I think that United will opt for someone who values the youth academy. On that respect Pep got an advantage. However, as second priority, they would prefer someone whose got EPL experience, so people like Moyes (whose got both characteristics) and Pardew (I don't know his credentials regarding youths but he had performed miracles at Newcastle and he keeps on that track he's in the right frame) may be preferred.
Hypothetical Question: Mourinho or Pep as United Manager?
- Thread starter ryan_forlan
- Start date
Mourinho's brand of football suits us better. Verticality, pace, intensity are things that you would associate with the Manchester United football.
Mourinho
Holds the record for most points in one season in England, Portugal and Spain.
Only issue would be whether we'd be able to give him a blank cheque-book like we usually needs in building a squad.
Holds the record for most points in one season in England, Portugal and Spain.
Only issue would be whether we'd be able to give him a blank cheque-book like we usually needs in building a squad.
This.
Mo has done all his travelling and will want to settle down, family and all -- unless he wants to take the Hodgson career path. Plus if I was the owners, he's the only manager in the world who you know has a guaranteed success every where he has gone. Can't say that about Pep and certainly not Moyes admirable a job as he has done with the Toffees but who has won absolutely nothing so far.
And tactically he has proven to be more flexible than otherwise suggested in the past.
Pep, who I prefer in terms of playing style may feeling like he's dreaming of Barcelona again at some point ie homesick and too much rain.
So the owner's choice is Mourinho for sure. Guaranteed winner for hire.
Besides he would provider the star power to help the IPO and clear up the debts. So for any potential investor, you know at some point United will come good even with a down year with Mourinho at the helm.
All makes absolute sense from an owner's perspective. No risk.
The whole Moyes thing is odd to me. He may...may, possibly, grow into the job but there's nothing, and I mean literally nothing to demonstrate he'd be a good United, or even big, big club manager at this point. He's demonstrated he can work on a budget to an acceptable level for an upper mid table club. That's it. He's also never played very good football. Akin to O'Neil in that regard, who suddenly got proposed based largely on the fact he was close enough to British & got Celtic to a European final. Well Roy Hodgson and Schteve McClaren got teams without Henrik Larsson in them to the same European final. So what? In fact McClaren did so not too long after being Fergie's right hand man in the Treble season. Credentials that would surely put him well above all of them in the overly fertile romantic imaginations of many of the "right way" lot.
Both have always struck me as bonkers candidates.
As for the OP, at this point in time, Mourinho is easily ahead. If Guardiola finds managing the best team in the world, and possibly of all time, at the club he captained and grew up at too stressful to stay for longer than 4 years, then any criticisms of Mourinho being the more likely to bolt are similarly bananas.
Moyes, O Neil & to a lesser, but still tangible degree Pep are all based on a sort of pre-emptive romanticism. All the actual facts point squarely at Mourinho. In big shiny flashing neon letters.
The whole Moyes thing is odd to me. He may...may, possibly, grow into the job but there's nothing, and I mean literally nothing to demonstrate he'd be a good United, or even big, big club manager at this point. He's demonstrated he can work on a budget to an acceptable level for an upper mid table club. That's it. He's also never played very good football. Akin to O'Neil in that regard, who suddenly got proposed based largely on the fact he was close enough to British & got Celtic to a European final. Well Roy Hodgson and Schteve McClaren got teams without Henrik Larsson in them to the same European final. So what? In fact McClaren did so not too long after being Fergie's right hand man in the Treble season. Credentials that would surely put him well above all of them in the overly fertile romantic imaginations of many of the "right way" lot.
Both have always struck me as bonkers candidates.
As for the OP, at this point in time, Mourinho is easily ahead. If Guardiola finds managing the best team in the world, and possibly of all time, at the club he captained and grew up at too stressful to stay for longer than 4 years, then any criticisms of Mourinho being the more likely to bolt are similarly bananas.
Moyes, O Neil & to a lesser, but still tangible degree Pep are all based on a sort of pre-emptive romanticism. All the actual facts point squarely at Mourinho. In big shiny flashing neon letters.
