Jose's Tactics

The Muppet

Just wondering does anyone know why Jose has changed his tactic/team formations of late?

Earlier on in the season he was playing with wingers and doing well in all competitions. Then for some strange reason he decides to relegate all his wingers to the bench and change formation.

I have never seen any manager change a successful team mid season in such a fashion. There has to be a reason for it.

adox

Ego!

KdjaCL

Its like his teaching them a lesson at his expense
They play badly he drops them, eventually over a season with 60+ games they all will be dropped. Today made no sense even with pool expected to play narrow, they scored both goals tru the middle.


Dont honestly know what he was thinking playing a narrow mid too, as his best wins have come with wingers.


kdjac

PHB

Yeh but if you think about it, he effectivly nulled their midfield.

Liverpool's two goals came from clear defensive mistakes, not from any ingenuity from Liverpool.
So his tactics did what they were meant to do, stop Liverpool dominating the game. Unfortunately they made defensive mistakes so they lost.

ianomccabe

Gary Lineker made a good point at halftime. He compared Mourinho to Johan Cruyff who Lineker played under, on the premise that they both tended to go with something different tactically in order to make themselves look good if it came off.

Of course this time Mourinho just ended up looking silly

kaimera

PHB wrote:

Yeh but if you think about it, he effectivly nulled their midfield.

Liverpool's two goals came from clear defensive mistakes, not from any ingenuity from Liverpool.
So his tactics did what they were meant to do, stop Liverpool dominating the game. Unfortunately they made defensive mistakes so they lost.

But he didn't nullify anything, the liverpool midfield were on top until Jose brought on the widemen and mixed things up.

PHB

But they weren't really that on top. They of course had possession, but they weren't in domination of the game, which is shown by the amount of chances they managed to create themselves, very little.

The downside to this tactic was of course the fact that Chelsea had no real attacking impetus. That said, if they hadn't made the defensive mistakes, the game would have went the exact same way, with the wingers coming on when Liverpool's midfield was tired, and would have had the same effect (which wasn't much)

Ultimately, it was a good plan, but you can't plan for defensive mistakes.

KdjaCL

kaimera wrote:

But he didn't nullify anything, the liverpool midfield were on top until Jose brought on the widemen and mixed things up.

But Pool sat back like all teams do when winning with time to go, thus inviting them on. Up till then it was 2-0 to Rafa.


kdjac

Ruskie4Rent

I thought liverpool would rather playing against today's chelsea team than the usual formation. It allowed them dictate the play at the start.

eirebhoy

ianomccabe wrote:

Gary Lineker made a good point at halftime. He compared Mourinho to Johan Cruyff who Lineker played under, on the premise that they both tended to go with something different tactically in order to make themselves look good if it came off.

Of course this time Mourinho just ended up looking silly

I don't think there is any doubt that is true. He took Cole off and SWP off after 25 minutes because he expected to win the match and he would have taken all the credit when they won.

Yesterday's freekick against Terry which led to the goal wasn't a freekick. Jose mentioned it after the match but it just goes over everyone's head now. He complains about every petty incident that he's now just crying wolf when he actually has a valid claim.

growler

I think he was certainly guilty of showing too much repsect to Liverpool yesterday, Benitez and JM play a very tactical game, maybe he thought that by crowding mid field it would force Benitez to make early tactical changes to his formation and expected to be able to use substitutions subsequently to gain the upper hand.

I also think that a fear of losing in knockout games unduly influences JM into not playing our best attacking formation, Ranieri-esque toying with the team at such a stage in the season looks very strange to most observers, however its hard to argue with a manager with such a proven track record, who has lost just 5 games in a season (one of which was, understanably ,Barca) and retained the premiership title.

If it wasn't for the free kick (that shouldn't have been) the game might have been different, if we had played with Robben and Duff from the start it may have been different, if Kewell had played his usual game instead of looking like a decent attacker for once, if Cole had buried his sitter as normal etc. etc.

Fair play to Benitez, he got it right , ultimately.

RE*AC*TOR

He didn't nullify liverpool's midfield. Kewell had his best EVER game for liverpool - and alonso had no problem spraying the ball around.

