Mourinho - What Next?

[Yiddo]

Vastly overrated.

 

[Yiddo]

I agree with Hootnow.

Mourinho has said all along, just like he's said at previous jobs that his teams get to their best in his second season.

I have a feeling this thread wouldn't have been started had Chelsea beaten Atletico. In the end Atletico's win was convincing, but the game was really in the balance at 0-0, 1-0 and even 1-1. If Cole clears the ball before the equalizer and the teams go into the break with Chelsea leading I could easily see the game swing the other way.

Very small margins at that level, in the end Mourinho's Chelsea were beaten by a very good Atletico team. A team that looks on course to beat both Real Madrid and Barca to the Spanish title this year. A very good, massively in form, confident team. This happens to everyone all the time.

And all this talk about him getting things on a plate and thus winning. Why haven't the Chelsea managers that followed him managed to get the same results? Why isn't Ancelotti capable of beating Atletico in the league? Because even with those resources wins don't come automatically.

The league is much stronger than it was when Mourinho was dominating it with his big bank balance.

 

[Cochise]

I rate Mourinho as a coach. He's not afraid to change things and although his football isn't the most eye catching he is a tactician. I do agree though that his next job should be similar to what LVG did with AZ. Mourinho would shut a lot of mouth's if he suddenly took a mid/upper table team to a championship.

 

[braineclipse]

The league is much stronger than it was when Mourinho was dominating it with his big bank balance.

Disagree.

The season before Mourinho took over was Arsenal's invincible season.

Liverpool were in the CL final in 04/05 (Mou's first PL season), Arsenal were in the CL final in 05/06, Liverpool again in 06/07 followed by the United-Chelsea final in 07/08.

This was not a time of weakness for the top teams in England. The league might be stronger now as in the mid-table and lower half teams might be stronger now, but the top teams all play the same teams and compete with each other.

After Mou left Emirates Marketing Project eventually joined the top, but at the same time both Liverpool and Arsenal were significantly weaker than they were previously. And I would argue that the same was the case with United after Ronaldo left.

 

[Baleforce]

this is interesting, kinda relevant here, the guardian on tika taka being dead

http://www.theguardian.com/football...estion-is-this-the-end-for-tiki-taka-football

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think that the main reason he does not stick around at clubs is because he diverts pressure and attention from his players by making sure that he is always the story. I think that after a while this become divisive.

I know a guy who is a massive madrid fan he is actually from there as well and he told me that they hate him out there and that the is and has been for years graffiti all around the city ****ging Mourinho off.

For my mind I think he is quite a good coach and obviously knows his stuff he has also chosen the right clubs at the right time to go to.

Do not like the stuff with the press a bit like with Sherwood but I am not sure it is always the managers fault because they are contracted to give press conferences. Unless they take a leaf out of Pete Sampras's book and he was the master of press conferences then the press will always twist what they say.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

this is interesting, kinda relevant here, the guardian on tika taka being dead

http://www.theguardian.com/football...estion-is-this-the-end-for-tiki-taka-football

I absolutely mother fcuking hope so, nearly put me off football.

Give me the German style any day.

Will be interested with this world cup because I have a lot of love for the African sides and how they play with pace and fluidity far more pleasing on the eye. I also feel we in England have a far better chance of copying or mastering this style of play.

 

[Baleforce]

I find the evolution interesting, I enjoy a good defensive performance as much as an attacking one, more so in some cases.

 

[Danners9]

I absolutely mother fcuking hope so, nearly put me off football.

Give me the German style any day.

Will be interested with this world cup because I have a lot of love for the African sides and how they play with pace and fluidity far more pleasing on the eye. I also feel we in England have a far better chance of copying or mastering this style of play.

Suits the Spanish sides. Bayern playing that way doesn't suit them. They've won the league but Dortmund beat them in both games and in the Super Cup. If it wasn't for their injuries, who knows... Bayern looked so awkward vs Real Madrid, just picked off at will with pace and power when they should have been doing that themselves. Muller is a strong forward, Ribery and Robben are fast wingers. No need to control the possession but do nothing with it, Real Madrid did to them what they should have been doing.