Moyes consistently over-achieves but it doesnt necessarily mean that he would do well in the CL.
Fergie was winning cups and beating the odds before he even got to United, Not comparable career accomplishments or paths.
I'd even consider over achieving a stretch. It's not like he's had terrible teams. Everton have usually attracted decent players and have good youth prospects (something that does count for him, depending on how involved at that level he is) so it's not like winning the FA Cup with the crazy gang or anything. And like you say, he's never actually achieved anything tangible to be considered "over' anything.
He's a decent manager, and a solid figure, but his comparisons with Fergie end at nationality and job security (and if you're looking for a Fergalike by those criteria, you might as well factor in hair colour and music taste) I completely understand the "there's more than just winning" mentality, but to then use Moyes as the masthead for such an ideology is barmy. At least Guardiola, regardless of how successful he'd be with weaker players, will always be relied upon to try and play the beautiful game. With Moyes there's nothing to suggest that beyond the imagined assumption he only plays the way he does because he doesn't have money.
He's a decent manager, and a solid figure, but his comparisons with Fergie end at nationality and job security (and if you're looking for a Fergalike by those criteria, you might as well factor in hair colour and music taste) I completely understand the "there's more than just winning" mentality, but to then use Moyes as the masthead for such an ideology is barmy. At least Guardiola, regardless of how successful he'd be with weaker players, will always be relied upon to try and play the beautiful game. With Moyes there's nothing to suggest that beyond the imagined assumption he only plays the way he does because he doesn't have money.
Pep! I think he can change the way we play and make us play more attractive football. Although with Mourinho, our defense will be even better. Wouldn't mind either.
Its only Chelsea where he spent a lot. He's not spent big at either of Inter or Madrid.
A post I received from a Newbie LawCharltonBest on PM.
Pasting it here:
" A lot are saying Pep, but is anybody worried about his signings?
It's a matter of opinion, but I never really rated his signings for Barca. I think his better players were the ones already at the club. "
Pasting it here:
" A lot are saying Pep, but is anybody worried about his signings?
It's a matter of opinion, but I never really rated his signings for Barca. I think his better players were the ones already at the club. "
Whats big, he's spent over a hundred million at both Inter and Madrid?
Moyes, and any lesser manager will piss their pants at the thought of replacing SAF, they wouldn't even dare to implement beautiful football / youth program, because they will desperately trying to prove to everyone. I bet they'd probably trying to win at all cost , and you can kiss your beautiful football off.
Managers like SAF/Wenger can afford to implement their ideology, because they have some leeway on their side, we can accept mediocrity for 3 years during Mou's Chelsea because we have been there done that and have faith in SAF.
Would Moyes, O'Neill lasted more than 2 season with average perfromance?
It's not always about players' faith in the manager, but fans as well. With Mourinho, at least we can at ease knowing he'd deliver soon enough. imagine the likes of Moyes coming on a losing streak. The media will shred him to pieces.
Managers like SAF/Wenger can afford to implement their ideology, because they have some leeway on their side, we can accept mediocrity for 3 years during Mou's Chelsea because we have been there done that and have faith in SAF.
Would Moyes, O'Neill lasted more than 2 season with average perfromance?
It's not always about players' faith in the manager, but fans as well. With Mourinho, at least we can at ease knowing he'd deliver soon enough. imagine the likes of Moyes coming on a losing streak. The media will shred him to pieces.
If you count out Kaka / Ronie, I don't think he even pass the 50M mark. Even then, he delivers for them. Unlike ehm.. kk... 100M for a carling cup.
Besides, His signing has been astute, those that didn't work didn't cost him alot.
He didnt sign those players and he spent 110 million at Inter and 135 at Madrid.
One would expect him to spend at places like Chelsea, Inter, and Madrid (even though in the cases of Chelsea and Madrid, the owners/presidents are responsible for splashing the cash). What works in Mourinho's favor is he doesn't need the money. He's shown its possible to win the CL with a smaller side like Porto with very little money. He's a fantastic coach in that regard.
huh? Where did you get these figures from?
He's spent close to 40mil at Madrid and taking into account Ibra's sale, had a net spend of less than 50mil at Inter too.
