Hamann Pineapple said:hbruz80 said:I apologise in advance for the length of this post.
I am sorry to interrupt this Mourinho love-in but I thought I would highlight a few of the negatives of having the self-appointed Special One (or as Ancelotti satirically referred to him “His Speciality”) becoming our next manager in the summer.
I know a lot of people believe Mourinho is invincible but whether you like it or not he does have his drawbacks. Someone posted a piece from a Porto fan a few weeks back on Mourinho which is an excellent read. It is undeniable that Mourinho is a bona fide winner and there is not a lot wrong with that; I know many City fans crave success however it comes about but we have to start looking longer term and see if Mourinho really is the right choice. He seems to only stay at clubs for 2-3 years at a time and has a destabilising effect on whatever club he leaves. Although he is loved by the fans, Mourinho does seem to alienate many of his former players. I remember when he was at Chelsea Mackele was saying how Mourinho wins for himself and takes the limelight from his players. Closer to home, he did not seem to have a very good relationship with our very own Bridge and Sweep. He seems to be genuinely loved by Terry and Lampard, but that is probably because he gave them so much importance. I get the feeling a lot of his ex-players admire him for what he has achieved but do not share any great affection for him. As much as I like Mourinho he is a media whore and everything becomes about him and not his football (one of the major criticisms they have of him in Italy). If he comes, he will instantly be bigger than City, and all you will have in the press are Clough-esque ‘one-liners’, criticisms of referees, and controversy! Yes, it will be entertaining but, we will become even more of a media circus than we already are (hardly the impression Sheikh Mansour wants the club to display).
In addition, if Mourinho does come, you can pretty much forget about Aguero, Villa, Kaka, Ribery, Ibrahimovic or any other superstar turning up at Eastlands. Mourinho is the boss, and he does not suffer fools gladly, as the Porto fan said, he buys talented players (not big names) who give there all for HIM on the pitch, and has never managed egos (unless he gave them that ego i.e. Terry) very well (alienated Ibra, Balotelli at Inter, Robben, Shevchenko at Chelsea).
Also, it would not take long for many fans to get on his back, as leaving aside his distaste for flair (his ego more than makes up for it), or fireworks on the pitch (his personality creates fireworks off the pitch) he does make some bizarre tactical decisions which would drive many a Bluemoon-er up the wall. At Chelsea, he sometimes stuck Robert Huth upfront and then instructed his team to proceed to launch long balls up to him, a trick he recently repeated with Materazzi at Inter!
A couple of points about the Real Madrid job. I understand that the lack of control Mourinho would get at the Bernabéu would not rest easy with his ego but he has stated time and time again that he wants to be the first manager to win the Premiership, Seria A and La Liga so he will eventually have to mange in Spain. Now, he has burnt his bridges with Barca, whose fans still refer to him in the derogatory manner of ‘the translater’ (the position he held when Sir Bobby Robson was managing at the Nou Camp) and unless he fancies himself turning Valencia or Sevilla into Champions, he has no choice but to eventually cave in to Perez’s demands and take the Madrid job (with or without complete control). If Mourinho comes to us before he manages in Spain then the lure of La Liga will always be an issue which I fear may destabilise the club. The better option would be to let him go to Madrid, complete his dream and when he has no distractions and if we are not successful by then welcome him to City. I only think he will last 1 season at Madrid (unless he wins the Champions League with them at the first time of asking). He will most probably win La Liga in his first season get to the semis of the Champions League and then unceremoniously get sacked for playing boring football (despite La Liga success, the Madridistas will not tolerate anything other than free-flowing football as Capello found out to his detriment TWICE (1997, 2007)).
Another point I would like to make is that do not believe all the rubbish you read in the papers about Mourinho being the best manager who ever lived, etc ,etc. The Press love him because he always gives them something to write about where other managers just talk about the match Mourinho will bring up swine-flu, eggs and any number of quotable back page headlines. While undoubtedly a great manager (who is still very young), out of those still currently in management I would put Capello, and Del Bosque above him. Also, I rate Guardiola above him as what he achieved in his first season in 1st team management (at the tender age of 38) was astonishing, an unprecedented treble plus 3 more trophies. Remember he took over a Barca team that had not won La Liga for the last two seasons and which was plagued by fractures (Ronaldinho, Eto’o etc.). He is also a humble character who unites, a stark contrast to Mourinho’s divisive personality.
