Is Jose right?

Jose Mourinho believes that, had Cech been fit all season, Chelsea would be 10 points better off, and may well be top of the league. Since returning to the Chelsea squad, Cech has only conceded 2 Premiership goals (both on his return match) and only 4 in all competitions. This season, Cech has kept 12 out of 17 clean sheets in all competitions.

More importantly, is Jose's theory right?

Points dropped without Cech:

Tottenham AWAY (2 good goals, but Hilario should have done better)
Manchester United AWAY (excellent finish)
Arsenal HOME (blunder from Hilario which gifted the goal)
Reading HOME (sloppy defending and poor goalkeeping)
Fulham HOME (see Reading)
Villa AWAY (poor finishing)

13 points dropped in those 6 games.

Yes.

The only problem with this sort of argumentation is that Mourinho has to plan for these injuries.. If he can't make the team function without a particular player he is basically doing a bad job.

who gives a fuck.

all the other teams have injuries as well

Yes he was right - Cech wins at least 12 points each season.

But still all clubs have injuries. Arguably West Ham's most important player Dean Ashton is injured for the season, you don't hear them complain though.

Oleguerisntthatbad wrote:The only problem with this sort of argumentation is that Mourinho has to plan for these injuries.. If he can't make the team function without a particular player he is basically doing a bad job.

spot on

he should have signed a better 3rd choice goalkeeper. Buffon was available in the summer, or a youngster like Akinfeev. What was he thinking?
If Ballack and Shevchenko had got injured instead of Cech then Chelsea would be 12 points clear by now

I'm with Glenn and oleguer...Jose was very proud at signing Hilario and went on and on about how professional the guy was and how he had all the qualities he wanted, etc. Well, if he wasn't good enough then it's your own mistake, moaning about it doesn't change anything.

Also, this is just the old "injuries ruined our season" argument. Every season, in every league, at least one club's campaign is ruined by injuries. It's not the first or last time it's happened, and IMO Mourinho is just giving more credit than due to Cech. If they were worthy champions (and they may still be), they would have been able to adapt their game to score more goals. And he doesn't mention all the other problems leading to Chelsea's (relatively) poor performance this season, such as the midfield not really functioning well, the RB problem, friction at the club re: Shevchenko, Ballack and Sheva's inability to deliver the goods, and so on.

Some 300 m spend on transfers and he doesnt have the cover for key players , that is your fault Herr Jose.

Poor show.

We're on to break the points record at the moment and Jose thinks there'd be 10 points clear? Fucking bollocks. So he'd be getting 100 points plus then.

He's tactics have been poor this season and its a very convenient cover up. It's his fault also for not having decent cover with the ridiculous money he's had to spend.

Also like how you've included Aston Villa even though you never conceded a goal.

To break our Premiership points record, I think you're going to need to win 8 out of your last 9 games.

Jose didn't say Chelsea would be 10 points ahead of United, he just said we'd be 10 points better off. Considering the fact this time last season we had 9 more points than we have right now, and our team is better this season imo (in both of our previous seasons, we would not still be in with a chance of winning so many different competitions), I'd say it was a fair comment.

Well all teams would be better off if there key players were fit. It's such an easy argument to make but impossible to prove.

If VDS played against Arsenal we may of got a draw, if Saha played against Reading we may have won.


Cech wouldn't of saved Saha's goal. He wouldn't of done anything about the comical defending regarding Reading's equaliser, Villa was a clean sheet anyway. He;s talking bollocks to save face for making errors.

Agree with Parko, Jose's clutching at straws. Injuries are as much a part of the game as goals.

Jose is never wrong. Long Live Jose.

@ parky

I said he had no chance with Saha's goal. It was just a good finish, although Cech does have a very long reach, so you never know.

Reading - He'd have saved the 2nd goal, purely because Hilario was out of position (although I'm sure he couldn't have predicted what was going to happen).

Fulham - He may well have saved both goals, but certainly the 1st.

Arsenal - Would definitely have saved Flamini's shot.

Spurs - 2 good finishes. Maybe he would have saved the 1st but not the 2nd.

Villa - Clean sheet so can't argue, poor finishing cost us there.

So out of those (not including Villa) we probably would have been a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 10 points better off.

If VDS had been out for 4 months, regardless of how well your defence played, you'd probably be 10 points worse off than you are now.

But you can't prove it. So it's all bollocks.

It's like me making a case for winning the title last season when we had no Heinze, Scholes, Solskjaer and Giggs.

Parks lives wrote:But you can't prove it. So it's all bollocks.

It's like me making a case for winning the title last season when we had no Heinze, Scholes, Solskjaer and Giggs.

Don't forget Keane.

Would Chelsea be better off if Cech hadn't got injured? Yes, almost definitely.

Would Chelsea be top of the league if Cech hadn't got injured? No idea.

Would Chelsea be better off if they hadn't bought Shevchenko and Ballack, Cech hadn't got injured, they hadn't sold Gallas, hadn't bought Ashley Cole, Robben was always on form and Joe Cole hadn't got injured?

Yeah, but such is football.

Is this a bit of a silly whinge from a club that have spent around 300 million on players in three years and should therefore be able to accomodate the loss of key players better than any other team?

Of course. I said this earlier in the season - Chelsea have bought badly.

Parks lives wrote:But you can't prove it. So it's all bollocks.

It's like me making a case for winning the title last season when we had no Heinze, Scholes, Solskjaer and Giggs.

People hardly ever remember injuries anyway. I also didn't see people sympathize with us when we had Rio out for months and months few years back and had to play shocking teams in the CL last year (Smith, O'Shit...etc)

should've got kiraly on loan to cover for him.

Saintsarama MBE wrote:

Parks lives wrote:But you can't prove it. So it's all bollocks.

It's like me making a case for winning the title last season when we had no Heinze, Scholes, Solskjaer and Giggs.

Don't forget Keane.

Would Chelsea be better off if Cech hadn't got injured? Yes, almost definitely.

Would Chelsea be top of the league if Cech hadn't got injured? No idea.

Would Chelsea be better off if they hadn't bought Shevchenko and Ballack, Cech hadn't got injured, they hadn't sold Gallas, hadn't bought Ashley Cole, Robben was always on form and Joe Cole hadn't got injured?

Yeah, but such is football.

Is this a bit of a silly whinge from a club that have spent around 300 million on players in three years and should therefore be able to accomodate the loss of key players better than any other team?

Of course. I said this earlier in the season - Chelsea have bought badly.

totally agree - although i didn't see Shevchenko being as bad as he has been - that look from Mourinho when Sheva blasted the ball wide of even the side netting against Portsmouth was just like "God help you man" - sure made me laugh