LDN Blue

I disagree about the effect he'll have at United, but I guess I can only say I hope you're right. The quality of Mourinho, to me, is undisputed. If he's allowed control at United, he'll take them far, imo. Again, hope I'm wrong.

Football is an incredible thing isn’t it? On 17th December 2015, José Mourinho joined an elite club of managers who have been sacked twice by the same club, 3 years after he was brought back from the abyss. Most recent cases pre-José will point to Liverpool icon Kenny Dalglish. Football is often a debate in comparisons, comparing both managers’ second tenure from their first shows a clear contrast. Where their first tenures were full of promise, excitement & sorrow when they ended, the homecoming wasn’t quite the romantic fairy-tale. José Mourinho was brought back by Chelsea with the full hope he would be there to guide the Blues to unprecedented levels of success while building a dynasty lasting over the normal 3-4 years. Roman Abramovich and Chelsea’s “revolving door” policy has been well highlighted in the last decade, with the Blues going through no little than 8 managerial appointments in a little under 10 years since the oligarch bought the club from Ken Bates. After years of rekindling a damaged relationship, Abramovich thought he’d finally found a solution to the constant, tedious task of finding a new manager after 1-3 seasons. Only 1 manager, under the current Abramovich era, has lasted longer than 2 years at Chelsea and that’s Mourinho. As a result, Chelsea have been vilified for having an unsustainable model. Critics often citing Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson as case studies of why long-term managers yields long-term success. Yet, there’s no arguing that in the time Chelsea have hired and fired Mourinho twice, Chelsea have managed to win more titles (domestic and European) than Wenger has in his tenure. Which brings us to the question at hand, is longevity the myth that keeps on breathing? On the evidence, it seems so. The last standing long-term manager left in the current game is Arsene Wenger, following Sir Alex Ferguson’s retirement in 2013. The Frenchman’s tenure now stretches over 19 years, approaching 20 in 2016. In that time, Wenger has won 3 Premier League titles, 6 FA Cups and 6 Community Shields. However, their last Premier League title came in 2003-04. Since then the emergence of both Manchester City and Chelsea have meant the success of Arsenal under Wenger has been curtailed. With Louis Van Gaal expected to leave in 2017, it would mean the Dutch manager’s tenure would have lasted 3 years. Manchester United will be looking for their 3rd manager in 4 seasons by this point, something that would’ve never happened in the Sir Alex era. Currently after Wenger, the longest serving manager in the Premier League is Eddie Howe (3) of a Bournemouth team placed 14th in the League, followed by Mark Hughes (2) of a 10th placed Stoke City. In fact, in the last 20 years, only 7/20 clubs have made 10 or less managerial changes, suggesting the myth of longevity is on the decline within the Premier League. But what about outside of the Premier League, does longevity prevail amongst the most successful teams? The answer, unsurprisingly, is no. 2010: Inter Milan (Mourinho 2 years) 2011: Barcelona (Guardiola 4 years) 2012: Chelsea (Di Matteo <1 year) 2013: Real Madrid (Ancelotti 2 years) 2014: Barcelona (Enrique 1 year*) *still managing Indeed, from the last 5 Champions league winning teams, only Guardiola has lasted longer than 3 years. This comes as no surprise either, upon winning the cup with Barcelona in 2011, Pep Guardiola said of his decision to leave FC Barcelona, “The day I see the light go out of my players’ eyes, I’ll know it’s time to go.” New managers bring about fresh approaches. Longevity worked for Sir Alex, because he was always able to get into the minds of his players and make sure his influence wasn’t diminishing. However, in the modern game not many managers can boast this feat. Certainly, José Mourinho’s second sacking by Chelsea has highlighted this. Reports of a ‘rat’ in the dressing room emerging in October seemed to have given insight into this. Subsequent behavioural problems by Costa and reports of an unhappy Fabregas proved to be the end of Mourinho, whether these claims are proven true or not. This author is firm in the belief that we will, one day, hear what went wrong from Jose himself. Click here to view the article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/35129915 Moving.

You're on Insta? And who said elders can't use social media

Isn't our owner buying us a new stadium surely an indication he is a football man? I don't mean to use that to excuse every decision he's ever made. But on a level you talk about, 'exactly what they want to be', well getting a 60,000 stadium is a step in the right direction.

Stats, I like you... But checkmate

Good luck Guus Hiddink, I hope he exceeds expectations and continues his fine win % at Chelsea #NotOneOfUs #IfHeWasOneOfUsHeWouldAlreadyBeInTrouble

With Ranieri it was quite obvious that Pearson just wasn't right, continuing the trend of failing English managers. Hiddink's lucky if you think about it, he doesn't have to commit to any longer than he's signed up for. He'll have 'new manager syndrome' kick in at just the right time and could inspire something great. He's going to to have to win over this team though, from his last tenure only Terry & Ivanovic remain. He seemed to 'fix' Drogba in 2009 and now maybe he'll have the same effect on Costa.

