Jump to content

The Mourinho Thread


 Share

Recommended Posts

Very misleading. No way Mourinho and Pellergini are better than Ferguson. Ferguson played 800+ games in the league, that's why his winning percentage is lower. False stuff from BBC. Doing that so they can spark arguments on Facebook and Twitter.

EDIT: Mancini better than Wenger in PL history? Really? I hate Arsenal but that is so dumb.

They should have done this by the number of trophies they won, and if there's a tie between any THEN the number of wins.

its done on percentage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't really highlight Mourinho's strong point as it's an unfair comparison. And it's laughable that you think Jose and Manuel are better in Sir Alex. Laughable.

Again Sir Alex played 800 games in the league, while Jose and Manuel played less than 300. If Pep comes to the league and wins his first 8/10 games, he's suddenly the best PL manager in history right??? Because that's what this thing is. :lol:

And nobody in this planet bar Mourinho fanboys/shit media to gain more clicks would look at who is the best manager from this perspective.

It's the trophies won (and always has been until this article showed up to majorly favour Jose), not win percentage.

In 27 years 13 Championships.

Mourinho: 5 seasons 3 Championships.

Jose Mourinho isn't doing so bad, is he?! :D

I don't want to say who is the best, they all are very good managers.

Ferguson did it time and time again, kudos to him, but his European record isn't that good so every person has his weak spot.

The thing which is laughable here (imo) is that some people call their own people fanboys just because they like their manager.

Everyone who doesn't get in line is just a fanboy or the media is shit, what about freedom of opinion?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 27 years 13 Championships.

Mourinho: 5 seasons 3 Championships.

Jose Mourinho isn't doing so bad, is he?! :D

I don't want to say who is the best, they all are very good managers.

Ferguson did it time and time again, kudos to him, but his European record isn't that good so every person has his weak spot.

The thing which is laughable here (imo) is that some people call their own people fanboys just because they like their manager.

Everyone who doesn't get in line is just a fanboy or the media is shit, what about freedom of opinion?!

Also you need to remember that English clubs were banned for a part of Fergies reign... So that could skew the results slightly and it was in an era without as much technology and advancement - so it really was going into the unknown back then :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about Manuel?

2 seasons, 1 PL trophy. And Manuel's on his way to his 2nd PL trophy.

Until Mourinho matches Ferguson with the trophy count, he's no way better than Ferguson.

I'm not saying Jose is bad, and I agree Jose is one of PL's best managers of all time, but I'm saying it's ridiculous to say Jose is better than Sir Alex at this point of time. Sir Alex has a clear distance between all other PL managers at the moment.

His European record is bad, and Jose edges him there I agree but we are not talking about who's the best CL manager in history here.

The reason I'm calling out on the fanboys because there shouldn't be ANY doubt that who is the best PL manager of all time. You can have your own opinion, that because Jose was a Chelsea manager and won the most trophies with us, his your favourite manager.

But to say he's the best PL manager in history, even Jose himself will disagree with you.

How can I be serious with you if you use win percentage to determine who's the best ever PL manager? Mourinho currently holds the best PL win percentage of all time, that's it. You don't win PLs by having the greatest win percentage.

Real Madrid had the best win percentage in our 2012 CL. Barca has the best win percentage in the past 3 years. Do any of us care?

compare the number of seasons between SAF and Jose first and after that the trophy count

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I was being a bit too serious about it, but I just wanted to make it clear BBC is only doing that for clicks (If you live outside the UK, you'll see ads on the website) and Facebook chatter to gain popularity.

Win percentage is a great achievement, and I do agree it have its use, but at the end of the day, that's not what the PL's all about. It's part of it sure, but that is not the main goal.

Let's flip this the other side. Let's say BBC posts "The Best PL Managers in History" but based on the undefeated streak. Arsene Wenger will be #1, therefore the best PL manager of all time. Would you agree? Because win percentage stat is just as big as this undefeated streak stat.

Again, these are wonderful achievements to have. But trophy count will always be superior to these achievements as it shows how many times you finished the league first place. We do bus parades, boast, have parties for getting the trophies. I'm just trying to make my point here.

This is a Chelsea community yes. We are going to have biased opinions, just like we can go to Arsenal-Mania and they have biased opinions too.

And yes, Mourinho having the best win percentage is a superb achievement and should not be overlooked. But for him to be the best PL manager in history based on that is just a weird examination. They should have worded it "Top 10 best PL managers based on win percentage"

P.S - Also I apologise for mentioning Mourinho fanboys. I was angry at the time.

It's alright mate, finally we have reached an agreement.

Yes, BBC didn't do it for the football, they did it for the clicks what means in the end more money.

Therefore they didn't include all the necessary numbers. It's your right to point the finger.

Again, these are wonderful achievements to have. But trophy count will always be superior to these achievements as it shows how many times you finished the league first place. We do bus parades, boast, have parties for getting the trophies. I'm just trying to make my point here.

I fully agree with this.

Some users however won't.

I heard trophies are just for tourists and for the museum, one can look up low scoring results on the internet and so on.

