You have to be joking, do you really think this Chelsea team is "worth" semifinals (close to final as we speak) of CL or better than City?
Worth semifinals in what way? Do I think they are among 4 best teams in Europe? No. Do I think they have a better squad than every team they beat so far in CL? Yes, and they even have a better squad than Atletico for that matter.
Are they better than City? Probably not, but they do have bigger depth.
But that's exactly the point. Mourinho is not an 'enemy of football' and he also has no 'defensive fetish'. It's undeniable that he's a better defensive coach than he's an offensive coach and, from the touchline, he's much more comfortable when his teams have to defend a lead instead of having them chase the game. But at Real he mostly played an offensive, expansive style. He was more cautious against Barca and in the UCL semis, but I don't think anyone can blame him for that - it's not like Ancelotti's Real played like Brazil 1982 yesterday and last week, they just defended deep and used their individual quality on the break.
My point being, his Real time showed when it's demanded, Mourinho can also get a team playing offensively, scoring lots of goals. Sure, he's better in making his sides tough to beat, but many (not just you) make it sound like Mourinho is just too limited as a coach to get a team playing offensive football at all and that's false. He's got not defensive fetish at all.
And, actually, Mourinho tried to play more expansive at Chelsea. When they appointed him, he'd promised more attractive football than during as first spell, and early on he definitely tried to implement it. Yes, in their third match, he went to United for a point and nothing else, but in other Chelsea matches there were quite a lot of goals - 3-1 vs Norwich (matchday 7), 4-1 vs Cardiff (8), 3-1 vs Southampton (14), 4-3 vs Sunderland (14), 2-3 vs Stoke (15).
Then, after they crashed out 1-2 against Sunderland in the League Cup on 17th December last year, he decided to change his approach. Until then, he had tried to get the balance between expansive football and a settled defence right, but after that loss he decided he needed to play more defensively in order to reach his season targets. He even came out and told the press 'One of the easiest things in football is winning 1-0'.
I can back this up with numbers, too: Mourinho changed his approach after 16 games, before they played Arsenal. In those 16 games, Chelsea had scored two goals a game, having conceded approximately 1,13 goals per game on average in the league, averaging slightly more than 2 points per game. In the 20 league games since then, Chelsea scored 1,85 goals/game, conceded only 8 in 20 (0,4/game) and averaged 2,25 points per game. By the way, their goals records would be even lower in the second half of the season had they not scored 6 against Arsenal.
I can understand people talking about the money Chelsea spent and I agree that's huge and that it should yield better football. But people always forget that it's Mourinho's first season in charge, his teams generally play better in his second season. But, as you see from the stats I assembled, Mourinho indeed tried to make them play better football. Then, he saw that if he continued to play like this, he would end up where all the other Chelsea managers since Ancelotti ended up: With no chance in the title race. I imagine Mourinho would love to win titles with free-flowing football, like he did at Real in 11/12, but when he has to choose between getting at least to close to winning titles or great football, he'll always decide for titles and I can definitely understand that.
And denying that playing defensively suits Chelsea's strengths is also something I'll never be able to understand. People say 'They should be playing offensively because they have so much quality in offense'. Yeah, they have, but you know, when you play an offensive style, your defense is equally important. Offensive football nearly always equals high line. Do Chelsea have the defenders and the goalkeeper to play a high line? I don't think so (and probably neither does Andre Villas Boas anymore). The only one in Chelsea's defence who's suitable to a high line is Cesar Azpilicueta, with his lightning pace and never-ending stamina. Terry is way too slow for a high line, in fact he's not suitable for such a defensive style at all. Gary Cahill, while maybe not really 'slow', has practically no experience and with a high line, and, even more importantly, is not a ball-playing-defender that you need (neither is Terry). David Luiz IS great with the ball at his feet and fast, but he's prone to losing his concentration and make stupid mistakes, which will be punished more with a high block, as when you lose the ball there as a central defender, your opponent basically gets a free run on goal. Still, Luiz would be probably the only central defender more or less suitable to a high line. Ivanovic is not agile enough and also lacks a bit of the necessary pace, plus he's not too good offensively, which full backs need to be when you're taking the game to your opponent. The same goes for Ashley Cole. So, why again are Chelsea not playing to their strengths with a deep block?
As I said before, I'm annoyed that nowadays, everything were defending comes first is now branded 'anti-football'. I'm annoyed that it's said 'parking the bus' is easy. How many managers do you see who'd be able to concede 8 goals in 20 games? Do you seriously want to deny that's a quality?
I don't want to watch football when every team plays the same way. I don't want every manager to have the same style, I want to keep some variety and defensive coaches like Mourinho or Simeone add to the flavour, in my opinion.
I mean, we're seeing in tennis how damaging it can be for a sport if one playing style gets increasingly popular and is favoured by lots of players. In tennis surface homogenisation is playing into the hands of defensive grinders, in football nowadays every coach who plays more emphasis on defense than offense is bashed by lots of self-proclaimed 'neutrals'. Mourinho and Simeone are obviously strongh enough as personalities to handle the heat, but if young coaches know they'll be getting endless flak for setting up in a passive style, we could easily see a homogenisation in football. People think that's good, but would you want to watch the sport when every team tried to play like Pep? I'd think this was absolutely horrible (the same would go for every team lining up like Mourinho, of course, but that's kinda my point!)
You do make some good points, but bottom line for me is, with a good squad he decides to play defensive. Some stats might be on his side, but at the same time some aren't.
Look at this semifinal for example, he came for a 0-0 draw in Madrid, and you'd say he was successful. Yes, probably it's easy to talk now, but 0-0 away is actually not a very good result. You saw today how clueless he was at 1-1. Chelsea never looked dangerous when the score was 1-1, and they weren't even playing the kind of football they played against Liverpool last Sunday.
You said that between playing attractive football and titles he'll always choose titles, and in the end he gets none. He has huge budget, really good squad, and he starts CL semifinal second leg at Stamford Bridge with 6 defenders and still concedes 3 goals. I fail to see the brilliance.