Joker10

I see where you are coming from and i agree with what you wrote. But there are differences and why their career will go in different directions. Pre Chelsea career are very similar no doubt. But here are the differences:
A) Oscar has shined much brighter then Mikel- Look i like Mikel a lot, he is a solid player and has done a lot of good things for this club. But in no way did he ever looked as good as Oscar has at some point in his Chelsea career. At best he has looked like a solid role player. Numerous times during his Chelsea career Oscar has looked as one of our best player, in no time Mikel has reached that level.
Inconsitency- Oscar biggest problem has been lack of consistency, but one thing with Mikel we can always expect is consistency. There is where i see major differences, Mikel been very consistent through out his career few can deny that, but so far with Oscar is how he tails off in the second part of the season. I don't think anyone few would be unhappy with Oscar or would question his place if he played like he did in the first half of the season.
C) Personality/Attitudes- It may sound cliche and some thing you just can't describe with words, but i feel Mikel lacks that killer instinct and the it factor to reach the top. Everything through out his career has made me reach the same conclusion, he is a very good and solid player but nothing more then that. From allowing Mou to convert him to a dm, watching his manors on the pitch, and staying at Chelsea for a role player instead of going to another club for a much bigger role. Has made me reach the conclusion that he has allowed his career to stagnate and settled for an okay career.
Oscar is too much of a fierce competitor to settle for such a career.Oscar is a special player, and has that it factor to be one of the best. It takes a special player to handle the famous Brazil #10 shirt like he did. His performance against Argentina was quite special; his first start, first goal, and against your arch nemises. Personally it tells me a lot how you handle pressure and the heart you show, he has done that through out his career. His debut against Juve for Chelsea. He masked Pirlo through out the match, was able to score two goals and one very special one. That is a debut most wish to have. I think people fail to realize how well he adjusted to the league. Consider that he was one year away from one full season in Brazil top flight. He met reasonable expectation very well.
Oscar is too different from Mikel from attitude perspective to have a similar career as Mikel.
As for those saying Oscar>Hazard? meh you will always find people who just give a contrarian point of view, without any underlying reason behind their view.
He has had much better games then the Juve one btw. The study of Psychology explains this, Humans are quite effected by a first impression. Oscar performance blew us away for a debut game, so generally that experience will leave a much bigger mark in our memory.
I strongly disagree with you one point though. When you said his ship has sailed to become one of the best 10 in the world. If he keeps his first half play for a full season then by most he would be one of the best 10 in the world.
If you disagree that is fine and lets leave it at that. I only responded out of respect for your reply.
However gets Oscar in the summer is going to get a bargain, i promise you that.

I see where you are coming from and i agree with what you wrote. But there are differences and why their career will go in different directions. Pre Chelsea career are very similar no doubt. But here are the differences:
A) Oscar has shined much brighter then Mikel- Look i like Mikel a lot, he is a solid player and has done a lot of good things for this club. But in no way did he ever looked as good as Oscar has at some point in his Chelsea career. At best he has looked like a solid role player. Numerous times during his Chelsea career Oscar has looked as one of our best player, in no time Mikel has reached that level.
Inconsitency- Oscar biggest problem has been lack of consistency, but one thing with Mikel we can always expect is consistency. There is where i see major differences, Mikel been very consistent through out his career few can deny that, but so far with Oscar is how he tails off in the second part of the season. I don't think anyone few would be unhappy with Oscar or would question his place if he played like he did in the first half of the season.
C) Personality/Attitudes- It may sound cliche and some thing you just can't describe with words, but i feel Mikel lacks that killer instinct and the it factor to reach the top. Everything through out his career has made me reach the same conclusion, he is a very good and solid player but nothing more then that. From allowing Mou to convert him to a dm, watching his manors on the pitch, and staying at Chelsea for a role player instead of going to another club for a much bigger role. Has made me reach the conclusion that he has allowed his career to stagnate and settled for an okay career.
Oscar is too much of a fierce competitor to settle for such a career.Oscar is a special player, and has that it factor to be one of the best. It takes a special player to handle the famous Brazil #10 shirt like he did. His performance against Argentina was quite special; his first start, first goal, and against your arch nemises. Personally it tells me a lot how you handle pressure and the heart you show, he has done that through out his career. His debut against Juve for Chelsea. He masked Pirlo through out the match, was able to score two goals and one very special one. That is a debut most wish to have. I think people fail to realize how well he adjusted to the league. Consider that he was one year away from one full season in Brazil top flight. He met reasonable expectation very well.
Oscar is too different from Mikel from attitude perspective to have a similar career as Mikel.
As for those saying Oscar>Hazard? meh you will always find people who just give a contrarian point of view, without any underlying reason behind their view.
He has had much better games then the Juve one btw. The study of Psychology explains this, Humans are quite effected by a first impression. Oscar performance blew us away for a debut game, so generally that experience will leave a much bigger mark in our memory.
I strongly disagree with you one point though. When you said his ship has sailed to become one of the best 10 in the world. If he keeps his first half play for a full season then by most he would be one of the best 10 in the world.
If you disagree that is fine and lets leave it at that. I only responded out of respect for your reply.
However gets Oscar in the summer is going to get a bargain, i promise you that.

