Mourinho's substitution policy

Necronomicon

I've pondered this a few times, but after today's game I have to pose the question: Does Jose Mourinho make substitutions too rashly?

One of the earliest examples I can think of is last year's FA Cup quarter final against Newcastle. Newcastle took an early lead (4th minute if I remember correctly) and once half-time came, Mourinho made 3 substitutions. In the first minute of the second half, Wayne Bridge suffered that nasty ankle injury and had to go off. Chelsea down to 10 men for the rest of the match. Then towards the latter stages of the game, Cudicini gets himself sent off. Chelsea have to put Glen Johnson in goal, down to 9 men. Duff also picked up an injury in the last ten minutes, and was more or less a passenger leaving Chelsea with effectively 8 players. Now I know you can't account for that sort of bad luck, but I thought bringing on 3 new players at half time was a bit hasty.

He's not afraid of doing it, Mourinho, today again they go a goal down after 17 minutes, he gives it 5 minutes, then makes two substitutions. Granted, Chelsea were pretty bad in the opening part of the game, but with a team of quality players, I think he was a bit rash again. Players don't always take to a game like a fish to water. In the post-match interview he said that Cole and SWP weren't having "Happy games".....23 minutes they had!
Finally, there were also questions raised during the second leg against Barcelona. They were at a deficit and chasing the game, in which they had to score twice. Mid-way through the second half he brings on Crespo, but takes Drogba off. Now I know he's a Premiership manager and I'm not, but Drogba gives defenders problems with his physical presence and I found it amazing that he took him off. Mourinho also brought on Robert Huth as a make-shift centre-forward, as opposed to SWP, who was on the bench. Chelsea finished the game with a forward line of Crespo, Terry and Huth.

Of course you have to give him credit as well, I think Bolton were 1-0 up at Stamford Bridge earlier in the season, after a substitution at half time they came back and won 5-1.
So, is he too rash with his subs?

wheres me jumpa

I think its all part of the Maureen show. A big drastic decision like today looks fantastic when it comes off. Had Chelsea won today he would have been complimented.

But they didnt and he will get slated. Joe COle didnt look too happy and deservedly so.

merlinsmerryman

He seems to think that in order to change a gam you have to make changes. A bit of a sad reflection in a way that he doesn't trust the team he puts out to do the business so to speak. Also his substitutions are often very one dimentional as in put a big man up front (Drogba, Carlton Cole or Huth) and slam long balls up to them in the hope of getting a lucky break. Not very special really.

astrofool

If he had to make substitutions that early, then why didn't he start with that team? Also, they don't have to be as dramatic as he makes them, Benitez made the change for Hamann in the CL final at half time that made the difference, Ferguson put on the super sub and sheringham in the dying minutes against munich and it worked.

As said, Mourinho just looks for the publicity, J. Cole himself has come on many times and scored the decisive goal, sometimes with his first kick, and Mourinho gets called a genius.

Ruskie4Rent

It's pretty harsh to expect results from players in such a short space of time in a game. Especially for the wingers who are under the most presure to perform at chelsea, with the competition each of their talents bring.

WhiteWashMan

wheres me jumpa wrote:

I think its all part of the Maureen show. A big drastic decision like today looks fantastic when it comes off. Had Chelsea won today he would have been complimented.

But they didnt and he will get slated. Joe COle didnt look too happy and deservedly so.

i think thats a bit harsh.

i think he actually made the changes to try and win the game, not to try and influence the tele pundits....

im quite sure murinho saw something in the game that he didnt think he could counter with the team he had on. or there was an injury. i dont know.
but he is not afraid to make change, and i would in general agree with what else was said, to change a game, sometimes you need to make changes. if you dont feel the current 11 are going to be able to do it, then you must bring on players.

for me, the definition of stupidity is to try and do something again and again, and yet expect different reults.
do something different, then you get different results.

of course, maybe he was trying to just make a big show for the pundits...

Ruskie4Rent

I remember a time when he made alot of early subs and then bridge got injuried allowing no replacements. For a manager that thinks of everything before the match, he's quite short sighted during it.

