Who is better? Ferguson or Mourinho?
Poll
If someone held a gun to your head, who do you think is better between Fergie & Jose?
These guys are two of the greatest of all time and have given me many fond memories. I acknowledge that there are other great managers (e.g. Del Bosque, Cappello back in the day, Paisley etc) but I'm assuming that most guys on TSR would have more knowledge on Jose and Fergie than other great managers and better knowledge at that since they would have witnessed Fergie and Jose at their best in the last one or two decades (but they wouldn't have the best and clearest knowledge on someone like Happel or Trappattoni).
I personally think Jose is a better manager/coach than Fergie. I know Fergie is greater (more trophies) but I think Jose is better.
Why? It depends on how you define what is a good manager/coach.
My criteria is this: Trophies won, man-management skills, tactical nous, ability to build great teams and ability to rebuild teams.
1) Trophies won: Fergie = Mourinho
2) Man-management skills: Mourinho > Fergie
3) Tactical nous: Mourinho > Fergie
4) Ability to build great teams: Fergie > Mourinho
5) Ability to rebuild teams. Fergie > Mourinho
So yeah, I feel Mourinho is slightly better than Fergie. But that doesn't diminish the fact that they are both exceptional managers and we have been lucky to be alive to witness both of them. Yes, they have their flaws and can be ****s sometimes (Jose particularly). But their achievements in the game deserves serious respect.
Who do you think is the better manager between Fergie and Mourinho? Vote in the poll. And what are your reasons?
I personally think Jose is a better manager/coach than Fergie. I know Fergie is greater (more trophies) but I think Jose is better.
Why? It depends on how you define what is a good manager/coach.
My criteria is this: Trophies won, man-management skills, tactical nous, ability to build great teams and ability to rebuild teams.
1) Trophies won: Fergie = Mourinho
Spoiler
2) Man-management skills: Mourinho > Fergie
Spoiler
3) Tactical nous: Mourinho > Fergie
Spoiler
4) Ability to build great teams: Fergie > Mourinho
Spoiler
5) Ability to rebuild teams. Fergie > Mourinho
Spoiler
So yeah, I feel Mourinho is slightly better than Fergie. But that doesn't diminish the fact that they are both exceptional managers and we have been lucky to be alive to witness both of them. Yes, they have their flaws and can be ****s sometimes (Jose particularly). But their achievements in the game deserves serious respect.
Who do you think is the better manager between Fergie and Mourinho? Vote in the poll. And what are your reasons?
(edited 11 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Learn how to count!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Pbags
Eh?
Mourinho's done so much in so many different countries that I think it's difficult to rate SAF above him. He's still such a quality manager although I'd be prepared to take that back if he couldn't keep up the same kind of form over the next decade.
Whilst he's won so much I couldn't have seen SAF adapting to so many footballing cultures as quickly as Mourinho did. I mean he went from an assistant manager to one who won the Champions League, UEFA Cup and Portugese League within 4 years, then 2 Premier League's, FA Cup, League Cup, two CL semi finals in 3 years, then a treble in Italy and then 2 CL semi finals and a treble in Spain within 3 years.
Winning the CL again would really top that off as well-and I'm sure he will at some point.
Whilst he's won so much I couldn't have seen SAF adapting to so many footballing cultures as quickly as Mourinho did. I mean he went from an assistant manager to one who won the Champions League, UEFA Cup and Portugese League within 4 years, then 2 Premier League's, FA Cup, League Cup, two CL semi finals in 3 years, then a treble in Italy and then 2 CL semi finals and a treble in Spain within 3 years.
Winning the CL again would really top that off as well-and I'm sure he will at some point.
It's clearly Ferguson.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
It's clearly Ferguson.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
Hahaa you dropped the mallet on yr head!
Original post by Wilfred Little
It's clearly Ferguson.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
Anybody who thinks Mourinho is better than Ferguson should be banned. Mourinho is an average manager who uses his motivational skills and great tactical knowledge to good effect and then jumps ship before he's found out and people realise he actually knows very little about football compared to the greats. None of his transfers are that great either, they're just a case of signing obvious great players who then develop at the team he's at. He doesn't know how to make a team play attractive football.
He has great tactical knowledge yet he knows very little about football? Cool.
Mourinho
Original post by Musester
He has great tactical knowledge yet he knows very little about football? Cool.
