Mourinho - Being An Absolute Bell End Again

[AberdeenAngus]

The doctor/medic thing today was brilliant karma with 2 players needing treatment simultaneously.

Apparently a City fan with a ticket near to the Chelsea dugout turned up with wearing a white coat and stethoscope.

[Big Col]

saw this on the bbc sport twitter feed,

Last 6 League defeats for #CFC:

Pulis, Poyet, Pardew, Pochettino, Pulis, Pellegrini

Next 2 games: Pulis & Pardew.

Pulis seems to be the Chelsea bogeyman.

[fringo]

saw this on the bbc sport twitter feed,

Last 6 League defeats for #CFC:

Pulis, Poyet, Pardew, Pochettino, Pulis, Pellegrini

Next 2 games: Pulis & Pardew.

Pulis seems to be the Chelsea bogeyman.

Or anyone with a P ?

Edited August 16, 2015 by fringo

[fringo]

Apparently a City fan with a ticket near to the Chelsea dugout turned up with wearing a white coat and stethoscope.

[Parklife]

Mourinho's bawbagedness once again exposed itself yesterday where he claimed that it was a "fake result".

Feck know what that means as the parts i saw, City pumped Chelsea.

[johnnie x]

Mourinho's bawbagedness once again exposed itself yesterday where he claimed that it was a "fake result".

Feck know what that means as the parts i saw, City pumped Chelsea.

The first half was a figment of everyones imagination. It didn't happen.

[ParisInAKilt]

Haha what a bellend

So City miss numerous chances but because Chelsea had a brief spell of dominance in the second half and missed one great chance it's a "fake result"

Always entertaining Jose, especially in defeat

[Parklife]

Haha what a bellend

So City miss numerous chances but because Chelsea had a brief spell of dominance in the second half and missed one great chance it's a "fake result"

Always entertaining Jose, especially in defeat

If it was anyone else who said that Mourinho would say that their comments were that of a loser or someone who can't accept defeat.

He's a total whank.

[sbcmfc]

He's really good at it though, how many words were printed last week about Chelsea's tactics, or them losing a game they should've won?

Not many, it was all about the physio fall out.

All about deflection...

[dan cake]

He's really good at it though, how many words were printed last week about Chelsea's tactics, or them losing a game they should've won?

Not many, it was all about the physio fall out.

All about deflection...

indeed, genius at work

[dan cake]

and a great guy

[Rossy]

Surely I can't be the only one thinking that one day he'll make a brilliant Celtic manager ?

[ParisInAKilt]

He's really good at it though, how many words were printed last week about Chelsea's tactics, or them losing a game they should've won?

Not many, it was all about the physio fall out.

All about deflection...

I think that's backfired though, the media fallout out from that if anything is worse than drawing one game because of poor tactics.

[PASTA Mick]

Surely I can't be the only one thinking that one day he'll make a brilliant Celtic manager ?

Yes, yes you are.

[Rossy]

Yes, yes you are.

I think you'd be a perfect match.

Take it as a compliment....

[sbcmfc]

I think that's backfired though, the media fallout out from that if anything is worse than drawing one game because of poor tactics.

Yeah, he's probably taken it too far, especially as it's made him look a complete dick!

[Kirk]

Did they have no medical team at all at the weekend then? i saw citys guys had to treat them. they should have just said no, then again even with them helping the chelseas players they still got pumped

[phart]

What's happening to the female doctor compared to the male one is crazy, gives you an insight into the difference in Gender treatment.

It's most egregious what is happening to her. Also this isn't "deflection" tactics from Jose he's just has sociopath tendencies. as i said earlier in the thread. Things weren't going the way he wanted so illogically blamed a medic who had been summoned onto the pitch by the referee. He is not part of that decision making process. He threw a tantrum not a calculated "genius" move.

He does this shit all the time.

[Glasgowmancity]

Did they have no medical team at all at the weekend then? i saw citys guys had to treat them. they should have just said no, then again even with them helping the chelseas players they still got pumped

They did have - the guy that looked like Clare Balding

The only reason the City physio was on was because there were 2 players requiring treatment at the same time (Cahill & Costa)

[aaid]

What's happening to the female doctor compared to the male one is crazy, gives you an insight into the difference in Gender treatment.

What difference, what are you talking about?

[phart]

What difference, what are you talking about?

Rather than type anymore i'll just post an article i read

Daniel Storey of Football365

'I really didn't want to have to do this, but The Sun On Sunday's 'exposé' of Dr Eva Carneiro was such a cheap and despicable slur that I really didn't have any choice. Even if it is exactly what Mourinho wanted, the internal conflict between Chelsea's manager and the club's medical staff led the agenda in the build-up to the game.

Firstly, it is important to say that Carneiro and Jon Fearn did little, if anything, wrong last Saturday. Footage indicates that they were called on by the referee, and possibly by Eden Hazard too. Their responsibility is not to the game situation, but to the physical well-being of the players. Both acted to the best of their (substantial) ability and medical training.

One could forgive Mourinho for his classic attention deflection trick in the post-match fallout when feelings were running high, but his decision to throw his colleagues under the bus leaves a sour taste, as does the decision to ban Carneiro and Fearn from the bench for Sunday's match. His insistence that they could return and his own brief admission of guilt ("I make mistakes") on Friday at least suggests that the situation is repairable.

However, it is the reaction to the incident (in some quarters) that has been the most unpleasant. Writing for ONE World Sports, Duncan Castles said that having a woman around the players may 'affect the dressing room dynamic' at Chelsea, as if they are all mouth-breathers who cannot prevent themselves getting erect when within five yards of a female.

The Daily Mail's 'Who Is Eva Carneiro?' feature was also poor, as if it somehow mattered whether a medical professional has 'pre-Raphaelite curls and toned figure' or not. 'She is pictured tucking into an iced cupcake while another shows her love of horse-riding as she canters in what looks like a safari setting', that article informed the reader. Well whoop-de-f**king-doo.

The straw that broke this football writer's back was that Sun on Sunday piece, however, in which an 'ex-lover' of Carneiro described how she 'loved sex' and 'drank wine', under the pretence that this was anything other than a thinly-veiled character assassination. Adult enjoys consensual sexual intercourse? Well why the hell didn't someone tell me earlier? I feel stupid for defending her now.

Initially I thought I had Carneiro's rap sheet sorted. Her crimes were 1) Carrying out her job correctly, 2) Expressing gratitude to those who had supported her and 3) Being in a long-term relationship (apparently with a s**t who would sell his story to the press). Throw away the key, jailer. Hanging's too good for her.

But actually, Carneiro is guilty of a far more serious football crime: Being a woman.

Ask yourself this: How much do you know about Jon Fearn? What historical era is his haircut from? How many times a week does he have a w**k? Does he love horse-riding? Exactly, you don't know.

To be a woman in football, despite the significant strides made, is to be at a disadvantage. You are fair game, an easy target. The best you can hope for on matchday is to be judged differently to a man in your same position whilst having thousands of ignorant morons shouting at you to show them your breasts. The moment things go awry, a small but dangerous minority will look to victimise you and sensationalise your (frankly dull) past actions.

Be considered attractive and you will be labelled 'sultry' and 'sexy', be considered unattractive and the abuse will be far more derogatory. This has to stop.

A trained medical professional has been reduced to the status of object for the hungry masses to feast upon, and it stinks. There will be those reading this who feel it has no place in an article about Manchester City vs Chelsea, but the Chelsea manager (and the subsequent reaction) decreed that it does, not me.

For women like Eva Carneiro, the ideal scenario in football is for you to be invisible. Just imagine how belittling that feels. If that's not a status quo worth highlighting, I don't know what is.'

[usainboltyarocket]

I think you'd be a perfect match.

Take it as a compliment....

I think Guardiola would be a better match tbh. I also think the two orange Jimmy's are a perfect match for the Brit teuchtars. Hopefully they will be back one day.

[MacWalka]

Rather than type anymore i'll just post an article i read

Daniel Storey of Football365

'I really didn't want to have to do this, but The Sun On Sunday's 'exposé' of Dr Eva Carneiro was such a cheap and despicable slur that I really didn't have any choice. Even if it is exactly what Mourinho wanted, the internal conflict between Chelsea's manager and the club's medical staff led the agenda in the build-up to the game.

Firstly, it is important to say that Carneiro and Jon Fearn did little, if anything, wrong last Saturday. Footage indicates that they were called on by the referee, and possibly by Eden Hazard too. Their responsibility is not to the game situation, but to the physical well-being of the players. Both acted to the best of their (substantial) ability and medical training.

One could forgive Mourinho for his classic attention deflection trick in the post-match fallout when feelings were running high, but his decision to throw his colleagues under the bus leaves a sour taste, as does the decision to ban Carneiro and Fearn from the bench for Sunday's match. His insistence that they could return and his own brief admission of guilt ("I make mistakes") on Friday at least suggests that the situation is repairable.

However, it is the reaction to the incident (in some quarters) that has been the most unpleasant. Writing for ONE World Sports, Duncan Castles said that having a woman around the players may 'affect the dressing room dynamic' at Chelsea, as if they are all mouth-breathers who cannot prevent themselves getting erect when within five yards of a female.

The Daily Mail's 'Who Is Eva Carneiro?' feature was also poor, as if it somehow mattered whether a medical professional has 'pre-Raphaelite curls and toned figure' or not. 'She is pictured tucking into an iced cupcake while another shows her love of horse-riding as she canters in what looks like a safari setting', that article informed the reader. Well whoop-de-f**king-doo.

The straw that broke this football writer's back was that Sun on Sunday piece, however, in which an 'ex-lover' of Carneiro described how she 'loved sex' and 'drank wine', under the pretence that this was anything other than a thinly-veiled character assassination. Adult enjoys consensual sexual intercourse? Well why the hell didn't someone tell me earlier? I feel stupid for defending her now.

Initially I thought I had Carneiro's rap sheet sorted. Her crimes were 1) Carrying out her job correctly, 2) Expressing gratitude to those who had supported her and 3) Being in a long-term relationship (apparently with a s**t who would sell his story to the press). Throw away the key, jailer. Hanging's too good for her.

