How would Mourinho's tenure be viewed had we sacked him at the end of 17/18?

[Will Singh]

The problem is, it depends whether you take the short or long-term view

In my opinion, Jose Mourinho is still one of the best managers in world football. It boggles my mind to think that managers like Ole Gunnar Solskjaer and Frank Lampard have top jobs in the PL whilst Jose sits and watches in the Sky Sports studio. Jose probably forgot more about football management yesterday than these chaps will ever know - no disrespect but let's not underestimate Jose's achievements, which are comparable to Clough, SAF and Shankly.

However, there is a serious point to be made here, I'm not a Mourinho fanboy (like some on here) and I accept that Jose made many bad decisions during his final year at the club.

The problem, as I see it, is that IF you are going to appoint a manager like Jose, you have to be ready and able to do everything it takes to get immediate results. That includes indulging his ego and giving him what he wants, when he wants it. If that means spending £300m, it means spending £300m. If it means selling your best player to re-establish authority, it means selling your best player. If it means selling two CBs that manager purchased and buying two more, it means buying two more. There is literally zero point taking on Jose and expecting him to be happy with mediocrity, with a wishy-washy target of a top four finish and blooding the odd young player. Why would (or should) a top manager like Jose put up with that?

Look at the way City have indulged Guardiola. I often see the same criticism levelled at Guardiola - "well....I would love to see how he would get on at Burnley", which in my book is rather irrelevant because the fact is, Guardiola is an expert at getting the best out of elite players. However, City gave Guardiola the platform, they gave him virtually unlimited funds to construct a squad, they never questioned any of his decisions (like bombing out their one 'homegrown' player and captain, Joe Hart), they understood what Guardiola was about and created the conditions he needed to suceed.

You could go into all kinds of detail here but just to summarise, my point is, there's certainly fault to find in the way Jose handled his last 12-months at United, but to use an analogy, it's pointless spending £200K on a brand-new Ferrari and complaining it's a bad car because it won't tow a plough. Likewise, no point buying a top of the range John Deere and claiming it's a bad piece of kit because you're being overtaken on the motorway by 10yr old Fiat's. It's 'horses for courses', and we were the wrong club at the wrong time for Jose, given what we know now in hindsight

This is excactly where we went wrong, we knew everything about him and what we were getting ourselves into to. I watched the Keane and Neville interview and remember Keane talking about Cantona and how SAF one time said "he's French" as he didn't do what the others were doing but my point is SAF had to manage him because he knew what he was all about and had to give him a few perks.

 

[Cheesy]

They didnt decline like players do. Trapp, capello got old probably moved on with their lives just as many other people did along as they age. They've achieved alot, and probably well enough not to work.

People sometimes forget how destructive being a football coach to your health and personal lives, the amount of preparation, stress, travelling, meticulous planning and not to mention being away from your family most of the times probably isnt for everyone.

So if they dont get jobs it's probably not because they're obsolete, but more about them not taking offers.

They might decline in their intensity and energy to work 12 hours a day but i dont doubt their knowledge and nous is still there... unless they've gone senile.

I also dont agree with footballing philosophy being outdated. The world football is still played with 11 men each side even with the invention of fm position like trequartista, ramdeumter, and all that the old managers can simply analyze a few games and deduct just fine. If fischer is still alive today his chess method wont be outdated, he'll simply absord and evolve.

Surely that's...the definition of managerial decline? Being a great manager isn't simply knowing how to be a good manager...it's being able to correctly identify signings, being able to man manage players effectively, and being able to put in the immense effort and work that guarantees success. Your argument could apply to players in a similarish way: a lot of older 35-37-year old's who've clearly declined haven't necessarily lost all that much of their skill on the ball, generally speaking; they're just a lot slower than they were before, and not as fit either, hence not able to produce their form of old.

There are plenty of managers who have declined later in their career. Wenger went from one of the games foremost innovators to a longstanding job. Brian Clough won two European Cups with Nottingham Forest but got them relegated in his final year. Kenny Dalglish dominated with Liverpool and won the PL with Blackburn, but was an absolutely horrendous choice for Liverpool when he later returned. Decline isn't necessarily guaranteed for managers as it is with players...but it does happen, and arguably happens to more top managers than it doesn't.

People over-analyse football but that doesn't mean the game hasn't fundamentally changed in the past few years. Top teams on the whole are a lot more attacking now - more willing to leak goals at the back on the basis they'll be able to go for outlandish and unexpected comebacks. The last team to win the CL who weren't particularly attacking, so to speak, were Chelsea in 2012. And irrespective of whether or not you think the game has changed - the facts show Mourinho's style just doesn't tend to deliver top-level success anymore, which was basically all anyone ever wanted him for anyway because his style was never all that enjoyable to watch compared to some other managers. The last time he mounted anything resembling success domestically was in 2014-15. If you take a longer-term view he's won one league title since 2012. That's an incredible decline for someone whose worst domestic seasons from 2002-12 involved him finishing second in closely contested title challenges, against sides who either won the CL that year, or would do so the following year with a largely identical squad.

 

[Bastian]

Had he been sacked after the 2nd season ended it would have been viewed as a mistake by most supporters, I'd assume. His spell here would also be viewed much more favourably. Both of those seasons are easily the best two post SAF era.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Better overall.

He should have been sacked after the Sevilla game IMO.

The writing was on the wall then.

 

[Isotope]

Despite those statistically considered "success", I wanted him out by the end of 17/18 season. His football style, short-term vision, and demeaning attitude were soul destroying.

That US tour was a clear sign. It was fecking horrible, United should be ashamed giving those performances to those fans. But some just being ignorance, or maybe just hoping for the best.

 

[Irwin99]

It would be viewed more positively however his brand of football was really getting a lot of fans down about midway through the season. The FA cup final was dreadful and the Sevilla result and embarrassing aftermath was horrendous. I don't think people would forget that.

His signings (or Woodward's?) were mostly bad ones all things considered. In that respect, even his success didn't lead to much in the end as we're now rebuilding yet again.

 

[R'hllor]

It would be be more positive compared to thing at his end as United manager, just not sure how much more. Many after Sevilla game were done with him.