POLL: Would you take Jose Mourinho (if he accepted the job)

[stevoc]

Red tinted specs. The Chelsea 04/05 side was better then at least one of those, record points, goals conceded, clean sheets etc. That Ajax side was in a slightly older era of football, I think Joses Chelsea 04/05 could easily have competed with them.

Both those sides won 3 titles in a row, both won european cups, never mind one of them winning a treble and the other nearly winning back to back European Cups and would have done had they not came up against the best player and probably team in history.

More like blue tinted specs mate.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Both those sides won 3 titles in a row, both won european cups, never mind one of them winning a treble and the other nearly winning back to back European Cups and would have done had they not came up against the best player and probably team in history.

More like blue tinted specs mate.

It was better in certain respects. If the two were to play each other over and over I would expect 04/05 Chelsea to come out on top more often. It was a relentless machine of a team with the best defence there has ever been in the league.

 

[ForlansHair]

It was better in certain respects. If the two were to play each other over and over I would expect 04/05 Chelsea to come out on top more often. It was a relentless machine of a team with the best defence there has ever been in the league.

I wouldn't. That United side of 07-09 has the longest unbeaten run in Champions League history, they were the masters of the big games. It was an almost perfect balance of attack and defence. There would be plenty of draws but I'd fancy the United team to edge the wins. That Chelsea team lost 4 times in the Champions League just that season alone and also conceded 10 goals in the 6 knockout ties they played. What on earth went on there?

 

[ItsEssexRob]

I wouldn't. That United side of 07-09 has the longest unbeaten run in Champions League history, they were the masters of the big games. It was an almost perfect balance of attack and defence. There would be plenty of draws but I'd fancy the United team to edge the wins. That Chelsea team lost 4 times in the Champions League just that season alone and also conceded 10 goals in the 6 knockout ties they played. What on earth went on there?

We also beat a great Barcelona and Bayern Munich side in 2 of the most thrilling European games ever, then lost to an even more negative Liverpool through a debatable goal... thats what went on there.

Im not talking about who they each played in the CL either Im on about them playing each other. that team was a penalty kick away from losing to a slightly inferior Chelsea side to that so what makes you think the superior 04/06 side wouldve been worse?

 

[Sweet Square]

Red tinted specs. The Chelsea 04/05 side was better then at least one of those, record points, goals conceded, clean sheets etc. That Ajax side was in a slightly older era of football, I think Joses Chelsea 04/05 could easily have competed with them.

Challenging on all fronts is one the marks of a great team, something that Chelsea team didn't achieve (It doesn't matter if you were a kick away or not). It's failure in Europe should and is held against team(Do You really think you can be one of the greatest teams of all time without winning the CL). That Chelsea team was a great Premier league team but not one of the greatest teams of all time.

Also your ''Older era of football'' comment makes no sense(The Ajax team was in the 90s ) .

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Challenging on all fronts is one the marks of a great team, something that Chelsea team didn't achieve (It doesn't matter if you were a kick away or not). It's failure in Europe should and is held against team(Do You really think you can be one of the greatest teams of all time without winning the CL). That Chelsea team was a great Premier league team but not one of the greatest teams of all time.

Also your ''Older era of football'' comment makes no sense(The Ajax team was in the 90s ) .

Oh Ok well I meant in the premier league.

 

[stevoc]

It was better in certain respects. If the two were to play each other over and over I would expect 04/05 Chelsea to come out on top more often. It was a relentless machine of a team with the best defence there has ever been in the league.

Better than a defence that consisted of Van Der Sar, Ferdinand, Vidic & Evra that went what was it 13-14 games in a row without conceding a goal in all comps, and bar the final against Barca went two full seasons unbeaten in the Champions League?

Well we will agree to disagree mate, for the record we are probably both wearing tinted specs

 

[ForlansHair]

We also beat a great Barcelona and Bayern Munich side in 2 of the most thrilling European games ever, then lost to an even more negative Liverpool through a debatable goal... thats what went on there.

