Discuss Pellegrini...

[Anonymous]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

 

[Newman Noggs]

Anything Samuel says is worth listening to. And he is right, the history books don't show what type of football you played. However, what Pelligrini, and our owners are looking for is the footballing ideal, trophies whilst playing attacking, beautiful football. Pelligrini has 1 trophy under his belt already and may yet land another this season playing like this.

The danger is that, in future seasons, he will become like Wenger in the last 8 years or so, playing decent football but winning nothing. Time will tell but, in the meantime, I'm enjoying it.

 

[Anonymous]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

Martin Samuel isn't the lorded over journalistic genius guardian of truth speaking people make him out to be. His editorial missives are often naive, misguided, and as biased as any of his counterparts. He mocked Pellegrini's appointment from almost the moment Mancini was sacked so I'd take his "opinion" with the same care with which I'd take any journo with an axe to grind.

Such a shame that with the title still to play for and only a handful of games left there's still people who seem fixated solely on the negative. If this had gone on during Mancini's tenure you'd all be frothing at the mouthes and carrying on about loyalty and getting behind the team/manager etc. (which we all did in the 2012 run in).

Ah well, I hope we win the title. There'll be so much egg on faces some people will need hosing down at the local car wash.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

Sorry mr samuel but a premier league campaign is over 38 games not 2 so what chelsea have beaten us home and away they have also drew against teams that we have beaten or lost against teams we have drew or won against and why put utd in the elite bracket? This is a team he went to and played without a center forward if what martin is trying to get across this a premier league not a mini league.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry mr samuel but a premier league campaign is over 38 games not 2 so what chelsea have beaten us home and away they have also drew against teams that we have beaten or lost against teams we have drew or won against and why put utd in the elite bracket? This is a team he went to and played without a center forward if what martin is trying to get across this a premier league not a mini league.

His point is to suck up to the new Old Guard ie. Mourinho/Chelsea. It's so transparent it's not even funny.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Sorry mr samuel but a premier league campaign is over 38 games not 2 so what chelsea have beaten us home and away they have also drew against teams that we have beaten or lost against teams we have drew or won against and why put utd in the elite bracket? This is a team he went to and played without a center forward if what martin is trying to get across this a premier league not a mini league.

His point is to suck up to the new Old Guard ie. Mourinho/Chelsea. It's so transparent it's not even funny.

Tbf billy from what ive seen he despises Mourinho
The hatred he's shown him on the sunday supplement is pretty bad,it stems from the eye gouge and just him as a bloke in general & he's no fan of chelsea,he has defended us umpteen times on that show against some of the other parrasites who have mocked us....I know there is a bit of a Samuel love in on here but he really has fought our corner many times & has highlighted what we are doing as a club in the community...

 

[supercity88]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

Haha that is quite a dismissal of Pellegrini. I really do laugh at all of those reports that seem to suggest he is happy to lose if it means he had played the right way. I think his tactics in the Barca game were evidence of when he accepts we have to alter things. He knows how to switch formations.

As for the pro Mourinho bollocks - well his record against the top 8 is P13 W9 D3 L1 totalling 30pts. Ours is P13 W8 D2 L3 totalling 26pts. They have to go to Anfield and we have to go to Goodison. I question why it is the top 8 he has looked at. Southampton are miles behind the other sides so the Top 7 would be more relevant. Nothing to do with the fact that his stats would then read Chelsea, P11 W7 D3 L1 totalling 24pts and we would have P11 W7 D1 L3 totalling 22pts. Not much of a gap there considering we lost to Chelsea twice. Mourinho's cowardly tactics cost them 2pts at the swamp, they could have beaten Spurs away as well. The gap between 0pts and 1pt isn't worth it when you lose to Villa, Palace, Stoke etc. Our positive approach has seen us gather a lot of points despite defeats and that is why we are still in contention despite our record against Chelsea and Liverpool still being so inadequate. Whilst we have still slipped up in games like Villa, Cardiff and Sunderland we are still in the running and will improve on that level. He finds irony in Pellegrini's approach to score goals when in Spain it was head to head. The reverse of that is that Pellegrini lost the title because of losing to Barca twice - it was a 3pt gap iirc and he lost twice to Barca. So he will know the importance of head to head records too. But every game is important and it's just typical nonsense.

Still work to be done in terms of media praise. If we win the league it might give him more credit!

