Mourinho On His Way Out?

Raskolnikov

http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8695_2032813,00.html

Does anyone not think this is perhaps one of the most ridiculous sackings of a manager since Del Bosque was fired by Florentino Perez while at Real Madrid? It's clear that he's a highly talented manager and his trophy haul so far proves this. This season alone, he's already got the League Cup, is in the FA Cup final, has a decent shot at the league and Champions League. But for the fact that Abramovich didn't support him in the New Year transfer window, I think things would have been a lot tighter in the league now.

I think it'll be a huge loss to the Premier League if he goes.

PHB

I'd be happy if he went

Mitch Connor

Take any 'top manager' and give them the funds Jose has had, and the success would not be any different imo, apart from possibly the cup competitions, I don't know that they'd have gone for the League Cup as strongly under someone else. If he was to leave chelsea in the summer, they would still be one of the favourites for the title next season, cause whoever came in would have the same funds Jose has got, which is a lot.

As for not being supported in the January window - united only signed a 35 year old striker, on loan, for 7 premiership games. Add to this the fact Unied signed just two players in the summer (one being a sub goalkeeper) and compare to chelsea signing a left back, a centre/right back, two central midfielders and a £35million striker and then tell me Jose got screwed.

Also, very disrespectful to Blackburn there. tut tut.

Vokes

PHB wrote:

I'd be happy if he went

What about this for a wild wild rumour i heard the other day...


- Ferguson wins treble with Utd this season, and decides to call it a day. So Carlos Queiroz takes over.

- Mourinho gets the sack at the end of this season, and decides to head off to Spain to take over Real from Capello.

- Mourinho proceeds to win La Liga next season and then the CL the following season. Job done!

- Meanwhile, ManU sick of 2 years of mediocrity with Queiroz, give him the sack and then gives the job to Mourinho.


Stranger things have happened

Mitch Connor

SofaKing wrote:

What about this for a wild wild rumour i heard the other day...


- Ferguson wins treble with Utd this season, and decides to call it a day. So Carlos Queiroz takes over.

- Mourinho gets the sack at the end of this season, and decides to head off to Spain to take over Real from Capello.

- Mourinho proceeds to win La Liga next season and then the CL the following season. Job done!

- Meanwhile, ManU sick of 2 years of mediocrity with Queiroz, give him the sack and then gives the job to Mourinho.


Stranger things have happened

hopefully that never happens!

There are things i like about mourinho - the way he likes to control the football club (like fergusson) the team spirit he enstills (like ferguson) the winning mentality (like ferguson).

However, i do not like the style of football he gets his teams to play - i simply don't think he would have United playing the 'United way' and that is important. If it wasn't for his style of game, he'd be a perfect replacement for Fergie, but its a massive mark against him imo. United should always be an openly attacking team, attacking with skill and flair, not just power.

PHB

Style of football means he wouldn't last at United. That said, he doesn't favour a type of football imo, he just favours the winning one. If he managed Real Madrid, I think he'd favour attacking football.

bucks73

PHB wrote:

I'd be happy if he went

I second that motion.

Mitch Connor

PHB wrote:

Style of football means he wouldn't last at United. That said, he doesn't favour a type of football imo, he just favours the winning one. If he managed Real Madrid, I think he'd favour attacking football.

i just don't see it - if ever aa manger had a chance to create a wonderfully attacking side with balance (ie. the attacking of madrid with zidane and figo at their peak, with a defence that could actually defend) mourinho has had it at Chelsea. He even has had the players, in Joe Cole, Duff, SWP, Robben, but he has turned Duff into a defender (then sold him on, obvioulsy) and doesn't use SWP. Ballack may have been forced on him, but he had no problem playing 5 in the midfield with both Makalele and Essien starting before Ballack's arrival, and that isn't exactly attacking. The full backs have been given no real freedom to express themselves (please god don't let Alves sign for them, he'd be ruined)

It was the same at Porto (although Deco and Carlos Alberto were quite flairful). Porto were a solid team like chelsea, relying on one or two players to provide the magic - they didn't attack teams like the United fans want United todo, or Barcelona/Madrid like to. It was succesful, no doubt about that, and fair play to him for what he has achieved at chelsea too - it obviously works for him, but it is not a style i particularly enjoy watching. We had to put up with a similar style at United for a few seasons recently (this season being a return to the old ways imo) and i didn't like it.