But that's how it is, everyone has his own idea about the perfect game.

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason for me why Mourinho will never reach the heights of Ferguson is due to his constant neglect of home grown youth players.

The class of '92 will always be a legendary team and it was all due to Fergie's faith and management ability of his young players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I know. But the name of the video is called 'The top PL managers in history' and it's ranked. And at first, like a normal person would think this is going to be based on trophies won, not win percentage.

Manuel is 2nd place, only won 1 PL trophy so far and he's already better than Sir Alex and even Wenger? Can you say that in a straight face?

You can have the most wins in the season. But if you don't win the league that season, nobody gives a shit. That's what I'm saying here.

Win percentage is a weird way to examine which manager is better. As I said in the previous post, Pep can take over a club, win 8/10 games and he's the best. In fact, he only needs to win his first game!! 100% win percentage!

Ray Wilkins should be top
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason for me why Mourinho will never reach the heights of Ferguson is due to his constant neglect of home grown youth players.

The class of '92 will always be a legendary team and it was all due to Fergie's faith and management ability of his young players.

but since then in the PL it has never happened again to that scale and success not even by Ferguson.

That was a one off which served them well for several years but he still needed to spend a lot as well to compliment them.

The game has changed since then with revenue and trophies more important than bringing through loads of youth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wee Pat Nevin was on R5 saying such is the demand of owners of top clubs, Chelsea in particular, there is never a chance to nurture and play 'da yoof'.

Its nothing to do with Mourinho he said, just the demands of instant success of big business

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wee Pat Nevin was on R5 saying such is the demand of owners of top clubs, Chelsea in particular, there is never a chance to nurture and play 'da yoof'.

Its nothing to do with Mourinho he said, just the demands of instant success of big business

Which is what he said years and years back.Would happily play youth,develop players and maybe not win trophies in that period but cause of demands to win didnt feel he could..something along those lines.Was when everyone was going on about Arsenal in the Carling Cup that year we won

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is what he said years and years back.Would happily play youth,develop players and maybe not win trophies in that period but cause of demands to win didnt feel he could..something along those lines.Was when everyone was going on about Arsenal in the Carling Cup that year we won

Am sure a lot of fans have the same romantic notion of youth development and maybe forfeit silverware for a while.

The bitter reality is that this would never happen. Chelsea Football Club is first and foremost a business to make profit. Everything else is secondary and periphery. I wish people would understand this instead of the 'mourinho is such a 'orrible git for not playing josh, ruben, insert any youth player here[............]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wee Pat Nevin was on R5 saying such is the demand of owners of top clubs, Chelsea in particular, there is never a chance to nurture and play 'da yoof'.

Its nothing to do with Mourinho he said, just the demands of instant success of big business

But doesn't Roman want to see the youth players being integrated as well? We want success yes but if the manager integrates some of the youth players, then I'm sure Roman would give some leeway if we don't win things. And it's not like he and the fans are asking Mourinho to throw in say 10 youth players into the starting XI but 2-3 certainly won't hurt. Even Mourinho said himself last year that if he doesn't bring through some youth players, then he would have failed and if he or we in general don't do that, we might as well just close the academy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But doesn't Roman want to see the youth players being integrated as well? We want success yes but if the manager integrates some of the youth players, then I'm sure Roman would give some leeway if we don't win things. And it's not like he and the fans are asking Mourinho to throw in say 10 youth players into the starting XI but 2-3 certainly won't hurt. Even Mourinho said himself last year that if he doesn't bring through some youth players, then he would have failed and if he or we in general don't do that, we might as well just close the academy.

No and no. The academy makes a profit, it is if you like a production line. If youre lucky you may get 1% of loanees ever considered good enough to play for Chelseas first team, but the bottom line is that the factory is profitable.

Abramovich leaves the running of his business to directors and the board. How do we know Abramovich wants to see the youth play ? This is mere media speculation, as he never speaks to the press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The academy makes a profit, it is if you like a production line. If youre lucky you may get 1% of loanees ever considered good enough to play for Chelseas first team, but the bottom line is that the factory is profitable.

I do take the point that the academy is there to make profit but on another note, to say "may get 1% of loanees ever considered good enough to play for Chelseas first team" is a tad ridiculous considering our academy has never been filled with more talented players than now (we won 4 of the last 6 FA Youth Cups, no?). Academy is there to make profit but also help to save cost and we have good players in our ranks. Our main issue with them right now (coughmourinhocough) is not putting enough trust in those players, particularly when some of the first teamers are failing miserably (coughfabregascough).

How do we know Abramovich wants to see the youth play ? This is mere media speculation, as he never speaks to the press.

But after countless of articles about Roman and the youth players, you can't say that there's not even an ounce of truth in it. And if Roman doesn't want to see youth players get into the first team, then why does he always attend youth matches?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • 0 members are here!

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

talk chelse forums

We get it, advertisements are annoying!
Talk Chelsea relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online because over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this website and help us by switching your ad blocker off.

KTBFFH
Thank You