Jose Mourinho.

[Anonymous]

Actually, you boys that think Mourinho plays boring football have a good point. Thinking back to the Champions League final, those Porto fans were looking bored as sin as their captain lifted the trophy. After the game, many were interviewed saying that they were much happier when they played beautiful football and won bugger all. I remember the day Chelsea won the Premiership beating United 5-0, and their supporters were strangely subdued, obviously longing for the good old days, when they were regarded as the best team in the world, but won nothing. Winning trophies is vastly overated eh boys? Bizarre!

Putting aside the sarcasm - I'm not suggesting for one moment that if Mourinho is available and wants to come, that we shouldn't employ him - just pointing out that Mourinho is not known for playing attractive, attacking, football. He plays efficient, but effective, football...

Note how most football analysts were saying that Chelsea's performance against Barca last week was textbook Mourinho...

 

[Brucie Bonus]

I think he may have recognized that criticism of him as just Billy. Around October / November when fireworks where really going off in Italy Jose gave a speech to the Italian managers association in which he admitted that Spain, Portugal, and Italy were a tactcians dream (I believe he said "heaven"), and the fans will accept it as it gets results, but it isn't as entertaining (he def. used that word) in the way English football is entertaining, and "we" have to understand that is a major reason why the EPL is on TV the world over, and that English fans won't tolerate twenty (he did use that figure) tactical changes a game.

I cannot find the article I'm afraid. I did pick up these from soccerlens though FWIW.

“You see how Spanish, Italians, Portuguese play football. I don’t say they are perfect, I say English football has a few things to learn from them in the same way they have a lot of things to learn from English football. “

“And I think because of the passion of every English player and every English supporter, and every English journalist for the game, most of the game is played with passion, love for football and instinct, but in football you also have to think.”

“I feel I have a lot to learn from English football and I am completely open to good influences in my way of thinking football. But I also have things to give them.”

"In England, when people go to football they just go to think about football. Nothing else. They enjoy every second of the game.”

"I think the best place to work in football is England.”

“From here each practice, each game, each minute of your social life must centre on the aim of being champions” “First-teamer will not be a correct word. I need all of you. You need each other. We are a TEAM.” (in a letter sent to the players)"

“In five years I have never had a match where my team has had less possession than the opponents.”

“José told me he actually prepared his team to play for the silver goal. In other words, how would they play to retain the ball for that [first] 15-minute period. That’s what I call good coaching.” (after Porto’s win in the UEFA Cup final against Celtic) - Roxburgh (Scottish Football Association)

From a few days ago:

""England is a paradise for the coaches who can plan for the future without the pressure of winning in the short term,"
source: <a class="postlink" href="http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20090423/375/tsp-england-a-coach-s-paradise-compared.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://in.news.yahoo.com/137/20090423/3 ... pared.html</a>

I know he's not everyones cup of tea.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

I agree this team is not ready for JM, but what is clear is that it needs time, to mature. If, (and it is a big if) the younger players, including Bojinov, De Jong, Kompany, Zabletta, Johnson, and Richards can continue to progress, and develop as has Stevie Ireland and too a certain extent Nedum Onhua over the next 18 months, then the foundations are certainly there to win or at least challenge for honours with some more acute signings. Historically what we do know is that chopping and changing managers has seriouly damaged the club over the years. Winning the league or at least braking into the top 4 will not happen immediately, and take into account that 3 of this years champions league semi finalists are English, we are competing with arguably Europe's elite on a week to week basis. What is evident though is looking at Utd over the past 10-15 years, is Fergusons, ability to continually replicate the same team year in year out, resulting in a succesful winning formula i.e for Pallister and Bruce change Ferdinand and Vidic. Kanchelskis, Ronaldo, even Mark Hughes and Rooney you could argue were similar in style of play... Keane, Ince you can go on and on. It all appears strangely so simple so with the money we now have at our disposal if Hughes can correctly identify the players akin to Fergusons own formula, then perhaps we will then start to compete with the top 4, but i suspect that these clubs having been strong and their own infastructers being in place for so long it will not be easy and even then we've got to start getting the sort of referreeing decisions they get on a regular basis !!!

Most sensible post so far...

 

[leewill31]

Actually, you boys that think Mourinho plays boring football have a good point. Thinking back to the Champions League final, those Porto fans were looking bored as sin as their captain lifted the trophy. After the game, many were interviewed saying that they were much happier when they played beautiful football and won bugger all. I remember the day Chelsea won the Premiership beating United 5-0, and their supporters were strangely subdued, obviously longing for the good old days, when they were regarded as the best team in the world, but won nothing. Winning trophies is vastly overated eh boys? Bizarre!

i dont think you get the point some are makeing on mourinho,nobody as said he is not one of the best managers in the world or he is crap are they but his style of play even though it brings success is boring.

let me put a bit of controversy on the topic lets say,is there a manager out there that wins nearly everthing but plays entertaining flair football yes there is red nose over the road but is there another manager that can bring that style of play to manchester city that so many of us footballing fans crave i hope so.

like i said we are not ready for mourhino yet i maybe wrong but if he did come alot of it would of been about the money!

 

[hgblue]

Actually, you boys that think Mourinho plays boring football have a good point. Thinking back to the Champions League final, those Porto fans were looking bored as sin as their captain lifted the trophy. After the game, many were interviewed saying that they were much happier when they played beautiful football and won bugger all. I remember the day Chelsea won the Premiership beating United 5-0, and their supporters were strangely subdued, obviously longing for the good old days, when they were regarded as the best team in the world, but won nothing. Winning trophies is vastly overated eh boys? Bizarre!