I see where you are coming from and i agree with what you wrote. But there are differences and why their career will go in different directions. Pre Chelsea career are very similar no doubt. But here are the differences:
A) Oscar has shined much brighter then Mikel- Look i like Mikel a lot, he is a solid player and has done a lot of good things for this club. But in no way did he ever looked as good as Oscar has at some point in his Chelsea career. At best he has looked like a solid role player. Numerous times during his Chelsea career Oscar has looked as one of our best player, in no time Mikel has reached that level.
Inconsitency- Oscar biggest problem has been lack of consistency, but one thing with Mikel we can always expect is consistency. There is where i see major differences, Mikel been very consistent through out his career few can deny that, but so far with Oscar is how he tails off in the second part of the season. I don't think anyone few would be unhappy with Oscar or would question his place if he played like he did in the first half of the season.
C) Personality/Attitudes- It may sound cliche and some thing you just can't describe with words, but i feel Mikel lacks that killer instinct and the it factor to reach the top. Everything through out his career has made me reach the same conclusion, he is a very good and solid player but nothing more then that. From allowing Mou to convert him to a dm, watching his manors on the pitch, and staying at Chelsea for a role player instead of going to another club for a much bigger role. Has made me reach the conclusion that he has allowed his career to stagnate and settled for an okay career.
Oscar is too much of a fierce competitor to settle for such a career.Oscar is a special player, and has that it factor to be one of the best. It takes a special player to handle the famous Brazil #10 shirt like he did. His performance against Argentina was quite special; his first start, first goal, and against your arch nemises. Personally it tells me a lot how you handle pressure and the heart you show, he has done that through out his career. His debut against Juve for Chelsea. He masked Pirlo through out the match, was able to score two goals and one very special one. That is a debut most wish to have. I think people fail to realize how well he adjusted to the league. Consider that he was one year away from one full season in Brazil top flight. He met reasonable expectation very well.
Oscar is too different from Mikel from attitude perspective to have a similar career as Mikel.
As for those saying Oscar>Hazard? meh you will always find people who just give a contrarian point of view, without any underlying reason behind their view.
He has had much better games then the Juve one btw. The study of Psychology explains this, Humans are quite effected by a first impression. Oscar performance blew us away for a debut game, so generally that experience will leave a much bigger mark in our memory.
I strongly disagree with you one point though. When you said his ship has sailed to become one of the best 10 in the world. If he keeps his first half play for a full season then by most he would be one of the best 10 in the world.
If you disagree that is fine and lets leave it at that. I only responded out of respect for your reply.
However gets Oscar in the summer is going to get a bargain, i promise you that.

