It is the stingy and greedy owners, incompetent Woody, Pogba the cnut, Martial the prick, Shaw the lazy ass, the shite weather of Manchester, the cursed football agents, the bloody referees etc etc, but it is never ever Mourinho's fault. Un fecking believable.
The Mourinho Thread: Should he stay or go? | Sacked
- Thread starter Livewire1974
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
- Status
At any club where he has managed more than 2 seasons the 3rd season has been the worst. Might be a statistical quirk but might point to a downside of his managerial style.
What should happen for you and other Jose acolytes to admit that you might have been wrong about him? Would a season without top 4 and without a trophy be enough? Show your cards.
I dont think you back a manager only by giving him every specific player he asks for (which is impossible anyway cos every manager would ask for the best players), but the manager's view should be respected, particularly when the manager has identified needs in the squad.
The manager is backed by signing players that address the needs identified, keeping a balance between the quality of the player, the financial abilities of the club, current expectations and also long term planning - this is where a DOF (or anyonewith a good understanding of both the financial and on-pitch situations) should be helpful.
When Mourinho requested for Maguire, if the price was deemed too high for what we were getting, then the board should have been able to find a better or cheaper alternative for consideration (e.g. Inter signed Lucio instead of Carvalho that Mourinho originally requested). Not signing anyone to fill the need is often the worst option to take.
Don't forget the 'super keepers' of the Fergie era that reappear anytime our incompetent forwards can't finish their dinner.
Curious? Just look at Pep’s team. He replaced a bunch of aging defenders and brought in a keeper which could pass. It’s hardly a squad overrall is it. If we were to switch roles he would do the same thing. Are we going to be in uproar because he wants two ball playing CB and a striker who can use his feet? That’s basically £150m which we would give to any other manager. So I don’t get your point.
Managers that can win the league:
Guardiola
Zidane
Klopp
Blanc
Ancelotti
Sarri
Poch
I believe with their philosophies they could win the league without making a single signing. That’s 7. I would say Jardim but i’d Be lying if I thought he was good enough.
I support Mou but his problem here as I've said before is how often he's replaced a player who he presumably doesn't fancy....then his purchase doesn't improve us...then he reverts back to the player he replaced...who actually plays well.....and then it appears he acted too hastily or didn't need to improve that position at all.....and is not clear at all in his strategy to improve the team. Martial wouldn't be here pretty much 100% if Mou was left to his own devices. Now he's back in the good books and saving everyone's hide in the last few games. As a Mou backer, there's no real excuses for his lack of conviction in what is becoming a very muddled up strategy to improve this team. I actually think all is not lost, I think he and the club should have learn't a lot in the last 7-8 months. The players could have left the tools on the ground for just a few more weeks but for some reason they seem to have picked them back up.
Chelsea tried giving him alternatives. He imploded. It’s a no win argument anyway. If such thing did happen we would have referred to Klopp and Liverpool saying if the number 1 target is not available you wait and don’t try get cheaper alternatives. Especially if it’s a key position.
Good points. But the big problem is not related to Jose's treatment of individual players and attempts to replace them with other players. The big problem is the overall style of play. It seems a bit dated, it is not sufficiently dynamic, the work rate is worse than that of the rivals.
Jose wants people to think that the only reason for his problems is the lack of enough quality in the squad. I'm afraid the problem is deeper and comes from his dated understanding of the game. I predict that even if this team manages to go on a winning run of 7-8 games, it will revert to type and struggle to make the top 4 and to win anything big. Jose's ability to make the whole greater than the sum of its parts is seriously waning.
I would say its a short sample space.
Mourinho has had six tenures as manager of a top flight club with two of them (porto and inter) being only 2 season long. looking at the other four
1. Chelsea I - left a few weeks into 4th season. After winning the league 2x in his first two seasons and cup double in the 3rd, Mourinho had clashes with Avram grant who Mourinho objected to his appointment as DOF and who he accused of backseat managing the team - something further supported by Grant taking over as coach after Mourinho left. After Mourinho left, Chelsea subsequently went through 8 managers in 6 years, with the longest tenure being Ancelotti with 2 seasons.