Not really what I said is it
I said compared to the greats.Look at what Ferguson did at Man U, completely eradicated the drinking culture at that time, replaced all the staff, brought his own scouts in, changed the infrastructure of the whole football club including kit men, tea ladies etc. Brought through a team of kids having sold Ince, Kanchelskis & Hughes... look how long his success has lasted, he built the club from the ground up and created a footballing legacy. Mourinho hasn't.
Look at Wenger and the way he revolutionised diet, the scouting system, overseas knowledge of players. Guardiola left an impression on Barcelona that other teams have been trying to replicate since. Mourinho does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as managers like Guardiola, Ferguson and Wenger.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
Not really what I said is it I said compared to the greats.
Look at what Ferguson did at Man U, completely eradicated the drinking culture at that time, replaced all the staff, brought his own scouts in, changed the infrastructure of the whole football club including kit men, tea ladies etc. Brought through a team of kids having sold Ince, Kanchelskis & Hughes... look how long his success has lasted, he built the club from the ground up and created a footballing legacy. Mourinho hasn't.
Look at Wenger and the way he revolutionised diet, the scouting system, overseas knowledge of players. Guardiola left an impression on Barcelona that other teams have been trying to replicate since. Mourinho does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as managers like Guardiola, Ferguson and Wenger.
I said compared to the greats.Look at what Ferguson did at Man U, completely eradicated the drinking culture at that time, replaced all the staff, brought his own scouts in, changed the infrastructure of the whole football club including kit men, tea ladies etc. Brought through a team of kids having sold Ince, Kanchelskis & Hughes... look how long his success has lasted, he built the club from the ground up and created a footballing legacy. Mourinho hasn't.
Look at Wenger and the way he revolutionised diet, the scouting system, overseas knowledge of players. Guardiola left an impression on Barcelona that other teams have been trying to replicate since. Mourinho does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as managers like Guardiola, Ferguson and Wenger.
Guardiola? Really? I personally think Barcelona's success is almost entirely down to the incredible group of players they had and had very little to do with the manager, but whatever the case, Guardiola needs to prove himself elsewhere before being considered one of the greats. To be honest, I'd say it's the other way round, Guardiola does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Mourinho.
Mourinho revolutionized the tactical aspect of the game that many managers try to use nowadays. His incredible trophy haul (winning at least one trophy every calendar year since he started management) cannot be ignored. And honestly, what does knowing "how to make a team play attractive football" have to do with anything? Ignoring the fact that what constitutes "attractive football" is very subjective (I find Barcelona's style of play to be incredibly boring, for instance), try watching a Real Madrid league game once in a while. They do in fact play some pretty attractive attacking/passing football.
If we're talking transfers, both Ferguson and Wenger have made some pretty suspect transfers themselves in the past. The quality of transfers say more about a club's scouting system than the manager anyway.
Original post by justinawe
Guardiola? Really? I personally think Barcelona's success is almost entirely down to the incredible group of players they had and had very little to do with the manager, but whatever the case, Guardiola needs to prove himself elsewhere before being considered one of the greats. To be honest, I'd say it's the other way round, Guardiola does not deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Mourinho.
I was just naming contemporary greats when I named Wenger and Guardiola but you're wrong anyway. Every player that was there during Rikjaard's stint as manager is better now under Pep, accept from maybe Puyol.
He has made some good signings and great decisions, only real cock-up for me was selling Eto'o and getting Ibrahimovic, plus not having more than 1 striker this season. But the success of Barca really he has to take a lot of credit for. The midfield pairing of Xavi and Iniesta is down to Pep, as during Rikjaard's era Iniesta wasn't a regular starter and was never paired with Xavi.
Think back to before Deco was sold & Frank Rijkaard was still at Barcelona. What was Iniesta's starting position?
2 CM's: Deco & Xavi
LW: Ronaldinho
RW: It was Giuly & then Messi
CF: Eto'o.
Iniesta only sealed his own starting spot in that side at the turn of the year in Guardiola's 1st season at Barca so that would've been January 2009 or thereabouts. Before then Iniesta competed for the left wing spot and was used in central midfield only when Xavi wasn't playing, because everybody in Spain said that Iniesta & Xavi couldn't play together in midfield. So Iniesta was behind Thierry Henry for the LW & behind Xavi for the CM spot in Guardiola's 1st season. It was Pep who decided to pair him with Xavi and get rid of Deco, Ronaldinho... despite them being 2 of Barca's best players.
