José Mourinho | 2018/19 Performances
- Thread starter MyOnlySolskjaer
- Start date
- Status
Nothing's really changed since. The conditions are still probably among the very best in the world. We can't promise domestic success the way Bayern, PSG and Real/Barca but we have even better resources.
Mourinho's been playing games and it's come back to bite him.
If anything the tops of the club are finally realising that you can't stand and fall by the manager anymore and are getting more involved.
It's hard to feel aggrieved with with the board for disagreeing with spending record money for Maguire or soon-to-be free agent Alderweireld, using Martial as a make-weight or putting him on sale would be an absolute disaster of a decision.
Umm, that actually contradicts your point earlier in listing us giving full sporting control to the manager and you actually listed it as an advantage for us being a great job, then are going now and saying the board was right in taking control from the manager when it comes to transfers as if it's an advantage too!
Some consistency at least ? It's not a big problem to ask for 2 successive posts without an obvious contradiction as this.
Regarding conditions, if I'm a manager and want quick success in England in 1-2 seasons before leaving, I'll probably be targeting City and Chelsea, as they have been the teams winning the league regularly last few years.
At one point, some players were choosing to play for us for the sole purpose of us winning the league every year. Even an ex Liverpool player as Owen joined us just for the sake of winning the league, saying it himself "if you can't beat them join them". Everyone knew that if you want to play in England while throwing trophies in your cabinet, United are your best option.
I simply can't see it with us currently, while teams like City are providing the quick success for any manager who wants to throw an English Premier League title in their CV in the next few years.
We're currently poison chalice of a job. Let's imagine Mourinho failing and getting sacked, that would be 3 failing managers and zero league titles in 6 years. Good luck convincing the next top manager he won't share the same fate while there're easier jobs around for him in which he can succeed without all this nonsense pressure.
Mourinho put himself under the microscope with his antics in the press. What other clubs in europes elite will give the manager free reign over footballing decsions, tactics, signings, feck they even let Van Gaal plant more trees on the training ground. We're probavly the biggest club in the world who's still hiring managers to be managers rather than head coaches as Mourinho recently called it.
You'd target Chelsea, a team who's fired every manager they've had in modern times and in the last four years have finished 5th and 10th but not United? Where is your consistancy? Do you think Mourinhos renown has strenghened through his last Chelsea stint, Contes?
There is no team in England who can guarantee you titles anymore, you'll have a good chance at any of the top 4 teams but right now, you're only as good as your next manager. You're wrong if you think anyone could jump into Guardiolas shoes and continue the success he and the club have laid the foundations for.
We've displayed more patience by investments related to results than any other top club in the league bar maybe Arsenal who never really showed much ambition anyway.
I don't think there's a club as interesting a challenge as United for a manager confident in his abilities.
Last edited:
Why did you list us giving a complete sporting control to the manager in your first post then when you clearly knows it's not true and it was obvious from the last summer that Ed is the one who sanctions transfers at the end ? BTW LVG said previously Ed still didn't bring him some of the players he wanted so no he wasn't in full control either :
Regarding Chelsea, yes because I clearly and obviously listed "quick success for 1-2 seasons before leaving". Chelsea and City can guarantee a manager a premier league thrown in their CV within 1-2 years before he fecks off, something I don't see with Liverpool, United or definitely Arsenal at the moment. Top managers aren't a long term anymore, and they don't tend to stay at a club any longer than 3 years, if not sacked, they walk away themselves for other challenges so quick success is all that matters at the moment, both for the club and the manager.
We don't have a cheque book handled for the manager unlike City or PSG, the manager isn't in control so it's not really a big difference from other clubs around to be labelled "a different job". We're adding on that the fact that we have been a complete mess in organizing managing the football side of the club for 6 years, not guaranteeing quick success or league titles anymore as when we were under Fergie, a heavy demand by fans to play certain type of football, playing youth while challenging for the league at the same time.
