Team Focus: Have Jose Mourinho's Chelsea Actually Been Boring?
Last week I wrote a piece for the Guardian in which I described Jose Mourinho as a “fallen angel”; an extraordinary number of top-level modern coaches worked at Barcelona in the nineties – not only Mourinho but also Pep Guardiola, Luis Enrique, Louis van Gaal, Julen Lopetegui, Ronald Koeman, Frank De Boer, Philip Cocu and Laurent Blanc – but where the rest all prefer a style based on pressing and possession, the Chelsea manager, at least in big games, favours a reactive approach. He is happy for his team to sit deep and wait for mistakes.
None of that seems to me especially controversial, but the piece attracted well over 1000 comments and I was besieged on Twitter. The point was not to criticise Mourinho, but to acknowledge that there is a facet of the game in which he excels; he has the courage to step apart from the crowd and do things his own way and that is why he is so successful. I speculated that one of the reasons he so revelled in that role was that he felt a sense of rejection from Barcelona and so relished showing theirs wasn’t the only way of doing things.
Perhaps because I wrote the piece in St Peter’s Square in Rome while waiting for the Pope, I made the connection to Satan in Paradise Lost, which I suppose to those who haven’t read the poem may seem condemnatory. Satan, though, despite Milton’s best intentions, rapidly becomes the hero of the poem, aligning himself against a far more powerful force on a point of principle. One of the fascinations of Paradise Lost is Milton wrestling with the fact that Satan is a more attractive character than the often priggish heroes of heaven – just as those who prefer Barcelona’s style of play often become sanctimonious in insisting it is the “right” way.
At the Emirates on Sunday, Arsenal fans chanted “Boring, boring Chelsea.” You hope there was some self-awareness there from a club that had the jibe directed at them during the George Graham years (and that won the 1997-98 title under Arsene Wenger by keeping 12 clean sheets in a 14-match run and scoring just 19 goals in a 16-game stretch from November to March). But there are some who seem genuinely angered that a manager can set his side up to defend; they’ve paid for their cable subscription and they demand entertainment.
Football, hopefully, will never just become players taking turns to do tricks as the self-entitled seem to demand but, anyway, just how boring have Chelsea been? Only Manchester City have scored more than Chelsea’s 65 goals and nobody has scored more than the 34 Chelsea have managed away from home.
They may have had only 41.7% possession in drawing at the Emirates on Sunday and 32.9% in beating Manchester United the previous week, but over the season as a whole they’ve averaged 55.1%, the fifth highest figure in the division. Their total of 528.2 passes per game is the third highest – behind only the two Manchester clubs. Reactivity has only been for certain circumstances. 406 accurate short passes per game – which might be considered an in indicator of a Barcelona-style approach – is the fourth-highest figure.
They’ve managed 14.9 shots per game, the fourth highest figure in the Premier League, 5.6 of them on target, the second highest figure. They’re not even that stifling: the 10.9 shots they’ve conceded per game is only the joint-fifth best mark in the division. The real indicator of how they defend is the 9.7 interceptions they’ve managed per game, by some distance the lowest average in the division: rather than seeking the ball, they allow the opposition possession and wait for the mistake.
Still, though, that’s merely a matter of style. This Chelsea is capable of playing a higher level of reactive football than anybody else in the Premier League; it’s baffling that that should be spun into a moral issue.
Do you think this Chelsea side really are boring? Let us know in the comments below
If you are old enough to have witnessed how football has evolved over the years, you will come to understand that football now is all about results and not just "entertainment". in the 40's and 50's that was the game...entertain. now? trailer loads of cash are used to buy players not to come and play entertaining football, but to bring results. Wenger & Arsenal FC havent grown up to mordern day yet. Vertually all players that left Arsenal FC to other clubs have gone and won trophies, which is every players dream. Ask Fabregas, he will tell you he is playing the best football of his career, not for any reason, but because he is winning the EPL title. Something he will never have done had he played for a team that played "exciting" football. in conclusion, Mourinho says it all- "I think boring is 10 years without a title - that's boring. If you support a club and you wait, wait, wait for so many years without a Premier League title, then that's boring".
I've seen teams won the league albeit in a manner similar to Mourinho's methods the manager being fired (anyone remembers Capello's Madrid). The reason why the English national team can never grow is focusing on the winning irrespective of how it's been won. If Chelsea with a 10 pts gap at the top of EPL table can be humiliated by a 10 man PSG who were totally destroyed by Barca 5-1 on aggregate doesn't send a message to the English journalists as well as her people, I wonder how their football will grow. I also want to remind some people with short memories how Mourinho cried against West Ham last season saying they played 19th century football when he was beaten to his own game at Standford Bridge by Sam Allardyce. Wise up English people, wise up.
@chrisbridge just coiple of seasons back chelsea beat barca in both legs especially away one with 2 goals scored after going to 10 men .. and chelsea were not humiliated as they drew games with PSG having 120 mins for that away goal .. and vs arsenal would have loved to see how attractive arsenal would have managed to play after their keeper would have been sent off for the foul on oscar and hazard scoring the penalty ..
