Believe me, I've made sure people know of him. And never ever refer to AVB as Mourinho's assistant. He is his own man.
Long live Andre. :wub:
Jose Mourinho is so overrated
- Thread starter curtis290
- Start date
- Replies 261
- Views 22K
Believe me, I've made sure people know of him. And never ever refer to AVB as Mourinho's assistant. He is his own man.
Long live Andre. :wub:
I agree that the way AVB approaches his games makes him the complete opposite of Mourinho (his Porto plays some very exciting football!), but I guess having worked under Mourinho must have had some positive effects on him. Just my opinion though.
Andre Villas Boas dont need anyone to make a name. Infact jose was heavily relied on Andre. No one can read the opposition as best as Andre. The man is legend and destined for greater things. Just hope Liverpool, ManCity, Chelsea wont get him..
---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:24 PM ----------
I think it is unfair to compare his career as England Manager. I dont think anyone can do anything with the national team. So many egos, nil tactical awareness, lack of playing as a team, over expectations, Media pressure. No one can change national team in just few years. It should be gradual process and takes few more years..
And I disagree with that. Barca have better player on any position ( except GK) like I said before. Even Man U have better players than Real ( I could be little biased). Name one Real's player, and I'll tell you one Barca's player who plays on same position and who's better.
Can I ask you to compare Guardiola and Mourinho ? I mean, their ability to spot player, tactical knowlege, motivation, ability to build team from roots ? Something like thatplease
---------- Post added at 08:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------
May I ask why Benitez ?
First of all, for me, Madrid's starting XI equal's Barca's.
Ronaldo=Messi
Higuain>Villa
Di Maria=Pedro
Ozil<Xavi
Alonso=Iniesta (let's not forget that Alonso was listed on the greatest passers of all time thread and got votes)
Khedira (or Lass)=Busquets
Marcelo>Adriano (or Abidal)
Arbeloa<Puyol
Carvalho>Pique
Sergio Ramos=Dani Alves
Casillas>Victor Valdes
But RM's bench is much, much better than Barca's. So RM has a better team.
If you want me to compare Pep and Mourinho, as I've said it's difficult. None of us really know how good Guardiola is. He is perfect for Barca and no one could get them playing football like he does. However, I have a hunch that if you put him at any other club he wouldn't be that good of a manager (we will see though when he leaves). Even though Pep is arguably the most successful young manager in history, I don't go around talking about how great he is because his trophies have to do with how good his team is. The same goes for Mourinho, he wins trophies with great teams. But no one acknowledges this, they just say "Look at his trophy case." When Pep gets trophies, it's Barcelona. When Mourinho gets trophies, he's a tactical genius, even though he usually is beating teams worse than him.
As for Leiria, I think this is up there with Jose's biggest achievements. But let's take a few things into consideration. First of all, the finished in 6th two seasons before he got there, with 52 points. So they didn't come out of nowhere. Second, he took over in APRIL for Christ's sake. The season was almost over, and they finished in 5th place. The next season, while he was there, they finished in 7th. He left for Porto, and they finished in 5th that season and made the final of the cup. So Vitor Pontes did the same thing there that Mourinho did. Does that mean Pontes is a genius?
As for Chelsea, thanks for mentioning they finished in 2nd place the season before he got there. Then he comes in, spends a fortune, and gets them into first place. I don't think that makes him a genius.
As for Inter, they were by far the best team in Serie A. In the years leading up to him coming there, they had no competitors because of the effets of Calciopoli. That's why Mancini always won the league with them. Jose comes in with his huge reputation, and Inter is the exact same as they were under Mancini. He receives tons of criticism in the Italian press. The next season, the transfer market is juicy and he signs several world class players. Inter is then as talented as any team in the world. They struggle through Serie A, winning on the last day even though there weren't serious competitors. They won the Champions League, due in no small part to an Icelandic volcano and Barca's treble hangover (and he got to go up against his old team and didn't have to face ManU). He left the squad as the oldest on the entire continent and without depth. So when the injury crisis came next season and the players had the treble hangover effect, the team sucked. Leonardo, a terrible manager, has got them playing well.
