Jose Mourinho, the greatest football manager of all time.......

bradlente

TheFullDuck wrote: »

Blaming the FA/UEFA/Mike Riley is deflecting blame and attention from his players and the poor result and onto others, same as when he claimed chelsea were not ready to win the PL this year. A trick he played a bit too much I think which eventually got into his players heads. I do agree though, he has his flaws, interesting character though.

Even the statement that he'd field a weak team had it's desired effect.I bet his intention there was to say to a few of his players indirectly "you're second string,you're not usually good enough to play for me" but then they go out and prove him wrong and win.There's a reason for every thing he says,every word for him is a chance to get an extra little % out of a performance.Compare that to a lot of managers that just have banter with the press that sometimes even hurts morale and you can see another reason why he's better than them.

bradlente

dfx- wrote: »

Yet it doesn't always work in big games either.

The poor record in Clasicos against Guardiola. The 5-0 defeat in the Nou Camp. Seven CL semi-finals - 14 games - and only progression to two finals I think. People seem to choose which games to remember

The Barce rivalry was one where he was definitely bettered,but wrestling a league title away from them was a major achievement.I don't think any other manager could've done it,Even Pellegrinis ridiculous win % wasn't deemed good enough.

It's funny how ultimately the best of the best in most categories of their generation shared a rivalry in that league for a couple of years and I can barely recall any great moments.It was so ugly,I'm glad it's over.Real were worse but both teams could not take being second best there and it really wasn't fun to watch most of the time.Now all parties have far healthier and entertaining rivalries (Atletico,Epl,Dortmund etc.)

With the semi-final record,he was only a penalty shoot-out away with Real,but that's his own fault for his tactics,it could easily go that way Wednesday night.He might be improving on that record then too.

Turtwig

We're already seeing signs of what was plaguing Real in Chelsea this season. Those scenes against Sunderland and there will be more. Mourinho always walks this line.

Madrid this season are so much more likeable. Pep's grew so sarcastic after increasing encounters with Mourinho it was rather sad. Sid Lowe has brilliant article written on it. How his attitude to press was totally transformed as he became infuriated by my constantly having to offer some response to Mourinho's shyte. Eventually even the Spanish media turned on him (in part because it was destroying the unity of the Spanish side). The English football media are the lowest of lows so they put Mourinho on some pedestals and soapbox because he's ego needs it and they'll happy provide it. It's a really sad state affairs to be honest.

bradlente

At least in England there are a few teams that can compete.Before Atletico came on the scene this year it was a two horse race in Spain,that can go a long way to boiling up the tension when the only two challengers meet.It looks like at least two other teams can give Chelsea a run for their money and that's at the very least.
It's hard to know exactly how it'll go with him.For instance if they were to sign a player like Rooney they could be unstoppable.But on the other hand,Mourinho hates/fears losing so much that if things don't go his way for even a slightly longer than short-term period of time at Chelsea next season I could see him packing it in,Maybe taking the Portugal job when it comes up.
I don't think he'll ever manage a team for long enough to rebuild them like a lot of great managers have,I'd say that's his greatest shortcoming so far,that he's never really built a new team after bringing a team through a transitional period.It could be this Chelsea side that he does it with as they look like they're in transition,even though they're still competing on both fronts.

Turtwig

I'm open to correction here but didn't Mourinho have a lot of input at grassroots level in Chelsea too. It's been a while since I read the criticism about him not developing clubs but I do believe at Chelsea he was heavily involved in youth development as well?

bradlente

Turtwig wrote: »

I'm open to correction here but didn't Mourinho have a lot of input at grassroots level in Chelsea too. It's been a while since I read the criticism about him not developing clubs but I do believe at Chelsea he was heavily involved in youth development as well?

I don't know but it's irrelevant for me if he wasn't around.For 3 years he might of had a big say but then he left for 6.He doesn't get to come back and add all his years up consecutively.I won't be surprised if he brings up his amazingly active input in development during a future interview now :pac:

Ulysses Gaze

bradlente wrote: »

At least in England there are a few teams that can compete.Before Atletico came on the scene this year it was a two horse race in Spain,that can go a long way to boiling up the tension when the only two challengers meet.It looks like at least two other teams can give Chelsea a run for their money and that's at the very least.
It's hard to know exactly how it'll go with him.For instance if they were to sign a player like Rooney they could be unstoppable.But on the other hand,Mourinho hates/fears losing so much that if things don't go his way for even a slightly longer than short-term period of time at Chelsea next season I could see him packing it in,Maybe taking the Portugal job when it comes up.
I don't think he'll ever manage a team for long enough to rebuild them like a lot of great managers have,I'd say that's his greatest shortcoming so far,that he's never really built a new team after bringing a team through a transitional period.It could be this Chelsea side that he does it with as they look like they're in transition,even though they're still competing on both fronts.

I'd agree that this is the chance alright. Remains to be seen whether he'll hang around long enough to do it though. He's never had a 5 year stint at a club to do that and given that he is managing a club owned by a very trigger-happy Russian, would the odds on him being there in 5 years really be good?

bradlente

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I'd agree that this is the chance alright. Remains to be seen whether he'll hang around long enough to do it though. He's never had a 5 year stint at a club to do that and given that he is managing a club owned by a very trigger-happy Russian, would the odds on him being there in 5 years really be good?

It's his own doing as much as any chairman though,look at his track record.If anything I'd say he has a better chance of doing it now because of the owner.Abramovich knows a bit more about how to not tread on the managers toes and maybe likewise for Mourinho.I doubt we''l see the owner go out and buy a couple of players on a whim like last time,and I could be wrong here but I've noticed Mourinho is not disparaging the ownership as much right now compared his usual amounts.

It's only the first season though,it'll be interesting to see where it goes.For me it's either
1)As soon as someone steps over the line slightly(for example if Mourinho decides to criticise the club next season) it all unravels,or
2)They spend megabucks on a Shev/Ballack type player Mourinho actually wants and transform the side into the best in the league.Whether that type of player is available is another story.

AdamD

I seem to remember him being a lot more likeable during his first stint at Chelsea, could be wrong. No denying hes a superb manager but hes not having a great season, letting Lukaku and Mata go has bitten him in the ass when its come to beating the sides who park the bus against them (ironic, right?), Wednesday night's a massive game, could be looking at two trophy-less seasons in a row with mega-rich teams.

dundalkfc10

AdamD wrote: »

I seem to remember him being a lot more likeable during his first stint at Chelsea, could be wrong. No denying hes a superb manager but hes not having a great season, letting Lukaku and Mata go has bitten him in the ass when its come to beating the sides who park the bus against them (ironic, right?), Wednesday night's a massive game, could be looking at two trophy-less seasons in a row with mega-rich teams.

Still in with a shout of winning the League (although a small one)
In the Semi Final 2nd Leg of a Champions League at 0-0

Terrible season indeed!

SantryRed

Amount of closed accounts from good posters at the start of this thread is disappointing.

AdamD

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Still in with a shout of winning the League (although a small one)
In the Semi Final 2nd Leg of a Champions League at 0-0

Terrible season indeed!

You just used a completely different adjective with a different meaning, nice one.

Andersonisgod

AdamD wrote: »

I seem to remember him being a lot more likeable during his first stint at Chelsea, could be wrong. No denying hes a superb manager but hes not having a great season, letting Lukaku and Mata go has bitten him in the ass when its come to beating the sides who park the bus against them (ironic, right?), Wednesday night's a massive game, could be looking at two trophy-less seasons in a row with mega-rich teams.

Because Juan Mata was really cracking open those defences for Mourinho in the first half of the season? Oh, wait, no he wasn't. One of the big concerns that the club, and Mourinho, seems to have with Lukaku is that when he is not afforded space to run into there are doubts about his current level of technical ability (eg. holding up the ball under pressure) and ability to find space in a crowded area. While he may have the physical attributes of Drogba in his prime, he does not yet have his sublime technical ability or football intelligence.

It's been meandering along at Chelsea for a while, though even that meandering has brought trophies with it. Under Mourinho there is a clear plan. There's an obvious blueprint for what he wants to create, the direction he wants the team to go, the kind of players he wants in the team. He's come very close this season to winning the Premier League, his second seasons are better than his first, give him a top class striker, give him more time with the players, there's no telling what he could do.

Though I say that as if he's achieved little, in actual fact he's taken 16 from 18 points against the top four and he's in a Champions League semi final.

redzerdrog

SantryRed wrote: »

Amount of closed accounts from good posters at the start of this thread is disappointing.

I disagree regrading the good part but I am sure a couple of them are still around

AdamD

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Because Juan Mata was really cracking open those defences for Mourinho in the first half of the season? Oh, wait, no he wasn't. One of the big concerns that the club, and Mourinho, seems to have with Lukaku is that when he is not afforded space to run into there are doubts about his current level of technical ability (eg. holding up the ball under pressure) and ability to find space in a crowded area. While he may have the physical attributes of Drogba in his prime, he does not yet have his sublime technical ability or football intelligence.

It's been meandering along at Chelsea for a while, though even that meandering has brought trophies with it. Under Mourinho there is a clear plan. There's an obvious blueprint for what he wants to create, the direction he wants the team to go, the kind of players he wants in the team. He's come very close this season to winning the Premier League, his second seasons are better than his first, give him a top class striker, give him more time with the players, there's no telling what he could do.

Though I say that as if he's achieved little, in actual fact he's taken 16 from 18 points against the top four and he's in a Champions League semi final.

Mata wasn't playing the first half of the season, which was fine as Oscar was in form. Oscar's form has dropped off a cliff since Mata has left, completely unrelated to eachother but the lack of a quality alternative has left Chelsea in a lurch, its pretty undeniable.

Your last point is just silly, 16 points from 18 against the top 4 means absolutely nothing if you don't win the title.

God forbid we objectively criticise somebody from a team you support, have you ever had an objective thought? I don't think you actually believe not having Mata to fill in for Oscar or Lukaku playing a role in the team has actually been a positive.

Also, a pet peeve of mine: Compare Lukaku to Ba, Torres and Eto'o, not Drogba. It doesn't make any sense to compare him to Drogba. Compare him to the strikers who were preferred to him at the start of the season. The strikers who have largely let the team down.

Andersonisgod

AdamD wrote: »

Mata wasn't playing the first half of the season, which was fine as Oscar was in form. Oscar's form has dropped off a cliff since Mata has left, completely unrelated to eachother but the lack of a quality alternative has left Chelsea in a lurch, its pretty undeniable.

Your last point is just silly, 16 points from 18 against the top 4 means absolutely nothing if you don't win the title.

God forbid we objectively criticise somebody from a team you support, have you ever had an objective thought? I don't think you actually believe not having Mata to fill in for Oscar or Lukaku playing a role in the team has actually been a positive.

Also, a pet peeve of mine: Compare Lukaku to Ba, Torres and Eto'o, not Drogba. It doesn't make any sense to compare him to Drogba. Compare him to the strikers who were preferred to him at the start of the season. The strikers who have largely let the team down.

When Mata did play for Chelsea this season he was ineffective, the stats don't lie, neither do the performances which we all witnessed. It was a case of square pegs in round holes. Mata is practically the polar opposite of what a Mourinho player is, it was never going to work. So unless you'd rather Chelsea change manager for the sake of Mata, he hasn't really been a loss at all.

It actually does mean something. It means that Mourinho knows how to get results against the top teams. Give him a striker next season who can make the difference in some smaller games that Mourinho is less focused on, get similar results against the big teams and suddenly Chelsea win the league.

Have I had an objective thought? Sure, for a millisecond, and then that objective thought was clouded by my own morals, principals, life experiences and biases, is there such a thing as an objective thought? Surely all thoughts are subjective and instantaneously subjected to your perceptions. Facts on the other hand are indisputable, they can't be altered, that's why they are facts. I know a lot of facts.

