Seconds Out. Round One.
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...The anti-Mourinho diatribe was out in full-force after the result against Manchester United on Monday. Here, Joe Tweeds responds to some of the rather myopic criticisms offered by the “best” of English journalism.
The result at Old Trafford on Bank Holiday Monday was met with a curious cocktail of media pomposity and posturing. Since the return of José Mourinho there has been a systematic attempt to disrupt the club at every opportunity. The overzealous reporting of the David Luiz bid from Barcelona combined with the yen for us to sell Juan Mata (no doubt on the cheap) to Arsenal or Tottenham summates their thoughts on the club.
The noxious longing for the world to come crashing down around Mourinho is certainly at odds with their obeisance in press conferences. While we are not the finished article there is so much potential within this squad the media no doubt want to derail us where possible. It certainly does not fit their red perspective. Compare the perception of Ferguson using defensive wingers to Mourinho’s team selection on Monday and the difference is incredible. One is a masterful piece of tactical genius and the other the decision of a man afraid of Manchester United who does not trust his team.
The reporting following the Manchester United game was galling; particularly from Chief Professional Troll Adrian Durham. The porcine writer opined that Mourinho was “scared” of United and “one of the most negative coaches in Premier League history.” Naturally, he is paid to write content that generates masses of hits. Nevertheless, even Durham must have been cringing at his own laptop screen when penning this.
We have rarely started a game at Old Trafford without a recognised holding midfielder. A general precept of modern football is that starting with six attack-minded players is probably not a sign of a coach playing for a draw. We could have started a midfield packed with Mikel, Essien and Ramires, with De Bruyne/Schürrle as defensive wingers and Lukaku as the sole outlet.
The suggestion that Mourinho deployed a starting XI intent on obtaining a draw is nonsensical. When the match evolved into a banal stalemate, this must obviously have been what Mourinho had intended. All those years that United came to Stamford Bridge with overtly negative tactics were forgotten: Darren Fletcher man-marking Makélélé anyone? Yes, our system did not work as anticipated going forward, but any system containing six attackers that completely nullifies the best striker in the League has to be commended. In a very short space of time Mourinho seems to be slowly eradicating a lot of the defensive lapses that we have suffered from.
At a club infamous for playing positive attacking football, David Moyes managed to escape criticism seemingly because Wayne Rooney had a decent match. We can conveniently ignore the majority of the game which saw United look clueless as to how to break down a well-organised side. Moreover, the fact United simply shifted the ball from side-to-side with absolutely no attacking momentum seems to have gone unnoticed. In an era where passing stats are seen as some sort of panacea to any football argument United’s left-to-right-to-left distribution did not trouble us in the slightest.
Their only shots on target came from 20+ yards (they registered three on target to our four). We also saw the hugely positive (and entirely typical) Moyes-eqsue trait of frequently conceding fouls around the halfway line to stop any counterattacking opportunities. I could go on about the majority of their possession occurring in non-threatening areas, but that might be too much for one evening. We are used to seeing United throw everything into a game to try and win, yet Moyes’ cautious approach somehow escapes any criticism. Agenda? Never.
Who typically should provide the attacking impetus in a game: the home or away side? If we had managed to keep hold of the ball for a bit longer we would have troubled them. Unfortunately our passing was woeful at times, something Mourinho was quick to point out. Should United not be more worried that we managed to play a completely new system and totally nullify them at their own ground? Or that an experienced side entirely familiar with one another only managed to create a small amount of chances. The sad reality for United fans is that Mourinho attempted to employ an extremely attacking and “mobile” side, which coincidentally negated them as an attacking force. The enigma of how Tom Cleverley is a midfielder at Manchester United remains - what does he do?
For the past two seasons we have suffered the same ignominious treatment concerning our structure and defensive work. We have had articles appear on ESPN stating that “Chelsea’s defence has never been so bad” and Alan Hansen repeatedly labelling Chelsea’s defending “catastrophic.”
“The chronic lapses at the back have now become a contagion, infiltrating every area of their side.” Alan Hansen, Telegraph, 21 November 2011.