Honestly don't see what's the great in our job except the name and prestige. Under Fergie and just when we left, we were, and I bet every manager wanted a shot at managing us during these days. Currently, nah don't see it really. It's only the prestige of being the manager of the most successful club in England historically. A manager who wants quick success without much restrictions will have other preferred targets for him, either in England or anywhere else.
That's a really great channel to begin with.
I found the video accurate for the most part. I don't think we utilize the full backs as much as the video suggests... that may change with Shaw growing into his role.
Because no one can give the manager everything he wants and there's not enough context for that Van Gaal quote to know what he actually meant. Let's say Van Gaal asked for Müller and Bale and Woodward couldn't deliver them, that's hardly the same as him dictating the footballing side of the club. Woodward won't care how you train, what kind of players you want or what sort of tactics you employ, he only handles the money. IMO Mourinho brought an unecessary scrutiny upon himself which has caused the top to take more notice and involve themselves more on the sporting side of the club than they'd probably hoped they'd have to.
The fans will only be harsh when the goings tough. As long as you're winning consistantly, a criteria every top team will have, all other wishes such as playing youth, style of play etc will eventually silence.
There's no director, no chairman or boardmember trying to coerse or claim influence over how the manager runs the team. Woodward is little more to the manager than an accountant, who's only involving himself due to the manager calling him out.
Not a great situation for the club of course but surely preferrable for many managers.
Chelsea and City can't guarantee success any more than we could. Even if they can, do you think that managers such as Pellegrini, Conte and Mourinho enhanced their position in world football through their stints at Chelsea and City?
Did Villas Boas, Scolari, Mancini?
PSG and Bayern can promise managers domestic titles but those are hollow projects as the only thing that really counts for them is success in europe, which no club can promise.
At United for better and worse, the only one who can create success is the manager, and he's given every priviledge to go on and do his work, but if he fails it's all on him.
I don't think managers today are as incentivised by short term deals as you claim because I don't believe that they enjoy failing or that it helps their careers somehow to collect severance pays from club to club that becomes smaller with every jump.
City and PSG don't have blank cheque books either, whenever they splurge they'll have to sell in order to manage FFP regulations which they've done well generally. Although both have been met with sanctions in recent years. City raised almost 90 million in player sales last year and PSG had to raise 60 this year.
City can spend more than us currently, but we're at a level no other team in the world can reach without some kind of assistance, foul play or not. Were an additional 60 million a year so significant to us then why are we only marginally better than the likes of Tottenham who've only spent, on average, around 10 million net in the transfermarket the last three years?
City probably are a more attractive proposition for managers at this point with the squad they've amassed. I never claimed that we're THE most attractive club in the world for any manager, but we have almost every luxury a manager could ask for at an elite club.
I've no idea, email them, they might share that with you. or msg them on youtube.
i really liked it. It made the flow of the presentation very easy on the eye.
Honestly, that is a very long post and you still didn't provide any good reason why we would be one of the best jobs for any manager. Your focus was to deny what each other club has not what what we will actually offer for any manager, and some of it is wrong too ( City do offer cheque books, they are the only English clubs to spend +200m in one season ). Also you didn't bring any example of a top manager who spent +4 years at any big club, Pep, Jose, Carlo, Conte, even Zidane. Some of them got a chance to stay long term but decided to move on their own ( Pep and Zidane ).
Still, you didn't give a single reason why managers will prefer us above other clubs.
Sorry, I felt like I did but I'll shortly sum my thoughts up for you:
• We're the most renowned and popular club in the world.
• We are the finacially strongest club in the world. We don't rely on external financing and can provide the manager with greater funding to work with compared to any other club in the world bar PSG and City, without the scrutiny and sanctions from FFP.
• We have no other sporting influence at the club apart from the manager who's allowed to dictate, build and manage the team with minimum interference from hands-on owners, board members, chairmen etc. The manager is free to follow their football philosophy. There's no Florentino, Hoeness, Abramovic.
• Compare to our european counterparts the prestige of domestic success in England is almost as great as that of succeeding in europe, although far more challenging compared to other leagues.
