The Mourinho Thread

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

Is it true we don't actually have an attacking coach at Chelsea? I find this extraordinary at a club the size of ours.

Will Jose give into his ego and get in an attacking coach to improve our football ?

I guess that... no...

[Fernando 6,585]

Reading all those quotes I feel that Mourinho was given a proper bollocking in the post-loss meeting. The club are publicly backing him and now he is promising to give RLC a more prominent role. Maybe Roman shook him up and now Jose is ready to shake up the team. Either way, those are encouraging signs.

To me it seems like he is being forced to use the youth.

I don't like that.

[xPetrCechx 13,571]

To me it seems like he is being forced to use the youth.

I don't like that.

If Mou can accept Orders from the board, it's a change... cos in the past he said that he will quit a job when someone will tell him what to do...

[Adnane 1,101]

He isn't forced to anything, he talked about RLC right after the game, and he suggested before Porto that if the regulars keep underperforming he would drop them for youth.

[Fernando 6,585]

He isn't forced to anything, he talked about RLC right after the game, and he suggested before Porto that if the regulars keep underperforming he would drop them for youth.

Right but when things are back to normal he goes back to the same.

Talk is cheap, prove it in the field.

[nullabletype 987]

That is not stability, this is not true.

Stability cannot be attributed to players or managers... They have a relatively short football life-span while clubs last for many generations. For instance, Mourinho coaches for a tad more than 10 years while the club exist for more than 100 years. Players and managers come and go and their profiles change just as regularly. How can such unstable elements bring stability to an entity that out-life them ? They do not and they cannot.

Stability is not human flesh, this is a concept. A concept that transcends players, managers and even presidents. Actually, stability is none other than a clearly identified identity. Barcelona is the perfect example. In ten years they had four managers : Pep, Tito, Tata, Enrique. The players have also changed : only Iniesta, Messi, Alves and Piqué are remaining from Pep's first season. Despite the changes in players, in managers and in presidents, during all these years Barça enjoyed success — aside of Tata's season (where he still was not that far away from winning the league). And they did so while playing with the same identity. Of course their game changed a little bit from year to year. Yet its identity remained the same, i.e. an offensive and good-looking game based upon a highly technical group of players where the collective is greater than the individuality and a desire to do their game no matter the opposition. This clearly identified identity is a major aspect of their constant succes in the last decade, because this identity is shared from the academy to the first team players, and from the supporters to the presidents. That is stability.

Another example : Arsenal and Wenger. During the last decade of his management at Arsenal, the club went from the Invincibles, to a group of teenagers trying to emulate Barcelona, to the actual group of mediocre mid-twenty players that pride itself in finishing fourth. That is not stability. That is a roller-coaster in terms of identity and in terms of results.

Let's go back to Chelsea. Where is the stability ? Where is the identity ? We went from an "ok" game, to a delightful game, to an ugly game, to.... The 16th place. It has also been — and still is — a roller-coaster. If there was no stability since Roman took over, that is not because he sacked managers every new moon. That is because we hired managers that had nothing to do with each other and because we bought players for the sake of it, without any policy. In other words, we were unstable because we did not have any identity. And funnily enough, since the Torres debacle we are trying to build an identity (we mainly bought young, dynamic and up-coming players that are at least decent with the ball)... but it is all going up into smoke as we are speaking.

Right now, the only stable element at the club — in regards to the sportive side — is Ivanovic's starting spot. Sacking Mourinho will only make one thing unstable : Ivanovic's starting spot.

And as expected the "keep mourinho in charge" crowd have ignored bluecolorsky and peace excellent post in the last two pages. I will love to see your response to those two posts in particular.

What? That piece that was about 10% relevant content wrapped in 90% fluff talking about the beyond flesh and blood transcendental nature of a football club? Yeah, we were going to ignore it. It might read well to the romantics but it wasn't nearly as deep as he thought it was.

We know clubs are institutions that will long outlive their managers and squads, that isn't news to anybody. It's not overly relevant to the present stability of the club though.

He talks about Barcelona being stable because of their identity and that certainly helps, sure. But of all the clubs he chooses to knock, it's Arsenal. Arsenal are a team who, if nothing else, are pure identity. People often meet statements like "the West Ham way" or "the Tottenham way" with a degree confusion, but "the Arsenal way"? Not so much. They might have changed over the years but it certainly wasn't an identity crisis that got them where they are now. As a side, Barcelona's core principles may have been in place prior to Pep, but it's hardly a dynasty. It's not even been a decade since Pep got the first team job.