Chelsea remains a team that craves a Drogba type figure. To be fair to Eto'o, he's done well given his circumstances and Ba has rallied late. I don't think Lukaku would have made a big difference to this side, sure you might say "if you transferred the goals he scored for Everton and did that for Chelsea then Chelsea would have won the league at a canter" but alas football is not quite that simple.

upstairs for coffee

It is a results business and Mourinho gets them. A defensive tactic is just as legitimate as an attacking tactic. He stymied the attacking intent of the leagues most threatening team. He and his team obtained a clean sheet away from home at the league leaders and top scorers and also got 3 points.

Great tactician.

Turtwig

All that shows is great pragmatism and that's he's not swayed by an attacking ideology. The majority of the people on this forum could have told you how a team should set up against Liverpool or City.

Essien

Turtwig wrote: »

All that shows is great pragmatism and that's he's not swayed by an attacking ideology. The majority of the people on this forum could have told you how a team should set up against Liverpool or City.

Isn't it mad how the majority of premier league managers couldn't figure it out then.

gosplan

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Mata is practically the polar opposite of what a Mourinho player is, it was never going to work.

He probably will be the most successful manager of all time but this point for me is his failing. Mourinho can't adjust.

Essentially, he's a one trick pony. It's an amazing trick and it's completely effective but its also very expensive, doesn't entertain that much and so far requires a new team every 2-3 years.

SantryRed

Turtwig wrote: »

All that shows is great pragmatism and that's he's not swayed by an attacking ideology. The majority of the people on this forum could have told you how a team should set up against Liverpool or City.

Because it's just that simple.

Andersonisgod

gosplan wrote: »

He probably will be the most successful manager of all time but this point for me is his failing. Mourinho can't adjust.

Essentially, he's a one trick pony. It's an amazing trick and it's completely effective but its also very expensive, doesn't entertain that much and so far requires a new team every 2-3 years.

I don't agree, for me, that's the same as criticising Pep Guardiola because he can't incorporate a player like Ramires in his team. Mata and Ramires have strengths and weaknesses, Guardiola and Mourinho have certain traits that they want in each of their players. That isn't a criticism of either coach, that is an ideology.

I absolutely don't agree with the second point either and would say that there were far more expensively assembled teams in the Champions League when Porto and Inter Milan won it respectively.

dundalkfc10

gosplan wrote: »

He probably will be the most successful manager of all time but this point for me is his failing. Mourinho can't adjust.

Essentially, he's a one trick pony. It's an amazing trick and it's completely effective but its also very expensive, doesn't entertain that much and so far requires a new team every 2-3 years.

Well he arguably made Ronaldo a better player, had him defending from open play at corners etc... something Ferguson could never do....

His Chelsea side that he was given time to build, Duff, Robben, Cole etc... got over 100 points and nearly 100 goals, His Real Madrid side got the most points a Spanish Side has ever got in the league with over 100 goals so to say his teams dont entertain is bull****

Chucky the tree

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

It is a results business and Mourinho gets them. A defensive tactic is just as legitimate as an attacking tactic. He stymied the attacking intent of the leagues most threatening team. He and his team obtained a clean sheet away from home at the league leaders and top scorers and also got 3 points.

Great tactician.

Shame he couldn't get one at home to a team in the relegation zone last week.

Donnielighto

Andersonisgod wrote: »

When Mata did play for Chelsea this season he was ineffective, the stats don't lie, neither do the performances which we all witnessed. It was a case of square pegs in round holes. Mata is practically the polar opposite of what a Mourinho player is, it was never going to work. So unless you'd rather Chelsea change manager for the sake of Mata, he hasn't really been a loss at all.

It actually does mean something. It means that Mourinho knows how to get results against the top teams. Give him a striker next season who can make the difference in some smaller games that Mourinho is less focused on, get similar results against the big teams and suddenly Chelsea win the league.

Have I had an objective thought? Sure, for a millisecond, and then that objective thought was clouded by my own morals, principals, life experiences and biases, is there such a thing as an objective thought? Surely all thoughts are subjective and instantaneously subjected to your perceptions. Facts on the other hand are indisputable, they can't be altered, that's why they are facts. I know a lot of facts.

Chelsea remains a team that craves a Drogba type figure. To be fair to Eto'o, he's done well given his circumstances and Ba has rallied late. I don't think Lukaku would have made a big difference to this side, sure you might say "if you transferred the goals he scored for Everton and did that for Chelsea then Chelsea would have won the league at a canter" but alas football is not quite that simple.

Player of the season 2 seasons is surely a decent option, is ozil a mou player?

You cant deny that the physical presence of lukaku would have been useful. Antway given he current attributes and scope for improvement a season moulding lukaku into what chelsea and mourinho need him to be.

Now if you had said he was stamping his authority by dismissing two of the hottest properties in the league I could accept it as crude but effective.

gosplan

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I don't agree, for me, that's the same as criticising Pep Guardiola because he can't incorporate a player like Ramires in his team. Mata and Ramires have strengths and weaknesses, Guardiola and Mourinho have certain traits that they want in each of their players. That isn't a criticism of either coach, that is an ideology.

I absolutely don't agree with the second point either and would say that there were far more expensively assembled teams in the Champions League when Porto and Inter Milan won it respectively.

Yes, it was a weakness of Barca. Guardiola has them too. Don't confuse me saying there is a failing or weakness with the idea that something is weak or failing overall. Take my point for what it is without being defensive.


Whether or not there are more expensive teams is irrelevant. My point is that Jose needs to spend money. As you yourself said, there are 'Mourinho players' and he can't work without these.

Donnielighto

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Shame he couldn't get one at home to a team in the relegation zone last week.

Hardly devalues the league position though.

Chucky the tree

Donnielighto wrote: »

Hardly devalues the league position though.

Their 2nd, soon to be 3rd in the league most likely. With their resources and squad it's a huge failure to be sitting behind Liverpool.

gosplan

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Well he arguably made Ronaldo a better player, had him defending from open play at corners etc... something Ferguson could never do....

His Chelsea side that he was given time to build, Duff, Robben, Cole etc... got over 100 points and nearly 100 goals, His Real Madrid side got the most points a Spanish Side has ever got in the league with over 100 goals so to say his teams dont entertain is bull****

OK. I don't think it's bull personally.

Generally people prefer possession based football to counter attacking, regardless of how ruthless it may be.

Donnielighto

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Their 2nd, soon to be 3rd in the league most likely. With their resources and squad it's a huge failure to be sitting behind Liverpool.

Rather than a success of liverpool. Pool are over achieving relative to resources thia season, doesn't have a whole pile to do with Chelsea or mourinho

Andersonisgod

Donnielighto wrote: »

Player of the season 2 seasons is surely a decent option, is ozil a mou player?

You cant deny that the physical presence of lukaku would have been useful. Antway given he current attributes and scope for improvement a season moulding lukaku into what chelsea and mourinho need him to be.

Now if you had said he was stamping his authority by dismissing two of the hottest properties in the league I could accept it as crude but effective.

Turns out no, how many did he score/assist in the league before he was sold? If anything De Bruyne looked more likely to succeed under Mourinho than Mata. I'm not having a go at Mata, in the right team, in the right system he's a wonderful player, that system wasn't Mourinho's, that team wasn't Mourinho's Chelsea. That simply cant be disputed.

Yes, I'd say Ozil was. He had an excellent time under Mourinho at Real Madrid, he became the world's premier number 10 under Mourinho's guidance. There are certainly differences between Ozil and Mata if that's what you are getting at.

Sure, just as Demba Ba's has been useful. However he lacks the experience and, right now, the technical tools to be Chelsea's main man. He might return next season and become Chelsea's second striker, but the first choice will surely be bought in the summer and you'd suspect it will be Diego Costa, imo, an ideal fit.

Why would I say that? He discarded one player who was the polar opposite of what he wants in his side and in his place brought in Salah (who has the tools to be an effective Mourinho player) and Nemanja Matic, an absolute gem of a midfielder. He let the other one go out on loan when it became clear that he didn't want to be part of the striker rotation and because he still has aspects of his game that need to be developed and can only be developed by playing games regularly.

Turtwig

Essien wrote: »

Isn't it mad how the majority of premier league managers couldn't figure it out then.

Do you think Sir Alec of Wenger, even if they knew that, would ever compromise their principles? Moyes's united couldn't execute anything for sh*t. Many managers did know. Having the players to execute it is a whole other thing. Generally speaking in soccer tactics don't mean anything if your team is wholly inferior. You can play the perfect gameplan and still get thumped.

Andersonisgod

gosplan wrote: »

Yes, it was a weakness of Barca. Guardiola has them too. Don't confuse me saying there is a failing or weakness with the idea that something is weak or failing overall. Take my point for what it is without being defensive.


Whether or not there are more expensive teams is irrelevant. My point is that Jose needs to spend money. As you yourself said, there are 'Mourinho players' and he can't work without these.

I'm sorry but I can't accept that. Are you really saying that Barcelona would be a better side with Ramires in it? Have I simply read that wrongly? Give me a manager with an ideology any day of the week over a manager with no direction.

What manager has not spent money though? Every single manager spends money. Every single manager that wants to win the biggest trophies spends eye-watering amounts of money t the average person. So yes, he buys Mourinho players, just as any other manager buys players.

Donnielighto

gosplan wrote: »

OK. I don't think it's bull personally.

Generally people prefer possession based football to counter attacking, regardless of how ruthless it may be.

Woah you can counterattack without parking the bus. Sterile possession is worse than the bus imho pointless when dominant. A mix is the best but swift direct attacks, not hoofball is the most exciting.

Chelsea got goals but werent the most exciting.

Donnielighto

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I'm sorry but I can't accept that. Are you really saying that Barcelona would be a better side with Ramires in it? Have I simply read that wrongly? Give me a manager with an ideology any day of the week over a manager with no direction.

What manager has not spent money though? Every single manager spends money. Every single manager that wants to win the biggest trophies spends eye-watering amounts of money t the average person. So yes, he buys Mourinho players, just as any other manager buys players.

You are intentionally missing the point. An energetic breaker like ramires wouldnt get a midfield berth with ped. Passing and movement above all. Mourinho has other things that are above all. Pep couldnt work with ibra or etoo so there arr gaps in his knowledge just like mous. In their areas of expertise they are unrivalled though.

gosplan

Andersonisgod wrote: »

I'm sorry but I can't accept that. Are you really saying that Barcelona would be a better side with Ramires in it? Have I simply read that wrongly? Give me a manager with an ideology any day of the week over a manager with no direction.

Perhaps not Ramires but if they got Ibramovich to work, they would have been better. But they could only play one way.

An ideology is fine and I'm not criticising that, as you seem to suggest I am. What I'm saying is having a plan B to execute is a bonus and not having one is a weakness.

Look at Utd in 2006-2009, played with a huge amount of different formations with no fixed striker and fully cut their cloth to suit the opponents of the day.

Having the ability to do that is a strength, that's all I'm saying.

Andersonisgod wrote: »

What manager has not spent money though? Every single manager spends money. Every single manager that wants to win the biggest trophies spends eye-watering amounts of money t the average person. So yes, he buys Mourinho players, just as any other manager buys players.

Rafa had very nearly the same points average as Mourinho this season and bought no-one bar Demba Ba in Jan. He just got stuck in with the players he had and did really well.

That is also a strength.

Donnielighto

Andersonisgod wrote: »

Turns out no, how many did he score/assist in the league before he was sold? If anything De Bruyne looked more likely to succeed under Mourinho than Mata. I'm not having a go at Mata, in the right team, in the right system he's a wonderful player, that system wasn't Mourinho's, that team wasn't Mourinho's Chelsea. That simply cant be disputed.

Yes, I'd say Ozil was. He had an excellent time under Mourinho at Real Madrid, he became the world's premier number 10 under Mourinho's guidance. There are certainly differences between Ozil and Mata if that's what you are getting at.

Sure, just as Demba Ba's has been useful. However he lacks the experience and, right now, the technical tools to be Chelsea's main man. He might return next season and become Chelsea's second striker, but the first choice will surely be bought in the summer and you'd suspect it will be Diego Costa, imo, an ideal fit.