Im not talking about who they each played in the CL either Im on about them playing each other. that team was a penalty kick away from losing to a slightly inferior Chelsea side to that so what makes you think the superior 04/06 side wouldve been worse?

For the best defensive side the Premier League has ever seen, I'd expect better than 10 conceded in 6 games. The United side that has the longest unbeaten record in Champions League history conceded just 7 in the 14 knockout games they played over that time.

The Chelsea team lost 4 games against Europe's elite in 12 matches, that's why I don't think they would have beaten that United side if they were to play over and over again. It was unfortunate what happened to our midfield when that run ended, it would've been fascinating to see that Barca side up against the full strength team.

 

[Zed 101]

It has taken a while for LVG to get things to gel, but now that we see attractive football again I can't help but shudder at the idea of Utd playing in the Mourinhio style... for the odd game backs against the wall it is one thing but week in week out, no thanks, if I wanted boring football I would move to Italy

 

[The Purist]

Bizarre how little people understood the term 'footballing institution'.

institution
[in-sti-too-shuh n, -tyoo-]

noun
1.
an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program.

The clubs I listed are clubs dedicated to playing good, expansive, attractive football and have such a history for it that anything less would, at this point, be unacceptable. Before some smartass talks about George Graham, every club has had it's dark days. United in its relegation year, for example. But at this point, Mourinho couldn't take over any of those four footballing institutions without backlash, in my opinion. How could any season ticket holder for United, or Arsenal, or Liverpool or Barcelona who has pride in their club possibly want to go to 20+ games a season watching the kind of tripe that this man's team displayed on Saturday? It's beyond me, truly.

 

[Theonas]

Bizarre how little people understood the term 'footballing institution'.

institution
[in-sti-too-shuh n, -tyoo-]

noun
1.
an organization, establishment, foundation, society, or the like, devoted to the promotion of a particular cause or program.

The clubs I listed are clubs dedicated to playing good, expansive, attractive football and have such a history for it that anything less would, at this point, be unacceptable. Before some smartass talks about George Graham, every club has had it's dark days. United in its relegation year, for example. But at this point, Mourinho couldn't take over any of those four footballing institutions without backlash, in my opinion. How could any season ticket holder for United, or Arsenal, or Liverpool or Barcelona who has pride in their club possibly want to go to 20+ games a season watching the kind of tripe that this man's team displayed on Saturday? It's beyond me, truly.

I can't understand how anybody would even disagree with this.

 

[MrMarcello]

It was better in certain respects. If the two were to play each other over and over I would expect 04/05 Chelsea to come out on top more often. It was a relentless machine of a team with the best defence there has ever been in the league.

Easy there. Chelsea played with a third center back masquerading as a midfielder where as all the other top defensive sides in the Premiership history employed different tactics. Arsenal conceded 17 in 1998-99 with a different style. Even United's top defensive units in 07-08 and 08-09 employed midfielders that didn't act as a fifth center back. If SAF had used a Makelele type the side could easily have let in fewer but he opted for a duo from Carrick/Giggs/Scholes/Anderson versus a trio that Mourinho often employed. I'll take a fit Brown-Ferdinand-Vidic-Evra back four over any in league history.

Also, it's pointless to debate eras on which club would win a hypothetical match. I am not one to sit there and claim Chelsea were boring in 04-05, not all the time for sure, and in Duff, Robben, and Cole on the attack, the side put in some mouthwatering performances.

 

[bosnian_red]

Better than a defence that consisted of Van Der Sar, Ferdinand, Vidic & Evra that went what was it 13-14 games in a row without conceding a goal in all comps, and bar the final against Barca went two full seasons unbeaten in the Champions League?

Well we will agree to disagree mate, for the record we are probably both wearing tinted specs

To be fair, think they conceded like 15 goals all season, which is ridiculous.

 

[Winrar]

I'd actually forgotten their 0-0 vs West Ham last season and Mourinho accused Allardyce of parking the bus and playing "19th century football" (or something like that) when he uses the same tactics to beat other teams it's fine because defensive tactics are viable.

Which to be fair it is, but isn't it just hypocritical when he complained about the exact same defensive strategy that was played out against his own team.

