bigmick wrote:john craig wrote:4) He was poor for Chelsea and rarely trusted by Mourinho. I notice some of the posters who are advocating the signing of Johnson are also closet Mourinho lovers (Mick). So despite Mourinho being a good manager, did he have Johnson all wrong? I know it's not as clear cut as that as Johnson was a younger player, but it's worth debate.
The Mourinho question is an interesting one John and worth a look. First thing which is worth pointing out is that Johnson was the first of a long list of very good signings by Ranieri, albeit at an inflated fee at the time. I don't think he'd actually played much for West Ham when Chelsea bought him, so 6 mill was top dollar although obviously as he's now showing, he had lots of potential.
As for Mourinho's handling of him, and "trust" of him. On arrival at Chelsea Mourinho looked at the fact that Ranieri, despite spending many millions, had amssed 79 points in his best season and knew they needed to improve quickly. Principally he did this in the short term with the aquisitions of Ferriera and Carvallo for the defence, and Drogba up top. I don't think it was really a question of Johnson not being up to it, I think it was more the fact that Mourinho doesn't do "five year plans". He's always made it quite clear that his objective upon arrival at a new club is to win the title in his first season (and we know from experience that's what he does).
As we also know, Mourinho doesn't go a bundle on "options" and "possibilities" players, while he also had in his mind that Chelsea were going to play a particular brand of football. This particular style which presumeably he dreampt up on the plane on the way over, was supremely attritional power football in a 4-5-1 and didn't really involve full backs bombing on overly. He wanted defenders who could defend, seasoned pro's who could be miserly and hold out for the 1-0's. A young Johnson with pretensions to being a bomber didn't really fit the bill, whereas an experienced Ferriera did.
Of course as we know, he broke the Premiership points record with a brand new system and brand new players in his very fiurst season. 95 points still remains to this day the best that anyone has ever achieved, even the "magnificence" of Man Utd in a weakened league last time couldn't get near it, nor could we despite our heroics. I jus tthink it was a question of Johnson not fitting the mould of what he was after mate more than a comment on what was a very young player at the time.
It's always interesting though to look at Mourinho's methodology and record, I'll give you that
Personally I don't doubt Mourinho's credentials mate, just couldn't resist the wind up!
I do think the Johnson/Chelsea situation is worth analysing though. Granted Johnson was a younger player, Mourinho brought in his own man (Ferreira) without giving Johnson a fair chance and seemed to make his mind up on Johnson quite early.
On the subject of Mourinho not trusting Johnson - I am sure Mourinho made a comment in the press alluding to that fact (although I'm fu.cked if I could dig it up now). It was a comment about his concentration. In fact Mourinho made similar comments about Joe Cole around the same time, but Cole seemed to react well to these comments and improve, whereas Johnson still never featured much for Chelsea around then.
You also have to look at the blatant fact that Ferreira wasn't up to it as a premiership full back. 20+ million and he faded badly after a decent start. He wasn't one of Mourinho's famous 9 'untouchables' as he called them. Despite this, rather than give Johnson a game, Lassana Diarra (that's right, remember he played for Chlsea!), Geremi, Essien and Gallas all had spells at right back ahead of Johnson during Mourinho's reign. Still think he didn't trust him?
Now I don't doubt that Johnson now is a better player than his days of the Mourinho's Chelsea, but the same doubts about his defensive capabilities still linger and the Kazakhstan game was a harsh reminder. Was he simply too young at Chelsea, or does he struggle under pressure? That for me is the big question. Wouldn't like to be paying 17 - 19 million to test that theory but that's just my opinion.
RIGHT BACK, CHEAP OR EXPENSIVE. NOW!
[1].gif)
?