Is Mourinho the best manager of modern times?

IvySlayer

Winston Payne wrote: »

They were actually level with us. Not that it matters because SAF gave him the runaround the season previous. Guard of honour at Stamford Bridge. Dong up front. If United progress in their tie with Madrid SAF will be 2-1 up in terms of Champions League clashes too.

I wonder how many other managers would of come back from Mourinho winning the league twice in a row?

Mourinho reignited Ferguson no doubt.

jimjamcos

aramush wrote: »

Mourinho got the better of Fergie 2-1 in regards to Premier League titles during his time in England. Not to forget he has done it in Portugal, England, Italy and in Spain, the sign of a great manager. So to my mind, Mourinho is the best of modern time.

No doubting he's one of the great managers but every team Mourinho has managed were primed for success. That is a fact.

Alex Ferguson, in comparison, brought a once great club from the doldrums to make them the most successful club in English domestic history. He has created and will leave a legacy which now defines his club.

My point about Jose Mourinho is that every single manager enjoys a 'honeymoon' period when players are naturally more enthusiastic and Mourinho has always exploited this brilliantly to create extremely united teams. Ferguson, in comparison, never had such a honeymoon period and was a relative failure in his first 3/4 years and although he benefitted from great patience from the hierarchy, his superb record with Aberdeen before then deserved it. Since then Ferguson has ruthlessly created, with money, successful team after successful team while maintaining the standards he set on day one.

Mourinho's 2-1 record doesn't mean much as a manager of Mourinho's class was always going to bring success to Chelsea at United's expense, given the weapons at his disposal.

The facts remain, however, that the season before Mourinho left Chelsea, Ferguson's team won the league. The next season had started badly for Chelsea and although there's no doubt Abramovich was unbearable to work for, Mourinho was either sacked or quit Chelsea. Either way, there was definitely a sense that the bubble of invincibility that The Special One had created was beginning to burst and from his fall-out with his owner to his fall-out with the press, it was clear that the pressures of having to suceed on numerous fronts year after year were beginning to take their toll. I don't think he had the patience/appetite for the club or the challange once his ego was no longer satisfied. We can see this now played out again with Real Madrid and the Spanish press. This is where I think he differs from Ferguson. Ferguson is single minded, ruthless, patient, insensitive to the point of showing no real care towards others and as a result is immune to the pressures of the PL. He has been prepared to stand on the same perch for the last 20 years fighting any rival who'll take him on. He's an immovable object whereas I think a combination of ego, emotion and the knowledge that maintaining success is far harder than achieving initial success has led Mourinho to move from one club to a better one so far in his career.

Two great managers with very different career paths. Ferguson's success was much harder to achieve IMO but, alas, my opinion isn't worth the time it took to write this post.

gosplan

A couple of slightly OT points.

1: Fergie's up there, if not the best ever. His appetite for success is what defines him and his teams. However he's benefitted from leading Utd at exactly the right time when finances first really ring fenced the successful teams. In that way I think the last few years have been his biggest success, defiantly more so then when it was him vrs Wenger with the odd Leeds or Newcastle challenge.

2: Jose's also amazing but his ego can't handle anything. He was Chelsea, he was Porto. At Real there's a culture and tradition which is bigger than him and involves some players who won loads of stuff with the club long before him and he can't handle it. I think he needs to be the superstar and every club he ever manages will suffer from this.

jimjamcos

gosplan wrote: »

A couple of slightly OT points.

1: Fergie's up there, if not the best ever. His appetite for success is what defines him and his teams. However he's benefitted from leading Utd at exactly the right time when finances first really ring fenced the successful teams. In that way I think the last few years have been his biggest success, defiantly more so then when it was him vrs Wenger with the odd Leeds or Newcastle challenge.

2: Jose's also amazing but his ego can't handle anything. He was Chelsea, he was Porto. At Real there's a culture and tradition which is bigger than him and involves some players who won loads of stuff with the club long before him and he can't handle it. I think he needs to be the superstar and every club he ever manages will suffer from this.

Couldn't agree more.