They strike me as the tactics of someone bored with his job. Either that or of someone, so arrogant that he thinks anything he touches will turn to gold.

It was a nonsense selection, and everyone could tell that.

ButcherOfNog

I thought his tactics were sound, Liverpool dominate midfield against just about anyone, so he setup to stop them, tire them out, and then bring out the pacey firepower. It does make sense but....but...but...

But erm, he shouldn't be second guessing himself and the team thats done so well, he was obviously worried enough about Liverpools midfield to change the way Chelsea played. I think hes begining to believe his own press, he wanted not only to beat Liverpool but to out-tactic Benitez. He failed, and he is pretty miffed about it. Pity Man U couldn't beat Sunderland and have got him really nervous in the league. I'm wondering will some of the Chelsea players start to ponder exactly how special the special one is. The money and quality of the squad will be terribly difficult to beat over a season in the league, but hes not managed to do the business in the Champions League, and in particular against Barca this year in the 2nd leg, again it was his tactics that let Chelsea down.

The fact is, Chelsea have not had as good a season as they had last season, they've retained the league title but were by no means as dominant. I feel the cracks are beginning to show, can't wait for next season

~Rebel~

I have to admit i was grinning from ear to ear when i saw TSO's teamsheet! Paolo Ferreira in midfield? Geremi at RB? when cole, duff, robben and SWP are on the available! Madness. In essence his idea of trying to break up liverpools control in midfield was probably a good one, but imo he went about it very oddly with the wrong personel. having Geremi at RB completely threw out his team as it meant Ferreira, instead of breaking up midfield, had to keep looking over his shoulder as geremi called for help. Also baffled he left it like that for so long and didn't swap Ferreira and Geremi as soon as Kewell showed he was up for it and was heading straight down geremi's throat every chance he got.

Tactically its pretty clear Benitez going for a straightforward strong athletic midfield and keeping kewell and gerrard available wide to really go at chelsea was the way to go. If it hadn't been for wasteful finishing the game could have been over before chelseas massive resurgence (coincidentally with the introduction of what looked like the team most would have expected from the off). Garcia could/should have had a hattrick if he had managed to convert what were far easier chances then the one he took.

iregk

Well to be fair Chelsea were not playing great and a change was needed so he did it. 4-4-2. Ok for me I'd want 2 wide men in there but for the past few weeks it has worked! Chelsea play so much better and they play stunning football when they are in 4-4-2 form with two wide men.

I think the lineup was to stiffle Liverpool and it worked! The game was woefull, but all pool chels games are. Liverpool despite claims did not dominate the midfield, much like chelsea midfield they were non existant. Gerrard, Alonso and Lampard didn't even look like they were playing.

The two goals did not come out of moments of brilliance, altough great finish for the 2nd to be fair. The free was never a free and even if it was it was a poor kick that the wall should have stopped. The 2nd was a dire mistake from Gallas. So overall the tactics were good, they were right, but you cannot account for individual mistakes be it from players or officials.

Also, I didn't see the ending but on the radio this morning a sports reporter was saying that it was Rafa who walked away from Jose? Any truth in that, did anyone see it?

redspider

Its not the first time that Mourinho has deployed an unusual formation/set of players. This was 4-4-2, but as I mentioned in my report on the game on the match thread, the choice of very defensive players left Chelsea with little creation for the two players up-front.

In some recent games, Mourinho has been tinkering, and using only one winger rather than his standard 4-3-3 with one central striker and two wingers/strikers (that come in at angles and dont go to bye-lines) in the shape of Duff (lately benched a lot), Robben, Cole, Wright-Phillips. The reason why he is changing things is that a) results havent been going Chelsea's way recently and b) Liverpool have usually been quite effective against Chelsea even when 4-3-3 was used c) both Crespo and Drogba seemed to be playing quite well.

eirebhoy wrote:

Yesterday's freekick against Terry which led to the goal wasn't a freekick. Jose mentioned it after the match but it just goes over everyone's head now. He complains about every petty incident that he's now just crying wolf when he actually has a valid claim.

