The Mourinho Thread

[cadenza666 221]

Jose Mourinho’s departure from Real Madrid is expected to be announced this week moving his return to Chelsea a step closer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2326827/Jose-Mourinho-Real-Madrid-exit-confirmed-week-Chelsea-return-nears.html

[Rubber bullets 1,183]

I will argue with that. Winning with Porto was an incredible achievement even if was in a very poor CL year. After that, his achievements have been much more mpdest and overall, he has done no better than should have been expected. He won with Chelsea with a team that out-spent everyone else in the Premier League about 10-1. He inherited a team that finished second and got to the semi-finals of the CL and had already players like Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnssson, Makalele, etc..He wasn't taking the 1987 Chelsea side to the promised land, he was taking the deepest, probably the most talented, and by far the most expensive squad there. Mourinho's performance at Chelsea was about what should have been expected. In 4 years, we won 2 Premier League titles, a few domestic Cups, and didn't get past the semi-finals in the CL. We got worse every year under Mourinho so by the time he got fired, we were playing awfully despite having an insanely expensive and talented side. People want to think of Mourinho getting fired as a clash of cultures, but it was mostly due to the team sucking under him at the end. We were significantly better under Avram Grant than we were under Mourinho's last while and Grant did nothing. This was not like RDM or AVb where we were losing to worse teams with imbalanced squads, this was a a squad that was losing to poorer teams with a bevy of world-class players like Makalele, Carvalho, Lampard, Terry, Cech, Essien, and Cole most of whom were at their peaks.

At Inter, the squad had won three straight Seria A titles before Mourinho got there so calling them mediocre is patently ridiculous. Like at Chelsea (and even at Porto), Mourinho was once again coaching for the biggest spending team in the league. The CL win has excellent, but it was not shocking. They were won of the best teams in Europe. At Madrid, his reign was an abject failure. Despite being once again, in charge of the highest spending club, Madrid only won 3 trophies in 3 years, only one of which was a major trophy, which is the worst haul in the history of the club for a manager who has been there that long. Post-Porto, he has managed top European clubs for 9 years and made and won 1 CL. That's not remarkable, it's actually not particularly good. If you gave a random manager 9 years with the squads Mourinho had at Chelsea, Inter, and Madrid, you'd still expect more European success. If he comes back to Chelsea, he will once again be coming back to what will likely be the highest spending club in the league. Yes, he'll likely have success, but like everywhere post-Porto, that success is based enormously on him choosing a team where success is almost inevitable.

He's a fine manager, but the regard that many Chelsea fans for him is so insanely over-inflated based on what he's actually accomplished. People also forget the negatives and there are negatives. The boring football (and this is not Greece at the Euros, this is taking the most talented team in the world and making them play super-defensively), the ego circus, the sore losing, etc...I just don't get the obsession or the desire to go back there.

I think this is the first time we absolutely agree on something!

[Yeboii 1,844]

You homo?

Why are you on this forum? It looks like you came here just to bash the members, some players and Mourinho. Also, what if he is? Does it matter?

[Ronaldo 28]

Why are you on this forum? It looks like you came here just to bash the members, some players and Mourinho. Also, what if he is? Does it matter?

LOL. The question would help me understand the love he has for Mourinho.

Also, how is North Korea these days mate?

[The Skipper 20,609]

You can look at Jose in a very pessimistic manner such as what TorontoChelsea's write up is, or you can look at him in a positive way. I'm not going to bother countering the argument because the optimistic opinions have already been written up on here and are already known, but all I'll say is that money/having the best squad in the league does not automatically equate to one automatically winning tons of trophies.

Man City are a prime example of that. You could even make a case for the Real Madrid galacticos, who obviously had the most talented squad in the world by far - but still underachieved with that.

Jose has one thing that many other managers don't have, and that one thing is that he's just a winner.

It's easy to have a negative view on him now because this has been the worse season in his managerial career so far but I really do think he'll come back stronger than ever.

He has his critics which is fair enough, but no one can say he's just a "solid" manager in my opinion. He's clearly still one of the best managers in the world, his record speaks for itself.

[The Skipper 20,609]

The question would help me understand the love he has for Mourinho.

Well it's a bit obvious why most Chelsea fans love Mourinho. It's pretty self explanatory.

[Ronaldo 28]

Well it's a bit obvious why most Chelsea fans love Mourinho. It's pretty self explanatory.

Yea. I should realize Mourinho + Chelsea fans = Rafa + Liverpool fans.

It's a lose lose situation for me to even argue against Mourinho on this board.

