Why should Mourinho change his mentality or his tactics?

Shaun Lawson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
12
Supports
Norwich City
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
 

Jazz

Just in case anyone missed it. I don't like Mount.
Joined
Feb 11, 2014
Messages
31,132
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
Great insightful post. One of the best I've read.
 

NotATroll

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
140
That is simply not true, there were plenty of complaints about the approach.
About the second half, yes. I didn't hear anyone complaining about the long ball in the first half. But maybe I missed it.

Up to every individual to decide what they value in football. Some care only about winning, to which I would ponder why do you even bother watching the match? Just get an alert on your phone about the result. For me the experience matters, of course you want the team to win, but it is not the only reason I watch and care about the game.
The enjoyment comes from seeing the team you support be better than the other team. If the team gets lucky, I wouldn't enjoy it. But if they looked comfortable, albeit by winning ugly, I would be happy. If it happened consistently in this way, I would start to feel pride.

In general, I don't see why you wouldn't want to see teams win, no matter how they do it. By doing it game after game, they are demonstrating they are better than other teams. This is something to be admired and so enjoyed.

By the way, I probably wouldn't be happy with every game Man Utd play being a struggle. You can have games where you win 4-0 or games that are difficult. Both types would be fun to watch in moderation.

There is a difference between a team who go out to attack and win having to grind out a dull win and one who go out with no intention of playing and just waiting for a mistake from the opposition.
You can not go out to defend but end up having to and grinding out a win. This is important if you want to be a champion. And why wouldn't you enjoy it if you thought that ultimately it would lead to the team you support being crowned champion?
 

Loublaze

ATLien
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
16,593
Not always luck but sometimes luck is a major factor .....See Greece winning the Euro's and Liverpool's last CL win.
Greece winning Euro 04 was a tactical masterpiece. They beat several tournament favorites on their path to the title! You're not giving them credit at all. The same can be said about Denmark winning Euro 92. Liverpool came back from 3-0 down to level and win the game against Milan. How is that luck? Was United's CL triumph in 99 against Bayern all down to luck? They dominated us in that game but we never gave up.
 
Last edited:

Beachryan

More helpful with spreadsheets than Phurry
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
11,795
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
Wow, not bad for a 2nd post! Basically this.
 

Shaun Lawson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
12
Supports
Norwich City
Greece winning Euro 04 was a tactical masterpiece. They beat several tournament favorites on their path to the title! You're not giving them credit at all. The same can be said about Denmark winning Euro 92. Liverpool came back from 3-0 down to level and win the game against Milan. How is that luck? Was United's CL triumph in 99 against Bayern all down to luck? They dominated us in that game but we never gave up.
I fully agree with this. Many tournament-winning teams do ride their luck to an extent - all sorts of little details can play their part in the eventual outcome. But Greece played rope-a-dope with, on paper, far superior sides, every single one of which grossly underestimated them. In the semis, their defeat of the Czechs, who had the talent to win the event by a street, was exactly as you say: a tactical masterpiece.

Same with Denmark in 1992, who changed the way they played specifically at that event, and beat the three best sides in Europe one after another. The key to what Liverpool did was bringing on Didi Hamann at the start of the second half, giving Gerrard licence to roam (albeit Dudek's save from Shevchenko certainly involved some luck). And United in 1999? A mixture of incredible football and teamplay (especially away to Barcelona and above all, away to Juventus), a never-say-die attitude which stemmed from the manager, and bits of fortune here and there in the home leg v Juve, then the final.

Football's about taking your opportunities when they come along. All the above sides did that; all were worthy winners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mciahel Goodman

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,265
Location
Manchester
Because it's possible to utilise your knowledge in a different way.
But mostly what @Shaun Lawson said. He doesn't seem to have that tenacity anymore. He doesn't seem to enjoy things the same, and if nothing else, that's very likely passed on to the players. And the evidence points towards exactly that.
Hopefully recent happenings are a boot up the arse for both him and the players.
 

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
What is the basis of that statement? You can't make it without stating the objectives.

Edit: Also I'm pretty sure that SAF reached the objective pretty much every years, the very beginning of his career at United was about building a club culture from the ground up.
Vicente del bosque was sacked by Madrid despite winning the league,because he failed to win the CL.Ancelotti was sacked a season after winning the CL....So if United would have been like Real,SAF would have been sacked in 1995 and 1998 for not winning a trophy....Would have been sacked in 2002 for finishing 3rd and losing to Leverkusen in the CL....Would have been sacked in 2004,2005 and 2006 for not winning a title....Would have been sacked in 2012 for getting knocked out at the group stage of the CL....
 

