Mourinho

Originally Posted by wonky no

exactly, that was what i said but if you put shit football on the menu its only going to get worse.


i think carlos Q will get a chance tbh truthful

not a chance after his failures with real madrid and portugal.

We've still got a manager, and he's in no hurry to leave as far as we know. As long as his health is fine he could be around for 4 or 5 years yet.

Originally Posted by Sandman

We've still got a manager, and he's in no hurry to leave as far as we know. As long as his health is fine he could be around for 4 or 5 years yet.

exactly no one can replace him.... no one

5 more years of SAFO works for me

Originally Posted by rafabio

and get this one straight. all the great managers now including fergie and wenger look to be tight at the back and counter attack.

capello, lippi, benitez, mourinho, hiddink and ancelotti are all primarily great tacticians and work with a defensive system as base of their plans.

the only ones who differ from this are barcelona managers. But seeing that they can invest everything they earn every year, its not a problem for them if one manager is not working. they can always change and back him in transfer market.

anyone one who says we can take the risk of lumbering in mid table for a few years so that we have long term stability is a fool. we now have 5 teams who can realistically aim for top 4 places. competition is fierce and it may be about to increase with DIC still looking for a club to buy.

that's %@#$&!s. of course every manager wants a strong defensive line but there are big differences in how teams line up, how they organise themselves, how many players they leave up the field, how narrow they play etc etc. can't believe anybody would seriously suggest that all top teams' tactics are all the same ffs.

oh, and barca are far from a gung-ho attacking side. they're a possession-orientated side whose success is based, imho, at least as much on their highly aggressive and effective pressing play all over the field without the ball as on their attacking creativity. that's a very different approach to chelsea or united, for example.

the most attacking sides in europe at the moment are probably sevilla, wolfsburg, bremen, benfica, ajax, maybe arsenal and spurs. porto and genoa also. that's not the best sides or the most entertaining, but the sides which throw most men forward and take the most chances at the back.

to suggest that all sides play essentially the same way is just silly imo and ignores a hundred and more years of football history.

Any manager will sink if they replaced SAF. We could win 20 games on the bounce and as soon as we lost one people would be saying "Fergie would have won us that game". You need a very strong character with amazing confidence or someone the fans would be happy to allow them the time to build.

The only experienced manager who could cope would be Mourinho and the only others who the fans wouldn't get on the back of are Solskjaer or Cantona. Solskjaer is training at United. If you think his ultimate ambition isn't to manager us one day you're wrong.

It didn't work out too badly for Barcelona, promoting from within so I'd be tempted to give Ole a shot unless SAF's retirement happened at the same time Mourinho became free. We don't want him at Liverpool or City so I'd give it Jose to take him off the market. Also Liverpool would never appoint an ex-United manager so it would probably mean never joining the murderers.

Originally Posted by Spiffy

Any manager will sink if they replaced SAF. We could win 20 games on the bounce and as soon as we lost one people would be saying "Fergie would have won us that game". You need a very strong character with amazing confidence or someone the fans would be happy to allow them the time to build.

The only experienced manager who could cope would be Mourinho and the only others who the fans wouldn't get on the back of are Solskjaer or Cantona. Solskjaer is training at United. If you think his ultimate ambition isn't to manager us one day you're wrong.

It didn't work out too badly for Barcelona, promoting from within so I'd be tempted to give Ole a shot unless SAF's retirement happened at the same time Mourinho became free. We don't want him at Liverpool or City so I'd give it Jose to take him off the market. Also Liverpool would never appoint an ex-United manager so it would probably mean never joining the murderers.

it has to be Ole, end of, but hopefully not for a few years yet

Originally Posted by borsuk

that's %@#$&!s. of course every manager wants a strong defensive line but there are big differences in how teams line up, how they organise themselves, how many players they leave up the field, how narrow they play etc etc. can't believe anybody would seriously suggest that all top teams' tactics are all the same ffs.

oh, and barca are far from a gung-ho attacking side. they're a possession-orientated side whose success is based, imho, at least as much on their highly aggressive and effective pressing play all over the field without the ball as on their attacking creativity. that's a very different approach to chelsea or united, for example.