It's amazing when you think the backlash Leicester got for sacking Pearson initially and then eyebrows raised even more when Ranieri was appointed

For sure, Ranieri is proving his stripes once again but it didn't come as a surprise. Although I've noticed he's less of the 'tinkerman' this season, he's not really chopped and screwed with LCFC (albeit, that down to lack of personnel perhaps). Hot and cold appointment though, hasn't had the best of luck around since leaving Chelsea. Did well to get Monaco promoted and iirc, he did it in style. But that's when they were boasting a huge talent load (damned tax havens). For the life of me, I don't remember how his Juve and Inter stints were.

That's why Simeone isn't my number 1 choice to Chelsea. It seem he would come in under the shadow of Mourinho, known for developing a hard working team with a tight defence.. Sounds familiar, right?

Agreed, but I think the first managerial appointment sets the tone so to speak of how that club will develop, imo. True that Ranieri is technically our first manager under Abramovich, and he did well in recruitment, but Mourinho was the first one picked by the club and he did wonders. Hughes was always going to be out of his depth when managing talent that cost that amount of money. I mean I've made no mystery of the fact I think the modern manager's role is one of a coach now. Rarely do managers have the level of control usually associated with such a position. Martinez does to an extent at Everton, but once they reluctantly lose their top talent he's hardly likely to stick around.

Ah yes! Always proof-read kids

It's revision time, so I'll be doing anything to procrastinate. I'll mull something over and send a draft to either @Jim or @BlueLion to have a look over!

Wow man, the media is actually slightly obsessed with this aren't they? Why on earth this will 'open the door' baffles me. Eva's gone, whether right or wrong we really should move on from this whole fiasco. It was unneeded and savage, but ffs the woman is suing us!

True, But I do offer the case of City and their very late ascension to the elite. They had to wait a considerable amount of time, compared to Chelsea, to get to where they are. Inflation and all accounted for, you can argue that they spent even more to just try and match our credentials. In 7 years, since their take over, all they can boast is; PL x2 and the FA Cup x1. They've only made it past the Champions League GS twice too. By comparison, Chelsea were on their way to a PL x3, FA Cup x3 & LC x2. While you can argue that perhaps we spent the most wise, Mourinho did help shape what was to become the Chelsea core for 8-9 years before we had a clear out of that guard he'd helped us built. That's where City went wrong, you can argue, under Hughes they never built that core & it meant they spent close to £1bn before they touched their first PL title. While I agree with the overall premise that the role of the manager is diminishing now, I do think we should say Mourinho was an important part of the club being as successful as it has become. Most manager's can't make that claim. Perhaps Pep is the next best for re-branding/working on Cruyff's model but otherwise Mou sits in a league of his own with the likes of Sir Alex & Wenger.

Tbh, whether it's for the right reasons or not the club did try. They've never been so patient with a manager as they have thus far, it was only going to ever get to a certain extent. It would've been inconceivable that the club would let things get so irreversible and then act, I'm sure we would've all been furious over that more than anyone would be now. They are guilty of a lot of problems we're currently facing, but their intentions to see out this "stability" thing was there to see. I do feel sorry for Roman that it hasn't worked, like the AVB project, we seem burdened to go through managers like the ghost of Christmas past. Perhaps, just perhaps, it's worth the club now offering minimum 2-year contracts, with an option to extend based on performances. It seems the only way Roman's going to avoid paying ridiculous compensation fees

@Liquidator, don't have it!

Well I don't think that's necessarily true. Klopp went to Liverpool without them attaining CL football, same with Van Gaal. Regardless of how their tenures have gone, they're world class coaches with ambitions to see their clubs back in the Champions League. Money also talks.

Poch would be great, massive fan but Levy's a cunt and would see hell freeze over first. Tuchel needs some seasons under his belt at Borussia before he's ready to step up to the next level imo.

I may be mistaken, but I'm sure Faria was dismissed along with Mou. Holland remains, he'll probably take charge versus Sunderland.

So.. Are the dudes from the OP still around?

Just saw Ronald Koeman's name on the poll, Any thoughts?

My question is, what state will we find ourselves once Pep goes? Guardian reported today Guardiola feels we're at least 10-players short of where we 'need to be'. Once we sign these players for astronomical figures, will we be left in the same mess we were when Mourinho left in 2007? For all of Van Gaal's flaws, it's noted that United are looking at a bigger picture. They're already thought to have been preparing for 2017, post-Van Gaal. That's the sort of attitude our board needs to adopt. Not by looking for a long-term manager, but by creating a long-term plan. In the modern game, esp in England, the manager in now a coach. Less power over transfers and general day-to-day club-related activities, more just take the squad you're given and do something with them.

Precisely. I was discussing this with my friends before and I said once Wenger goes, that's it for this longevity myth. Even they will struggle to keep to the 'one manager a decade' philosophy.. For now it's a case of ignorance is bliss.