-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
The Official 2014/15 Premier League Thread
- Thread starter Mumorn
- Start date
Baleforce
Ron Henry
all good points, you can't argue with anyone staying in their comfort zone, I'd probably do the same
I do think Mourinho's mental characteristics are part of his success not despite them
he does this incredibly well. in comparison, chelsea and man utd have fallen out of of the top 4 spots in recent years (with even more millions than the other 16 teams: 17 if you include arsenal), and for many years liverpool had a comparable budget (but couldnt match arsenals performances, and as a result now do not have the same budget). also the job arsenal have done this season hasnt received anywhere near enough credit. think about it: they may finish above man utd and Emirates Marketing Project. they probably wont be winning the league simply because there is just one too many teams with ridculous amounts of money. had chelsea not existed, we would probably be talking about another great managerial feat acheived by arsene wenger for finishing above city and utd to win the title.
Last edited:
i dont think his characteristics play a significant part in his teams successes. his teams would be succesful with or without his narcissism. despite what he may want to believe, he is not the common denominator in the successes of his teams. the level of finance invovled in the teams he manages are. thats why the teams he manages are pretty much just as succesfull with other managers.
mourinho is a good manager, whos managerial ability isnt too dissimilar to other managers in top european football, but he is probably the greatest self promoter. if you believe in his self promotion, like so many in england do, you end up thinking hes the best manager out there. if you dont, like i suspect many in spain and italy do, then you probably see him for what he is. an insufferable human being
Last edited:
Baleforce
Ron Henry
I think you do him a disservice there, with both Porto and Inter he won the CL despite there being much stronger squads in the competition.
Porto and Inter noticeably dropped off when he left, Chelsea and Madrid wisely appointed a manager of the same class in Ancelotti to keep the success going.
I think an argument can be made that his breaking of Barca's run of titles had as much to do with him getting under the skin of guardiola as it did with anything he did with the Madrid squad.
Mr_B
Niko Kranjcar
how soon till we hear "howe for england", 12000 capacity won't really impress Scudamore et al.
Books give them a sporting chance to stay up, I think they'll have a good early run and be in the top 10 in october and then fade
And if my auntie had b*llocks...
Why not go one further and say if Wenger had no competition outside of Man Utd for the past 10 years he may have added to his 3 league titles? Might have even fluked a european trophy
The cl win with porto was very good. but it is a cup competition after all, and he had a lot of luck. noteably getting to play monaco in the final. but a great acheivment nonetheless.
him not having one of the best squads during his time at inter is utter gonad*s. and he likes to spin this story to the media. julio cesar, lucio, zanetti, maicon, cambiasso, walter samuel, etoo, sneijder, thiago motta, milito, materazzi, chivu, zlatan and even a young balotelli. its incredible that people actually beleive mourinho when he tries to convince them of his inter side having been massive underdogs. the only way in which this inter side were underdogs was in their dire defensive style of play. everything else about them was as good as any other team in elite european football. their owner at the time (moratti) allowed mourinho to spend loads, and they lost a lot of these players immediately after he left. hence their lack of success since. they are still feeling the financial burden of mourinho's expenditure today.
also, roberto mancini was just as succesful domestically at inter. mourinho basically took over a mancini side that was already head and shoulders better than anyone else in italy.
and i dont think its right to give him too much credit for his work at real madrid. he left there having been deemed relatively unsuccesful in the eyes of the president, spanish media, and fans. basically had the biggest budget ever in world football. smashed 2 world record transfer fees. had 2 players in his side that were some of the most expensive players in prem history (di maria, ozil), but were not key players for him due to the squad strength/dpeth of real madrid. yet after all this, he couldnt even manage to be the best side in spain let alone europe.
its funny how we seem to rate self promoters over genuinely good managers in england. mourinho, redknapp, rodgers to name a few
but thats exactly my point. too much credit is given in football to whoever wins, and not enough to the others.
for example, a team that comes 2nd in a supremely tough season will not be praised for their work as much as a team who wins in an easy year, despite having produced a better standard of work. unfortunately, football analysis is relatively simplistic. and so people just assume that anyone who wins must be great whilst those who dont must be rubbish.
if there was 20 alex fergusons, three would still get relegated. and those three would no doubt be blamed for a lack of tacitcal nouse, whilst the ferguson who won would be praised for his tactical nouse. basically, i think wenger is only getting the stick he does simply because his team arent winning. had his team been winning, i think the praise for him would be going through the roof. they guy is an exceptional manager who produces an unmatched level of consistency at the highest level. he just doesnt get the praise that he deserves because football/sport has a tendency to overally congratulate the winners at the expense of others. which is fair enough, because i guess thats what competing in an athletic area is all about. but mourinho and wenger arent competing are they? theyre not the atheltes. theyre just managers. and so i think this is where football is wrong. its not like 2 tennis players competiting on an even playing field. theres a mismatch of resources that football seems to ignore when judging the work of managers imo.
mourinho has convinced you inter were massive underdogs vs those sides with his self promotion and the tactics he employed. are you seriously suggesting that list of players could be an underdog in any scenario? he just got a bunch of worldclass players to adopt the tactics of an underdog side. and then proceeded to tell everyone that his side werent so good, but could win with his tictacs. hes a clown who likes to take credit off the players, who actually deserve it.
real won la liga once and the cup once in three years with mourinho after breaking all sorts of transfer records.
i agree that mourinho is just a better version of harry who inturn is just a better version of rodgers though
Baleforce
Ron Henry
i'm seriously suggesting that the excellent squad he had wasn't as excellent as the ones at Barca or Bayern, or even back then United
Barca had been imperious for three seasons, he broke that, yes he broke all sorts of transfer records but when you go against a side like Barca with the talent they had you can't do it on the cheap
he's a great manager, who brings success wherever he goes, he has his methods, but they work, and you don't get bonus points for style, as Lombardi said, "if its not all about winning then why do they keep score?"
Barca had been imperious for three seasons, he broke that, yes he broke all sorts of transfer records but when you go against a side like Barca with the talent they had you can't do it on the cheap
he's a great manager, who brings success wherever he goes, he has his methods, but they work, and you don't get bonus points for style, as Lombardi said, "if its not all about winning then why do they keep score?"
Last edited:
braineclipse
Willie Hall
You defend Wenger constantly because he's working on a lower budget than the other 3 "top 4 clubs". You go on and on about money being the decisive factor.
When Inter won the CL in 09/10 they were 9th in the Deloitte Football Money League. Closer to us (in 12th) than the top teams. Not even going to bother looking up Porto in their winning season.
Inter did have a £44m net spend in the 08/09 season, but made a £12m profit in the 09/10 season according to transfermarkt. That's an average net spend of £16m over his two seasons at Inter. How would you describe Wenger's last couple of seasons in the transfer market if you're describing that as spending "loads"?
At Real he finished ahead of Pep Guardiola's Barcelona. If anyone honestly try to think back to the kind of challenge that was when he took over I don't think that should be overlooked.
the deloitte table is irrelevant. its just a table listing teams by revenue. and its probably not even that accurate. some teams dont reinvest all that revenue, whilst others spend beyond their income levels. in the case of inter milan, they spent well beyond what they were making. transfer fees is one thing, but look at the wages of those players. most of these players were in their prime. with little resale value. and a number of key players were purchased pre mourinho. this is an example of a club who spent so much beyond their means, that they probably have no chance of reaching the elite tier of european football for at least another decade (barring a buyout from an oligarch).
you have to understand that the deloitte table ≠ ranking of teams in order of investment levels. youre making the assumption that all football club owners have the same level of desire to win at all costs. in which case, the deloitte table would be more relevant in explaing results. but this simply isnt the case.
you have to understand that the deloitte table ≠ ranking of teams in order of investment levels. youre making the assumption that all football club owners have the same level of desire to win at all costs. in which case, the deloitte table would be more relevant in explaing results. but this simply isnt the case.
he is a great manager, but its the financial backing that brings success wherever he goes.