Why would I say that? He discarded one player who was the polar opposite of what he wants in his side and in his place brought in Salah (who has the tools to be an effective Mourinho player) and Nemanja Matic, an absolute gem of a midfielder. He let the other one go out on loan when it became clear that he didn't want to be part of the striker rotation and because he still has aspects of his game that need to be developed and can only be developed by playing games regularly.

That's fair enough but I inferred from your earlier posts that the players were discarded because the didnt have much to offer in general as opposed to just this season at chelsea. I do think mata would have settled btw. Good money on the sale but he was already gone by some accounts.

gosplan

Donnielighto wrote: »

Woah you can counterattack without parking the bus. Sterile possession is worse than the bus imho pointless when dominant. A mix is the best but swift direct attacks, not hoofball is the most exciting.

Chelsea got goals but werent the most exciting.

that's kind of my point

they're just not the most exciting.

But before people lay into me for that ... it doesn't matter. Chelsea should do what they want and if teams can't beat them, then good for them.

dundalkfc10

This thread is "greatest manager of all time" not Who plays the best football etc... but Years managing to Trophies, Jose is the best ever, No doubt about it at that regard

gosplan

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

This thread is "greatest manager of all time" not Who plays the best football etc... but Years managing to Trophies, Jose is the best ever, No doubt about it at that regard

No, 2nd to Guardolia I think

Hannibal

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Their 2nd, soon to be 3rd in the league most likely. With their resources and squad it's a huge failure to be sitting behind Liverpool.

Liverpool have performed fantastically and they have come from 7th to do it. Chelsea on the other hand won the European Cup two years ago, Europa League last year and Mourinho spent over £100m this season alone. He has an expensive squad and reduces their talent to playing what is basically Catenaccio

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

This thread is "greatest manager of all time" not Who plays the best football etc... but Years managing to Trophies, Jose is the best ever, No doubt about it at that regard

check Bob Paisleys record and come back to me on that. 9 seasons, 6 league titles, 3 European Cups, Uefa Cup, 3 League Cup

Shanotheslayer

Hannibal wrote: »

Mourinho spent over £100m this season alone

This bugs me, he spent 100 Million yes, but sold Mata for 37mil. So really he spent 73. Now that's just off the top of my head. If he sold 250mill, worth of players and spent 200mill. People would say 'He spent 200mill" blah blah even tho he made 50mill... 73mill in football is nothing now a days. Citys bench costs that much on a regular basis.

Pudders

Clough
Shankley
Paisley
Ferguson
4british managers far superior to him before even going abroad.

hadepsx

me hole. jose is poison

COYVB

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

This bugs me, he spent 100 Million yes, but sold Mata for 37mil. So really he spent 73. Now that's just off the top of my head. If he sold 250mill, worth of players and spent 200mill. People would say 'He spent 200mill" blah blah even tho he made 50mill... 73mill in football is nothing now a days. Citys bench costs that much on a regular basis.

It doesn't matter how much a team brings in from sales, spending 200m on players would still mean you bought 200m worth of players. They're not worth less or devalued because of sales

quarryman

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

This bugs me, he spent 100 Million yes, but sold Mata for 37mil. So really he spent 73. Now that's just off the top of my head. If he sold 250mill, worth of players and spent 200mill. People would say 'He spent 200mill" blah blah even tho he made 50mill... 73mill in football is nothing now a days. Citys bench costs that much on a regular basis.

How did you get 73 from 100 minus 37?

EuropeanSon

quarryman wrote: »

How did you get 73 from 100 minus 37?

That's fairly obvious. He made an error. You want points for being able to do arithmetic?

rob316

The thread title is laughable.

Shankly, Paisley, Ferguson all better.

RayCon

Hey Hey Hey .... speaking as a Liverpool fan ... WE own the net spend arguement. Please cease and desist or you'll be hearing from our lawyers.

Shanotheslayer

quarryman wrote: »

How did you get 73 from 100 minus 37?

Quite easily, I hit the wrong number by mistake.