This incident didnt go over my head. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one eirebhoy as it was definitely a free kick and was rightly given. Going for the ball with studs up is dangerous play and should always be given as a foul even if the player wins the ball cleanly - the opponent in this case, Garcia, had to pull out of his shot.

Terry has been getting away with a lot of fouling over the last couple of years, such as handballs, and this incident along with the hands on Riise's shoulder incident were rightly picked up by the ref. Mourinho hasnt a leg to stand on as these incidents are both fouls and should have been given. Moaninho was at it again.

Also, Mourinho was stating that Chelsea should have taken their chances, one of which was the Drogba one in the 1st half (before the Liverpool goal) which was clearly offside. Its funny how Mourinho's myopic memory doesnt pick that aspect up.

> The game was woefull, but all pool chels games are

erm, no, the game was not woeful.

redspider

(ps: mike65, as a threadstarter, can you create one thread for big matches so that all the issues are contained in one thread? Due to the other semi-final the Liverpool - Chelsea thread has fragmented into several talking points and threads)

TheMonster

redspider wrote:

This incident didnt go over my head. I think you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one eirebhoy as it was definitely a free kick and was rightly given. Going for the ball with studs up is dangerous play and should always be given as a foul even if the player wins the ball cleanly - the opponent in this case, Garcia, had to pull out of his shot.

Not being pedantic here but how can you go for a high ball without showing your studs (you can't exactly use the top of your foot) - I only saw the incident on the night but from recollection Garicas foot was almost as high as Terrys - the only reason being he is not as tall. I don't see how you can say he was in the act of shooting though. Crouchs tackel with Cudicini was unpunished and his leg was a lot higher and studs were showing.

iregk

From what I make of it. Both players had high feet. Garcia was not shooting he was trying to get the ball under control. As both of them had high feet how do you determin which one to award a free kick to? The one that wins the ball. In this case Terry.

super_furry

The thing is, he took the ball down WITH his studs, using a dangerous 'raking' movement. It's against the rules of the game and was rightly a free-kick, but when did that ever stop Jose crying?

RE*AC*TOR

Exactly - and he is obviously lying when he thinks Terry's "goal" was proper. He clearly had both hands on the defender's shoulders (Riise i think), preventing him from jumping.

I'd be embarrassed by this kind of nonsense if I was a Chelsea fan.

iregk

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Exactly - and he is obviously lying when he thinks Terry's "goal" was proper. He clearly had both hands on the defender's shoulders (Riise i think), preventing him from jumping.

I'd be embarrassed by this kind of nonsense if I was a Chelsea fan.

Ok the Terry goal was rightly disallowed, it was almost like a rugby line out for gods sake! The free kick I think both players were doing the same thing, Garcia had studs up as well!!!

On the last point. I'm a Chelsea fan. Am I embarrassed by Jose? No. Sometimes I think he is brilliant, other times I think he talks out of his ar$e but he doesn't embarrass me. He can say what the hell he likes (within reason obviously) as long as he keeps bringing sucess to the club.

I'd prefer if he talked absolute crap and brought good times rather than him saying nothing and winning nothing!

Jimboo_Jones

It wasn't a free kick, the ball was there to be won - but Liverpool where the better team for most of the match and deserved to win, in my opinion.

Strange (IE crazy) tactics from the chosen one and I think this is what lost them the game, I really liked this guy when he first came here, but I think he is starting to get as mardy and excuse driven as Fergie now

TheMonster

has anyone a picture or image of the tackle _ i haven't seen it since the night

Davei141

If anyone has a video of the match, check the 17th minute mark where crouch does the same thing to terry...leading to terry requesting a free kick and getting one.

RE*AC*TOR

iregk wrote:

I'd prefer if he talked absolute crap and brought good times rather than him saying nothing and winning nothing!

do you really believe the success is due to the manager?

iregk

No its obviously not. Its a mystical being that lives in the stamford bridge pitch!

Of course it is, along with the players and all the other back room staff!!! Are you going to tell me now that Jose has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with any sucess Chelsea have?

RE*AC*TOR

its a matter of proportion.

Sure he has a role. Is it a role, that for instance, Graeme Souness couldn't have done with all that money?

