That is because Jose is one of the few capable of doing what Pep did. After all he did it at Porto.
Hypothetical Question: Mourinho or Pep as United Manager?
- Thread starter ryan_forlan
- Start date
Its simple really. Chelsea were a good side and Mourinho made them Champions. Inter were Champions and Mourinho made them CL and Treble winners. And yes Mourinho's sides do go south after he leaves. No one is going to argue that Chelsea didn't take a dip after he left. Certainly Inter have as well.
Yes, I agree. The broader point is that he's able to do it at big and small clubs. If Pep is as good, then he should have the same ability. Time will tell.
Indeed
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.
How bout we install kermit the frog at united then? Can you explain why the likes of Hiddink, scolari, avram grant, avb all fail what mourinho can do with ease?
that's just bollocks, based on that line we can install you as the manager of United and we're still be champions??
People tend to forget just how good Chelsea were in 04/05. Broke all sorts of records, near impregnable defence, extremely good in attack. Of course Abramovich's money helped, but ultimately it's the manager who brings it all together.
And Terry, Lampard et al stated on numerous occassions they became better players thanks to Mourinho.
And Terry, Lampard et al stated on numerous occassions they became better players thanks to Mourinho.
I've said numerous times before on here: if mourinho really thinks he is the special one and wants to be remembered as the very best, he should go to Liverpool. Turn them around, he would have nothing left to prove. I don't think he could do it.
Having said that, he would be less of a risk for United than Pep. As much as it pains me, I don't see anyone else anywhere near as qualified to manage us as Jose.
Having said that, he would be less of a risk for United than Pep. As much as it pains me, I don't see anyone else anywhere near as qualified to manage us as Jose.
I think he could. It isnt as if Liverpool dont spend, its just that they've spent very poorly. A manager like Mourinho in charge with the owner's backing to spend 100mil and i'd back them to finish in the top 4 for sure. Title challenges will take longer but that'l come too.
Yeah I think he could as well. As you say, they do spend. They just tend to spend poorly. What Mourinho does so well is make his players believe they can do anything and somehow get them to bleed for the cause. It's a great ability for a manager to have.
Also, Liverpool would attract a different level of players because of the mourinho factor. I just hope he goes to Liverpool or City. Would be really terrible.
Does not go you mean. I dont think he will anyways, not to Pool specially. City might interest him but then that's a no goner if he wants to manage us someday.
Of course I can. In fact I already did:
Chelsea spent € 170 million in the transfer market in 2003.
And then Chelsea spent another € 160 million in 2004.
And then Chelsea spent another € 90 million in 2005.
Figures from Transfermarkt.
That's close to half a billion Euros within 3 years. In 2 transfer windows, Chelsea added Drogba, Carvalho, Robben, Petr Cech, Makelele and dozens of other players into a team that had already finished the Premier League in 2th place before Mourinho arrived. Doesn't mean that Kermit the frog could have managed them but it doesn't take a miracle worker to win with those ressources either. In fact, Mancini did exactly the same with City.
AVB failed because he took a team full of 30+ year old has beens that someone else had assembled over half a decade ago and only added Mata and Meireles into the mix. Give him half a billion to spend like Mourinho did, let him add Hazard, Falcao, Hulk, Modric and Thiago Silva to the team. And then let's see again how he does. That would be compareable to what Mourinho has done with Chelsea.
The Mourinho hype in the English media is something else. "Making Liverpool champions." Please show me a Mourinho team whose core consisted of Henderson, Downing and Carroll.
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.
I don't understand how that can be turned into a point against Mourinho (unless I misinterpreted your post). All those players were either picked by Mourinho or performed at their best under him. Scolari, one of the most limited and stubborn coaches I can remember seeing, wanted to make a point of differentiating his team from Porto's European Champions and fielded this team (and similar ones in preparation games) in the opening game of Euro 2004 against Greece: http://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=4471
When shit hit the fan and we lost, and he felt his head was going to roll, he finally decided he could no longer keep Deco and Carvalho (among the best players in Europe at that time) out of the team and changed the setup against Russia and from then on: http://www.zerozero.pt/jogo.php?id=4474
Yes, they were obviously far from poor players, but who had heard of them before Mourinho made them into an CL winning team and contributing massively the core of players that reached the EC final a few weeks later.