[Tomo 21,751]

I will argue with that. Winning with Porto was an incredible achievement even if was in a very poor CL year. After that, his achievements have been much more mpdest and overall, he has done no better than should have been expected. He won with Chelsea with a team that out-spent everyone else in the Premier League about 10-1. He inherited a team that finished second and got to the semi-finals of the CL and had already players like Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnssson, Makalele, etc..He wasn't taking the 1987 Chelsea side to the promised land, he was taking the deepest, probably the most talented, and by far the most expensive squad there. Mourinho's performance at Chelsea was about what should have been expected. In 4 years, we won 2 Premier League titles, a few domestic Cups, and didn't get past the semi-finals in the CL. We got worse every year under Mourinho so by the time he got fired, we were playing awfully despite having an insanely expensive and talented side. People want to think of Mourinho getting fired as a clash of cultures, but it was mostly due to the team sucking under him at the end. We were significantly better under Avram Grant than we were under Mourinho's last while and Grant did nothing. This was not like RDM or AVb where we were losing to worse teams with imbalanced squads, this was a a squad that was losing to poorer teams with a bevy of world-class players like Makalele, Carvalho, Lampard, Terry, Cech, Essien, and Cole most of whom were at their peaks.

At Inter, the squad had won three straight Seria A titles before Mourinho got there so calling them mediocre is patently ridiculous. Like at Chelsea (and even at Porto), Mourinho was once again coaching for the biggest spending team in the league. The CL win has excellent, but it was not shocking. They were won of the best teams in Europe. At Madrid, his reign was an abject failure. Despite being once again, in charge of the highest spending club, Madrid only won 3 trophies in 3 years, only one of which was a major trophy, which is the worst haul in the history of the club for a manager who has been there that long. Post-Porto, he has managed top European clubs for 9 years and made and won 1 CL. That's not remarkable, it's actually not particularly good. If you gave a random manager 9 years with the squads Mourinho had at Chelsea, Inter, and Madrid, you'd still expect more European success. If he comes back to Chelsea, he will once again be coming back to what will likely be the highest spending club in the league. Yes, he'll likely have success, but like everywhere post-Porto, that success is based enormously on him choosing a team where success is almost inevitable.

He's a fine manager, but the regard that many Chelsea fans for him is so insanely over-inflated based on what he's actually accomplished. People also forget the negatives and there are negatives. The boring football (and this is not Greece at the Euros, this is taking the most talented team in the world and making them play super-defensively), the ego circus, the sore losing, etc...I just don't get the obsession or the desire to go back there.

Yes he may have inherited some good players and added to them also but every manager benefit's from players they inherit, Ranieri was saved from the sack in his first full season by the form of three players he inherited of Vialli.

At Chelsea he may have had lots of money to spend and ofcourse that helped him win the trophies he did with us, but if it was just so easy to spend and win Dalglish and Hughes would still be in jobs.

07/08 started badly, but Jose left with us level with United, who started just as badly. Who was to say things would not have improved?

Spending doesn't automatically mean success, a harsh lesson QPR have been taught. Jose came in 04/05. Manpe actually explained why Jose actually overachieved in his first two season's at Chelsea despite the money spent. This is his quote below.

One more point I would like to add. The squad Jose had in the first season was really average on paper. Arsenal had just finished their invicible season and they had retained that squad, which in truth, was much better than ours (on paper). Everybody thought that they were going to dominate English football for years to come, but it was put to an abrupt end, guess by who? Their squad was already full of stars and established players, we had only up and coming players. Add to that that many of them were new players, there was still a very real problem of making them play together like they had been playing together for ages.

So, instead of struggling with a new squad, he squeezed out the absolute best out of everyone. Lampard had his first truly world class season, as did Terry. Squad players did their bits as expected. He installed completely new tactics and way of playing. For example, look how many managers have trouble doing the exact same thing. What Jose did so seamlessly was really unprecedented. Man City have even more money, even bigger transfer budget, they've signed even more superstars, but they're still struggling to come out of the shadow of an average Man United side and they're absolutely pathetic in Europe, while we knocked Arsenal off their throne instantly and held Europe by its neck.

In conclusion, what I'm trying to say, is that yes, having money to buy players he wanted definitely helped, but it wasn't the main reason and he certainly didn't rely on any superstars. He made them superstars eventually. Can you imagine the Sven Goran Erikssons and Mancinis of the world doing the same? No, Mourinho did in fact overachieve and I don't know how it's even debatable.

I accept he is not perfect but the pro's overwiegh the con's big time.

[mybodyisready 155]

This is one overly pessimistic view on him, just like the immature fanboys have an overly optimistic view on him!

Not so down bellow and not so up above either...