I do think, however, that in time Mourinho's record will make him the single greatest manger we've seen. He will leave Madrid this summer for a top club and I can see him adding many more league and european titles before he takes over his native Portugal. He could quite possibly finish his club management career having won league titles with 5/6 different clubs and european titles with 3/4. I think Ferguson would happily take one more Champions League title before he calls it a day but that's no gaurantee whereas Mourinho will definitely win more IMO given his age.

gosplan

The issue is whether it's easier or harder to move to a new club and bring success there rather than regenerating the club you're at.

Very hard to judge that tbh but nothing from Mourhino shows us that he can keep his ideas fresh after a couple of seasons.

Redknapp for example is good at the first season but crap at long term demands.

gosplan

The issue is whether it's easier or harder to move to a new club and bring success there rather than regenerating the club you're at.

Very hard to judge that tbh but nothing from Mourhino shows us that he can keep his ideas fresh after a couple of seasons.

Redknapp for example is good at the first season but crap at long term demands.

aramush

jimjamcos wrote: »

No doubting he's one of the great managers but every team Mourinho has managed were primed for success. That is a fact.

I don't think Porto were 'primed' to win the Champions League in 2004, but I take your point to some extent.

jimjamcos

aramush wrote: »

I don't think Porto were 'primed' to win the Champions League in 2004, but I take your point to some extent.

I never said they were primed to win the Champions League. They were primed to win trophies at domestic level, however, with players of the calibre of Maniche, Carvalho and Deco. Also, it was not a vintage year in terms of quality. I know that seems harsh saying that but think the fact that an average Monaco team got to the final proves that IMO. I think a combination of Mourinho's superb management and team organisation, teams such as United under-rating them (and him!) and a poor champions league taht year helped them become champions.

aramush

jimjamcos wrote: »

I never said they were primed to win the Champions League. They were primed to win trophies at domestic level, however, with players of the calibre of Maniche, Carvalho and Deco. Also, it was not a vintage year in terms of quality. I know that seems harsh saying that but think the fact that an average Monaco team got to the final proves that IMO. I think a combination of Mourinho's superb management and team organisation, teams such as United under-rating them (and him!) and a poor champions league taht year helped them become champions.

Are you actually trying to play down Porto's Champions League win? It was an immense achievement, regardless of anything. It probably wasn't the greatest year in terms of quality in the knockout stages but it still had team like Milan, Real, Arsenal (their unbeaten domestic season), United and Chelsea, there was nothing poor about it. Monaco weren't an average team either, they had the two best strikers in the competition (especially Morientes at the time) and they outplayed Chelsea and Madrid.

Mourinho is the greatest of modern time, imo.

Bertser

Blatter wrote: »

Yeah looked it up there, he was only in charge of 9 league games for Benfica though due to a contractual dispute.

Still, it doesn't detract from the original point that he wasn't a household name until after his Porto stint, and since then has chosen his jobs wisely.

He actually tried to get the Barca job after Rijkaard, but they wouldn't give it to him because of how he acted in the media spotlight

And I think what he done with Inter shows him at his best, that Champions League win was a great achievement.

Twoandahalfmen

He is actually amazing
leagues in
England
Italy
Spain
All he needs to do is win in
Germany
France

and he has the big 5 set + Portgual
if he gets that he should manage internationally when he wins a world cup he can then be called the bessed manager to have graced professional football

jimjamcos

aramush wrote: »

Are you actually trying to play down Porto's Champions League win? It was an immense achievement, regardless of anything. It probably wasn't the greatest year in terms of quality in the knockout stages but it still had team like Milan, Real, Arsenal (their unbeaten domestic season), United and Chelsea, there was nothing poor about it. Monaco weren't an average team either, they had the two best strikers in the competition (especially Morientes at the time) and they outplayed Chelsea and Madrid.

Mourinho is the greatest of modern time, imo.

Two best strikers in competition? Pretty sure that Monaco team only played with one striker, Morientes, up front. Your post totally contradicts itself. You've basically answered your own question, then questioned it again! A fine achievement!

