Chelsea did have a couple of seasons to settle before Mourinho joined, plus they were a few better team before their money came in than City were before theirs. Chelsea were already a team winning a few cups. Porto was probably his best acheivment given that in European Teams they are a relatively small club but it's more accurate to compare their time in the same league, in my opinion. I think Mourinho is tactically the best Manager there is, I think they are both equal in terms of motivation and getting the best out of their players, but I think Sir Alex is better when it comes to building a winning team. The only team Mourinho has really built himself was at Porto. To re-build your team 4 or 5 times at the same club and still achieve success is remarkable.
Good assessment. I'd agree with most of it. I respect SAF 100% in what he's done at United and he is undoubtedly one of/the best managers of all time in terms of his overall career, but I think Mourinho is the best manager in the world.
Would Mourinho be able to turn a club into one of the biggest in the World and keep them at the top level for 20 years? I guess we'll never know!
Hmm, so you're saying going from team to team and winning trophies in abundance everywhere you go is easier than staying at one place and building a great side?
It can be easier because most teams see an improvement when a Manager first takes over a club but then that improvement often fades away. If a Manager stays at a club for a very long time he also has to work through the tough periods, that all clubs suffer at sometime, and rebuild the team into a winning side. As I said, the only team Mourinho really built himself was at Porto. At Chelsea, and particulary Real Madrid and Inter Milan, Mourinho took on someone else's team. He got a lot more out of those players than the previous Managers were able to but he didn't build those sides himself. The only time I can remember Mourinho staying at a club long enough to see a tough period was with Chelsea and before he could re-build his side he left.
In his 3rd and last full season his side weren't so successful and he didn't manage to get them back to a title winning side before he left half way through the following season.
The current squad now, I still class as Mourinhos. Ask any other Chelsea fan they'll tell you the same, he left a big mark on this club and will forever be remembered. We only had Roman for one year before Jose.
That's now a problem for Chelsea because you haven't replaced the players who are past their best. I think it's going to take a spending spree to get Chelsea back to the level they were at 5 seasons back.
I thought the conversation was elvolving, sorry.... Pretty sure most of your team under Mourinho were already at the club when he took over.
Very true - I made the point before that I think the reason so many managers have failed after Mourinho is that they have just stuck with his squad with only minor tweaks and not put their own mark on the team. Mourinho spent over £200 million gross and £150 million net whilst at Chelsea, so it's only natural he's left such a big mark - Drogba, Essien, Ferreira, Cole, Malouda, Mikel, Kalou, Alex (IIRC), Ballack and Carvalho were all signed by Mourinho, who also created roles for players such as Lampard and Terry who weren't performing at a world class level before he arrived. Heck, SAF has only spent around £200 million net in 25 years at Utd so you can see how much of an impact Maureen had from that. Mourinho is one of the great managers, can't deny that. But then he's had a financial advantage in the league at every club he's been at - even though Porto were relatively poor I think they were the richest club in Portugal at the time. It'd be interesting to see how Mourinho did if he was dropped into a mid table / relegation candidate and told he had a very limited budget. But then given how well he's done at the big clubs I think there's little chance of that! P.S. I am aware that talking about net spend makes me sound like a scouser