You also have to realise that at both Chelsea and Inter Mourinho inherited very good squads, and in the case of the latter Mancini has already built him a title winning team which all he had to do was maintain. The only place where Mourinho had to actually build his team was at Porto, where he finished 3rd in his first season before winning back to back titles. If people think that the Italian league is poor, I wonder what they think of the Portuguese League! By contrast as I have stated in previous posts, Mancini has shown that he is a winner, and has an illustrious track record of building teams (his success at Fiorentina, Lazio and Inter are testament to that).
Mancini is making do with the players he has, Mourinho, Hiddink, Capello, Guardiola, del Bosque or any other top manager, would not be able to turn what we have into swash-buckling Barca-esque champions. Mancini admittedly has a relatively weak record in Europe (2 QF’s and a last 16) yet he has done enough with his previous clubs (3 Seria A titles, 4 Coppa Italias, 2 Italian Supercups) to convince me that he deserves more time at City. If we do not finish top 4 this season and next year we are not challenging for the title then calls for the ‘Special One’ may justifiably grow louder but for now I suggest we stick with the One Baciato dalla grazia*!
*’kissed by good fortune’
Great post mate. I don't like how he takes the credit for everything his team achieves either. I also want a long term manager, not one who will use us as a stepping stone to Real Madrid
Didsbury Dave said:There have been a disctinct lack of the "FFS Get behind the manager" type rants, which is unusual for this debate.
tolmie's hairdoo said:Outstanding post, mate. Always good to see a fresh perspective on things, even if people don't agree with it.
Thanks mate, I appreciate your honesty
For my own take, it is clear you are a Mancini fan, and although it may not come across as such from people like me, favour the stability approach.
Mancini has impressed me a lot since he has come to City. The guy is calm and collected and has a quiet confidence about him that I like (similar to Guardiola). The problem I have with Mourinho is that he can be a disruptive influence, I know he says he courts controversy on purpose so as to deflect attention (and thus pressure) away from his players, but he actually loves all the attention he gets and the amount of praise he received from the English media has only served to increase his ego to the point that he believes he is untouchable (and bigger than any manager or any team). I also do not like that fact that he blames all and sundry when things go wrong, I have been very impressed with they way Mancini has withheld any public criticism of his players (even Robinho) or of officials. It is not that he is not passionate (he was always a firebrand as a player) and his altercation with Moyes shows that he really does care, but his style seems so much more mature especially when compared with Mourinho's spoilt-brat, throw all you toys out of the pram approach when things do not go his way (he is Al Pacino's Michael to James Caan's Sonny, sorry could not resist, been watching the Godfather Trilogy; in case you were wondering Capello is Marlon Brando's Don Corleone). I also believe being anti-establishment and arrogant he was the perfect match for the nouveau riche of Chelsea but that is not the impression we should be giving out (we are owned by a member of a Royal Family and should act accordingly, hence all the bridge building with Barca, Madrid, etc as opposed to the antagonism and cheap name-calling that Mourinho is famous for).
All well and good, if you do indeed have the right man at the helm.
There are few contradictions and half-truths, but for something so considered and well written, hardly a hanging offence.
The majority of Mourinho's players, past and present, will only have good things to say about the man.
Balotelli would not, and as I mentioned Mackele did not. Shevchenko (not his signing but he should be able to get on with big name players), Robben, Joe Cole, there are many examples of him falling out with players. He is respected by many not loved (which was the difference I was trying to highlight, apologies if I was not clear in my post). Although he is loved in Porto for what he achieved it is interesting to note that he was spat on by a Porto fan when he went there with Chelsea and recently even the Chelsea fans were hurling abuse at their once loved leader (although I admit the vast majority of his former teams' supporters do like him).
You cite Ibrahimovic, yet, the player's own comments would suggest he proved be inspired by him, certainly with regards Jose telling him he was the best striker in the world.
This is true, Mourinho is an excellent man-manger but if you watched Ibra's last season at Inter you would understand that all was not well. He was good enough to praise Mourinho in a recent interview (as you alluded to) as when all was said and done Mourinho got him his dream move to Spain, thus everything else became water under the bridge.
You also flag up Mancini's record of winning in Italy, yet Mourinho doing likewise, elude to the Italian league not being all the strong, certainly if using as a direct example with Portugal.
Mancini's achievements at Inter were more impressive than Mourinho's. Mancini took over a very poor Inter team and revolutionized them, 3 Seria A titles later he was their most successful manager in 30 years. Mancini has shown in Italy that he can build winning teams, that is encouraging as that is exactly what we need at City, we have time on our sides, our owner wants long-term success, not a short time high! Mourinho has done well in Italy, I just find is hard to understand how Mancini's achievements have been ignored while Mourinho's success has been praised no end with people saying he is the best manager in the world because he wins wherever he goes. I would just like people to put their respective achievements in context.
