If Mourinho's authority and ideology were given more backing, would we be challenging?

[UNITED ACADEMY]

This.

Mourinho gave young players minutes though. Rashford was best under his tutoring. McTomminay came through and he gave Gomez his debut etc...

Of all the things u can throw at Mourinho you can’t say he stifled youth with us. They weren’t ready at the time so he couldn’t click his fingers and magically put them in the first 11.

Mourinho understands football and how to win far more than anyone still at our club hence why there was less of a shot in the dark every game.

Periera at RW, Pogba at DM and Lingard playing every game is worse than anything Mourinho ever did at our club. Our current tactics and team selections are absolutely diabolical at times.

Yeah that’s fair enough. But I wouldn’t say that’s exactly in United’s philosophy. I’m as United fans obviously not impressed. He wanted to sign Perisic which clearly showing that he prefers Perisic over trying to develop Martial. Same goes with signing Sanchez & Matic. Clearly what Mourinho did wasn’t very impressive, wasting lot of money on ageing players that now end up to be considered as deadwood.

At least we didn’t need to waste money by giving Pereira a chance.

 

[Greck]

Fred.....50 million. In the summer he supposedly wasn't backed he still found a way to blow 50m. Even with limited funds he was still blowing it

 

[Relfy]

The truth is that we will never know, but with how the last season went with him here, and the toxic vibes starting even before pre-season had begun spelt the end for him.

If we had no intention of backing him in the window we should have sacked him much sooner. I do feel that we were trying to target short-term fixes for a season or 2, and Jose had burnt hundreds of millions of pounds on shite during his time. Maybe the board were in fact right to block him wasting more money?

I don't think that even if we had backed him that we would have challenged last season or even this one. As painful as these words are to write, city and the vermin are so far ahead of the rest that we wouldn't have been able to maintain their levels. Not enough goals or match winners in the squad to compete over the season.

 

[Zen86]

Pure conjecture based on zero evidence so not even worth the words you typed.

We would be playing the same level of football as we are now, except we would have forked out £200m for it

 

[Eleven-Eighteen]

That's a separate thing. The question is would we be challenging and that was the point what you were disagreeing with the other poster on.

Don't go moving the goalposts.

Did we challenge?

No we didn't challenge, but it was undoubtedly our best season since Sir Alex retired. And that's worth something

 

[roonster09]

No we didn't challenge, but it was undoubtedly our best season since Sir Alex retired. And that's worth something

This was the post your replied to.

No. We wouldn't have, just like how we didn't challenge last season when he was backed.

I was talking about challenging for league title as this thread is about that.

 

[Mark Pawelek]

Are all opinions equal, is that it ?



The debate was about Mourinho, wasn't it ? The theme of the thread is that if Mourinho's authority and ideology was backed, like it was at Chelsea, would we be challenging.

He was sacked from Chelsea.

 

[padzilla]

I think it might be time for him to stop trying to manage elite clubs and maybe look at an up and coming side where the expectation might not be so huge. It could help rehabilitate his reputation if he took over a mid-table club and got them challenging for Europe rather than taking over established giants where results alone are not enough.

 

[redcafe_reader]

Exhibit 2 (This year, the performance of Mourinho signings for United is noticeably worse than LVG, Fergie, or Ole signings. [performance measured as average match rating given by MEN]. Yet the Mourinho signings were much more expensive) in detail:

Manager: MEN rating (average this season)
SAF ...... 5.7
Moyes ... 5.0
LvG ....... 5.9
Mourinho 5.0
Ole ........ 6.2
Home grown 5.2


upload images

Is it fair to judge Mourinho signing in another manager's system?

Based on that table Ole and LVG's signing > SAF signing as well?

The total of matches that LVG's signing played is 7, while the total of matches Mourinho played is 18 - is that a fair sample to judge them?