This is the game in question, by the way: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25838369

 

[Rob Bowman]

Jose "eye gouge" Mourinho is not wanted by me.

Besides the insipid football, I never liked his antics. The eye gouge at Barcelona and Cech head injury at Reading being the two most obvious/despicable...

 

[Revan]

But people do call him a tactical genius all the time for doing what's been done tons of time before.

Like I said earlier, what for me makes mourinho a top manager is the man management , discipline and self belief he gives his players. His tactics are nothing special at all IMO.

Sir Alex is considers possibly the greatest ever manager. But does that mean he was a genius tactician? Not for me.

Because management is about so many things. Buying, selling and promoting the right players, motivating your players, man management and getting them to buy into your plan are all important.

For me Jose is good at most things that a manager needs to be good at. But I do think the focus on his tactics and championing them every time his team shuts out another is ridiculous.

Here are his stats vs some of the top managers of our era:

vs Ferguson: 7 wins, 7 draws, 2 defeats
vs Wenger: 5 wins, 4 draws, 0 defeats
vs Ancelotti: 1 win, 0 draws, 1 defeat
vs Benitez: 6 wins, 3 draws, 4 defeats
vs Van Gaal: 2 wins, 1 draw, 0 defeats
vs Pep: 3 wins, 5 draws, 7 defeats

You can see that he has a positive record pretty much against every top manager (a spectacular record against SAF and Wenger) bar Pep. Pep is also the only manager I rate higher than Mourinho.

So yes, Mourinho is a very good tactician. Boring, but very good. You can't have his record of trophies and these stats against some of the top managers, without being a very good tactician. Not a revolutionary, not innovative but he has implemented very well his tactics.

I think that how a manager does against other top teams/managers is a very good (though not complete) way of judging how good that manager is tactically. For example. Ferguson wasn't ever the best tactician and he has negative records against almost every top manager (Del Bosque, Van Gaal, Hitzfeld, Guardiola, Mourinho, Ancelotti) bar Benitez and Wenger (in fact, only on 2009 or so he managed to have a positive record vs Wenger). He is regarded the best ever (or near it) because of his other strengths, but it is fair to say that tactically he wasn't great (obviously he was very good, you can't be the best without being a total package, but just not as good as he was at other things).

On the other side, tactics are one of the Mourinho's strenghts. That and the mentality he installs. He isn't the best coach, clueless at developing new players but very good at winning.

 

[stevoc]

To be fair, think they conceded like 15 goals all season, which is ridiculous.

Impressive no doubt but United weren't bad in that period either though, best defenvise records in 2007/08 (22) & 2008/09 (24) and this while playing a more much more cavalier game than Chelsea did back in 2004-06. How many fewer goals would United have conceded with Makalele sitting directly in front Rio and Vidic do you think?

Of course its all opinions and club bias plays a part, but defensive records alone shouldn't be the guage used to measure the quality of a defence. Southampton have conceded 7 less than us this season would you swap their defenders for ours? I wouldn't.

Just like i personally i wouldn't have swapped VDS, Ferdinand, Vidic and Evra for Cech, Carvalho, Terry & Cole.

 

[::sonny::]

No

 

[Sarni]

It was better in certain respects. If the two were to play each other over and over I would expect 04/05 Chelsea to come out on top more often. It was a relentless machine of a team with the best defence there has ever been in the league.

Yet you failed completely in the Champions League for years.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Yet you failed completely in the Champions League for years.

Why does CL keep getting brought up, I understand in relation to the Ajax comment maybe but I repeatedly said I meant the league.

Besides we hardly failed completely, we were almost always in the semis or final. 1 penalty away from victory once, and 1 minute and about 90 minutes of awful refereeing away from the following years final. We probably along with Barca have the best CL record of the past 10 years. ( United must be fairly close too)

 

[Sarni]

Why does CL keep getting brought up, I understand in relation to the Ajax comment maybe but I repeatedly said I meant the league.