It was Portugal that benefited from Mourinho's work at Porto and not Mourinho who benefited from the existence of a core group of European contending international players. In fact, they barely had any relevance in the national team before winning the Champions League with Porto, and were only fielded in an emergency when Scolari understood he had to save his ass.
Your logic is a bit shallow.
Firstly, a vast majority of the money Chelsea spent in the three year stretch you cite, was on players who weren't necessarily central to their success. A bulk of their goals during the Roman era have come from the likes of Hasselbaink (when he was still there), Lampard, and Drogba, and the first two predated Roman's spending. Players like Parker, Veron, Mutu, Crespo, Johnson, Geremi, etc all collectively went for about 75m, but can't be considered central to their success in 04, whereas Duff, Cole, and Makalele definitely were.
In 04/05 they bought Drogba, Carvalho, Cech, Robben, Ferreira. This was their core, long term building year for transfers. Money well spent for the most part.
In 05/06 they spent 33m on Essien, but also wasted 40m on Wright-Phillips, Del Horno, and Diarra.
The entire backbone of Chelsea's success from 2004 going forward has been a result of Terry, Lampard, who Roman inherited, and the core that Mourinho built, most of who lasted well beyond Mourinho's departure and continued to benefit Chelsea for years after. Drogba, Essien, Carvalho, Cech, Obi-Mikel, Ashley Cole, Kalou and so on.
On the second point:
Homeomorphic said:
Are these the same 30+ year old has beens that just won the FA Cup and Champions league ? I presume most of these has beens were also in their 30s (Lampard, Drogba, Anelka) when Chelsea won the league two seasons ago.
The bottom line here is that Mourinho made Chelsea into winners and all of their subsequent success has been contributed to by an infrastructure of players he put into place.
Point well made. Any argument suggesting Mourinho needs lots of money to achieve success is undercut by his success with Porto. That's something his critics haven't quite worked out yet.
I have a feeling you are just trying to troll me.
Mourinho's first Chelsea season (2004 / 2005):
1.1.2005
Liverpool vs. Chelsea (0-1)
Chelsea's lineup:
Cech (€ 13 million)
Gallas
Terry
P. Ferreira (€ 20 million)
Glen Johnson (€ 8 million)
Makelele (€ 20 million)
Damien Duff (€ 27 million)
Lampard
Tiago (€ 12 million)
Gudjohnsen
Robben (€ 18 million)
Subs that came in:
Drogba (€ 37 million)
Joe Cole (€ 10 million)
Kezman (€ 8 million)
All the bolded players where bought in the summer of 2003 or later after Roman took over and splashed nearly € 500 million only between 2003 and 2005. "Not central to their success." Yeah, right. That's € 200 million worth of players right there playing in a big game against Liverpool in Mourinho's first season, bought from the Roman money. Let's also not forget that transfer fees back then were not as inflated as nowadays. € 200 million in 2005 should easily equal to € 300 million+ in the 2012 transfer market.
I'm not taking this point seriously. Conceding 90+ shots against Barca and Bayern, half a dozen of shots against the post / bar, 2 penalties not converted and Chelsea parking 10 men in the box and scoring from their only corner of the game is hardly a proof for Chelsea's quality. It's the biggest run of luck of the century. But here's another question, since you're mentioning it. How did Di Matteo beat Bayern in their home ground with Bosingwa, Luiz, Bertrand and Cahill in defense and Mourinho didn't with a much better squad? After all: he's won the CL with Porto. He should walk it with Real Madrid.
I have a feeling you are just trying to troll me.
