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.
Of course Lampard has always been a top player, no-one is denying that, I'm certainly not, I'm just saying he seemed to go to another level upon Mourinho's arrival. Lampard himself has acknowledged that. The Terry argument is debatable, he's one of the players I really don't like very much but 04/05 and 05/06 he really was the best defender in World Football, certainly the top 2 or 3. Of course all that isn't down to Mourinho, but he played a part, again Terry himself has acknowledged this. Mourinho instilled a belief in his players and that is why they were so hard to beat whilst he was there.
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.
Of course he's been fortunate. Fergie was fortunate Robbins scored, fortunate Wilkinson allowed Cantona to leave. All managers need good fortune, and I really don't see how you can use that against him. I think the Mourinho deal had already been in place even before the CL Final, so I think you're wrong on that point. He knew he was leaving before the match had even been played.
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.
He came in, broke pretty much every record in the book when winning his first title. Was unlucky not to reach the CL Final, won the Carling Cup. His team destroyed pretty much every other team in the league. You can't honestly say that if Curbishley came in he'd have done the same? There's so much more to being a manager than just signing the players and picking the tactics. Another thing about Mourinho's teams is the belief they have within themselves, something United have always had under Fergie. Now you're criticising him for winning the title with Inter? Yes of course it's been flawed and it isn't hugely competitive, but he's there, he's winning, and that's all that matters. By your argument, whoever replaces Fergie when he leaves can have whatever he accomplishes diminished, simply because he inherited a 'very good squad.'
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.
Yes, but one of the reasons I think he fell out of love with Chelsea was the huge, huge pressure to succeed, and Abramovich having the final say.. Obviously there would be pressure at United, but not as much as there would be at Chelsea. Remember, he had a fire-happy Chairman at Chelsea who liked to meddle in affairs that should be left for the manager, I think he'd be wary of the same thing happening at City.
Ask Fergie who should replace him when he steps down, and Mourinho will be the answer. I'm sure Fergie and Gill have had this conversation, and I am 99.9% certain Mourinho will be our next manager.
