Who is better? Ferguson or Mourinho? Watch

Poll: If someone held a gun to your head, who do you think is better between Fergie & Jose?
Ferguson (105)
59.66%
Mourinho (71)
40.34%
Cable
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
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
Spoiler:
Show
I think we shouldn't take the trophies won section too seriously because it would be unfair to declare Fergie the winner when he has been managing much longer than Mourinho. Fergie's record at Aberdeen was exceptional. His record at Man Utd? Out of this world. But Mourinho has won the same amount of Champions League titles (two) as Fergie in a shorter period of time. Mourinho had no right to win the CL with Porto and Inter who both had far less money than many other teams in the CL. Yet he did.

While Fergie has achieved league success in two countries, Mourinho has achieved league success in 4. And 3 of those leagues (PL, Liga BBVA/La Liga & Serie A) are/were arguably the best in the world. This shows Mourinho's ability to adapt to different styles of football. When he came to the Chelsea, he raped the league in his first season. People can say that he had lots of money available but look at Man City this season. It is clear proof that money doesn't automatically buy you success. The ability of the manager is also important and that was what made Chelsea break all kinds of records in Jose's first season there. Later, he goes to R.Madrid and eventually rapes La liga too, breaking many records and beating one of the best teams of all time to win the title.

So in this respect, I personally regard Mourinho and Fergie as equal in trophies won.


2) Man-management skills: Mourinho > Fergie
Spoiler:
Show
This is a really tough one. But Mourinho edges it for me. There is no doubt that Fergie has excellent man-management skills. He always keeps control over the dressing room and would never allow player power to enter his club. He keeps his squad generally happy and ensures there is unity between the players/good team spirit. You get players like C.Ronaldo talking positively about Fergie, about the fatherly role Fergie has had in his life. Fergie understands psychology very well and gets 100% out of his squad over the course of the season. Even though his team is not always loaded with world beaters like R.Madrid and Barca, he instills a never-say-never winning mentality into his players which gets them to punch above their weight season after season. Is it any wonder that Man Utd are known as the comeback kings (snatching victory from the jaws of defeat)?

But the thing is that Mourinho is every bit his equal in this department and slightly better too. Mourinho is a master of psychology and also instills a winning mentality in his teams. This led Chelsea to rape the league in 04/05 and led Inter to punch above their weight in 09/10 when they won the treble. But it's the relationship he has with his players that really stands out for me. He may have a few flaws in managing some of his players and a few clashes with them but generally, Mourinho is the best in man-management department. When do you see players hugging and crying with their manager when he has to leave (Materazzi and Mourinho when Jose was about to leave Inter)? The players love to celebrate with Mourinho during/after many victories. They generally pay a lot of attention to his instructions during matches. They generally speak positively about him and have a good time around him.

After following Fergie and Mourinho over their careers, I think Mourinho just edges this section as the victor.


3) Tactical nous: Mourinho > Fergie

Spoiler:
Show
I think Mourinho is distinctively the better tactician. Don't get me wrong. Fergie is a very good tactician. Over the course of his career, Fergie's teams have been well known for their fearsome attacking ability, with a lot of emphasis on wingplay. But it is important not to forget that at Man Utd especially, his teams are generally good defensively. He has broken some defensive records, particularly with Van Der Sar, Vidic and Ferdinand. Anyone remember some his victories against Arsenal over recent years? Fergie set up Man Utd to defend deep and hit on the counter which worked very well when Ronaldo was around. I still remember the Arsenal 1-3 Man Utd match in the CL in 2009. It was ****ing hilarious. Man Utd humiliated Arsenal badly at the Emirates. I also thought Fergie was tactically spot on against Madrid in the second leg this year until Nani's red card. Madrid didn't really look like scoring anymore than their disallowed goal. But yeah. Fergie has been tactically diverse over the years. He set up his team in an ultra-attacking mode and he can set them up as a defensive counter-attacking team at other times. His subs have generally been good and have helped Man Utd winning several games over the years.

But again, Mourinho is every bit his equal and much better. Like I said earlier, Jose has managed in 4 different countries which have different styles of football. This has meant that Jose has had to adapt his tactical approach to each league. And it is common knowledge that Serie A is the most tactically demanding league in Europe, if not the world. Yet, Mourinho went there and won the league. Mourinho is very flexible with his formations and the personnel he uses. I also like the fact that Mourinho is very proactive and when his initial set up of his team isn't working, Jose doesn't waste any time in making a substitution and/or changing the formation of the team. Many of his substitutions have led to his teams gaining victory. Recently, Madrid faced Man Utd in the CL. Before Nani was sent off, Mourinho was about to bring on Benzema (a striker) since Madrid weren't threatening enough and were a goal down. But after Nani is sent off, he changes his mind and takes off his right back to put on Modric. While Modric wasn't a striker, it was still an attacking substitution and we all saw the rewards of that substitution where Modric scored a world class equaliser before Ronaldo scored the winner.