 

[Cochise]

I don't hate tiki taka, but I prefer to watch football where players get to express themselves. It's kind of why I enjoyed watching us under Redknapp, because Luka and VdV were so free to open up teams whilst Bale and Lennon had the ability to produce something out of nothing to create a chance.

 

[braineclipse]

this is interesting, kinda relevant here, the guardian on tika taka being dead

http://www.theguardian.com/football...estion-is-this-the-end-for-tiki-taka-football

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing! Resulted in a rather long winded, mainly off topic, rambling response from me...

A couple of points I particularly noticed:

-The defending set pieces issue. Clearly an issue both with Pep's Barca and his Bayern side. Very noticeable in the last two CL semi final losses for those two teams.

-The pressing issue, highlighted by Messi's stats. Real managed to pass through Bayern's pressing brilliantly thanks to having a "back 6" (back 4 and two deep central midfielders) that all are very good to excellent on the ball along with two of them (Modric and Alonso) being downright outstanding on the ball.

Compared to when Pep first took over at Barca I think a lot more teams are now much more capable of playing through the kind of extreme pressure that Pep wants his team to play with.

I don't think tiki-taka is dead, not by a long shot. But I do think Pep will have to tweak his approach. He has to do something about the way his teams defend set pieces. The days when they could successfully defend set pieces by not giving them away in the first place through extreme possession and pressing will be very difficult to get back to I think.

I also think he has to give himself more options for different approaches when attacking. I actually think this is what he tried to do with Ibrahimovic in '09, a signing that came the summer following the Chelsea semi-final close call mentioned in the article.

When Bayern tried crossing the ball against Real this week and in Madrid Mandzukic lost just about every duel in the box against the excellent Pepe and Ramos. Mandzukic is supposed to be the "different option" at Bayern this season. I think it might have been a different story if they had succeeded in getting Lewandowski last summer, a player that's shown for Dortmund that he's capable of getting the better of those (and other) defenders physically.

-----------------

On Mourinho/Chelsea:

Very interesting what they say about mistakes. Certainly when Chelsea went to Liverpool they managed to almost eliminate mistakes from their defensive play. Super impressive, particularly considering the changes in their line-up. Worth noting that their wide players in that game were Salah (later replaced by Willian) and Shcurrle. Players that all seem diligent to the extreme in their defensive work (at least under Mourinho). Why I think they've been preferred to Mata. Hazard wasn't against Atletico and Chelsea were punished.

Interesting to see Hazard come out and more or less openly criticize Mourinho after that, when I'm almost certain Mourinho would have been more than a little upset with the way Hazard didn't track Juanfran. I think Hazard is just so good that Mourinho will accept his defensive weaknesses, but after what happened to Mata it's certainly a storyline worth noting.

To me it's the kind of diligent defensive work that allowed Mourinho to counter Liverpool and previously almost counter Barca with Chelsea and actually stop Barca in their prime with Inter. The kind of diligent defensive work that most slightly smaller teams just haven't been capable of.

 

[Baleforce]

pace is crucial as well, Madrid wouldn't be the same threat if they didn't have Bale and Ronaldo steaming up the pitch when the ball breaks, it should also be noted how calm the Madrid players were when Bayern did break down on the edge of their box, it wasn't a a clearance but often a square ball to a man in just enough space to release the runners

 

[Rorschach]

Interesting thread. Slightly OT but what team style would you like Spurs to try and emulate? I have to say I enjoy watching Dortmund the most.

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting thread. Slightly OT but what team style would you like Spurs to try and emulate? I have to say I enjoy watching Dortmund the most.

Agree fully.

They also do a brilliant job in the transfer market, bring through some exciting young prospects, and manage to develop the players in their squad very nicely.

 

[diego_maradona]

There's been a very strange trend recently to discount the achievements of a lot of top level managers. Mourinho, Klopp, Simeone, Ancelotti etc etc, there always seems to be people now with the opinion that they're either over-rated or actually not even good managers.

His 1st ever job? He took Uniao to their highest ever league finish, 5th. They are a club now in the 3rd division.