Putting aside the sarcasm - I'm not suggesting for one moment that if Mourinho is available and wants to come, that we shouldn't employ him - just pointing out that Mourinho is not known for playing attractive, attacking, football. He plays efficient, but effective, football...

Note how most football analysts were saying that Chelsea's performance against Barca last week was textbook Mourinho...

Yeah. They should have played a bit more entertainly, like Real Madrid did!

 

[pee dubyas crayons]

I agree this team is not ready for JM, but what is clear is that it needs time, to mature. If, (and it is a big if) the younger players, including Bojinov, De Jong, Kompany, Zabletta, Johnson, and Richards can continue to progress, and develop as has Stevie Ireland and too a certain extent Nedum Onhua over the next 18 months, then the foundations are certainly there to win or at least challenge for honours with some more acute signings. Historically what we do know is that chopping and changing managers has seriouly damaged the club over the years. Winning the league or at least braking into the top 4 will not happen immediately, and take into account that 3 of this years champions league semi finalists are English, we are competing with arguably Europe's elite on a week to week basis. What is evident though is looking at Utd over the past 10-15 years, is Fergusons, ability to continually replicate the same team year in year out, resulting in a succesful winning formula i.e for Pallister and Bruce change Ferdinand and Vidic. Kanchelskis, Ronaldo, even Mark Hughes and Rooney you could argue were similar in style of play... Keane, Ince you can go on and on. It all appears strangely so simple so with the money we now have at our disposal if Hughes can correctly identify the players akin to Fergusons own formula, then perhaps we will then start to compete with the top 4, but i suspect that these clubs having been strong and their own infastructers being in place for so long it will not be easy and even then we've got to start getting the sort of referreeing decisions they get on a regular basis !!!

Lee Sharpe?

 

[Anonymous]

Actually, you boys that think Mourinho plays boring football have a good point. Thinking back to the Champions League final, those Porto fans were looking bored as sin as their captain lifted the trophy. After the game, many were interviewed saying that they were much happier when they played beautiful football and won bugger all. I remember the day Chelsea won the Premiership beating United 5-0, and their supporters were strangely subdued, obviously longing for the good old days, when they were regarded as the best team in the world, but won nothing. Winning trophies is vastly overated eh boys? Bizarre!

Putting aside the sarcasm - I'm not suggesting for one moment that if Mourinho is available and wants to come, that we shouldn't employ him - just pointing out that Mourinho is not known for playing attractive, attacking, football. He plays efficient, but effective, football...

Note how most football analysts were saying that Chelsea's performance against Barca last week was textbook Mourinho...

Yeah. They should have played a bit more entertainly, like Real Madrid did!

Ha! So you use the worst example possible....

I'd say personally, I'd like us to play more like the rags, Arsenal, Barcelona...

No doubt the Mourinho way is effective, as I keep saying, just not as entertaining. And it is possible to entertain and be effective...

 

[moomba]

In terms of the shape in which he left the club...its incredibly misleading to say he didn't build something there. The reality is that he had a hit a ceiling in terms of how far he could take that club with the resources available. He had signed decent players, not aging ones, but players at a good age, and had gotten the best out of the players already there. He managed to out perform City in the league while in charge at Blackburn, and I imagine both clubs spent similar amounts of money. Players like Bentley, Samba, Santa Cruz, Warnock, and Pederson looked like fantastic players under Hughes - but most of them have gone on to look anonymous since he's left...

As (I think) OB1 said earlier in the pace, Blackburns drop off in form could be seen as a positive for Hughes. I agree with that, and said in my post that I thought he did a good job at Blackburn (although IMO it wasn't a vast improvement on Souness, results wise and performance wise).

Chelsea were utterly boring, efficient, and lacking in much of the flair associated with United, Arsenal, Barca, Real Madrid, et al. Scoring goals does not alone amount to entertainment. The comment that Jose plays a "boring" brand of football is about the style with which his teams play. It is a fact that he values discipline over flair...

Like I said, I'll take 3 goals or more in a third of our games (home and away). I think Chelsea were at their best when they had Duff, Robben and Cole firing on the wings. It's true they were more efficient than spectacular without the same quality on the wings but I wouldn't say boring by any means.

Not sure he is doing at Inter, they're one of the more free scoring teams in the league are they not? Maybe it's nothing simpler than him getting his sides to play the type of football that brings the maximum chance of success. Were we ever to have Mourinho as manager I would expect that we would be signing the type of players that would allow us to win games with the sort of flair associated with some of those sides mentioned.

 

[C_T_I_D]

Those who are complaining about him playing boring football:

1. If you can sit through the Stuart Pearce era and still turn up week in and week out then what is the problem?

2. Wouldn't you rather play boring football and win rather than score 10 goals per season at home all season under Pearce? Hughes team might be scoring a lot of goals but we're conceeding our fair share too. Mourinho's teams are hard to beat.

I'm not necessarily saying he should come in because I think Hughes should get another season but I don't see why people see boring football and winning things as a negative?

 

[pee dubyas crayons]

Here's the reasons I want Mourinho:

1) He can attract much better players than Hughes.

2) I have a problem with Mark Hughes' attitude.


What I mean by 2) is that I think Hughes is more concerned with keeping his job than actually wanting City to become the best team in the world. Listen to his interviews after games we've lost, they are all brimming with excuses and smack of desperation.

When he says 'City were crap before I took over', that's just a ploy to manage expectation so that his own efforts of mid-table mediocrity seem better than they actually are.

He's desperately clinging onto his job to the detriment of the club as a whole.