Treble

Full Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
10,550
Hold on a second here, you're the one who used performances in Europe to back up your assertion about the PL being in decline and I simply reminded you about how teams actually fared in Europe in those seasons you brought up. You specifically mentioned how 'pathetically' Chelsea got dumped out of the CL the season after they won the title with Mourino but forgot to mention City's 'lucky' run to the semis in the same season.
Again, the facts don't match your claims. There was nothing lucky about Chelsea winning in 2012 and City making the semis in 2015. You can't ride 'luck' all the way to a CL semi or CL triumph. In 2011 Schalke won their group and beat Valencia and Inter convincingly in the knockout phases. It may have been an unexpected run but it was anything but lucky. You're basically saying in the rare event an underdog goes far in or wins a major tournament its all down to 'luck'.
From season 04/05 to season 08/09, 12 of the teams in the CL semis were English: Chelsea and Liverpool (2005), Arsenal (2006), United, Chelsea and Liverpool (2007), United, Chelsea and Arsenal (2008), United, Chelsea and Arsenal (2009). Total domination.

Things have quite changed after that. English teams in the CL semis since 09/10: United (2011), Chelsea (2012), Chelsea (2014) and City (2016). 4 English teams in 8 seasons. Just 2 English teams in the CL semis in the last 5 seasons. The decline is quite obvious.

And yeah, Chelsea were very lucky in 2012. They are probably the jammiest CL winner ever.
 
Last edited:

JPRouve

can't stop thinking about balls - NOT deflategate
Scout
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
66,457
Location
France
Vicente del bosque was sacked by Madrid despite winning the league,because he failed to win the CL.Ancelotti was sacked a season after winning the CL....So if United would have been like Real,SAF would have been sacked in 1995 and 1998 for not winning a trophy....Would have been sacked in 2002 for finishing 3rd and losing to Leverkusen in the CL....Would have been sacked in 2004,2005 and 2006 for not winning a title....Would have been sacked in 2012 for getting knocked out at the group stage of the CL....
That's my point. Ancelotti had for objective to win La Liga, Del Bosque had for objective to win the CL, these objectives weren't secrets everyone knew about them. What were the objectives given to SAF?
 

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
That's my point. Ancelotti had for objective to win La Liga, Del Bosque had for objective to win the CL, these objectives weren't secrets everyone knew about them. What were the objectives given to SAF?
The objectives were obviously to win the league and the CL every season mate.After 1993,the objective was to atleast win the league if not the CL every year,and SAF obviously didn't fulfill the objective every season...Nobody can ever fulfill his objective season after season
 

BRRRRAP

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Feb 13, 2018
Messages
57
That's my point. Ancelotti had for objective to win La Liga, Del Bosque had for objective to win the CL, these objectives weren't secrets everyone knew about them. What were the objectives given to SAF?
You are correct jp but there's no point in continuing this pointless, meandering and now way off topic thread.
Most of us have already pointed out clearly the problems with the ill considered OP.
Put very simply by Shaun Lawson "The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work."
If supporters/OP really think that Mourinho's game plan, tactics and fear-instilling, creativity-stifling coaching, does not need to change then they are simply sticking their heads in the sand or keeping the thread going just for the sake of it.
 
Last edited:

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
Good topic as I was actually thinking about that. It is difficult to change Tactics in the case of Mourinho as he had lots of success with it in the past. Although I believe in the idea of keeping a certain tactics but evolving it. Football changes with time and the way teams played 5-10 years ago is certainly different now.

Not wanting to compare to Ferguson since hes on another level but he also was flexible and changed his tactics a little with time. His previous tactics were very successful but he evolved, he read the game and adapted to it. He used to play 442 attacking, then switched to a 4231 counter attack system then at some point played a conservative 433.

Guardiola is the same as when he first arrived in the premier league and saw the different intensity and tempo he admitted that he will not change his base tactics but he needs to make some amendments to it and enhance it. In Mourinhos case I think he is just too stubborn and proud to change his system or even maybe he does not comprehend another system and thus stuck with this one. Either case I believe he needs to keep his counter attack system but make it more explosive, more freedom in attack, more flair, more creativity but keep the solid defence shape. Now this is not the only issue causing our bad form, but the players bad performances are a cause too.
Of course Mourinho doesn't have to change his mentality & his tactics. He's well within his rights to stick with what has brought him success over the years.

However, I'm certain he knows very well that he can only get away with such an approach if he gets the results and delivers trophies. We were extremely negative against Liverpool and if we would've lost that game, most of the fans would be fuming (me included). Because we won, he gets a pass. Same with Sevilla. If we scraped through 1-0 several would moan in the post match thread but most would've said 'Shit game. Don't care, made it to next round'.

Would I rather have an exciting and entertaining 3-3 draw over a 1-0 grind-out bore fest? Of course not.

Winning is always the most important thing, even if it can sometimes feel a bit empty and undeserved.

However, if you give anyone a choice of attacking football vs. a defensive approach that would yield the same result (a loss, a draw, a win), I'm sure 99% would pick the former.

