Read on Twitter
Obviously there are a lot of takes this morning on Mourinho's tactics etc but my own view is that I would be more critical of how Spurs played against Crystal Palace than against Liverpool.
I thought Spurs played pretty well overall last night. They were away at the best PL team of the modern era. They had 2-3 very good chances to go 2-1 up in the second half. But they wound up losing 2-1, the same result as their last two PL games at Anfield.
It is a fair criticism of Mourinho that his 'pragmatism' is in fact ideological: that he sets up his team to play counter-attacking football every week, instead of only when it is necessary. But, for me at least, last night was one of the games when the approach was justified.
If they'd come out and defended on the half-way line last night what do you think would have happened?
But if you're looking for an example of Mourinho's football costing Spurs points, then how about Palace last Sunday? Failed to kill the game at 1-0, Palace piled on the pressure and eventually equalised. Moments like that are more likely to cost Spurs the title than last night.
(Obviously this is just a discussion about the efficacy of Mourinho's tactics. Some fans might well have a moral/aesthetic objection to it but that's a different issue.)
For more on Mourinho's evolution at Spurs, I enjoyed going on our The Lead podcast to talk about him earlier this week. http://podfollow.com/the-lead