I actually appreciate your replay
Lets be honest Chelsea hardly sign players that they don't think they have world class potential or at one point was at that level. This similarity can be applied to almost any player.
This is the biggest difference between the two. Torres was at his best was average and servicable but nothing more then that. Oscar has shown flashes of his potential and one point and another has proven to be one of our best player. Last season early form and this season early form. You could never say that about Torres at any point in his Chelsea career.
But here is where age comes into play. The amount of patience given to Torres was undeserved he was in his prime age and like i said he never showed he could lead the line any point either. You expect Torres to prove his worth immediately since he is not future prospect, he was signed for a record 50m to bring in immediate impact.
You should be more patient with a 21year old coming to new league, hell its not like Oscar was even well established in Brazil either. It is not like Oscar came to Chelsea like Hazard, where Hazard was Franch League player of the year. Oscar was a breakout player in Brazil, before his transfer he had one full season in Brazil top flight.
If you believe he would be overnight world class player like Hazard, then its your fault for thinking that and being so impatient.
Bold part: You might look at them as excuses but that is your problem. You should probably see them as a way to understand and analyze why a player struggles. It is way to feaking easy just to crticize a player and say they are shit. Hell that takes no intelligence, it is waste of the brain you have been given.
Whenever those so called "excuses" are presented i always think about them deeply and see if they are valid.
And now i really mean it i will avoid every Oscar discussion.

Yeah, Pato's constant partying, drinking, laziness and non-commitment have nothing to do with his ruined career.

Uncanny should be a word i should have avoided tbh, but i still find more similarity with Sturridge in this regard. Both Oscar and Sturridge absloutely have shown world class potential and in strings of games in their time at Chelsea. In AVB spell until Jan Sturridge was upt here with Mata and Ramires as our best player. But it tend to happen, when our form dropped Sturridge became the scapegoat. In the same regard Oscar has become the scapegoat for our second half. He is not the only one struggling in the second half so is Cesc, Matic, and Costa. He is struggling the most of the bunch since Jan.But atm he is the def of scapegoat atm.
The comparison for Oscar and Sturridge is not perfect and like you said Sturridge was given limited time and didn't play his perfered postion. But just like Sturridge, he will prove his doubters wrong and just like him it is probably going to be somewhere else.
The Torres comparison makes no sense. Torres wasen't inconsistent, the problem was he was just not good enoguh at any point in his Chelsea career.
Mikel comparison? I never saw Mikel as someone with world class potential like i did with Sturridge and i do with Oscar, or did he get misteaken for our best player. I always saw Mikel as solid, and defended him many times because most of the time because i thoght he was our best option in the team before Matic arrival. So i can't say
Anyway we shell see what happen in the summer and beyond. I am going to dissociate myself from all Oscar discussion until the summer.

I actually appreciate your replay
Lets be honest Chelsea hardly sign players that they don't think they have world class potential or at one point was at that level. This similarity can be applied to almost any player.
This is the biggest difference between the two. Torres was at his best was average and servicable but nothing more then that. Oscar has shown flashes of his potential and one point and another has proven to be one of our best player. Last season early form and this season early form. You could never say that about Torres at any point in his Chelsea career.
But here is where age comes into play. The amount of patience given to Torres was undeserved he was in his prime age and like i said he never showed he could lead the line any point either. You expect Torres to prove his worth immediately since he is not future prospect, he was signed for a record 50m to bring in immediate impact.
You should be more patient with a 21year old coming to new league, hell its not like Oscar was even well established in Brazil either. It is not like Oscar came to Chelsea like Hazard, where Hazard was Franch League player of the year. Oscar was a breakout player in Brazil, before his transfer he had one full season in Brazil top flight.
If you believe he would be overnight world class player like Hazard, then its your fault for thinking that and being so impatient.
Bold part: You might look at them as excuses but that is your problem. You should probably see them as a way to understand and analyze why a player struggles. It is way to feaking easy just to crticize a player and say they are shit. Hell that takes no intelligence, it is waste of the brain you have been given.
Whenever those so called "excuses" are presented i always think about them deeply and see if they are valid.
And now i really mean it i will avoid every Oscar discussion.

Eh, he's alright. People say he's the Argentine Salah. We'll see.