Now for his Madrid career. First of all, let's look at the managers on your list:
Carlos Queroz-proven to be a great assistant manager and a poor manager
José Antonio Camacho-sure, Mourinho's better than him, I didn't think this guy had that great a track record as a coach
Mariano García Remón-never managed at big clubs, was only at Madrid for a few weeks, I don't know much about him but if you want to say Mourinho's better, fine
Vanderlei Luxemburgo-the era of the first galacticos was much more difficult, managers were being sacked right and left. He took over mid season and did very well with R. Madrid. The next season they had a lot of injury problems and he was out by December, and a lot of it had to do with a 3-0 defeat to Barca. Had Mourinho coached during this era he would have been fired after the 5-0 loss.
Juan Ramón López Caro-has not been proven as a manager, in fact he hasn't really had success anywhere he's been. I'm sure Mourinho's better than him.
Fabio Capello-during his first stint there, he won the title in his one season, and this was before the galacticos. His Madrid team was not as talented as this one, as was the Madrid team in his second stint there. This was after Zidane, Figo, and Ronaldo was injured and out of form. He won the title, but was fired for playing boring football. Mourinho is lucky that right now Madrid is so desperate for trophies they've sold out on their principles. Capello has done very poorly as the English NT. He has had a lot of success in Italy, and when he had an unlimited budget in the 90's with Milan, they were an all-time great team. Who is better? I'll give the edge to Mourinho, because Capello has had some poor seasons while Mourinho hasn't.
Bernd Schuster-again, this wasn't the galacticos, and he's not cut out for managing at the top clubs. He's good with smaller teams but Real Madrid wasn't a good fit for him.
Juande Ramos-once again, this wasn't the galacticos, but he did a good job there. I'm not trying to argue though that he's better than Mourinho
Manuel Pellegrini-this is the manager who came in to the first year of the galacticos 2.0. They hadn't gelled yet and the pressure was tremendous and I didn't expect them to do well. He sets their record for points total, but is fired. The next season, while this group of players has had a whole year together under their belt, Mourinho comes in and adds some very good players to truly make this an historically great team. An imposing CB in Carvalho and two great attacking players, Ozil and Di Maria, as well as a very good DM/CM, Khedira. Yet Mourinho's Real Madrid hasn't been as good (consistently) as Pellegrini's. They did worse in the league and couldn't manage a title challenge, not to mention they were beaten 5-0 by Real Madrid. I expected this year's Real Madrid team to win at least two trophies. If Mourinho can get this historic team to win something, he'll be hailed as a genius. Had it been another coach it would have been simply that Real Madrid had a great team.
Pellegrini won a championship in Argentina as well as the Copa Mercosur, and it's very difficult to coach in Argentina (no budgets, parity within the league, and tons of pressure because of the two-part season). Pellegrini then goes to Villarreal and gets the second highest winning percentage in the history of La Liga. This was done at a small team with a small budget. They also had some very good Champions League showings. The season after Pellegrini left, the team played very poorly. This is what ****** me off. Pellegrini did amazing things at a team much smaller than Real Madrid, without a big budget or all-star players. Could Mourinho do that? We'll never know because Mourinho would never take a job where he didn't have the best team on the field at all times. And yeah, Pellegrini's Malaga has been bad this year, but that team isn't talented and they've had lots of injuries. That's the difference between Pellegrini and Mourinho. Pellegrini will take up a challenge, he'll go to a **** team and try to win with them. Mourinho would NEVER do that, he'll only go to a team where it would be hard to fail.
Aside from that single word, I have to make my own analysis of this.
I rate Mourinho very highly. If I was a rich arab guy and bought a team, and I wanted instant success, I'd get Mourinho. I believe he is probably the best short-term manager in history. But that's it, he's a short-term manager. He'll get a few trophies for 'personal glory' and that's it. He won't stay with a team, he won't care about the financial status and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't tolerate working on a budget (Not now at least, he probably had to put up with that in his early days).
