Blatter wrote: » Your views on his time at Chelsea post 2013 are fair but not relevant to the post you quoted. The point I was making is that you were happy to give much credit to Mourinho as a coach and for his work at Madrid a few years ago whilst now you are happy to label that period in his career an outright failure. If that is not a classic case of revisionism, what is?
P4DDY2K11 wrote: » As an Arsenal fan I naturally can't stand mourinhos antics but I can't agree that he's a "coach of the past". Did he not just win the premier league a year ago? He's clearly still a quality coach in my opinion he's just a detestable character.
Too Tough To Die wrote: » What teams has Mourinho built up 'from nothing'?
Andersonisgod wrote: » He did win the Premier League though I do have my doubts about the quality of the top teams these last few years, more alarming is how inept his sides have looked against true top opposition, particularly in Europe. Where now we see other coaches like Pep, Tuchel, Klopp ect. taking the game in a different direction and even Simeone whose philosophy isn't hugely different to Mourinho's but who implements it in a different way, it's become easier to see Mourinho as a coach of a previous era.
Saul T Nutzz wrote: » Of the four coaches you mentioned, aside from Pep none of them have won the CL, correct? And pep hasn't won one in 5 years, correct? Simeone has an EL title iirc? So they are great coaches at playing in European competition even though they have not won anything? Would the ultimate measure of a coaches ability not be trophies won?
Andersonisgod wrote: » Why though is your only criteria for judging a coach success in the Champions League? That's far too narrow a parameter. They haven't, but again it's ridiculous to only measure a coach based on winning the CL. Both Klopp and Simeone have taken clubs that have nowhere close to the resources of their rivals and have made them heavyweight players in Europe. That is remarkable. Guardiola hasn't won one in the last 3 seasons he's been a coach, yet that shouldn't be the sole thing he is judged on, that would be preposterous. While trophies won is an important thing for any coach/player/club it should absolutely not be the only measure of success. It's entirely stripping away any context which is key to understanding the motivations of these clubs, the spheres in which these managers operate and their ambitions. For example, Klopp's Dortmund destroyed Real Madrid (a club with the most expensive team in history at the time) reaching a Champions League final that few thought possible. I wouldn't brandish that a failure by any stretch of the imagination.
Too Tough To Die wrote: What teams has Mourinho built up 'from nothing'?
Saul T Nutzz wrote: » Arsenal have played some breathtaking stuff over the last number of years, would you say Wenger's last 10 years have been a success? While I see your point about adaptability and changing the way the teams play, ultimately a team can play wonderfully and lose, even with beautiful play, they are still losers and will not be remembered.
Alden Embarrassed Clock wrote: » You have to laugh at all United's rivals predicting doom and gloom at Old Trafford under Mourinho.The reality,of course,is that they're all very deflated. Pep and Jose are the Beatles and Stones of football management.No manager can guarantee success, but everyone who hates United was praying Jose wouldn't get the job.
Unearthly wrote: » Every stint he brought a league title. The guy is a winner. Man Utd have large resources to. It's more likely he will be a success than a flop
ArielAtom wrote: » What will Jose bring to UTD??? 1. Rebuild in year 1, approx 300m 2. Win a title in year 2, excellent ROI. 3. Fall out with, take your pick, the fcuk off. I may be wrong but that's my predication.
brinty wrote: » Porto Chelsea Inter
Ulysses Gaze wrote: » Chelsea and Inter? Inter were champions of Italy for at least a couple of years before Mourinho arrived. They also had a World Class Defensive Unit already there at his disposal. He made them better in Europe, but he certainly did not build them from scratch. It's not like Chelsea were a piss poor squad either when he took over. They'd regularly been in the Top 4 and had even gotten to a Champions League Semi.
Andersonisgod wrote: » They haven't, but again it's ridiculous to only measure a coach based on winning the CL. Both Klopp and Simeone have taken clubs that have nowhere close to the resources of their rivals and have made them heavyweight players in Europe. That is remarkable.
