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

nice_guy80

He certainly brightened up my week.

inforfun

Ernst Happel.

Won Cl with Feyenoord, HSV and brought Club Brugge in the final
Took ADO Den Haag to a european quarter final.

Finished 2nd with the Dutch in WC'78 that could never be won by anyone else than Argentina.

ThunbergsAreGo

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.

As do Chelsea, not to mention the plethora of players out on loan

Dolph Starbeam

Just seen this on balls.ie. Pretty impressive.

Turtwig

It's not really though. Jose is impressive no doubt but those stats are vague.

You gotta remember that Jose never exactly had a 'weak' team in the league. He always had a very strong team. In terms of the leagues he had often had one of the strongest. So most games that his team is winning in you'd expect them to win or at least draw. Same goes for Fergie, Pellengrini, Guardiola, Wenger, Ancelloti etc.

Need to see their figures before you can say it's impressive. I'd expect records like that to be the norm.

gosplan

I think Jose's a genius tbh. And people are using this thread to have a go at him because he's not liked. (Including by me btw)

If he's playing a team better, he nullifies them and turns it into a dogfight and very few teams have more fight in them than Jose's.

If his team are better he strangles the opposition and makes their own quality count.

He has an amazing record since 2002, one that it is hard to envisage anyone really doing that much better than.

The only question mark I have is can he rebuild or does his trick need a new club and fresh players every 3 years? He'll answer this one way or another this time at Chelsea I think.

If you value expression and free flowing football above all then you could ask questions in this regard. But anyone saying Jose is 'anti-football' or Chelsea 'don't play football' is an idiot tbh.

They play a specific type of football and the level they play it to is amazing. personally I think it's great for the sport. It keeps the flashy sides honest. If you think attacking football is the best, then prove it - that kind of thing.

niallo27

gosplan wrote: »

I think Jose's a genius tbh. And people are using this thread to have a go at him because he's not liked. (Including by me btw)

If he's playing a team better, he nullifies them and turns it into a dogfight and very few teams have more fight in them than Jose's.

If his team are better he strangles the opposition and makes their own quality count.

He has an amazing record since 2002, one that it is hard to envisage anyone really doing that much better than.

The only question mark I have is can he rebuild or does his trick need a new club and fresh players every 3 years? He'll answer this one way or another this time at Chelsea I think.

If you value expression and free flowing football above all then you could ask questions in this regard. But anyone saying Jose is 'anti-football' or Chelsea 'don't play football' is an idiot tbh.

They play a specific type of football and the level they play it to is amazing. personally I think it's great for the sport. It keeps the flashy sides honest. If you think attacking football is the best, then prove it - that kind of thing.

Well they have proved it. Liverpool are ahead of them in the league. City will be too after their game in hand.

ThunbergsAreGo

Murat Yakin has his number

OnTheCouch

I must confess I don't like the man at all (at least his public persona), as he comes across as childish, egotistical and extremely boorish in interviews. Basically he is an attention whore, everything is 'me, me, me'. Plus other actions such as poking Vilanova in the eye, which was a quite despicable thing to do, the Anders Frisk controversy, the attempts to get the Real Madrid and Barcelona players to hate each other and so on lead me to believe he is (at best) not a particularly nice person. At least in a football context.

What cannot be denied however, even to those who most fervently hate him, is that he is an outstanding man-manager, on the big occasions he nearly always manages to get his players to perform consistently better than they would ordinarily do. Plus the accusation about him having money at his disposal is unfair; he proved himself at a lower level (where he didn't have unlimited funds) in order to be given a chance at a bigger club. To put it rather simply, if Guardiola were to be sacked from Bayern at the end of the season, they are not going to come looking for me to take over. They will look for either a proven manager at the top level or someone who has consistently got results lower down. Mourinho has done both.

Plus he knows exactly how to play the press, although this is more so the case in England, in Spain they saw through him fairly quickly and it all got quite nasty towards the end of his tenure at Madrid. But in the Premiership he knows exactly how to put the attention on himself as opposed to his players (which is course exactly how he wants it). Sometimes I wonder has he got some insecurities about being a fairly mediocre player himself and wants to milk the limelight for all it is worth now. But anyway, he should be rightly applauded for the way he can deal with the media.