The game that changed it was a cup game where Henry & Xavi were rested. Iniesta played LW had a stinker 1st half, they moved him centrally 2nd half & he played so well, even when Xavi came on in midfield, they decided they wanted to keep him there & try him with Xavi because Xavi came on later, and that was the beginning of Xavi and Iniesta.
Mourinho revolutionized the tactical aspect of the game that many managers try to use nowadays. His incredible trophy haul (winning at least one trophy every calendar year since he started management) cannot be ignored. And honestly, what does knowing "how to make a team play attractive football" have to do with anything? Ignoring the fact that what constitutes "attractive football" is very subjective (I find Barcelona's style of play to be incredibly boring, for instance), try watching a Real Madrid league game once in a while. They do in fact play some pretty attractive attacking/passing football.
Yes it can. Man U were in a transitional stage when he was at Chelsea and he had ridiculous amounts of money to spend there, money buys success, ask Blackburn and Manchester City. At Porto he was incredibly flukey to win the Champions League that year. Scholes scored a legitimate goal in the leg at Old Trafford, yards onside and was ruled out, Porto go through and the rest is history. Very lucky to get Monaco in the final as well.
Italian football was still recovering from the match fixing scandal when he won the league there. Knocking Barcelona out was a good achievement admittedly but Inter had already won the league three times on the bounce when he was hired as coach there.
If we're talking transfers, both Ferguson and Wenger have made some pretty suspect transfers themselves in the past. The quality of transfers say more about a club's scouting system than the manager anyway.
When you're at a team for 25+ years you will inevitably get it wrong sometimes. Both Ferguson and Wenger are superior to Mourinho in terms of the transfers they've made, don't kid yourself.
Original post by Wilfred Little
I was just naming contemporary greats when I named Wenger and Guardiola but you're wrong anyway. Every player that was there during Rikjaard's stint as manager is better now under Pep, accept from maybe Puyol.
He has made some good signings and great decisions, only real cock-up for me was selling Eto'o and getting Ibrahimovic, plus not having more than 1 striker this season. But the success of Barca really he has to take a lot of credit for. The midfield pairing of Xavi and Iniesta is down to Pep, as during Rikjaard's era Iniesta wasn't a regular starter and was never paired with Xavi.
Think back to before Deco was sold & Frank Rijkaard was still at Barcelona. What was Iniesta's starting position?
2 CM's: Deco & Xavi
LW: Ronaldinho
RW: It was Giuly & then Messi
CF: Eto'o.
Iniesta only sealed his own starting spot in that side at the turn of the year in Guardiola's 1st season at Barca so that would've been January 2009 or thereabouts. Before then Iniesta competed for the left wing spot and was used in central midfield only when Xavi wasn't playing, because everybody in Spain said that Iniesta & Xavi couldn't play together in midfield. So Iniesta was behind Thierry Henry for the LW & behind Xavi for the CM spot in Guardiola's 1st season. It was Pep who decided to pair him with Xavi and get rid of Deco, Ronaldinho... despite them being 2 of Barca's best players.
The game that changed it was a cup game where Henry & Xavi were rested. Iniesta played LW had a stinker 1st half, they moved him centrally 2nd half & he played so well, even when Xavi came on in midfield, they decided they wanted to keep him there & try him with Xavi because Xavi came on later, and that was the beginning of Xavi and Iniesta.
Yes it can. Man U were in a transitional stage when he was at Chelsea and he had ridiculous amounts of money to spend there, money buys success, ask Blackburn and Manchester City. At Porto he was incredibly flukey to win the Champions League that year. Scholes scored a legitimate goal in the leg at Old Trafford, yards onside and was ruled out, Porto go through and the rest is history. Very lucky to get Monaco in the final as well.
Italian football was still recovering from the match fixing scandal when he won the league there. Knocking Barcelona out was a good achievement admittedly but Inter had already won the league three times on the bounce when he was hired as coach there.
When you're at a team for 25+ years you will inevitably get it wrong sometimes. Both Ferguson and Wenger are superior to Mourinho in terms of the transfers they've made, don't kid yourself.
He has made some good signings and great decisions, only real cock-up for me was selling Eto'o and getting Ibrahimovic, plus not having more than 1 striker this season. But the success of Barca really he has to take a lot of credit for. The midfield pairing of Xavi and Iniesta is down to Pep, as during Rikjaard's era Iniesta wasn't a regular starter and was never paired with Xavi.
Think back to before Deco was sold & Frank Rijkaard was still at Barcelona. What was Iniesta's starting position?