United under Ferguson epitomized stability and even had a bit of identity in there for good measure, but I don't think it was that identity that kept Ferguson in a job for 23 odd years. It wasn't long disappearing if it was...

And it isn't the constant firing of Chelsea managers that's the problem? Well at very least I'm sure it doesn't help. If, as is suggested, it's simply just a matter of getting in coaches who "have something to do with each other" then Liverpool would still be winning titles and United post Ferguson would have kicked on without missing a beat.

Anyway, we all know the opposite sides aren't going to agree because there have been enough well thought out arguments on this site to win over anybody who was able to be won. All that matters is that the club, for the first time, have publicly backed the manager. A great manager, and that's all that matter to me.

[Fernando 6,585]

What? That piece that was about 10% relevant content wrapped in 90% fluff talking about the beyond flesh and blood transcendental nature of a football club? Yeah, we were going to ignore it. It might read well to the romantics but it wasn't nearly as deep as he thought it was.

We know clubs are institutions that will long outlive their managers and squads, that isn't news to anybody. It's not overly relevant to the present stability of the club though.

He talks about Barcelona being stable because of their identity and that certainly helps, sure. But of all the clubs he chooses to knock, it's Arsenal. Arsenal are a team who, if nothing else, are pure identity. People often meet statements like "the West Ham way" or "the Tottenham way" with a degree confusion, but "the Arsenal way"? Not so much. They might have changed over the years but it certainly wasn't an identity crisis that got them where they are now. As a side, Barcelona's core principles may have been in place prior to Pep, but it's hardly a dynasty. It's not even been a decade since Pep got the first team job.

United under Ferguson epitomized stability and even had a bit of identity in there for good measure, but I don't think it was that identity that kept Ferguson in a job for 23 odd years. It wasn't long disappearing if it was...

And it isn't the constant firing of Chelsea managers that's the problem? Well at very least I'm sure it doesn't help. If, as is suggested, it's simply just a matter of getting in coaches who "have something to do with each other" then Liverpool would still be winning titles and United post Ferguson would have kicked on without missing a beat.

Anyway, we all know the opposite sides aren't going to agree because there have been enough well thought out arguments on this site to win over anybody who was able to be won. All that matters is that the club, for the first time, have publicly backed the manager. A great manager, and that's all that matter to me.

Yeah I think this is the game changer because we all thought that they wanted an attacking side of the game and youth progress.

These two stuff that is very wrong to expect from Mourinho.

So with this they shown that they don't care much about this anymore. Which sadly for me I won't get what I wanted but I'm also happy that the club finally took a stand and showed their true intentions.

[Pizy 18,918]

Now that he's committed publicly to saying RLC will get a run of games, I wonder who it's in place of. I would suspect Matic but surely we won't line up with a two man midfield comprising of Fabregas and RLC? That could leave us even more exposed defensively.

I would suggest switching to a 4-3-3 (which I've begged for for ages) but then one of Willian or Pedro would have to be dropped continuously since we know Cesc never gets benched.

[Tomo 21,751]

Right but when things are back to normal he goes back to the same.

Talk is cheap, prove it in the field.

Well let's be honest Mourinho can be criticised for many things this season but lack of youth time is not one of them.

Kennedy and RLC have been granted more than respectable minutes all things considered, if Pellegrini did the same there would be post after post on the English football thread raving about his youth integration.

[manpe 10,861]

To me it seems like he is being forced to use the youth.

I don't like that.

Well, even if that's the case, then it's about time. Loftus-Cheek deserves it and if someone shoved that fact down Mourinho's throat, then I'm all for it.

[SinineUltra 1,170]

What? That piece that was about 10% relevant content wrapped in 90% fluff talking about the beyond flesh and blood transcendental nature of a football club? Yeah, we were going to ignore it. It might read well to the romantics but it wasn't nearly as deep as he thought it was.

We know clubs are institutions that will long outlive their managers and squads, that isn't news to anybody. It's not overly relevant to the present stability of the club though.

He talks about Barcelona being stable because of their identity and that certainly helps, sure. But of all the clubs he chooses to knock, it's Arsenal. Arsenal are a team who, if nothing else, are pure identity. People often meet statements like "the West Ham way" or "the Tottenham way" with a degree confusion, but "the Arsenal way"? Not so much. They might have changed over the years but it certainly wasn't an identity crisis that got them where they are now. As a side, Barcelona's core principles may have been in place prior to Pep, but it's hardly a dynasty. It's not even been a decade since Pep got the first team job.

United under Ferguson epitomized stability and even had a bit of identity in there for good measure, but I don't think it was that identity that kept Ferguson in a job for 23 odd years. It wasn't long disappearing if it was...

