They are no more cannon fodder than the teams in the Premier League are. Their records in the Europa League are pretty good for cannon fodder I should also say. Madrid and Barcelona have also beaten lots of CL teams (both in the groups and the knockouts) in the same manner as they have teams in La Liga over the years (ie by several goals). Surely the CL is not full of cannon fodder too?
I'm not down on Moaningho as some others are, but the ship has sailed and we might as well forget about him as a possible United manager. Louis will do his three seasons and the manager I'd really like to get our paws on is Pep, though I really can't see it happening.
But if we could teletransport ourselves back in time to May 2013 would I have welcomed Jose? Of course!
Jose is hardly at all that much different than Sir Alex, who put together some pretty boring teams while collecting trophies in his last decade as United manager. The only charge against Jose that actually sticks is hypocrisy. He moans all the time about teams parking the bus against him, then claims it's brilliant management when he pulls it off. Well, it is brilliant management -- under the right circumstances, which was the case this weekend -- and you can't go around bitching about others who do the same thing.
But if we could teletransport ourselves back in time to May 2013 would I have welcomed Jose? Of course!
Jose is hardly at all that much different than Sir Alex, who put together some pretty boring teams while collecting trophies in his last decade as United manager. The only charge against Jose that actually sticks is hypocrisy. He moans all the time about teams parking the bus against him, then claims it's brilliant management when he pulls it off. Well, it is brilliant management -- under the right circumstances, which was the case this weekend -- and you can't go around bitching about others who do the same thing.
I posted this after the Chelsea game on Saturday, but I still feel the same even having long calmed down!
There's nothing wrong with that, having one style and not having a plan B cost Arsenal dearly over the last decade.
In fact, many will argue Sir Alex should have done better in 09 and 11.
I don't agree with judging him as a tactician on the basis of his record against his contemporaries but a few points there:
Benitez. He has a pretty mediocre record against him when you consider the fact that Benitez had a considerably worse team that his. Also knocked him out of the cl if I remember correctly, their biggest match against each other.
Sir Alex. His record is inflated by the fact that he was in England when United were going through a transitional phase. Once Sir Alex started dominating the league again, mourinho was fired. That's even worse than your record worsening. You've just lost your job.
Van Gaal. Again, one of those as yesterday, right? We're not as good as Chelsea. We're a 3rd/4th place side which has been working all season to get our system right. They are pretty much champions. And we had injuries in crucial areas. It's not a huge endorsement for mourinho by any means.p
Wenger? Really? Any manager who has a goodish team that can defend and counter has had arsenal whipped for years and years. We used to swat them for fun. I don't think we deserve any accolades for our tactics. Everyone sussed them out.
Like I said, it's a flawed way to judge a managers tactics.
I think he is a good tactician. He does the standard things you do when you're a defensive manager, he's alert and his team's carry them out well.
But forget that, the real point I'm making is that every time a mourinho side wins, it's all down to his managerial tactical genius/master stroke. When a sir Alex Ferguson or pep guardiola teams win all the applaud goes to their teams and what wonderful players they have, or them generally as managers as well.mThat is the issue I'm raising. He is a good tactician but the brand of mourinho is such a laughable thing. And most likely, just in England.
So basically you found an excuse while be was better (on head to head) against every manager bar Pep. That is something I would expect from Cal when he defends Ronaldo/attacks Messi.
About the bold part. I don't think that is true. Both are considered as top managers, with Ferguson arguably as the greatest ever. From current managers, Pep is the only one I rate as high as Mourinho. But I really don't think that they are/were as good as Mourinho on tactics. First and foremost they shined at building teams. Both of them (especially Guardiola) didn't change tactics pretty much never. It was building a system and then going with it. They were fantastic as managers, but on different ways to Mourinho.
I have always laughed with those who said that Pep was good because of the players. You can't build arguably the best team ever without being a very top manager. But feck me, if there was ever a manager who had only a plan, that is Pep. It is an awesome plan and almost unstoppable, but he could have done with a B plan.
59 - 41%; it's getting better. Come on all you football lovers and get voting and turn this fecking ship around. Bobby Charlton was right. We don't want anti-football at United.
