Jose Mourinho is so overrated
- Thread starter curtis290
- Start date
- Replies 261
- Views 22K
Really not going to bother reading this wall of text.. Just thought I'd paraphrase what Sid Lowe said about it on the Football Weekly (Extraaaaaaaaaaaaa) podcast:
"Mourinho isn't necessarily a brilliant tactician - nothing he's doing is particularly inventive or new. It obviously has to be taken into account that the team he's beaten Barca with in the CdR is pretty spectacular. Barca simply can't compete with a bench consisting of Higuain, Kaka and Adebayor...
..That's not to take anything away from him. What he is, is amazingly effective in getting players to abide every detail of his instructions. He's meticulous - from the timing of tackles to surrounding the referee, Mourinho controls it all and he has everything down to the tiniest detail."
Also praises the new role Pepe's been given - well worth a listen as ever; top journalist.
"Mourinho isn't necessarily a brilliant tactician - nothing he's doing is particularly inventive or new. It obviously has to be taken into account that the team he's beaten Barca with in the CdR is pretty spectacular. Barca simply can't compete with a bench consisting of Higuain, Kaka and Adebayor...
..That's not to take anything away from him. What he is, is amazingly effective in getting players to abide every detail of his instructions. He's meticulous - from the timing of tackles to surrounding the referee, Mourinho controls it all and he has everything down to the tiniest detail."
Also praises the new role Pepe's been given - well worth a listen as ever; top journalist.
But he does epitomize the club very well and he's been put in charge. He is part of this big Galacticos project, which started before Mourinho came and will continue after Mourinho leaves this season or next.
And yeah, I guess he's a person like me, which is why I admire him. It's not that we value style over substance, it's that we think style is important. People like Mourinho and Benitez and Capello think style is worthless, and I agree with Valdano that it's a **** shame that this is a consequence of modern football.
Oh my god.
For the last time, NOBODY IS CALLING HIM THE BEST MANAGER OF ALL TIME.
You obviously do value style over substance, else you wouldn't be crying over Madrid not playing to your exacting standards yet still winning.
None of those three think style is worthless. They just, rightly, think that winning comes before looking pretty. Look at Stoke: if they tried to play tippy tappy nice football, they'd have gone down right after they came up. As it is, I am willing to wager not one Stoke supporter would want fancy football in the Championship over hoofball in the Prem.
Last edited:
W-wait... did you just tell me that ozil is better than iniesta and close to xavi ?
You sir, have no clue. Please, dont quote anything I post on this thread and even on this forum, cuz i dont know are you really that stupid or you are just trolling. Have a nice life kind sir.
You sir, have no clue. Please, dont quote anything I post on this thread and even on this forum, cuz i dont know are you really that stupid or you are just trolling. Have a nice life kind sir.
+100
I agree with you. Here's a great Valdano quote about that though:
“Neither Mourinho nor Benitez made it as a player. That has made them channel all their vanity into coaching. Those who did not have the talent to make it as players do not believe in the talent of players, they do not believe in the ability to improvise in order to win football matches.
“In short, Benitez and Mourinho are exactly the kind of coaches that Benitez and Mourinho would have needed to have made it as players.”
He has another good quote about Mourinho's hyper-control over the players and tactics but I can't find it.
Agree 100%, except I think that Marcelo is better than Abidale, Iniesta is slightly better than Ozil, and Higuain is better than Villa. I always go back and forth on who is better between Ramos and Alves.
Curtis it doesnt revolve around good football, even under Del Bosque it wasnt even uber football, it was in fact not too far from Capello's style. that was part of the reason they pushed him out, becuase they wanted more galacticos and egs and he wanted team football. It wasnt till Capello instilled that team football that they won the league again, and then fired him.
Your extremely long posts are full of its and buts. lets stick with what we know and what has happened.
Frankly you just come across as extremly bitter of Mourinho, especially since no one is calling him the best manager of all time.
Your extremely long posts are full of its and buts. lets stick with what we know and what has happened.
Frankly you just come across as extremly bitter of Mourinho, especially since no one is calling him the best manager of all time.
Oh really? Because I hear that on the internet all the time...
I don't have exacting standards, I'd just hope that Real Madrid and the Galacticos would aspire to move the ball out of their own half every once in a while. And maybe hold onto it a bit. In the words of Valdano, "The team that treats the ball well treats the fans well."
They do think that style is worthless, they don't give a **** about it. As far as Stoke goes, they're STOKE for Christ's sake. They can't afford to play tippy tappy football. And on that note, I won't get mad at Stoke, but if they're playing Blackpool, I'll route for Blackpool. Because they don't play like Stoke and they're less talented.