Chardee MacDennis

i dont think he is a "Tactics man" and is cares more about the players on the pitch - look at the barca game had to win and didnt change tactics really just stuck huth up front with terry coming up later but still kept the long ball going even though everytime drogba or huth jumped it was a free.

obviously i know he has to have some sort of tactical awareness but not as much as freguson, wenger or benitez who can all change a game with keeping the same 11 on the pitch - just my opinion...

Chardee MacDennis

WhiteWashMan wrote:

if you dont feel the current 11 are going to be able to do it, then you must bring on players.

but if you dont think they are able to overhaul a 1-0 lead with 70mins left then why play them in the first place? and why sub a player like joe cole who has been known to change a game and add a flash of brillance from no-where - unlike duff or robbens recent form.

or is it just a case of not starting his strongest team like he did against newcastle (wasnt he resting player for cl?)

growler

Call_me_al wrote:

but if you dont think they are able to overhaul a 1-0 lead with 70mins left then why play them in the first place? and why sub a player like joe cole who has been known to change a game and add a flash of brillance from no-where - unlike duff or robbens recent form.

or is it just a case of not starting his strongest team like he did against newcastle (wasnt he resting player for cl?)

I imagine it was more to do with reacting to how Fulham were setting themselves up after taking the lead than anything else, he possibly felt that the skills of Drogba and Duff would create more problems for their likely markers than Cole and SWP. Duff certainly did and Drogba is always a handful ( couldn't resist :-) )

Jivin Turkey

Mourinho has been at Chelsea almost two years and we have two examples of how he has made substitutions that have not come off, and countless ones of where they have gone on to win games.

So yes I also think he makes substitutions too rashly.

samb

I agree, he is too hasty with substitutions. Overall I don't see why he is seen as such a great manager. Claudio Reneree (however u spell him) came second in the league and semi-finals of CL the season before, so its not like he transformed a bad team into a great one. Considering the money he has had it is amazing they are not winning by more IMO.
the achievements of wenger are much greater IMO because he has had to find and develop talent, he can't just buy established talent.

Guy:Incognito

My only issue with his decisions have been regard Robert Huth being deployed as a super-sub, which he obviously isnt. He should not be relying on someone who, to my knowledge while being deployed like that, hasnt scored or assisted. It smacks of despairation and has been used in the last two CL campaigns where they were knocked out.

Chucky the tree

samb wrote:

I agree, he is too hasty with substitutions. Overall I don't see why he is seen as such a great manager. Claudio Reneree (however u spell him) came second in the league and semi-finals of CL the season before, so its not like he transformed a bad team into a great one. Considering the money he has had it is amazing they are not winning by more IMO.
the achievements of wenger are much greater IMO because he has had to find and develop talent, he can't just buy established talent.

What a absolute load of ****. :rolleyes:


Have a look at what he achieved for porto will ya?

besty

Mourinho is a very good manager. Fact.
He is however, found out when his initial gameplan does not come off from the start of a game or he needs to mix it up and find a goal or two in Europe. His weapon of choice in these situations seems to be Huth/Terry up front and route 1...

LegacyUser

Good manager, make no mistake about it...but limited ideas. That is just my opinion and until he starts trying drastically new things, that's the way it's gonna be.

el rabitos

hands up who's managed a champions league winning team and manged to win the premiership in your first season....nobody?

biggest knee-jerk reaction thread ever.

cournioni

besty wrote:

Mourinho is a very good manager. Fact.
He is however, found out when his initial gameplan does not come off from the start of a game or he needs to mix it up and find a goal or two in Europe. His weapon of choice in these situations seems to be Huth/Terry up front and route 1...

I totally agree with you there.

Big Nelly

Pointless thread, just because Mourinho seen that he had made a mistake on his starting 11 and had the balls to change quickly because they where been over-run people start to question his management? people forget that Fergie did the same earlier this season against West Ham when after only 20 mins or so Silvestre was pulled off for Brown but because of the usual media cr*p about Mourinho this is all brought up, I didnt see a Fergie thread?? wonder why. Could it be Sky coverage??

cournioni

Big Nelly wrote:

Pointless thread, just because Mourinho seen that he had made a mistake on his starting 11 and had the balls to change quickly because they where been over-run people start to question his management? people forget that Fergie did the same earlier this season against West Ham when after only 20 mins or so Silvestre was pulled off for Brown but because of the usual media cr*p about Mourinho this is all brought up, I didnt see a Fergie thread?? wonder why. Could it be Sky coverage??