No, I found reasons. feck knows why I would need "excuses". It's hardly like I lost to him, did I? You're sounding like a Chelsea fan now.So basically you found an excuse while be was better (on head to head) against every manager bar Pep. That is something I would expect from Cal when he defends Ronaldo/attacks Messi.
About the bold part. I don't think that is true. Both are considered as top managers, with Ferguson arguably as the greatest ever. From current managers, Pep is the only one I rate as high as Mourinho. But I really don't think that they are/were as good as Mourinho on tactics. First and foremost they shined at building teams. Both of them (especially Guardiola) didn't change tactics pretty much never. It was building a system and then going with it. They were fantastic as managers, but on different ways to Mourinho.
I have always laughed with those who said that Pep was good because of the players. You can't build arguably the best team ever without being a very top manager.
The middle paragraph is basically it. Mourinho is the only tactician around and every match he wins is a masterclass in managerial tactics. Everyone else wins because of "other reasons" and apparently barley use tactics (somehow). That's stereotyping for you.
Pep Guardiola's stock is falling fast if he doesn't turn things round against Porto.
With what amounts to definitely one of the top 3 squads in the world by some distance, failure again in the CL is unacceptable, especially after getting schooled last year.
Instead we opted for non-football with Moyes?
Not really. He will win another league title (his fifth on 6 years of senior management!!) while on those 6 years has won 2 UCL and has reached the semis another 3 times. Even if they get eliminated tomorrow (the shock, the horror) he'll still be one of the best - if not the best - manager around.
In La Liga he at least had Madrid to compete with, but that Bayern squad in the Bundesliga really should be winning the league with or without a manager, forgive me for not giving him a huge amount of credit for doing so.
In terms of trophies won he's obviously doing well...
Not really. I never claimed that he's better than the likes of Sir Alex and Guardiola. Just that he's better at tactics, while they were better at other things (like building good teams). I also never said that tactics is the most important thing on football.
There's a thin line between reasons and excuses (and maybe it is subjective). But seriously, both you and the poster before found 'why' Mourinho had positive record against the other top managers. The fact remains that he has positive record though, and on matches between top clubs, tactics are quite more important than when you meet the midtable clubs.
That's what people say for any top team. It is far from the truth.
Considering that Pep isn't that good cause they might be eliminated on quarters, remind me how this works with Mourinho who got eliminated in 1/8 of the final against a 10 men Paris team who 3 weeks later got humiliated by Barca.
I agree we did, but that mistake has been rectified....
Bayern has a much much better squad than Chelsea, PSG (with Zlatan) are also better than Porto.
We wouldn't have needed to rectify anything if we appointed Mourinho like any reasonable board would have done. We'd probably be about to pick up our 22nd title.
Porto is higher on UEFA coefficients than Paris (for what is worth) and Paris had incorrecly a player sent off. If Guardiola getting eliminated makes his stock low, then Mourinho getting eliminated on those circumstances makes his stock even lower.
Going out to PSG definitely has cost Mourinho some points. Let's just see how if goes between Bayern and Porto.
Also you haven't addressed my point that Bayern have a much much better squad than Chelsea and it'd be much more of a shock for Bayern to go out to Porto than Chelsea to PSG.
If you looked at the bookies, they had Chelsea at about 1.70 to qualify against PSG, they had Bayern at 1.20 against Porto before last week.
Did you watch last Saturday's match? You want to bring that unadulterated puke to United? Away with you. Win at all costs? Didn't you ever hear about the proud traditions of attack, attack, attack, and football the Matt Busby way and entertainment and imagination, and adventure and George Best and Eric Cantona, and all that? I admit I have entertained the idea of Jose at the helm but then I slapped myself and repeated: Bobby Charlton was right.
I'm sorry, if he was involved in the selection process of Moyes, then there's no way he'd be considered right under any circumstance.
As for the game last Saturday, so he did what he needed to to edge closer to the title, I'm sure the Chelsea fans will be crying themselves to sleep at night.
Also, Chelsea have scored 6 more goals than us having played 1 game fewer, and are the 2nd highest scorers in the league, how does that fit into him being ultra-defensive all the time?
Again, did you watch his Madrid side? Were they ultra defensive in breaking the La Liga scoring record and getting 100pts?
To be fair, Moyes is far more boring than Mourinho, so no, Charlton wasn't right. Getting Moyes cause Mourinho is defensive doesn't have any logic. More defnsive than Mourinho, while also having a cabinet of zero trophies.