Where I would have doubts about his prowess would be over a long period of time at one club. From reading between the lines, it appears that he arrives in a whirlwind of high energy, demands maximum output from his players, urges them to put their body on the line and draw every little bit of effort out of them. Now whether the players simply get tired of this or they get annoyed of him and his egotistical ways after a while I am not sure, but his strategy does not seem to be sustainable for longer than two or three seasons. This is something that you can look back and quite clearly consistently observe throughout his career. I'm sure to a certain degree he knows this himself. One thing you could not accuse him of being is stupid.

Now, whether he's the greatest manager ever? I think it's too early to say, we should ask this question again in 10-15 years time. Certainly he would have a great chance, even though as we have already seen he has a lot of competition. My own prediction would be that he will go down the Brian Clough route: astonishing success at the start of his managerial career, before the mellowing of age or the mental and physical exhaustion of operating at the highest level (especially in the confrontational style of Mourinho) wears him down and he won't have as much success as he gets older.

ronjo

I heard Wilkins and Ginola talk about him today, totally singing his praises about how he always gets 100% from his players and can beat anyone on their day.

The totally ignored the fact that they really have p*ssed away this league with recent losses to Villa, Palace and Sunderland.
Thats 9 points chucked away in the last month or so against teams in bottom half of the table.

That doesnt happen if you always get 100% from players of that calibre.

bur

Ancelotti > Mourinho.

RayCon

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Where I would have doubts about his prowess would be over a long period of time at one club. From reading between the lines, it appears that he arrives in a whirlwind of high energy, demands maximum output from his players, urges them to put their body on the line and draw every little bit of effort out of them. Now whether the players simply get tired of this or they get annoyed of him and his egotistical ways after a while I am not sure, but his strategy does not seem to be sustainable for longer than two or three seasons.

Familiarity breeds contempt maybe ?

OnTheCouch

RayCon wrote: »

Familiarity breeds contempt maybe ?

More than likely, especially given the intense methods he seems to employ. In fairness to Mourinho, it is extremely difficult to have a dynasty where a manager is in charge of a club or a team for many years. Ferguson was quite exceptional in that regard, or even Arsene Wenger.

You hear all the time in other sports such as rugby or GAA that the players get tired of the manager after a few years, the ideas become stale, they get stuck in a rut, players become too casual etc etc.

I'd be very interested to see how Tony Pulis does with Crystal Palace in the next few years. I suspect that he's a fantastic manager for getting short-term results, but over many years I would not be so sure.

Dickerty

OnTheCouch wrote: »

I'd be very interested to see how Tony Pulis does with Crystal Palace in the next few years. I suspect that he's a fantastic manager for getting short-term results, but over many years I would not be so sure.

The kind of manager to needs a director of football - let him get on with training and getting them ready for games, maybe needs help on getting players and developing the club...

GBXI

niallo27 wrote: »

Well they have proved it. Liverpool are ahead of them in the league. City will be too after their game in hand.

A bit ignorant to think that if Liverpool/City win the league by a few points over Chelsea then it's because of their "attacking style". Chelsea are just lacking a bit of real class in the final 3rd, particularly a striker. The point about Mourinho keeping flashy teams honest is very true.

Also, just to note (not sure if it's been mentioned) his Madrid title winning side scored the most goals any title winning side has ever scored. And his Chelsea side (05 I think) scored the most goals and got the most points of any PL winning side. They were one of the most entertaining PL sides ever.

He is well able to play the fancy stuff when he has the players. I'd prefer him any day to Guardiola, as he seems a lot more adaptable.

Ferguson is still the best for me. Then Paisley, then Mourinho. Mourinho could top them all though, it wouldn't shock me.

niallo27

GBXI wrote: »

A bit ignorant to think that if Liverpool/City win the league by a few points over Chelsea then it's because of their "attacking style". Chelsea are just lacking a bit of real class in the final 3rd, particularly a striker. The point about Mourinho keeping flashy teams honest is very true.

