A Campaign Or Just Jose's Mind Games?

There is nothing as fickle, or indeed hypocritical, as a football manager (except perhaps football fans). Jose Mourinho's comments this weekend that referees, pundits and the whole football community are involved in some campaign against Chelsea are about as close to a conspiracy theory as aliens or JFK's assassination. I'll go through all the reasons that this is undoubtedly the case, before looking at the possible alternative reasons that Mourinho could have had for saying what he did, coming directly from the mind of a cynic.

Firstly, let's examine exactly what Mourinho said and the context in which he said it. Following his side's disappointing 1-1 draw with Southampton, the Portuguese manager was understandably livid with the decision by referee Anthony Taylor not to award a penalty for a clear foul by Saints defender Matt Targett. Worse still, he booked Cesc Fabregas for simulation, only adding to the sense of injustice felt by Chelsea. To this point, his anger is totally reasonable. We see a plethora of managers across the Football Leagues fined for outbursts in post-match interviews every year, particularly related to refereeing decisions. To that end, I do understand the difficulty of attempting to keep your emotions in check following a perceived injustice - particularly when you're presented with a camera in your face no more than five minutes after the incident!

However, Jose Mourinho's reaction was on a whole other level. Here are his exact words from his interview with the BBC:

"The media, commentators, other managers are all doing it [putting pressure on referees]. There is a campaign against Chelsea. I don't know why there is this campaign and I do not care. 

"Everybody knows it was a penalty. The referee made a mistake, people make mistakes and he made a big mistake. He is a good referee and a good guy, he is young, he has years and years of football ahead of him but it is a big mistake."

This statement is ludicrous. It is, in fact, so outrageously idiotic that Mourinho himself realised how it sounded, as the second paragraph is considerably more measured and controlled. I particularly like the word 'commentators' in there - I think you were meaning 'pundits', Jose? I know as he has a great grip of the English language (certainly far better than my Portuguese), I have little room for mockery or complaint, however I found the notion of Howard Webb watching Match of the Day and being influenced by John Motson incredibly amusing!

Here a just a few reasons from this season that demonstrate just how ridiculous Mourinho's claims are:

1) There's no smoke without fire
If there is any element of truth in the idea that referees are not giving decisions Chelsea's way, it's probably because of their reputation developed over the last few games. Just like we saw from the likes of El Hadji Diouf, Cristiano Ronaldo and Gareth Bale, a reputation for diving often sees you fail to get decisions you really probably should. Following high profile cases of simulation from the Chelsea team (Willian, Diego Costa, Ivanovic and another high profile example that I'll use later), it's hardly surprising that referees and the rest of the footballing world are getting more than a little fed up with their antics. Not enough to warrant conspiracy theories, but the benefit of the doubt has long since vanished.

2) It's not just Chelsea, you know?
Another of my favourite things about football managers is their uncanny ability to be able to completely ignore anything that goes their way or anything that disproves their theory (which is why I'm not holding out much hope that Jose Mourinho is paying attention to what I'm writing - yeah, that's the only reason he wouldn't read this!). Neil Warnock is the master of this, and as a result has got himself into trouble more times than I can count. However, even this season, we have seen examples of exactly what happened to Cesc Fabregas happen to other clubs. The most high profile of these was also at St Mary's just a few short weeks ago. Despite clearly being clattered by Jose Fonte (arguably even more obviously than Saturday's challenge, which ultimately saw a centre back stumbling and colliding with a forward), Sergio Aguero was booked for simulation. We see numerous cases of footballing miscarriages of justice every year - that doesn't make it right, but if it stamps out diving once and for all, it's a price worth paying in my opinion. But no, Jose, it's not just your team it happens to.

3) I'm sure there's a saying involving glass houses and stones...
What makes Mourinho's comments even more ironic is the fact that Chelsea got away with the most obvious example of diving this season. Earlier this month, Hull's visit to Stamford Bridge (the location of this isn't a coincidence) saw Gary Cahill get away with footballing murder. Already on a yellow card (which was bordering on red to say the least), he made a quite ridiculous attempt to win a penalty, throwing himself through the air between two onrushing Hull defenders. The result - zero contact, but no second yellow. So when Jose talks about game-changing moments, he may want to remember a far more significant one that went in his favour.

We have very rarely seen managers completely lose the plot in front of the media. My favourite example of this remains Rafa Benitez's 'FACT' rant - though as a City fan most of what he said is absolutely true! I have seen people suggest that Jose's outburst is up there with him, however, those of you that have read my work before know that I'm far too cynical to believe that Mourinho lost control. He has already proven himself to be an expert in mind games, and is the only man I have ever seen get under the skin of Manuel Pellegrini. This has all the hallmarks of his own attempts to get into the referee's subconscious when the next dubious dive or penalty decisions come up, so we see more of the Cahill examples and less of the Fabregas ones.

To ridicule Mourinho for his comments misses the point of them entirely, and this is why he is so clever. By getting people talking about them ensures they remain in the public's, and perhaps even the referees', minds. I understand that by writing this post, I am somewhat contributing to this, but I rationalise this by saying that by highlighting the potential hidden reasons behind his comments, they will cease to have the desired effect.

Or perhaps Mourinho is just mad - he did make comments about Barcelona receiving favourable decisions thanks to their sponsorship with Unicef once upon a time, after all?

Citeh's European Woes: Why Is It Going Wrong?

Four years of Champions League experience, and City have got exactly nowhere. A last 16 appearance, equalled by Celtic and Basel, and bettered by Cypriot minnows APOEL Nicosia in the same time period. So what's gone wrong for the richest club in the world, champions of one of the world's most competitive leagues twice in the last three years?

