Other Teams ** Everyone Else ** [R]

I think you are overrating Mourinho, hes no miracleman. Even Di Mateo or whoever could win with unlimited funds

 

@DreCordero: 0-0. The only losers today were all of us.

This tweet pretty much summed up today.

 

most teams with loads o money and players that dont cross the half way line will win at some stage!!!

 

He won a Champions League because the team wanted revenge over AvB.
Mourinho's won 2 CL , has been to the CL S-F for the 8th times this year , and has won 4 different leagues , twice each almost.
There is no overrating him.

 

That's not how Mourinho has worked. Mourinho comes in after the big money has been spent on a squad that should have won the CL already and makes minor tweaks to suit his knock-down, drag-out style of play. I'd rather Ancelotti, whose resume fits a similar bill to Mourinho's of coming in and winning the big ones with an already loaded squad, and he does it with far more class (and more bad teeth to boot).

I'm not too proud to win ugly either, but let's try the pretty way first.

And the other poster who said that Mourinho left Inter in ruins was also wrong. That team peaked in age, and it was all downhill from there with basically every star on that squad.

 

Go through his titles, what's special? Don't say Real, He was given time for the barca cycle to come to an end, something the man before him who had a record points total in his first in charge was not and got sacked. Inter against us almost bankrupt? Already a winning machine in Italy before he came. Porto what challenge do Porto have other than Benfica? Chelsea a bought title. Let's see Jose do it at a club with limited funds....I don't see what's so special about a man that needs billions to win

 

Take Mancini for example.
he had billions too.
did he win anything? no.

 

i honestly dont care for "attractive" football

defense is part of the game just as much as offense

i play defensive mid in real life. clean sheets are just as awesome as routs (as long as we win of course)

i'd happy take 38x 1-0 wins

 

All this from the man that told us defence doesn't win championships, attack does so that's more important! Which is it!?.....

 

If anyone here watches the NFL , the last Super Bowl is the clear example of which one is more important.

the best defense vs the best attack , can you guys guess what happened?

 

you're quoting me out of context

successive draws are no good, that is why attack is more important IMO. you need to WIN games to win championships. defense wins cups and knockout competitions. look at all the World Cup winners

as a PERSONAL preference, i like defensive structure more. i like the idea of our Stadio being a defensive fortress. but clean sheets are only nice if we win.

 

Lol sure, its very simple one or the other.....

 

The Broncos were missing key players on the O-line and defense. Seattle still probably could have won but that did influence the result. Also the analogy doesn't fit because Seattle have a decent offense, by comparison they attack much more than Chelsea when they set up to spoil.

 

alright, then to simplify: i enjoy watching a good defense, but i value offense more

a man can enjoy and value two different things. i value saving money but i enjoy spending it. it's not such a hard concept to grasp

 

So to recap , they have a decent , not the best in the world but still decent offense.
That's all you need , really. rock solid defense and an offense that can put a few goals in , that's what wins you cups.

 

nobody blaming Rafe for Inter....surprised

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? Our current Roma has one of the best goals against records in Europe and are also very good in attack. It's not about playing defensively. It's about playing with no balls.

Mourinho has taken the leap to borderline anti-football tactics since he got abused by Barca. Don't draw a parallel between what we saw Chelsea do today and a great defensive team like 06 Azzurri.

 

.... And they were playing against a mentality weak team. I should know.

I just think the analogy is poor.

 

I don't really think that you can apply a "formula" to winning. Offense and defense are both very important and the only thing that you could say really applies to Championship teams is consistency and a winning mentality. To me I don't care what style teams play because it all is apart of the sport though they might be on different ends of the spectrum. If I was manager I wouldn't care what the fans think. Fans just don't have any role in the job of being a coach who in my opinion should: 1)Win games and make the team better 2)Build good relationships with the players- try to be as fair as possible 3)Help develop players as individuals. I realize that the third one might be a bit odd but they are individuals and I think that you have to help them achieve their own interests as well as your owns. But as I said before I wouldn't care about the fans since as a coach all you can do is try to win and do your job to please them. That being said I think that every manager has a certain style that fits them, I imagine Mourinho is probably very familiar with defensive structure and some sort of counterattacking whether it be a press- counterattack or a more traditional style(sitting in deep defensively) and if others don't like it I really doubt he loses sleep over it. Honestly if I was a manager I would probably try to implement a possession style but I don't think anyone can really say that one style is better than another only different. Of course most of us, myself included, would rather see a free flowing style that results in huge victories but if we want to win every game 3-0 then we will also need a quality defense and I definitely wouldn't be ok with us losing a game 4-3 just because it is pretty football. I for one would not be ok if we got relegated as long as we play pretty football because even though I love seeing beautiful, creative attacks I think that defense is also very important and there are some very important character traits that define both solid defenses and winning teams like being focused 100% of the time, organization, persistence(relentlessness), confidence. I don't think that it is a coincidence that a lot of people dislike Guardiola and Mourinho since they operate their styles to extremes even to the point where it is much more important than the individualistic talents of the players and it is apparently boring yet successful. In my opinion there is even more pride in winning than knowing how to play pretty football.

 

Porto was a success winning the cl but look at the run he had, not often you get that in a year many big sides crashed. His team was used to winning in a poor league but I'll give him that run. At Chelsea the core was built but Ranieri and history is repeating itself for him at Monaco. Here he bought the league, its simple as that. You then convinently skip over my points on Italy and Real(where he Failed at what he was hired to do) and sugar coat it to fit your opinion. I'm not saying he's a bad manager but his bought success is over rated.

Now at Chelsea again he's acting like a spoilt brat about having no strikers, (his own fault) look at the squad he's inherited. Like a big baby, even the English media are finally getting sick of his constant shit talk. All I'm saying is do it with no money or limited money and come back to me about being the special one....

 

He took over the Italian champions when we were his only rivals, almost bankrupt. Dominated eh? You also fail to acknowledge he was given time to win at Real and simply benefited from Barca finally dropping some points. Pellegrini had them at record breaking points in his first year but couldn't win the league and was harshly sacked, Jose was given this time as they wanted him to win Cl which he failed.