PHB

Mourinho has said many times, that the reason he plays such a defensive team is because thats what is required to win the premiership. Porto were a much more attacking team than Chelsea are.

Mourinho may have been able to create that team, but they would find it difficult in such a physical league. Look at the problems Arsenal have, while in Spain, I think they'd have a lot more points

Raskolnikov

Tauren wrote:

Take any 'top manager' and give them the funds Jose has had, and the success would not be any different imo

Ranieri had the cash and he didn't win a thing.

Tauren wrote:

As for not being supported in the January window - united only signed a 35 year old striker, on loan, for 7 premiership games. Add to this the fact Unied signed just two players in the summer (one being a sub goalkeeper) and compare to chelsea signing a left back, a centre/right back, two central midfielders and a £35million striker and then tell me Jose got screwed.

Compared to Chelsea, United have been very fortunate with injuries this season. Their key players like Scholes, Ronaldo, Van der Saar, Rooney, Ferdinand have been fit pretty much all season. Little wonder Fergie didn't need to make a foray into the January transfer window.

~Rebel~

Raskolnikov wrote:

Ranieri had the cash and he didn't win a thing.

That was the first season of building so was a whole new team. He did get second in the league and semi's of the champions league - not too bad for one seasons work..Given an extra season im quite sure he'd have improved on it.

Compared to Chelsea, United have been very fortunate with injuries this season. Their key players like Scholes, Ronaldo, Van der Saar, Rooney, Ferdinand have been fit pretty much all season. Little wonder Fergie didn't need to make a foray into the January transfer window.

Very true. Man U didnt really need anyone brought in urgently, Chelsea were desperate for a centerback. Were playing with a center midfielder and a (poor) full back as their central defensive pairing. I dont htink they'd have let as many point slip if they'd had any cover. 2 mill or so on Ben Haim would have been so worth it!

PHB

It was bad managment in the first place to let that situation happen though. You have to plan for injuries. Hell even now, we've got a severe injury crisis at the back, with Neville/Vidic/Evra/Slyvestre all out, but we've still got pretty good cover with O'Shea-Brown-Rio-Heinze

Injuries are never an excuse if you ask me, except maybe for Newcastle :P

The issue with Mourinho, and judging him, is in how much control he had over the transfers?
Did he want Shevchenko and Ballack?
Did he want to sell Gallas, did he want Cole?

Boularuz seems to be a pretty average player, and there was no doubt he was brought in by Mourinho. Just like Del Horno in front of him.
There are defo questions about Mourinho in the transfer market, but I think his strength is in getting the best out of a team, rather than putting together a team.

BKtje

Mourinho has said many times, that the reason he plays such a defensive team is because thats what is required to win the premiership.

Really hope man u can proove him wrong.

Dont be at yourself

Boularuz seems to be a pretty average player, and there was no doubt he was brought in by Mourinho

Isn't the rumour that Arnesen wanted Boularouz?

event

PHB wrote:

Style of football means he wouldn't last at United. That said, he doesn't favour a type of football imo, he just favours the winning one. If he managed Real Madrid, I think he'd favour attacking football.

says who?

if he was winning titles, id reckon that that'd be all the glazers would care about

PiE

Exactly. All this about not being the "United way" is a fantasy. The "way" would change pretty damn fast if it brought more success.

Seaneh

Tauren wrote:

Take any 'top manager' and give them the funds Jose has had, and the success would not be any different imo.

yeah, anyone can win the champions league with a wage and transfer budget that is less than blackburn, man city or charltons...

Fact is that he won throphys long before he went to chelsea.

He brought his home town team (União de Leiria) from semi-professional to second in the super league in 2 seasons, with a home attendance of about 5000 fans, a wage budget of less than 80k a month and a combinded transfer bugdet of 2million euro (thats 2million over 2 seasons).

