He also gave a long interview a short while ago about how he wants to settle somewhere and stay for the long haul. It sounded very much like 'I want the United job' when I read it.
- Status
Their best players today are Essien and Drogba...who bought them to the club?
Last season we played some pretty awful stuff at times and relied heavily on a strong ad well organised defence...yet i dont see anyone claiming Sir Alex is a defensive manager....
Remember : Mourinho are you listening ? You'd better keep your trophy glistening ! Coz we'll be back in May to take it away , walking in a Fergie WONDERLAND
Memories of that fantastic season ...
Cracking chant, cracking season
What was the one about Joses missing dog??
Would be a risk, but Barca did the same with Pep, and id love to see us do it with Ole.
I would much prefer Laurent Blanc. He has had an outstanding start to his managment career, looks good in Europe too with Bordeux and would attract all the top french young players before they become expensive superstars! Mourinho is a little overhyped as a manager. at Inter his team have been nothing special and his signings have been very suspect such as Queresma, Sneijder, Muntari etc. Chelsea only bought Essien when he was their manager because Fergie was interested so Mourinho should not claim the bragging rights for that one. Also his record at playing youth is poor and he is already argueing with Inters only youth star Balotteli! Other than that he is a good motivator but I take Blanc anyday!
Mourinho is perfect for the job.
I hated him when he was at Chelsea. Don't have much of an opinion on him anymore. That's probably down to the fact that there's not much coverage of his interviews and press conferences. Still unsure how I would feel about him being the next United manager. He could handle the pressure easily, but there's still something I just don't like about him.
He's one of very few that could handle the pressure, Fergies are big big boots to fill. Way to soon for Ole yet, he needs to win stuff as a manager first, assistant to jose would be interesting tho for the experience and to help the new boy acclimatise.
Give it to Bruce, he's done well with whatever club he's been at and has never failed united. He also understands the traditions of the club. He deserves a shot at it.
Agreed 100%
*cough* Huddersfield *cough*
Eric was a bit of a wanderer and we thought he was a twat before he signed.
Declared OT as home and became the new king.
Nothing to say Jose wouldn't do the same.
Besides, why would he manage the Portuguese team from Spain?
My choice would be Frank Rijkaard. Proved he is a top class at barca.
Let's see if Blanc continues to sell players to us at bargain prices (Obertan at 3m). If he sells Gourcuff to United for 10m or under, that might hint he's coming to United
just to play devil's advocate, what were guardiola's credentials?
he certainly won't be at galatasaray for long. if i were city, i'd get him in asap.
Just to play killjoy, what team was he inheriting?
Dont think that would be a good idea at all.....he lost the dressing room totally at Barcelona a long time before he eventually left allowing the likes of Ronaldinhio and Deco to literally run amuck and do as they pleased...the lack of squad dicipline was the main reason behind Barcelona struggling so much in his last year at the club...it was no surprise at all that when a far more strict and team orientated individual like Guadiola came in he made it his first priority to remove the likes of Ronaldinhio and deco and get some much needed dicipline spirit and a genuine work ethic back into the camp....then you saw the result...a Barcelona that was fitter, stronger and far far superior to what it had been.
Rijkaard would be a disaster for us...
Press your red buttons or text to........
I think we should follow the Ice Hockey team that threw it open to the fans !
I think we should follow the Ice Hockey team that threw it open to the fans !
He had none. But his success can't be viewed as anything more than a one off exception, rather than the norm. The entire concept of choosing former players for no other reason than that is utterly reckless in my view, particularly when there are quality, World Class managers who are interested.
I can see Rijkaard popping up at Chelsea after Ancelloti's inevitable exit.
Until of course he reaches the ultimate challenge. Nowhere to go beyond United.
The important bit about Mourinho is that he won the league every year he was in England, has won the league his only year in Italy, not withstanding the Champions League, UEFA Cup, and various other trophies at Porto. All he does is win wherever he goes.
It's really shocking how some prefer a manager who:
1. Has a terrible record at bring through youth. How many youngsters did he bring through or even give chances to at Chelsea? At Inter he's on the brink of wasting two of the most talented Italian prospects due to mishandling.