@whoatemyjam How did Chelsea beat Barca again? By playing incredibly boring 'park the bus' ultra-defensive catenaccio football. 11 men behind the ball and countering with Ramires and Torres. Chelsea have no courage, no class and no flair. Compare Barcelona and their football to Chelsea and its embarrassing for the Premier League! Boring, boring Chelsea. Boring, boring, Chelsea (and Chelsea know it too!)
"rather than seeking the ball, they allow the opposition possession and wait for the mistake." This statement couldn't be more wrong. Chelsea under Mourinho, and one of Mourinho's most well known philosophies is pressing the opposition high up the pitch. It is a hallmark of Mourinho's team's and we've (or at least those who watch Chelsea on a regular basis) seen Costa, Oscar, Hazard and Willian do a lot of that this season. I think the lack of interceptions is as a result of the way Chelsea's back 5 defend as a unit.
@Excalibur- That's true against weaker opposition but it's not against the top teams. There are 2 Mourinho blueprints, the one against teams they can outplay and the one against teams they can't. You only need to have seen Mourinho's setups in games against the better footballing opposition during his whole career from Porto through to his 2nd stint at Chelsea to see this is the case. Against opposition as good or better, they sit back and hit on the counter or wait for mistakes, his Real Madrid team did that against Barcelona every game and Chelsea do against Arsenal and Man City every game.
the crowd was booing at arsenal, 0 goal in like 800 minutes vs chelsea. they manage 1 shot on goal all game, that sad for a team that claims they are offensive and attractive
@edemex Arsenal are world famous for Jogo Bonito. Chelsea are world famous for being boring. Accept it, move on.
They may be...but they'll take the trophy at the end of the season and, unfornunately (i'm an Arsenal fun), this is what really matters.
As for the Graham's Arsenal vs Mourinho's Chelsea argument, there is none. There is a vast difference between a defensive-minded team (Graham's Arsenal) and an anti-football one (Mourinho's teams against better footballing opposition) not to mention the level of football in this country now is 10 times that of the level during 1986 and 1995- 100% down to Wenger's ethos I might add. When Chelsea actually had the ball yesterday they showed no endeavour, were happy passing it between themselves on the halfway line to waste time and prevent us from attacking. Good tactics if you're winning 1-0. The Arsenal teams under Graham only played defensively ONCE we scored hence 1-0 to the Ar-sen-al. The lack of any ambition when Chelsea were in possession barring 2 passes (1 from an ex-Arsenal player...) is why they got the chants, not because they are defensively sound. Given the fact Chelsea were/are so far ahead in the league, the ultra-negative tactics so early on was a bit sad to see.
@SteveHyland You turned out like all the other Arsenal fans. What a shame, thought there was some sense in you
@Ferit22- Explain please...
@SteveHyland Branding our football as "anti-football"?. The way Chelsea passed the ball in defence was because we were allowed to. Arsenal didnt want to risk too much, probably because of recent results still fresh in their minds. I will admit, we play very reactive against you lot, but that is because you are one of the worlds best at keeping possession imo. Teams have different strengths and weaknesses, and Mourinhos job is to know them. Calling it for anti-football reminds me of every 13 year old fan on troll football.
@Ferit22 What about VS PSG against 10 men still boring and playing for a draw. And as Zlatan said 'A bunch of babies' trying to get opposing players sent off by cynical anti football. Chelsea will never be know for Jogo Bonito, only for racist behaviour and cynical anti-football.
@Overmars Barca, Bayern, Real, Atletico. Just watch their games and see how they influence the referees. English football needs to adapt to the refereeing in the CL, we have seen how teams get knocked out because of their naivety. (United - Real Madrid comes to mind) Also, the PSG game. Chelsea was in good control and conceded on 2 set pieces. Not much you can do about that is it?
Chelsea are boring against the top teams, yes- that is without question. I, as an Arsenal fan, however, would take some boring away wins against the top teams if it meant we could contest the title. Wenger's purist attitude is why he has never beaten Mourinho and possibly never will until we play Chelsea in the situation where THEY are the ones needing to win. Sure, Chelsea turn on the style against the Europa cup teams and lower but Mourinho's tactics against better footballing ones is defensive every single time (including the home game against PSG where they had 11 vs 10 and all the cards stacked in their favour!). He's a winner so will ultimately point to his trophy cabinet and shrug off the boring tag but if you have the quality of player he has had at Chelsea, Real and Inter and still play defensively against your rivals, you can hardly be described as a tactical genius. After all, sticking bodies behind the ball is what Pulis' teams do yet his teams aren't world class.