2. Chelsea II - left mid-way in 3rd season. Again, after winning the league in his 2nd season Mourinho clashed with backroom staff over the failure to sign john stones. His successor in Conte lasted only 2 seasons, unsurprisingly over disagreement with backroom staff on transfers. Sarri is still early in his stint
Overall, Mourinho's two tenures are the longest of any manager under Abramovich (no other coach has made it into the 3rd season) and thus it can be said that the problem is more with Chelsea backroom than with Mourinho. In fac, Mourinho probably should be credited for lasting as long as he did with Abramovich.
3. Real Madrid - left after 3rd season. Mourinho was doing well at Madrid, wining the league in his second season, but ran into locker room problems, particularly when he decided to bench an aging Casillas ( a decision later borne to be correct by subsequent managers doing sameand Casillas being eventually sold). The locker room problem is a cancer that has always plagued madrid, with players with close relationship with Perez undermining coaches (e.g. Toshack was sacked for asking Zidane to simplify his game). Maybe Mourinho could have managed things better, but he has his own character flaws and has never been one to shy away from conflict. Still the problem at Madrid , starts and ends with perez and Mourinho lasted longer than most, with lopetuigi being the latest scapegoat of Perez's mismanaging the squad. That there are rumors of him managing Madrid again shows that his relationship with Perez is still good.
4. United - 3rd season exit? The first two season went reasonable well imo and team seemed to be moving in the right direction. the failure of the board to fulfill his request for a CB (which i dont think is enough to competefor the PL against Citeh) makes it impossible to know if the progression would have continued. This brings up what I think is one of the risks with Mourinho - his dissatisfaction with things off the pitch is often coupled with poor performances on the pitch. Dont know if it is deliberate on his part but would be surprised if it is not. Unfortunately, while this may make a point to the board, it often loses him support with the fans. Also, managers (like ancelotti) that often take it quietly, seem to get more abused by the board (while Mourinho either gets his way or get fired with a nice pay off).
I think anyone hiring Mourinho should be clear on what they are getting and if they are not willing to provide an environment that would maximize his output, should save themselves the drama that would likely follow when differences arise.
The investments in Chelsea 1 were mind-boggling: over 1bn in today's market. Yet he failed to compete for the title in the 3rd season, his worst there.
Chelsea 2 - the problems started already in the title-winning season. Chelsea played well for 5-6 months but the last 3 months were underwhelming and they got beaten by 10man PSG in the CL. Even LvG's United outplayed them at SB and they werelucky to win 1:0. The theory that Jose had problems only because of the nature of the club/staff there is overstated. The Eva fiasco was pathetic.
At Madrid, well, the 3rd season was bad by their standards and the quality of the squad (the most expensive on the planet). It's not like only the players were guilty. Jose's problems with Pogba and Martial are not accidental.
Which alternatives?
Mourinho was rumored to want Stones, but was fine with any of Gimenez, laporte or varane. Interestingly 2 of the 4 now play for Citeh.
It's not even a point worthy of reply. In his first stint with Chelsea he still won two cups in his third season. He only did 2 seasons at Inter. He still won the Super Cup, reached the Champions League semi finals and a Copa Del Rey final in his final season with Real.
Sure the premise that his 2nd season has been best still holds, but he never stayed beyond 3 seasons at Chelsea and Real anyway. I'd agree this is a good point if the club didn't have a merry go round reputation for managers as it is. Unsure why it HAS to be Jose related if he spends only 3 years at clubs with a sacking mentality.
I don't think there's a sole correlation between money spent and league position, and agreed lots of other factors come into play. But most this forum is full of posters saying "we spent x so he should be up there" . My argument is that he hasn't spent more than his peers and the argument collapses.
Yeah, he bought Lukaku for more than City bought any of their players on a single transfer. But pep walked into a team with Augero, Silva and KDB already in it. How many world class players did Jose inherit? One. Between the sticks. If he wanted a striker he had to spend.
It’s not a utopia it’s just a plan consistent with what everyone else does and running an actual football club. Trying to pretend like SAF is in charge doesn’t work.
Even if the club sticks with Mourinho next season he won’t last much longer than 2 or 3 years from now at best. We are going to have to recruit managers regularly, getting flustered because we don’t know who the next so and so is won’t help anyone.