Mourinho's first Chelsea season (2004 / 2005):
1.1.2005
Liverpool vs. Chelsea (0-1)
Chelsea's lineup:
Cech (€ 13 million)
Gallas
Terry
P. Ferreira (€ 20 million)
Glen Johnson (€ 8 million)
Makelele (€ 20 million)
Damien Duff (€ 27 million)
Lampard
Tiago (€ 12 million)
Gudjohnsen
Robben (€ 18 million)
Subs that came in:
Drogba (€ 37 million)
Joe Cole (€ 10 million)
Kezman (€ 8 million)
All the bolded players where bought in the summer of 2003 or later after Roman took over and splashed nearly € 500 million only between 2003 and 2005. "Not central to their success." Yeah, right. That's € 200 million worth of players right there playing against Liverpool in Mourinho's first season, bought from the Roman money. Let's also not forget that transfer fees back then were not as inflated as nowadays. € 200 million in 2005 should easily equal to € 300 million+ in the 2012 transfer market.
I'm not taking this point seriously. Conceding 90+ shots against Barca and Bayern, half a dozen of shots against the post / bar, 2 penalties not converted and Chelsea parking 10 men in the box and scoring from their only corner of the game is hardly a proof for Chelsea's quality. It's the biggest run of luck of the century. But here's another question, since you're mentioning it. How did Di Matteo beat Bayern in their home ground with Bosingwa, Luiz, Bertrand and Cahill in defense and Mourinho didn't with a much better squad? After all: he's won the CL with Porto. He should walk it with Real Madrid.
You're cherry picking facts here rather than taking them in their totality. If you look at Mourinho's record across the four clubs he's managed over the past decade, he's won major trophies every where including two major trophies at a relatively small (by Euro standards) club at Porto. This shows that he's capable of winning at small and big clubs, both with and without lots of money. That's a sign of a great manager. He shouldn't be expected to "walk it at Madrid" because he's up against what most consider the greatest club side ever, with three of the best five players in the world, and possibly one of the all time footballing greats. And yet still, he's won the Copa Del Rey and taken the league. That's quite an accomplishment for just two years against the best ever. Guardiola by contrast has managed success at one club. Impressive, but lacking any indication that he could replicate such success with a smaller club without the three best players in the world.
You're initial point was that Guardiola needs to make this current Liverpool side or even Newcastle champions to be considered equal to Mourinho. That's the only thing I'm arguing against. Not that Mourinho is undoubtly one of the most decorated managers of the decade, nor that Guardiola is still unproven outside the Barcelona system. I'm only arguing against the suggestion that Mourinho has ever managed a club similar to the 8th of the Premier League or Newcastle who don't have a budget at all. Because that's clearly not what Mourinho has done. He's managed 2 of the richest teams of the world which have both splashed € 500 million in the transfer market in a very short time (Chelsea, Real Madrid) and another club which was already reigning champions in their country and full of world class players before he arrived (Inter). Yeah, he won the CL with Porto. Well done. He won the final against Monaco. Benitez beat the best Milan side of the decade (Gattuso, Pirlo, Seedorf, Kaka, Maldini, Nesta, Stam, Cafu ...) with players like Traore, Carragher, Finnan, Riise and Kewell. Di Matteo beat Barca and Bayern at home with Cahill, Bertrand, Bosingwa and David Luiz. Cup competitions, eh?
Yes that's right - Liverpool, Newcastle, Spurs - any side that isn't considered a threats to win Europe anytime soon. In fact it needn't be an English side, just any side that's considered to not currently be a European giant. I made the point to contrast that Pep would do well to win the CL with another side, preferably one as unlikely as Porto, in order to draw a broader comparison between his and Mourinho's managerial capabilities.
Mourinho! Proven in the Premier League and more likely to stay for the long haul than Pep, who will eventually return to Spain sooner or later.
Also, Pep is a relatively unproven manager in the sense that he has only managed a Barcelona team which was ready made for him when he arrived. Would like to see him build a winning side before annointing him as a better candidate than Mourinho.
Also, Pep is a relatively unproven manager in the sense that he has only managed a Barcelona team which was ready made for him when he arrived. Would like to see him build a winning side before annointing him as a better candidate than Mourinho.