Thing is he hasnt even spent big at Either of Madrid or Inter. Its just some kind of a myth that he spent a fortune at both clubs to rebuild the squad.
Pep. He has proven he has the magic touch with youth, his style ties in the most and our squad is getting younger.
Also he is the only manager to get the better of Mourinho many times.
Well that's all relative Chief. Mourinho knocked Barca out of the CL at Inter and has managed a league and Copa Del Rey against Pep in his first two years at Madrid, which isn't bad at all considering Madrid's latest 'rebuilding project'.
I never said Jose's record is bad. I was just a indicating Pep is one of the few to get the better of him many times. You don't do that sans being great coach IMO. For Jose is that darn good
Another thing I find strange is people who think Pep needs more 'testing''.
1. The dude took over a Barca team that had the likes of Messi, E'too, Ronaldinho,Xavi, Iniesta and Puyol, that was under achieving and self imploding under Rijkaard. Sans any top level coaching experience.
2. Not only did he get all of them on his side, kicking out those who couldn't sing from his hymn sheet out. He stamped his authority and his own playing style on that team. The result was his team was totally different from Rijkaard's team at its peak.
3. He turned that team from one of infighting to a united front with great team spirit dn discipline. He also succeeded in turning a prodigious talent like Messi into one of the greatest of all time and one of the most consistent performers on the planet.
4. Under his influence Messi, Xavi and Iniesta became the best in the world.
5. He wasn't afraid to throw youngsters like Pedro and Busquets into the deep end and mould them into bonafide stars that helped win Spain a world cup and Euro Nations cup.
6. He has consistently displayed a knack for tactical awareness and innovation especially in big games.
7. In his short spell with his home town club, sans any previous top level experience he won 14 titles. Including 2 champions leagues and world club titles, losing his domestic league only once.
Honestly, how much more 'proving'' does such a fellow need
Frankly the only blight on his record are his dealings in the transfer market, in which his inexperience showed.
1. The dude took over a Barca team that had the likes of Messi, E'too, Ronaldinho,Xavi, Iniesta and Puyol, that was under achieving and self imploding under Rijkaard. Sans any top level coaching experience.
2. Not only did he get all of them on his side, kicking out those who couldn't sing from his hymn sheet out. He stamped his authority and his own playing style on that team. The result was his team was totally different from Rijkaard's team at its peak.
3. He turned that team from one of infighting to a united front with great team spirit dn discipline. He also succeeded in turning a prodigious talent like Messi into one of the greatest of all time and one of the most consistent performers on the planet.
4. Under his influence Messi, Xavi and Iniesta became the best in the world.
5. He wasn't afraid to throw youngsters like Pedro and Busquets into the deep end and mould them into bonafide stars that helped win Spain a world cup and Euro Nations cup.
6. He has consistently displayed a knack for tactical awareness and innovation especially in big games.
7. In his short spell with his home town club, sans any previous top level experience he won 14 titles. Including 2 champions leagues and world club titles, losing his domestic league only once.
Honestly, how much more 'proving'' does such a fellow need
Frankly the only blight on his record are his dealings in the transfer market, in which his inexperience showed.
He had the luxury of Messi, Xavi, and Iniesta in their collective prime. Messi and Iniesta were due to come into their respective primes whether coached by Guardiola or Graham Souness. Pep is a good manager, but until he does it with a lesser club, there will continue to be a question mark.
Plus if you look at the owners -- Moyes or O Neill would pose a big risk due to the lack of successful track record.
Then think of the type of players that would sign up for them? Big players wont come and the existing big players who have achieved more than the manager ever did would be so open to his new ideas ala Cloughie at Leeds.
Who hires managers -- owners. Maureen is the most logical choice. Pep as the romantic's choice.
Moyes and O Neil will never be in the running.
The fact is he engineered a system to get the very best out of them. If Tito for example, fails to keep that system going, and the become as useless as they were under Rijkaard in his last season, then Guardiola's input will have be even better respected.