My (Not rich arab guy's) ideal manager should be someone who'd stick with the club through thick and thin. Of course this will inevitably bring SAF to mind, who is undoubtedly one of the best managers ever. Another good example of this could be Arsene, or even better (Maybe not as a manager but as an example), Guy Roux (google him if you don't know him, it's worth it). But there's no need to go into the 'legendary managers' department. If I had to pick a manager 'for good', out of those plying their trade in Europe, I'd take David Moyes. What he's doing (And has done) at Everton, with the Toffees' limitations, is worthy of admiration. My opinion, though, could be biased since Everton is the team I like the most out of those playing in the prem.
---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------
In what world would that be?
Great post, I agree with you 100%. Also, if I wanted to take a mediocre team on a small budget and win them trophies, I'd hire Americo Gallego or Ramon Diaz or David Moyes or Arsene Wenger over Jose Mourinho. And if I wanted my team to play attractive football, I'd hire anyone else. But Mourinho is somehow the best of all time and if you dispute that everyone goes nuts.
Yep, they were outplayed but Casillas saved the day (while Pinto couldn't) and they got a goal on a counter. It was a sad day. They won with good defense and tactics, which is not what the galacticos are supposed to be about. Read anything Valdano has written and it's really sad, Real Madrid won by doing everything he and the club stand against. I hope the former Real Madrid legends come out and say something, because spending the whole game in your half is NOT how Real Madrid is supposed to play. Sure, that's cool at Inter and Chelsea, and I'd bet usually those teams would beat Barca (they are the perfect antidote), but that's not what Real Madrid is supposed to be like. They fire coaches for playing boring football, and I respect that. That's why I like Real Madrid, even though they're the most dislikeable club in the world. I rooted for them to get trophies last season. But they sold out on their principles and hired Mourinho, and that's why I root against them right now. It's funny though, now, how many people all of the sudden are Real Madrid fans that previously hated the club.
He has one of the best teams in the history of the sport, he wasn't an outsider. And it's not like Barca can win everything, especially when they're missing their first choice keeper. If Casillas was out Barca would have won for sure. Also, let's not forget that Barca was the much better team tonight. R. Madrid had 2-3 good chances at goal but spent most of the game (especially after the first half) in their own half. That's not Real Madrid football, and it's everything Valdano stands against. That's what makes me sick. If R. Madrid had gone out swinging and played attacking football and beat Barca 5-0 I would have been happy for them. But watching that game just made me ****** off. We all know that teams like Chelsea/Inter/ManU can definitely beat Barca like that, but it would be nice to see if a team of super-stars could go out and beat them playing offensive football. We definitely would have gotten that if Pellegrini would have been given another chance.
A lot of these players were brought in before him, but yes, he did bring in several good young players. But these were such obvious buys, everyone was drooling over Ozil, Di Maria, and Khedira during the World Cup. Real Madrid was able to get all of these because they're one of the few teams that can spend and spend and spend. But I don't think Mourinho is a genius for doing this, and despite having this amazing team with a year together under their belts for most of them, he did worse than they did in the league last season. No one acknowledges this.
So some of his players heap lots of praise after they win and Pep does the smart thing to do and praise him. That makes him the best of all time? And if I don't think he is the best of all time, I "need help?" This is exactly what I'm talking about, people can call Wenger a **** manager and call for his head even though he wins on a negative budget, but if I come out and say he isn't the best manager of all time people go apeshit.
I've already stated my reasons for why I think he's overrated, but you haven't even addressed any of those, you just gave a long list of trophies he won at clubs that were expected to win those trophies (the exception being the 03-04 Champions League run).