Real Madrid just elected Perez and Valdano and spent 100's of millions to bring in a new era of Galacticos. I don't think it's much to ask of them to try and play a relatively attractive game, to aspire to be something more than simply a result-getting, defensive, well-disciplined team. I'd expect that of Inter, not of Real Madrid.
Ranieri had a great team and spent lots of money and won nothing? Avram Grant had a great side won nothing, the same with Scolari. And at Porto he built a good side. Mourinho plays to his strenghs and why shouldnt he, its like saying Stoke shouldnt play they way they do because not everyone agrees with it. The term "beautiful football" is a lose term to use, why play this way if you dont win?? The best football is the football that wins surely? I would rather see Chelsea defensive football and be successfull than play such good "beautiful football" and be unsuccessfull. I think even Arsenal fans are coming round to the fact that they need to stop playing some of this football in order to win somthing.
I never said he is the best manager of all time but the way he is going he will be by the time he retires without a dout. Its easy to see you only love the so called beautiful way to play football, i would hate to see what your opinions on Sam Allardyce and Tony Pulis are. I think you will just have to agree to dis-agree with everyone on here because this could go on forever.
Well maybe it's just me but I love watching that original Galacticos team. Sure they were inconsistent at times but when they were on, they were magnificent to watch. Not like Capello's Madrid. But at least the original Galacticos tried to play beautifully while this team is content with 20% possession and rarely leaving their own half.
What I do know has happened is that Mourinho has really won only one trophy that was a big upset (Porto's run in 03-04 Champions League). I do know that SAF won the SPL with Aberdeen, that Arsene made a profit in transfers from 02-09. I stated my five criteria for what I think makes a good manager, and according to those 5 criteria, Mourinho is not in the same league as SAF or Wenger. If he joins Liverpool and makes them into a great team, I'll totally change my mind about him. But I doubt he'd do that, he wouldn't go anywhere right now unless it was already a great team and with a great budget.
I'm not bitter, and I see claims on the internet all the time that he's the greatest yet, or the most common is that he will be the greatest ever by the time he's done.
---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------
It's not easy to come in and build a great team from nowhere, even if you have a lot of money, but Ranieri got Chelsea in 2nd place. Mourinho took that team that was on the brink of being the best, spent a **** ton of money and made them the best team. Avram Grant came in unfavorable circumstances and the team was great in the league and he made it farther than Mourinho did in the Champions League. Maybe Grant would have won the league if Mourinho hadn't lost so much at the beginning of the season. I already addressed Scolari, he hadn't managed at a club in 8 years and he'd never managed in Europe before.
As far as Stoke goes and Allardyce and Pulis, as I said, I won't really root for them, but they are small clubs and I don't really blame them for playing boring football. Real Madrid isn't, and they spent 100's of millions so they could be something great. They're the new set of Galacticos. Instead they're playing catenaccio style. I think it's a bit disappointing.
As far as Arsenal goes, in the past several seasons they're usually the 3rd best in the Prem in terms of talent, so not quite title worthy. Now that they've stopped their selling policy (they've gone out and spent the last two seasons), they're holding on to their players, and their young guys are improving, they are getting better and better. They were very close to a trophy this season and it will come soon.
As I said before, many claim he's the best (and most claim he will be the best), sorry if I disagree with that. That's what gets me about this forum sometimes. People start sack Wenger threads and it's OK but if I criticize Mourinho and try and explain why he's not God's gift to mankind it creates a shitstorm. I mean, I've seen people claim he's overrated before, I know I'm not the only one that thinks this, so I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive about him.
i don't get it, when mourinho tried to play good football they got hammered 5-0, when mourinho plays his way, he earns a draw, (and stops 5 straight barca wins in el classico?) and then wins the copa del ray. so you would rather see real try to compete with barca, and get destroyed, rather then do what they did, and win...
From idiots. You hear racism from idiots quite a lot too, does that mean you listen to them and feel you have to construct rational arguments against them?
In the words of me, "Winning is everything".
What are you saying about Stoke? They're less deserving of praise than Blackpool? Why can Stoke not afford to play tippy tappy football and Blackpool can? Or for that matter, Madrid? All Stoke are competing for is mid-table, Madrid are competing for cups.
Why would you expect that of Inter and not Madrid? You're not making any sense. Madrid just spent 100s of millions to win a cup, first and foremost. Once that has been done, then they can worry about pretty patterns.
1) your criteria is not the world standard
2) united winning their CL's wasnt an upset, United winning leagues isnt particularly an upset. yet SAF is rightly lauded for his success, and so to is Jose, he doesnt need to stick around at a club, everywhere he goes he brings success, usually where it wasnt before.