Besides we hardly failed completely, we were almost always in the semis or final. 1 penalty away from victory once, and 1 minute and about 90 minutes of awful refereeing away from the following years final. We probably along with Barca have the best CL record of the past 10 years. ( United must be fairly close too)

You weren't in the final even once under Mourinho and Liverpool knocked you out twice with inferior team.

 

[united_99]

Here are his stats vs some of the top managers of our era:

vs Ferguson: 7 wins, 7 draws, 2 defeats
vs Wenger: 5 wins, 4 draws, 0 defeats
vs Ancelotti: 1 win, 0 draws, 1 defeat
vs Benitez: 6 wins, 3 draws, 4 defeats
vs Van Gaal: 2 wins, 1 draw, 0 defeats
vs Pep: 3 wins, 5 draws, 7 defeats

You can see that he has a positive record pretty much against every top manager (a spectacular record against SAF and Wenger) bar Pep. Pep is also the only manager I rate higher than Mourinho.

So yes, Mourinho is a very good tactician. Boring, but very good. You can't have his record of trophies and these stats against some of the top managers, without being a very good tactician. Not a revolutionary, not innovative but he has implemented very well his tactics.

I think that how a manager does against other top teams/managers is a very good (though not complete) way of judging how good that manager is tactically. For example. Ferguson wasn't ever the best tactician and he has negative records against almost every top manager (Del Bosque, Van Gaal, Hitzfeld, Guardiola, Mourinho, Ancelotti) bar Benitez and Wenger (in fact, only on 2009 or so he managed to have a positive record vs Wenger). He is regarded the best ever (or near it) because of his other strengths, but it is fair to say that tactically he wasn't great (obviously he was very good, you can't be the best without being a total package, but just not as good as he was at other things).

On the other side, tactics are one of the Mourinho's strenghts. That and the mentality he installs. He isn't the best coach, clueless at developing new players but very good at winning.

How does SAF have a negative record against LvG? It's 1 win, 1 defeat, 2 draws or what am I missing?

And of course Mourinho with the most expensive squad in the PL history will have a better record against a United in transition. But since United got back to the top in 2006/07 SAF v Mourinho is equal (and even for that record Mourinho needed ref's immense help to send off Nani).

Top teams with focus on offence will often lose against top teams with focus on defense because they will be vulnerable on the counter. Mourinho with his ultra defensive tactics may be the best to set his team up perfectly against expansive teams, but I don't know how that makes him the best tactician, unless you think tactics is all about defending and breaking up opposition play.
But what about his own ideas about attacking or taking the initiative? Where was the alleged great tactician when his teams had absolutely no ideas whatsoever at home against Atletico or 10 men PSG?

As you say SAF was good tactically albeit not the best (but at the same time he was much better with an attacking game plan than Mourinho), and Mourinho is a good tactician, but nothing more really, nothing extraordinary. In order for him to be extraordinary he needs to come up with more than Big Sam's tactics against top teams + Hazard's magic.

 

[Revan]

How does SAF have a negative record against LvG? It's 1 win, 1 defeat, 2 draws or what am I missing?

And of course Mourinho with the most expensive squad in the PL history will have a better record against a United in transition. But since United got back to the top in 2006/07 SAF v Mourinho is equal (and even for that record Mourinho needed ref's immense help to send off Nani).

Top teams with focus on offence will often lose against top teams with focus on defense because they will be vulnerable on the counter. Mourinho with his ultra defensive tactics may be the best to set his team up perfectly against expansive teams, but I don't know how that makes him the best tactician, unless you think tactics is all about defending and breaking up opposition play.
But what about his own ideas about attacking or taking the initiative? Where was the alleged great tactician when his teams had absolutely no ideas whatsoever at home against Atletico or 10 men PSG?

As you say SAF was good tactically albeit not the best (but at the same time he was much better with an attacking game plan than Mourinho), and Mourinho is a good tactician, but nothing more really, nothing extraordinary. In order for him to be extraordinary he needs to come up with more than Big Sam's tactics against top teams + Hazard's magic.

I thought it was 2-1 for Van Gaal. At least, that is what I found on net.