Also, just to note (not sure if it's been mentioned) his Madrid title winning side scored the most goals any title winning side has ever scored. And his Chelsea side (05 I think) scored the most goals and got the most points of any PL winning side. They were one of the most entertaining PL sides ever.

He is well able to play the fancy stuff when he has the players. I'd prefer him any day to Guardiola, as he seems a lot more adaptable.

Ferguson is still the best for me. Then Paisley, then Mourinho. Mourinho could top them all though, it wouldn't shock me.

Why is it ignorant. It's a fact. Why not say if liverpool had more class in the back third they would be 10 points clear.

mikeym

Hes the greatest moaner of all time.

Gringo180

Whos the specialist in FAILURE now Jose

Lapin

Of course he is.

homer simpson

Gringo180 wrote: »

Whos the specialist in FAILURE now Jose

Still Wenger.

Gringo180

homer simpson wrote: »

Still Wenger.

I think Wenger would do alot better with that Chelsea team than Mourinho has this season.

Ulysses Gaze

homer simpson wrote: »

Still Wenger.

Wenger may win a trophy this season.

homer simpson

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Wenger may win a trophy this season.

So may Chelsea! :pac:

Sheepy99

Gringo180 wrote: »

Whos the specialist in FAILURE now Jose

What does that make all the other non-semi-final achieving managers of this season ?
Congratulations

Donnielighto

GBXI wrote: »

A bit ignorant to think that if Liverpool/City win the league by a few points over Chelsea then it's because of their "attacking style". Chelsea are just lacking a bit of real class in the final 3rd, particularly a striker. The point about Mourinho keeping flashy teams honest is very true.

Also, just to note (not sure if it's been mentioned) his Madrid title winning side scored the most goals any title winning side has ever scored. And his Chelsea side (05 I think) scored the most goals and got the most points of any PL winning side. They were one of the most entertaining PL sides ever.

He is well able to play the fancy stuff when he has the players. I'd prefer him any day to Guardiola, as he seems a lot more adaptable.

Ferguson is still the best for me. Then Paisley, then Mourinho. Mourinho could top them all though, it wouldn't shock me.

What about Cloughie?

astonaidan

Sheepy99 wrote: »

What does that make all the other non-semi-final achieving managers of this season ?
Congratulations

Seriously dude, leave Paul Lambert alone. Next years our year :cool:

He's not the greatest manager nor is he is a specialist in failure.

Despite his antics he's still top class and I'd expect Chelsea with some proper signings to be stronger and challenging at the top next year.

upstairs for coffee

"Barney Ronay ‏@barneyronay 1h
Seems to be more venom this season over football, and some confusion too. It is just entertainment. None of these people are actually evil"

Mourinho lives up to his reputation of being the pantomime villain. Internet posters get themselves into an outrage taking Mourinho's antics personally. I think they just let off steam though and aren't representative of their true thoughts.

His ego got the better of him yesterday. Crazy formation to play at home. Atletico Madrid were brilliantly disciplined. When either full back had the ball, they didn't close down but held their formation. When the ball was played to an attacking area they swarmed all over. Hazard had about 3 men on him at every stage. Because of Mourinho's formation (which I think was a two fingers to everyone "I am Jose Mourihno the special one") Chelsea had few outlets in the attacking sense.

Enthralling game.

rob316

All his whinging about his strikers, but he doesn't play in any sort of positive way to help them. Torres and Ba are not made for this back to the wall counter attacking football. At Liverpool Torres was slid the ball into his path via Alonso or Gerrard.

He sent his best striker without giving him a go out on loan to Everton where he has scored 13 league goals and 17 league goals for West Brom last season.

He sold Chelsea's best player for the past 2 season's to Man United. Mark my words I'm no United fan but he will regret that sale, Juan Mata is of undoubted class.

GBXI

niallo27 wrote: »

Why is it ignorant. It's a fact. Why not say if liverpool had more class in the back third they would be 10 points clear.