3) Real madrid are only content with less possession against barca, as are pretty much any team who face them.
4) so what that arsene made a profit in transfers, how does that make him a great manager on its own merit?
5) just because you don't like his football or his approach doesnt mean you can take away from his achievements, he is a great manager who brings success whereever he goes.
I'm done on this subject to be frank, you seem determined in your judgement to downplay him virtually every level
Last edited:
Madrid aren't always satisfied with sitting in their own half. They're satisfied with it when they beat their arch-rivals doing it, so what? In this season where they've met each other a ridiculous 5 times. They play what, 36 other fixtures in the league, 10 others in the CL, and then I'm not sure on the CdR, 4 more fixtures? So they're satisfied with it 5/50 times, and in regular circumstances 2/50 times. Hardly a footballing travesty, is it? United will play defensive against Arsenal, against Barca. Do I give a **** at the end of the season with the trophies? No. Does SAF? No. Do the rest of the fans? No. Whenever I've watched Madrid against average La Liga opposition they've dominated the other side and sat in their half. You're criticising him for being defensive against Barcelona, and then praising Wenger and SAF who also go defensive against Barcelona. That's **** hypocritical of you.
Look at them against Spurs, they had something like 75% possession, and they regularly have high percentages in La Liga. To base your whole argument of Mourinho around a single fixture is frankly, retarded. Not so much so if you were consistent, but if you're flaming Mourinho, you should be flaming the **** out of Wenger and SAF too, and the vast majority of managers out there.
Look at them against Spurs, they had something like 75% possession, and they regularly have high percentages in La Liga. To base your whole argument of Mourinho around a single fixture is frankly, retarded. Not so much so if you were consistent, but if you're flaming Mourinho, you should be flaming the **** out of Wenger and SAF too, and the vast majority of managers out there.
When there are many, yes.
People watch sports because they're entertaining. Do you give a **** that the Packers won the Super Bowl a few months ago? Probably not, because you probably think American football is boring.
I'm an American, and there's a reason I stopped watching American sports and started watching soccer. It's because it's the only sport that is beautiful. Now I could turn on the TV and watch the fastest guys cross it to the tallest guys winning through good tactics and defense, but I'd rather not. That's why I usually watch La Liga or the Argentine League as opposed to Serie A or the Prem. So when these two types of football come head to head, I know who I'll root for. That's why I always root against the Italian national team, and why I'm always about to throw something at the TV when the US national team is playing. That's one reason why I was furious when Bob Bradley was given another 4 year contract.
I said I'd rather root for stoke. If you'll press me, than yes, depending on your point of view, they deserve less praise than Blackpool because Blackpool entertains people more.
Madrid is a whole different club. I expect a club like Madrid to do more than play like Stoke. I want to see something great.
Because that's how Italians play football. That's not how Real Madrid plays football or how Valdano envisioned this set of Galacticos. They spent 100's of millions to create the greatest show on earth, not grind out victories by playing defense. I'd rather they play with pretty patterns first, and keep on trying to win.
True but I wanted to offer my criteria so people would understand where I'm coming from. We can't really evaluate these guys without providing some sort of framework to evaluate them by. I thought people could maybe offer their own criteria and we could perhaps have a discussion about that. Once we agree on how to evaluate a manager, then it will be much easier.
You're right, but SAF won at Aberdeen. He also took ManU from being a big club to being the biggest club in the world, and he did it without a Russian billionaire. Most importantly, SAF has proven he can get consistent success in one place. He can build a club for the long-term, and keep winning there by finding great young players, bringing them through the ranks, and making wise decisions in the transfer market. Mourinho comes in to a place with a great team, spends a lot of money, and wins the trophies they're supposed to win. If Mourinho goes to Liverpool and turns them into the best team in the Prem, I'll eat my words and come out and say I was wrong about him.
Less possession is OK, 20% possession and the inability to move the ball out of your own half is not OK. I'm sorry, but RM has played uglier the past two matches than I've seen them play in a while. It worked, but as for the reasons stated above, I'm disappointed.
Because he has done something that Jose hasn't proven he could do. Wenger does great things for his club. He keeps them financially sound and can jump through all of these hoops and still win. If you can consistently put out a good team on the football field while being that great in the transfer market, I think that's the sign of a good manager. Many would agree. If Mourinho ever again puts himself in a place where he doesn't have a lot of funds yet still wins (Liverpool, perhaps) than he'd prove himself in a new way and I'd definitely respect him more. I'm not criticizing him for not doing so, I'm just stating my opinion as to why he hasn't proven himself to be on SAF's or Wenger's level yet.
