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".
Would you prefer pointless trolls? I quote each individual point so people know what I'm talking about.
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.
But look at the thread. Mourinho receives so much praise from the media and public, so I suggest he's overrated and 99% of the people disagree with me to the point of getting angry. People can call for Wenger's head and call him a **** manager, and no one says anything. But I start a thread where I say that Mourinho doesn't quite deserve the hype and it's like I've come out and insulted a saint or something. I'm just voicing my opinion, sort of what a forum is for. Many people on the thread have said he will be the best of all time. And you even said so youself that he's overrated, so I don't see why I'm stirring up so much controversy.
Yay for assumptions. I watched it and enjoyed it.
OK, I took a wild guess and got it wrong. I'm assuming you watched the Giants beat the Rangers in the World Series last fall? Did you watch the Lakers beat the Celtics? Did you watch the Blackhawks beat the Flyers?
So you'd rather see slower guys cross it to smaller guys winning through less effective tactics and defence...
I already told you that I'd rather watch the Argentine League than any league in Europe (except for maybe La Liga). I know it's not better than the top European leagues, but I don't care. For me, football is entertaining, and I'll watch it when it's entertaining. Sure, ManCity vs. ManU was the big fixture last weekend, but I watched Valencia play Villarreal instead because I thought the former would be boring, tactical, and defensive. The latter ended up being a very unbalanced game, but I'm glad I saw it because Valencia played some entertaining football.
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.
OK, you have your opinion and I have mine. But there is a reason so many neutrals such as myself are ranting and raving about Barca. It's because the majority of us prefer that style to Catenaccio. But again, if it was Barca vs. Inter, my response would be different. As I've said before, this is Real Madrid we're talking about, and I'm disappointed because I feel like they've sold out on their principles.
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.
Wow, way to point out the obvious. Of course I was making a generalization. It was a hyperbole to get my point across. But when I mentioned the Italian NT, I was talking about them for the last couple world cup cycles, and just telling you (one of the reasons) why I root against Italy.
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?
It's a matter of principle. Since Wenger has come to Arsenal, they play the way they play. I admire that because he sticks to his principles. When he didn't stick to his principles, and parked the bus at Barca, I was ****** off and started rooting against them. As far as Madrid goes, again, I don't think we can say that Mourinho's style right now is the most effective, it is effective but I think with a different manager (Pellegrini, Del Bosque, etc.) we'd see a much better on-the-field product with some good results too. Mourinho's team is much better than last season's team, every though last season's team finished better in the league and went out offensively against Barca, only to lose (but not by too much). Mourinho tried to play offensively, because that's what the fans/hierarchy wants, and they get embarassed. Maybe Mourinho can only win one way.
As far as Valdano goes, he has a position of importance within Real Madrid and he's ultimately Mourinho's boss, so it does matter what he wants. More importantly, two years ago, Perez and Valdano were elected on this platform. If you would have told the Madridistas two years ago that Mourinho would be their coach, they would have balked. But after seeing all of Barca's success they got impatient and hired Mourinho. They decided that trophies in the short-term was much more important than entertainment. So I'm not rooting for Real Madrid anymore.
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.
I think they demand both. There is a reason a lot of people have criticized Mourinho throughout the year. Even though the side is more talented and has had more time to gel, they performed worse in the league than last season. If they just wanted to win I don't think they would have spent 100's of millions, or they would have, it would have been on different players. They could have put together a very defensive-minded team if they wanted to, a team even better-suited to beat Barca. But instead they go out and by Kaka and Cristiano Ronaldo for an obscene amount of money. Cristiano Ronaldo is the biggest superstar on the planet, and Kaka definitely wasn't worth his money. It wasn't necessarily an effective use of money, but they did it to make the Galacticos. That's why they hired Pellegrini. But after one season without trophies, they fire him, and the obvious big name manager is Mourinho, so they sign him.
And I've talked to plenty of Madridistas, and they take a great amount of pride in their style of play. I've spoken to a few that insist La Liga is better than the Prem just because it is more entertaining and with prettier soccer, in their eyes. Even though it's arrogant, I sort of admire it, and I think it's too bad they've gone out and played Mourinho ball.
It is absolutely goofy to read some of this stuff.......people can be such purists about beautiful football they forget the point of the game. I think the difference between the 5 - 0 thrashing vs. the previous two matches should illustrate the effectiveness of Mourinho's tactics quite well.