You are right that Porto side would not do well in this hypothetical league against the best competitions, but that does not take away anything from their CL victory or make them inferior to any of those teams. Again it only proves that Porto is not the best team based on the league criteria, but they def proved they are the best team in the playoff criteria.
7-5-3-1 games it doesn't matter in American sports, the best team is determined after playing the best of the best. The NFL playoff are decided by one game. No one ever remembers who had the best record in the regular season.
I obviously bring up the American sports format not because i think it is superior, i just to show you my belief. And that is that the "best team" is subjective, it is all relative based on what criteria you use. You can only conclude that the team that won the league, was the best team based on that criteira and same goes for the CL. No format is superior to one another.
I am glad we agree that the CL is bigger then league.
Net spending is not a good formula, because it gets very complicated if we go down that road.
1. You have to go back more then the past 2 seasons before Mou got here, since the players he sold did not grow out of tree. Also Mou had no decision in those players being purchased since he was at Madrid. How should he get credited for their sales, since he never purchased them? Just like he can't be blamed for their purchase.
2. Players have resale value. Mou brought in a lot of established players. say hypothetically in 3 years a new managers comes in and does not rate Cesc, Matic, Costa, and Willian. He wants to bring in his own players to fit his system, just like Mou sold players he did not rate. It wouldn't be fair to use net spending for that manager, since it is not his fault the previous manager(Mou) bought in a lot of established players with little resale value. Because those players i mentioned would have little resale value.
I don't see the logic of using resale value just because Mou landed on a goldmine, he sold a lot of young players who did have a very high resale value. I can think of many other reasons why it would be quite falty to use net spending, but i am getting a headache just thinking about all the implications. Lets use the amount of money Mou has spent.
Those two years of mess as how you look at it. In those two years before Mou took over Chelsea made a change in their transfer policy, we brought in a lot of young players keeping in mind the future of the club. Those two years of mess laid the foundation for this team btw. The situation Mou inherited and the situation we were in after Carlo sacking is completely different. It is not fair to only look at the results before Mou but also look at the big pictuare, those two years before him was a huge and much needed rebuilding process. In two years we had an old and aging squad, and turned it around filled it with a lot of young and talented squad.
I just refuse to belive this premise that Mou inhertied some shit team and lacks financial resources. It maybe my blue tinted glasses but i firmly believe that Chelsea is the best managerial job in England. That is what Mou inherited tbh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/managers/jose-mourinho/11519921/Jose-Mourinho-I-have-a-problem.-Im-getting-better-at-everything.html
good read.

Writing that post has made me reminisce about the AVB years and the manager. I was firmly behind his sacking at the time, and i probably wouldn't change a thing since we did win the CL under RDM.
But now i realize my view of him was kinda unfair, and can appreciate of what a difficult assignment he had and the sitution he was in. He was in a wrong place and in a unwinable situation.

You are right that Porto side would not do well in this hypothetical league against the best competitions, but that does not take away anything from their CL victory or make them inferior to any of those teams. Again it only proves that Porto is not the best team based on the league criteria, but they def proved they are the best team in the playoff criteria.
7-5-3-1 games it doesn't matter in American sports, the best team is determined after playing the best of the best. The NFL playoff are decided by one game. No one ever remembers who had the best record in the regular season.
I obviously bring up the American sports format not because i think it is superior, i just to show you my belief. And that is that the "best team" is subjective, it is all relative based on what criteria you use. You can only conclude that the team that won the league, was the best team based on that criteira and same goes for the CL. No format is superior to one another.
I am glad we agree that the CL is bigger then league.
Net spending is not a good formula, because it gets very complicated if we go down that road.
1. You have to go back more then the past 2 seasons before Mou got here, since the players he sold did not grow out of tree. Also Mou had no decision in those players being purchased since he was at Madrid. How should he get credited for their sales, since he never purchased them? Just like he can't be blamed for their purchase.
2. Players have resale value. Mou brought in a lot of established players. say hypothetically in 3 years a new managers comes in and does not rate Cesc, Matic, Costa, and Willian. He wants to bring in his own players to fit his system, just like Mou sold players he did not rate. It wouldn't be fair to use net spending for that manager, since it is not his fault the previous manager(Mou) bought in a lot of established players with little resale value. Because those players i mentioned would have little resale value.
I don't see the logic of using resale value just because Mou landed on a goldmine, he sold a lot of young players who did have a very high resale value. I can think of many other reasons why it would be quite falty to use net spending, but i am getting a headache just thinking about all the implications. Lets use the amount of money Mou has spent.
Those two years of mess as how you look at it. In those two years before Mou took over Chelsea made a change in their transfer policy, we brought in a lot of young players keeping in mind the future of the club. Those two years of mess laid the foundation for this team btw. The situation Mou inherited and the situation we were in after Carlo sacking is completely different. It is not fair to only look at the results before Mou but also look at the big pictuare, those two years before him was a huge and much needed rebuilding process. In two years we had an old and aging squad, and turned it around filled it with a lot of young and talented squad.
I just refuse to belive this premise that Mou inhertied some shit team and lacks financial resources. It maybe my blue tinted glasses but i firmly believe that Chelsea is the best managerial job in England. That is what Mou inherited tbh.