• We're just as, and in many cases more, patient with results compared to rival clubs. Domestic and european.
I admit that PSG and City can probably spend more than us but with the amounts that we are able to spend ourselves there's no reason we shouldn't be able to build a side that could rival any team in the world. No matter how much money you have you can only fit 18 player in the squad. It's ineveitable that with time, once we find the right manager, unless we already have of course, the advantage City has on us will be neglectable anyway. Mourinho's bought 9 or 10 players already for almost 400 million euros around 320 euros net going into his third season. Which other club apart from United can provide their manager with those resources without foul play or by having to sell your best players?
I don't think that two managers, having won everything they can with their respective clubs, proves your theory of managers actively looking for short term deals.
Ancelotti stayed for 8 years at Milan before he saw that the golden age was coming to an end. Moved on and subsequently got fired by Chelsea, couldn't motivate himself for PSG and then got sacked again at Real and Bayern.
Pep left Barcelona after 4 years because there was nothing more for him to achieve there, Bayern because the german league is a forgone conclusion no matter who manages them. What point is there trying to build a dynasty there?
Conte hit the ceiling at Juventus and moved on, there's nothing strange about managers seeking greener pastures somewhere else.
Jose took the chance to move up in the world when Real came calling got the sack, and the same at Chelsea despite having won the league title for both. Had he stayed longer if he was allowed, well he's still here isn't he? And that without having won a major trophy.
Fecking hell, you made me go long again mate.. Barely remember how I got myself caught up in this discussion in the first place.
Ok
We're not. Our budget every summer since Fergie retired had never exceeded 150m and you can check it yourself, so not really the strongest financial club when it comes to market. Other clubs are starting to outspend us already in last 2 summer. Chelsea outspent us last summer despite their shite signings btw.
In that department we're not different than any other club around.
We're not. We have far worse than a DOF. We have a CEO who is in control of everything and sanctions everything and wants to act as a DOF and have an opinion in manager's choices as what he did when he voted Mourinho's list in summer.
Whatever we think Mourinho was right or wrong but manager's opinion here isn't clearly going without restrictions. Ed do offer his views and interferes and thanks to his ignorance of football, it's a bad point not a good one.
He's trying to imitate Perez but there're light years between both in terms of experience in managing clubs. Actually we would have been better if there's a DOF in close work with a manager.
Ok, but you need a present success as much as you need a good history. Regarding domestic success in England, there're other clubs around that look more ready for challenging than us tbh.
As I said managers themselves don't really stick around much even if you don't sack them, they tend to walk away with themselves at some time to seek new challenges. Most managers don't stay anything longer than 3-4 years before moving on and the cycle continues, so in this short period managers want as much quick success as possible.
Point is we're not spending anything more than the other clubs, maybe even less, so that's not something to be used in our favor vs other clubs. Other clubs around aren't hanging by a thread and can't spend. They're spending loads as well.
That's not just 2, that's almost all top managers around. You're bringing a very old example of Carlo at a time managers were staying long term as Fergie and Wenger. After Milan Carlo didn't last long at any other club.
Other top managers around as well don't last any longer than 3-4 years for various reasons. Either the manager will get bored and leaves, or the players themselves will get bored and the inevitable decline in results will come, which will lead the manager sacked or leaving on "mutual consent". It's the nature cycle of modern football.
Pep could have been managing at Barca till now and he was worshiped by everyone but he got bored. Zidane could have built a legacy but he got bored. Conte was loved by everyone but he got a problem with the board and left. Mourinho used to implode by his 3rd/4th year, and you talked about Carlo yourself.
Only managers who are staying long term these days are tier 2 managers aka Poch, Klopp ..etc.
It either comes from the manager, board or players but one point everyone will be get bored of the other and a change will be needed to continue success and so on. Managers understand that they can't stay much long so they want as quick success as possible to throw it in their CV before the inevitable happen.