And it isn't the constant firing of Chelsea managers that's the problem? Well at very least I'm sure it doesn't help. If, as is suggested, it's simply just a matter of getting in coaches who "have something to do with each other" then Liverpool would still be winning titles and United post Ferguson would have kicked on without missing a beat.

Anyway, we all know the opposite sides aren't going to agree because there have been enough well thought out arguments on this site to win over anybody who was able to be won. All that matters is that the club, for the first time, have publicly backed the manager. A great manager, and that's all that matter to me.

I sincerely believe that one of the major factors we are in this situation right now boils down to the sheer number of managers we've had over the recent years. Every manager tries to bring in players he likes and sees suitable for his own formations and tactics. So in the end we are left with a team that does not work well together in a long run - neither fish nor fowl.

[Fernando 6,585]

Interesting read:

Jose Mourinho's insistence on control at Chelsea is becoming a weakness

http://www.espnfc.us/blog/espn-fc-united-blog/68/post/2649376/chelsea-suffering-due-to-jose-mourinho-need-for-control

[Tautvix 1,321]

We are still the champions

[Clockwork 1,794]

Now that he's committed publicly to saying RLC will get a run of games, I wonder who it's in place of. I would suspect Matic but surely we won't line up with a two man midfield comprising of Fabregas and RLC? That could leave us even more exposed defensively.

I would suggest switching to a 4-3-3 (which I've begged for for ages) but then one of Willian or Pedro would have to be dropped continuously since we know Cesc never gets benched.

Matic without a doubt, nothing more obvious. Ok after Ivanovic and Cesc starting, no doubt Mou really dislikes Matic atm.

He said this after the match, he publicly criticized One player(Matic), he subbed Matic as a sub. He really has shown his displeasure with Matic and maybe Hazard(benched against Porto).

[kmk108 1,186]

Is it true we don't actually have an attacking coach at Chelsea? I find this extraordinary at a club the size of ours.

Will Jose give into his ego and get in an attacking coach to improve our football ?

Jose has stuck to his philosophy, because he's always enjoyed success. That type of managing has nearly always brought him success.

I think this is giving him a wake up call, and he won't want to let this be his lasting legacy at Chelsea. His ego may be the thing that changes his philosophy.

[Henrique 9,133]

Willian on Mourinho's relationship with players: "With the players there is no problem" (Globo Esporte) #CFC

Willian: "People generally want to find a problem when the team loses but I never saw Mourinho arguing or fighting with another player" #CFC

Willian: I think it’s a bad time for all of us. Too bad, because we play for #CFC, one of the world's largest clubs & are losing many games.

Willian: "The players playing here have never gone through a situation like this, losing so many games." #CFC

Willian: "But we have everything to win again, despite our many errors" #CFC (Globo Esporte)

In the same interview he said the doesn't know what happened between Mourinho and "the doctor", and that was something discussed with Mourinho, "the doctor" and "the board", and he doesn't know a thing about the situation.

Right.

[lionsden 4,689]

What? That piece that was about 10% relevant content wrapped in 90% fluff talking about the beyond flesh and blood transcendental nature of a football club? Yeah, we were going to ignore it. It might read well to the romantics but it wasn't nearly as deep as he thought it was.

We know clubs are institutions that will long outlive their managers and squads, that isn't news to anybody. It's not overly relevant to the present stability of the club though.

Stability simply means continuation and a stable environment and an arguemnt could be made that Mourinho has actually been a disruptive figure to the stability of this club with the constant chopping and changing of players ranging from Mata, cech, De Bryune, David Luiz, schurrle, lukaku, Bertrand, Luis, salah, cuadrado and so on. some of them were key players and others were never even given a chance to settle into the team before been sold or loaned out. that level of player turnover in such a short space of time is anything but stable and good for stability.

Then there is the issue of lack of identity and pattern to our play. How is he making a case for stability if he's been here for 3 seasons and the team still lacks any form of identity?

The only thing mourinho brings apart from the odd success is short term-ism and chaos to a football club. He's not proven at any point in his career to be suited to long term management. There's absolutely nothing to show or suggest that he's the right man to bring stability. His past record and current evidence does not support that theory. so the question is, if there's nothing to suggest both in his past and current that he is capable of bringing stability to a club in the long term, why should the club and fans trust him with the future of this club?

seeking stability with the wrong man is counter-productive and just as damaging as the suppose negative side effect of high managerial turnover.