the most attacking sides in europe at the moment are probably sevilla, wolfsburg, bremen, benfica, ajax, maybe arsenal and spurs. porto and genoa also. that's not the best sides or the most entertaining, but the sides which throw most men forward and take the most chances at the back.

to suggest that all sides play essentially the same way is just silly imo and ignores a hundred and more years of football history.

not 100% same, yeah they have tactical variations but the fundamental is the same. capello, lippi, benitez, mourinho, ancellotti all these guys have won trophies by having mainly a defensive setup, a good counter attacking game and a superb possession game. did you watch real madrid or roma under capello? italy and juve under lippi? valencia and liverpool under benitez? porto, chelsea and inter under mourinho?

the underlying basics and their philosophy is the same. yeah sure they have different variations of building upon it, that is never under debate at all.

Remember the main thing is to win. Football is not about scoring goals, its about who scores more. let it be even by a single goal margin.

and anyway I though porto and chelsea till robben, cole and duff were at their peak were pretty good to watch.

Originally Posted by rafabio

not 100% same, yeah they have tactical variations but the fundamental is the same. capello, lippi, benitez, mourinho, ancellotti all these guys have won trophies by having mainly a defensive setup, a good counter attacking game and a superb possession game. did you watch real madrid or roma under capello? italy and juve under lippi? valencia and liverpool under benitez? porto, chelsea and inter under mourinho?

the underlying basics and their philosophy is the same. yeah sure they have different variations of building upon it, that is never under debate at all.

Remember the main thing is to win. Football is not about scoring goals, its about who scores more. let it be even by a single goal margin.

and anyway I though porto and chelsea till robben, cole and duff were at their peak were pretty good to watch.

porto were awful. the chelsea side ranieri built were entertaining, the longer maureen was there the worse they got to watch - and that was with unlimited funds available to build whatever team he wanted.

there are huge differences in how teams play. huge differences. look at the rampant sides united have turned out for twenty years. not every game, not every season, sure, but you can see fergie's philosophy there: using width, high tempo, a commitment to attack, a willingness to nurture creativity and the maverick player and a never give up attitude which is unmatched in football. maureen's chelsea were the antithesis of this in many ways: physical athleticism prioritised over creativity, the individual sacrificed to the team, a commitment to not lose and a mard-arsed attitude whenever things got tough.

three or more years of fergie please - the more the better - and then maybe blanc, ole, bruce etc will have staked a claim. and if not them, maybe somebody like martinez will come through.

Originally Posted by borsuk

porto were awful. the chelsea side ranieri built were entertaining, the longer maureen was there the worse they got to watch - and that was with unlimited funds available to build whatever team he wanted.

there are huge differences in how teams play. huge differences. look at the rampant sides united have turned out for twenty years. not every game, not every season, sure, but you can see fergie's philosophy there: using width, high tempo, a commitment to attack, a willingness to nurture creativity and the maverick player and a never give up attitude which is unmatched in football. maureen's chelsea were the antithesis of this in many ways: physical athleticism prioritised over creativity, the individual sacrificed to the team, a commitment to not lose and a mard-arsed attitude whenever things got tough.

three or more years of fergie please - the more the better - and then maybe blanc, ole, bruce etc will have staked a claim. and if not them, maybe somebody like martinez will come through.

don't know which porto you saw, but they were pretty good against us in the 2 legs. They were entertaining in the quarters and semi's. blew monaco comfortably in the final, 3-0 ( the same monaco which had beaten real and chelsea )

ranieri's team were entertaining because they just threw bodies forward. mourinho's chelsea were better because there was a superb balance between attack and defence. Their counter attacking style was superb.

bruce? ffs. There could be a chance with ole or blanc but le guen was as good in france if not better than blanc. this is the thing, there is a risk factor involved with all these new names. mourinho is proven. he will get trophies.

Originally Posted by wonky no

we could get moureen in though and be bored shitless every week until he realises its hard as £#%&! to sign the worlds elite when you are in debt and are based in the north west and £#%&!s off with his ego intact.

I doubt the Inter fans were bored shitless when they hammered Milan 4-0, or when they won 5-0 at Genoa or beat Palermo 5-3.