The man is, without doubt, going to win throphys with or without Romans money.

cson

Hmmm, is it just me or is everyone else just unaware that Chelsea can still in theory do the quadruple. It'd be quite a thing to sack Mourinho if he did it.

Vokes

PHB wrote:

The issue with Mourinho, and judging him, is in how much control he had over the transfers?
Did he want Shevchenko and Ballack?
Did he want to sell Gallas, did he want Cole?

Well I reckon Ballack was definitely one of Mourinho's players - an important part of his new look 4-4-2 narrow diamond formation start of this season.

But Shevchenko definitely appears to have been brought in by someone higher-up.

leninbenjamin

Raskolnikov wrote:

Does anyone not think this is perhaps one of the most ridiculous sackings of a manager since Del Bosque was fired by Florentino Perez while at Real Madrid?

from a footballing sense. yes it's absolutely nuts. From a business point of view it could be one of the best things Chelsea ever do.

Ambramovich wants to build a brand out of Chelsea, akin to Real, Barca and United. to do that, not only do you have to win things, you but you have to play relatively "attractive" football to get there, because you want to attract new fans. In the height of Arsenal, United, and Liverpool many people jumped on the bandwagon, yet i know have heard of no one personally who has, kids still want to be Rooney, Gerrard, Thierry over Drogba and Carvalho et al. Mourinho's arrogance and chelsea's often thuggish and cynical play do nothing to attract potential fans, but instead repel them (even going back to his porto days everyone i knew wanted Monaco to win over Porto). now everyone wants them to lose. I don't remember the ABUs ever being as vocal as the ABCs are today.

I actually think if Chelsea don't get rid of Mourinho before the damage to the brand is irreversable that they'll end up more like Blackburn and Lazio etc in the long term rather than a real powerhouse.

PHB

if he was winning titles, id reckon that that'd be all the glazers would care about

Actually they care about money. Attractive football gets way way way more fans than defensive football ever will. Part of the reason United have been so sucessful in marketing is the style of football they play.

I don't remember the ABUs ever being as vocal as the ABCs are today.

Your memory is fading then Although Chelsea's ABC's dont exist as much this year, because they are losing.

cson

Mourinho gets results though. That you cannot argue. His bulldozer method with Chelski works most of the time.

Didn't Peter Kenyon say that he has planned for Chelsea to be able to survive independently in 5 or so years? Seems outrageous to me, IMO they'd go like the titanic if Abramovich left. Paying Ballack £130,000 with crowds of 40,000..
Thats where United are set up despite the huge debt they have. Solid asset in Old Trafford, 76,000 every week. As well as a massive fanbase all over the world. For what its worth though, I think they miss Beckham solely for the marketing potential he has worldwide.

KdjaCL

All english clubs get 120 million as and from next season something fans off clubs recently taken over havent realised fully. Chelsea and all other prem clubs could afford to let fans in for free. In fact its entirley plausible that Chelsea could make a profit within 5 years based on that overseas tv deal and clear the money invested by Roman at the same time.

Mourinho will be gone this season most likely to Real Chelsea can any manager they want but i would go with Lippi or Capello as favourites.


kdjac

PHB

Chelsea cannot ever afford to be a financially workable club with their current wages.

KdjaCL

PHB wrote:

Chelsea cannot ever afford to be a financially workable club with their current wages.

Yes they can with that overseas tv deal, same way Utd could clear their 600 million debt in 3 years and then the 2 lads have without doubt the greatest investment deal ever made bought man utd for practically nothing and can sell it for a billion

Liverpool can build a stadium and buy players and still not have to worry about tickets sold for games.

Chelsea can also afford to get in any player pay him and have more than enough change to clear romans investment altho he wont the money would be there.

kdjac

Mitch Connor

Raskolnikov wrote:

Ranieri had the cash and he didn't win a thing.