I believe Mourinho fully understands the risk he takes with his approach. Failures are always scrutinized at a larger magnitude compared to success
Good points guys....I agree partly with both of you,Mourinho does adopt a high risk strategy that makes the end result the be all and end all.I also agree that he does need to instill a bit of intensity in this team....They can sit back and stay deep,but when they get the ball they need to be more dynamic and ruthless.The Chelsea game at old Trafford last season and the first 45 minutes against Liverpool should be a template for us in all big games....
 

Loublaze

ATLien
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
16,593
From season 04/05 to season 08/09, 12 of the teams in the CL semis were English: Chelsea and Liverpool (2005), Arsenal (2006), United, Chelsea and Liverpool (2007), United, Chelsea and Arsenal (2008), United, Chelsea and Arsenal (2009). Total domination.

Things have quite changed after that. English teams in the CL semis since 09/10: United (2011), Chelsea (2012), Chelsea (2014) and City (2016). 4 English teams in 8 seasons. Just 2 English teams in the CL semis in the last 5 seasons. The decline is quite obvious.

And yeah, Chelsea were very lucky in 2012. They are probably the jammiest CL winner ever.
Chelsea easily won their group and were impressive in the knockouts. Beating Napoli 4-1 in extra time after losing the first leg 3-1 took character. They easily dispatched Benfica in the qtr finals and took out massive favorites Barcelona in the semis without having to even go through extra time. Their victory over Barcelona was even more impressive than United's textbook win over the same team in 2008 at the same stage because they came back from 2-0 down to level the game and book the ticket to the final with the final kick of the game. Against Bayern they were totally dominated yes, so you can say there was an element of luck but they nullified Bayern and responded with a goal after going down when they needed it most. It might be hard to admit it but they fully deserved that title.
 

Shaun Lawson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
12
Supports
Norwich City
Chelsea easily won their group and were impressive in the knockouts. Beating Napoli 4-1 in extra time after losing the first leg 3-1 took character. They easily dispatched Benfica in the qtr finals and took out massive favorites Barcelona in the semis without having to even go through extra time. Their victory over Barcelona was even more impressive than United's textbook win over the same team in 2008 at the same stage because they came back from 2-0 down to level the game and book the ticket to the final with the final kick of the game. Against Bayern they were totally dominated yes, so you can say there was an element of luck but they nullified Bayern and responded with a goal after going down when they needed it most. It might be hard to admit it but they fully deserved that title.
This is a flawed analysis - albeit, I agree with it in part. Chelsea 2012 were simultaneously the jammiest winners of a major event I've maybe ever seen - but also, the most unbelievably determined. The quality they had is something I'm tempted to call 'stickability': that German or Italian thing we've seen down the decades in major tournaments. Play badly, sometimes very badly, scramble through and leave the public wondering "how did that happen?"

It was forged through a litany of disappointments and near misses. Semi-finalists in 2004 before Ranieri out-tinkered himself v Monaco. Semi-finalists in 2005 before the ghost goal at Anfield (but if it hadn't been given, it'd have been a penalty instead and they'd have been down to 10 men for almost the whole game). Semi-finalists in 2007, beaten on penalties. Finalists in 2008, beaten on penalties. And robbed by some of the worst officiating ever seen in the 2009 semis too.

The core of that side - Cech, Terry, Lampard, Drogba - went through all this together. It meant that, when they were starting to head down the slippery slope and all seemed lost, almost a force of nature took over in what was their final chance to win Europe's greatest competition.

They had to get a result in the last group game to get through (no "comfortable group win" at all). They had to turn around a 3-1 deficit v Napoli. They were ropey as hell throughout the second leg v Benfica. Barca hit the woodwork four or five times (can't remember which) across the semi-final, including a Messi penalty miss. Bayern hit the woodwork in the final and also missed a penalty (again conceded by Drogba: the parallels between the semi-final and final were weird) even before the shootout.

Chelsea deserved it both for what they'd been through as a side, and the sheer "over my dead body" Lazarus-like qualities they displayed throughout that tournament. But they also rode their luck like no other European Cup winners since Red Star Belgrade. It was both a colossal triumph of the human spirit (the sheer desire of Drogba's equaliser in Munich... Jesus), and some of the jammiest progress ever seen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Penna

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
Chelsea easily won their group and were impressive in the knockouts. Beating Napoli 4-1 in extra time after losing the first leg 3-1 took character. They easily dispatched Benfica in the qtr finals and took out massive favorites Barcelona in the semis without having to even go through extra time. Their victory over Barcelona was even more impressive than United's textbook win over the same team in 2008 at the same stage because they came back from 2-0 down to level the game and book the ticket to the final with the final kick of the game. Against Bayern they were totally dominated yes, so you can say there was an element of luck but they nullified Bayern and responded with a goal after going down when they needed it most. It might be hard to admit it but they fully deserved that title.
Bayern bottled it big time though....But any team that wins the CL is a worthy champion....Whether its Chelsea in 2012 or Liverpool in 2005....
 

giorno

boob novice
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
27,054
Supports
Real Madrid
Everything has gone to plan so far,except the fact that nobody expected City to put together such a ridiculous run this season
Uh, i did actually. I also expected United to be closer to City though.