But actually, Carneiro is guilty of a far more serious football crime: Being a woman.

Ask yourself this: How much do you know about Jon Fearn? What historical era is his haircut from? How many times a week does he have a w**k? Does he love horse-riding? Exactly, you don't know.

To be a woman in football, despite the significant strides made, is to be at a disadvantage. You are fair game, an easy target. The best you can hope for on matchday is to be judged differently to a man in your same position whilst having thousands of ignorant morons shouting at you to show them your breasts. The moment things go awry, a small but dangerous minority will look to victimise you and sensationalise your (frankly dull) past actions.

Be considered attractive and you will be labelled 'sultry' and 'sexy', be considered unattractive and the abuse will be far more derogatory. This has to stop.

A trained medical professional has been reduced to the status of object for the hungry masses to feast upon, and it stinks. There will be those reading this who feel it has no place in an article about Manchester City vs Chelsea, but the Chelsea manager (and the subsequent reaction) decreed that it does, not me.

For women like Eva Carneiro, the ideal scenario in football is for you to be invisible. Just imagine how belittling that feels. If that's not a status quo worth highlighting, I don't know what is.'

That's a very good article.

[aaid]

Rather than type anymore i'll just post an article i read

Daniel Storey of Football365

'I really didn't want to have to do this, but The Sun On Sunday's 'exposé' of Dr Eva Carneiro was such a cheap and despicable slur that I really didn't have any choice. Even if it is exactly what Mourinho wanted, the internal conflict between Chelsea's manager and the club's medical staff led the agenda in the build-up to the game.

Firstly, it is important to say that Carneiro and Jon Fearn did little, if anything, wrong last Saturday. Footage indicates that they were called on by the referee, and possibly by Eden Hazard too. Their responsibility is not to the game situation, but to the physical well-being of the players. Both acted to the best of their (substantial) ability and medical training.

One could forgive Mourinho for his classic attention deflection trick in the post-match fallout when feelings were running high, but his decision to throw his colleagues under the bus leaves a sour taste, as does the decision to ban Carneiro and Fearn from the bench for Sunday's match. His insistence that they could return and his own brief admission of guilt ("I make mistakes") on Friday at least suggests that the situation is repairable.

However, it is the reaction to the incident (in some quarters) that has been the most unpleasant. Writing for ONE World Sports, Duncan Castles said that having a woman around the players may 'affect the dressing room dynamic' at Chelsea, as if they are all mouth-breathers who cannot prevent themselves getting erect when within five yards of a female.

The Daily Mail's 'Who Is Eva Carneiro?' feature was also poor, as if it somehow mattered whether a medical professional has 'pre-Raphaelite curls and toned figure' or not. 'She is pictured tucking into an iced cupcake while another shows her love of horse-riding as she canters in what looks like a safari setting', that article informed the reader. Well whoop-de-f**king-doo.

The straw that broke this football writer's back was that Sun on Sunday piece, however, in which an 'ex-lover' of Carneiro described how she 'loved sex' and 'drank wine', under the pretence that this was anything other than a thinly-veiled character assassination. Adult enjoys consensual sexual intercourse? Well why the hell didn't someone tell me earlier? I feel stupid for defending her now.

Initially I thought I had Carneiro's rap sheet sorted. Her crimes were 1) Carrying out her job correctly, 2) Expressing gratitude to those who had supported her and 3) Being in a long-term relationship (apparently with a s**t who would sell his story to the press). Throw away the key, jailer. Hanging's too good for her.

But actually, Carneiro is guilty of a far more serious football crime: Being a woman.

Ask yourself this: How much do you know about Jon Fearn? What historical era is his haircut from? How many times a week does he have a w**k? Does he love horse-riding? Exactly, you don't know.

To be a woman in football, despite the significant strides made, is to be at a disadvantage. You are fair game, an easy target. The best you can hope for on matchday is to be judged differently to a man in your same position whilst having thousands of ignorant morons shouting at you to show them your breasts. The moment things go awry, a small but dangerous minority will look to victimise you and sensationalise your (frankly dull) past actions.

Be considered attractive and you will be labelled 'sultry' and 'sexy', be considered unattractive and the abuse will be far more derogatory. This has to stop.

A trained medical professional has been reduced to the status of object for the hungry masses to feast upon, and it stinks. There will be those reading this who feel it has no place in an article about Manchester City vs Chelsea, but the Chelsea manager (and the subsequent reaction) decreed that it does, not me.

For women like Eva Carneiro, the ideal scenario in football is for you to be invisible. Just imagine how belittling that feels. If that's not a status quo worth highlighting, I don't know what is.'

That's fair enough, the way you phrased the original comment made it sound as though it was Mourinho and Chelsea that was demonstrating gender bias.

[phart]

That's fair enough, the way you phrased the original comment made it sound as though it was Mourinho and Chelsea that was demonstrating gender bias.

Nah I was going to type out more but couldn't be arsed, so probably wasn't clear.