How are Chelsea fans 'immature fanboys' if they're showing their desire to bring back a Chelsea legend back to Chelsea?

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Yes he may have inherited some good players and added to them also but every manager benefit's from players they inherit, Ranieri was saved from the sack in his first full season by the form of three players he inherited of Vialli.

At Chelsea he may have had lots of money to spend and ofcourse that helped him win the trophies he did with us, but if it was just so easy to spend and win Dalglish and Hughes would still be in jobs.

07/08 started badly, but Jose left with us level with United, who started just as badly. Who was to say things would not have improved?

Spending doesn't automatically mean success, a harsh lesson QPR have been taught. Jose came in 04/05. Manpe actually explained why Jose actually overachieved in his first two season's at Chelsea despite the money spent. This is his quote below.

I accept he is not perfect but the pro's overwiegh the con's big time.

This is where you are wrong. Spending does basically equal success.It's statistically proven. Teams that spend, win and teams that win spend. QPR is different because QPR spent 42M from a crappy base of players. Mourinho had teams that were spending 150M with a world-class base already in place. There's spending and then there's spending. Chelsea has had success because we've spent a ridiculous amount of money.

Here we go...team spending over last 3 years...

In Premier League...City, Chelsea, United finishing 2,3,1 in the league

In Spain Madrid, Barcelona, and Malaga (way behind the first two) 2, 1, 6

In Italy, Juventus, Roma, Napoli/Fiorentina. 1, 7, 2, 4

In Germany, Bayern outspends everyone else in the league by ridiculous margins...they finished 1st easily.

Of the big four leagues, the highest spending team finished 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 1st. Money wins. Period. (And if you don't think that's correlation, you don't understand correlation. There are exceptions. Teams that can rise up without spending, teams that can spend and lose but those are more short-term anomalies than anything else.) I don't understand why people want to maintain this romantic myth of team effort or the genius manager. Those things do matter, but spending is about 90% of what matters and everything else is 10% (instead of pretending it's the other way around.)

And Manpe is absolutely wrong on this and it just shows me how people can easily misremember . Lampard and Terry were both on the PFA team of the year BEFORE Mourinho came. How can you possibly give credit to Mourinho for developing players that were already deemed among the best in the league is beyond me. Mourinho didn't make them into great players. They were already great players. Team of the year is a big fucking deal. The image people want to have of this mediocre team that Mourinho transformed into a winner, is just nonsense. Chelsea did not overachieve in Mourinho's first two seasons. They did exactly as expected.

Man City was also in a completely different situation for a couple of reasons.

1)They were a mid-table side with no superstars. They had a couple of players that would become top ones (like Kompany) but they needed to be developed. We were SECOND the year before and we made the CL semi-final and had a team filled with top-class players like Makalele, Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnson, and Hasselbaink before Mourinho managed a game. We went to the CL semi-finals the year before. We finished second. Man City was 14th when they started getting cash and 9th when the started getting a lot.

2) The Premier League was already transformed when CIty started spending. When we started, nobody was spending much. We literally outpsent the entire rest of the Premier League combined. We spent 300M pounds in two years when other teams were spending 10M pounds a season. The equivalent today would be a team like Spurs, City, or Arsenal going out and spending 500M in two years and then acting like their managers were geniuses when they won and comparing us to City is like pretending that Arsenal going out and spending hundreds of millions and West Ham doing that should end in the same result.

[Strike 7,474]

I will argue with that. Winning with Porto was an incredible achievement even if was in a very poor CL year. After that, his achievements have been much more mpdest and overall, he has done no better than should have been expected. He won with Chelsea with a team that out-spent everyone else in the Premier League about 10-1. He inherited a team that finished second and got to the semi-finals of the CL and had already players like Lampard, Terry, Gudjohnssson, Makalele, etc..He wasn't taking the 1987 Chelsea side to the promised land, he was taking the deepest, probably the most talented, and by far the most expensive squad there. Mourinho's performance at Chelsea was about what should have been expected. In 4 years, we won 2 Premier League titles, a few domestic Cups, and didn't get past the semi-finals in the CL. We got worse every year under Mourinho so by the time he got fired, we were playing awfully despite having an insanely expensive and talented side. People want to think of Mourinho getting fired as a clash of cultures, but it was mostly due to the team sucking under him at the end. We were significantly better under Avram Grant than we were under Mourinho's last while and Grant did nothing

Hello, Devil's Advocate

I agree with some of the views. Mourinho is no god but in the world of a football manager, you have to accept there will be some give and take. your view of his Chelsea work is very pessimistic - highlighting the fact that he already had a good team, spent a lot etc but Mourinho's Chelsea not just won the title but won it by a fair stretch. There was inconsistency only towards the end of the season when the title was practically won. It was the same in the next season as well, losing 2 games after winning the title vs United at home.

