kayode OGUNDARE
@kaybaba99
This is a direct response to Qasim Elegbede’s poser in last week’s edition of Soccer Perspectives (read here) where he wondered if Chelsea manager Jose Mourinho was now born again after he, uncharacteristically, refrained from criticizing centre-referee Michael Oliver who made some questionable calls in the Blues 2-2 home draw against Swansea.
I said, immediately I saw that article, that Mourinho is not and cannot be born-again, football-wise I mean. Rather, like a Leopard, he will never change his spots and nothing better exemplified my assertion than the needless ruckus which he engineered in the post-match conference where he laid into the club’s first team doctor Eva Caneiro and physiotherapist John Fearn for entering the pitch to attend to Eden Hazard who was on the ground and apparently in pains.
His unguarded utterance snowballed into a major crisis that became the talking point all the week before their first real test of the season against their most potent rivals for the Premier League title and this culminated in the 3-0 loss at Man City on Sunday.
Let me make it clear that the absence of Eva Caneiro on the bench was NOT directly responsible for the team’s loss. So, for the avoidance of doubt, this is not a critique of the Man City loss, far from it. Rather, I’m attempting to situate the unfortunate incident between Mourinho and Eva Caneiro in its proper context.
Let’s begin by examining Mourinho’s mis-yarn, in his own words. He said, in apparent defence of his team, that: ‘The problem was that I had 10 men and the moment the medical department puts a foot on the pitch then I have nine men,’ Mourinho fumed. ‘So for them to do that they must be sure the player has a real problem and not a little knock and with my experience and the way I read the game I could clearly see it was not a problem. But without any doubt they went to the pitch and left the team with nine men. If you are involved in the game then you have to understand the game. Even if you are a kit-man, doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game. (Hazard) had a knock, he was very tired. But my medical department was naive.’
This statement was not factual on many levels and I intend to deal with them one after the other. First, Mourinho’s claim that he “…had 10 men and the moment the medical department puts a foot on the pitch then I have nine men” was FACTUALLY INCORRECT because, as at the time the medical team rushed on to the pitch, Thibault Courtois was already red-carded and Hazard was rolling on the floor thereby inactive, so there where ONLY NINE players wearing the Chelsea blue shirt on their feet. So, you wonder, where did Mourinho get the idea that there were 10 men from?
Secondly, the gaffer said “…so for them (medical team) to do that they must be sure the player has a real problem and not a little knock and with my experience and the way I read the game I could clearly see it was not a problem.” I still refused to agree with Mourinho on this score. The medical team will not know how serious a player’s injury is until AFTER they have been on the pitch to examine him, not before.
Moreover, Mourinho’s insinuation that his player was not injured but just tired raised ethical questions about the conduct of players who feign injury in order to get some few minutes resting time. The danger in this is that when such players are truly injured and need medical attention, everyone might assume they are up to their usual tricks and this could prove ultimately fatal.
Thirdly, and for me most importantly, Mourinho’s public condemnation of his medical staff was not only unwarranted, uncalled for and unfair, it smacks of absolute dishonesty and a failure to accept responsibility.
By saying: “…If you are involved in the game then you have to understand the game. Even if you are a kit-man, doctor or secretary on the bench you have to understand the game. (Hazard) had a knock, he was very tired. But my medical department was naïve”, Mourinho inferred that he had been working with people who are least qualified for the job they are doing.
The same people who were on the bench when you won the Premier League a mere 80 days ago: These are people who have impeccable qualifications for the jobs they do and who are respected by players and colleagues. Calling them naïve and lacking an understanding of football will, and has, definitely brought them into disrepute.
And when a video emerged of a furious Mourinho using foul language against the lady doctor, then you have a feeling that the Portuguese manager is under too much stress but just behaving true to type. It is second nature to him to look for someone or something to blame for any perceived shortcoming. This is a tragic flaw but every genius like Mourinho is allowed to have one vulnerability.
It speaks to a deeper problem than the eye can see and which I intend to examine in the next instalment of Popular Side but, for now, let it suffice that Mourinho is a leopard that will not change its spot.
COMMENTS