as usual, a terrific analysis, tony. i think for many of us who follow chelsea, this game continues a disconcerting trend of aimless play, especially at the attacking end of the pitch. when was the last time that chelsea produced a number of good chances in a game? abstracting from the game against lower level opposition with huddersfield, the last few games - tottenham, olympiacos, liverpool, portsmouth - have produced little in the way of a fluid attacking style and very few good chances. it has been a long time since chelsea has had a stretch like this when their opposition consistently creates as many or more good chances than the blues.

even with the squad now finally healthy, this past month the team has clearly regressed. when that happens, questions about the manager must be asked.

barry, kansas city, usa

People want JCole in the team because he is English. Period! To me he is not a team player - he is a midfielder but take more shots on goal than strikers. He is there to supply strikers with service not to deny them. Chelsea play with a crowded mid that has players competing to score than involve players with the pedigree to score. The truth Grant has no idea how to mold Jose's players into an attacking unit - it's not his fault, the players (who are older) where molded to play that way by Jose. Chelsea just need more new players...

albert, lake orion, usa

Spurs outplayed, outthought, and outfought Chelsea. It would have been a travesty of justice if Spurs had lost but this Spurs team is now made of sterner stuff and I doubt Mourinho would have made enough difference to change the final result.

T. Castro, Hong Kong, China

Now avram wants to overhaul his management team . he wants a football director who would ostensibly make his work easier, the way it was for Harry at portsmouth. please avram,go back to israel. what achievement did portsmouth get when you were there as a football director. avram cant make it. he will only wreck the chelsea ship to a point that it will take abravich 10 years to recover.

jesse, Nairobi, kenya

This game reminded me of the notorious "tinkerman" Champions League semi final versus Monaco where Claudio Ranieri made team selections that ought to have had him sectioned. Like Ranieri, Grant is good until the big games against the big teams, and then it's down to the 'X' factor. And Mourinho had it and Grant hasn't.

Paul Watkins, Reading , Berkshire

As a Spurs fan I am naturally delighted that Chelsea came unstuck yesterday and the blame for that , in my opinion, is down to Avram Grant, Tactically, Avram Grant got it so wrong yesterday whereas Ramos got it so right.

Avram's first mistake was leaving Joe Cole & Ballack out of the starting line up. They have been Chelsea's best players in recent weeks !!!! The next mistake he made was to play Anelka on the left wing where he contributed absolutley nothing.

With a squad as talented as the one Chelsea has they deserve to have a manager who does not freeze on the big occasion and who is committed to allowing that talent to express itself. As long as AG is in charge Chelsea will continue to churn out boring, negative football. The Club...the team...and the fans deserve better.

Mike , Barry , Wales

Under Mourinho, Chelsea went one nil up against Spurs and lost 2-1,albeit that Chelsea had a good goal disallowed and Terry sent off.

Thought Wembley pitch was appalling. As with Croatia game, many players slipped up and others looked like they were skating on ice.

mark , Bushey, Herts

Under Mourinho, Chelsea went one nil up against Spurs and lost 2-1,albeit that Chelsea had a good goal disallowed and Terry sent off.

Thought Wembley pitch was appalling. As with Croatia game, many players slipped up and others looked like they were skating on ice.

mark , Bushey, Herts

Yet again, Grant's Chelsea fails to defeat its rival. We now (expectedly, as we did under Ranieri) defeat lower opposition. Under Mourinho, we beat our rivals. That is the key distinction.

As an article I read (in the Times yesterday) suggested, Grant's appointment to bring "attacking" football was a smoekscreen. The real reason to oust Mourinho, and yet attempt to keep the same tactics (though seemingly unsuccessfully) was to spread the spotlight - Abramovich (and perhaps some of the big players) resented Mourinho the demi-god.

Congratulations then Mr A. You are still received by the fans as luke-warmly as before, and you now have a manager who produces no better-looking football and with none of the steel and winning-mentality that Mourinho produced, no matter how arrogant he may have come across. The fans loved him and I believe the players, on the whole, did also.

Would a Mourinho team lose after going 1-0 up? It is unlikley and his statistics demonstrate that.

Russell, Dubai,

It is unbelieveable that on such a stage Drogba still dives and overreacts, i dont see how he can watch the match after and not feel embarrassed. For all the Chelsea moans about the pen, poss the first time Bridge handballs it, it was accidental, the second time: possibly to control the ball; but the third time it hit his hand, possibly he forgot that he wasnt the goalkeeper. Chelsea were outplayed for the whole game with their only tactic to try and score from a Drogba-diving set piece.
Avram got it wrong, Ramos got it dead right: and we still played lovely football.

Christopher Spurano, Surbiton, England

impressed by tottenham support

dan, richmond,

the egos of lampard and terry had n othign to do it - Grant simply is not tactically atute for the style of football nor has he the pedigree to cope with these sort of situations - the article is right jose would have won this and to prove it you ned to look no further than his record against top teams in the league and in finals. its simple - roman's ego has cost us.

jack.turner, london, uk

Look at the penalty again. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Spurs player uses HIS hand to push the ball onto Bridge's arm in the first instance. Bridge then moves his arm and the ball does indeed touch him a second time, but there is no doubt at all that the first hand to touch the ball during the incident was the Spurs man's. Look at it. It's undeniable.
That is what wins or loses matches – not whether it was Grant who was on the touchline or Mourinho. Grant's team had this go against them, and Mourinho in his Carling Final had Gerrard kindly head a needless own goal to force extra time. That's luck, good or bad... not judgement.

G. Wright, San Francisco, USA

Mr Grant promised us more attacking football when he came but i have not seen it. the team is not playing to its full potential also in UEFA CL.

he took to long to make a tactical change when, clearly, the game was not going right.

Chelsea's starting line up should have been: (4-3-3)
Cech, Paulo F, Carvalho, Terry, A.cole, Essien, Lampard, Ballack, J.cole, Shaun W-P, Drogba. Subs Anelka, malouda, Mikel, Belleti and Carlo. the strongest line up and every one in thier best positions.

OR in a (4-4-2)
the midfield would be J.cole, essien, Lampard, & Ballack or Shaun. then you can have anelka & Drogba up front.

Nonso Z., Golders green, ldn,

Chelsea lost because Grant opted to play Lampard and Terry. Had Ballack captained and Cole and Alex started, Chelsea would have won the game. I have said it all along: the trouble with Chelsea are the egos of Lampard and Terry. Both are highly overrated and spoiled players -- and if you do not believe me, look at their performances for England! And to think that I thought for a minute that Grant was a courageous and brilliant coach!

John, Bloomington, IN, USA

Accurate article apart from the praise for Hutton who had a nightmare.

Lennon, especially after being told to switch wings, was awesome.

Well done Spurs and this is from a Liverpool fan.

Marc, Liverpool, Merseyside