Did anyone find it odd that Chelsea didn't start with a recognised striker against united? Was it purely tactical as he said, or was there something else driving his decision not to play a striker? After all he had Ba, Torres and Lakaku on the bench. Bayern, Barca and Spain have used the tactic to good effect in the past but I thought Mourinho usually deploys a striker as the focal point of his attack. i.e Drogba in his prime.
According to Mourinho, "I go for mobility. I want to try to win the game. I do not come with a defensive team despite not playing with one of my strikers. But instead of playing with one target man, I play with four attacking players and they are willing to try to create problems."
Mourinho had this to say about the Spanish team deploying a similar tactic, "It's not good to keep on passing between Xavi, Iniesta and Fabregas without creating a big threat on Buffon's goal," "Yes there was a big effort from Spanish midfielders but without a striker the team was sterile."
Presume it was simply a message to Rooney to show there is a place for him in the team? Mourinho really is an egotistical man to pick that team to send a message to a player. Doesn't say much for Ba, Torres and Lakaku.
According to Mourinho, "I go for mobility. I want to try to win the game. I do not come with a defensive team despite not playing with one of my strikers. But instead of playing with one target man, I play with four attacking players and they are willing to try to create problems."
Mourinho had this to say about the Spanish team deploying a similar tactic, "It's not good to keep on passing between Xavi, Iniesta and Fabregas without creating a big threat on Buffon's goal," "Yes there was a big effort from Spanish midfielders but without a striker the team was sterile."
Presume it was simply a message to Rooney to show there is a place for him in the team? Mourinho really is an egotistical man to pick that team to send a message to a player. Doesn't say much for Ba, Torres and Lakaku.