As for the decline after the title winning seasons, yes there was a bit of decline yet Chelsea was a very hard team to beat. In his first 3 years, he lost only 7-8 games - all away from home (PL)

He has his cons - for every Essien, there was a Wright-Phillips signed under him. Shevchencko was bad business as well and Mourinho failed to evolve from the spine that made up his first team but I think he is the man to build a team here and take us back up to 'title-challenging' level. No other manager can make the transition faster than he can for the sheer psychological effect of him returning

[Tomo 21,751]

@TorontoChelsea,

Doing exactly as expected would be a close title win, those two title win's were not close, we blown away the competition. No one expected us to be winning those title's with us ease, especially not with that Arsenal team around.

I think the main point off the whole thing, is would Hughes, Dalglish, Sven or any half decent manager had similar success to Mourinho despite the money? and that is a resounding no. Which showes while money helps, you still need a manager who knows what he is doing.

[The Skipper 20,609]

@TorontoChelsea, it's easier to say in hindsight that Mourinho had "world class players" when he came to Chelsea. Yeah, the Essien's, Drogba's, Carvalho's etc. came for big money but they weren't exactly "established" as world class players. They were very much like the Mata and Hazard purchases. Yes, they were both in the PFA team of the year but in no way did that make them established world class players. You're overrating TOTY too much - there are plenty of non world class players that have been selected for team of the year before. JT and Lampard were good talents when Mourinho came but in no way were they at that world class level yet. You've got to give him credit for turning both into one of the best players in the world.

How you give Mourinho no credit for turning JT and Lampard into world stars baffles me. You only have to look at the way they both speak of him. JT was voted in the WORLD XI of the year which is far more prestigious than the PL TOTY a consecutive 5 times after Mourinho came. He was also voted best defender in Europe after Mourinho's first season, and 2 more times after that. Lampard finished runner up in the Ballon D'or when Mourinho was here. You can't argue with that.

Under Mourinho we spent money but it wasn't on nail on established world class talent, it was more with raw talent. You've got to give credit to Mourinho for turning all of these raw players into the players they later became. Drogba was a project, so was Essien, Carvalho, Robben etc.

Yeah, our team slightly declined in his last year here but that was more due to the superstar signings our board made e.g. the Shevchenko's, Ballack's. The Shevchenko money could've definitely been used more efficiently. That summer we

Mourinho does have his negatives, every manager has, but you're undermining what he did here too much. You act like it's easy for any manager to achieve what he did here which is bewildering.

You don't understand why he's so regarded by most Chelsea fans? Surely, winning Chelsea their first league title after 50 years is an achievement? Surely, the way most of his ex players regard him should tell you how much his work and management style impacted on them? I mean, Essien calls him "Daddy" for crying out loud. Lampard, Cech, JT, Ashley regard him very highly. His former players at Inter love him. His former players at Porto still have him deeply in their hearts. He's synonymous with Chelsea's rise to the big stage, Chelsea's becoming of one of the elite clubs in Europe. That's why plenty of Chelsea supporters have an emotional attachment to the man.

I'll reiterate; you're undermining what Mourinho's done here and throughout most of his career. The way your post is phrased makes those who read it think that it's easy for any manager to achieve what he has over the years which simply isn't true.

Yes, you may argue that Chelsea did what was expected of them due to the investment Roman put in (even though plenty were expecting Arsenal to win the title that season), but it isn't always easy to actually meet expectations, as you can easily see with Man City who arguably the best squad in the league for years, a decent manager etc. They should've won more trophies than they did over the last 5 years no matter which way you put it.

Mourinho did exceed expectations in a sense that we absolutely dominated the league when no one expected us to, set a PL points record and went unbeaten at home for his whole time here. That isn't something you "expect". Winning the treble at Inter Milan isn't something anyone "expected" either. Winning the Champions League with Porto wasn't "expected" either.

Money does not guarantee you the success that is expected. You're being way too cynical in your assessment in my opinion.

[didierforever 7,349]

Where'd you father go?

he went for a rather long vacation to milan and madrid... he ll back in , lets say, 2 weeks max...

and dont worry rupert, i heard your father is going to schalke... better that u start supporting them now...

[nachikethas 1,154]

he went for a rather long vacation to milan and madrid... he ll back in , lets say, 2 weeks max...

and dont worry rupert, i heard your father is going to schalke... better that u start supporting them now...

lol