2 CM's: Deco & Xavi
LW: Ronaldinho
RW: It was Giuly & then Messi
CF: Eto'o.
Iniesta only sealed his own starting spot in that side at the turn of the year in Guardiola's 1st season at Barca so that would've been January 2009 or thereabouts. Before then Iniesta competed for the left wing spot and was used in central midfield only when Xavi wasn't playing, because everybody in Spain said that Iniesta & Xavi couldn't play together in midfield. So Iniesta was behind Thierry Henry for the LW & behind Xavi for the CM spot in Guardiola's 1st season. It was Pep who decided to pair him with Xavi and get rid of Deco, Ronaldinho... despite them being 2 of Barca's best players.
The game that changed it was a cup game where Henry & Xavi were rested. Iniesta played LW had a stinker 1st half, they moved him centrally 2nd half & he played so well, even when Xavi came on in midfield, they decided they wanted to keep him there & try him with Xavi because Xavi came on later, and that was the beginning of Xavi and Iniesta.
Yes it can. Man U were in a transitional stage when he was at Chelsea and he had ridiculous amounts of money to spend there, money buys success, ask Blackburn and Manchester City. At Porto he was incredibly flukey to win the Champions League that year. Scholes scored a legitimate goal in the leg at Old Trafford, yards onside and was ruled out, Porto go through and the rest is history. Very lucky to get Monaco in the final as well.
Italian football was still recovering from the match fixing scandal when he won the league there. Knocking Barcelona out was a good achievement admittedly but Inter had already won the league three times on the bounce when he was hired as coach there.
When you're at a team for 25+ years you will inevitably get it wrong sometimes. Both Ferguson and Wenger are superior to Mourinho in terms of the transfers they've made, don't kid yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFdAd6nqQ9Y
Watch this, then come back. Look at how effort he made at each club and even before he started managing-and look at what your beloved Ferguson thinks of him.
And this thread is Mou and SAF-why start bringing Guiardiola into it?
Original post by Musester
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFdAd6nqQ9Y
Watch this, then come back. Look at how effort he made at each club and even before he started managing-and look at what your beloved Ferguson thinks of him.
And this thread is Mou and SAF-why start bringing Guiardiola into it?
Watch this, then come back. Look at how effort he made at each club and even before he started managing-and look at what your beloved Ferguson thinks of him.
And this thread is Mou and SAF-why start bringing Guiardiola into it?
That is a rubbish post. No argument provided.
Original post by Wilfred Little
That is a rubbish post. No argument provided.
Watch the video then you dick.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Wilfred Little
I was just naming contemporary greats when I named Wenger and Guardiola but you're wrong anyway. Every player that was there during Rikjaard's stint as manager is better now under Pep, accept from maybe Puyol.
He has made some good signings and great decisions, only real cock-up for me was selling Eto'o and getting Ibrahimovic, plus not having more than 1 striker this season. But the success of Barca really he has to take a lot of credit for. The midfield pairing of Xavi and Iniesta is down to Pep, as during Rikjaard's era Iniesta wasn't a regular starter and was never paired with Xavi.
Think back to before Deco was sold & Frank Rijkaard was still at Barcelona. What was Iniesta's starting position?
2 CM's: Deco & Xavi
LW: Ronaldinho
RW: It was Giuly & then Messi
CF: Eto'o.
Iniesta only sealed his own starting spot in that side at the turn of the year in Guardiola's 1st season at Barca so that would've been January 2009 or thereabouts. Before then Iniesta competed for the left wing spot and was used in central midfield only when Xavi wasn't playing, because everybody in Spain said that Iniesta & Xavi couldn't play together in midfield. So Iniesta was behind Thierry Henry for the LW & behind Xavi for the CM spot in Guardiola's 1st season. It was Pep who decided to pair him with Xavi and get rid of Deco, Ronaldinho... despite them being 2 of Barca's best players.
The game that changed it was a cup game where Henry & Xavi were rested. Iniesta played LW had a stinker 1st half, they moved him centrally 2nd half & he played so well, even when Xavi came on in midfield, they decided they wanted to keep him there & try him with Xavi because Xavi came on later, and that was the beginning of Xavi and Iniesta.
He has made some good signings and great decisions, only real cock-up for me was selling Eto'o and getting Ibrahimovic, plus not having more than 1 striker this season. But the success of Barca really he has to take a lot of credit for. The midfield pairing of Xavi and Iniesta is down to Pep, as during Rikjaard's era Iniesta wasn't a regular starter and was never paired with Xavi.
