He usually gets into fights with people upstairs rather than players (which is why United will never touch him as control of the brand is the most important thing to them), although at Inter I think it was simply that the Madrid job came up.
He usually gets into fights with people upstairs rather than players (which is why United will never touch him as control of the brand is the most important thing to them), although at Inter I think it was simply that the Madrid job came up.
Is it, how?Originally Posted by mokbull
At Chelsea he's lost just about everybody. At Madrid, he lost Cristiano and Casillas. Makelele (and others) have talked publicly about how he never showed any appreciation for his players in his first Chelsea stint. I don't know about Inter, other than that Zlatan liked him.
Add that to his feuds with the boardroom and owners, I don't see how he can be considered one of the best managers. His tactics are fantastic (usually) but he angers everybody he's supposed to keep happy, and despite his "media acumen", or whatever you want to call it, that's unsustainable. The reason people like him so much is because he keeps his teams in the spotlight
http://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.c...riends-forever
This is interesting though. Ronaldo seems to appreciate him now.
I see 'Pep' is going to clarify his future in the coming days/weeks.
What the fuck is that second bit about? If he does leave Bayern at the end of the season, and they don't lol their way to the European Cup, will he have failed?Spanish newspaper Marca reported on Wednesday that Guardiola has already told Bayern he will leave the club.
The Madrid-based publication claims he believes both he and the club would benefit from a change of scenery because his intense work ethic can wear players down.
I've always taken that line to mean that he operates a sort of scorched earth policy, though even that's only vaguely corroborated by Sir Rafa stinking Inter out after him.
After he left Chelsea we reached the Champions League final in the same season with Jabba the Hutt in charge.
The flipside being that Chelsea blundered through several seasons of being pretty crap but winning things through "The Ghost of Mourinho".
I don't think there's any questioning his brilliance pre-Madrid, but I think there's a fair question of how that term has affected both him and people's perceptions of him.
He's still got it. Just look at the way he effortlessly winds up Arsenal every fucking time, and some of our bigger game performances this season haven't been that bad. It's just a shitty run. If this was 1965 people would be batting eyelids, but it would just be seen as one of those things and on we would go.
It's not 1965 though. A "shitty run" for a side like Chelsea in modern football sees them dragging around in 5th-8th.
The Arsenal thing could just as much be a sign of him having lost it as still having it. He seems almost completely preoccupied with those sorts of personal mini-victories these days.
The 'Phantom Manager' suggests that whilst his coaching and methods are great and sustainable, he himself has a definite use-by date. That could explain why Chelsea were at their best under Carlo Ancelotti who kept all of that intact whilst also being good enough to keep everybody happy. I reckon this what is going on at Leicester, with Nigel Dickhead gone and Claudio Ranieri getting by on charisma alone, and probably what United will require once 'LvG' has finally pissed everybody off trying to stabalise things (which he has if he's done nothing else). It might also explain United post-2008 when the defensive structures put in place by Carlos Queiroz held out and Ferguson kept the rest going.
That's silly though isn't it. A past manager's influence isn't going to coach and motivate players on a daily basis three, 4 years later or whatever.
Like Toby says, it's not 1965. 1965 didn't have the big four, or the big seven, etc... The big have become much bigger.
You do have a point though, and maybe if Mourinho is still there next season and is a success it would have a big influence on how football perceives sackings.
I think the issue for Mourinho at this point is that you'd need to clear a good third to one half of the players out, which probably isn't achievable in one summer.
I'm trying it on FM. PSG are big enough mugs to take Costa off my hands, but the squad rebelled like tits when Fabregas was sold and I brought in Teddy Bishop. Ah well.
He put together what became the core of every Chelsea side from then until now, and instilled with them a very particular attitude and style of play that was clearly still there after he left.Other managers came in and a few failed to settle precisely because they tried to shake things up from the way Mourinho had done it. Three years and however many managers on you'd still look at Chelsea's team and see the hallmarks of Mourinho all through it.
I recall Ancelotti's team playing with a lot more freedom, scoring the best goals, and not playing on the counter. But you watched them more so maybe that's not accurate.
But in any case, would what you've described be considered that unusual? 'A particular attitude' will have been built by players like Terry's natural personalities and not solely due to Mourinho.
If somebody watched Swansea in 2010 then watched them for a second time four years later, there'd be differences, but they'd definitely be pretty similar.
I can't imagine a professional football team (or any team in any profession) getting by on someone who is not even there; it might have some effect for a few months, but years?
So has Terry lost the clout to gel that squad together for the kids? Or is he missing being felt up by Eva?
When I said three years I meant from Mourinho leaving to Ancelotti joining. Turns out it was only half that but definitely felt a lot longer. He did successfully change things up a bit and get them playing a much freer game.
It's not uncommon for teams to look similar between different managers, especially if much of the players remain the same, but I don't think it's common to see anything on the level of Chelsea in the years after Mourinho left. The key players adored him and clearly bought in entirely to his footballing philosophies.
All Chelsea's success in the last decade can be put down to the spine of Cech/Terry/Lampard/Drogba (and Claude when he was there). All five of them tremendous players but also leaders that used to bring shitheads like Malouda along with them. We now have, what, half of one of them and shock horror it's gone down the pan.
Drogba was a genuine force of nature, so losing him is probably the biggest blow. Terry has always been a cunt.
It's literally just Terry left, and it's possible the others always acted as a sort of antidote to his obvious unpleasant side. I'm not sure which of the others bring any sort of winning mentality, let alone leadership ability.
He's gone.
Fucking idiots.
Welcome Juande.
A dark day for football. I rest my case.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote