Why Fear Eliminated Chelsea from Europe

Why the underdog excelled and ended up dumping Mourinho out of Europe 

There was a fear in the words of Jose Mourinho in preparation for second leg against PSG, a fear which perhaps I haven’t seen before. This wasn’t like Barcelona, a team who played different to a Mourinho side. There the fear was of course Messi, Iniesta and Xavi, yet it was a different kind of fear. The one versus Paris was something more worrying, because it entailed his own tactics and approach. Mourinho was out Mourinho-ed in the games verus Paris Saint Germain and while they didn’t lose either game, they were outplayed in both. As this article will discuss, Chelsea played with a fear of losing, which ultimately resulted in defeat.

In the first leg it could be put down to the tactical approach of Mourinho where he ceded possession and position to be compact, seeking to work on the counter when the opportunity arose, making sure he didn't lose. In actual fact 1-1 was a relief, Chelsea didn't play well and PSG simply overwhelmed their opponents; they pressed aggressively and unlocked the defence several times. Be it not for Courtois and Chelsea could have been returning to Stamford Bridge playing catch up. 

Mourinho was evidently worried about what Paris did to his team in the first leg, as his quotes below highlight;

"I thought an English team would never be surprised by aggression, because of the aggression we have in our country. This season we've played against sides from the Championship in the Cups, against teams from League One, and Shrewsbury from League Two, but the most aggressive team was PSG. For me, that was a real surprise. With players of such quality, I was expecting more football and less aggression. A team with fantastic players was the team with a record number of fouls, was the team making foul after foul, was the team which stopped Hazard with fouls all the time."

Now of course it could look as though Mourinho was simply highlighting that his players were not protected sufficiently in the first leg, which is fair to be honest. Hazard was heavily targeted by multiple players, effectively passing on to the next player when a yellow card was branded. It was malicious, calculated…and very clever. It was intimidating football. The kind which Mr Mourinho often takes pride in himself. Perhaps he was seeking to make sure any kind of bad tackle would result in a red card and swing the tie in his favour. However, his comments clearly pointed to a man afraid of what he had seen in Paris. This was a team who could do damage to Chelsea.

The problem with being favourites when your Mourinho

The problem however in this tie was that Chelsea came in to the game as favourites. Against many sides in the league and Europe they are often favourites but in these type of games, the big ones, the close ones, the ones which really mean something, Mourinho wants to be the underdog. He thrives in this role, as this character on stage. He wants the world to be against him and his team. But the problem was, the underdogs in this game were PSG, not Chelsea and Mourinho couldn’t manipulate the tie to his own wishes. 

Last season suited him more because his team came back to Stamford Bridge 3-1 down, it was almost a better situation for him and his approach. His Chelsea were not expected to win and qualify, they were the underdogs, and they played a near perfect game. Blanc and his side struggled with their strategy of whether to stick or twist and ultimately faltered. Had Chelsea been down this time around it may have been a different game and approach from Chelsea.

Now of course that kind of defeat adds to a teams resolve and gives a team something to fight for next time around, and PSG clearly played with a point to prove. The key in this game was that PSG knew they had to score. Chelsea however seemed to play like a side knowing 0-0 was sufficient. In what was a cagey opening half hour, with few real chances (what you should expect from a top European game in my opinion – not like Madrid vs Schalke which was a joke of a game for this level) the game was turned in PSG’s favour for two reasons. 

Firstly the sending off and resulting 10 men only hardened the resolve and mentality of Blanc’s men. If their task was hard at the start (they hadn’t scored a goal on English soil the past five attempts) they nowt had to it with just 10. But that only played in to their underdog mindset, now the ref was seemingly against them, now they had to work harder, play better, step up and perform as a group. 

My second point to this incident is that of all the players to be sent off, Zlatan was the ideal man. Had it been another, Matuidi say, the game would have been very different. Zlatan was non-existent before his sending off, he was static in his central position and offered the team very little as an outlet or a runner. This is Zlatan and this is a reason I feel he hampers sides in European competition (article on that here). However in his absence PSG now played with more fluency and movement, they played with more energy and exuberance. Zlatan appears a decisive individual at Paris with some liking him and others not, call me crazy but they seemed happier in his absence. 

But the key was this feeling of being ‘underdogs’, of throwing caution to the wind and going for it. A ‘nothing to lose’ mentality which showed in how they handled the ball, wanted the ball and quite frankly out played Chelsea with 10 men. They were brave because in some respects, they couldn't win without being like that. 

It was something similar to Chelsea’s 10 man mentality versus Barcelona in 2012 when Terry’s sending off enhanced the teams mentality and was a key part in their progression to the final and ultimate success. Remember that season Chelsea were always seen as the underdogs and thrived on that (the Mourinho mentality still prevalent in the players almost five years after he left them). Di Matteo took that team (led by Terry, Lampard and Drogba) and overcome the doubters.

Mourinho loves this approach. Arguably the best coach of the 21^st century, the Special One? Well, he simply thrives on being the underdog, of being written off. His two Champions League successes have come unsurprisingly when he was with unfancied sides. He builds a feeling of togetherness from the outside worlds writing off of his side. With Porto and Inter he overcame 'Goalith’s' and triumphed as David (in his own mind anyway). The problem at Real Madrid was that they were never a David, although boy did he try to make it that way! His battle with Guardiola and Barcelona was always seeking to get the upperhand and put the onus on his opponent, he was just lowly Mourinho coaching lowly Madrid. However, this approach doesn’t work for top sides, you have to be braver, more aggressive in your play, and ultimately trust the talent you have. This is where Mourinho has come unstuck in his time at big clubs, where he can't play the underdog.