It’s not another we must by Messi it’s just having a plan that maximises your chances of being successful rather than repeating the same rudderless cycle.
failed to compete for title but finished 2nd (6pts behind united) and won both FA and League cup, and, got to CL semis? Wonder what the rest of the PL teams were doing then
The squad lacked depth and tired in the second half of the season but still finished 8 points ahead of 2nd place citeh. Also, if Mourinho is the problem, why has no other manager lasted as long at chelsea?
You havent said anything to disprove why the team struggled in the 3rd season outside of locker room problems from benching players like Casillas and pepe.
As for Pogba and Martial, Mourinho will always have frictions with players who feel they are gifted offensively and shirk their defensive duties, the dire consequences of which we see often enough
Nobody works more than 4 years these days. Even pochetinno goes into a slump this year.
You can't plan beyond 2 years. We have a succession plan in moyes and lvg / giggs. Does it works? Nope.
We have plan when we signed mourinho, stabilize the sinking ship, stop the slide, does it work?
A plan is just a plan. No plan is ever guaranteed. Take it 2 years at a time.
One can always find excuses with owners, CEO's, locker room problems, etc. Fact is that at every club where he managed longer than 2 years, the 3rd season was worse than the first 2. His Chelsea 04-07 team had the equivalent of 7-8 100m players in today's market. And managed only 83 pts in the league. That was a failure given the mind-boggling investment in their squad.
Last edited:
They pretty much did a United and told him he has Christiansen (can’t be bothered to spell his name). Chelsea weren’t prepared to pay the money for Stones and they had there right to do that; Varane they was never going to be able to acquire and the two name you bring up gave them well within there right to say you have Christiansen who is highly rated why are we buying more potential considering you also gave us the go ahead to sell David Luiz the following summer (I actually agree with that decision the money was too good).
He was also up against Fergie though in fairness, give the great one some bloody credit man
Last edited:
That was a great achievement form Fergie indeed, one of his greatest. To beat a team full with world-class talent was amaizing. Still, think Jose should have done better than those 83 pts, given that the squad was extraordinary. Maybe it was difficult to motivate them after they had won 2 titles in a row. Or the way United played in 06/07 demotivated themHe was also up against Fergie though in fairness, give the great one some bloody credit man
He conveniently ignores anything negative regarding Mourinho to suit his bias pro-Mourinho agenda.
It was a team with:That was a great achievement form Fergie indeed, one of his greatest. To beat a team full with world-class talent was amaizing. Still, think Jose should have done better than those 83 pts, given that the squad was extraordinary. Maybe it was difficult to motivate them after they had won 2 titles in a row. Or the way United played in 06/07 demotivated them
VDS, Rio, Evra, Vidic, Ronaldo, Rooney, Giggs, Carrick, Scholes ffs.
How could Mourinho not beat that pile of shit??
Finished just 6 points behind that United-side, one of our greatest, that went on to win the Champions League the following season and 3 straight titles. I swear some of you @Treble don’t mind shitting on our own club to slag off Mourinho.
“****” indeed.
I didn't imply that United 06/07 didn't have top quality. And I wasn't talking about the games between both teams but about the points total that Chelsea achieved. It wasn't great given the investements in their team.
They had 6 less than one of the greatest United teams in history. You’re talking nonsense on this one. Chelsea were in touching distance of a 3rd straight title up against a great United side, but they drew their final 3 games if I remember, one was against United.
That incredible United side took just 87 points the following year.
Last edited:
In his first two seasons at Citeh, Pep has bought 3 strikers, 2 midfielders, 3 fullbacks, 3 CBs and 2 GKs. That is despite inheriting a squad with Aguero, Silva, Sterling, De Bruyne, Komapny, and Otamendi. That qualifies as an overhaul. With united the overhaul the changes would be more significant.
Philosophy? How many PL titles have ever been won with philosophy? If it was about philosophy, Wenger would have won so much that he would have been mistaken for a silver smith.
1. Guardiola - couldnt win in his first season and that squad was better than the current United. He had to spend the most amount in the league before winning the title. Even at Barcelona and Bayern, he had superior squads compared to the competition. Nothing to suggest he would win anything without a massive overhaul, more than he did at citeh
2. Zidane - enjoyed the luxury of the best squad in europe. No evidence he can be successful with a lesser squad
3. Klopp - still waiting for him to win the PL. In 7 seasons at Bayern, won the league 2x when he had a great group of players (Lewandoski, Sahin, Hummels, Gotze etc), and coincided with a dip by bayern (lvg chaos). if he cant win with Liverpool, there is nothing to show he can win with our current squad which is older and less suited to his style of play.