And while I would agree that he's not a tactical genius - its not like he's out there inventing new formations - he is smart and very flexible, and knows how to employ his talent in a way that works very well. Contrast him to Guardiola's Barca, where they are running the same way no matter who they play, which appears to have diminishing returns vs. Mourinho's adaptability.
You want to see tactical innovation, watch Udinese play week in and week out.
If he's such a tactical genius he could have played offensively and not gotten beat 5-0. I do agree that Guardiola's Barca is a bit inflexible, but I think that's because they have absolutely no bench. Mourinho has so many options to choose from while Pep only has 12 (the only starting position that's disputable is LB, between Abidal and Adriano). Guardiola's hands are tied, he has a great starting XI that plays a certain way and that's it.
As far as Udinese go, I don't watch too much Serie A, but why isn't Francesco Guidolin praised incessantly by the media? He's done some remarkable things there on a tight budget (took Udiense from 15th in Serie A last season to 4th place, could Mourinho do that?). But we'll never hear about it because all people look at is trophies, and he hasn't won any trophies.
Call me a purist if you want but I've already explained that there's a reason I have switched over to being a football fan rather than watching the typical American sports I have available to me. And I really admire people who have principles, even when it costs them success. That's in real life but also in football. I admire Arsene Wenger because he wants to play attractive football AND do it on an extremely tight budget. He's able to do this year in and year out while competing in all competitions, even though it costs him results. That is admirable. Mourinho doesn't have principles, he just wants to win, so that's why I'll root for Arsenal over whatever team Mourinho is coaching.
We did argue for a long time against those pesky Christian's though, remember.
I too enjoyed the Superbowl, just to throw it in there. Could maybe be faster paced, but hey ho. The superbowl is the most watched event on Earth, just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean others don't. I personally can enjoy watching defending as much as attacking. I love watching Vidic play, for example. Obviously the 10 men behind a ball stuff is quite boring, where you don't even attempt to score. But a good counter attacking side can be a joy to watch at times. I agree, that Madrid were quite boring against Barca, but they don't play like that in all games, they play like it against Barcelona. Just because they're the "galacticos" doesn't mean they have to go out and try and play Barca off the park. I'm sure the majority of Madrid fans are quite happy with their trophy, and I'm sure they'll be delighted if it's them at Wembley.
But most people don't enjoy the Super Bowl, and it isn't the most watched event on earth, the World Cup final is. But it was just an example I threw in there. Did you watch the World Series last year? The NBA finals? The NHL finals? I'm guessing you didn't, and that you would have rather watched Premier league games instead. Why? Because football is a lot more entertaining than baseball. That's why even though I'm an American and don't really have a local team, I love soccer and want to watch it. But rather than watch these boring, hyper-controlled hyper-tactical matches, I'd rather watch the Argentine league. Or Barca. Or Arsenal. That's why I usually root for Barca and Arsenal even though I'm not a supporter of either club. Even though Real Madrid is such a hateable club, I usually root for them too, because I like their philosophy. They want offense and entertainment, and they'll go out and drop hundreds of millions on players so they can do that. It's not just about winning, it's about creating something great. That's the platform Perez and Valdano run on.
And your other arguments:
Firstly, you say he isn't so great because he always achieves with spending and at the "big" clubs. Are you implying that SAF has never spent big money, has he not been in charge of the biggest club in England for most of his career? The only thing you've differentiated with is taking Aberdeen to the SPL trophy, but the league wasn't as dominated by the old firm then, it wasn't even the SPL. But then, Mourinho at Leiria? So again, if you want to use this argument, you'd HAVE to be criticising Fergie as well, but we've already established him as one of the greats, so we can't.
I already answered what Mourinho did at Leiria. He took over in APRIL. They were already doing extremely well. The next season, they finished in 7th place. Two seasons later, after he's gone, they finish in 5th place and they make the final of the Portuguese Cup. This was under Vitor Pontes. But SAF did something different. He took a team that had no business winning the SPL and he won with them. He did something no manager has been able to do in the past quarter century. SAF has already proven he can consistently win without talent. Has Mourinho? I don't think so. Also, SAF has spent big, but not like Mourinho, and more importantly, SAF can bring in CONSISTENT success to ManU. The club has been consistently great for over 20 years now. Why? Because SAF knows how to find great young players and develop them into superstars. He can do this consistently. And he can manage a club's finances. In recent years, ManU has been in a lot of debt, so SAF has really cut down on his spending. Yet they're still good, and he still manages to unearth Hernandez for 6 million quid.