Mourinho's mind-numbing football has brought 29 goals in 12 games in Serie A so far this season.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I doubt the Inter fans were bored shitless when they hammered Milan 4-0, or when they won 5-0 at Genoa or beat Palermo 5-3.

Mourinho's mind-numbing football has brought 29 goals in 12 games in Serie A so far this season.

We've scored 23 goals in 12 games. Those extra 6 goals, couple against Chelsea, Liverpool and Burnley and the table would look very different.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

I doubt the Inter fans were bored shitless when they hammered Milan 4-0, or when they won 5-0 at Genoa or beat Palermo 5-3.

Mourinho's mind-numbing football has brought 29 goals in 12 games in Serie A so far this season.

I hate this myth about mourinho's teams play shit boring football. they have been very good to watch at times. right from porto to chelsea to inter.

and there is one interesting thing about mourinho's teams. they seem to hammer their main rivals from time to time. liverpool 1 - 4 chelsea ( worst defeat for liverpool at anfield for around 30 year innit? ), chelsea 3 - 0 united. Porto used to hammer benfica and lisbon too. now its the same with inter in italy.

I would take that tbh.

scoring goals in the worst serie a for twenty years is hardly evidence of anything much tbh.

porto were £#%&!ing awful against us, dull, negative, dirty, cheating (see a pattern there) @#%&!s to a man.

chelsea were horrible to watch under mourinho. physical, athletic football (complete with dodgy blood-spinning etc) with the flair players rapidly £#%&!ed off or left on the bench. anti-football through and through.

as i remember it there weren't too many people suggesting they were such great entertainers when he was there. how a little bit of time (and the thought he might come to old trafford) changes things. not for me. he was a tiresome arrogant @#%&! then and he's a tiresome arrogant @#%&! now (see some of his behaviour in italy over the last couple of years), and his teams are negative and horrible to watch. pissing all over an appalling ac milan side means nothing if you then have barca come to your place and play like a non-league team at old trafford dreaming of avoiding a thrashing - and then celebrate like you've proven a £#%&!ing point :shakehead:

it's never about the football with mourinho. it's always about mourinho. the football is always secondary. and entertaining is a long long way behind getting results.

Originally Posted by borsuk

scoring goals in the worst serie a for twenty years is hardly evidence of anything much tbh.

porto were £#%&!ing awful against us, dull, negative, dirty, cheating (see a pattern there) @#%&!s to a man.

chelsea were horrible to watch under mourinho. physical, athletic football (complete with dodgy blood-spinning etc) with the flair players rapidly £#%&!ed off or left on the bench. anti-football through and through.

as i remember it there weren't too many people suggesting they were such great entertainers when he was there. how a little bit of time (and the thought he might come to old trafford) changes things. not for me. he was a tiresome arrogant @#%&! then and he's a tiresome arrogant @#%&! now (see some of his behaviour in italy over the last couple of years), and his teams are negative and horrible to watch. pissing all over an appalling ac milan side means nothing if you then have barca come to your place and play like a non-league team at old trafford dreaming of avoiding a thrashing - and then celebrate like you've proven a £#%&!ing point :shakehead:

it's never about the football with mourinho. it's always about mourinho. the football is always secondary. and entertaining is a long long way behind getting results.

If the leagues so shit why is Inter's GD so much better than anyone else's?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...es/default.stm

Originally Posted by borsuk

scoring goals in the worst serie a for twenty years is hardly evidence of anything much tbh.

porto were £#%&!ing awful against us, dull, negative, dirty, cheating (see a pattern there) @#%&!s to a man.

chelsea were horrible to watch under mourinho. physical, athletic football (complete with dodgy blood-spinning etc) with the flair players rapidly £#%&!ed off or left on the bench. anti-football through and through.

as i remember it there weren't too many people suggesting they were such great entertainers when he was there. how a little bit of time (and the thought he might come to old trafford) changes things. not for me. he was a tiresome arrogant @#%&! then and he's a tiresome arrogant @#%&! now (see some of his behaviour in italy over the last couple of years), and his teams are negative and horrible to watch. pissing all over an appalling ac milan side means nothing if you then have barca come to your place and play like a non-league team at old trafford dreaming of avoiding a thrashing - and then celebrate like you've proven a £#%&!ing point :shakehead:

it's never about the football with mourinho. it's always about mourinho. the football is always secondary. and entertaining is a long long way behind getting results.

we did the same thing over 180 mins of football with barcelona and then we all thought fergie was a genius

Originally Posted by Spiffy

If the leagues so shit why is Inter's GD so much better than anyone else's?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...es/default.stm

because the league is poor and inter have spent big in comparison to the rest of the league.

juve - in crisis for years and only just getting back up
milan - terribly aged team who have lost their best player and their manager
roma - in crisis, lost their manager, still in thrall to totti's pernicious influence
fiorentina - a work in progress, improving but still a way off and lacking quality in quite a few positions


it really is a poor league compared to what it once was. inter are very much the best of a bad bunch.

Originally Posted by borsuk

scoring goals in the worst serie a for twenty years is hardly evidence of anything much tbh.

porto were £#%&!ing awful against us, dull, negative, dirty, cheating (see a pattern there) @#%&!s to a man.

chelsea were horrible to watch under mourinho. physical, athletic football (complete with dodgy blood-spinning etc) with the flair players rapidly £#%&!ed off or left on the bench. anti-football through and through.

as i remember it there weren't too many people suggesting they were such great entertainers when he was there. how a little bit of time (and the thought he might come to old trafford) changes things. not for me. he was a tiresome arrogant @#%&! then and he's a tiresome arrogant @#%&! now (see some of his behaviour in italy over the last couple of years), and his teams are negative and horrible to watch. pissing all over an appalling ac milan side means nothing if you then have barca come to your place and play like a non-league team at old trafford dreaming of avoiding a thrashing - and then celebrate like you've proven a £#%&!ing point :shakehead:

it's never about the football with mourinho. it's always about mourinho. the football is always secondary. and entertaining is a long long way behind getting results.

Out of interest, in how many of the last six or seven seasons would you say United have played consistently entertaining, free-flowing football? Had Fergie taken over in 2003, for example, do you think his reputation in terms of the football he practises would be the same, especially given his pragmatism when it comes to the big games? You mention Inter's approach against Barcelona, but our set-up against Barca in 2008 was easily the most defensive I've ever seen from a United side.

Originally Posted by rafabio

we did the same thing over 180 mins of football with barcelona and then we all thought fergie was a genius

it was a poor pair of performances, i agree. would you like that to be common fare? i wouldn't.

Originally Posted by S/Side.Red

Out of interest, in how many of the last six or seven seasons would you say United have played consistently entertaining, free-flowing football? Had Fergie taken over in 2003, for example, do you think his reputation in terms of the football he practises would be the same, especially given his pragmatism when it comes to the big games? You mention Inter's approach against Barcelona, but our set-up against Barca in 2008 was easily the most defensive I've ever seen from a United side.

i agree to an extent but for most of that time we were entertaining and adventurous. 05-06 in paricular (iirc) we were superb to watch, with saha in full flow and ronaldo playing consistently wide. 07-08 we were great, despite the barca semis. i think fergie has a certain way to play barca that he thinks makes sense, unfortunately, but we were very good last year against porto, inter and arsenal. in fact, i'd say we played much of our best football in the champions league last year.

i think we're in something of a transition, inevitable with the giggs generation growing old together - the second wave, if you like, after beckham, butt (and keane). good though berbatov is, i think fergie will be looking for a genuine no 9 to add to the squad asap. it's a glaring gap atm and the source of much of our problems imo.

the point is, though, that fergie's teams might sometimes play in a boring way, or have poor periods. mourinho's teams are built to play that way.

as i said, when chelsea were actually playing under mourinho and we could watch them every week in the premier league there weren't exactly queues of people lining up to praise him for his interpretation of the beautiful game.

Originally Posted by borsuk

it was a poor pair of performances, i agree. would you like that to be common fare? i wouldn't.

if we could win against barcelona and win the champions league, I would take that every time instead of pretty football.