Rousseau

There's no point in debating the points: we're both looking at it through blue and red tinted glasses. (There's no way his body weight knocks him down there; clear fall.)

The second-half was dull, but I thought the first-half was good. There was a good 30 mins where it looked like the Chelsea of last season. Red card(s) spoiled it.

Seriously, everyone's biased when it comes to Chelsea and Mourinho. Marmite. Any fan can find excuses for anything 'dirty' Chelsea/Mourinho do, likewise any that dislike Chelsea/Mourinho can find something 'immoral' in the most innocuous incidents. There's a clear divide on this forum.

Yes, he was booked for that though, wasn't he? Koscielny was also booked for grappling with him immediately before the flailing arms, or was it Gabriel? I can't remember now! Koscielny was definitely grappling with Costa though. Is Costa or Koscielny the aggressor in that situation then?

I actually thought it was quite an entertaining game: end-to-end, counter-attack after counter-attack. The Red has somewhat spoiled that now though (depending on one's colours!).

Why is Costa always deemed the aggressor? They were both booked for the tussle in the box -- fairly in my eyes. Then the "cheating tink" Gabriel back-heels Costa 2 mins later, getting another yellow and sent off. What about Koscielny falling to the ground after bumping chests? Cheating? Costa is an aggressive player, perhaps too aggressive at times. Opposition players look to play on it. On many occasions he is in the wrong, but he is also unfairly targeted. The irony is the Costa of last season would make Arsenal title contenders IMO. One would rather have him than not, surely? (Chelsea are a Marmite club -- even Mourinho is a Marmite manager. One is biased either way regarding any incidents/judgements involving them.)

Is he also not only one of very few that have come off the bench and scored a hat-trick?

Apparently She and the Physio have not returned to work, but as far as I was aware, they were just dropped from the bench, not from 1st team duties.

A Sports Medicine Expert couldn't become a GP, could they?

I would argue that a Football Doctor and a GP are two distinct branches, with separate roles and scope. Eva Carneiro is a Sports Medicine Specialist, a branch of medicine that deals with physical fitness and the treatment and prevention of injuries related to sports and exercise. In the case of Football, it is a branch solely concerned with making sure the players are in peak condition to win football games. In that sense surely the role demands a level of game awareness? So, was she doing her job fully? I don't think so. Therefore I think Mourinho was right to chastise her. On checking, she's not actually been demoted, but merely removed from the bench; She still carries out 1st team duties. (Again, I think the player is equally, if not more, to blame; he shouldn't be going down at a crucial stage in the game.)

I agree with that. However, is it realistic to expect a permanent replacement for Zelalem on our budget? For me, it's a little deflating to think that a linchpin-type player is not here for the long-term. I don't mind loan signings if they're squad players or something different to complement the team (Ball I am OK with because we can get another utility player quite easily IMO), but it's feels a little deflating to bring in a loan signing to be the main linchpin. Ah, I'm just being picky. I don't mind loan signings, but I'd prefer permanent ones. (And, to be fair, at our level we are not going to be able to keep a quality player for any length of time anyway.)

He's probably right, but I would still like to see quality added.

Meh. They started poorly the last couple of years, but still ran away with it. The Scottish league is so annoying because Aberdeen can beat Celtic one week then lose to Partick the next. There's no consistency in the performances. I think that's because the tactics are not based on control, but chance, in the sense that they play the long ball time and time again; add in a lack of quality and it's no wonder that they are so inconsistent. It seems like Rangers are able to control games and approach them in an objective manner. I think there is a decrease in quality at Celtic though. It seems like they're replacing quality international players, with 'quality' Scottish players, which is inevitably going to see them drop a level or two.

I thought Man Utd were excellent. They just couldn't score. You can't account for a player just fluffing up his shots. I didn't see the City game, but I do enjoy seeing them get beat.

Macini's record in Europe before Man City was poor also. I'm not sure what Pelligrini achieved, but could it be the managers themselves not adapting to the European situation?

Erm...No. Mourinho did not single out the female Doctor. He criticised his "Medical staff", saying: "I was unhappy with my medical staff. They were impulsive and naive. [...] You have to know you have one player less and to assist a player you must be sure he has a serious problem. I was sure Eden did not have a serious problem. He had a knock. He was tired." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33837212) The sexist aspect was added by the media to create a story.