Mourinho is a very good tactician IMO, as I explained above. He has a lot of trophies, and usually won against the other top managers. SAF usually lost against the other top managers. SAF is the best ever when it comes to winning the league (which I think is a combination of being good at pretty much everything) while Mourinho is a quite better tactician. Obviously, I know which I would have choose.

About the bolded part, I think that tactics are most important when it comes to difficult matches (especially against teams better than you). To defeat Sunderland you don't need to be a great tactician (you need to built a good team, keep them motivated and fresh; something that no-one did better than SAF). To defeat Pep's Barca on the other side, you needed to be a very good tactician.

 

[united_99]

I thought it was 2-1 for Van Gaal. At least, that is what I found on net.

Mourinho is a very good tactician IMO, as I explained above. He has a lot of trophies, and usually won against the other top managers. SAF usually lost against the other top managers. SAF is the best ever when it comes to winning the league (which I think is a combination of being good at pretty much everything) while Mourinho is a quite better tactician. Obviously, I know which I would have choose.

About the bolded part, I think that tactics are most important when it comes to difficult matches (especially against teams better than you). To defeat Sunderland you don't need to be a great tactician (you need to built a good team, keep them motivated and fresh; something that no-one did better than SAF). To defeat Pep's Barca on the other side, you needed to be a very good tactician.

But what about defeating Atletico or PSG? His big game record is not as impressive as it used to be anyway, couldn't defeat Pellegrini this season either, again in one game with one man advantage for half an hour.

And SAF LvG was 2 draws in 99, 1 win 1 defeat in 2010, and therefore equal.

 

[Revan]

But what about defeating Atletico or PSG? His big game record is not as impressive as it used to be anyway, couldn't defeat Pellegrini this season either, again in one game with one man advantage for half an hour.

And SAF LvG was 2 draws in 99, 1 win 1 defeat in 2010, and therefore equal.

Yep, it isn't as good as before. Still, I think only Pep (and possibly Ancelotti) has a better record than him though. Ancelotti IMO is a master tactician while Pep shines at creating fantastic teams.

I guess, I was wrong for LVG. Still he has negative record against most of the top managers. Saying that - bar the Barca fiasco - I thought that he was very good tactically in 2008-2011, but before it he wasn't that great on that aspect.

 

[Attila]

Here are his stats vs some of the top managers of our era:

vs Ferguson: 7 wins, 7 draws, 2 defeats

You can see that he has a positive record pretty much against every top manager (a spectacular record against SAF and Wenger)

Porto 2-1 United (Keane red card)
United 1-1 Porto (Paul Scholes disallowed goal)

04-05 (Chelsea far superior team this season)
Chelsea 1-0 United
Chelsea 0-0 United (League Cup)
United 1-2 Chelsea (League Cup)
United 1-3 Chelsea

05-06 (Chelsea far superior team this season)
United 1-0 Chelsea
Chelsea 3-0 United

06-07 (Both teams equal)
United 1-1 Chelsea
Chelsea 0-0 United
Chelsea 1-0 United (FA Cup final)

07-08 (United better)
United beat Chelsea on penalties in community shield

08-09 (United better)
Inter 0-0 United
United 2-0 Inter

12-13 (Madrid better)
Madrid 1-1 United
United 1-2 Madrid (Nani Red Card)

Honestly I look back at the head to head's between Frogie and Mourinho and I don't think the difference came down to Mourinho being much better tactically...his two full seasons at Chelsea were times when we had Alan Smith, John Oshea, Ryan Giggs and a not so good Fletcher in midfield( think scholes had a long injury with his eye too). Had the likes of Roy Carrol in goal as well. Chelsea's team was ridiculously better during that period.

 

[prarek]

Here are his stats vs some of the top managers of our era:

vs Ferguson: 7 wins, 7 draws, 2 defeats
vs Wenger: 5 wins, 4 draws, 0 defeats
vs Ancelotti: 1 win, 0 draws, 1 defeat
vs Benitez: 6 wins, 3 draws, 4 defeats
vs Van Gaal: 2 wins, 1 draw, 0 defeats
vs Pep: 3 wins, 5 draws, 7 defeats

I must say Benitez has a very good record against Mourinho considering he had a much inferior team.