Don't think City are having a freakish season either, think they're just that good and next season won't be much different.

Saying United would be fighting for the title if City weren't having a great season means nothing, United haven't shown title winning form in the league. 65 points out of 90 rounds up at 82 points total - that's not a title winning total in a strong league

I agree with you that Mourinho won't change, and i'm not sure he should either. But United are farther from City than they should be at the moment

And going out in CL to Sevilla is inexcusable

@Shaun Lawson Inter didn't press bayern high in the final at all. As you said, they knew they were a level above, they knew if they shut down robben, they'd be guaranteed to win because bayern just weren't good enough and Milito and Sneijder would find plenty of opportunities to punish them. Which is exactly what happened. Inter defended deep(i remember questioning why Inter, clearly better than bayern, were willing to sit so deep and let bayern have the ball in the first half. The answer came in the form of Milito's opener: Bayern were a top heavy team with real talent in midfield and attack, but overly reliant on Robben and extremely poor and error-prone defensively. So in truth, shutting down their attack and playing off their mistakes was a good gameplan, whereas going at them might have turned the game into a 50/50 affair). Mourinho correctly saw that his team was a level above their opponents, and correctly understood where and why they were better, and set them up to play to their strength and exploit bayern's weaknesses
 
Last edited:

davidmichael

Full Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2015
Messages
3,519
Football moves on and changes so it’s a case of evolve or perish, formations and tactics change so that’s why Jose should also change. Look at Sir Alex as a perfect example and how many times he changed his tactics and mentality to evolve with the times.
 

Loublaze

ATLien
Joined
Aug 30, 2009
Messages
16,593
Football moves on and changes so it’s a case of evolve or perish, formations and tactics change so that’s why Jose should also change. Look at Sir Alex as a perfect example and how many times he changed his tactics and mentality to evolve with the times.
I agree with this mostly even though Fergie hastily changed things around. He wasn't a huge proponent for 4-3-3 but Queiroz convinced him.
 

whatwha

Sniffs Erricksson’s diarrhea
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
7,612
Location
Norway
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
Good post.

But why do you think he did so poorly with Chelsea in the third season (the first time) in 2008 or whenever, if he was such a brilliant phenomenon at the time?
 

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
Good post.

But why do you think he did so poorly with Chelsea in the third season (the first time) in 2008 or whenever, if he was such a brilliant phenomenon at the time?
His 3rd season was 2007....Chelsea finished 2nd and beat us in the FA Cup final,so it wasn't really a bad season...Finishing 2nd and winning a cup after back to back titles is hardly a crisis.He was sacked 2 months into his 4th season because he fell out with Abramovich....
 

Swift Football

New Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
882
Why should the manager change his methods,his tactics or his mentality?Why will he change at the age of 55,after achieving the kind of success that 99.99 percent of managers around the world can only dream of?8 league titles in 4 different leagues,2 CL titles,countless other trophies....Lets be clear,Klopp,Conte,Pochettino,Tuchel etc etc will most probably never experience this kind of success in their careers.

He's not a random upstart,he's not a rookie or an average joe(Ala Moyes) who will change his methods to please the supporters of a particular club.Hes one of the greatest managers of the modern era,why will/should he change now?

For the record,I DO NOT like the football that we are playing right now,even though I can clearly see us progressing as a team.But we as a club knew exactly what we were going to get under Jose,so why exactly is everybody enraged now?Did people not see the kind of football that Chelsea played in Mourinhos last title winning season?So Jose was bought for a specific purpose,and that was to re-establish us as a top premier league club.He has already established us a CL club again,he has won a few trophies so far and now it's all about taking the final step and launching a title challenge next season...

Everything has gone to plan so far,except the fact that nobody expected City to put together such a ridiculous run this season.I"m sure that most City fans are also stunned to see the kind of results that they have got this season...So we just have to improve our squad in the summer and we have to go all out to compete with them next season...Mourinho was bought for a specific purpose(to win the league) and he can only do that if he implements methods and tactics that he's comfortable with....
Its simple...Because a large segment of fans is not just happy on the results, but want entertaining football (personally only thing I care is 3 points in the bag). Sooner or later, this large segment of fans will put pressure of him, and the defeat like Sevilla will be the catalyst. If you think logically, it might not be the best to change the proven tactics of Jose, but it is what it is, fans rightly or otherwise, will put pressure on him.