Porto, Chelsea and Inter all enjoyed big spending power compared to most of the clubs in their leagues but as we've seen, winning the league title isn't just about money, as the procession of Chelsea, Emirates Marketing Project, Real Madrid etc managers have shown. He certainly did not have a financial advantage in the CL, which he has now won with 2 of those teams.

Real Madrid is the only job where I'd say he failed tbh. Yes he finally moved Real on from their ridiculous record of going out in the last 16 season after season, yes he finally broke the stranglehold of that ridiculous Barcelona team with an almost flawless league season. But that was the only major trophy he won there and he didn't win what they most want.

I wouldn't say that his methods end up grating/ tiring players out. His tactics were the tactics that Chelsea managers continued to revert to once their reigns became in threat or once a new manager came in as a caretaker. The players there still clearly loved him. Real are playing in a similar way still to the way he implemented. Inter is the team where I would say he went for broke, spent a huge amount of money on the now and then left knowing next season wouldn't be the same.

He's what 51? He's won 7 league titles, 2 champions leagues, 4 domestic FA cup equivalents and 2 league cups. And a UEFA cup.

There are very very few managers who guarantee trophies the way he does. How many managers are better than him?

I think he's a huge ass. I hate the way he acts. I hate the sycophantic way the British media treats him (especially with the way they subsequently treated AVB). I take great pleasure whenever one of his teams loses. I hate the football he often decides to play when it comes to the important points of the season. I think his 2nd spell at Chelsea will be less successful than the 1st.

But I think he's an exceptional manager with few peers in world football.

Lol I said something similar in the New Spurs manager thread, but not as well. Why we need to put down managers, players and those in the game just because of some poor results is beyond me. Its symptomatic of today's football fan/media analysis, resulting in unrealistic expectations and 3 different managers a season!

 

[Baleforce]

Its just hype, desperation for a narrative that isn't really there. Everything must be more than it is, every moment a watershed. You can't read anything from one performance, yet here we, after the Madridista's efforts that Europe's two premier managers, who have spent their careers thus collecting trophies for fun are being written off, its madness.

 

[Yiddo]

Disagree.

The season before Mourinho took over was Arsenal's invincible season.

Liverpool were in the CL final in 04/05 (Mou's first PL season), Arsenal were in the CL final in 05/06, Liverpool again in 06/07 followed by the United-Chelsea final in 07/08.

This was not a time of weakness for the top teams in England. The league might be stronger now as in the mid-table and lower half teams might be stronger now, but the top teams all play the same teams and compete with each other.

After Mou left Emirates Marketing Project eventually joined the top, but at the same time both Liverpool and Arsenal were significantly weaker than they were previously. And I would argue that the same was the case with United after Ronaldo left.

Maybe world football was not as strong then? the game has evolved a lot since then.

 

[Lilywhite]

No the English top four in that period was super strong, that Jol managed to someone come so close to toppling that L'A rse team a couple of times made his sacking even more ****ing unfair.

Moaninho isn't overrated, although I wouldn't want him at Spurs cos he is a massive spanner and plays dreadful football.

 

[Neymar]

This is my take on mourinho (from another thread a few weeks ago). But on the question of if he is overrated. He probably is (if we are going off the general public's perception of him). Generally people overrate (the contributions and performances of) people who are at the top of their proffession, and underrate those who are deemed to be doing poorly.

If I have this correct, mourinho was manager of União de Leiria for the 2001-2002 season. In which he finished 7th. A very respectable position. But I do not think he performed miracles by any stretch of the imagination. Just the season before (2000-01), they finished 5th, ahead of even Benfica). And after he left from 2002-03, their league positions have been; 5th, 10th, 15th, 7th, 7th. Basically their league positions are reflective of where you would roughly expect them to be given that they are in a league monopolised by Benfica, Porto, Sporting (and to a degree Boavista too). And where the rest of the teams have very limited budgets.

Mourinho’s two seasons in porto were 2002-03 and 2003-04. Where he did dominate and win the league both times. The two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival, porto finished 2nd and 3rd. Showing that porto were no mugs before his arrival. And after mourinho left, they have finished 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st. Again, in my opinion showing that what mourinho achieved cannot be described as anything extraordinary.