You are right that Porto side would not do well in this hypothetical league against the best competitions, but that does not take away anything from their CL victory or make them inferior to any of those teams. Again it only proves that Porto is not the best team based on the league criteria, but they def proved they are the best team in the playoff criteria.
7-5-3-1 games it doesn't matter in American sports, the best team is determined after playing the best of the best. The NFL playoff are decided by one game. No one ever remembers who had the best record in the regular season.
I obviously bring up the American sports format not because i think it is superior, i just to show you my belief. And that is that the "best team" is subjective, it is all relative based on what criteria you use. You can only conclude that the team that won the league, was the best team based on that criteira and same goes for the CL. No format is superior to one another.
I am glad we agree that the CL is bigger then league.
Net spending is not a good formula, because it gets very complicated if we go down that road.
1. You have to go back more then the past 2 seasons before Mou got here, since the players he sold did not grow out of tree. Also Mou had no decision in those players being purchased since he was at Madrid. How should he get credited for their sales, since he never purchased them? Just like he can't be blamed for their purchase.
2. Players have resale value. Mou brought in a lot of established players. say hypothetically in 3 years a new managers comes in and does not rate Cesc, Matic, Costa, and Willian. He wants to bring in his own players to fit his system, just like Mou sold players he did not rate. It wouldn't be fair to use net spending for that manager, since it is not his fault the previous manager(Mou) bought in a lot of established players with little resale value. Because those players i mentioned would have little resale value.
I don't see the logic of using resale value just because Mou landed on a goldmine, he sold a lot of young players who did have a very high resale value. I can think of many other reasons why it would be quite falty to use net spending, but i am getting a headache just thinking about all the implications. Lets use the amount of money Mou has spent.
Those two years of mess as how you look at it. In those two years before Mou took over Chelsea made a change in their transfer policy, we brought in a lot of young players keeping in mind the future of the club. Those two years of mess laid the foundation for this team btw. The situation Mou inherited and the situation we were in after Carlo sacking is completely different. It is not fair to only look at the results before Mou but also look at the big pictuare, those two years before him was a huge and much needed rebuilding process. In two years we had an old and aging squad, and turned it around filled it with a lot of young and talented squad.
I just refuse to belive this premise that Mou inhertied some shit team and lacks financial resources. It maybe my blue tinted glasses but i firmly believe that Chelsea is the best managerial job in England. That is what Mou inherited tbh.