Jose has 2 ways to go:
1. Follow his old proven methods, have some success in 3/4 years, and then move on somewhere else.
2. Change his methods a little, compromise the success he can achieve in some ways, and keep managing United for many years.
 

simplyared

Full Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
4,442
Location
somewhere ouside the UK
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
You nailed it buddy!
 

whatwha

Sniffs Erricksson’s diarrhea
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
7,612
Location
Norway
His 3rd season was 2007....Chelsea finished 2nd and beat us in the FA Cup final,so it wasn't really a bad season...Finishing 2nd and winning a cup after back to back titles is hardly a crisis.He was sacked 2 months into his 4th season because he fell out with Abramovich....
It wasn't just about falling out with Abramovich though, was it, Chelsea performed badly.
 

Champagne Football

New Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2015
Messages
4,187
Location
El Beatle
Jose is so this guy from Whiplash. Methods push everyone to breaking point and once the silverware has been landed in an historical season, it all seems to then fall apart soon after as the group can't handle being at breaking point any longer.
 

Shaun Lawson

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Dec 26, 2015
Messages
12
Supports
Norwich City
Good post.

But why do you think he did so poorly with Chelsea in the third season (the first time) in 2008 or whenever, if he was such a brilliant phenomenon at the time?
Ha - "poor" is certainly not a definition I'd use for his third season there in 06/7. They won both domestic Cups, lost on pens in the CL semis, and spent large chunks of the second half of the season looking like, with United, one of far and away the two best sides in Europe. But there were several issues:

1. They fell adrift of United in early winter after both their goalkeepers, Cech and Cudicini, were injured. To avoid too many egos wrecking his squads a la the Madrid galacticos, Mourinho had a policy of two quality players for each position. So when he lost both (in the same match, no less) and had to turn to the inadequate Henrique Hilario, he had a major problem.

2. Chelsea had brought in Frank Arnesen the previous summer, against Mourinho's wishes... and their signings of Shevchenko and Ballack (also against his wishes) forced him to abandon 4-2-3-1, and try to shoehorn both into a 4-4-2 instead. Abramovich had been prompted to do that by Chelsea going out quite meekly to Barcelona in the 2006 CL last 16. He wanted the European Cup, and didn't have the patience to just trust in his manager to get it done. This culminated in:

3. Absolute chaos off the pitch in January 2007, when Abramovich gave Mourinho a huge dressing down for the crime of not being top of the league, and the manager responded by complaining about Chelsea's transfer policy. What's most interesting is this was the first example of him playing politics and blaming those above him responsible for recruitment. He ended up picking a ridiculous side for a 2-0 defeat at Anfield which showcased all the club's problems.

It was assumed he'd be sacked given how angry Abramovich was. Instead, they agreed a truce, he briefly emerged even stronger (having just faced down one of the richest men in Europe), and he used the events to galvanise his squad. Chelsea promptly embarked on an incredible run full of staggering levels of self-belief and resilience, and entered April on course for the quadruple. But...

4. This was a major part of his downfall. If anything, they were too successful for their own good. You may recall the quad-chasing United squad of 08/9 losing fluency in the league towards the end of the season. So did a knackered Chelsea squad. That was the only reason Liverpool knocked them out of the CL - that they were tiring was obvious during the first leg of that semi. And it also enabled United to hold them off in the league. Both sides spent the final weeks of the season out on their feet, leading to that awful FA Cup Final between the two... but the moment Mourinho failed to win the CL, his goose was cooked, and his exit months later became inevitable.

Summing it up: yes, his political side reared its head for the first time. But if Abramovich hadn't stuck his beak in, they might have stayed at the top under Jose for longer.
 
Last edited:

Nikelesh Reddy

Full Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Messages
1,912
It wasn't just about falling out with Abramovich though, was it, Chelsea performed badly.
Not really....After finishing 2nd and winning the FA Cup in 2006/2007,Mourinho was sacked within a month of the new season.He was sacked after just 6 League games,and for the record Chelsea had picked up 11 points from a possible 18,they were just 3 points behind us so they were definitely not in a crisis.

Mourinho was upset about the signing of Shevchenko,he didn't want him but Abramovich went ahead and bought him anyway....So this sowed the seeds of dissent between the 2 of them.Abramovich felt that Jose had become larger than life so he wanted to bring him down a peg or two,but Jose wasn't having it.So they feel out and Mourinho was sacked...

So his 2007 sacking had absolutely nothing to do with football...He fell out with Abramovich so Roman got rid of him....
 

whatwha

Sniffs Erricksson’s diarrhea
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
7,612
Location
Norway
Ha - "poor" is certainly not a definition I'd use for his third season there in 06/7. They won both domestic Cups, lost on pens in the CL semis, and spent large chunks of the second half of the season looking like, with United, one of far and away the two best sides in Europe. But there were several issues:

1. They fell adrift of United in early winter after both their goalkeepers, Cech and Cudicini, were injured. To avoid too many egos wrecking his squads a la the Madrid galacticos, Mourinho had a policy of two quality players for each position. So when he lost both (in the same match, no less) and had to turn to the inadequate Henrique Hilario, he had a major problem.