Mark

I'd say half the first teams hamstrings would have imploded the moment Souness walked in the door.

iregk

Yes it is. Graeme Souness is a bad manager and all the money in the world wouldn't give him sucess in this day and age.

Raneiri could only come second. So whats your point?

futuredeath

oh god he has little to do with the success,
Ranieri would of made chelsea unbeatable,
Chelsea would be like the Harlem Globetrotters.

RE*AC*TOR

Ranieri finished second to a team that didn't get beaten all season. They also got to the CL Semi Finals that year.

In fact most of the players that play for Chelsea most frequently were Ranieri's team. Mourinho has tended to sign a lot of bench warmers.


Ricardo Carvalho - he plays
Tiago Mendes - rarely plays
Didier Drogba - plays
Mateja Kezman - gone
Arjen Robben - inherited signing from Ranieri
Petr Cech - inherited signing from Ranieri
Paulo Ferreira - rotation

Nuno Ribeiro Maniche - bench warmer
Michael Essien - plays
Shaun Wright-Phillips - bench warmer
Lassana Diarra - ?
Asier Del Horno - plays

iregk

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

Ranieri finished second to a team that didn't get beaten all season. They also got to the CL Semi Finals that year.

This bit we know, but Ranieri was always 1 decision away from calamity. He wouldn't have won the league with Chelsea.

As for the players you mention.

Ricardo Carvalho - he plays
Tiago Mendes - rarely plays Thats because the sold him.
Didier Drogba - plays
Mateja Kezman - gone Claudio signing, sold.
Arjen Robben - inherited signing from Ranieri
Petr Cech - inherited signing from Ranieri
Paulo Ferreira - rotation You cannot say he is rotation. Only recently been dropped.

Nuno Ribeiro Maniche - bench warmer Bought as emergency cover.
Michael Essien - plays
Shaun Wright-Phillips - bench warmer Hasn't worked out, fair enough
Lassana Diarra - ? 20 y/o bought as future replacement for Makellelle
Asier Del Horno - plays

What exactly are you expecting from Mourinho? That after only 2 years in charge he would have completely thrown out the Raneiri team and brought in an entire new squad?

Rikand

iregk wrote:

What exactly are you expecting from Mourinho? That after only 2 years in charge he would have completely thrown out the Raneiri team and brought in an entire new squad?

Absolutely not! seeing as Claudio bought a whole pile of legends and Mourinho hasnt yet though hes working on it

iregk

True that he is.

redspider

TheMonster wrote:

Not being pedantic here but how can you go for a high ball without showing your studs (you can't exactly use the top of your foot) - I only saw the incident on the night but from recollection Garicas foot was almost as high as Terrys - the only reason being he is not as tall. I don't see how you can say he was in the act of shooting though. Crouchs tackel with Cudicini was unpunished and his leg was a lot higher and studs were showing.

Lets treat each incident on its own merits. Terry used the sole of his foot when playing the ball. Thats what studs up means. You probably know that but in case there are some here that dont.

A player can go for a high ball by using the front-side of his foot, toes, instep, or side of the foot. Not the sole.

Playing the ball (or attempting to) with the sole of your football boot (studs) whether down low or up high is deemed dangerous play and a foul. Terry clearly went into that block in that manner, intentionally. So, it is clearly a foul and the Ref was 100% correct. I dont agree with Hansen/Lawrenson or whoever it was in the BBC studio who said it wasnt a foul. Those guys sometimes dont even know the offside rules!

The Crouch/Cudicini clash is a separate incident. From recollection, it would seem a foul to me, as goalkeepers are protected once they get a touch on the ball. Cudicini had his hand on the ball. Crouch does not look like he intentionally went in with studs up as it was more his follow-through of his swing. If that would have been given as a foul against Crouch, I and I dont think many Liverpool supporters would have thought it unjust. During the heat of the moment I had throught that Cudicini had fouled Crouch and I thought it was a penalty (ala Baros, Cech last year), but in slow mo Cudicini got to the ball around the same time, and if thats how the ref also saw it in real-time then it was a correct call. It looks like he deemed it to be a 50-50 clash rather than an intentional foul, and he probably also took into consideration that Chelsea cleared the ball.

