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?

Sepp's U-Turn: Is More Video Technology A Good Idea?

When you think of famous and historic U-turn moments, you think of the 10p tax rate, the pasty tax and the poll tax. But video technology in football? Ask me just four years ago, days after the infamous Frank Lampard non-goal, and I'd have said not a chance. However, with Sepp Blatter's announcements at Soccerex last week that he is in support of video challenges, the pendulum seems to have swung full circle.

But why is this? As with many things, you can take the conspiracy or sensible route. The conspiracy? That goal line technology was only introduced once it had benefitted England. After Lampard's goal, not a whisper of discontent. But after Ukraine had a goal wrongly denied against England at the Euros, suddenly Blatter, and Platini (I have ranted often about his potential bias against English football before) are all for it. This theory is supported by Blatter's side-swipe and the FA once his scheme had been announced, namely that the English FA do not respect fair play (ironic when you consider the diving and biting that goes on from players not from these shores) and that they are sore losers following the failed bid for the 2018 World Cup. Funny that Blatter delivered this speech in the heart of England's current footballing capital - know your audience Sepp!

However, the real reason behind the change in heart is perhaps equally cynical, but considerably less likely to make you look like the sore loser Blatter claims we are. It's all about maintaining power. With his term set to come to an end in the upcoming months, and the seeming success of goal-line technology in both club and international football, a bit of bandwagon jumping is required to ensure that Sepp keeps his place at FIFAs top table. I don't believe for an instant that he would be making these statements if he had years of his term left to run.

So if we assume that this is a PR stunt to retain power, why did he pick technology a subject that had been so controversial over the past few years? Because it's been almost unanimously accepted the world over. The goal-line technology has been a revolution in both domestic and international competition (the Karim Benzema goal/no goal debacle at the World Cup ignored), and though technology to a lesser level, the cheers that have greeted the disappearing spray at every Premier League ground since its introduction clearly demonstrates that not all change is negative.

With technology very much in favour at present, it is hardly surprising to see Blatter sling his weight behind it. But I'm not so certain that the idea he came up with for Soccerex is that good. Let me say that I am a huge advocate of technology in sport - tennis and cricket have proven that Hawk-eye style systems work, while rugby league and union have shown that video referees are also successful. However, Blatter's idea that coaches should have a number of challenges to use during each half is, in my opinion, not the best way to handle this.

As we have seen on many occasions, football is a game of taking advantage of momentum. The very phrase that "2-0 is a dangerous scoreline" shows this, as teams frequently level having pulled one back. Often the most exciting moments in football are when one team has their tails up and have momentum on their side - look at the way Man City won their first Premier League title. Should Blatter's system be implemented, shrewd managers will be able to minimise this impact, affording their team the opportunity to recollect their thoughts and go again. If coaches are afforded the opportunity to break up that momentum and slow the game down by making frivolous challenges, it will have a hugely detrimental impact on the game for spectators.

However, as I said before, I am all in favour of technology in football, and I have a suitable solution. Ex-referee Graham Poll, when interviewed about the concept, said that referees can tell from the reaction of the players around them when they've made an incorrect decision. If this is true, there is absolutely no need for coaches to have the power to contest decisions and slow the game down. I would certainly have a video referee, but only so the officials could check that they have made the right call. It may not have saved Poll from handing out three yellow cards to Josep Simunic in the 2006 World Cup, but it will help in many other situations! This would minimise the risk of tactical use, while helping the referee to do their job to the best of their ability.

Should Blatter be re-elected (re-elected in the same way that dictators like Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi were "re-elected") it will be interesting to see whether this new policy goes any further. Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I doubt it. As soon as he is safe in his job, this will conveniently go on the back burner, and I suspect we'll see the Swiss take a slowly more technology-sceptic mindset.