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry mr samuel but a premier league campaign is over 38 games not 2 so what chelsea have beaten us home and away they have also drew against teams that we have beaten or lost against teams we have drew or won against and why put utd in the elite bracket? This is a team he went to and played without a center forward if what martin is trying to get across this a premier league not a mini league.

His point is to suck up to the new Old Guard ie. Mourinho/Chelsea. It's so transparent it's not even funny.

Tbf billy from what ive seen he despises Mourinho
The hatred he's shown him on the sunday supplement is pretty bad,it stems from the eye gouge and just him as a bloke in general & he's no fan of chelsea,he has defended us umpteen times on that show against some of the other parrasites who have mocked us....I know there is a bit of a Samuel love in on here but he really has fought our corner many times & has highlighted what we are doing as a club in the community...

Samuel was well in with the club when Cook was around, and then subsequently when Mancini/Platt were around. Since those people have gone his articles on City have become more and more snide IMO.

I suspect the same dynamic is at play with Mourinho. He hated him when he was in Spain, slagged him off at every opportunity, but since the special one's return, well he's special again.

To be honest I don't read his columns religiously because as I say for every good one there's a bad one where it's clear he's using his soap box to further someone else's agenda. For example, why do you think he's chosen this week for that piece ? Chelsea are further behind the title than us and yet it seems from reading that that Pellegrini has no chance and that if Liverpool don't win it Chelsea will. Strikes me that that's exactly the kind of rubbish biased nonsense I'd expect from Paul Beasley or some other equally loathsome piece of pond scum.

EDIT:

Also, just an example of his inaccurate and unfair reporting. He says Chelsea need to beat Liverpool ("something City could not do") for us to be back in the title race. No they don't. A draw puts it back in our hands.

 

[TGR]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

We might not like it but he usually hits the nail on the head
and he has done yet again.
What he has written is very hard to argue against.
In the crucial games against both Chelsea and Liverpool when it really counted we have come away without a single point.
That is not how champions win titles.

 

[uwe rosler 28]

The media will grow to love the professionalism City show. They have Mourinho for their headlines. They have Liverpool for their love story and Pellegrini just gets on with the job. The media don't win games. Any team that gives in to media pressure is a weak one. The underdog would never win if the media were so effective. Chelsea have still been poor and lost games they should win despite the Mourinho "factor". They lost 3-1 in Paris to a PSG side that were average at best. And scraped through 2-0 at home playing Sam Allardyce Bolton bus football. It makes no difference whatsoever. Liverpool can talk all they want about doing it for the 96, for Gerrard for whatever the hell they want to do it for. It matters not. They can be motivated all they want, pumped up all they want it makes no difference they might still slip up.

Gerrard's talked about treating it like the CL final v Milan. The one where they were 3-0 down and won on pens. Would love him to take that mentality into the remaining games personally as that way they draw the rest of their games! Such utter bollocks being spouted around. Meanwhile we now literally have no pressure and nothing to lose. It's the way we like it and it's what can see us win the league. By the time anyone talks about us winning the league again we will have two home games left. We don't like to do things the easy way, we don't like to lead from the front and we don't like pressure. We do like being underdog and we do like surprising others!

They've got a lot of growing to do then :)

Here's Martin Samuel's take on Pellers (apols if already posted elsewhere):

If Manuel Pellegrini wanted to prove the inferior nature of Chelsea’s football, there was a perfect time to do it. February 3, 2014, between 8pm and 9.45pm. Manchester City versus Chelsea at the Etihad Stadium. Going into that fixture, City were two points behind leaders Arsenal, with a game in hand, and three points clear of third-placed Chelsea.
Win and they would have gone top, six points up on Chelsea and nine on Liverpool. Instead Pellegrini lost, 1-0, and his City team were outplayed. They have not been the same since.

In the weeks before the defeat, City had put six past Arsenal, five past Tottenham Hotspur, won at Bayern Munich and defeated West Ham United 9-0 on aggregate in the Capital One Cup semi-final. The first match after Chelsea was a goalless draw at Norwich City, since when Pellegrini has been well beaten by Barcelona in the Champions League, eliminated in the FA Cup by Wigan Athletic and lost another vital league match at Liverpool.

The Capital One Cup triumph and a humbling of Manchester United at Old Trafford cannot overcome the feeling that City have never quite recovered from the job Jose Mourinho did on them. They played the first half at Anfield on Sunday like a team fearing the worst.
So, for Pellegrini to claim a Chelsea title win would be bad for football is presumptuous indeed. Manchester City’s manager had 90 minutes to prove the mediocrity of Mourinho’s ways and failed miserably.