Compared to Chelsea, United have been very fortunate with injuries this season. Their key players like Scholes, Ronaldo, Van der Saar, Rooney, Ferdinand have been fit pretty much all season. Little wonder Fergie didn't need to make a foray into the January transfer window.

Lets see - Chelsea came second in the league to a team that didn't lose a match all season, and got to the CL semi-final; has Jose got chelsea further in the CL? Would Jose have done as well without Cech? Lampard? Terry? Makalele? Gallas? Robben? Cole? All Ranieri signings. If Ranieri had been given a second season, he would have won the league too.

Van der Saar, Ole, Rooney, Saha, Neville, Heinze have all picked up injuries. Right now United are without Neville, Vidic, Silvestre and Evra, an entire back line.

Mitch Connor

Seaneh wrote:

yeah, anyone can win the champions league with a wage and transfer budget that is less than blackburn, man city or charltons...

Fact is that he won throphys long before he went to chelsea.

He brought his home town team (União de Leiria) from semi-professional to second in the super league in 2 seasons, with a home attendance of about 5000 fans, a wage budget of less than 80k a month and a combinded transfer bugdet of 2million euro (thats 2million over 2 seasons).

The man is, without doubt, going to win throphys with or without Romans money.

so freaking what? what has that got to do with it? I never said he is a bad manager, did i? No, so what is your point? i just don't think winning the premiership "football manager" style is that amazing.

He has spent over 300million in 3 seasons - if you don't win the prem with that kind of outlay, you have done something seriously wrong.

Mitch Connor

KdjaCL wrote:

Yes they can with that overseas tv deal, same way Utd could clear their 600 million debt in 3 years and then the 2 lads have without doubt the greatest investment deal ever made bought man utd for practically nothing and can sell it for a billion

Liverpool can build a stadium and buy players and still not have to worry about tickets sold for games.

Chelsea can also afford to get in any player pay him and have more than enough change to clear romans investment altho he wont the money would be there.

kdjac

oh my god. I see so much wrong with that post it is unbelievable!

KdjaCL

Tauren wrote:

oh my god. I see so much wrong with that post it is unbelievable!

Have you seen the figures on offer from this new tv deal?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6273617.stm

The £625m raised is double that from existing overseas television deals and takes the Premiership's earnings from media rights over the three seasons to more than £2.7bn.

kdjac

Bounty Hunter

correct me if im wrong but like any other manager Mourinho would adapt his tactics to suit his players. Afterall before the arrival of new players esp ballack and shever forcing the 442 switch, chelsea were all about attacking wing play with robben, duff, j.cole and even gudjohnson(sp) playing most games. Why could the man with a proven track record before winning roman the league not adapt to managing man utds players.

event

PHB wrote:

Actually they care about money. Attractive football gets way way way more fans than defensive football ever will. Part of the reason United have been so sucessful in marketing is the style of football they play.

not really, kids will always follow the team thats winning. I have seen plenty of 'new' chelsea fans in the last two years

and does winning trophies not get you money?

leninbenjamin

event wrote:

not really, kids will always follow the team thats winning. I have seen plenty of 'new' chelsea fans in the last two years

really? looking around my area i see none, well, maybe the odd one. it's still all man utd and liverpool that i see, chelsea have not been pulling in the youngsters to the same extent that United were 10 years ago AFAIK.

BKtje

not really, kids will always follow the team thats winning. I have seen plenty of 'new' chelsea fans in the last two years

Really? There are a few Chelsea fans alright but there are still a huuuuuge amount of liverpool (who havent been that dominant) and manu supporters. Arsenal are also knocking about but still dwarfed by the big two (this is ofc my opinion and have to facts to back it up).

I have seen very very few Chelsea shirts knocking about.

Mitch Connor

Bounty Hunter wrote:

correct me if im wrong but like any other manager Mourinho would adapt his tactics to suit his players. Afterall before the arrival of new players esp ballack and shever forcing the 442 switch, chelsea were all about attacking wing play with robben, duff, j.cole and even gudjohnson(sp) playing most games. Why could the man with a proven track record before winning roman the league not adapt to managing man utds players.

I can't really correct you, as it is a matter of opinion, but i do think you are wrong.

