I find this whole argument confusing, and what is even more confusing is why we are still talking about Jose in March 2022?
If you check my post history, you will see that I was very pro-Jose throughout his tenure at the club. When Jose was finally sacked, I was as angry as the biggest Jose-fanboy on here. It seemed obvious to me that the players had downed tools and wanted him out of the club. I was also annoyed that we had just had a relatively poor Summer and recruited only Fred, just a few months after finishing 2nd in the league.
That being said, and with the benefit of hindsight, Jose really only has himself to blame. First and foremost, the results just weren't good enough to justify this idea some seem to push that he was treated unjustly because he spoke out. No, he was sacked because results were poor and the players (seemingly) disliked him.
Don't forget, in his first season, with a squad that had only just missed top four and won the FA Cup, Jose finished 6th and scrambled into the Champions League via the kindest run of Europa League fixtures you can reasonably expect to get. In fact, Jose had added Zlatan, Paul Pogba, Mhiki and Eric Bailly to LvGs squad...so to somehow do worse is quite hard to justify, isn't it?
Granted, his second season was much improved, but again, we had spent big on the likes of Lukaku, Lindelof, Matic and eventually Sanchez (salary). So now Jose has signed about 9/10 players for a combined £400m...and yet people say he wasn't backed? I don't understand that argument. Remember, that is net spend, because our club has proven itself basically incapable of selling a player for a decent fee. Which other club spends £400m net over two Summers, besides the oil cheats? The 'not backed' argument just carries no weight. I have never been here to defend the Glazers because they have destroyed this club, but you have to understand the context in which they have destroyed it, or you make yourself sound silly. You can't go around saying they haven't backed the managers post-SAF because that argument is just ludicrous and ruins any credible points you might have.
So we go into his third season, we add Fred for £50m (after the £400m net, don't forget), people still aren't happy because they're playing 'fantasy football' in their head and don't understand football finances. They expect another £200m net outlay. It's just not realistic. Where were we in the table when Jose was sacked? 7th/8th? In what World is that good enough for a manager in his 3rd season who has spent what Jose has spent? Did he get every single player he asked for? Probably not....but what manager does, bar the manager of the oil cheats?
That's not a great combination in any industry is it? If you're managing a team, your results are poor, your staff dislike you and your response is to start firing bile and accusations left, right and centre....what generally happens in that scenario? Again, in any other business, who has a 'perfect' team? Who doesn't have to manage lazy, incompetent, limited, fragile or inexperienced staff members? Plus, lest we forget, Jose signed half of the players who he is then commended for criticising and falling out with!
Finally....on the subject of Luke Shaw....I'll say again for the 1000th time....Jose rated Luke Shaw, and was only hard on him because he believed Shaw had potential to be world-class. How do I know this? As I said earlier, I am/was a Jose 'fan boi', I have read basically every significant book on Jose and idolised him even when he was at Chelsea first-time around. You see how he has treated players historically who he doesn't rate...he doesn't criticise them or slam them in the press. On the contrary, he just quietly moves them out. Think about how he treated Depay, for example, compared to Luke Shaw or Joe Cole at Chelsea. Didn't criticise Depay, had nothing but nice things to say, but didn't waste a moments game-time on him and moved him on, no fuss. Jose picked Shaw virtually every week when fit, and his criticism was aimed at pushing him on to the next level.
I have said it before, but we criticise the wrong players on this forum. We get on at the likes of Luke Shaw because they are the constants in our failures the last 6/7 years....but if you actually stop, breathe and think about it for a second...what has Shaw ever done to bring this club into disrepute? When has he not tried, because I haven't seen it? I have in my mind which players are chancers, lazy, in it for themselves, not good enough....and they are bizarrely the players this forum seems to back!