Indeed, the best he can hope for now is that Chelsea do what his team could not do by beating Liverpool away on April 27. This would put the title back in Manchester City’s hands. Without Mourinho’s cussed resistance, however unlovely, the prize is Liverpool’s all the way.
Pellegrini has a history with Mou-rinho — doesn’t everybody — but even allowing for this animosity, his words were a little intemperate.
Asked about the prospect of Chelsea nipping in to win the title, he said: ‘It would be very disappointing for football, for the fans, for everyone. I think the most attractive football, the most goals you can score, should be rewarded. Big teams must play as big teams.’
Yet what is bigger than Chelsea’s record against the elite this season? All six points from City, three from three against Liverpool, four from Manchester United, Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspur.

Only Everton, in the top eight, have beaten them — and Chelsea avenged that early-season 1-0 win later in the campaign at Stamford Bridge.
And, yes, winning beautifully should be the ultimate aim. Chelsea average 1.9 goals in the league this season, compared to Manchester City’s 2.6 and Liverpool’s 2.7. City have scored 20 goals more than Chelsea from two fewer games. Yet that is just one means of evaluation, and each will throw up a different winner.

Chelsea have lost one game against a top-eight side this season, City have lost three, Liverpool four. City were beaten home and away by Chelsea, who still have the potential to claim six points from Liverpool, too. What does this mean? Well, in Spain, if Manchester City and Chelsea finished level on points, Chelsea would win the league on head-to-head. La Liga considers this a fairer way of achieving separation than goal difference, when routs of inferiors can have a greater effect than the biggest games between title challengers. Having lost to Chelsea home and away, why should it matter that City put five past Fulham at home, when Chelsea only won 2-0? Chelsea play Norwich City on May 4 and probably will not emulate City’s 7-0 win on November 2. Yet surely, Chelsea 2 Manchester City 1, Manchester City 0 Chelsea 1, count for more? Not in the Premier League. It is an irony that Pellegrini now sets store by the accumulation of goals, having made his name in the one major European league where that doesn’t matter.

Even in England, goal difference has only been required as a title decider in the top division on six occasions, most recently in 2011-12 when Manchester City finished ahead of Manchester United, the first time a tiebreaker had been used in 23 years.
So, on most occasions, points are enough, meaning Pellegrini’s claim is wrong. League titles are not solely the preserve of the most prolific goalscorers.
The Premier League has completed 21 campaigns and eight have been won by teams who were not outright top of the goalscoring charts that season.
Most recently, in 2008-09, Manchester United (68) were outscored by second-placed Liverpool (77), while in 1997-98, Arsenal (68) scored fewer goals than both second-placed Manchester United (73) and fourth-placed Chelsea (71).
Manchester United were not top scorers for either of Sir Alex Ferguson’s first two titles, either, yet the most incredible feat, naturally, belongs to Mourinho.

His first Chelsea title was won scoring 15 goals fewer than Arsenal but earning 12 points more. He has a remarkable gift for strategy.
And we’re big boys over here. We can handle that. If you’ve got the most points after the last game has been played, you are the champions, and deserve it, whether the critics are snoring or not.
Scoring is the purpose of the game, and a well-worked goal its most arresting sight, yet that is not the only aspect of football worthy of consideration.
Mourinho does not have strikers to compare to those at Manchester City and Liverpool this season, so must find other ways to win. Watching him do this is still compelling, even if it doesn’t often produce matches as memorable as the one at Anfield on Sunday.
As manager of Real Madrid, Pellegrini set a points record for the season but finished runner-up to Barcelona.

His followers still talk proudly of this as if it made him something more than best loser.
Now, if Chelsea somehow muscle their way to the fore, no doubt Pellegrini will be expecting credit once more for all that lovely football.
Yet he had a chance to make an incontrovertible case two months ago, and failed. A big team turned up and did what they had to do.
Where the title is concerned anything beyond that, really, is just chatter.

We might not like it but he usually hits the nail on the head
and he has done yet again.
What he has written is very hard to argue against.
In the crucial games against both Chelsea and Liverpool when it really counted we have come away without a single point.
That is not how champions win titles.

champions win titles by getting more points than the opposition! So IF we do win the title are you saying we don't deserve it because we haven't won the big games when we needed to?