Romero and Rojo (50% of LVG signing) only play in League Cup and Europa League, again much inferior team, while their rating counts the same, is that fair? Romero 6.0 rating (over 1 game) count the same as De Gea 5.8 rating (over 6 games), is that fair? also what can we say from that? LVG GK signing > SAF GK signing?

We seem to suck on the coaching attacking method, so it's quite normal that our attacker will have less rating than our defender?

There is context behind any number, "Without context, data is useless", that's basically Understanding Data 101.

 

[André Dominguez]

We would be playing the same level of football as we are now, except we would have forked out £200m for it

We've spent 159M€ + future clauses. not far from 200.

 

[Marcus]

I think the answer is yes. But the Ed did not get him the players he wanted and he sulked and basically imploded.

 

[izec]

I think the answer is yes. But the Ed did not get him the players he wanted and he sulked and basically imploded.

thats bullshit. He imploded way before, once he realised he is past it. The answer is no of course, we would not be close to challenging anyway, his second season wad the maximum he had to give

 

[Mark Pawelek]

Is it fair to judge Mourinho signing in another manager's system?

Based on that table Ole and LVG's signing > SAF signing as well?

The total of matches that LVG's signing played is 7, while the total of matches Mourinho played is 18 - is that a fair sample to judge them?

Romero and Rojo (50% of LVG signing) only play in League Cup and Europa League, again much inferior team, while their rating counts the same, is that fair? Romero 6.0 rating (over 1 game) count the same as De Gea 5.8 rating (over 6 games), is that fair? also what can we say from that? LVG GK signing > SAF GK signing?

We seem to suck on the coaching attacking method, so it's quite normal that our attacker will have less rating than our defender?

There is context behind any number, "Without context, data is useless", that's basically Understanding Data 101.

I'm judging LvG, Fergie, and Mourinho signings. They're all playing in another manager's system. Mourinho signings are the worst performing but most expensive. Mourinho paid £40m for Matic and he barely lasted 1 year. £53m for Fred whom he never played. £30m for permanently injured Bailly, ... He made crap signings. I'm delighted he's gone.

The notion that everyone at United should do exactly as he says "If Mourinho's authority and ideology were given more backing" - as if everyone else is a mindless robot - is about as deluded as it gets. Chelsea sacked him. So did we. He's not happy unless he has a fortune to spend. Give him a fortune and you're be broke. We would be challenging for nothing were he still here. He needs a transfer budget about 3 times what the Glazers will give him. For a start, because half his signings will be duds, or so short term they'll need replacing in 1 or 2 years.

 

[Strelok]

No, if his "ideology" or himself is still considered valid and his failure here was not because of him then some other big or even lesser clubs must be interested in hiring him.

Reality is zero such club interested in him. Even Inter appointed Conte not him. Outdated and past it, period.

 

[Cockney Phil]

Never liked him but if we had to have him it should have been straight after Fergie retired. Instead we waited too long and got the petulant child with the told you so attitude. A lot changed in those five years, especially the relationship between managers and players. The pathetic behaviour after the draw with the Scouses and then the defeat at HT kicked off the slide, which was sealed with the arrival of Sanchez. Too many excuses in the end and no substance - there was a palpable change of atmosphere when Ole took over.

 

[redcafe_reader]

I'm judging LvG, Fergie, and Mourinho signings. They're all playing in another manager's system. Mourinho signings are the worst performing but most expensive. Mourinho paid £40m for Matic and he barely lasted 1 year. £53m for Fred whom he never played. £30m for permanently injured Bailly, ... He made crap signings. I'm delighted he's gone.

The notion that everyone at United should do exactly as he says "If Mourinho's authority and ideology were given more backing" - as if everyone else is a mindless robot - is about as deluded as it gets. Chelsea sacked him. So did we. He's not happy unless he has a fortune to spend. Give him a fortune and you're be broke. We would be challenging for nothing were he still here. He needs a transfer budget about 3 times what the Glazers will give him. For a start, because half his signings will be duds, or so short term they'll need replacing in 1 or 2 years.