I'm not taking away from his achievements, I'm just putting them into context. Obviously his resume is amazing, but so is Pep, and we're not all going crazy about how amazing Pep is as a manager. There's more to it than simply trophies. People look at Jose's trophy list as proof he's the best ever or will be the best ever, I just don't look at it that way. I have a set few criteria for what I think makes a great manager, and SAF and Wenger and Hiddink for me are the three best in the game. For all I know, he's better than all three of them. But he hasn't proved that to me yet.
I've been clear on what I think makes a good manager, as clear as anyone here (I'm the only one who has offered criteria). If Jose goes out and proves himself according to those criteria, I'll change my mind about him. I'm not saying conclusively that he's no good, I'm simply stating why in my eyes he hasn't proven himself to be in the top 3 in the world, much less the best of all time. Maybe he is, maybe he's the greatest of all time, but I've already told you what I think makes a great manager, and I'm not sure about him yet because he hasn't proven himself in all of these ways for me. Neither has Pep. Which is why even though Pep's resume is as good as any young manager's in history, I don't go around praising Pep like crazy. Because like Mourinho, Pep hasn't yet proven himself to me. Maybe one of them is the best of all time, I don't know yet. If one of them proves it in my eyes, I'll be the first to praise him for it.
Because how you play your adversary, the club that you hate, should epitomize who you are as a team more than anything. Especially when it's the Copa del Rey final. RM won the Copa del Rey with good tactics and good defense. I'm disappointed they didn't even try at all to do it with offensive firepower or entertainment. When Liverpool beat Real Madrid 3-0, it was in the words of Valdano, "**** on a stick." Liverpool were the better team but that doesn't mean he or I would like how they did it. I only manage football teams in FIFA and FM (and when I do, I do try to play beautifully
), but Valdano is a leader at a club in real life, and he stands for not playing like Liverpool. That's why he publicly expressed his dislike for Mourinho and Benitez. But Perez wanted a trophy soon at all costs, so they got rid of Pellegrini and put in Mourinho.On to Wenger: in years past, Wenger went out and played offensively against Barca. They lost in the CL final, and last season, beat them by two goals against all odds (only to get beaten badly the next leg when they were missing Cesc and some other important players). This season, they played offensively in the first leg, but played very negative football in the second leg. Trust me, I was very ****** off at Wenger, and in that second leg I was rooting hardcore for Barcelona. Because I felt that Arsenal sold out on their principles. I'm not an Arsenal supporter but I would have much rather seen them not play so defensively and lose. They played defensively and lost, which was very disappointing. And as far as SAF goes, I won't flame him, because SAF doesn't have the obligation to play beautiful football, he's not managing the Galacticos. But I will certainly root for Barca, or for Arsenal, when ManU plays them.
---------- Post added at 04:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------
To be fair I did go out and state what I thought were the criteria for a good manager, and according to those criteria, the top 3 managers in the world are SAF, Wenger, and Hiddink. No one has really offered their own criteria, they just point to trophies, the simplest way to look at things. If we're just going to do that why can't I say Pep is an amazing manager. I don't think Pep is amazing because he wins trophies at a club that is very talented and supposed to win trophies. Pep might be a great manager, but for me he hasn't proven it yet according to my criteria.
I'm going to bed, it's 8AM.
Why do you feel it necessary to quote each individual point. It's so annoying and clogs the page up. Then you write an essay which is basically you repeating yourself and as Mike said putting endless "ifs" and "buts".
Then that's stupid. You'll never convince morons otherwise, so why try? The old adage regarding never arguing with idiots comes into play here.
Yay for assumptions. I watched it and enjoyed it.
So you'd rather see slower guys cross it to smaller guys winning through less effective tactics and defence...
I hate it when people get all evangelical about attack vs defence. A good defence is just as good to watch as a good attack, in my opinion. Frankly, I think you're rather shallow and one-dimensional if you think the only beautiful aspect of on pitch football is attacking.
Wow. Way to generalise. By no means do all Italians play defensively. Ever heard of a certain Arrigo Sacchi? That's like saying all Brazilians play flair-based, fragile attacking games, and all English ever do is thump it long to a target man.
How Real Madrid plays football isn't hard coded, it is decided by the manager. Arsenal play tippy tappy under Wenger: does that mean they've always played that way, and HAVE to? Of course not. That would be preposterous to suggest. Likewise Chelsea play a game based around power and physicality, but that can change. Likewise, Madrid are the most dangerous counterattacking side in the world at the moment, so why temper that to play with a less effective style just because ****** Valdano (who has little to do with anything, remember) wants them to play the latter?
They spent 100s of millions to win. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that is just true. They didn't spend the money to play nicely, they spent it to break Barca's dominance. What you want has nothing to do with it in the end: the Madridistas demand silverware.