Pellegrini responds to Mourinho: “We won because we scored, they didn’t”

Manuel Pellegrini rejected José Mourinho’s suggestion that Real Betis had played for a draw before unexpectedly walking away with all three points. The home coach insisted his side had approached the game with the intention of winning from the opening minute.

Betis secured a 1-0 victory through Troy Parrott’s 81st-minute goal. Real Madrid responded by hitting the crossbar through Mbappé, having a spectacular Carlos Espí bicycle kick disallowed for offside and winning a stoppage-time penalty, which Álvaro Vallés saved.

PELLEGRINI REJECTS THE DRAW CLAIM

Mourinho praised the overall performance of his players but argued that Betis had set out to draw and ultimately “hit the jackpot.” Pellegrini offered a very different interpretation.

“The team went out to win from the first minute against a great opponent,” the Betis coach said.

Pellegrini acknowledged that a draw might have been a fair outcome. He also highlighted a second-half spell in which Betis enjoyed more possession and pushed higher up the pitch, although he openly recognised the importance of several saves made by Vallés.

“We converted our chance, and they didn’t,” he concluded.

It was a simple answer supported by the final score. Matches are decided by goals rather than the number or quality of opportunities created. However, reducing Madrid’s performance to the result alone would leave out an important part of the story.

THE NUMBERS SUPPORT MOURINHO’S READING

According to figures cited by Managing Madrid, Real Madrid produced 3.16 expected goals. It was the club’s highest xG total without scoring since the available dataset began in the 2020/21 season.

Madrid won a penalty, struck the crossbar, forced Vallés into several important saves and put the ball into the net through Espí. The goal was eventually ruled out for offside following a VAR review.

Mourinho therefore had strong evidence for his belief that Madrid had played well enough to win. His side were neither dominated nor deprived of attacking opportunities. The decisive failure came in front of goal, where a considerable volume of chances produced nothing.

The coach also refused to isolate Mbappé as the reason for the defeat. Mourinho stressed that when one player steps forward to take a penalty, the entire team shares responsibility. It was a constructive response to a night defined by collective inefficiency rather than one missed kick.

PELLEGRINI DISMISSES REFEREEING INFLUENCE

Pellegrini also rejected the idea that Alejandro Hernández Hernández had decisively influenced the result. In his view, the decisive difference was Betis converting an opportunity while Madrid failed to do so.

Immediately after the game, Mourinho also stopped short of blaming the defeat on the officials. He said he had not yet properly reviewed the possible penalty retake or the disallowed Espí goal. He did, however, question the distribution of yellow cards and argued that Betis were more effective at putting pressure on the referee.

ONE RESULT, TWO VALID READINGS

Pellegrini is correct about the central fact: Betis scored and Madrid did not. That was enough to produce a 1-0 victory.

The underlying numbers, however, offer considerable support for Mourinho’s analysis of the performance. Madrid generated chances worth more than three expected goals and were one clinical finish away from producing a completely different discussion.

This defeat does not demand a complete tactical rethink. It demands better finishing. Madrid paid the maximum price for their wastefulness, while Betis did exactly what was required: survive the visitors’ strongest periods and convert the opportunity that came their way.