If his tactical awareness is so great, than why can he only win in one way? When he attempted to play attractive football against Barca, they were beaten 5-0. The next two games you get boring, defense, counter-attacking football with 10 men behind the ball, and he got lucky in the CdR final and snatched a goal on the counter when they were outplayed. All I'm saying is that he's lucky to not have coached the first galacticos.
Also, he has "tactically outclassed" other managers with his super-star teams and boring football. I'm not denying that. But other than Pep, Wenger and SAF have done things Mourinho couldn't do. Also, you call me a Pep lover, which I'm not, I've said over and over again I don't rate him highly yet people constantly accuse me of saying he's a great coach. If you call Pep a great coach for being the most successful young manager in history, you're crazy and it's only Barca's good team. If Mourinho wins with an all-star team, it's not the quality of the players, it's Mourinho being a genius.
And on to SAF, there is one HUGE difference between SAF and Mourinho. SAF won the SPL with Aberdeen, and no team has broken the stranglehold of the Old Firm a quarter century later. Now THAT'S an achievement. Oh, and SAF has been able to build a great team and make them successful for long-periods of time by constantly bringing up good young players.
As far as the "masterclass" goes...if you define masterclass as winning with good defense and a strong counter-attack when you're playing poorly, than yeah, it was a masterclass. But IMO the only masterclass that happened while Mourinho was here was Barca's 5-0 victory, which was one of the best games every played.
I find it hilarious you mention the word "beautiful" and "football" in the same sentence as your post, as this Copa del Rey victory was anything but beautiful. If you're a R. Madrid fan I feel a bit sorry for you, this team, even with all its talent, will never measure up to the original Galacticos, who were probably the most entertaining team of all time (yes, I liked that team more than this Barca team, for all of those of you who think I'm a Barca supporter). I don't care if R. Madrid does the double this season, this team is "**** on a stick" that I'd never watch for amusement. I download matches from the original galacticos, with Roberto Carlos, Makelele, Guti, Zidane, Figo, Ronaldo, Raul, just to watch them play. That's why they'll go down in history, and that's why this season's Barca team will go down in history even if they don't win the Champions League. Because people will want to watch them. This year's Real Madrid team will only go down in history as an all-star team who played effective football and grinded out results. That's not what the Galacticos are supposed to be about.
You start your post saying Mourinho "can't be classified as overrated..." care to mention why? Why am I not allowed to say he isn't the best manager of all time?
As far as him being a genius in the transfer market, you cite his experience at Inter, but the Eto'o Ibra deal was Barca, and Moratti was able to hose them because they had to do it (they had to get rid of Eto'o because of contract disputes, and Ibra was the only tall forward good enough for Barca). The Sneijder one was an easy grab, and look at the other two Dutchmen released by Real Madrid-VDV, the signing of the year for Tottenham, and Robben, who carried Bayern to the Champions League final. Lucio was also a very well established player. They were all obvious buys, and since there was a recession, few other clubs even had the resources to pursue these players. I don't see how you can call him a genius in the transfer market, he's definitely no Wenger, he makes profits annually on transfers for Christ's sake yet his team continues to compete.
You gave a nice summary of his career, but honestly I don't think you've responded to anything I've written in this thread. That's what's ******* me off here, it's the same argument every time. Mourinho has won this this and this, without responding to any of my points. But there has been only one competition in his whole life that he won where he wasn't the best team in it (02-03 UEFA Cup Lazio was in disarray at that time, in the 09-10 Champions League Inter was equally as good as Barca, not to mention Barca's treble hangover and the icelandic volcano, and for this season's Copa del Rey, RM's team is better than Barca's IMO, not to mention they need the victory much more than Barca does), and that's the 03-04 Champions League run where he had a lot of luck. As I've said many times before, if I had the best club in my league and an unlimited budget and I didn't care about how attractive my team's football was, I'd hire Jose.