Shush dont talk logically, lets carry on the charades!!
I think part of this is United suddenly coming good in the league and fans wanting to express themselves after a season and 2 thirds playing poor football.
I think we should see a bit more of this new United before automatically thinking its Barca mkII. It was only about 2 months ago the football was being laughed at and mocked on here by its own fans, things change very quickly and can easily change back.
Well
When I say Charlton was right, I mean in that Mourhino wasn't right for United, which is what I believe his views were (to be fair that's just from memory). As to Mourhino. @Cal?, if it was all about winning, and trophies, and 'edging closer to the title', there's a few more successful people in the world you would want to be looking at. Yes, they have scored goals. But yes, its not all negative, and cynical and defensive, but a lot of it is. There's something empty at the heart of that outlook, which is hard to put into words, but there was not a better example of it than last Saturday. If it's tradition, and footballing values and entertainment, and innovation and strategy then Louis Van Gaal is a better fit for United than Mourhino (in my opinion) and I am delighted that he is our manager. In my view he can deliver success and style in a better way that Mourhino, very possibly next season. I don't know what Moyes has to to do with this conversation, he was Alex's Chosen One, and, unfortunately for him, was dwarfed by the challenge at United. I never liked him.
When I say Charlton was right, I mean in that Mourhino wasn't right for United, which is what I believe his views were (to be fair that's just from memory). As to Mourhino. @Cal?, if it was all about winning, and trophies, and 'edging closer to the title', there's a few more successful people in the world you would want to be looking at. Yes, they have scored goals. But yes, its not all negative, and cynical and defensive, but a lot of it is. There's something empty at the heart of that outlook, which is hard to put into words, but there was not a better example of it than last Saturday. If it's tradition, and footballing values and entertainment, and innovation and strategy then Louis Van Gaal is a better fit for United than Mourhino (in my opinion) and I am delighted that he is our manager. In my view he can deliver success and style in a better way that Mourhino, very possibly next season. I don't know what Moyes has to to do with this conversation, he was Alex's Chosen One, and, unfortunately for him, was dwarfed by the challenge at United. I never liked him.
Anti-football didn't seem to matter to most United fans when United got past Barcelona in 2007-08 CL semis.
As we saw in the following years had we tried to out play them we would have been beaten. Regardless in the first game we should have scored 2-3 times and had the best chances of the first half.
There is a huge difference between trying to stop Messi, Iniesta and co with negative tactics than using them to stop Young, Felliani etc. If they want to be league champions they really should be the best footballing team in the league for me.
It is absolutely too early to judge if we are Barcelona lite or whatever you want to call it and even in the event that we have another season where we don't compete for a trophy, I still wouldn't take Mourinho. I rather the club keeps trying to reach the ultimate which is winning with dominant authoritative football rather than go for Mourinho. Of course if I was Chelsea pre 2004, Liverpool now or even Arsenal, I would have a different tune as I would have to adjust my expectation due to the financial situation, recent history of success and the simple fact that I would be more desperate but we're not even close to there yet so why compromise?
The reason for me like I explained on these pages before is really not his ultra defensive approach by itself. It is his complete lack of interest in creating a team with vision and authority. His default mode is solidifying the back through strong, physical men and relying on his attacking players to do the job on the other end. Against the lower clubs, his attacking players shine more which explains his numbers with Real Madrid and in the big games his lack of tactical preparation in an offensive sense means he always without fail reverts back to the safety/draw first approach. The most shameful thing for me about Saturday's game was his press conference. How can the manager of a top, rich team openly admit that his game plan consisted of stopping this and that and controlling their this and that and wait for it ... wait for them to make a mistake. Every manager compromises from time to time but I honestly can't think of anyone not even trying to hurt the opponent. So it is that mentality rather than his specific approach in any one game that makes me definitely not want him here and the reason I can't see him in any genuine elite club and I do consider Chelsea to be one of said elite clubs now. Roman always seemed interested in Pep and you can easily see why. Pre 2004, you would have been insane not to take what Mourinho brought, you hadn't won a title in 50 years and were nowhere near the elite but you're established now and IMO, you have every right to expect a manager who is not happy to wait for the other team to make a mistake.