Secondly, he doesn't stick around, so what? He brings success, does he not? If we measured how great a manager is by how long he stays at a club to build, Dario Gradi would be the greatest! And Mourinho has built a team this year, hasn't he? Di Maria, Ozil, Khedira. All vital to the team, all extremely young.
Everyone wanted Di Maria, Ozil, and Khedira after the WC. The thing is though that we're in a global recession, and Mourinho can go out and get those players because that's what Real Madrid can do. As far as not sticking around goes, read my criteria for what makes a great manager. Coming to a great club, spending a bunch of money on more great players, and then leaving (without regards to what will happen there in the future) doesn't prove a manager's worth for me. I think consistent success at one place is much more indicative of a manager's worth, which is why I think SAF and Wenger are better.
You just seem to have an obsession with attractive football, and are upset with Mourinho for not playing it. But, he does play it, he'll just differ it if he's required to win. He isn't some romanticist that would rather lose in style than win ugly. As I've said many times, you can only point to certain games where he plays defensive (Barcelona), and there's a very good reason for that. So, you're calling him overrated for the way he plays in a minority of his games. A minority, where managers that you say are great, will also play defensive. And you cannot say "SAF isn't in charge of Galacticos" so he's allowed. That is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. Just because Madrid spend money doesn't mean they demand stylish football 100% of the time, it means they demand success. United spent £30m on Ferdinand, £28m on Veron. Chelsea spent £24m on David Luiz, even Wenger with £10m on Koscielny. Were they bought to dazzle people? No, they were bought to put a trophy in the cabinet. And that's what football clubs spend money for. Who the **** cares about some idealistic way of playing football. Many Madrid fans have disagreed with you, do you think they give a **** they sat in their own half against Barcelona? No, and they've shown that. They've produced some fantastic football this season, now Mourinho does what is tactically required so they have some ****** silverware to show for it. Wenger did it against Barcelona, because it was required. And he was almost rewarded. If they had got through that game and made it all the way and won, then I would have challenged you to find me a single Arsenal fan complaining about that game when the CL is in their cabinet.
On the subject of Wenger, as I said before, when Wenger went uber-defensive in that game, I was ****** and started rooting against Arsenal in that game.
I may have an "obsession" with attractive football, but as I said before, that's why I watch football and not baseball. Mourinho isn't a romanticist, so I won't root for him. And when he's coaching at Real Madrid, I'll root against him, because I think it's a shame the Galacticos are playing that way. You bring up examples of Chelsea and ManU spending, but they're not the Galacticos. They just wanted trophies. Real Madrid wants more than trophies. That's what Valdano is all about. That's why Perez and Valdano were brought in. They want to create something glorious. They bailed on that idea after one year and just went for trophies, so the hire Mourinho, the ultimate pragmatist. So I'm rooting against them now. As far as RM fans complaining, they have complained, but I think many are in denial at the moment. My friend is a hardcore Madridista Spaniard and when Mourinho was hired he was absolutely ****** off. He said he was going to stop watching them play (I moved and haven't talked to him since, so I don't know if he did or not). The point is, when you talk to Madridistas, they have pride in how they play. They are arrogant about being the most entertaining team, and they think the most entertaining team is the best. That's why many of them admire Barca so much. But I think there's also a lot of jealousy (becase this Barca team is now rivaling the original Galacticos in many ways), and they want trophies immediately. So I've stopped rooting for them.
You say "who cares about the style of play" and there are a lot of people who do. I do, Valdano does, and many Madridistas did before this season. Brazilians certainly do, look at how much **** Dunga got for putting a boring product on the field. As do Argentines. There are two philosophies in football, my Argentine friend's dad explained to me. One is that only the result matters. The other is that you must play with a good style of play no matter what. I really, really admire them for that and I have a similar philosophy when it comes to football, and that's why I watch the sport and stopped watching baseball. I know very few would agree with me here, but so what? Can't I voice my opinion? Isn't it good to have the occasional minority opinion here? I guess not, it seems that if you disagree with the majority opinion, even if you do it reasonably and spend a lot of time in explaining yourself, people get ******.