-laughs, I just watch Stevie Me gifting the ball to opponents and then watch his face as they score or listen to Arsene Wenger tell people that the next batch of kids coming through are the real deal and that 4th place is as good as winning a trophy

I don't watch football to be entertained... I watch it primarily in the hope of seeing my team win (I say "primarily" because I do watch games that don't involve Chelsea, but I don't watch them to be "entertained" but, for example, to see how potential future rivals play, or how a potential signing plays)

Regarding "entertainment", I was looking at this page http://rulesoffootball.co.uk/ and could see no mention of it. Apparently it's within the laws of the game to win whilst not being "entertaining"... well I never!!! So Mourinho ISN'T cheating by setting up a team to defend superbly well and then score twice on the counter (not that those two goals were Chelsea's only chances, but listening to some, you'd think Liverpool had hundreds of shots on target and we just had two)

You mention cricket... I only really watch Test matches; anything else is just a bastardisation of the game. I get bored when one side dominates the other too much. I'd rather watch a game where bat and ball are equal and it takes one superb and extraordinary performance by either a batsman or a bowler to make the difference. 600-3... boring!

Going back to football, I was actually more "entertained" on Sunday than when Chelsea beat Arsenal 6-0. On Sunday I was on the edge of my seat throughout. It was a gripping game. I bet, right up to the moment when Willian and Torres broke away to score the second, most Liverpool fans would have been gripped too... only now it's much easier for them to complain about "boring, boring Chelsea" and "negative tactics", as that avoids the more thorny question of why a side capable of scoring so many goals couldn't get past a makeshift defence! Against Arsenal, I'd started getting bored and my mind was wandering once we'd reached 3-0. By then I was half watching the game whilst doing some work on the lap top. For "entertainment value" give me the Liverpool game any day.

You mention West Ham. Yes, West Ham, hating a manager who may keep them up because he doesn't play the West Ham way. Which "way" is that? The "West Ham way" of the 60s which West Ham haven't played since the 60s? Or the more traditional hack everyone down (? la Julian Dicks) and hoof the ball up-field "way"?

It all depends on what you deem to be "entertaining". Given there is nothing in the laws of the games, or indeed in the points systems used by ANY of the major leagues (Premiership, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue Un, Eredivisi, etc., etc) that suggest "entertainment" is a prerequisite of the game, I really don't care if you or others feel you're not being "entertained" when watching Chelsea. Chelsea will continue winning trophies and all the so-called "entertaining" sides will continue to fail.

[David Johnson]

"I don't watch football to be entertained... I watch it primarily in the hope of seeing my team win (I say "primarily" because I do watch games that don't involve Chelsea, but I don't watch them to be "entertained" but, for example, to see how potential future rivals play, or how a potential signing plays)"

Alas Mourinho is exactly the same, isn't he? All that matters is to win even if it involves sticking 6 men in defence throughout the game and time-wasting throughout as a team tactic.

Which is of course, exactly the point I was making which you attempted to argue against.

[MrTickle]

If Chelsea played like that every week I could see what all the fuss was about, but they don't, so get over it. They went to Anfield to get a result with half their best players missing and achived their goal, so fair play to them.

[David Johnson]

I know what you are talking about. You do not appear to know what I am talking about.

I am not just talking about one game. This season, Chelsea away at Man U - boring as fuck. Chelsea away at Man City boring as fuck. Chelsea away at Liverpool boring as fuck.

This is the Mourinho way typically in big games away from home. That is why Mourinho has a worse goals per game record over his two spells at Chelsea than just about any recent Chelsea manager and why he comes in for a lot of stick from the media..

[MrTickle]

I wouldn't of said Man City away was boring. In fact I would of said it was one of the performances of the season.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]If I want to be entertained, I'll go to a gig, go to the theatre, or watch a film.[/quote]

Falling into David's trap there, Bob. One can find entertainment in the details. You could argue that your entertainment comes from winning things. There is no law about what can and cannot be entertaining.

David's entitled to feel bored of the way Chelsea sometimes play, and you're entitled to be entertained by it. There is no argument to be had given it's personal to each individual. It's like arguing over the best colour.

Ironically, a thread starting off complaining about something boring has become really boring.