Additonally, Mourinho is very flexible with some of his tactical approaches to matches. He is capable of playing exciting, attacking football with width/wingplay (e.g. Chelsea with Robben, Duff, J.Cole, R.Madrid), narrow football (e.g. Chelsea with Ballack and Essien, Inter with Sneijder, Motta, Cambiasso), "ugly" but winning football (e.g. Chelsea against teams like Bolton), possession football whilst being direct at the same time (Porto, Inter), defensive football (e.g. Inter, R.Madrid vs Barca). He's easily the best tactician in the world right now imo. Very flexible, adaptable and competent with several formations and tactics.

It's no shame in Fergie being declared the inferior tactician to someone like Mourinho. Doesn't take anything away from the fact that Fergie is also a competent tactician.


4) Ability to build great teams: Fergie > Mourinho

Spoiler:
Show
Erm, I don't think I have to go into too much detail here. Fergie and Mourinho both have generally have a good eye for talent and hence their transfer market records are generally good. Fergie has built many great teams over the years that has led to the numerous league titles he's accumulated, in addition to two CLs. Mourinho has also built great teams in very club he's been at. He raped the PL and La Liga (once in 11/12) with Chelsea and Madrid respectively. He had no right to win the CL with Porto and Inter since they weren't as financially strong as other teams in the competition. But he delivered.

Edit: I was sleepy when I first wrote this and said Fergie was equal with Jose in this department. But Wilfred reminded me that Fergie is better than Jose in this department. Fergie's reconstruction of Man Utd can't be ignored. And bringing in youths like Giggs, Scholes, Neville who contributed towards their early league successes drums in that point. Not to forget that Fergie developed Ronaldo into the best player in the world at one point in time. So I have to give this one to Fergie.


5) Ability to rebuild teams. Fergie > Mourinho

Spoiler:
Show
What makes Fergie a very unique manager is his unmatched ability to rebuild. You ever heard "It's not how many times you fall. It's how many times you get back on your feet"? That is what Fergie has done time and time again. He has had many clubs come and snatch the PL title away from him and then Fergie will rebuild or tweak his team to win the title back and maintain successful title defences. Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City have come up at different times to try and dominate the league. But Fergie would not lie down for good. He would get back on his feet and bounce back from defeat to take his title back home where he felt it belonged. Such perserverance and endurance has led to the utter dominance over the PL by Man Utd in the last two decades and regaining the CL title almost a decade after he first won it in 1999. Absolutely legendary and inspiring.

Unfortunately, Mourinho hasn't stayed long enough at a club to truly get a gauge of his ability to rebuild his team time and time again. But the fact that he has been consistently successful in every club he has managed starting from Porto shows that he has great potential to stick to a club and rebuild new teams over a long period of time.


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?
4
reply
Pbags
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Learn how to count!

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Cable
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by Pbags)
Learn how to count!

Posted from TSR Mobile
Eh?
1
reply
Musester
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
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.
0
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
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.
17
reply
RedArrow
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(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.
Hahaa you dropped the mallet on yr head!
0
reply
Musester
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(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.
He has great tactical knowledge yet he knows very little about football? Cool.
2
reply
MattFletcher
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Mourinho
1
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by Musester)
He has great tactical knowledge yet he knows very little about football? Cool.
Not really what I said is it :rolleyes: 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.
5
reply
justinawe
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by Wilfred Little)
Not really what I said is it :rolleyes: 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.
0
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(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 ****-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.
1
reply
Musester
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
(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 ****-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?
0
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
(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?
That is a rubbish post. No argument provided.
0
reply
Musester
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Wilfred Little)
That is a rubbish post. No argument provided.
Watch the video then you ****.
4
reply
justinawe
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(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 ****-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 :rolleyes:
0
reply
aja89
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
If Mourinho stays consistently good for another ten years, then we can talk.
0
reply
username917703
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(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 :rolleyes:
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.
4
reply
_HabibaH_
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
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?
2
reply
Musester
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
Jesus. Ignorant people. Ignorant people everywhere/
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
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.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How many uni open days have you been to/did you go to?

0 (71)
28.17%
1 (40)
15.87%
2 (40)
15.87%
3 (37)
14.68%
4 (17)
6.75%
5 (20)
7.94%
6 (6)
2.38%
7+ (21)
8.33%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed