With the Jose Mourinho love-in (and hate-in) going on all over the place after the win at Man City, I thought I'd try for a reasoned res...
With the Jose Mourinho love-in (and hate-in) going on all over the place after the win at Man City, I thought I'd try for a reasoned response to the game, because I think it showed both his strengths and his weaknesses.
Obviously, he knows how to construct a team and game-plan to shut down an opponent. Although Lampard is a favorite of his, he realized that Lampard no longer has the athleticism (if he ever did) to combat Yaya Toure in the middle, and so Matic and David Luiz got the job. He also made sure Willian, who never seems to run out of energy, played in the middle, where he could also close down Toure.
 |
| Matic gliding past Toure |
A similar success story (as it has been all season) was the choice of Azpilicueta at left back. Early on Mourinho figured out that Ashley Cole couldn't cut it at top level any more, and realized that Azpilicueta's calm, solid play suited his style perfectly. Azpilicueta doesn't offer much in attack, but he works hard and rarely makes a mistake, and for me he was the unsung hero of the night, holding off Jesus Navas pretty much every time down.
Mourinho also won the psychological battle, as he so often does, by making just about everyone believe he would park the bus. It's possible City just weren't ready for the counter-attacking onslaught that occurred. Have you ever seen a top team look so utterly clueless in defence?
So far, so good. But Mourinho has his weaknesses, most of them being in attack. The signing of Samuel Eto'o has been something short of a success. He's chipped in occasionally, but has more often looked off the pace.
 |
| Samuel Eto'o move to England has failed to live up to billings |
Overall he has not combined well with his teammates (unlike Torres, who seems to be more aware of what's going on around him), and was distinctly average on Monday night. He should have buried that chance late in the first half. A better choice of striker would have made a significant difference in Chelsea's season.
Moreover, the success of such players as Willian and Ramires in shutting down opponents conceals the fact that they are neither creative players nor reliable goalscorers. Ramires, in particular, was poor in attack against City, fluffing opportunities on a regular basis. Willian was a bit better, but he is not the man to make a killer pass. He has one assist all season, and that was in the 87th minute against a Hull City team that had opened up to try for an equalizer. He has two league goals. Ramires has one.
 |
| Goal shy Ramires |
Just about everyone said that Chelsea could have won by four or five on Monday. Agreed. But the reason they didn't was because of the limitations of Mourinho's approach.
With the obvious exception of Hazard (who by the way was crucial in the goal buildup-watch the way he beats Demichelis on the left of attack, then comes all the way over to the right to get the pass from Ivanovic), Chelsea didn't have good attackers up front.
 |
| Hazard was superb at the Etihad for the Blues |
Had Silva or Dzeko taken their good chances, or had Toure been a few centimeters closer to goal on Kolarov's cross, City would have had a draw, and we would be writing a very different story.
What's your take on this? Do you agree or disagree with my points? Feel Free to Comment below
What's your take on this? Do you agree or disagree with my points? Feel Free to Comment below
Thanks for your reading this piece! Make sure you stay up to date with our daily articles, photos and other updates! Follow on twitter Follow @wolexis and LIKE on Facebook To become a member of this blog and comment with ease click HERE
.jpg)