SAF was saving us from this cycle but once he retired we're no different than any other big club around and we're into this cycle as much as them. That's why most clubs build a long term team with top players that need only good coaching, so that sacking managers won't affect them much and the results will continue.
Have fun.
If that was the case surely he would have left after winning his second CL and not after losing a CL semi after letting a lead slip against ten-man Chelsea?
i reckon it's Prezi.
Thanks. Will check it.
Yes but again, we don't need to sell players before buying. Chelsea were able to aquire players for 260 millions worth of new players last summer because they had also sold off players for 200 million netting only 60 million. In fact since Fergie retired Chelsea have sold players for nearly 700 million euros (689 million to be precise). We during the same period of time have only sold players for around 200 million.
Eds involvement on the sporting side of the club AFAIK merely extends to transfers, the targets of which are set by the manager. How much he interferes with the managers planning is blurry. He clearly wants to sign players who are marketable but he's also signed many players by the managers demand that are far from it, i.e Fellaini, Matic, Fred etc.
It's clear to me however that he refrains from interfering with the managers preparation of his squad. The philosophy of football, training and preparation, deciding who plays etc are the managers domain alone.
There isn't a club in the world who does not restrict their managers, but apart from City, who are living in a bubble from the rest of the world, no other club will give a manager as much control as we do.
What basis do you have for that argument though apart from Zidane and Guardiola who in my eyes are are exceptional cases?
As I said, clubs apart from the PSGs and Man Citys cannot match our financial strenght without also selling. Liverpools finances were boosted by two consecutive seasons where they netted positively in the transfermarket, Chelsea have also managed positive net spend in recent years.
What we're discussing though is whether managers today are actively seeking short projects more often than before, and I don't see much evidence for that. I don't disagree that it's probably more difficult to retain than ever before to retain a seat at the worlds greatest clubs. But how often would you see a manager at the very highest echelon of clubs such as United, Barcelona and Real Madrid willingly abandon their position? Only Zidane and Pep have done it to my memory, and they are exceptional cases as they had already won everything they could for their clubs several times over.
Is it though ? We had spent loads under LVG but he also sold loads of players at the same time. His spend overall was 235m but the net spend in his 2 years combined was 129m only. Sure many were sold for pennies buy if you sell +20 players the pennies will add on at the end.
Under Mourinho the only season we didn't sell in was his second on. We did sold Depay in summer and Morgan in Jan of his first season, and in his last season we sold Blind.
Is there any actually CEO or board director who interferes with the manager planning of the team and tell him how to set up his team, what targets to seek and which way to play ? There's really not. It's always about transfers and what targets each club buy for the manager but no board member will tell his coach to play a certain way even if they don't like it. I remember Bayern board expressed several times they don't like the way both LVG and Pep played under them, but they never told them to change it, best they did was to sack LVG.
It's all about transfers and what they're willing to pay for manager but when it comes to pitch itself no one really get into his job.
There's no club who doesn't restrict his manager, I agree, and actually didn't ask for full power for our manager. My point is we're not actually different from any other club when it comes to this regard so you can't list this as an advantage. We're still reviewing the manager's options and sign who suits the board as well as the manager. Isn't that similar to other clubs anyway ? And I maintain that managers will prefer to work with DOF rather than with a businessman CEO imo.
Actually 3, because Conte walked on his own as well. You at the same time mentioned no examples to prove your point that top managers seek long term projects except an old one belonging to SAF and Wenger era (Carlo) so instead of me giving more examples, you should be the one supplying your opinion with some recent examples ?
Replied on these 2 points above already so no need to repeat words.
When talking about spending people often brushed aside the fact that jose ships out dozens of trash along the way.
500m additional on top of a good squad isn't the same with 500m buying a new squad.
Give nott county 500m they'd probably ended up at west ham level in current market. 20 players at 25m each. Which is standard for epl level player.
Give 500m to barcelona they'd become a monster.
500m additional on top of a good squad isn't the same with 500m buying a new squad.
Give nott county 500m they'd probably ended up at west ham level in current market. 20 players at 25m each. Which is standard for epl level player.
