Its normal these days to come across a badly worded or an exceptionally biased article. Especially when it is football related. Every man and his dog have access to the internet and its their right to voice their opinions. Every now and then, someone who has done something noteworthy in the game pops up with some incredibly weird article that makes the likes of Twitter and Reddit go mental. One such recent article was Michael Owen’s column in The Telegraph from the 2nd of May. Consider this some sort of response to the man’s masterclass of words.

Let’s look at the article point by point.

As a fully paid up member of the strikers’ union, I feel a compulsion to offer my sympathies to Fernando Torres, Demba Ba and Samuel Eto’o. Playing upfront for Jose Mourinho’s Chelsea is a thankless task. Even at my peak, I’m not sure I would have been suited to the style of football Mourinho favours.

Michael Owen feels sorry for the three strikers at Chelsea’s disposal while also agreeing that he isn’t suited to the style of football Mourinho favours. Owen himself makes the point that I’d like to raise when it comes down to the issue of strikers at Chelsea. Mourinho likes his strikers who can not only impose themselves on the opposition’s defence but also make intelligent runs while bringing others into play by their creativity or hold-up play. Mourinho has strikers with all those characteristics at Chelsea now. The only problem is that each striker has one of the mentioned strengths. Eto’o is at his best at bringing him team mates into the game. Hazard has (notably and statistically) performed better when Eto’o is on the pitch. Ba is the most physical of the trio but he fails to link up well with the creative trio behind him. The PSG game at Stamford Bridge and the Liverpool game at Anfield provide ample evidence for the same. Yes, he did score a goal in each match but that has only helped mask over the mistakes in his game. Finally, Torres. So much has already been said about him that there isn’t much left to say. He has the desire to make good runs, is clever with his movement but that’s about it. The end product is as rare as the Halley’s comet.

With the greatest respect, my dad could have played centre-back for Chelsea last Sunday and looked impressive.

Just because you state that you mean no disrespect doesn’t make such a wild statement any less disrespectful. Ivanovic and Kalas were absolutely fantastic for 90 minutes in the heart of Chelsea’s defence. Their performance feels even better when you take into account that neither of them is a first choice center-back at Chelsea. The amount of mental strength required and physical fitness required to play at CB in such games is very high. If it was very easy to defend for 90 minutes while looking to score one or two goals on the counter, I am sure Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona would have struggled a lot more than they ever did. For someone who once used to be a decent striker, Owen fails to see the greatness of a good defense even if it was playing in his ‘home’.

There was a clamour after the game for Ashley Cole to start for England again, but you have to give more consideration to how Chelsea set-up.

Since when did England go to any major tournament and dominate games like Spain do? When have England had ultra attacking full-backs? In most of the recent tournaments, Engalnd have been more on the back foot than otherwise. Chelsea play two full-backs who never go near the halfway line; two centre-halves who are ordered to stand in the same position for 90 minutes; What does Owen mean by ‘centre-halves who are ordered to stand in the same position for 90 minutes‘? Does Owen want to see box-to-box center-backs? Is that even a thing? If the center-back’s main job isn’t to stay in the heart of the defence throughout the game and protect the goalkeeper, I have to agree that I understood this game wrong all these days. two holding midfielders who have a fixed position protecting those centre-halves; Michael Owen just managed to define the basic job of a holding midfielder while sounding sarcastic about it. I am not sure if that’s a good thing or not. slightly more advanced midfielders who tuck in to ensure there is even less space for the opponent to play; and a striker who, at times, may need a pair of binoculars to locate a supporting midfielder. Mourinho demands that the advanced trio in the team help out the team defensive, apart from being the creative outlet. This has worked well as it has helped the team to defend as one rather than play as individuals. It is something that has to be lauded rather than scorned at. Pep Guardiola is someone I would happily describe as a genius, regardless of the result for Bayern Munich this week. Basically, Owen prefers to play pretty and lose rather than play to win. Anyone else see the flaw in his preferences? I look at what Brendan Rodgers has done with Liverpool and will argue with anyone that it has been far harder for him to build a side that has scored almost 100 goals than it would have been to retreat and try to win 1-0 every week. Mr.Owen, you should know that Mourinho got Real Madrid to score 121 goals and achieve a points record of 100, something that even Barcelona hadn’t managed till then. If it was so easy to win 1-0, I am sure Liverpool would have used such easy tactics and secured the Premier League title with a win against Chelsea. At Liverpool, Gerard Houllier certainly adopted defensive, counter-attacking tactics on occasions but it was very much dependant on the circumstances and opposition. I never felt I was in a defensive set-up during my Liverpool career, as my goals record at Anfield demonstrates. Here is the basic flaw in Owen’s arguments. His entire article is based on the idea that Chelsea play an extremely defensive game counter-attacking game, every game. It is true that Chelsea went defensive at Anfield but that is only one of the four times such tactics were used. The first instance of such a set-up was seen when Chelsea went Old Trafford. Without a recognised striker, Mourinho’s main idea was to avoid a defeat. Similar thoughts were the reason behind the defensive show at both The Emirates and the Vicente Calderon. Apart from those four games, Chelsea have never used the kind of tactics Owen seems to mention. The four times Mourinho used ‘defensive, counter-attacking tactics‘ was in relation to the circumstance and the opposition. Houllier is lauded by Owen and Mourinho is looked down upon for the same reason. Go figure. Throughout the season Chelsea have defended well, and defended in number. But that is being hugely mistaken for a backs-to-the wall display. By someone who played the game professionally. And is a paid ‘pundit’ on international television. We drew 0-0 against a Barcelona side in the early stages of its evolution towards greatness. Even though many criticised our negative approach we never saw it that way. You were there to do a job and we executed it to perfection. So Mr.Owen went to Barcelona to do a (defensive) job, did it and doesn’t see it as one but when it comes to Chelsea his thought process gets all jumbled up. Even thought it happened just four times throughout the season. Some ‘pundit’, eh? To some extent, the reverting to type he has overseen is a reflection of the limitations Mourinho sees in his own squad. It has been clear since the early months of the season he has not been happy with all the personnel at his disposal and has adapted accordingly. Well, if Owen knew this then what was the whole idea behind the article? Was it written because his contract with The Telegraph expected him to write one article every now and then, irrespective of how it sounds? The Chelsea of next season will be the same but better. I haven’t yet fully understood that statement to make a comment. If you get what he means, please feel free to let me know. It will make Chelsea as formidable as they have always been under Mourinho, but please use the phrase ‘tactical genius’ sparingly. Owen must be talking about his fellow TV personalities and several players/coaches who have used such, or similar, terms when Mourinho is described. The majority’s view is different from Michael Owen’s. I shall let you decide whose judgement is better. Michael Owen’s article in points, in order of their appearance: The style of play Mourinho employed at Anfield is bad and it is not football.

Pep Guardiola used the style of play Owen likes and lost, but Pep’s a genius while Mourinho who set up his team to win is not.

Gerard Houllier adopted defensive, counter-attacking tactics. He was a part of the team that used a negative approach against Barcelona but he doesn’t see it as one because it was ‘the job’ and it was executed to perfection.

Mourinho’s style of play might be down to the fact that there might a few limitations with the squad at his disposal. At least Owen was good at football for a few days. Can’t say the same about his writings though.