Maybe because Chelsea still lost the game. If United had lost that game against West Ham, SAF would be getting the same criticism.

Big Nelly

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Maybe because Chelsea still lost the game. If United had lost that game against West Ham, SAF would be getting the same criticism.

Think its got more to do with the media than winning the game or losing, everyone in the media is after Mourinho since he took on the great Robson. This has been shown on here with the number of "We hate Chelsea/Mourinho" thread since then. Its a joke how much pull Sky has on the average supporter

growler

Stekelly wrote:

My only issue with his decisions have been regard Robert Huth being deployed as a super-sub, which he obviously isnt. He should not be relying on someone who, to my knowledge while being deployed like that, hasnt scored or assisted. It smacks of despairation and has been used in the last two CL campaigns where they were knocked out.

in all fairness you're not privy to what happens on the training ground, just because we haven't seen Huth do the business when he is brought on doesn't mean that JM is wrong. I have to assume he knows what he is doing since he is an experienced successful manager and none of us are.

Lex Luthor

In all fairness, if I was Joe Cole, I would be pretty pi$$ed off for being subbed yesterday. The guy had a few shots already before he left the pitch.
Every time Mourinho makes a substitution, Joe Cole is the scape goat. He is constantly getting subbed even when he is playing well and he is one player that can change the game for them
I can see him moving on after the WC.
Go North Joe...we'll take you at Anfield.

growler

but Duff was arguably the only player who created anything for Chelsea yesterday.

PHB

Everybody talked about Chelsea changing systme yesterday when they didn't.
Drogba came on and played a very forward wing forward on the right, with duff his usual self on the elft. Essien dropped out to the right and gave a tad more width, but essentially played the sam.e
The reason Chelsea lost yesteday was because Lampard was off form. If he had been playing well, he would have scored.

Fulham are not an easy team to beat at home, and its not exactly an uber mistake.

SWP and Cole weren't doing ****e up front, he recognised his inital mistakes in the starting 11, and changed it the second he realised it. That takes courage and guts, and is the correct thing to do. Managers get paid to make those decesions, and sometimes they get them wrong. but considering how often he does get them wrong, i.e. twice in 2 years, means I think he is doing ok. And tbh, I sitll think he made the right decesion.

p.s.
I also think Cole is going to leave. Why?
I think Chelsea will buy another winger this year.
Chelsea's wingers havn't been good enough in Europe, and Mourinho will have recognised this. I can see a big big big winger being bought.

besty

Big Nelly wrote:

Pointless thread, just because Mourinho seen that he had made a mistake on his starting 11 and had the balls to change quickly because they where been over-run people start to question his management? people forget that Fergie did the same earlier this season against West Ham when after only 20 mins or so Silvestre was pulled off for Brown but because of the usual media cr*p about Mourinho this is all brought up, I didnt see a Fergie thread?? wonder why. Could it be Sky coverage??

Well they still didn't win the game, and Fulham were denied a stonewall pen so even those who are praising his hands on approach to the substitutions has to recognise that they obviously weren't that good in so far as they didn't win the game despite the fact the new lineup had 70 minutes to do so.

Ruskie4Rent

Big Nelly wrote:

Think its got more to do with the media than winning the game or losing, everyone in the media is after Mourinho since he took on the great Robson. This has been shown on here with the number of "We hate Chelsea/Mourinho" thread since then. Its a joke how much pull Sky has on the average supporter

What???? Sky has been essential in all the "mourinho is a genious" tripe that has been boring the s**t out of me since he joined chelsea.

He "took on" Brian Robson? He shouldn't be taking on anyone.....he's a bloody football manager, not a WWF wrestler. If it wasn't for sky, mourinho have such a boosted ego and wouldn't be making these decisions to try and prove how much of a tactical master mind he is.

Football matches consist of alot more than what the manager does, and to really believe that mourinho is behind every ounce of success that chelsea have had is ...........silly TBH. I'm not saying he isn't a fantastic manager but to say that he won or lost a match by a substitution or a diet regime or something can be ovey simplifying things a little.