2. Has his sides play dull football. Okay, he had one season of decent football at Chelsea (with a side he inherited), but the next two seasons were mechanical and dreadful to watch. Hoof the ball up to a lone striker Drogba, grind out wins. At Inter; pack as many into central midfield as possible and, again grind out a result. Both systems used by Mourinho are entirely against the United way. Exciting wingers, two forwards.... Not with Mourinho.
3. Has never managed at one club for over 3 years. Self explanatory.
4. Has a poor record in the transfer market. Shevchenko, Sidwell, Pizarro, Boulahrouz, del Horno... Just to name a few at Chelsea. Quaresma and Mancini in his short time at Inter.
I wasn't aware that Mourinho won the League in 2007 either.
My fecking arse, Elvis!
Lampard has always been a top player even when he was 19 at West Ham and Terry was made by Makelele sweeping in front of him which made him look impregnable. We have seen since Makelele's departure Terry isn't as collussus as first thought, although of course he is a good defender.
Mourinho in my view has been fortunate. Of course he is a good manager, I do not dispute that, but let's get the facts right, if it was Monaco who beat Porto in the 2004 CL Final, we would have seen Deschamps at Chelsea, not Mourinho.
He also inherited a very good, strong squad which had been in the CL and finishing in the Top Four for several seasons prior due to good work by Gullit, Vialli and Ranieiri especially. Oh yeah, and he walked into the job with a billionaire's backing and to a squad which had strength as mentioned, yet he made a few tweaks and bought some good signings and made them very, very good.....what's not to say Ranieiri, Deschamps or even Alan Curbishley could not have done the same given the opportunity and resources?
He then left Chelsea and went to where? Inter Milan, who had won the Serie A for the previous two seasons prior to that and another side backed by an oligarch-type figure in Moratti. Serie A has been seriously flawed since Juventus were demoted and Milan grew old, Inter have basically pissed it or cantered to it without massive difficulty the last few years.
That's why if City finish in the UEFA or even finish in the Top Four (unlikely, but they have a strong squad for the second half of the season), I think we will see Mourinho lured to Eastlands to take over the helm, and why? Because he'll be given endless funds in a very strong established squad, be back in the English media spotlight who kiss his arse with all his quirkiness and arrogance and of course be able to pit his wits against Ferguson one last time at one of our rivals. Mourinho doesn't want to be Ferguson's replacement, he wants to be his equal and even successor in the trophy stakes by the time he's the same age.
feck Mourinho, I don't want him nowhere near Old Trafford as our manager.
It's really shocking how some prefer a manager who:
1. Has a terrible record at bring through youth. How many youngsters did he bring through or even give chances to at Chelsea? At Inter he's on the brink of wasting two of the most talented Italian prospects due to mishandling.
2. Has his sides play dull football. Okay, he had one season of decent football at Chelsea (with a side he inherited), but the next two seasons were mechanical and dreadful to watch. Hoof the ball up to a lone striker Drogba, grind out wins. At Inter; pack as many into central midfield as possible and, again grind out a result. Both systems used by Mourinho are entirely against the United way. Exciting wingers, two forwards.... Not with Mourinho.
3. Has never managed at one club for over 3 years. Self explanatory.
4. Has a poor record in the transfer market. Shevchenko, Sidwell, Pizarro, Boulahrouz, del Horno... Just to name a few at Chelsea. Quaresma and Mancini in his short time at Inter.
I wasn't aware that Mourinho won the League in 2007 either.
All he does is win. There's no arguing with that.
1. How can you seriously evaluate his youth record when he was only with Chelsea for a couple of years and a bit, and the club was in a perpetual state of flux due to Roman's transfer binges?
2. I suppose it depends where your priorities are. Winning trophies or making a subjective argument about playing dull football.
3. Nothing wrong with that if you win every trophy there is. United will be the ultimate challenge for him. He knows he can't jump around indefinitely and United are the club to keep him in one place.
4. Re Transfers: Fergie went through a rough patch as well during the Djemba/Kleberson/Forlan/Miller run. Fortunately for Jose, he gets it done irrespective of the players. He even won a CL with Bennie fecking McCarthy FFS.
I really don't want Mourinho here for the footballing style reasons and I don't think the 'well who else is there?' argument is sound enough to support him.
Lampard and Terry weren't nearly as good as they became under Mourinho.