Yes, absolutely. I said it was naive and poor game management from Hazard's perspective. Don't all the best manager 'deflect'? Ferguson was very good at deflecting attention away from him and his team; and always created that 'us versus them' mentality. It's clear that you don't like Mourinho, whereas I do, so perhaps we are both biased in that sense. Like I said, I understand why He criticised the Medial staff. I've said previously: If it's a serious injury, then get on the pitch as quick as possible. I'm not disputing a Doctor's obligation. I'm suggesting it's poor game management, like Mourinho said. It was quite clearly a fatigue related 'injury' (it wasn't an injury) -- and yes the player should be criticised -- so there was no need to come on the pitch. There are plenty of occasions where a player is down, but the Medical team don't come on. That's a completely hypothetical situation that has no relation to the actual circumstances. (I don't think they were trying to score the winning goal, but trying to hang on to the draw because they had 10 men. The Score and the objective is irrelevant. The fact is Chelsea were disadvantaged -- rightly or wrongly; I don't know because I can't remember who or why they got a man sent off -- and were even more so because the Medical staff came onto the pitch.) I agree that the player is even more guilty in this situation. However, I also think that the Medical staff should have been a little shrewder in their judgment. I'd be pretty annoyed if Rangers were down to 10 men in the Scottish Cup final against Celtic leading 2-1 and the Doctor comes on to 'treat' fatigue in the latter stages of a game leaving us with 9 men.

The loan system is great if you are the loaner, not so much the loanee, unless it gives you a better calibre of player. However, if one is trying to build a team then loans would just be destructive IMO. It's great that we've got Zelalem, but what happens when we move up a league and haven't got him? It'll be very difficult to get a similarly-skilled player for a reasonable amount of cash.

It looks like I'm in the minority here. I think you are right, after checking: the Ref did signal for them to go on. I still think it's naive and poor game management/awareness. If it's a serious injury, then sure, get on the pitch as quick as possible. However, the medical team is there to help the team be successful. I think it was pretty obvious it was fatigue -- quite common at the latter stages of a game. Nothing serious, and could cost the team points (I think it was 2-2 and they were down to 10 men?). I would certainly also blame the player for going down in that situation, for the same reasons: Naivety and poor game management/awareness. I also said the demotion was quite harsh. She (and He -- I don't know why it turns into a sexist issue?) should have been criticised in private, not in public.

I think you've jumped the gun with your judgement there. Of course if it is a serious injury, she should be straight on the pitch. However, it was fatigue and he would be fine after running it off; it happens all the time. Because the doctor came on the pitch, the player then has to leave, leaving Chelsea with 9 men. It can cost points, and potentially titles, if one considers how close the season finishes. Like I said, perhaps demoting the woman was harsh, but I still think he was right to criticise her.

Am I the only person who thinks Mourinho was right regarding the doctor? Perhaps demoting the woman was harsh, but she did deserve to be criticised IMO. He is a bad loser, but he's not used to it. Chelsea need a few fresh faces. It is the one criticism of Mourinho's career: he hasn't quite managed to re-fresh a team like Ferguson used to do; usually he adds finished players, then moves on before the team gets past their peak.

Another couple of assists for McKay. He's been exceptional this season. I'm pleased he's getting his chance and delivering the goods. I've always been a big fan of his style of play.

Such is the standards set this season that 3-0 is a little disappointing. Awesome.

I'd second trublu: Gourcuff is awesome. Not sure if he'd fit into our offensive third because he's quite lethargic and doesn't have the work-rate for our team, but he could sit in the DM Pirlo-role pinging balls left, right and centre, and would always be a danger at set-pieces. (No chance whatsoever, but I can dream!)

As far as I'm concerned very few pundits actually have a clue. Apart from Gary Neville and Jamie Carragher, most pundits provide a very subjective analysis. It's good to get a personal interpretation or opinion of what the pundit would do in a given situation, but I prefer more objective analysis. Most pundits are of an age whereby their views are out-of-date. The game has moved on, so it not just a case of 'show more desire in the tackle', 'show hunger for the ball', or 'there's no pressure on the ball' etc. It does seem that the defensive side of the game is easier to analyse because it's just a case of looking at organisation and shape, where the roles are well-defined. The attacking side is more complex and much more fluid. I can't really recall any good objective analyses of a teams attacking play. Even Neville and Carragher tend to focus on the defensive side, which is no surprise considering they are defenders. Henry gives a little insight now and again. Ally will not bring anything new, but we may get a laugh, and perhaps a more Rangers-sided view on things for a change; not a bad thing at all.