He talks about Barcelona being stable because of their identity and that certainly helps, sure. But of all the clubs he chooses to knock, it's Arsenal. Arsenal are a team who, if nothing else, are pure identity. People often meet statements like "the West Ham way" or "the Tottenham way" with a degree confusion, but "the Arsenal way"? Not so much. They might have changed over the years but it certainly wasn't an identity crisis that got them where they are now. As a side, Barcelona's core principles may have been in place prior to Pep, but it's hardly a dynasty. It's not even been a decade since Pep got the first team job.

If you actually bothered to read his post carefully. He used arsenal as an example to illustrate the importance of identity and consistency towards achieving stability. Arsenal might have some identity but lack (ed) the consistency to effectively implement their philosophy. They went from playing with power, pace and combination of counter attack and passing football with players like Viera, henry, pires, overmars, bergkamp et al to possession (tiki taka wannabe) based football with smaller players and became too obsessed with buying cheap and developing youngsters.

The difference between the arsenal that dominated English football in the 2000s with man utd isn't just in personnel changes but style as well. They lost their way/aura along the way.

Moreover shouldn't wenger's reign at Arsenal be evidence that keeping a manger at club long term for the sake of stability is overrated anyway?. Arsenal haven't won any major trophy in 11 years despite their managerial stability. Perhaps if they had fired him and hired a more ambitious manager who believes in the arsenal way of playing football, they would have achieved more in that time.

And it isn't the constant firing of Chelsea managers that's the problem? Well at very least I'm sure it doesn't help. If, as is suggested, it's simply just a matter of getting in coaches who "have something to do with each other" then Liverpool would still be winning titles and United post Ferguson would have kicked on without missing a beat.

Anyway, we all know the opposite sides aren't going to agree because there have been enough well thought out arguments on this site to win over anybody who was able to be won. All that matters is that the club, for the first time, have publicly backed the manager. A great manager, and that's all that matter to me.

How does this even make any sense. How have the managers liverpool have had post 1990 reflective of the strong identity they had in the 70s through to the late 80s? Their identity was "pass and move" football and the managers they have had in that time have been anything but the epitome of that philosophy Souness, gerarld Houlier, Benitez, Roy Hogson?

and do you care to explain how david Moyes is a like for like replacement for Alex ferguson in terms of keeping the philosophy at Utd alive? One plays relentless attacking football with use of wingers while the other is the essennce of a typical "British manager" i,e negative, defensive and unimaginative.

[Henrique 9,133]

Uh oh. It's the dreaded vote of confidence.

Don't see what's the big deal with the club releasing a statement to back Mourinho. Yes, it's the first time we've done that under Roman but it's the same as the Director of Football, Chairman etc coming out to support the manager in public. A few more bad results this month and he'll likely get the sack.

To ne honest, that statement was a little strange. I was reading the news today, and everyone is talking about this statement, and then I went to official site and found this:

"The club wants to make it clear that Jose continues to have our full support.

As Jose has said himself, results have not been good enough and the team's performances must improve. However, we believe that we have the right manager to turn this season around and that he has the squad with which to do it."

Pretty short, and it seems no more than a strategic formality.

I don't want to sound negative, but it just more pressure on Mourinho's shoulders. Its not common when a sports club release an official statement saying "we support the coach". They are actually recognizing there is a situation involving the manager, and he "continues" to have full support, and the team's performances MUST improve, and "we" have the right manager AND he has the right squad.

Well, Mourinho is in the press and is talking about sacking and asking the club to "take responsabilities". The club releases an official statement saying Mourinho has full support, so now its a public support, at the same time the club is making one thing clear: Mourinho has the right players to turn thing around. If Mourinho is fired, no one will say that "lack of support" was the reason why. There is no excuses here.

[Bosnian Blue 2,471]

We wanted RLC but he drops Matic for him ffs. What's wrong with this guy? Matic needs to be in the pivot with RLC! FABREGAS NEEDS TO BE DROPPED!!!!!!!!!!!!! It also looks like he is using excuses to back Ivanovic smh! I've lost all the confidence I've had after I read his interview............ Something always has to be wrong with his selections ALWAYS

Exactly. Loftus can kick start our season BUT not instead of Matic, with Matic together. Would hate to see him turning into a Mikel.

[lionsden 4,689]

Exactly. Loftus can kick start our season BUT not instead of Matic, with Matic together. Would hate to see him turning into a Mikel.

The introduction of a single player cannot be the solution to this mess. It runs way deeper than simply dropping Ivanovich and fabregas and introducing rlc and baba.

I believe there's a huge tactical and fitness issue with this team and the confidence is at an all time low.

Rlc won't suddenly make us creative again nor will baba turn us into a clean sheet machine.