It's ignorant because it's highly unlikely to be true. It's likely that 2 points will separate the champions and Chelsea, you don't get that close to winning a league without playing "attacking" football. Also, the point about Mourinho's title winning teams playing excellent football still stands, and proves that he does what he has to do to win games - just like all the best managers.

Liam O

rob316 wrote: »

All his whinging about his strikers, but he doesn't play in any sort of positive way to help them. Torres and Ba are not made for this back to the wall counter attacking football. At Liverpool Torres was slid the ball into his path via Alonso or Gerrard.

He sent his best striker without giving him a go out on loan to Everton where he has scored 13 league goals and 17 league goals for West Brom last season.

He sold Chelsea's best player for the past 2 season's to Man United. Mark my words I'm no United fan but he will regret that sale, Juan Mata is of undoubted class.

So what was Torres' problem before Mourinho then if it's merely having someone "sliding the ball into his path"? They have better AMs than Liverpool could dream of at that time and even though I like how Torres plays with them he still doesn't score that many.

Kirby

Having a world class striker who can score goals by himself makes a massive difference. Chelsea don't have that. City and Liverpool do. We can talk about systems all day long but having that man up top who can score from nothing makes things a lot easier.

He's correct in what he's saying that Chelsea don't have that. He is saying it in his typically irritating Mourinho way.....but that doesn't make him wrong.

Mr.Micro

rarnes1 wrote: »

He's not the greatest manager nor is he is a specialist in failure.

Despite his antics he's still top class and I'd expect Chelsea with some proper signings to be stronger and challenging at the top next year.

Yes a very good manager, but becoming a little predictable. His conceit found him out in his tactics over the two legs. Simione adapted to Mourinho's plan, but had more style and guile, winning well in the end. Dare I say, Mourinho had no plan b, other than park the bus?

Call Me Jimmy

It will be interesting to see what Mourinho does next season when he has a reliable number 9. I think this season will be looked back upon favourably with a bit of time because look at how close they came with essentially no goal-scoring striker.

I wonder will the system stay pretty much the same next season when he has someone he can put his confidence in up top. I don't think he's the greatest of all time however, I don't know if I could say that anyone is, there's so many variables involved.

Mr.Micro

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

It will be interesting to see what Mourinho does next season when he has a reliable number 9. I think this season will be looked back upon favourably with a bit of time because look at how close they came with essentially no goal-scoring striker.

I wonder will the system stay pretty much the same next season when he has someone he can put his confidence in up top. I don't think he's the greatest of all time however, I don't know if I could say that anyone is, there's so many variables involved.

Not sure that patience is abundant at the hierarchy of Chelsea FC. Di Matteo won but got the push.....maybe the special one will get extra time.

MisterAnarchy

The Madrid media are now referring to Mourinho as the ‘The Semifinal One’” after losing 4 semi finals in a row.

Having a world class striker who can score goals by himself makes a massive difference. Chelsea don't have that. City and Liverpool do. We can talk about systems all day long but having that man up top who can score from nothing makes things a lot easier.

But Mourinho is talking as if his team are creating huge amounts of clear goalscoring opportunities in each match but his strikers cant convert them.
The truth is that his Chelsea team do not play a good brand of football and do not create huge amounts of good goalscoring opportunities ,unlike Liverpool and Man City.
In alot of matches this season Chelsea's forwards have been surviving on scraps .
His forwards are limited but his criticism of them has been over the top.

RayCon

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The Madrid media are now referring to Mourinho as the ‘The Semifinal One’” after losing 4 semi finals in a row.

Breaking News : Jose Mourinho has signed an exclusive partnership deal with Viagra for next season. A spokesman for Pfizer said "We believe our product can help Jose get past his semi's problem ..."

dfx-

upstairs for coffee wrote: »

"Barney Ronay ‏@barneyronay 1h
Seems to be more venom this season over football, and some confusion too. It is just entertainment. None of these people are actually evil"

Mourinho lives up to his reputation of being the pantomime villain. Internet posters get themselves into an outrage taking Mourinho's antics personally. I think they just let off steam though and aren't representative of their true thoughts.