I wouldn't mind either but all indications show at Mourinho being the best for the job. Whist there are things that I might like about him, I simply cannot see anyone able to keep United going forward after SAF other than him. Funny, the very reason (his arrogance) that some don't want him at United, is probably the very reason he's the best fit for post SAF United.
Also, there's a lot of talk about a 'manager for the long haul'. What do we mean by this? 3 years? 10 years? You're living in fairy land if you think we will another manager that will stay at United for that long. However, we do need a very strong manager that won't be afraid to impose himself on the club and won't be afraid of the SAF legacy to ensure we past the initial blues of losing SAF. That to me is the greatest single danger we will have, and JM will provide the necessary buffer. I don't care if he only does for 3 years, as long as he provides the necessary buffer we need. If we don't hire a high profile manager like him we also risk losing many players and in the process we risk becoming another Liverpool case. The owners will be thinking of these sort of issues themselves and if he was available and willing, then I'd stomach Mourinho's antics for a 3 to 5 year period to stablise the club and make everyone 'forget' about the initial post SAF blues.
Also, there's a lot of talk about a 'manager for the long haul'. What do we mean by this? 3 years? 10 years? You're living in fairy land if you think we will another manager that will stay at United for that long. However, we do need a very strong manager that won't be afraid to impose himself on the club and won't be afraid of the SAF legacy to ensure we past the initial blues of losing SAF. That to me is the greatest single danger we will have, and JM will provide the necessary buffer. I don't care if he only does for 3 years, as long as he provides the necessary buffer we need. If we don't hire a high profile manager like him we also risk losing many players and in the process we risk becoming another Liverpool case. The owners will be thinking of these sort of issues themselves and if he was available and willing, then I'd stomach Mourinho's antics for a 3 to 5 year period to stablise the club and make everyone 'forget' about the initial post SAF blues.
That's the anomaly and really only based on a lucky run in the CL, everything else points to plenty cash being splashed and no attention paid to developing young players.
His jobs since Porto have all been about delivering instant results - reporting to impatient directors who were interested in trophies not youth development. He's done everything his bosses have wanted.
However his Madrid bosses are going through acute Barcelona envy right now and they want it all: the trophies, the kudos and the youth. When he arrived at Madrid the press asked how long it would take to overtake Barcelona, he told them 5 years and they laughed. He's just signed a contract renewal that would take him past 5 years, so maybe his bosses took him more seriously than the press did.
However at the end of year 2, he's won La Liga and Madrid's reserve team have done what he asked them to, they've been promoted to the second division so next season his young players will be be getting serious competition every week. He's given more young players debuts than any manager since Del Bosque, he's the first Madrid manager to watch the reserve team since Del Bosque.
If he can't get some of their young players through it won't be for want of trying.
As to the original question, If we got either I'd be delighted. Of the two, I'd say Mourinho is the safer choice, but only because he's a known quantity who copes with diversity in playing styles and players. Guardiola remains an unknown when it comes to managing players brought up outside Barcelona's academy.
Winning two major European cups in consecutive years can't be construed as an anomaly.
Either would do well I think but for me it's Jose or bust after SAF sails away.
I agree about Guardiola being an unknown for the reasons you stated, but I also think similarly about Mourinho's suitability because of what you said about his deliverance of instant success. His slash-and-burn management style is incredibly successful at delivering instant success (as his employers have craved) but I think it's part of the reason he has moved on so quickly - I don't believe it's conducive to long-term success. I firmly believe Fergie will leave this club in such a position that we can contend for years to come, so that we don't need that win at any cost mentality. However, if Mourinho sees out his new contract at Madrid then it will mean he will have gone long enough without pissing anyone off seriously enough to be moved on, ending any doubts some of us could have about him in terms of suitability.
That's interesting, I didn't know that.
How will both perform though when faced with far more restrictions in transfer dealings?
We see the same picture. Good analyze.
Mourinho...would love to see him with a long-term project which is what the united job will be.
None of this 3 year business.
None of this 3 year business.
Mourinho passed that test already at Porto.
I think he'll get bored after winning the treble
Mourinho. His players worship him and has a track record with all sort of teams.
