Liverpool FC Forum

peewee wrote:well they won feck all before he came and they have won feck all since he left, but hey, if partying is more important to the players than doing what they are paid to do who am I to argue.

bigmick wrote:I think whenever you get a situation where the chairman is trying to exert an influence over the way team performs on the pitch, it's bound to end in tears. I think it's probably natural in such a scenario for the manager to try and big up his own contribution, I think it's pretty much what most people would if they were undermined in such a way by the clubs owners. We've seen for instance how Rafa reacts to a dodgy email, so Mourinho being asked to deal with an owner who wants the team to change its method must have been quite difficult for him.

Far from putting Mourinho in a bad light, I think the revelations of Makeleli do the opposite in a couple of ways. Firstly, the theory is often thrown around on here that after a successful initial period, Mourinho was unable to sustain it. Makakeli's revelations go a long towards explaining that, in that it appears that the clubs ownership were no longer satisfied with the supremely efficient and functional method which took Chelsea to record points totals in Mourinho's first two seasons. They not only wanted titles, they wanted gloss as well and the manager was expected to produce it.

That also throws new light on the theory that if Mourinho doesn't get his own way, he instantly walks. I can think of a few managers, who if the chairman was talking to the players and trying to exert influence on the way the team plays would walk after 18 minutes not 18 months. Perhaps then the self proclaimed "special one" is not quite so difficult to deal with after all.

It's also interesting as well that Makeleli is so gushing in his praise of the team spirit during those successful years, before of course Mourinho was instructed to become more expansive. No doubt this was also around the time when Shevcenko was foisted upton Mourinho, even though he clearly didn't want him. I don't mean a Rafa type "didn't want Keane at quite so much as we paid for him once he hasn't scored for a bit" style not wanting him either, he actually didn't want him in the first place. It's not so easy to manage football clubs when the chairman is telling you how to play, telling you who he'll buy, and instructing you to play them.

The other thing, which Peewee alluded to, is of course the undeniable fact that they (Chelsea) won nothing before he got there, and unless they beat Everton in the FA Cup final, nothing since. This is despite the managers who have succeeded him having the services of Drogba, Essien, Carvallo etc who were bought by Mourinho, as well as Terry, Lampard, Cech etc etc who were already there. Not only that, but they've had the funds to bring in the likes of Boswinga, Deco, Annelka etc etc. It just goes to show that money and squad strength aren't everything, ask Phil Scholari if you don't believe me. Neither are new methodologies, fitness experts, dietrician experts, baby foodologists and the like. Ask Juande Ramos if you don't believe me on that one.

No, contrary to what people try and tell you, the same things win football matches today as they always did and Mourinho understands it well. You've got to stick it in the oppositions onion bag, and try and stop them sticking it in yours quite as often. To achieve that you need desire, skill, a method, team spirit, a solid defence who'll put their bodies on the line, hard work etc. If you are thinking about doing it consistently, you need to have players who know where they are going to play, who know what they are trying to do both individually and as a team, a method which you revert to under pressure. Mourinho when left to his own devices is good at making groups of footballers do those things. While Chelsea haven't been winning anything, he's just quietly gone about his business and won the Italian title.

He'll be disappointed as they didn't break the points record over there, and no doubt some will say that as they'd won it for a couple of years previously as well, there is no achievement. They'll say that anyone can arrive in a new country, with a new football culture and instantly adapt, instantly mould a group of players together and instantly win the title, despite the World wanting you to fail. They said the same thing at Chelsea, anyone can win with all that money, with those players. How wrong they were.

We know from our own experience, that sometimes it takes managers a little longer than "instantly" to adapt to a new culture. Sometimes they never adapt, sometimes they get there eventually. Rarely though can a manager go from country to country breaking record points totals and winning titles, it's a special achievement. To say it is easy because they won it the previous season implies that anybody could replace Ferguson and they'd win the title next season. It simply isn't so.

dawson99 wrote:Mourinhos a very successful pratt, end of.

I think its more accurate now mate 

dawson99 wrote:He's a disgrace tho, theres more to life than winnig, there is honour as well

For the ridiculous sum of amount players get for winning, I'm afraid winning should be everything. 

dawson99 wrote:He's a disgrace tho, theres more to life than winnig, there is honour as well

RedShredder wrote:

dawson99 wrote:He's a disgrace tho, theres more to life than winnig, there is honour as well

In life, you are right

In football, it is about winning