I have a lot of points to make.
First: The Champions League is the most important trophy in football but it's not the best way to measure the quality of a team. For example in 2004, if you put those 32 teams in a League, Porto with luck would be 6th or 7th in the table, the same for Liverpool in 2005... they would have a lot less chances to win it because they had no quality for that. About the quality of Porto I would bet that all the team of Porto cost less than half the value Madrid paid for FIgo at that time.I think the playoffs of the NBA are played in the best of seven which gives some regularity to the thing, anyway the best way to measure a team is a League not the playoff system... anyone that follows football knows that the Barcelona of 2010 was impossible to beat in a League by any team in the world at that time, they were clearly the best team and they lost to Inter.This leads us to another thing... you can garantee you will fight for the League title, but you can't do it with the Champions League. For exampe we are a lot better this season, PSG seemed to be with problems... last season we won against them... this season we lost. If we were in the French League we would be CHampions by now with the lack of quality PSG showed this season and last season probably we wouldn't.The CHampions League will be always a long term project for a team, even if you are clearly the best team in the world there is a big probability of not winning the title. Second: We are at least the 4th team in terms of net spending (the real indicator of financial investment) in the League in the last 2 seasons, but still we are the best team in the country and the team that improved the most.And here we have a lot of problems... If we don't start spending, we can't fight with Manchester United in the future regularly, We need a new stadium TODAY.We need to close the financial gap to United and other giants in Europe or we will have problems to fight for the Champions League and the League.Mourinho is in a club with a lot of issues, in a period where other teams have better finantial possibilities and still he is winning titles. Third: Almost all the sells you say Mourinho did in this team were inevitable because of our financial problems. The club had/has a structural deficit and we needed to sell every season 2 or 3 good players to balance that. You can think it would be good to have Mata, KdB and David Luiz... but we would need to sell Lukaku, Hazard and Azpi... or Ramires, Courtois and Oscar... or ... What really matters is that we have today a better team than the mess we had 2 seasons ago, we are the best team in the country with virtually no net spending in the team, and the other teams spent more than us and we improved more than them...

One thing I want to mention about the net spend.
Have you guys realize what we did?
We sold a lot of young potential and use the money to buy more established players.
Now we have players that will not have as much resale value.....

I can see that. To a point it is quite understanble, but it is no excuse to be completely blinded to the mans obvious faults.
I love Mou as much as the next Chelsea fan and i mean that, and i truely can not fathom any Chelsea fan who doesn't feel a special affection toward Jose. I mean what could be more said of his accomplishments for Chelsea? Some might be put off by his personality, for me it makes him even more endearing. But i would be a fool not to see his faults or be completely ignorant to them. I tend to try to understand his faults and accept it.
I don't personally believe my post was anyway anti-mou. I mean SAF had players that he couldn't take advantage off them and so did Pep and any other manager you went to mention.
This is some people problem, i don't believe in any way i said it is Mou fault. I do not see it as his fault or Oscar fault, some things do not work out.
When did Mata suddenly became just a #10. He played most of his Valencia career on the LW, First year under AVB he was playing on the LW, and under RDM he played on the RW while Oscar played in the middle. I would argue with anyone he played as good of football as he ever did when he was playing on the RW under RDM untill the infamous Clattenburg incident.
I am sure you quite aware of KDB and his talents, are we going to pretend like he isn't capable of playing on the RW? I know i have seen him start out wide many times for Bremen, Wolfsburg, and Belgium. I know i couldn't tell the difference in performance from wherever position he played.
Do i have to mention other players that have done well under other managers while underperforming under Mou? It isn't necessary but i will drop their names; Benzema and Angel Di Maria.

Hi friend!
Totally agree with you.
James is a very upright player, exactly the kind of game that Real Madrid needs. His football is lovely.
And Bale does not fit into Real Madrid. They are designed to play around Cristiano Ronaldo and Bale need a team to play for him as was the case in Tottenham. It's sad but Bale is not going to be successful at Real Madrid.
I think Bale plays for marketing things. Only because Florentino Perez requires its Galacticos anyway, even if it is with a shoehorn.
But I think there may be problems between Isco and Real Madrid because Isco could be important in any team. He will not accept a secondary role in Real Madrid. For me his case is similar to Silva, who was not going to be important in Real Madrid or Barcelona and he preferred to sign for City. Perhaps he could ask for a transfer if the situation does not change.
For me now the first choice of Real Madrid are Bale and James, not Isco. If Real Madrid sells Isco would be a perfect choice for us. But I doubt this will happen ... though I wish!
Regards.

Isco should start ahead of Bale, James is amazing and he was very much missed due to injury and Madrid record proves that with his absence.