4. Blanc - Seriously? There is a reason he is currently unemployed.
5. Ancelotti - Only one worth considering, but he had had an inconsistent career and never seems to have consustent success since he left milan and has been fired in 2 seasons or less since. He hasnt shown he can mount a serious challenge against Juve with Napoli thi s season. Still I will concede he might be capable of pulling out a one season wonder.
6. Sarri - never won anything and nothing to suggest he ever will.
7. Poch - Cant get Spurs to shed the mentality of 'almost a winner' and his teams keeps choking on the big stage. No evidence he would ever win anything.
It makes you wonder how long Mourinho can keep pulling these rabbits and wins out of his hat with Pogba saving his bacon.. (oh the delicious irony after Mourinho has gave the bloke nothing but crap) we all know he's a dead man walking. Even if we start to win against the small clubs like Bournemouth we will get pasted by the Big Boys in the Premier League and Europe. And in order to get Top 4 this season we need to beat the Big Boys because of our awful start.
Tic toc Mourinho!
Tic toc Mourinho!
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not the fact that United 06-07 won 89 pts that makes them great. Otherwise, City 17-18 dwarf them with those 100 pts they won. It's the circumstances and the style. They played against a team that signed players for 1bn in the current market and that had one of the best managers then.
Imagine that City have invested double in their current team than what they've done so far and that Fergie comes and trumps them nonetheless.
Christensen was never a viable alternative.
Mourinho wanted someone to understudy terry and become the new leader of the defence and time has shown that Mourinho was correct in that Christensen was not at the required level. That Conte brought back David Luiz the following summer and sent Chritensen out on loan also further supports this.
Didn't ignore it. I actually addressed it in a later post. Try again, but perhaps lose the hyberbole next time.
Agreed, nor that they won the following year with just 87pts.
You though are the one bringing points into it to slag off Mourinho in his third season, the truth is that he was just denied a third straight title by one of SAF’s greatest ever teams.
What was the comparison in starting 11 costs by the way that season just out of interest.
The overhaul has already happened. 300 plus millions worth. Pep took over a tream that finished 4th on goal difference, equal to United. It need work. Mourinho has got us to a level just under Pep’s team, some would say Champions if it wasn’t for how good City was last season. So why do we need the same significant changes? Do we need 3 strikers? No. Do we need 2 Midfielders not really. Pep would require a Jorginho but who knows how good Perieria is capable of being. 3 CB’s. No again he can make a title winning team out of Otamendi he can do it with Rojo. Keepers - well we have the best in he world and the best number 2 in the world.
So you break down to me what would be required?
Everything is based on philosophy. That’s a stupid arguement. Barcelona win because of philosophy, it’s just who has the better one. We have a team designed for attacking philosophy with a negative manager hence why it’s not working.
City’s squad Pep picked up is not better than the current United squad. Stop it.
The best squad in Europe is currently performing worse than us. Maybe he was actually an alright manager.
Klopp won the league though. With the monopoly of Bayern. One it twice with his acceptional group. I would say that’s achieving standards? No? This Liverpool team is the best he’s had to date. So we shall see.
He’s unemployed the same reason why Zidane and Klopp and Guardiola have been unemployed in the past. When the right comes up I’m sure he will take it.
Sarri I give you but he’d have us playing better football and we have a better ‘squad’ than Chelsea.
Poch your right as I’ve said this team not including a bigger budget, which he would have. We aren’t too dis similar to what he has now. But he would have better options from the bench.
He wasn’t right because like most of his young player he refused to coach him. I beg to differ John Stones would have improved under Mourinho. Mourinho didn’t want an understudy he wanted a new center back completely and he hung Terry out to dry to prove his point. Remember the high line tactics he employed against City that made them exploit Terry’s lack of pace. He does this all the time, we’ve seen it first hand this season with McTomminay. Christensen was sent on loan because he lacked another year of development (not really Mourinho’s fault) he showed last year he’s not that bad of a defender but I’ll happily admit he’s not top level and never will be.