Given that Ranieri didn't get it done and was sacked, and Mourinho proceeded to it get done both years, followed by Chelsea sweet feck all for leagues after his departure, it seems like Jose was the missing link to Chelsea's success. You're essentially suggesting his success was down to having won the CL, when infact he's consistently won leagues wherever he's gone as well. Not a likely scenario with Ranieri, who has flopped after leaving the Bridge, and the likes of Deschamps or Curbishley.
Who cares ? He won the league. Its the only thing he should be measured by. Full stop.
Not likely, and besides he would get the same at United. He's more likely to move up than downgrade to a lusterless job at City.
Nor is it valid to suggest he shouldn't be considered in lieu of no other credible alternatives.
He might might be a 'winner', but he's also a cnut. That got found out quite quickly by all the ABU's after their initial delight that another club had broken Arsenal's and particularly United's stranglehold on the PL. His brand of footy for both Chelsea and Inter is boring....breaking the opposition down with five defenders, inviting them to attack then go in for the kill, boring. United attack from the outset, he won't change his manner, we wanna see the United style, not the Jose's Way or No Way...
Honestly, whilst I'm proud of players like Eric, Kanchelskis, Ronaldo and Schmeichle having been some of ourgreatest players, I am also proud that we have held a distinctly British/Irish element of the club and Mourinho will not pursue the youth as vigorously as Ferguson. Fergie knows the names of every youth player and even knows their mam and dad's names, their brothers and sisters and what school they went to. Mourinho is a toff, grown up in an affluent Portuguese family and has shown disdain for poorer elements, he will not adhere to our youth policy and we will lose this as such, preferring to buy Silvio Costalotti for instant success rather than continuously create and rebuild an empire as Fergie has done.
With every Forlan and Djemba-Djemba, there were Ronaldo's and Rooney's bought the same seasons. Of course not every player makes it, but Ferguson's signings over a period of a decade up until Veron and Forlan in 2002 were pretty much bang on (maybe with the exception of Poborsky and Cruyff). Fergie seems to get some unneccesary slandering for Djemba and Miller as if these are the only signings he's ever made. How about Hughes, McClair, Ince, Keane, Cole, Schmeichel, Irwin or even gems like David May, quiet and unspectacular but completely effective, or Dion Dublin? Bought for one million quid, played a handful of games for us around an unfortunate leg break in which Cantona joined us during the recovery and was duly sold for twice the amount we paid to Coventry, what good business was that?
Which youths was he supposed to bring through? Name one. They had none worth playing.
2000 Benfica
2001–2002 União de Leiria
2002–2004 Porto
2004–2007 Chelsea
2008– Internazionale
Where do you think he should have stayed? União? I don't see any evidence of disloyalty in that CV.
Oh bullshit. When he targeted players for the first 11, he did very, very well. Drogba, Carvalho, Essien - great players. Squad members like Bouhlarouz and Del Horno were less convincing, particularly free ones like Sidwell and Pizarro. But so what? And Shevchenko wasn't even his signing, we all know that.
I understand your point, but it is unfair to compare Mourinho to Sir Alex, who is the best there is right now. Really need to compared to other potential suitors, such as Blanc, Bruce, Moyes etc.. I didn't mention the likes of Hiddink, Capello, Quieroz (who would be aweful) because I feel the replacement should be long term.
I was responding to Raoul's comment that Ferguson had made mistakes too, I'm full aware Ferguson is unique and we may never see a mna like him again at ours or any other club, but Mourinho might be good but my points are I'm not so sure he's right for United.......