Before Ballack and Sheva "forcing a switch to 442" chelsea played a defensive formation - 5 in midfield. Eidur was played in midfield, not as a striker, Duff was forced to do more defending then he is good at - not bad in itself, but Duff was nowhere near as attacking by the end of his chelsea career as he was at the start, and Joe Cole was told he be dropped if he didn't start playing simply! (slight exaggeration cause he did waste the ball a bit, but he was also told to become more defensive in his play) Then, last season saw the arrival of Essien, and chelsea played two defensive midfielders. That is not attacking football. Also, its not like he suited the formation to the players at his disposal, he BOUGHT the players to suit the formation and style he chose.

PHB

Yes they can with that overseas tv deal, same way Utd could clear their 600 million debt in 3 years and then the 2 lads have without doubt the greatest investment deal ever made bought man utd for practically nothing and can sell it for a billion

Liverpool can build a stadium and buy players and still not have to worry about tickets sold for games.

Chelsea can also afford to get in any player pay him and have more than enough change to clear romans investment altho he wont the money would be there.

kdjac

Possible, but unlikely. It based on the assumption that they get the overseas deal to go on a club by club basis, and not collectively. Furthermore, Chelseas supprt oversea isn't that large, so the overseas deal, if based on individual rights, will go more to United and Liverpool (who have quite a big presence over in Asia) than it will to Chelsea. Kenyon has created a myth that Chelsea are popular over there, but nothing so far has suggested that they are.

event

leninbenjamin wrote:

really? looking around my area i see none, well, maybe the odd one. it's still all man utd and liverpool that i see, chelsea have not been pulling in the youngsters to the same extent that United were 10 years ago AFAIK.

B-K-DzR wrote:

Really? There are a few Chelsea fans alright but there are still a huuuuuge amount of liverpool (who havent been that dominant) and manu supporters. Arsenal are also knocking about but still dwarfed by the big two (this is ofc my opinion and have to facts to back it up).

I have seen very very few Chelsea shirts knocking about.

Really?

must be just my area, but while there are still loads of manu+pool fans, there are loads of kids in chelsea jerseys knocking about

PHB

I myself have seen very few Chelsea jerseys, still United and Liverpool. Thing is, I think English football became a lot more popular in Ireland when the current generation of 18-27 year olds were growing up, so while a lot of them picked a club without parental influence, the same isn't true of this up and coming generation, many of whom will be picking the same club their parents did.

daveg

Raskolnikov wrote:

is in the FA Cup final

Smaller matter of Blackburn before he gets to the final.

jem

I think maureen is a good manager who struck it rich with such a sugar daddy.
he created a winning effective team with some great players but they were/are boreing.Daddy wants to be popular and cant understand it. He also sees that they don't have a great goalscorer and he wants his team to have one, He also happens to be friends with one and buy's him he also buys the what he considers the best attacking/scoreing midfielder , surely these two will score goals and make him/his team more popular.Problem his manager doesn't want them and they take a while to settle.
still unpopular ever manu more popular geting serious.
a few defenders get injured decides not to buy more even thougth his manager wants some, hopes less defenders mean less defending and more attackers, opposite effect , manager move around team and makes it even more defensive. more defensive = more boreing= less popular.
looking mean and going against manager= even less popular
marriage breaking up= pocket lighter.
manager whinging in papers etc= go away.

Davidth88

Hi,

New to the soccer board... so be gentle, and I better declare my aligience ... been a blues fan since I was boy ( not saying when that was but it was before we won the FAC the first time )

My opinion, it would be a real shame to lose Jose. His charisma is unreal, you only have to see the opposing fan's reaction if he stands up at a game :-)

I too have not enjoyed Chelsea's style of play over the last couple of years , esp the last year , but you can't argue with the results. As a foil to that , The Ar*e have played argubally the most attractive footie over the last couple of years , and what have they actually won ?

I truly hope he does not leave/forced out by politics it would be a real shame ! ....... not since Eddie Mcready eh ! ( a comment only true blues would understand )