2. Chelsea had brought in Frank Arnesen the previous summer, against Mourinho's wishes... and their signings of Shevchenko and Ballack (also against his wishes) forced him to abandon 4-2-3-1, and try to shoehorn both into a 4-4-2 instead. Abramovich had been prompted to do that by Chelsea going out quite meekly to Barcelona in the 2006 CL last 16. He wanted the European Cup, and didn't have the patience to just trust in his manager to get it done. This culminated in:

3. Absolute chaos off the pitch in January 2007, when Abramovich gave Mourinho a huge dressing down for the crime of not being top of the league, and the manager responded by complaining about Chelsea's transfer policy. What's most interesting is this was the first example of him playing politics and blaming those above him responsible for recruitment. He ended up picking a ridiculous side for a 2-0 defeat at Anfield which showcased all the club's problems.

It was assumed he'd be sacked given how angry Abramovich was. Instead, they agreed a truce, he briefly emerged even stronger (having just faced down one of the richest men in Europe), and he used the events to galvanise his squad. Chelsea promptly embarked on an incredible run full of staggering levels of self-belief and resilience, and entered April on course for the quadruple. But...

4. This was a major part of his downfall. If anything, they were too successful for their own good. You may recall the quad-chasing United squad of 08/9 losing fluency in the league towards the end of the season. So did a knackered Chelsea squad. That was the only reason Liverpool knocked them out of the CL - that they were tiring was obvious during the first leg of that semi. And it also enabled United to hold them off in the league. Both sides spent the final weeks of the season out on their feet, leading to that awful FA Cup Final between the two... but the moment Mourinho failed to win the CL, his goose was cooked, and his exit months later became inevitable.

Summing it up: yes, his political side reared its head for the first time. But if Abramovich hadn't stuck his beak in, they might have stayed at the top under Jose for longer.
You wrote all that from memory?

I was actually thinking of his fourth season, where Chelsea dropped points against some lowly Norwegian team at Stamford Bridge, and that seemed to be the final straw for Mourinho. But I guess the results was not the biggest reason he was fired.
 

Sandikan

aka sex on the beach
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
53,736
A lot of people label Jose negative as a blanket demeanour, often people who don't even watch our games, or those who get caught up in a few disappointments, like the big aways, or the Seville games.

I had a discussion with a Tottenham fan today, who is blinded by the media driven narrative that we're a super negative team having a shambles of a season, yet Liverpool and Tottenham are having vintage seasons of glorious football. Yet seem to miss out that both are below us, and have won 1 cup between them in a decade.

In reality he's an arch pragmatist. You can't tell me that earlier in the season when we were knocking in loads of 4s that we were playing particularly negatively. Especially not when we fielded a striker, 3 attacking players, and Pogba.
We've been slightly derailed by Pogba getting injured so quickly after his 3 match ban, and he hasn't been right since. Add in Sanchez struggling to settle in, and that's 2 exceptional talents barely at 50% at the moment.

You suspect deep down Jose knows he hasn't quite got the team to go toe to toe with the big teams, so has to rely more on the defensive approach.

Can he put this right this summer, and get us fully powered? That's the huge question.
 

Santoryo

ripping the reward
Joined
Apr 10, 2014
Messages
6,302
His 3rd season was 2007....Chelsea finished 2nd and beat us in the FA Cup final,so it wasn't really a bad season...Finishing 2nd and winning a cup after back to back titles is hardly a crisis.He was sacked 2 months into his 4th season because he fell out with Abramovich....
Mourinho and falling out with people is just like normal Sunday afternoon for the guy.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,286
Supports
Arsenal
The answer to the OP is because his mentality and tactics don't work. That's not because football has "passed him by". It's because he himself has changed, dramatically.

The Mourinho who led Porto, Chelsea (first time round) and Inter to such success was an absolute phenomenon. I have never seen a more driven, relentless, psychologically and tactically brilliant coach in my life. The self-belief he gave his sides was out of this world; the way he led the media a merry dance was hilarious. Even journos loved it!

That Jose was always fully prepared for the opposition. But he was never, ever obsessed with them. He was neither proactive nor reactive, but balanced. Inter didn't just knock Barcelona out via an incredible backs-to-the-wall display in Camp Nou; he beat them 3-1 with a display of perfect counter-attacking football in the first leg too. And the final against Bayern? No parking the bus there either. High line, pressing that was out of this world, incredibly clinical finishing - and an entire team which from the outset, knew it was a level above Bayern. That's what he had given them.