I gave you several questions to challenge your table, which is the base of your "Mourinho signing did worse than Moyes Lvg". Why didn't you answer them? You can google data and context if you need help.

I am not arguing his sack as I think its justified myself. No idea why you put it in your post since it has nothing to do with my post.

 

[Buster15]

So Klopp inherited far better sqaud but still he replaced almost everyone, not just in first 11 but from the sqaud itself.

IIRC only Milner, Henderson, Origi and Firmino are from Rodgers time. Their squad was a mess, Klopp did superb job in changing it without spending much.

I cannot argue that Klopp did a superb job. He is clearly a very special manager.

 

[Revaulx]

By more backing, does the OP mean simply signing more players?

The fact that so few of his signings performed well for him suggests either that:

1. He had become so isolated from developments in the game and was so stuck in his glorious past that he could no longer identify players that would work for him, other than ones who’d played for him in that glorious past.

2. The signings, or at least most of them, weren’t really decided on by him.

If it was 1, then there was absolutely no saving him. If 2, then we need to start employing managers that can work with whatever they are given. Which isn’t Jose. Or Ole.

If by authority the OP means the board (allegedly) not allowing him to replace Martial, I wonder if they would have not stood in his way if the players he’d brought in had been more successful.

 

[Roboc7]

Short term we might have got another top 4 finish, longer term we’d have been saddled with more expensive players on the way down in their careers on huge contracts.

Mourinho still would have imploded sinner or later because he would have to find people to blame why he couldn’t compete with Pep and Klopp. Mistakes were giving him a new contract and failing to take opportunity to restructure once he was sacked.

 

[Bwuk]

Hard to say.

He wanted Maguire signed the season before we did. Perisic would of been a big improvement at the time, and would walk into our current side.

It was the right decision to get rid when we did though.

 

[koop]

Mourinho's style of play was just so boring to watch.

Defend defend defend. Hope to knick a goal on the other end.

Which is why I prefer watching Ole's side, as we atleast attack. It's just the quality up front leaves little to be desired.
Back Ole and we will be having fun.

 

[Idxomer]

Fred.....50 million. In the summer he supposedly wasn't backed he still found a way to blow 50m. Even with limited funds he was still blowing it

For that 50m and the other 20m he spent on an injured Dalot, he could've easily bought Maguire.

 

[Handré1990]

Not a chance

 

[DoomSlayer]

When you are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on players like Lukaku, Sanchez, Matic, Fred, Bailly, Mkhitaryan, you are not going to challenge for anything serious, ever. The fact is we could have just not spent all that cash and would still be in around the same situation as now.

 

[432JuanMata]

When you are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on players like Lukaku, Sanchez, Matic, Fred, Bailly, Mkhitaryan, you are not going to challenge for anything serious, ever. The fact is we could have just not spent all that cash and would still be in around the same situation as now.

While I agree Mourinho signings were terrible you are using hindsight as Miki had 23 goals and 30 assists when we signed him, Lukaku was burying 26 league goals for Everton and Sanchez was one of the best in the league. Most of the Caf were delighted with them

 

[ICHM]

Exactly, Jose was not to be trusted with purchases, as most were quite frankly pants.

 

[Lee565]

Cant help but think if Mourinho was allowed to buy the defenders he wanted last summer we would be challenging liverpool and top 4 would have been a breeze this season and last season.

Woodward going against him with wanting maguire, then siding with pogba over him and then signing ole on a permanent contract prematurely all in 1 season has set this club back massively even though many fans thinking romantically think we are now making progress under ole , Woodward is a f'ing virus at the club, why aren't fans being more vocal at old Trafford, it's not like it can effect team to play any worse.

 

[fergiesarmy1]

No again, we’d still be pummelling around with Fellaini and looking to buy players peaked.