Necronomicon

Big Nelly wrote:

Think its got more to do with the media than winning the game or losing, everyone in the media is after Mourinho since he took on the great Robson. This has been shown on here with the number of "We hate Chelsea/Mourinho" thread since then. Its a joke how much pull Sky has on the average supporter

Funny, I don't remember stating once in my post that I hated Mourinho.
And if Sky had such an influence on me I'd probably be resurrecting Jose statues all over town, because whenever he comes up in topic they are always falling all over each other to say he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Anyway, the thread has ran its course and I'm posting against my better judgement, but had to reply to this.
Seems you can't say something nowadays without being accused of being brain-washed by Sky.

cournioni

PHB wrote:

I can see a big big big winger being bought.

As big as Crouch?!

eirebhoy

PHB wrote:

The reason Chelsea lost yesteday was because Lampard was off form. If he had been playing well, he would have scored.

I think it's more a case of Chelsea play bad, so does Lampard.

In fairness to Mourinho, the 2 players he brought on were arguably Chelsea's best players. You can't take Joe Cole off so early in a game the way he's playing atm though. To me it'd be like taking Maloney off for Celtic and I'd be shocked if it happened. He wanted to get Duff's crosses into the 2 big strikers, he should have taken off one of the 3 central midfield players.

samb

Chucky the tree wrote:

What a absolute load of ****. :rolleyes:


Have a look at what he achieved for porto will ya?

I never said he isn't good, of course he is. My main point was that his achievements a Chelsea are nothing extraordinary and that as such many are over rating him.
I stand by my acertion that the achievments of Wenger are much more significant. But yes, in time this could change. As for SKY SPORTS, I don't have it and rarely watch it. I rely of Giles, Brady and Co, generally ignore Dunphy.

wheres me jumpa

Phil Thompson just put it beautifully regarding the double substitution....

He was looking at the game and thinking, we will win this no problem, ill make this double substitution and it will look like a master stroke.

It was definitely IMO a move to supplement his ego.

Headshot

i wonder if if the chosen one:rolleyes: went to a team like Newcastle what would he be like without all the millions?

Chucky the tree

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

i wonder if if the chosen one:rolleyes: went to a team like Newcastle what would he be like without all the millions?

You mean like what he did at porto yea?

blu_sonic

Chucky the tree wrote:

You mean like what he did at porto yea?

zing!!!

Headshot

Chucky the tree wrote:

You mean like what he did at porto yea?

turn them into a bunch of divers ,then i would say yes

i saw that drogba cheated again today :rolleyes:

Lemlin

{(-_-)}HeadShoT** wrote:

turn them into a bunch of divers ,then i would say yes

i saw that drogba cheated again today :rolleyes:

But you'd be forgetting the small fact that he took them from nothing and turned them into UEFA Cup and European champions. Such an easy thing to forget

As for Drogba, he must be the first player that has ever handled the ball before scoring. No other professional would ever imagine doing such a thing :rolleyes:

Headshot

Lemlin wrote:

As for Drogba, he must be the first player that has ever handled the ball before scoring. No other professional would ever imagine doing such a thing :rolleyes:

not the hand ball but for his dives

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/c/chelsea/4845996.stm

quite funney ,bloody idiot

NotWormBoy

Drogba, I suspect, meant to say "sometimes I fall over" rather than "sometimes I dive".

All teams have players who have dived. Arsenal have Reyes, Man United have Ronaldo, Liverpool have Garcia, Chelsea have Drogba.* Every team does it.

*I suspect someone will come back with "and cole and duff and robben and ... and...". I'm just mentioning one from each team. I could name a dozen more from those four sides.

PHB

Porto are not a small club! They are a big club and have considerable funds. Granted its not Chelsea's funds, but its not like he had no trasnfer budget. He joined them when they had a decent nucleus of a squad and bought successfully.

Don't forget how much luck was involved in their CL win aswell. Not like the luck that people say Liverpool got, but goals been not given due to offside and whathave. And also the amount of diving.

I always wonder how United would be doing if Howard hadn't fumbled or Scholes' goal had been justly allowed. Mourinho wouldn't be at Chelsea. United coulda won the CL. Ronaldinho coulda joined. It'd be a totally different world.