José Mourinho and Roberto Mancini have renewed hostilities ahead of the first leg of their current clubs' Champions League last-16 knockout clash, with the Chelsea manager suggesting he had been left with no more than a "five-a-side" team when succeeding the Italian at Internazionale six years ago.

The Portuguese, whose side take on Galatasaray at the Turk Telekom Arena , was responding to claims by Mancini that Mourinho had only won the 2010 European Cup because he had inherited such a strong squad from his predecessor. Mourinho replaced Mancini at San Siro in the summer of 2008 and won two Serie A titles and, as part of a treble, the Champions League in his two-year spell at the club.

Mancini had reflected upon Inter's success after he departed in an interview published . "Mourinho won the Champions League because he took a good team," he said. "He took a team that, like Manchester City, I had built. A team that had a strong mentality. When I went to Inter they played very bad football and we changed this."

Yet the suggestion Mourinho had won his second European Cup largely as a result of a group shaped by Mancini was swiftly rejected by the Chelsea manager. "It's funny, it's funny … " he said. "It's funny because my team in the final had Lucio, [Thiago] Motta, [Diego] Milito, [Samuel] Eto'o, [Goran] Pandev and [Wesley] Sneijder. From 11 players, he didn't work with six of them. So he made a five-a-side team because I played with only five players from his team." Motta was actually suspended for the final having been dismissed in the semi, though he had been a regular in the side up to the showpiece at the Bernabéu.

The relationship between Mancini and Mourinho has been strained since the Portuguese took up his position at San Siro, with their exchanges last season, in charge of Manchester City and Real Madrid, just as feisty. The Portuguese claimed he would have been sacked had he failed to take his team out of the group phase after a draw at the Bernabeu completed a miserable group stage for City, and the pair did not shake hands at the final whistle. Mancini later suggested Mourinho's comments may have been born of jealousy.

The rivalry in the dugouts provides a subplot for a tie made all the more intriguing by Sneijder's reunion with his former manager and, more pertinently, that of Didier Drogba with Chelsea. The Ivorian will lead the line against former team-mates, with the locals hoping he can put emotions to one side to impress. "Didier was an important man, an important player for Chelsea," said Mancini. "And Wesley won, under Mourinho, a Champions League. They have a good relationship with him. But on Wednesday, for 90 minutes, I think they will be enemies. Then, afterwards, they can go and have a dinner together, but we need Didier and Wesley to play very, very well."

Mourinho is confident his relationship with Eto'o, who is expected to start, has not been damaged after disparaging remarks in a private conversation with the head of Hublot watches were broadcast by Canal Plus this week. The Portuguese branded the release of the footage, in which he admitted Chelsea lack a striker and queried Eto'o's age, "a disgrace".

"From my perspective, the comment is obviously not a good one, and obviously not something I would do in a serious way or an official way in an interview," he said. "First of all because I don't make fun. Secondly, because if there are managers in the world who really defend their players, I'm obviously one of them. And thirdly, because Samuel Eto'o is Samuel Eto'o. He's four times a Champions League winner: people think three times, but one in Real Madrid, two in Barcelona and one with Inter.

"It was with him that I had the best ever season of my career. He's one of the few players who is working with me at a second different club, and a manager doesn't do that if he doesn't like the player or the person. He has no reason to be upset. There is no story. I repeat: it was a funny conversation between me and somebody who doesn't belong to the football world. We were laughing. I think it's a disgrace that someone is taping and recording a private conversation when, obviously, we didn't know."