Chances are Barney Ronay is getting criticism over his fawning article in the Guardian on Monday about Mourinho's tactics at Anfield and commenting on it. He would not go with a consensus in an otherwise empty room.

He's known for his preference for it than 'Guardiolaball' as LL would put it, equating the Barcelona style of 2011 to a cheeseburger days before the 2011 CL final.

RasTa

Pretty funny using his semi final record as a stick to beat him with.

Ancellotti has won 3 titles in his entire management career, guess he is a failure too.

efb

Jose's lost his lustre

CSF

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The Madrid media are now referring to Mourinho as the ‘The Semifinal One’” after losing 4 semi finals in a row.



But Mourinho is talking as if his team are creating huge amounts of clear goalscoring opportunities in each match but his strikers cant convert them.
The truth is that his Chelsea team do not play a good brand of football and do not create huge amounts of good goalscoring opportunities ,unlike Liverpool and Man City.
In alot of matches this season Chelsea's forwards have been surviving on scraps .
His forwards are limited but his criticism of them has been over the top.

Great strikers do a lot more than just convert chances. The difference when Mourinho gets someone of higher quality will be immense.

Sgt Pepper 64

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The Madrid media are now referring to Mourinho as the ‘The Semifinal One’” after losing 4 semi finals in a row.



But Mourinho is talking as if his team are creating huge amounts of clear goalscoring opportunities in each match but his strikers cant convert them.
The truth is that his Chelsea team do not play a good brand of football and do not create huge amounts of good goalscoring opportunities ,unlike Liverpool and Man City.
In alot of matches this season Chelsea's forwards have been surviving on scraps .
His forwards are limited but his criticism of them has been over the top.

Actually, the same problem has affected ALL Chelsea managers since our record setting season under Carlo.
It is not Mourinho's fault, any more than it was RDM's or even Rafa.
The problem has been Roman interfering and splashing on first Sheva and then Torres, forcing us to live with poor\past it strikers despite buying creative players to supply them.
Then Roman wants exciting attacking football but will not accept any defeats so bye bye AVB etc.
If you look at Arsenal for example, a team beloved by the media and others, Chelsea have actually scored 4 more goals than them.
Also, until Chelsea fecked up against Sunderland and Palace, they were in pole position in the league ahead of City and Pool.
And we STILL reached the semi's of the CL.
Chelsea SHOULD have won the premiership really, but ironically our defence let us down.
A good team should not need milliions of goal scoring opp, just take the few that normally happen every match
City and Pool have HAD to create lots of chances because they have conceded nearly DOUBLE that of Chelsea.
And some of the chances that our strikers have had you would expect them to score. From 6 yards out, to Torres missing an open goal.
It will be very different next season don't you worry!

marbless

Chelsea have played three Champions' League s-f ties under Mourinho, so six matches (2005, 2007 and 2014). They have failed to score a single away goal, and have found the net only twice in half-a-dozen matches (Joe Cole v Liverpool at Stamford Bridge in 2007 and Torres last night).

They have lost the three ties.

Mourinho has a great record overall in his coaching career, but his CL semi-final run with Chelsea makes him - what's the phrase? - .... "a specialist in failure";)

Turtwig

But his quarter final record with Chelsea makes him a specialist in success - and better than Wenger. :pac:

Gringo180

Turtwig wrote: »

But his quarter final record with Chelsea makes him a specialist in success - and better than Wenger. :pac:

As I have said already Wenger would do a much better job than Mourinho has with this Chelsea side I have no doubt about that. There's nothing wrong with Chelsea's strike force its just the service to them is non existent.

Unearthly

If the best criticism a manager can get is losing CL semi finals he isn't doing too badly.

gosplan

Unearthly wrote: »

If the best criticism a manager can get is losing CL semi finals he isn't doing too badly.

No, but the OP started with 'the greatest manager of all time'

This Hazard thing could be another black mark in the book against Jose.