The recent failings of English sides in Europe has most certainly stemmed from a lack of technical excellence at managerial level. The Premier League at times over the last season resembled the NBA with its end to end matches. Emphasis was patently on attack over defence, something regularly pointed out by pundits worth listening to. Nevertheless, the media seem intent on both questioning the quality of the Premier League and criticising a manager who will inherently strengthen it with his tactical ability.
Was it any surprise that at the highest level, where tactics arguably play a more significant part in the outcome of a match (due to the individual ability of the players involved), that English sides looked so outclassed? Bayern Munich showed that a well-balanced side would overpower anything in its way and their destruction of the tiki-taka model at Barcelona highlighted this superbly. Juventus’ 3-5-2 was tactically inspiring and they were probably the best team we played against last season; the strength of their side was by design not chance. Chelsea are attempting to find this balance under Mourinho, but it will take time.
The media have revelled in the transformation Chelsea have undergone since Mourinho’s departure that was swiftly catalysed by André Villas-Boas’ mental footballing philosophy. Zonal Marking’s Michael Cox provides some insight into both Di Matteo and Villas-Boas’ attempts to alter how Chelsea defend. Neither were able to implement the right balance that would achieve consistent results domestically and in Europe. The fact is that producing a rounded side capable of both defending with aplomb and containing a creative edge is difficult. Even ardent followers of Spanish football will note how Barcelona struggle against top opposition because their defence are woeful. Football is changing into a game that favours balanced sides - Bayern are testament to that and Juventus’ midfield is perhaps the best individual example of where modern football is heading.
We could not theoretically play as we did against Barcelona and Bayern Munich every week in the Premier League under Di Matteo and expect to win League titles. Nor, as Villas-Boas proved, could we sustain playing such a high risk defensive strategy as the one he attempted to engineer. Mourinho is attempting to find the perfect blend of risk and reward, his words “if you cannot win the game, don’t lose” are surely those upon which a sustained title challenge can be built. This philosophy will take time despite the media’s insistence that he is here to destroy football.
Seeing a Chelsea side implement a tactically disciplined structure without the ball was incredibly pleasing and it bodes well for the season ahead. In a time where the media want to dig England and its football out for losing some of its star quality and ability, they want to equally lambaste Mourinho out for bringing some nous back into the equation. Things never really make sense when the dictated storyline is more important than the reality.
This was an extremely young Chelsea side both in terms of age and cohesion. The fluency will come and will be aided by the development of players like Marco van Ginkel, Oscar and Lukaku. Kevin De Bruyne will have realised exactly what is required to feature at the top level and his exposure so early in his Chelsea career should elevate him. Oscar’s growing influence in a central midfield area also cannot have gone unnoticed. Things are taking shape but it will happen slowly. Manchester City, albeit very early in the season, are showing an inability to defend as a unit that may cost them later in the year.
Essentially try to ignore as much of the media as possible. They very rarely actually get paid to analyse football but sensationalise a story around it. Had United come to Stamford Bridge and did the same against us the headlines would no doubt be entirely different. Mourinho is shaping a very young squad while getting results - the football most certainly will come.
Related Posts
2 Responses to Seconds Out. Round One.
Leave a Reply
« Aston Villa (H) in Three Minutes or Less Mourinho’s Foundations »
Loading tweets...
Mourinho clearly stated that his new Chelsea squard will mature gradually as he is building to improve on past performance. Can the Press give them a chance? The season is too young to judge any team yet. If Chelsea was in Barcelona’s shoe when Bayern massacre them last season semi final the English Press would bury the Club. critics of Chelsea give this Club a break for now.
very well written! echoed my thoughts exactly. it might have been boring for the neutrals but i was absolutely delighted at around 80th minute when i just asked a question to my brother as i suddenly realized even van persie is there on the pitch playing but nowhere to be seen! ‘where was he the whole time??’ i really liked the way we played the match, maybe not so much if we had some veterans playing for us but with this crop, it was a good match.