Think back to before Deco was sold & Frank Rijkaard was still at Barcelona. What was Iniesta's starting position?
2 CM's: Deco & Xavi
LW: Ronaldinho
RW: It was Giuly & then Messi
CF: Eto'o.
Iniesta only sealed his own starting spot in that side at the turn of the year in Guardiola's 1st season at Barca so that would've been January 2009 or thereabouts. Before then Iniesta competed for the left wing spot and was used in central midfield only when Xavi wasn't playing, because everybody in Spain said that Iniesta & Xavi couldn't play together in midfield. So Iniesta was behind Thierry Henry for the LW & behind Xavi for the CM spot in Guardiola's 1st season. It was Pep who decided to pair him with Xavi and get rid of Deco, Ronaldinho... despite them being 2 of Barca's best players.
The game that changed it was a cup game where Henry & Xavi were rested. Iniesta played LW had a stinker 1st half, they moved him centrally 2nd half & he played so well, even when Xavi came on in midfield, they decided they wanted to keep him there & try him with Xavi because Xavi came on later, and that was the beginning of Xavi and Iniesta.
I didn't say he didn't bring anything to the team - he did improve on what Rijkaard did, but a lot of that was down to the players peaking at the right time for him. I don't think what he did alone justifies calling him one of the greats. Remember that he's only had three successful seasons, and Barcelona weren't looking very sharp in his last season there.
Yes it can. Man U were in a transitional stage when he was at Chelsea and he had ridiculous amounts of money to spend there, money buys success, ask Blackburn and Manchester City. At Porto he was incredibly flukey to win the Champions League that year. Scholes scored a legitimate goal in the leg at Old Trafford, yards onside and was ruled out, Porto go through and the rest is history. Very lucky to get Monaco in the final as well.
Italian football was still recovering from the match fixing scandal when he won the league there. Knocking Barcelona out was a good achievement admittedly but Inter had already won the league three times on the bounce when he was hired as coach there.
Barcelona were "incredibly flukey" to win the CL in '09, teams rarely ever win the CL with a 100% clean run. Even if Scholes' goal had counted there's no saying Utd would have taken the tie anyway, it's like Utd fans thinking they would have definitely beaten Real Madrid in the last 16 this season if it weren't for the red card, you simply can't say that when the tie is still in the balance.
AC Milan were the reigning European champions when Mourinho came to Inter, you can hardly say that it was an easy league. Winning the CL with Inter was an incredible achievement as well.
When you're at a team for 25+ years you will inevitably get it wrong sometimes. Both Ferguson and Wenger are superior to Mourinho in terms of the transfers they've made, don't kid yourself.
I will concede that Ferguson is superior to Mourinho in terms of transfers made, Wenger has made some good transfers in past but his overall record isn't that great, especially in recent times.
Me kidding myself? I'm not the one grasping at straws trying to find a reason why Mourinho won almost every trophy he did by getting lucky
Original post by justinawe
I didn't say he didn't bring anything to the team - he did improve on what Rijkaard did, but a lot of that was down to the players peaking at the right time for him. I don't think what he did alone justifies calling him one of the greats. Remember that he's only had three successful seasons, and Barcelona weren't looking very sharp in his last season there.
So Guardiola isn't one of the great managers in the world today? Do you know what contemporary means? You made the link between him and being an all-time great, not me. And that's not what I've said.
Barcelona were "incredibly flukey" to win the CL in '09, teams rarely ever win the CL with a 100% clean run. Even if Scholes' goal had counted there's no saying Utd would have taken the tie anyway, it's like Utd fans thinking they would have definitely beaten Real Madrid in the last 16 this season if it weren't for the red card, you simply can't say that when the tie is still in the balance.
No they weren't.
AC Milan were the reigning European champions when Mourinho came to Inter, you can hardly say that it was an easy league. Winning the CL with Inter was an incredible achievement as well.
No they weren't, United were, get your facts straight.
Me kidding myself? I'm not the one grasping at straws trying to find a reason why Mourinho won almost every trophy he did by getting lucky
I didn't say he was lucky in every trophy I won, you implied his trophy record speaks for itself when it doesn't, if you analyse them a bit further they aren't as impressive as they seem at first glance or on paper. Inter were already great, to take over a champion team and win the league with them isn't as much of an achievement as taking a team that hasn't won the league for 26 years and then winning it 12 times in 26 years.
Ferguson is better, it's that simple.