His UCL triumph was very very special. But lets not forget, for the most part, it is a cup competition. There have been countless 2nd division managers getting to finals of domestic cups here in England. And Monaco under deschamps got to the final vs mourinho. And Greece have even won a European championships. If you look at Benitez’s cup record alone, you would probably think he was the best manager in the world. My point is that cup results do not provide a great basis on which to analyse the performances of managers due to the inherent “luck” factor involved in them.

At inter milan, he did very well again too. No one can deny that. Importantly he won the ucl here. But even putting aside the fact that the ucl is a knockout competition, there was a massive financial factor in play which benefitted mourinho when you compare him to other inter milan managers.

Inter had won serie A in the two seasons prior to mourinho’s arrival. By the time he came, he was probably taking over the best team in serie A. But in addition to this, the club president (Moratti) decided to break the bank in pursuit of European success. This meant that inter could field a team boasting the likes of Julio cesar (arguably the best keeper at the time), cambiasso, walter samuel, lucio, zanetti, thiago motta, etoo, sneijder, maicon, milito, balotelli, zlatan etc during mourinho’s tenure as manager there. No inter manager before or after mourinho has been able to field an all-star team such as this. After mourinho had won everything with inter and left, the club finances were in major problems. This meant that basically all the big names had to leave in order to balance the books. As a result inter finished 2nd in the following season after mourinho’s departure. And by the next season, they were 6th. They had no more money to compete at the top of European football.

If you look at that list of super star players in the above paragraph, hardly any of them remained at Inter two years after mourinho’s departure. That’s why inter haven’t been competing at the very top since. And it will probably take at least a decade before Inter can even think of getting back to the elite of European football. Some may say the success that they had was worth it. But was it really? Mourinho had no garuntee that he could have the level of success that he did. Inter took a massive risk. In another scenario, Inter could have got knocked out in the 2nd round of the ucl due to a refereeing decision. And still have spent all that money. Setting Inter back a decade or so. In my opinion, the only real winner was mourinho and his CV. What mourinho has done here is no different to what harry redknapp has been doing in England. He’s depleated club resources for short term success, and now the club is in an era of long term struggle. What’s going on at inter now is similar to what is going on at the likes of leeds and Portsmouth after a period of short term success.

At Chelsea, again I agree he did well. As highlighted by the fact that he has won 2 of the 3 epl titles that Chelsea have won. But again, I can’t agree that he did significantly any better than the Chelsea managers who followed him.

Mourinho was at Chelsea from 2004-2007. Winning: 2 epl titles, 2 league cups, 1 fa cup (and a community shield). In the last four seasons under 3 different managers (2009-2013), they have won: 1 epl title, 3 fa cups, 1 europa league, 1 ucl (and a community shield). I would say there isn’t much difference between these two sets of acheivments. But I’m sure there are many who would even argue that Chelsea were more prosperous (in terms of honors and titles) without mourinho.

At Real Madrid, I agree that it wasn’t the best period. But I accept that it was horrendous either. Basically, like everywhere else he has been at, his team preformed in the ball park of where you would expect them to given their financial expenditure vs his opponents’. Mourinho had spent more than Barcelona in the transfer window obviously. Especially due to the purchases of the likes of Kaka and Ronaldo. But the wages between Barcelona and Real Madrid were comparable. And as a result, its not a massive surprise that Barcelona did edge them during mourinho’s reign at Real Madrid.

Look at mourinho this season. He’s been trying to sell the “this Chelsea team is not ready yet” line throughout the whole season. And some have bought this. This is typical mourinho. He’s just all talk.
If a team who has signed the likes of Willian, Matic, schurrle, van ginkel, etoo, salah for the kind of money have done. And added to the likes of hazard, Oscar, terry, lampard, torres, cech, cole, ivanovic etc is “not ready yet”, when the hell will it ever be “ready”?