Porto were very lucky to beat an average Man United team in last 16 when a Roy Carroll mistake gifted them the game in final minutes. Anyway...here are the facts:

Stage Opponent Home Away

Group stage Partizan Belgrade 2–1 1–1
Group stage Real Madrid 1–3 1–1
Group stage Marseille 1–0 3–2
Last 16 Manchester United 2–1 1–1
Quarter Final Lyon 2–0 2–2
Semi Final Deportivo La Coruña 0–0 1–0
Final Monaco 3–0

Was a poor year, regardless of Porto's (and Mourinho's) great achievement!

Johnny Utah

LOL at the United fans on this thread.

Mourinho has wiped the floor with Fergie in his short career!

mitosis

jimjamcos wrote: »

Two best strikers in competition? Pretty sure that Monaco team only played with one striker, Morientes, up front. Your post totally contradicts itself. You've basically answered your own question, then questioned it again! A fine achievement!

Porto were very lucky to beat an average Man United team in last 16 when a Roy Carroll mistake gifted them the game in final minutes. Anyway...here are the facts:

Stage Opponent Home Away

Group stage Partizan Belgrade 2–1 1–1
Group stage Real Madrid 1–3 1–1
Group stage Marseille 1–0 3–2
Last 16 Manchester United 2–1 1–1
Quarter Final Lyon 2–0 2–2
Semi Final Deportivo La Coruña 0–0 1–0
Final Monaco 3–0

Was a poor year, regardless of Porto's (and Mourinho's) great achievement!

Aah, make up your mind. A few posts back you said Ferguson kept them at a consistently high level during his tenure (tenure: my word not yours)

Blatter

Talking about that United/Porto game, everybody seems to forget that Paul Scholes had a perfectly good goal ruled out for offside to make it 2-0 in the second leg, which would have made it a serious uphill struggle for Porto. Goes to show you usually need luck as well talent to win knockout competitions like the CL.

gnfnrhead

Blatter wrote: »

Talking about that United/Porto game, everybody seems to forget that Paul Scholes had a perfectly good goal ruled out for offside to make it 2-0 in the second leg, which would have made it a serious uphill struggle for Porto. Goes to show you usually need luck as well talent to win knockout competitions like the CL.

Chelsea last season is a better example of luck getting you through. Even most Chelsea fans will tell you they got lucky.

aramush

jimjamcos wrote: »

Two best strikers in competition? Pretty sure that Monaco team only played with one striker, Morientes, up front. Your post totally contradicts itself. You've basically answered your own question, then questioned it again! A fine achievement!

Porto were very lucky to beat an average Man United team in last 16 when a Roy Carroll mistake gifted them the game in final minutes. Anyway...here are the facts:

Stage Opponent Home Away

Group stage Partizan Belgrade 2–1 1–1
Group stage Real Madrid 1–3 1–1
Group stage Marseille 1–0 3–2
Last 16 Manchester United 2–1 1–1
Quarter Final Lyon 2–0 2–2
Semi Final Deportivo La Coruña 0–0 1–0
Final Monaco 3–0

Was a poor year, regardless of Porto's (and Mourinho's) great achievement!

Stop this nonsense, a Portuguese team winning the Champions League was an immense achievement.

Mourinho is a special manager, he has proved it in four countries.

jimjamcos

mitosis wrote: »

Aah, make up your mind. A few posts back you said Ferguson kept them at a consistently high level during his tenure (tenure: my word not yours)

Stop nit-picking. Yes, Ferguson has kept United at a high level but I never said all his teams were fantastic. Some were better than others, that's only natural. They were all successful though. Maybe you need open your mind and see the distinction!

CSF

Johnny Utah wrote: »

LOL at the United fans on this thread.

Mourinho has wiped the floor with Fergie in his short career!

Except.....he hasn't. How can you come up with such a notion? And I'm not a United fan.

jimjamcos

aramush wrote: »

Stop this nonsense, a Portuguese team winning the Champions League was an immense achievement.

Mourinho is a special manager, he has proved it in four countries.

I never questioned that. Mourinho will go down as the greatest but not yet IMO. If you think 2004 was a strong Champions League, you are deluded.