If I wanted to build a club in the long-term or if I was at a small club on a small budget or if I wanted my team to entertain the fans, I wouldn't hire him. So I don't think he's the best of all time. SAF has proven he can win trophies and win the league with a team he shouldn't (Aberdeen). Wenger has proven he can win quickly (first season at Arsenal), put together an amazing team (the Invincibles), and consistently be a great team for years on a shoe-string budget while all of your best players leave (Arsenal from 02-09). Pellegrini has proven he can take a small team and turn them into a very, very good one that compete with any in the world. Hiddink has proven he can do great things with national teams that have no business even being in the World Cup...would Mourinho ever take a challenge like that? He wouldn't. If he did and succeeded, I'd call him an all-time great manager. But he's an opportunist who only takes the jobs that he knows he'll win trophies at, and then he leaves after two seasons.
I should probably clarify myself. Here are my criteria for a great manager (in no order):
1. Relative success: this doesn't mean trophies. It's how well the team performed compared to how talented they are. Blackpool is not talented enough to be in the Prem but they play well, so I think Holloway has done a good job. A manager who can consistently get his teams to pull above their weight is a good one (ie Allardyce or Hodgson, save for his time at Liverpool, which was a tough situation). Arsenal with all of their injury problems probably shouldn't have been competing for the Premier League title, but they at least kept it relatively close, and they were runners-up in a competition, so it was a successful season. Making it to the World Cup semi-finals with South Korea, getting Australia to qualify out of the group stage of the World Cup (only to lose to Italy in the round of 16 on a bullshit penalty), advancing far in the European Championship with Russia (beating Holland), those are all amazing successes even though they didn't involve trophies. Inter won titles under Mancini but they were expected to, so those trophies don't necessarily make him a good manager. Even though he has more trophies recently than Wenger or Holloway or Allardyce or Hiddink, I don't see why I should have to think Mancini is a better manager than them. Or Mcleish. A manager that consistently achieves relative success, whether that's Pellegrini's consistent top 4 finish or SAF's consistent trophies, is success.
Another good measuring stick for relative success is how well other managers do with the same squad, depending on the circumstances, of course. So if a different manager steps in and achieves similar results, than maybe the initial manager isn't as good as we thought, especially if this new manager isn't a good one. For example, if Avram Grant can step in during a crisis, have the best record in the league during his tenure and take this team to the CL final (where they would have won if it weren't for bad luck), maybe it's not such an incredible achievement to manage Chelsea to good results. Of course, if another manager takes over under difficult circumstances, perhaps a year after a treble victory (hangover) and with a squad that isn't deep but has a lot of injury problems (probably having to do with old age as well), than it doesn't necessarily mean that this man is a bad manager or that the previous manager was a great one. That's why I don't think Rafa Benitez, for example, is a bad manager. Leonardo is a terrible manager and he has gotten this Inter team to do well, he just stepped in after the brunt of the injury crisis.
2. Transfer market/finances: how good a manager is at getting good players for cheap prices (especially when they are unheard of) and how much he can sell his own players for, along with his overall management of the club's finances. Wenger, for me, is the best in the world at this. Arsenal earned a profit in the transfer market from 02-09, and an average annual 4.4 million pound profit from 02-08. That's incredible. Ferguson is also obviously a great one, I mean 6 million for Hernandez? What an amazing move.
3. Youth development: self-explanatory, how good a manager is at developing young players. If a manager can take a player who is not yet good and make him into a good player, he has left a legacy of some sort. If a manager can consistently turn young players into great players, he is a great manager. SAF and Wenger are brilliant at this.
4. Building a club: this, for me, is arguably the best indicator of a good manager. If a manager can take a club from being a small one to a big one, he is a good manager. Wenger transformed Arsenal from a mid-tier club to a great club, and was an unknown manager who took them to the title in the first season and made them a force in the Prem that could compete with ManU. He also gave them an undefeated season. Pellegrini also was able to take Villarreal, a small club, to consistent success, where they could compete with any team in the world. Now, building a club also includes how long you can be successful at it. If you can make a club great and continue to win their for years, than you're a great manager (Pellegrini, for example). Moreover, building a club has to do with the state you leave it in when it's gone. When SAF retires, ManU will be OK because they have a lot of good young players. When Wenger retires, Arsenal will be fine because they have a very young team and great finances. If a manager leaves his team as the oldest on the entire continent and without depth than I don't think that's a good thing.