He tries to lower expectation as much as possible and talks himself up as much as possible. And people in England have bought into it. In spain, they haven’t. In contrast, theres Wenger. Someone who talks up his team and backs them to the hilt, and downplays his own part when his team does well. As a result, whenever things go bad, people blame wenger. The reality is, his players are 100k p/w players, whilst Chelsea’s are 200k p/w players. Its no wonder that Arsenal do not do as well as Chelsea, but do better than our 50k p/w players.

 

[Neymar]

Disagree.

The season before Mourinho took over was Arsenal's invincible season.

Liverpool were in the CL final in 04/05 (Mou's first PL season), Arsenal were in the CL final in 05/06, Liverpool again in 06/07 followed by the United-Chelsea final in 07/08.

This was not a time of weakness for the top teams in England. The league might be stronger now as in the mid-table and lower half teams might be stronger now, but the top teams all play the same teams and compete with each other.

After Mou left Emirates Marketing Project eventually joined the top, but at the same time both Liverpool and Arsenal were significantly weaker than they were previously. And I would argue that the same was the case with United after Ronaldo left.

Chelsea’s financial potential has been roughly the same ever since Abramovic came in (ie. they have had the ability to purchase almost anyone since 2003). Therefore, if you look at the stature of the Chelsea players in mourinho’s first two seasons, and compare them to the stature of the current Chelsea players, it’s very similar. In my opinion, Chelsea’s team from Mourinho’s first stint was a top 5 European side (as is the current one).

In contrast, despite being invincible, I would argue that Arsenal were not a top 5 European side, then or now. Arsenal were invincible because the league was a lot weaker throughout (and because they had a lot of luck too). Arsenal’s team then isn’t much different to what they have now, and what they have had inbetween in terms of stature. They may have had the likes of Pires, Henry and Vieira then. But Arsenal have the likes of Ozil, Cazorla, Ramsey now. While I would agree that the previous 3 were better, I would argue it was only slightly. Pires; was rarely a regular in the French squad despite winning multiple individual awards in the epl. And despite also being a top player, Vieira only went for £13m, and wasn’t desperately wanted by the top tier of clubs (ie. Real Madrid, Barcelona, AC Milan). Henry was obviously a genius (I fully accept that).

If you go through the Arsenal team from the invincible’s era and compare it to the current one in terms of world-wide stature, I would argue it is very similar. Chelsea’s team pre and post the arrival of Abramovic is very different. There are no Mario Melchiot’s anymore.

Back Four Invincibles: Cole, Campbell, Toure, Lauren
Back Four Today: Gibbs, Koscielny, Mertesacker, Sagna

Midfield Invincibles: Pires, Vieira, Gilberto, Ljungberg
Midfield Today: Cazorla, Wheelchair, Ramsey, Walcott

Strikers Invincibles: Henry, Bergkamp
Strikers Today: Ozil, Giroud

Between the first eleven’s it looks very similar (in my opinion) as both are full of established internationals for top international sides. However, when you look at the squad depth and benches of the two Arsenal sides, it becomes apparent that the current arsenal side is a lot stronger.

The invincible side had the likes of: Reyes(20), Parlour(31), Edu, Cygan, Clichy(18), Keown(38), Kanu, Aliadiere(20), Wiltord.
The current arsenal side’s squad is much deeper: Monreal(16 Spanish caps), Jenkinson, Vermaelen, Rosicky, Kallstrom, Diaby, Flamini, Arteta, Podolski, Oxlade-Chamberlain, Sanogo, Bendtner.

In addition, When Mourinho was first here, the only title rivals were Arsenal and Man Utd. Now, there is Emirates Marketing Project too. But also due to the escalation of the epl’s popularity throughout the globe (in part due to the mega millions of Abramovic and Sheikh Mansour), all the mid and lower table clubs have more money to invest in their squads. This has meant that the best players in the mid table clubs are no longer called David Dunn or Robbie Savage. Even midtable clubs can now import exotic names such as Michu and Benteke (or just have local talents named lallana and rodriguez ). With the mid and lower table sides being stronger it means that Chelsea’s financial advantage is more important as you need bigger squads with higher quality to deal with the intensity of competition throughout the year. Something that wasn’t as vital in the past.