He is no longer my first choice. Blanc or Ole to replace fergie:keane:
mikel for one, chelsea's youth system was under someone elses control and was still in the early process of being built while he was there, I don't see anyone else coming through at chelsea since he left either, it's one thing to develop talent, completely another to dilute your first team with substandard youth for the sake of it
we play 4-5-1 in the big games and have done for several years
one season of decent football is seriously undervaluing the quality of chelsea in his first season
IIRC the second season is when robben's injury problems started to become a real issue and adjusted his team accordingly to keep winning (which they did) because he no longer had the personnel to play the same way
at inter he's limited by and trying to accommodate the players at his disposal, he's tried to bring in more quality wing play with quaresma but that didn't work out
left porto because, well, what else could he do there, he was forced out of chelsea and now he's at inter, not really self explanatory
quite a few of the one's you mentioned were either other people's signings forced on him or signings made when his problems with abramovich became clear (wanting reinforcements in the winter transfer window while being given no cash to do it), I agree there's a case to be made that he hasn't had a great record in the transfer market, I think it's more to do with patience than anything else. SAF last summer didn't spend because what he wanted wasn't available, I don't think mourinho would have done that, could be a problem
I’d love see Jose at helm at some point for many reasons. He is one of the very few and available mangers who would handle the pressure of replacing SAF. I do trust that this part will be the hardest task for the new manager. At club like United you can lose 1, that is one, game on a trot. Whoever takes over will have to hit the ground running and as I said very few mangers will be able to do so. The other thing that works in Jose’s favor are his man management skills and how he works with his players. He and SAF are very much alike in this sense- they protect players, they take a lot of pressure on themselves. Footballers usually love and appreciate managers like them. In addition one needs to remember José’s record. Yes he won respective leagues with teams built by other (preceding) managers, with teams that were arguably the best in their respective countries. Yet, he still managed to win although the credit he got for doing so might have been undue (to some extent). The only worry I have about appointing Jose is style -possession orientated rather than fun oriented. Attacking, free floating football is a fabric of Manchester United. I’m dead sure Jose would sacrifice that. And he might piss off to a “bigger club” (God forgive me – Real or Barca) shortly after appointment.
One thing buggers me though – I have this feeling that once SAF steps down the glazer will put the club for sale. Well it doesn’t make much sense but I think they would be afraid of risk of dropping value of the club if the new manager fecks things up.
One thing buggers me though – I have this feeling that once SAF steps down the glazer will put the club for sale. Well it doesn’t make much sense but I think they would be afraid of risk of dropping value of the club if the new manager fecks things up.
Please dont...
His style of footie sucks, although he can win things. He won at Chelsea when the premier league's was bit weak and Chelsea were shelling out heavily, but couldnt cut it in the CL with rentboys or with Inter Milan. Dont think he would've had it easy in the Serie A had Milan and Juventus had been bit strong. Its also hard for us to defend all his pranks, shitty should be the ideal place for him.
I dont see any reason Fergie should move out now , he's building the next great team and long he may continue..
His style of footie sucks, although he can win things. He won at Chelsea when the premier league's was bit weak and Chelsea were shelling out heavily, but couldnt cut it in the CL with rentboys or with Inter Milan. Dont think he would've had it easy in the Serie A had Milan and Juventus had been bit strong. Its also hard for us to defend all his pranks, shitty should be the ideal place for him.
I dont see any reason Fergie should move out now , he's building the next great team and long he may continue..
I can't see how can anyone praise/critize Mourinho unless he watches the Serie A regularly.
Mourinho in Italy is very different to the one we used to see in England. He believes alot in the youth academy (the rise of Santon and Balotelli, witness it) and he wanted to implement a system (based on flanks) that would have promoted attacking football. Unfortunately in Italy things are different then the EPL. Instant success is what keeps managers on their seats (and sometimes winning the league is not good enough) and the manager has little freedom to work. In fact, the manager's role does not exist in Italy and Mourinho is an allenatore, (coach), a glorified version of the EPL assistant manager role. Under such circumstances he had to literally scrape the flank men system (that is why Quaresema and Mancini had failed to make an impact) and revert to the old system which will guarantee him instant success but will hinder him in the CL.
Mourinho in Italy is very different to the one we used to see in England. He believes alot in the youth academy (the rise of Santon and Balotelli, witness it) and he wanted to implement a system (based on flanks) that would have promoted attacking football. Unfortunately in Italy things are different then the EPL. Instant success is what keeps managers on their seats (and sometimes winning the league is not good enough) and the manager has little freedom to work. In fact, the manager's role does not exist in Italy and Mourinho is an allenatore, (coach), a glorified version of the EPL assistant manager role. Under such circumstances he had to literally scrape the flank men system (that is why Quaresema and Mancini had failed to make an impact) and revert to the old system which will guarantee him instant success but will hinder him in the CL.
'Arry Redknapp anybody?
he he he
he he he
- Status