Besides, if he goes to another big club and precipitates similar success? Are people still going to use the excuse that he has great players under him? Because some are acting like any unknown coach sans top level experience can take over that Barca team and continue churning out success.
Just think hypothetically: if a Solksjaer, Neville or a Giggs took over after SAF, had that type of success and then took a sabbatical. Would we claim he only owed his success to what SAF left him or the players at his disposal?
Guardiola won't be given any credit if his successor fails to reach the same heights. After all, he's getting a different team in which some of the stars (Xavi, Puyol, Alves) have already seen their finer days, at a time when Mourinho is building a monster at Madrid. Therefore, Villanova's success or failure won't be levied on Guardiola's legacy. Pep has to actually get out there and manage a team that doesn't happen to be the greatest clubs side in history, and take them to a league and CL title. For example, if he went to Spurs, Liverpool, or Newcastle and won the league and CL, he would be on equal standing as Mourinho.
The question mark around Guardiola comes in the transfer market and his ability to integrate players from outside the Barcelona setup into the team. He's spent a lot of money on players, but not many have strengthened the first XI. It also comes from the way he handles those players from outside La Masia.
As optimistic as I am about every United youth prospect, I don't see that production line of talent and the youth we have seen break through into our first team in the past decade either weren't ours (Rooney, Ronaldo, Da Silvas etc) or they needed time out on loan to prepare and are still at the breakthrough stage.
At United, the manager has to merge a multinational, multi-background, multi-style team. Frustrating or challenging? We really don't know how Guardiola would see it - short or longterm. Particularly without a transfer budget that allows for wholesale changes or high price failures (relative or otherwise).
As optimistic as I am about every United youth prospect, I don't see that production line of talent and the youth we have seen break through into our first team in the past decade either weren't ours (Rooney, Ronaldo, Da Silvas etc) or they needed time out on loan to prepare and are still at the breakthrough stage.
At United, the manager has to merge a multinational, multi-background, multi-style team. Frustrating or challenging? We really don't know how Guardiola would see it - short or longterm. Particularly without a transfer budget that allows for wholesale changes or high price failures (relative or otherwise).
They're already showing some of the same weaknesses as the Rijkaard team. Their away form this season has been uninspiring and the only reason they were able to keep the title chase open as long as they did was because Messi's away form suddenly improved.
If Tito can't do it (and he'll be sacked by Christmas if he can't) then it'll probably be a continuation of that Messi-dependency not working as effectively.
What people refuse to understand is Guardiola is the one who made them the greatest cub side in history. It had nada to do with the players at his disposal. After all Rijkaard had the same players and didn't do any where near was well, yet he had way more experience.
I also find it strange that people feel he should go to a Liverpool, a Spurs or a Newcastle and succeed to be considered Mourinho's equal. When Mourinho has tasted all his success at European giants who weren't in major decline.
Pep as he is now is unlikely to go to a club that isn't a force in their domestic league.
Barca's core where not in their prime during the Rikaard era though. Messi was still young and developing and Iniesta wasn't nearly as good. I'm sure Guardiola's presence accelerated their improving, but in order to believe that he was solely responsible for it, would entail arguing that Messi, Xavi, and Iniesta weren't the driving force behind Barca's success. Whoever takes over at Barca wont be as successful as Pep imo, because Xavi is now somewhat in decline compared to a couple of years ago.
But Iniesta and Messi are still up there, Pique is getting better and Fabregas has been added as Xavi replacement. Plus there is Busquets. If his successors fail to be as successful, Pep's input can't be ignored.
He is credited in many circles with grooming the youth of La Masia for the first team. Thus if our youth are as good as we think they are, surely, hed be able to do the same with us? After all, SAF will elave whoever takes over after him a serious bases to build future success on.
IMO United's task after SAF will simply be to pick a successful coach who can continue the status quo or possibly even upgrade it. Rather than a rebuilding/refurbishing job like both Pep or Jose had to face in their very first big jobs.
IMO Pep or Jose would do wonders for us. I sincerely hope we bag one of them. For both of them have a record of improving players and instilling success.
Jose
If Pep has to coach somewhere else, I hope it's United
Who is your preferred choice then?