 

[FacerTheRed]

He is a proven winner but the guys playing style is just boring. His playing style alone would just change United initially because United has always been an attacking team and create special moments. Whereas Chelsea nicks one goal and then just sits back rest of the game. Its a way of winning but not a spectacular way. So no way IMO, as a person Mourinho would fit in because of his arrogant and passion of football but his style of play other wise just doesnt.

 

[Red Defence]

Genuinely intrigued at the thoughts around Jose Mourinho as potential manager (at a future date).

Most people agree that 2013 was probably the time post-SAF to hire him, if we were serious. However, if a chance to get him in the future arose, and he accepted ofcourse (huge assumption, but never know in football, especially at volitile Chelsea), would you be accepting of him as a Manchester United manager?

No.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Yep, it isn't as good as before. Still, I think only Pep (and possibly Ancelotti) has a better record than him though. Ancelotti IMO is a master tactician while Pep shines at creating fantastic teams.

I guess, I was wrong for LVG. Still he has negative record against most of the top managers. Saying that - bar the Barca fiasco - I thought that he was very good tactically in 2008-2011, but before it he wasn't that great on that aspect.

I reckon you have Ancelotti and Pep mixed up. I think Ancelotti is great at building a team and letting them express themselves on the pitch, but I'm not as convinced about his tactical decisions during matches.

 

[Attila]

I must say Benitez has a very good record against Mourinho considering he had a much inferior team.

He was one of the few managers around who wasn't scared to fight Mourinho's shit on a stick defensive football with his own version of it. Tactical genius Mourinho couldn't work out what to do then.

 

[afrocentricity]

No... and not 'No - that ship has sailed'.... 'No - fcuk no!'

 

[Cal?]

He is a proven winner but the guys playing style is just boring. His playing style alone would just change United initially because United has always been an attacking team and create special moments. Whereas Chelsea nicks one goal and then just sits back rest of the game. Its a way of winning but not a spectacular way. So no way IMO, as a person Mourinho would fit in because of his arrogant and passion of football but his style of play other wise just doesnt.

I really don't think he sets out to create boring teams, his Madrid team broke all kinds of scoring record, showing he can do it if he wants to.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I really don't think he sets out to create boring teams, his Madrid team broke all kinds of scoring record, showing he can do it if he wants to.

He could be better than Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo if he wanted to be.

 

[Cal?]

He could be better than Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo if he wanted to be.

As a manager he probably is, but some would argue Messi is already managing Barca this season.

 

[Suedesi]

Why does CL keep getting brought up, I understand in relation to the Ajax comment maybe but I repeatedly said I meant the league.

Besides we hardly failed completely, we were almost always in the semis or final. 1 penalty away from victory once, and 1 minute and about 90 minutes of awful refereeing away from the following years final. We probably along with Barca have the best CL record of the past 10 years. ( United must be fairly close too)

Erm Bayern? Milan? Liverpool?

 

[Suedesi]

I really don't think he sets out to create boring teams, his Madrid team broke all kinds of scoring record, showing he can do it if he wants to.

That doesn't mean shit when 15-16 teams are cannon fodder.

Yet against the likes of Barca he reverted to a counter-attacking team.

 

[Pyroblazer]

Erm Bayern? Milan? Liverpool?

Liverpool wasn't in it in 4 of the last 5 years and this year the failed to get out of their group. That's hardly a great record. Milan wasn't in it this year and before that they failed in 5 out of 6 years in the round of 16. Bayern should be up there of course.

 

[ItsEssexRob]

Erm Bayern? Milan? Liverpool?

Compare it, Im not 100% sure.

Semi finals
last 16
Semi finals
Final
Semi finals
Quarter finals
Quarter finals
Winner
out in group
Semis
Last 16.

Bayern

Quarter finals
Last 16
Quarter finals
Didnt qualify
Quarter finals
Final
Last 16
Final
Winners
Semi finals.
Quarters?

Kind of about equal I guess although they have been to a third final.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Never wanted him and never will.