Hoping this is polled as it's been the crux of a lot of intense discussion over the last six years.
Some supporters wanted Mourinho in purely on the notion he was a winner; someone who gets the results and trophies in irrespective of style or displeasure in the football played. Problem is, as we've seen, when that doesn't work out, you're left with dire football and a lot of discontent amongst the support, especially between those who are not in favour of this approach in the first place and those who back it and are prepared to stick to their guns.
In this era of high scoring, high-pressing, manic attacking, it really does feel like a team that does not play in this way is missing out. At the very least, supporters of these clubs are enjoying the football played and, perhaps, it's only once the mind has become accustomed to it that gripes about poorly organised defences, high amounts of goals conceded and so forth come to the fore.
We're very probably going to be in the market for yet another manager, and this question will once again split supporters. In an ideal world, you get both the results and the attack, but, the reality is pragmatic managers are supposed to come with the guarantee of stabilising a club and very steadily, but surely, making an outfit incredibly difficult to beat with high-scoring precedence far from assured. On the other hand, attacking managers can nosedive rapidly if 'found out', also, a lot of them have nothing to fall back on - if their football comes unstuck, they can look downright amateurish as their inability to orgainise defences compounds the problem if their attacking ideas are falling short.
Which way do you lean with regard to the question? The middle of the road manager is a thing of the past, which is why I've not included them - ironically, football is more black and white in terms of manager than I can ever recall, so, you get pragmatism or adventure. Where do you place your hat.
Some supporters wanted Mourinho in purely on the notion he was a winner; someone who gets the results and trophies in irrespective of style or displeasure in the football played. Problem is, as we've seen, when that doesn't work out, you're left with dire football and a lot of discontent amongst the support, especially between those who are not in favour of this approach in the first place and those who back it and are prepared to stick to their guns.
In this era of high scoring, high-pressing, manic attacking, it really does feel like a team that does not play in this way is missing out. At the very least, supporters of these clubs are enjoying the football played and, perhaps, it's only once the mind has become accustomed to it that gripes about poorly organised defences, high amounts of goals conceded and so forth come to the fore.
We're very probably going to be in the market for yet another manager, and this question will once again split supporters. In an ideal world, you get both the results and the attack, but, the reality is pragmatic managers are supposed to come with the guarantee of stabilising a club and very steadily, but surely, making an outfit incredibly difficult to beat with high-scoring precedence far from assured. On the other hand, attacking managers can nosedive rapidly if 'found out', also, a lot of them have nothing to fall back on - if their football comes unstuck, they can look downright amateurish as their inability to orgainise defences compounds the problem if their attacking ideas are falling short.
Which way do you lean with regard to the question? The middle of the road manager is a thing of the past, which is why I've not included them - ironically, football is more black and white in terms of manager than I can ever recall, so, you get pragmatism or adventure. Where do you place your hat.