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.