(edited 11 years ago)
To all those saying Mourinho, I have no words for you. When Mourinho calls Sir Alex 'boss', shouldn't that tell it all? Mourinho bows his head to very few and Sir Alex is one of them -future employment agenda or not, he respects Sir Alex waaaaay too much. Mourinho is very good (one of the best) just not as good as. The likes of Mourinho and the rest can't even stay at a club for five years, how can they be compared to someone who has survived at a historic club like Manchester United for 25+ years?
Right now, I would say Ferguson by a small margin.
Ferguson is the dynasty master. No-one has done what he has done. Bob Paisley's record at Liverpool was arguably better, but was over a much shorter period of time - and sustainability is what football is all about. All around, managers aren't generally lasting very long - in the PL, there's Ferguson, Wenger and Moyes on more than 10 years. After that, there's Tony Pulis and then absurdly the fifth and sixth longest serving managers are Martinez and Mancini with 3 odd years.
No-one else seems to be able to sustain the level of victory with successive teams. Man Utd have the occasional off year (or two) but then they're back and winning things. Arsenal have been out of it for 8 years and are heading in the wrong direction, as are Chelsea. I'm not convinced by Man City's long term plans. The main thing about Ferguson's Man Utd is that they don't get bothered by defeat and they don't get complacent about victory. When they lose, they dust themselves off, get up and go again. When they win, they enjoy it and come back for more.
Mourinho is the exact opposite. He can't stay in the same place too long before he gets itchy feet and has to move on - usually after starting a war with the club/owner/press/fans. Can't deny that his record is outstanding and doesn't look like it's going to deteriorate. He can pick up a team, motivate them, win things, and then move on. I can't think of many managers that can do that. I also appreciate the idea that he's breaking the mold of ex-players being managers, along with ex-protoge AVB. What's more, he didn't need big money at Porto. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that had Mourinho been at Man City with the same budget at Mancini, City wouldn't be better and heading in a different direction.
In his favour, Mourinho has more time to overtake Ferguson. Probably.
Ferguson is the dynasty master. No-one has done what he has done. Bob Paisley's record at Liverpool was arguably better, but was over a much shorter period of time - and sustainability is what football is all about. All around, managers aren't generally lasting very long - in the PL, there's Ferguson, Wenger and Moyes on more than 10 years. After that, there's Tony Pulis and then absurdly the fifth and sixth longest serving managers are Martinez and Mancini with 3 odd years.
No-one else seems to be able to sustain the level of victory with successive teams. Man Utd have the occasional off year (or two) but then they're back and winning things. Arsenal have been out of it for 8 years and are heading in the wrong direction, as are Chelsea. I'm not convinced by Man City's long term plans. The main thing about Ferguson's Man Utd is that they don't get bothered by defeat and they don't get complacent about victory. When they lose, they dust themselves off, get up and go again. When they win, they enjoy it and come back for more.
Mourinho is the exact opposite. He can't stay in the same place too long before he gets itchy feet and has to move on - usually after starting a war with the club/owner/press/fans. Can't deny that his record is outstanding and doesn't look like it's going to deteriorate. He can pick up a team, motivate them, win things, and then move on. I can't think of many managers that can do that. I also appreciate the idea that he's breaking the mold of ex-players being managers, along with ex-protoge AVB. What's more, he didn't need big money at Porto. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that had Mourinho been at Man City with the same budget at Mancini, City wouldn't be better and heading in a different direction.
In his favour, Mourinho has more time to overtake Ferguson. Probably.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- History course work- To what extent Germany was responsible for the outbreak of ww1
- could anyone give me any feedback on my review for GCSE english language
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Durham St Mary's Shoichi T/time only Accommodation offer
- Allan and Nesta Ferguson Scholarship - Sheffield
- Time for Erik Ten Hag to be sacked?
- What is Your Favorite Football Club
- How to understand football as a girl - help
- Oxford PPE admission
- Essay Competition Questions
- Debate Help!!!
- Glory Glory Man United we are back
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- Notificationss
- St Marys Durham Boughton Wing?
- Is it okay for my gf to speak to her ex? (Hear me out)
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Can't support Man Utd anymore...plaguing my mind like mad!
- Help with History Nea Coursework
- OCR A level History
Latest
Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 23 minutes ago
2023 ** Borders and Enforcement, Crime & Compliance - ICE - Immigration OfficersLast reply 35 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 53 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Government Social Research Placement interview questionsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Standard Chartered Apprenticeships 2024