Pep is amazing too, would love him to manage another team and come to United.
Pep is amazing too, would love him to manage another team and come to United.
Preserve Fergie's Brain?
Good post. I think a lot of people forget that Mourinho offers a lot more than simply results. There's no doubt either way that he's a top quality manager and one of the best in the world, whether you love him or hate him.
30 years ago, the question would have been:
Clough or Sexton.
Mourinho for me. Proven record where ever he goes!
Clough or Sexton.
Mourinho for me. Proven record where ever he goes!
Exactly! that's the common denominator. Had Scholes goal not being given offside Mourinho would not have gone on to win the CL, and history is changed.
Porto were a team playing well, at their peak and got lucky in a forgettable year for the big clubs. FFs Monaco in the final, says it all. None of the big clubs turned up that year. The CL was that poor then even the scousers managed to win it the year after!
Yes mourinho had done great since, and he sets his teams up to get results. But he did shite with Inter in the CL his first year, and did considerably better once he was given carte blanche with the spending in the second.
To Mourinho's credit he may spend a lot, but he rarely buys poorly, and he manages to integrate his signings successfully, and improve the whole team as a result. I don't think he is as good as many think though and i agree, Porto's huge slice of luck that year, has clouded the judgement of what mourinho is capable of generally.
that is the only time he has been successful without spending fortunes, and without the CL win, his other achievements at Porto would not have been enough on their own, and only marginally better than what AVB did a couple of years ago. So the bottom line is that CL win with Porto was won after a huge slice of good fortune, and without that mourinho's critics would have a much easier time convincing people he is simply a mercenary manager who requires hundreds of millions to produce a couple of years at the top.
No chance, if he comes he will want to spend fortunes on established and experienced players who are primed to win. He will not suffer the inconsistency and patchy contributions of the youngsters in our squad. Can you imagine what he would make of the weekly uncertainty around the fitness or form of the likes of cleverley, Anderson, Rafael, Fabio, jones etc? Nah Mourinho likes to know what he is getting from players week to week, and if he cannot depend on you to provide it, you will be out, no matter who you are.
He may try for a year, but if success doesn't come, he will be in the media saying he needs this and that to get the job done. Just as he did at inter. I have no doubt given what he wants he will buy the right players for a couple of years success, but after that the only way is down, and he will be off to pastures new, before the inevitable decline of older players who have achieved it all sets in.
Guardiola on the other hand has a philosophy of football that requires infrastructure and a certain level of technical composure. He will surely have to put something in place at Utd at the youth level, before getting the team to play the way he would like us to. this may not be as immediately successful as mourinho's method, but it would be better in the long run for our youth, and whether Pep was successful or not, we would still have gained something that will prove ultimately beneficial in the future.
Pep by some distance, Mourinho is a great manager but as a person is too arrogant and self-centered for my taste. Oh, and Pep's footballing philosophy is more likable, IMO.
I don't agree here with you. Inter was the champion of Italy but that was only because of problems Juve and Milan had. In those years Serie A was really in it's worst years and Inter was clearly much better to other teams but still much worse than other big European teams. Inter consistently were being eliminated in first knockout stage or quarter finals. Liverpool easily defeated them, we easily defeated them in Mourinho's first year. Inter's mentality in Europe was similar to England's mentality in big stage. Also, that group of world class players wasn't that clear on that time. Milito and Sneijder who were best players of Inter in that season were not that 'big players' in that time. An outcast of Madrid and a player of Genova were not considered world class. Not Samuel who was making 2 mistakes per game before Mourinho came there. Clearly you are underrating Mourinho for that success. It was simply a heroic act from him that won it.
And I don't even want to start talking about his success with Porto.
About Guardiola, really he's great but he has to prove himself outside Barca, who is considered by many as best team ever, and had 3 of 4 world's best players. Also, it had almost money like Madrid and Chelsea and to be honest Guardiola spent much too although he had the world's best academy.
How either will operate with our budget will be interesting. They are not used to not being able to get top players on fat wages...