Chelsea's fear of defeat constrains their performance 

Now I have been critical of Blanc in his time at PSG yet I thought he coached excellently last night. He clearly motivated Luiz in proving Mourinho wrong and was very disciplined and mature in his performance (Luiz really is an excellent player and proves it in these type of games for me). Blanc also set up PSG in a positive style which sought to play and attack while being very organised and importantly hard working out of possession. Simply put PSG looked more focused, had more belief and played a better game than Chelsea. 

So why were Chelsea so poor? I think this aspect of ‘fear’ comes in to it greatly. Firstly, the fear of expectation and want. Mourinho is so desperate to win the Champions League with Chelsea that each game at this stage is approached with trepidation and worry. The fear of making mistakes and losing cost Chelsea Wednesday, in the same way it cost them against Atletico last season. They are desperate to win and also know people think they should win. This is a tough mentality to deal with as the pressure can create a fear which can often constrain and effect decision making. This was evident in the game versus PSG, players positioning was often poor, poor passes were prevalent throughout and Chelsea played with fear all game. PSG simply fed off the fear and insecurity in the players. 

When Mourinho had said he would to analyse the game and discuss what wrong with the players mentally, for me this was the issue. The players were paralysed by fear. Which is why I feel they looked so dead on their feet. They were fatigued mentally by the pressures of the game and result, as well as the pressures PSG put on them. PSG, with the freedom mentally to play and need to score were energised and worked together as team. They simply consumed Chelsea and it seemed there would be only one winner. 

For me the similarities between Bayern Munich in the 2012 final were not far away, expect this time Chelsea were Bayern and PSG were Chelsea. A late goal to make it 1-0 seemed as though they had found a way, that for all pressure and fear, the constraints and worry of losing, they had seemingly overcome it. I remember how hard Bayern celebrated in the Allianz when Muller scored. And then the look of fear and terror when Drogba scored his header. Luiz's header was almost identical. And while Hazard scored his penalty in extra time while Robben had missed his, the goal which put PSG through highlighted how badly the mental constraints had affected Chelsea. When John Terry seemingly thought Cahill was a PSG player and tried to mark him, leaving Silva the space to leap and loop a splendid header, it was clear that Chelsea had shot themselves in the foot. It was a moment which encapsulated the two legs and Chelsea’s mentality towards this tie, their opponents the fear of being eliminated from the Champions League. 

It seems that the stronger Mourinho desires this cup, the harder it will be to achieve it. Chelsea choked in this game, Mourinho got his approach wrong and PSG excelled as the underdogs. 

Fortune favours the brave

But I wish to finish this analysis by looking at Mourinho’s tactics. What I thought Blanc did superbly in this game was make a positive substitution at 1-0. Now granted he had nothing to lose, and needed a goal in the final moments, but he replaced the excellent Verratti and Matuidi (not many others would have) with Lavezzi and the 19 year old Adrien Rabiot. Lavezzi’s endeavour created a good header and ultimately the pressure paid off to equalise. Yet how brave of Blanc to make this change and trust a player like Rabiot in a game like this. Both were excellent in their 35 mins on the pitch. 

Now compare this to Mourinho, he opted to bring on Kurt Zouma in midfield and Didier Drogba up front. It was ‘classic’ Mourinho, defensive. A defensive minded player in midfield and a strong centre forward up top to work with a strong centre forward already on? I am big fan of Mourinho and what he has done in the game and his ability as coach but there is no doubt his mindset is too defensive and negative, especially in these tight moments. He doesn't take risks, he goes safe. His cautious approach has won him many trophies yet it has also cost him many also. 

Mourinho brings issues on to himself and while he plays the underdog role superbly (note Liverpool away last season) he still seems unable to dominate a game when favourite in these big and important games. 

PSG outplayed Chelsea at home, this is unacceptable for the kind of talent Chelsea has. They played too deep and were too negative in their performance. Hazard was too often too far away from the final third to really make things happen having to run almost the length of the pitch to get into good areas. The comparison and contrast between Guardiola and Mourinho is startling. Both were at home after drawing the 1^st leg, one won 7-0 versus 10 men seeking to dominate the game, while the other went out playing a negative and defensive strategy which ultimately cost them. 

Finally, the comparison with Bayern in 2012 is not too far off, a very good team which choked its success away required the addition of stronger minded players (Bayern added Dante, Javi Martinez and Mario Mandzukic to enhance the team and importantly added Matthias Sammer to the coaching staff to bring the right kind of mentality to the squad) to push on ultimately succeed in Europe. We may have thought that Chelsea were almost there this season, however it still appears they still have a lot of work to do. 

Mourinho certainly needs to enhance his squad in the summer, a player like Javi Martinez would be perfect to support Nemanja Matci in that midfield, as for me Ramires and Mikel aren't good enough in there and the constant use of Fabregas in this deeper central midfielder role is not working. Cesc isn't a central midfielder in my opinion, 

Yet the key for Mourinho, like Heynckes did with Bayern, is that may look to evolve and improve how the team plays. Bayern learnt their lessons after choking in and in 2012/2013 were simply fantastic. For me Chelsea showed a weakness in their mentality versus PSG which needs addressing if they wish to lift the Champions League in the coming years. 

As for PSG, this result is massive for the club and their 'project'. For all the underdog talk let us not forget that this is a very richly assembled squad with some superb talent at its disposal. And while it seems the knives have been out for Blanc this season, this win may be the catalyst for a superb end to the season. The goal of the Qatari owners when they came to the club was to win the Champions League in 2015, many laughed and sniggered, yet who knows, perhaps they may achieve their goal after all?

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address