I am in total agreement that Real Madrid are the club which tick more boxes, however, from my own contacts, there are real issues for some City players and Mancini remaining in charge.
Whether they are unhappy with their own lot, could well be the case.
But dealing in facts alone. If the mindset was to keep Roberto all along, why Cook and Marwood were sent to spell targets out to the manager 24 hours prior to the Chelsea game, would suggest it is all still in the melting pot.
Mancini is a classy guy, a man who clearly has integrity and no shortage of ability.
Whether he gets to fulfill what he wants at City, still not sure.
I am not going to speculate on what will happen in the summer. My opinion is that if Mancini gets 4th come rain or shine we should stick with him. But please note, I have no say in what Sheikh Mansour or Khaldoon Al-Mubarak decide so I am only making moot points. I know that they have been very interested in Mourinho in the past, that is all I am willing to say.
Ranieri could well have got around to finishing the job at Chelsea, proving with Roma that he still has what it takes.
Mancini has had a much better track record then Ranieri and Abromovich wanted instant success which is why he chose whoever won the Champions League that season, if Monaco had beaten Porto Didier Deschamps would have got the Chelsea job.
Suppose it depends on how quick City's owners are to get there.
I acknowledge Jose is also the master puppeteer, as previously shown when courting England.
What I will say, it's now or never for City and Jose. Give him ten year contract and announce the mandate to the entire gallery.
There will always be another chance to get Mourinho. You cannot tie the guy down for long as he wants to win La Liga and also manage Portugal, he will only agree to an extended contract once he has fulfilled these two criteria.
Or, as you say, let him polish his ego in the sun, before he would surely jump in at the swamp.
That, for me, is a major reality. And such are his talents, probably the only person who could prolong United being top dogs for a good while longer.
hgblue said:The Fat el Hombre said:'Signifcant' funds was what was actually said.
I expect Jose could get plenty enough funds from the top clubs that would be interested in him
Liverpool? No. United? Guess again.
fbloke said:Here's a report I tend to agree with -
Over the years, England has taken to her heart lots of foreigners with funny voices.
Rolf Harris, Yuri Geller, Lloyd Grossman, Prince Phillip, and, of late, Aleksandr (Compare The) Meerkat have all woven themselves into fabric of our national life. We’re very fond of them all.
But the most popular member of our foreign legion, the most adored and admired – the most special – is currently being forced to live in exile. And my God we want him back.
Sky Sports last night interrupted their half-time analysis of Manchester United’s fascinating Champions League quarter-final with Barcelona to bring us an exclusive interview with Jose Mourinho. “I don’t like Italian football, and they don’t like me,” said Mourinho, in his funny foreign voice. “Simple.”
Richard Keys, the embodiment of our national crush on Mourinho, beamed with excitement at this quote, visibly stirred by the prospect of our hero returning ‘home’. “We love him,” agreed Jamie Redknapp, who, when he’s not doing his studio thing, presents Sky 1’s Search For A Star, the channel’s attempt to turn Mourinho into Simon Cowell. It’s as good as it sounds.
Clearly, neither Jamie nor Richard thought there was anything wrong in devoting so much of their precious half-time analysis slot to a routine Mourinho interview (Indeed, given their excitement, it was a surprise they didn’t can the second half and play endless loops of Mourinho pouting “Simple”, with Pomp and Circumstance playing in the background).
And let’s be clear. It was a routine interview. Anyone who’s kept half an eye on Italian football over the last two years will know that Mourinho’s not happy in Serie A, where his shtick just doesn’t work. His latest interview hasn’t moved the story on, so why did Sky allow it to overshadow their programme?
Sky employ an excellent analyst in Ruud Gullit, but once they’re done with adverts, replays, Jamie, and the obligatory Geoff Shreeves/Alex Ferguson interview, Gullit has no time to properly analyse anything. It was the same after the whistle, with the post-match discussion again dominated by Mourinho, as if he was somehow the story of the night.
Don’t get me wrong, Mourinho taking over Manchester City – the only possible job for him here – would be a hugely entertaining prospect. But that’s not happening. Not yet, at least.
And until it does, I’d rather Sky didn’t keep dumbing down what is already fairly dumb coverage with celebrity interviews. Bayern Munich vs Manchester United is a big deal, it doesn’t need irrelevant sideshows.