Anyone thinking City needed the same level of work to United when Pep and Jose took over needs their head examined.
I’m here address me. Don’t be shy. Did we not finish level on points? Did it not take Pep around the same amount of money to get it right. If that’s not the same level of work I don’t know what is. It’s just that Pep got it right. It’s okay we can applaud him for it.
League position or points matter whenever we compare Liverpool last season with United. Points don't matter when we compare City in that year with United.
Mou propaganda at work
That’s exactly my point if you have some of plan, structure and underlying style you have a better chance of recruiting the right people and have some consistency. We haven’t had a succession plan other than recruit managers who are out of contract and easily available.
We went from a manager who was obsessed by possession to one who doesn’t really care about it. There is a good chance whoever we employ next will be completely different from Mourinho.
Don’t think Pochettino is in a slump, other than the poor results in champions league they are doing pretty well. They spent zero and had more players in World Cup semis than anyone else, puts Mourinho’s complaints and performance in perspective.
Finishing level is immaterial. City fell away when Pellegrini announced mid season that he's off. You don't need to even follow the sport much to know they had far more quality than we did when Pep walked in.
And no, Pep spent about 200m+ more than Jose did to "get it right". He also had a better structure in place through a DoF who had an existing relationship from Barcelona to get him the profile of transfers he wanted without any price cap. You think Jose can persuade Ed to splash 50m on a Laporte AFTER spending 50m a pop on 3 other defenders? Get real.
Well you kind of do need to watch because people would believe your logic. Is this not the same year Chelsea gave up on the title? So even with Chelsea capitulating they was unable to finish above Arsenal and Spurs? Even if they down tools I’d still expect a quality side to finish above those too. We are not talking about a league that we witness now.
£200m more how many of those was key signings? I see this because I bet a lot include your Lee Grants of this world i.e not brought for first team. Of key players they’ve probably spent about 60m more excluding the fact Alexis Sanchez was a free.
Oh this DOF talk again. If it was so good why couldn’t they have told him Nolito and Bravo wouldn’t cut it in the Prem. whilst they had a DOF we had a manager that won it 3 times (Jose Finger salute). Which experience would you rather have when it comes to know what players to buy?
You do realise Pep has brought the same amount of CB’s as Mourinho 2. So if Jose wanted Laporte as one of his 2. I’m sure he would have got him.
Are you still wrongly suggesting Pep and Jose have spent similar amounts?
Go on transfer market and get a clue. His key signings have been way higher than Jose's.
I'm not sure what you're doing bringing Chelsea into it, you're just jumping around on points as usual.
Also, if you're trying to argue that City having a Dof doesn't help them more than a club without a Dof, there is little value in debating anything with you. Your posts are now on ignore from here on, sorry.
What’s up with these new bread of posters on redcafe telling people they are ignored? Childish, grow a pair lol.
But I’ll finish of my points. He’s clearly spent more but it’s not so significant it means we shouldn’t be able to compete. Considering we have been out here breaking transfer records.
I brought up Chelsea to say even with the best team at the time having a VERY poor season, that levels above team couldn’t win the title. City simply like United needed investment and a lot of work to get them to where they are now, it’s not just a simple fact of having a DOF and a better base which is why they secudeded and we didn’t. We like the blame everything around Mourinho when Pep inherited similar bullsh*t. Press you little ignore button on that.
Simple maths kids.
Yet fans throw their toys out of their prams when United don't storm to 100 points. Give your head a wobble it's embarrassing.
- Pep takes over a squad with Kompany, Otamendi, Fernando, Delph, Fernandinho, KDB, Silva, Sterling, Aguero plus many other peak title winning players
- VERSUS
- DDG Smalling, Jones, Schneiderlain, Fellaini, Hererra Rooney Martial and Rashford
- The day both Mourinho and Pep took over their sides, I make City's squad about £500-600m more talented than Uniteds based on the above squads, maybe more than £600m of more talent.
- Then compare City spending roughly £550m
- VERSUS
- United spending roughly £350m
- Consider City's squad was already 600m better off, they've then invested over £200m more than United since then, making them about £800m better than United.
Yet fans throw their toys out of their prams when United don't storm to 100 points. Give your head a wobble it's embarrassing.
- Status