In fairness, though this is not a complete excuse, a lot has been said about the bad luck City have suffered when it comes to the Champions League draws they have received. In the last four years they have been drawn alongside the runners-up twice and a semi-finalist, and only once have they been among the favourites to emerge from their group. This particularly stark when we compare their misfortune in draws to Chelsea's opening few draws in the Champions League (2003-2006):

Manchester City                                                          Chelsea

2011 - Bayern Munich, Villareal, Napoli                      2003 - Sparta Prague, Besiktas, Lazio

2012 - Real Madrid, Borussia Dortmund, Ajax            2004 - Porto, CSKA Moscow, PSG

2013 - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, V. Plzen        2005 - Liverpool, Real Betis, Anderlecht

2014 - Bayern Munich, CSKA Moscow, AS Roma     2006 - Barcelona, Werder Bremen, Levski Sofia

As you can see from the two draws, on only one occasion (2004) can Chelsea claim to have had as difficult a group as City, but it is also worth bearing in mind that Paris Saint Germain were not the European force that they are now, and as a result finished bottom of the group that year with just one point. Other than that, Chelsea have had a fairly simple journey to the last 16 as group winners, giving them a preferable draw going forward. On the other hand, on the one occasion City did make it out of their group, their second place finish meant they were paired with a Lionel Messi-inspired Barcelona - hardly an easy task!

However, the draw alone should not be to blame. In order to win Europe's premier competition, you have to be prepared to beat the best, whether that is in your group or in the final. So what has been the cause of City's abject failure in Europe? As any player that has been involved in cup matches can attest to, individual errors can have a catastrophic effect on a team's continued involvement. We can certainly see evidence of this from City here. Joe Hart's indifferent form in Europe was most obviously epitomised by his errors during City's home tie against Bayern Munich in 2013, which saw the Blues concede a pair of goals from handling errors, losing the game 3-1. City's front line has also been accused of mis-firing in Europe, with Edin Dzeko often singled out for punishment.

However, it is the current season's City scapegoat that has got my back up most. The reason for this is very simple. On every channel that provides live football there is an ex (and usually bitter) Red passing comment on City's performances - is that fair? I can't imagine Liam Gallagher turning up at Old Trafford to cover the United game for Sky, any more than seeing Shaun Goater do the commentary for Sky. However, while Michael Owen simply makes self-evident statements for BT Sport, Roy Keane berates everyone (not just City) for ITV, and Gary Neville, to his credit, has attempted to become more impartial in his work for Sky Sports, it is Paul Scholes' attempt at punditry for ITV that most irritates me.

Scholes' comments on Yaya Toure's lack of form earlier this season were perhaps a little harsh, particularly considering that the Ivorian had been the first midfielder to score 20 goals in a Premier League season since Frank Lampard in 2010, but he is entitled to his opinion, and were generally fair. However, since then he has made additional comments on the midfielder's performances, before again berating the City man in his punditry. What's the saying? Once is an accident, twice is coincidence, but three times is deliberate.

There is a part of me that looks at this through cynical eyes. As a self-confessed United fan, Scholes would likely do anything to de-stabilise one of their greatest rivals, particularly if he is jealous of their success at present. With the majority of City's key names like Kompany, Silva and Aguero starting the season in excellent form, it is Yaya Toure that is yet to hit the heights we saw from him last year. He is therefore an easy target, and a way to try and put pressure on the Manchester City midfield. Let us not forget, Scholes is a man who almost attempted to stab Pablo Zabaleta with his studs in his last derby match - he is hardly likely to be the epitome of impartiality. So let's all just take his words with a pinch of salt, eh?

After my customary mid-blog rant, back onto the reasons behind City's failings in Europe. I think some of the blame has to be directed at the manager, particularly on the way that City's sides in Europe have been set up. The game against Roma was a prime example. It is almost like both Pellegrini and Mancini before him thought that because they tend to blow away teams at the Etihad in the Premier League, they will automatically do that in the Champions League. As we have seen, this is not the case. The attacking 4-4-2 formation that has tended to be employed has left City woefully exposed on the counter attack, which we saw time and time again against Roma, and with neither Navas nor Toure willing to chase back, the defence were left short on numerous occasions.

Another key aspect to think about is the fact that City have struggled to break down teams who come to the Etihad to defend and counter i.e. good defensive performances. In City's very first Champions League game, City kept good possession against Napoli, but were unable to break through. Frustration eventually took its toll, causing sloppy play and eventually a goal for Edinson Cavani on the counter. They clearly haven't learnt their lessons, as the Roma game was almost a carbon copy of this. Ironically, City tend to perform better when they are the defensive side, with some of their best performances in the Champions League coming away from home. Victories against CSKA Moscow and Villareal and narrow defeats against Real Madrid and Bayern Munich have all showed promise, but demonstrate the very different teams  they should use for home and away games.

My Manchester City Champions League home team (4-2-3-1)
Hart, Clichy, Kompany, Mangala, Zabaleta, Fernandinho, Lampard, Nasri, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Aguero

My Manchester City Champions League away team (4-2-3-1)
Hart, Kolarov, Kompany, Mangala, Zabaleta, Fernandinho, Fernando, David Silva, Yaya Toure, Milner, Aguero

So what are City's prospects going forward? Until they get a bit of luck, either with the draw or refereeing decisions, they are unlikely to progress much further. Confidence among the squad for European games seems at an all time low. Once they have got themselves into the quarter finals or beyond for the first time, they may have a chance. However, until then, Yaya Toure's quote of 'winning it for the fans' seems a million miles away.