Liverpool FC Forum

bigmick wrote:

GYBS wrote:Like has been mentioned by a few people - maureen had two big massive helping hands - Money and Inheriting Talented players . Without those he would not be anywhere near as successful as he was .

That must mean you haven't read the thread mate. I know it's a pain, but unless you do you will continue to make silly statements like that one.

It's absolutely understandable to not like the bloke, but to put all his success down to money or luck with taking over top players is simply miles off when you look at it. If you read from about page four onwards, you'll see what I mean. In the meantime, could I request that we don't smother the thread with one liners, I've put a wee bit of time into the research.

bigmick wrote:

GYBS wrote:There top players left after maureen went - he bought carvahlo himself and deco he went to but but he went to barce instead .

They did that's right. That said, Chelsea paid as I recall 20 million quid for Carvallio (who it has to be said has turned out to be a top buy) and no doubt Barcelona paid plenty for Deco so it'd be interesting to see how they went when he left.

That said, spending lots of money is no guarantee of success as everyone knows. It's not how much but how you spend it in many cases. It's no good having a shed load of money if you don't actually improve the first team with it.

The thing which interests me most about the whole Porto thing is he took over a team which had not won the title in a while, and without spending any money to speak of won the domestic league easily twice, and the UEFA Cup and Champions League into the process. As far as his record is concerned it really is a case of the more you dig the better it gets.

I know some people are running with this idea that Mourinho actually took over a bunch of fantastic players which any muppet could have guided to glory, but I don't buy that, simply because the facts don't indicate that was the case.

If we are to disregard any managers success at a club on the grounds that there were good players there before they got there, all kinds of managers achievements would be struck off. If for instance the team you took over had reached the final of the Champions League in the two previous seasons to your arrival, does that then diminish your achievements with that club? Of course not. Porto of course hadn't done that I'm just using it as a 'for instance". In actual fact Porto hadn't qualified, and then had got knocked out in the second group stage prior to Mourinho's arrival. After his arrival in the two years he was there they won firstly the UEFA Cup and then the Champions League, as well as the domestic title twice.

You couldn't even use the rider which some do with some managers, that he just happened to come along when his domestic league was historically weak. Could it have been for instance that Benfica and Sporting Lisbon were going through a transition then, which aided Porto in breaking the Portuguese record for the highest number of points in Mourinho's first season? Possibly, I haven't looked at that yet. The thing is though, when the team also then goes on to win consecutive European competitions, it kind of puts such arguments to bed.

When assessing the managerial performance of Mourinho during that period, it's worth remembering that whether he ordered a lampshade, a table or whatever they were pretty much all second hand because he didn't spend any money.

Anyway, I'll keep digging for you mate and see if I can find anymore out.

If two players can make a team champions Mick it must be down to the previous manager though mate. How many Houllier players started in Istanbul, I think there where nine. 

Keeping on topic, I don't think there is any doubt that Mouriho gets results and gets them quickly too! Most managers have a five year plan or at least a period of building up a squad first, he just seems to come in and starts winning titles.