How officials are always at fault in paranoid world of Jose Mourinho
By Jeremy Wilson, The TelegraphJose Mourinho has a video clip on his mobile phone of the late Brian Clough giving an interview to John Motson and, inevitably, the verbal dominance of Old Big ’Ead wins approval from the Special One. Comparisons between two of football’s most charismatic managers are natural but one glaring contrast is clear: Clough tried never to criticise referees, and here he launches into an unprompted defence of them.
“What you do to referees is nothing short of criminal,” Clough tells the beleaguered Motson. “I think the standard you feel should be coming from referees is absolutely incredible. It should be overemphasised how hard it is to referee a match.”
Former referee Jeff Winter sensed this in 2005. “On the few occasions Chelsea lose a football match there is a conspiracy theory – it is the referee’s fault,” he said. “A referee may get a decision wrong in 90 minutes, but he’s not to blame for everything.”
Mourinho’s biggest controversy that season was his claim that referee Anders Frisk had allowed Barcelona manager Frank Rijkaard into his room at half-time of Chelsea’s Champions League defeat before sending off Didier Drogba. Uefa’s venue director, Pascal Fratellia, swore that Rijkaard was outside the room.
Despite all his success at Inter Milan, Mourinho said: “I always had the feeling that the referees had a campaign of errors against us. I started coaching the team to play 10 against 11, to be ready in case we had a man sent off.”
It got to the stage where Italian referees were reportedly threatening to go on strike if Mourinho was not punished. In explaining its £35,000 fine and three-game touchline ban, Serie A said that Mourinho had “repeatedly challenged the officials, especially by mimicking handcuffs with his wrists and arms crossed, and faced the crowds and television cameras. Also, he insulted the referee and his assistants in the tunnel and repeatedly insulted officials”.
Next came Real Madrid. He noted before the Clasico in November 2010 that Barcelona “is happy” with Iturralde González to be the referee.
The following month, after a match against Sevilla, he came into the press conference with a list of 13 “serious mistakes” that had been made in the game by referee Clos Gómez. “I am tired of this,” he said. “My team needs to be defended. Not just today but many times over. If I say what I think, I will be on the front pages tomorrow and I will be suspended.
Then there was the Champions League defeat by Barcelona in April 2011, which was overshadowed by Mourinho’s reaction to Pepe being sent off. “One day, I would like Josep Guardiola to win this competition properly,” he said. “If I tell Uefa what I really think and feel, my career would end now. Instead I will just ask a question to which I hope one day to get a response: Why? Why? Because every semi-final the same things happen. Where does their power come from? They have power and we have no chance.”
On his return to Chelsea in 2013, Mourinho again faced Guardiola in the European Super Cup. Chelsea lost on penalties to Bayern Munich after Ramires was dismissed. Mourinho even admitted his player deserved a second yellow “in pure terms” but the wider observations quickly followed.
“It’s nothing new for me. At Chelsea, I played two or three times with 10 men against Barcelona. I went to Inter and played a Champions League semi-final, one hour, with 10 men against Barcelona. I go to Real Madrid, I played again a Champions League semi-final with 10 men. I came back to Chelsea and played a Super Cup final with 10 men again. Go to analyse the actions and make your conclusions.”
A swipe at Chris Foy after defeat at Aston Villa; sarcastic praise of Mike Dean after Chelsea lost at Sunderland; a cryptic attack on Mike Riley, the referees’ boss.
After he had a penalty appeal turned down against Southampton last December, Mourinho said: “In other countries where I worked, tomorrow in the sports papers it would be front-page scandal because it is a scandal. It is clearly the result of something that looks like a campaign.”
Then, after Diego Costa’s stamp on Emre Can in January this year: “I don’t know what you understand by a stamp. Maybe you are already influenced by the campaign on the television with the certain pundits saying that Costa has crimes.”
He was quickly into his stride this season. “The most important thing of this start to the season is that it’s not normal that, in three matches, you have two penalties against and play with 10 men twice,” he said.
What has followed is the latest claim that referees are collectively “afraid” to give decisions for Chelsea.
Mourinho is outraged but it seems extraordinary he is not aware of the distinction in the FA rule book between criticising a performance or decision and any inference of wider bias. It is the latter that provokes disciplinary action.
So why does he adopt such language? In the belief that successive teams in three different countries are the persistent victims of injustice? To create a siege mentality in the dressing room? To distract from his team’s failings? Or is it to influence referees?
Whatever the answer, this element of a career that has combined moments of genius, hilarity and outright disgrace has become boring. Clough loved his music and, for Mourinho, it is surely now time to find another song to sing.
Original article