5. Style of play: how entertaining his team plays. Ultimately, football is meant for entertainment. The reason the players and managers earn obscene amounts of money is because us, the fans, continually shell out ridiculous amounts of money for tickets and merchandise. A manager has an obligation to entertain the fans and to win with a good style of play. It's not only the result that matters. Some people in football, and of course entire nations (Argentina, Brazil), understand this. Wenger always wants Arsenal to play good, beautiful football, even if it costs them results. Valdano would probably rather try to play beautifully and lose than play ugly football and win. When we look back at the great teams in history, the ones we remember the most are the ones who entertained us, the ones who created something that was aesthetically pleasing. This is why even though the Dutch national team never won a world cup, we will always remember them for their Total Football. Will we remember the Italian national team's World Cup victory in '06? Not really, because their brand of football was ****. Only the teams that aspire to do more than win, to mesmerize us with their quality of play, will go down in history.
Last edited:
Yay for building arguments on subjective statements.
Ronaldo=Messi
Villa>Higuain
Di Maria=Pedro
Xavi>Alonso
Iniesta>Ozil
Busquets=Khedira
Marcelo>Adriano
Puyol>Arbeola
Pique>Carvalho
Alves>Ramos
Casillas>Valdes
You're probably one of the very, very few people who think Madrid have a superior team. There's a reason the vast consensus is that Barcelona are the greatest team in the world. i.e. None better.
They chose to leave Valdes out, Pinto has always played in the Copa del Rey games.
So, who made it so that this was what the Galacticos were about? It isn't Mourinho's fault he doesn't play like that, how on Earth can you criticise the man for this? The chairman wants to play this way, who hired him? Oh yeah..
And how exactly were they outplayed? The way I saw it, they were better in the first half, Barca in the second and then they won in ET. Not exactly outplayed.
You saying if Casillas was out then Barca would have won is a stupid thing to say. You cant judge on ifs and buts he beat Barcelona fair and square. Barca was favourites with the media and the bookies without a dout and that tells me Mardid were the outsiders in the game. And how was Barca the much better team? Im starting to see why you think this, you obviously have an agenda with either Jose/Madrid or both. Madird it the post and Pinto made a coupld of good saves too. Barca were just pass, pass pass pass and getting knowhere, they opportunites they did get away were saved by a very good goalkeeper.
Real Madird cant complain for me the type of football Jose is playing. They knew his style of football when the appointed him and they still went ahead with it because they are trophy staved and Barca was running away with everything. I can see you are possibly an Arsenal lover?? Because of the lovely football they play?? Its not always effective, the best football is the football that wins simple as that.
Mceachran46
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2011
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
well look at jose mourinho's record... it speaks for itself!! most of you on here cant stand to see anyone else have success when your club is going down the pan lol.....haha i got a warning for the mum post....
Open your eyes, open your mind...
Valdes < Casillas
Abidal = Marcelo
Puyol > Pepe
Pique > Carvalho ANYTIME ANYPLACE
Dani Alves > Ramos
Busquets > Khedira
Xavi > Alonso
Iniesta > Ozil
Messi > Ronaldo
Pedro > Di Maria
Villa > Higuain
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------
Most of US ? Who do you mean ? 90 per cent people on this thread defend Mourinho. Don't be so bitter. And he has his opinion. RESPECT IT. Don't be *****, be gentleman.
Valdes < Casillas
Abidal = Marcelo
Puyol > Pepe
Pique > Carvalho ANYTIME ANYPLACE
Dani Alves > Ramos
Busquets > Khedira
Xavi > Alonso
Iniesta > Ozil
Messi > Ronaldo
Pedro > Di Maria
Villa > Higuain
---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 PM ----------
Most of US ? Who do you mean ? 90 per cent people on this thread defend Mourinho. Don't be so bitter. And he has his opinion. RESPECT IT. Don't be *****, be gentleman.