Who would want to be a ref in these matches ....... or indeed most matches. Little thanks and lots of scrutiny for what must be split-second decisions.

redspider

TheMonster

redspider wrote:

Lets treat each incident on its own merits. Terry used the sole of his foot when playing the ball. Thats what studs up means. You probably know that but in case there are some here that dont.

A player can go for a high ball by using the front-side of his foot, toes, instep, or side of the foot. Not the sole.

Playing the ball (or attempting to) with the sole of your football boot (studs) whether down low or up high is deemed dangerous play and a foul. Terry clearly went into that block in that manner, intentionally. So, it is clearly a foul and the Ref was 100% correct. I dont agree with Hansen/Lawrenson or whoever it was in the BBC studio who said it wasnt a foul. Those guys sometimes dont even know the offside rules!

The Crouch/Cudicini clash is a separate incident. From recollection, it would seem a foul to me, as goalkeepers are protected once they get a touch on the ball. Cudicini had his hand on the ball. Crouch does not look like he intentionally went in with studs up as it was more his follow-through of his swing. If that would have been given as a foul against Crouch, I and I dont think many Liverpool supporters would have thought it unjust. During the heat of the moment I had throught that Cudicini had fouled Crouch and I thought it was a penalty (ala Baros, Cech last year), but in slow mo Cudicini got to the ball around the same time, and if thats how the ref also saw it in real-time then it was a correct call. It looks like he deemed it to be a 50-50 clash rather than an intentional foul, and he probably also took into consideration that Chelsea cleared the ball.

Who would want to be a ref in these matches ....... or indeed most matches. Little thanks and lots of scrutiny for what must be split-second decisions.

redspider

Lets agree to disagree - Most time I try to play a high ball I will make contact with my studs. I would like to see the incodent again but my reaction was he was trying to play the ball as was Garcia its just that he could get higher.

~Rebel~

From my own experience, i know i've made that exact challange (sole of boot coming down on ball as the other player kicks upwards) and have had a free called against me every time. Been booked twice for it. As soon as i saw it on tv anyway i called free.

On another note, i couldn't sworn Kezman was Jose's signing, didn't think Ranieri bought anyone in the summer he left bar the deals he already had in place for Robben and Cech. personally, imo, i think Ranieri would have won the league had he stayed on. Yes he finished 2nd the first time, to an unbelieveable team, and in his first year with money. Who honestly thinks he wouldn't have grown on that with an unlimited bank account?

iregk

When Raneiri was in charge he was signing a lot of players but I personally couldn't see a plan behind it so I don't think he woudl have built nearly as well as he could have. With that in mind no I do not believe he would have won the league.

Kezman was Raneiri's signing and came in at the same time as Robben. Hence why he got the nickname Batman.. I'll leave that with ya to figure out!

el rabitos

On another note, i couldn't sworn Kezman was Jose's signing

your right, kezman was signed by mourinho, i thought he signed cezh too, maybe i'm wrong on that one

Kezman was Raneiri's signing and came in at the same time as Robben. Hence why he got the nickname Batman.. I'll leave that with ya to figure out!

kezman was called batman long before he and robben joined chelsea, it was a psv thing. whenever kezman scored, which was about 2 or 3 times in most games, they played the batman music

~Rebel~

Cech was definately Ranieri's. I remember going to the czech republic ireland match in lansdown on a college trip in april and 'cech'ing him out there (excuse the terrible pun), cause a deal had already been put in place for the end of the season, and Ranieri was still manager till the end.

iregk

el rabitos wrote:

your right, kezman was signed by mourinho, i thought he signed cezh too, maybe i'm wrong on that one

kezman was called batman long before he and robben joined chelsea, it was a psv thing. whenever kezman scored, which was about 2 or 3 times in most games, they played the batman music

Ah yeah I know it was an old PSV thing. Sure I remember the headlines chelsea sign batman and robben but Kezman was a Raneiri signing.

Necronomicon

I was pretty positive as well that Mourinho signed Kezman. I thought the only deals that Ranieri left in place were the ones for Cech and Robben. Maybe Kezman had been linked with them as well?