But then, at the scene of his greatest night in the game less than 7 months earlier, he was humiliated 5-0 by Barcelona and Guardiola, his twin bêtes noires. And he just couldn't handle it. He'd been the all-conquering master prior to that night; now, he'd been exposed. So he stopped trusting his players; his fearlessness, always his number one quality, vanished; and rather than protect his players and treat them like a tight knit family, he started singling out individuals and poisoning morale.

What's happened to Mourinho since 2010 is he's become obsessed with defending not his team, but himself. Defending his prestige, his myth, if you like. That's why you see him so often referring to his past achievements - because the past is essentially all he has. "His mentality"? No Jose: it's about the team's mentality - which nowadays, he actually undermines with his constant throwing of individuals under a bus. He just never used to do that. He tries to control everything, turn his team into robots, and ends up hugely diminishing players with, oh the irony, 'personality'. He also divides fanbases: some instinctively siding with him against supposedly lazy, primadonna players; others seeing through his self-serving BS.

This is someone who rose so far, so fast, becoming the world's first superstar coach, that he's desperate above all to avoid others catching on. So he defends himself and blames his players, the officials, the authorities... anything other than looking at himself and his own horribly flawed methods. And yes, United's results have improved... but this is basic, primitive by such a great club's standards, short term stuff. No way, no way is he building anything long term; long term, he'll disappear off to pastures new and leave someone else to clean up the mess. Laughing all the way to the bank, as he always does.
Good post. But I think its not all about mentality and attitude. Mourinho's approach to team building and tactics has been pretty bizarre at United, in ways that depart from his past sides. Mourinho's teams have always been built to mainly play a low block defensively and to rely heavily on counter-attacks. But most of his sides were also tactically versatile, capable of asserting themselves in possession and bossing matches when necessary, even against high level opponents. At United, Mourinho has built a team of giants that has almost no capacity to play the ball on the ground against a high press or to boss matches against higher quality opponents. And the bizarre thing is that this seems largely intentional: Football is going one way and he has decided - in an almost consciously contrarian way - to go in a different direction.
 

Nate Dogg

Don't Make Me Angry
Joined
Mar 6, 2002
Messages
8,744
Location
UK
It's going to be painful watching the champions league next week, in particular the Seville vs Bayern when it is highly probable Seville will get thrashed.

Furthetmore the City vs Liverpool match will be equally excruciating to watch.

I don't think i will ever forgive Mourinho for the way he handled the seville matches and i still firmly believe he is not the right man to lead United and moreso his man management skills is a recipe for disaster.
 

marukomu

The Gatekeeper
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
20,649
Location
gusset
I still think Mourinho is doing a pretty good job. Rebuilding a team is a long process when you have to stay competitive at the same time. Add all the pressure of fickle fans and the media being totally against him and I am not sure anybody else could do it.
 

Denis' cuff

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
7,775
Location
here
I still think Mourinho is doing a pretty good job. Rebuilding a team is a long process when you have to stay competitive at the same time. Add all the pressure of fickle fans and the media being totally against him and I am not sure anybody else could do it.

Journos have to make a living (however low) and most fans have the attention span of a goldfish and expect a badly handled transition from Fergie to be put right by a new manager in less than two seasons
 

MadDogg

Full Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2002
Messages
16,108
Location
Manchester Utd never lose, just run out of time
Like I continuously point out, I don't believe Mourinho wants us playing as defensively as we have been lately. How we were performing earlier in the season was more like it, or at most like Chelsea played under him.

At the moment, we basically don't have a midfield capable of really going toe-to-toe with the midfields of other good teams (or even half-decent teams). Pogba was injured and since coming back has either been carrying the injury or has simply been in atrocious form, Herrera has been out injured and Fellaini has been out injured and only just returned. As such we've basically been playing Matic with either a hopelessly out of form Pogba or McTominay who has done quite well in games against some top teams but certainly isn't a well balanced midfield next to Matic. Combine that with an attack which just hasn't been able to counter-attack well at all over that same period, fullbacks who simply don't provide enough going forward (with the possible exception of Young)...we simply can't move the ball forward properly.

Now don't get me wrong, Mourinho certainly has to take his share of the blame for that. He's had a season and a half worth of transfer windows to buy players, and he should be able to get the players we do have playing better than they have recently. He's also made a number of mistakes in line-ups.

However there is a key difference between the two possibilities. If Mourinho wants us playing like this, then there is no reason to expect any real improvement. In that case I would agree it would probably be better to change manager again at the end of this season as I don't want this to continue into the future. On the other hand, if Mourinho wants us playing better but just hasn't been able to get the current team functioning right (at the moment, it has to be remembered it was doing much better earlier in the season...and as recently as Chelsea and Liverpool), then there is reason to expect an improvement going forward.