Yeah, which is why I started off the sentence with "For me." But football is very subjective anyway, so this is bound to happen.
They may be the best 'team' in the world, but IMO (and I'm not the only one who thinks this, I've spoken to several people who agree) Real Madrid is more talented. Barca has a system and Madrid doesn't, which is why Barca wins. But Madrid is obviously deeper, and in terms of the stars in their lineup, there's very little separating the two. I give the slight edge to Madrid.
The commentators didn't mention this, I assumed Valdes was hurt. Was a mistake I think. Pinto made one good save, and the goal was great but maybe Valdes could have stopped it. But for me, Barca's defense looked like it lacked organization. Maybe that was Puyol, or maybe that was Valdez' absence. I didn't like Mascherano back there, they should have put in Milito.
Perez and Valdano were elected to bring in another era of the Galacticos. For me, that's where it starts, and they have ideas about what the Galacticos are supposed to be about. You should read some of Valdano's stuff. They hired Mourinho because they were impatient with the trophies and they sold out on their principles, and that's why I'm rooting against them. Also, they wanted Mourinho to not play like he usually does, hence the feud between Valdano and Mourinho, and of course why Mourinho actually went out offensively in the first match against Barca in 2010.
Madrid was slightly better in the first half, Barca was much better after that. They were outplayed because the ball hardly left their own end.
All I'm saying is that Casillas made great saves while Barca's defense without Puyol and Valdes lacked organization. Just because you're not the favorites doesn't mean you're an "outsider." An outsider is an underdog, and I bet the odds were very close. If they weren't, than the bookies were caught up in the media hype.
Also, the quote in my signature is from Valdano...are you seriously suggesting I have a vendetta against Madrid? I just don't think Mourinho is the greatest manager of all time and I started a thread about it, that is all. It's amazing how untouchable he is here...you can call for Wenger to be sacked and people won't bat and eye but you suggest that Mourinho isn't some kind of man-god and everyone vehemently disagrees with you.
Madrid can complain about the type of football they play because they are his employer, and of course they told him to put an entertaining product on the field. Valdano did complain about how Mourinho coaches (has in the past, you should read his quotes on Mourinho), which is why Mourinho went out offensive in the first game and why there was a feud between the two. But, to a certain extent, you're right, they did hire him knowing how he plays, and they were ****** at Barca's success and were only thinking about the trophies when they hired Mourinho. That's why I'm rooting against them now, they sold out on their principles.
As far as beautiful/effective football, I agree with you to a certain extent, which is why when a team wins and does it playing beautifully (Barca, Spain NT in the last few years, the first Galacticos), it's a great thing. I'll always root for that team. That's why I really rooted for RM last year, but this year I'm rooting against them. But as I've said before, Valdano would rather have his team try to play attractive football and lose than have his team play like a Mourinho's or Benitez's teams. Mourinho was definitely Perez's ideas, and I bet Valdano is fuming about how terrible RM's on-the-field product was in their last two matches, results be damned. That's why I admire Valdano and agree with him that what's happening in the modern game is sad and that managers like Mourinho and Benitez epitomize what the modern game is becoming: too tactical and too controlled.
Possession doesn't mean they outplayed. You don't win games by possession alone, you win by what you do with it. United have frequently sat back in the CL. Chelsea had more possession IIRC, but most people will say we played better, no? Arsenal often have the most possession, doesn't mean they always outplay their opponent does it?
Because whereever Mourinho goes silverwere follows. If it wasent Wenger in charge at Arsenal then the manager would have been sacked ages ago without a dout. Mourinho's record speaks for itsself and for me is already a better manager than Wenger because he is not stuborn and is not afraid to change things. He is not currently the best manager in the world but he is very very close, in the top 5 maybe even 3 without a dout. The man has won trophies in 4 different countrys already, what a man.