Give 500m to barcelona they'd become a monster.
Managers dont think beyond 2 years. They're living on the edge of being sacked all the time.
Why risk your job blooding a youth with no guarantee that they'll make it in 5 years when you can buy a ready made player now.
If a manager plays youth it's because they deemed the youth can do the job now, or out of necessity, or that he can produce the goods in the near future.
Saf didnt play youth because he loves them. He plays the co92 and trust them because they're that good. They are ready to play first team that year. Butt neville scholes instantly made the position their own by their own merit.
Give any manager a young ronaldo he will feature week in week out. If you're good enough you're old enough.
Then those links to Sandro. "Personal terms agreed". Called that it was fiction. A real transfer story wouldn't be carried by a single journo if it were really happening
Well we will need backup for Shaw and Dalot - how much will that cost?
Why wondering ? We already know from his City experience.
Made a mistake changing our approach at half time. It was wrong to send Fellaini forward. It robbed the defence of cover and didn’t provide additional support to Lukaku. Had we stayed the same we’d have won 1-0.
Would love it if somebody asked him why he changed our tactics and Fellaini's role in the second half moving him up and Fred back for no particular reason at all. I tried to figure whether Wolves have changed anything in their approach and couldn't see any difference until their goal. Sure, we weren't breathtaking in the first half but we were leading, why change anything?
Growing frustrated with his tactics.
Switching Fellaini and Fred positions then subbing off Fred were terrible decisions.
Not many will agree but I also think 4-3-3 is such a shite formation for us but more often than not it won't work. He needs to play a more narrow formation to suits our lack of width. He's not getting the best of some players playing this way and this formation.
Lots of changes need to be made.
Not many will agree but I also think 4-3-3 is such a shite formation for us but more often than not it won't work. He needs to play a more narrow formation to suits our lack of width. He's not getting the best of some players playing this way and this formation.
Lots of changes need to be made.
What formation do you wanna see? I like 433 it has nice balance to it, I like 442 as well.
If he continuous with his tactics his stock will fall very quickly with talented players snubbing him. We have already seen the effect. I am truly getting disappointed with him.
The most narrow formation possible, something like the 4-1-2-1-2 diamond or something. Bring Lukaku, Sanchez, Lingard and Pogba as narrow and close to goal as possible, and put Dalot and Shaw as bombing fullbacks to cover width.
Sanchez, Lingard are Rashford are proved to be shite on the flanks. He's not getting the best out of them playing them there. They're not great overall but they can do a bit more in correct positions.
We don't play 433,itself, we play 451.
It's not really a big deference. 4-5-1 is when we defend and 4-3-3 when we go forward. Most formations change according to the side you're playing the game on.
Won't change that any formation with wingers and no playmakers is shite for us.
I think a 442 diamond could work - we have the players for it now. Two FBs that give us width Dalot and Shaw and a DM/6 Matic, Pereira and Fellani
Our problems have little to do with formations. We lack basic things:
- Off the ball movement
- Quick passing
- Giving support to players instead of watching face 2-3 opponents
- Consistent first touch in the final third
- Not passing it back at the least bit of pressure
Agree.
It makes a huge difference in transition speed and quick support up front, by the time lukaku Holds the ball and bring them into play the defense is back in their position and completely absorbing our threat, and when lukaku runs in behind to stretch the play he has no supporting runs inside the box as both are too deep and take so much time to provide support which gives opposition all the time to reorganize their defense and create a 2 on one on our wide players.
It has a role for sure.
The formation we plays, 4-3-3, is dependent on having width players to get the ball down the flank and create to the striker thanks to the non existent of a number 10. Striker needs to do the holdup play and wingers need to occupy width to compensate for that If you're having such a terrible players on the width, or having strikers or number 10s shoehorned there, plus a striker terrible in holding up the ball, more often than not it won't work.
He needs to change to a system that suits the best of most of the players. He can get more of them with some tweaks.
- Status