Considering Mourinho has talked about needing to improve the midfield, and has recently mentioned that our fullbacks haven't been providing enough going forward, there is strong reason to believe that it is the latter option. Those are the biggest problem positions this season so it's good to know that Jose does seem to have identified what needs strengthening. Which means that if we do go out and improve those positions, we have good reason to expect significant improvement for next season and it is rather ridiculous to have talk about getting rid of Mourinho. If come this time next season we are having the same problems, then perhaps we should revisit this train of thought.
 

Powderfinger

Full Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2015
Messages
2,286
Supports
Arsenal
Like I continuously point out, I don't believe Mourinho wants us playing as defensively as we have been lately. How we were performing earlier in the season was more like it, or at most like Chelsea played under him.

At the moment, we basically don't have a midfield capable of really going toe-to-toe with the midfields of other good teams (or even half-decent teams). Pogba was injured and since coming back has either been carrying the injury or has simply been in atrocious form, Herrera has been out injured and Fellaini has been out injured and only just returned. As such we've basically been playing Matic with either a hopelessly out of form Pogba or McTominay who has done quite well in games against some top teams but certainly isn't a well balanced midfield next to Matic. Combine that with an attack which just hasn't been able to counter-attack well at all over that same period, fullbacks who simply don't provide enough going forward (with the possible exception of Young)...we simply can't move the ball forward properly.

Now don't get me wrong, Mourinho certainly has to take his share of the blame for that. He's had a season and a half worth of transfer windows to buy players, and he should be able to get the players we do have playing better than they have recently. He's also made a number of mistakes in line-ups.

However there is a key difference between the two possibilities. If Mourinho wants us playing like this, then there is no reason to expect any real improvement. In that case I would agree it would probably be better to change manager again at the end of this season as I don't want this to continue into the future. On the other hand, if Mourinho wants us playing better but just hasn't been able to get the current team functioning right (at the moment, it has to be remembered it was doing much better earlier in the season...and as recently as Chelsea and Liverpool), then there is reason to expect an improvement going forward.

Considering Mourinho has talked about needing to improve the midfield, and has recently mentioned that our fullbacks haven't been providing enough going forward, there is strong reason to believe that it is the latter option. Those are the biggest problem positions this season so it's good to know that Jose does seem to have identified what needs strengthening. Which means that if we do go out and improve those positions, we have good reason to expect significant improvement for next season and it is rather ridiculous to have talk about getting rid of Mourinho. If come this time next season we are having the same problems, then perhaps we should revisit this train of thought.
The best perspective on Mourinho's vision of team-building can be gleaned by looking at the players that he has actually bought (over four transfer windows). He bought two midfielders (Matic, Pogba), neither of whom is a player who can dictate play, facilitate the build up, and run games. He bought two CBs (Bailly, Lindelof), neither of whom is a particularly good ball player who can be a fulcrum for building from the back or breaking the high press, although Lindelof has some potential in this regard. He hasn't bought any fullbacks at all, the other position (along with a ball playing CB and a string puller from CM) that is crucially important to any team that wants to boss matches.
 
Last edited:

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
He doesn't need to completely change his style, insofar as football still clearly has a place for pragmatic managers. But I do think he needs to recognise that the paradigm has probably shifted more towards attacking football being prioritised in recent years - as I've said before, the Real, Barca and Bayern sides who've won the CL in the past five years have generally been ones who either were excellent in controlling possession or at devastating their opponents with incredibly offensive styles and pacey, clinical players. And while none of those sides were weak at the back, I'd say they draw their strengths more from attack than they do defence. That runs contrary to Mourinho teams who always tend to be stronger defensively than in attack...for the most part.

Although a simpler reason for him needing to change his style, devoid of any tactical reasoning, is simply a look at his record. Between 02-10 Mourinho was so successful that an aforementioned season in which his Chelsea side finished 2nd, behind an immensely talented United side, while still winning the FA Cup and League Cup, is probably his worst year in that decade. Which points to a remarkable consistency.

Between 10-now, he's only won two league titles out of a possible eight (I'm counting 15-16 here, because by the time he'd left Chelsea had obviously blown it) which points toward the general decline of someone who used to basically win just about everything he set his eyes upon. He's still a good manager, generally speaking, but we haven't seen the dominant, imperious Mourinho for a number of years. And it's clear he'll need to make changes to get that back.
 

Neuron

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
180
Perhaps because we’re miles off first and went out against Sevilla in the first knockout round?
 

Minimalist

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
15,091
Jose is so this guy from Whiplash. Methods push everyone to breaking point and once the silverware has been landed in an historical season, it all seems to then fall apart soon after as the group can't handle being at breaking point any longer.
Does this all climax with United appearing a cup final, only to spontaneously start playing outrageously expansive, anti-Mourinho football against his will, each player mouthing 'fcuk you' everytime they pass him on the touchline?