I still like the way that you think Real Madrid's 'principles' revolve around good football.
It doesn't. Real Madrid's principles revolve around winning, at all costs. Good football is merely a bonus. Valdano might want to play well, but he doesn't represent the principles and ethos of Real Madrid. He's just a director.
It doesn't. Real Madrid's principles revolve around winning, at all costs. Good football is merely a bonus. Valdano might want to play well, but he doesn't represent the principles and ethos of Real Madrid. He's just a director.
Last edited:
He did usually get the best of Mourinho, but I'm ambivalent about Benitez. I don't like him for the football he plays (just like Mourinho), but I think the difference between Benitez and Mourinho is that Mourinho had unlimited budgets while this guy didn't (of course Rafa didn't always use the funds well). And of course when Benitez came to Inter, they were bound to be **** (I knew it before the seasons started). They obviously would be lacking motivation due to the treble hangover and they'd be very tired (World Cup year). Mourinho left an aging squad without depth, so when there was a major injury crisis, they couldn't cope.
Had Rafa taken the same path as Mourinho (Liverpool hired Rafa instead of Mourinho, even though Mourinho wanted to go to Liverpool more than Chelsea) and been at a club with absolutely unlimited funds, and Mourinho went to Liverpool, I think their careers would be exactly reversed. Rafa would have gotten similar success at Chelsea, only to be fired by Abramovich for not delivering at some point. Then maybe he would have gone to Inter and gotten a Champions League with negative tactics. Then maybe he may have gone to RM.
Mourinho would have had good CL success at Liverpool but would have been unable to get any trophies because his budget was limited. Then he would have been axed at some point (injuries to Gerrard and Torres) and he wouldn't have much of a reputation. Had he taken over at Inter after a CL victory, they probably would have struggled.
For me, the difference between the two was that fateful summer when Mourinho go the good job (Chelsea) and Benitez took the job that may have seemed better but ultimately didn't give him the budget. Had their careers been reversed, we'd be calling Rafa the greatest of all time and Mourinho would have been a joke.
How?
But Real Madrid couldn't even get the ball out of their own half after the first half. For me, Barca was much better for most of the game.
Wherever Mourinho goes there's already money and a great team. As far as Wenger/Mourinho and stubborness goes, Wenger actually cares about his club and doesn't spend recklessly. Mourinho doesn't give a **** and would run a club into debt and leave immediately. As far as flexibility, Mourinho has shown he can only win by playing defensively. If you ask him to play beautiful football against a good team, they'll get destroyed 5-0.
Other than the club he just joined, Americo Gallego has managed 5 clubs in two completely different countries and he's won trophies at four of them. And these were at clubs with small budgets. In his most recent job before his current one, he took a team that was at the bottom of the table to consecutive 4th placed finishes. On no budget. Now tell me why I should jump up and down and proclaim Jose the best manager of all time while we can't even mention Gallego in the list of good managers?
Oh really? Have you read Valdano? Why did they sack Capello after he won the league?
Read the edit. Valdano is just a man. He's no more representative of the values and ethos of Real Madrid than Charles Krulak is of Aston Villa.
Also, they sacked Capello after they won the league because they agreed with people like you, who value style over substance.
Lot of "if" . You would suck in Economy
Nevermind. I dont care what could happen. ****, Borac 1985 ( Officially worst team in Europe) could win ECL in next 5 years right ? Benitez is more like "one game manager" and he has proven that many times. But his tactics are inconsistent, Mourinho's not. To call Mourinho greatest of all time is apsurd, but if he continiue this tempo, he could reach magic number 1.
And of course you're forgetting that Madrid's bench is twice as good.
It is pretty subjective though, but I don't think there's much separating the two sides. That's why it ****** me off that Mourinho is credited to be a genius for winning a trophy with this Madrid team. They're an all-star team, and they beat a team they are equal to, a team that isn't as hungry for the trophy. Cool. Doesn't make you the best manager of all time.