The fact that you can point to one game where United deployed such tactics is proof of what people are saying on here. It is one thing to adjust your tactics once in a while, it is an entirely different thing to abandon any notion of attack every single time you play decent opponents.
We can't talk jack about attractive football when we have hoofed long balls to Fellaini all season. Only since Spurs in March have we looked a decent team. Before Xmas Mourinho's Chelsea were scoring goals for fun and now he's doing what every sensible manager does which is seeing out the title which becomes really difficult as you get closer and closer to it.
SAF started doing just that after witnessing Chelsea and Liverpool's style produce results. Or have you forgotten tactics often employed by SAF in the last decade when facing against a top side either domestically or continentally?
Only Arsenal did SAF stick with status quo as they often employed an attacking style. Let's be honest here.
two words that are not in Jose Mourinho's vocabulary: Beautiful and Game
I don't think SBC would fecking care what football we play. he just hate Mourinho that's all.
How much of it is though? Sir Alex played defensive football every so often when it suited us and it's not like Mourinho pulled his Airbus tactics all the time in the league.
Plenty would argue Sir Alex's biggest errors came in 09 and 11 when he failed/refused to adopt a tactic that would be better suited to beat Barca.
Like me then. I also just said that his tactical prowess is overrated and that he a quality manager overall.
Not at all. A logical argument being confused with excuses is a tad strange. If you're taking it as a dig at mourinho that's your problem. I've praised him enough for me not to have to justify anything.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
This argument has been rehearsed in the Caf before by the likes of @Theonas and others. We always knew even in the SAF days, that Europe was a different kind of challenge to the domestic League. In the world of the superclubs of Europe, during the long reign of Fergie, everything changed, and changed again. To be able to go to that world and compete effectively demanded a different set of tactics, and a different team, to what was required to do the business in Blighty. SAF was never part of the new tactical school, thus all he could do when faced with tiki-taka, was try to close up shop, or go kamikaze. Mou was the nearest anyone came during that era; he knows both sides of the channel, but tactically he is a brutalist, not an artist.
The challenge was to have a set up flexible enough to compete successfully with the big Premiership clubs, on the wet nights in Stoke, and - with a few tweaks - in the Bernebau, etc. My sense is that LVG is setting out on that mission. That this is being attempted is what makes it so rewarding to be a supporter of Manchester United.
But you are making it sound as all approaches of football can be packaged into two little boxes, either gungo ho or Mourinho on Saturday. We definitely altered our approach in Europe but that meant we were more cautious compared to the kamikaze style we used earlier. If we look at those games in the year you are talking about, it was Roma and Milan in 2007, Roma, Barcelona, Chelsea in 2008, Inter, Porto, Arsenal and Barcelona in 2009, Bayern in 2010, Chelsea and Barcelona in 2011 and Real Madrid in 2013. The only games compared to Mourinho's tactics here is the Bacelona 2008 one and if you read Sir Alex's book, you will find out he very much disliked the way we won that game which is why he changed the approach in the following finals. As for domestically, come on mate! There are a lot of levels between Wenger's "we don't care about what you can do to us approach" and Mourinho's "we don't care about doing anything in this game but killing it". We were somewhere between those levels! The point is we would almost never go into game with the attacking plan being stop this, stop that and wait for them to make a mistake. I would argue the only recent top managers who went that in far in addition to Mourinho are Benitez and Trapattoni who famously called the people who were asking for more to eff off and go to the theater instead. So yes, if your idea of football is either crazy gung-ho or defensive, you're right. If you live in the real world where there are a lot of levels in between, I am afraid your memory is playing tricks on you.
In what way are you thinking he could have done better?
If you think United played Anti-Football against Barca in 2008 home leg of the semis where we had 40% possession and had more attempts on goal then i think you need to re-watch that match.
In 2008 we played a counter attacking game against Barca, bit different from what was witnessed on saturday at the bridge.
Probably, though would have been a resounding yes after Fergie retried.
People seem to be forgetting that Chelsea were playing the best football uptil just after Christmas, and have been stumbling along a bit, yet they still have managed to get the wins.
People seem to be forgetting that Chelsea were playing the best football uptil just after Christmas, and have been stumbling along a bit, yet they still have managed to get the wins.
Last edited:
Oh we will win our 22nd title believe me. And we will do it with much better football. We've done it for decades.