Andersonisgod wrote: » Mate you're confusing salt and lemons with cold, hard logic. His last 2 jobs have been far from overwhelming successes. In both cases he left under a black cloud with the players of the respective clubs euphoric to see the back of him. In that time he won 1 Spanish league (a paltry return considering the money spent on that squad and the unprecedented control granted to him) and 1 English league. Meanwhile in Europe he's been comprehensively outclassed by coached with far more limited resources like Klopp and Simeone, even the PSG tie Chelsea went out with a whimper when the aim was to build a squad capable of challenging the elite for European glory. The days of Mourinho's triumph with Inter are over, he's changed as a coach and football too has changed.
Icaras wrote: » For the Utd fans will you be happy with his 1-0 win and park the bus style? Also I think the squad is poor - Carrick and Fellaini aren't good enough to be partnering Mata, Rooney seems to be doing better in his midfield role but its only a few games, Rashford is young and the key is to keep him injury free. De Gea is really the only world class player in a team who fans are expecting a top 4 in PL, out of group stages of CL and a good run in one of the cups - there will need to be some big and intelligent spending this summer.
Nuts102 wrote: » Mourinho won the Europa League and the Champions League wit Porto that is remarkable. He won the Champions league with Inter a team who spent years losing in the quarters or group stages. Both of those are remarkable.
Giggsy11 wrote: » Hard to take you seriously when you posts are like two faces of the coin. When Chelsea appointed him your posts were completely different. Pep lost to Atletico Madrid who have far more inferior resources, Klopp even failed to qualify from group stage in one of the CL season. Every manager have ups and down, in this scenario since he is not managing one of the 100s of club you support you are picking up downs of his career to beat him. Simple as that.
Andersonisgod wrote: » I'd say I'm one of the few posters on this forum who is willing to change his opinion based on what I see rather than stick to an opinion stubbornly even when facts are staring him in the face. They did, though that second leg was a sublime display, ultimately factors beyond a coaches control came into play. In any case, Simeone's Atletico are the side now that Mourinho's teams were before. He did, but ultimately his work at Dortmund will go down in football folklore and rightly so. Far from picking the downs, I'm simply giving you my assessment of a coach who, in my view, looks more and more like a coach from a previous era, and whose last 2 jobs have not been successful.
Andersonisgod wrote: » I'd like to note that so far in this thread I've seen Sherwood compared to Andre Villas Boas, who can boast a domestic league title and a Europa League success on his CV, I've seen comparisons to Mauricio Pochettino who has proven himself as one of the shrewdest managers about in quite a short career thus far, here's a comparison to Jose Mourinho who is, arguably, the greatest manager in modern football, all of these comparisons for a guy whose been in charge of a team for 5 months, who failed to impress anyone in that time in what his team produced on the pitch and whose claim to fame are his cringe post match interviewers and his close relationship with his gilet. As I said earlier, it's the equivalent of saying that Avram Grant is one of the world's great coaches based on his win percentage at Chelsea, if you read stats without applying context you end up with a skewed perception. I found his Spurs team devoid of ideas or purpose, I thought he brought only negativity with him with his antics, I can't actually pinpoint any real positives behind hiring him other than a potential boost in immediate results that always seem to come with the hiring of a new manager, once that wears off I feel very confident in saying that Villa has a managerial dud on their hands.
Andersonisgod wrote: » One of those is 12 years ago, the other is 6 years ago which, tbf, isn't that long but the problem is that more and more his sides have looked so prehistoric and one dimensional when matched with these sides equipped with modern coaches. His tactics in these games have increasingly looked very one dimensional in the face of such versatile teams.
Giggsy11 wrote: » No, you are the poster who is as biased as they come and change the opinion just to suit your agenda. For example, just in Nov 2015: I didn't even search your posts about Jose post Madrid when he was announced as Chelsea manager.
Andersonisgod wrote: » I could have saved you the trouble of searching, I literally said only a few hours ago that he, along with Pep, are 2 of the top managers of their generation.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/11f397efbb618f280f346771bb290fe0.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/26b068742f9f8d6966cd56c45527e149.svg)