What?! You do realise that Mourinho never took over a team outside the top 2, do you? He always coached either champions or thereabouts.
Mourinho took over Chelsea when Chelsea had finished second in the Premier League before he arrived. Roman invested hundreds of millions and they became champions. Winning the FA Cup and the PL title, he basically achieved as much as Mancini achieved (in the same way). Except that Mancini took over City when City was sitting 10th in the table, not second.
Mourinho took over Inter when Inter was already reigning Italian champions for 3 consecutive times. The brainfarts of Barcelona and Real Madrid (pretty much making Inter a gift with Eto'o and Sneijder) and a huge portion of luck made him win the CL.
Mourinho took over Real Madrid after Florentino Perez invested half a billion Euros in Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema, Xabi Alonso etc. The team he inherited already finished La Liga with 96 points under Pellegrini.
But Guardiola has to make Liverpool champions to be on equal standings with Mourinho? The 8th of the Premier League with players like Carroll, Downing and Henderson? Why do people have this imagination of Mourinho turning midtable clubs into treble winners when in reality he always coached the richest and strongest teams in the world?
It doesn't matter where Chelsea were before he got there. It was his influence that go them to the top, twice. Also, Inter's prior success didn't involve winning a treble or winning the CL. Mourinho got them there. And now's he's unlocked Barca's (aka the best side ever) grip at the top as well.
The fact that he's been consistently successful everywhere he's managed tends to negate this argument. Also, Mourinho won the UEFA Cup and CL with very little at Porto. The fact that every side he has managed has gone south after he left is a testament to the impact he made when he was there.
Going by that argument Raoul, why are you insisting Pep will not deserve credit if Barca goes south after he leaves?
Porto wasn't the richest though. just the biggest in Portugal.
My argument is that he's managed one club and needs to gain a bit more managerial experience accomplishing similar success with other clubs before he can be regarding as being on par with Mourinho. Needless to say, Barca would have not been any worse off under Mourinho during the past four years.
Almost everything in this post is wrong. How does it not matter where Chelsea was before him? Turning a midtable club into winners and turning the runner-up into winners after additionally investing hundreds of millions in the transfer market is hardly the same. You just said Guardiola needs to make Liverpool champions. The 8th of the PL. When did Mourinho achieve that?
I would say that it was Roman's billions that made Chelsea champions in the first place and not particularly "Mourinho's influence". Except you also believe that "Mancini's influence" made City champions and not the oil money.
Mourinho didn't unlock Barca either. He won one out of 6 games this season against Barcelona. He played 4-2-3-1 with his usual lineup and pressed high up the pitch => he lost 1-3 at home. He reverted to 4-3-3 park the bus tactics with Pepe in midfield in the very next game => he lost again at home. The last game he won, he won when Barca was without Pique (not match fit), Abidal (liver transplant), Villa (broken leg), Sanchez (knock from the Chelsea game, had to sit on the bench) and Fabregas (not risking more injuries ahead of the second Chelsea game). Barcelona had to play Alves and a reserve player (Tello) upfront. Whereas Real played their full strength side.
The core of Mourinho's Porto side also made it to the Eurocup final in 2004. It had Deco, Carvalho, Nuno Valente, Maniche, Costinha and Paulo Ferreira in it. All of them played in the EC final for Portugal. A team that beat England, Netherlands and Spain on its way to the finals. Far from poor and not compareable to the current Porto side.
Mourinho's sides don't really go south after he leaves either. Hiddink, Ancelotti and even Di Matteo won major trophies at Chelsea with basically the same core of players. Di Matteo even won the CL with David Luiz, Cahill and Bosingwa in defense. Beating Bayern at their homeground, something Mourinho couldn't achieve with a much better side at his disposal this season. Only Inter went south but Inter's squad has an average age of 30 or something like that. Most of their players didn't have anything left to play for after the treble.
I'm not saying that Mourinho is a bad coach by the way. He's among the best. But if you think "making Liverpool champions" is what Mourinho is all about, then I'm just lost for words. Only Rehhagel, Benitez and Di Matteo belong in that category in this century.