Jose is a genius, no 2 ways about it. He knows how to milk a result out of any game, specially big ones. His rejection from Barcelona in 2008 had an impact on him, how come a club he worked for before chooses an inexperienced man over him. But since he left Spain in 2013, Jose wasn't the same man he was once, something was broken inside of him and he wanted to prove everyone wrong and he wanted to show that he can still do it. Last season didn't help but this one seen Mou slightly returning to his best. But still, Mourinho is still shaken in Europe, and for the 2nd season in a row he exits the CL on Stamford Bridge, both time after getting decent results away. Mourinho couldn't push his team like he always does in big games. It's like he forgot how to finish oppositions off when the game was in his hands. As for Arsenal fans, shut the hell up and don't think you deserve the league after playing a couple of good months. 4th is still waiting for you.
When the ice gets thin under his feet, mou doesn't take any risks, he goes full pragmatic. Obviously a game without errors, gets easily boring, but in a winning position is not a problem for him, it's an opponents' duty to flip the situation. You can't blame him for yesterday. What was he supposed to do? To play offensive and invite arsenal to score?! For what? You should blame him when he use this attitude in an open match, like CL against PSG, a passive attitude that puts the whole outcome in the hands of his opponent, resulting in an incapacity to close the qualification in the second leg. Anyway in the first part of the season Chelsea played well and were capable to get themselves the points, without waiting or speculating. Mourinho won the title in those months, not now. P.s. I'm an arsenal fan
Also worth noting that more than half of the worldwide viewers who tune to watch the PL are neutral so they want good quality football specially when top teams play each other. Chelsea as a whole haven't got any history or tradition either which could make people fall in love with the club or view them in high esteem like Arsenal(invincible) , Liverpool (5 CL titles) , United(treble) or Man City(empty seats). So the only way they can help themselves and the league is by playing good football and making the top games a good spectacle. The Chelsea would actually represent English football now that they would win the title. Their boring tactics and that embarrassing result against 10 men PSG at home who were annihilated by Barca the very next round don't help PL themselves and the PL though.
@NotBiased All very true. The problem is that Chelsea is a business and not really a football club, and also that their fans are some of the worst in the Premier League. Not so long ago West Ham fans were booing Allardyce for his boring football, despite doing well in the league. Chelsea fans and Abramovic don't seem to have any passion (sorry to use this battered word) for football, all they care about is winning, by hook or by crook. Most of us started watching football because it's entertaining, and even beautiful, not because one team was winning. Even Real Madrid wouldn't stand for Mourinho's negative tactics against Barca, hell, even the defence-loving Italians grew sick of his football, despite all his trophies. The author is one of those who doesn't care as long as the results roll in.
Scoring and playing attractive football are all well and good against mediocre teams. But Mourinho's style in big games is what makes people question him and rightfully so. Chelsea have spent over half a billion since their last title win so they are expected to provide good football and play with positive tactics when going into big games. They are not QPR or Burnley who can get away with playing boring football because of their lesser quality and its not that they have limited budget to spend or anything either. Chelsea have two of the best players in the league both of whom were bought for large sums so the argument of setting up a team just because it suits Mourinho with players he has at disposal doesn't work either. The only way Chelsea can away with it is if they're blooding in youngsters or doing something which would benefit the league or else in history they would go down as just another club that won a lottery.
I am a Barca fan. I hate Mou even though we destroyed him generally. But the man is a genius. He knows his job and his teams are very fluent, motivated and hard to beat. I am sick of Arsenal, City and United haters trying to bash him. He has the best percentege of wins in EPL, hee won La Liga, CL 2x, Serie A, EPL, FA cup... He can win it all ffs. ANd at the begining of the season they destroyed everybody. What about last season? 6:0
@blitz He also gouged Tito's eyes but you seem to have forgiven him for that. Disgraceful.
What pretentious nonsense, this, and The Guardian article. And how you attemt to prove a style is boring or not with statistics is beyond understanding, but is something many journos have resorted to. If I want to read pretentious nonsense, I'll read The Guardian or the Telegraph.
Speaking about how many goals Chelsea scored is irrelevant; being boring is just a matter of style, no matter how many goals they score. The figures about their passes and their possession are quite good, but don't forget that Chelsea's team is much more technical than 80% of other PL sides, so it's quite normal that they dominate possession against second-tier clubs. But against big clubs, they prefer to play in a reactive way, which can be considered as boring. And even against small clubs, they are not as pleasing to watch as Arsenal or City. At the end of the day, being boring or not is a very subjective question. If someone likes to watch a team defending well and rushing on counter-attacks, that's great and there isn't anything to object.
Yesterdays match was boring. A top match between the number one and two of the Premiere League shoud be spectacular, and if it is not. Media go beserk shooting Chelsea is boring. But the fact is Chelsea ins't boring, but yesterdays game was. And who cares really? Chelsea may be boring, or park a bus the whole season (which they didn't). If they are champions, who cares how they've done it? It's up to the other teams to defeat them. I'm not a Chelsea fan at all, but I don't know what the fuzz is about. Mourinho is a tactical Genius. If he wants to defend (which is obviously a part of football) and win games like that, who cares?
I wouldn't say boring, but they're not much fun to watch when they face the big teams. Mourinho, though, knows how to play to his side's strengths and he is brilliant at doing so. At times this season they have been great to watch.