 

[Sterling Archer]

No again, we’d still be pummelling around with Fellaini and looking to buy players peaked.

We pummel around to Maguire now, looking to make a bunch of kids world beaters overnight (3 years is overnight) with absolutely no real mentors to help get them there. Coaching staff included.

 

[Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber]

Ok before I get slated for being crazy here, this is a genuine question.

Jose has been successful when things are done his way - i.e. money and players who submit to him and do all of the tough things he wants them to do.

We can safely say he was reasonably backed in terms of cash, maybe not enough, but decent amount spent. So no complaints there.

However, when players were against him, I do not think the club backed him as a person/ideology/work culture. They should have made their position clear - "manager is the boss, if you do not like him or his style of play, we will sell you no problems. No hard feelings. We only want players who 100% buy into his methods and willing to run through brick walls for him."

The reason I say this is that SAF was more revolutionary in terms of what he changed when he came, and he won a lot less at that stage in his career compared to Jose. But the club backed him and the rest is history. We can probably agree SAF was more vicious in the dressing room too and did not tolerate you once you go against him - Keane, Becks, Ruud are perfect examples. No matter how much you have done for the club.

So, should the club have bought into his approach even more and instead remove the players rather than the manager? Shaw certainly improved once he listened to Jose. Is it unthinkable that our third season would have been different if we backed his authority even more?

Its obvious. JM was never the problem. Neither is Ole for that matter

 

[R'hllor]

Let him buy another Fred, np.

 

[SportingCP96]

yes.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

He was backed enough and couldn't produce a title challenge.

His decision to replace Ibra with Lukaku was awful in hindsight.

Though Woodward should have sacked him prior to the 3rd season if he didn't want to back him then after giving him a contract extension.

 

[The United]

It is not hard though to understand that Jose's time with United was done.

He fell out of almost every player he signed and we got rid and are in a process of getting rid more of his era signings because they turned out to be shit.

It is baffling to think that backing him to sign more shits and his shitty footballing style would make us challenging again.
.

 

[Sky1981]

He was backed enough and couldn't produce a title challenge.

His decision to replace Ibra with Lukaku was awful in hindsight.

Though Woodward should have sacked him prior to the 3rd season if he didn't want to back him then after giving him a contract extension.

Ibra was injured for a few months, he's not being dumped.

He's just being ibra he choose not to take salary for not playing

 

[Sky1981]

Yeah that’s fair enough. But I wouldn’t say that’s exactly in United’s philosophy. I’m as United fans obviously not impressed. He wanted to sign Perisic which clearly showing that he prefers Perisic over trying to develop Martial. Same goes with signing Sanchez & Matic. Clearly what Mourinho did wasn’t very impressive, wasting lot of money on ageing players that now end up to be considered as deadwood.

At least we didn’t need to waste money by giving Pereira a chance.

Ole thinks they're deadwood.

Inter paid 70M for lukaku and he did the job for them.

 

[roonster09]

Just because Ole isn't doing well doesn't mean Jose was the answer. And No we wouldn't have challenged for league title.

 

[giorno]

If my grandmother had wheels she would have been a truck.

I prefer if my grandfather had 3 balls he would have been a pinball

Mine's more poetic

 

[Rajma]

Lukaku, Sanchez, Fred, Matic, Lindeljof, and even Pogba to some extent - are those players performing for us now? Do they feck? Also his constant use of Fellaini and Lingard...He's an absolute dinosaur that lost his touch and Ole doing badly does not vindicate the mess left by Jose in any way.

 

[JPRouve]

While I agree Mourinho signings were terrible you are using hindsight as Miki had 23 goals and 30 assists when we signed him, Lukaku was burying 26 league goals for Everton and Sanchez was one of the best in the league. Most of the Caf were delighted with them

But @DoomSlayer is supposed to use hindisight, it's the whole purpose of the question. We can't seriously answer that hypothetical without using Mourinho's history with United which is done in hindsight.