Reading some people posts can be so nauseating.
Just because one thinks Oscar can do better under another manager and in another situation, doesn't mean no attacking player can progress under Mou or impress. Some attacking players have impresed under Mou and plenty players have had an adverse effect while working under him. It would be foolish to only remember the players that have excelled under Mou like Hazard and forget the players that have regreted their time under him.
I can name plenty of players that have been underwhelming under Mou, but better under different managers. Don't have to look further then Mata and KDB, how did they do under Mou? We know how good Mata was, he was 2X Chelsea POTY, and KDB is arguably Bundesliga POTY right now.
Lets stop putting Mou in some crazy unbearable pedestal. I respect Mou and all of his achomplishments, but i would be a fool to think he is perfect manager or a great manager in every situation. He certainly has his faults. Some of you are soundling like Liverpool fans when Kenny Dalglish was in charge of their club, completely unbearable.
Maybe you should read his posts again, nothing delusional about it. Lets look at it together in fact.
Deco comments- Deco is one of the finest midfielders of his generation, i would not dismiss his comments easily. I would certainly listen to a player who has played the same position at the highest level and with his accolades.
Oscar manager slags him off- That is true. If there is one thing i don't like about Mou on a personal level is how he slags off his players and always blames others when things get tough. I remember in his first spell how Mou threw Ballack and Sheva under the bus when he was going through his toughest moments at Chelsea. What does he do at Madrid? Pretty much the same, i would say more players in that locker room hated him more then they liked him. Oh can't forget how he blamed the refs or yelled controversy at every chance.
Lastly Oscar can do better under another manager? There is certainly a lot of evidence.

Marcelo??????? and defense?

Reading some people posts can be so nauseating.
Just because one thinks Oscar can do better under another manager and in another situation, doesn't mean no attacking player can progress under Mou or impress. Some attacking players have impresed under Mou and plenty players have had an adverse effect while working under him. It would be foolish to only remember the players that have excelled under Mou like Hazard and forget the players that have regreted their time under him.
I can name plenty of players that have been underwhelming under Mou, but better under different managers. Don't have to look further then Mata and KDB, how did they do under Mou? We know how good Mata was, he was 2X Chelsea POTY, and KDB is arguably Bundesliga POTY right now.
Lets stop putting Mou in some crazy unbearable pedestal. I respect Mou and all of his achomplishments, but i would be a fool to think he is perfect manager or a great manager in every situation. He certainly has his faults. Some of you are soundling like Liverpool fans when Kenny Dalglish was in charge of their club, completely unbearable.
Maybe you should read his posts again, nothing delusional about it. Lets look at it together in fact.
Deco comments- Deco is one of the finest midfielders of his generation, i would not dismiss his comments easily. I would certainly listen to a player who has played the same position at the highest level and with his accolades.
Oscar manager slags him off- That is true. If there is one thing i don't like about Mou on a personal level is how he slags off his players and always blames others when things get tough. I remember in his first spell how Mou threw Ballack and Sheva under the bus when he was going through his toughest moments at Chelsea. What does he do at Madrid? Pretty much the same, i would say more players in that locker room hated him more then they liked him. Oh can't forget how he blamed the refs or yelled controversy at every chance.
Lastly Oscar can do better under another manager? There is certainly a lot of evidence.

Robinho was a fun prospect like Pato for example, but never regarded once in a generation prospect like Neymar.
"Next Pele" label or any other legend label is always a farce, never pay attention to it. I don't think anyone in their right mind thought he was the next pele. Just as likely no one really thought Nasri or Gourcoff were the " next zidane."

It's fun because the last "next Zidane" (before Nabil Fekir) was actually supposed to replace Hazard in the team I support in Ligue 1. He is Marvin Martin, just broke the assist record of the league history, scored two goals for his first appearance in the NT just like Zidane... He's been in Lille for 3 years now, still hasn't scored any for us, spent most of the time injured, has lost all his market value

Brazil is inferior to both Barca and Chelsea, he reaches the same level for them. He's arguably even better for Brazil.
I don't understand why people expect Eden to be that goal scoring machine. I can see him improving definitely, but a genuine goal scorer... That's instinctive, it's a talent. He has different qualities and that's not a bad thing. I don't like how other crucial aspects of football have taken such a backseat and aren't nearly as appreciated anymore. Messi and Ronaldo are the exception.
His overall impact on matches this season trumps the majority of 20-30 goal players. If Hazard were to average 20 goals a season on top of his usual exploits, he would be an extraordinary player. Guiding his teams to titles would make him go down in history.