What's new

Jose Mourinho

How do you feel about Mourinho appointment

  • Excited - silverware here we come baby

    Votes: 666 46.7%
  • Meh - will give him a chance and hope he is successful

    Votes: 468 32.8%
  • Horrified - praying for the day he'll fuck off

    Votes: 292 20.5%

  • Total voters
    1,426

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
18,702
46,941
The irony, fishy, is that you’ve missed the point. Yes, Blanchflower was talking about winning with style, but the fundamental point is he was still talking about winning. He was saying it’s better to win well than win badly, not that it was better to lose well than win badly.

And even though he wrote it in 1972, he was still talking from his place as an exemplar of winning. Although the gloss had faded a little, Spurs at the time were considered one of the giants of the game because of our dominance in the 60s.

If one looks deeper into some of the things that Danny Blanchflower said, you can see that, for him, winning was the most important thing, not style.

Words such as, "We aim to equalise before the other team score. We should get our retaliation in first."

Or when asked by an interviewer what the secret to [at that point] Spurs winning every game they'd played that season. His reply was, "Most probably because in each match we have scored more goals than our opponents."

Those are the words of someone for whom winning is most important. He didn't say that the secret to winning every game had been, "we played beautiful football".

It's all well and good talking of glory and beauty and style when things are going well, but when things are going badly they're nothing but platitudes.

How about this axiom: "You should cut your coat to fit your cloth"?

At the moment, on the pitch, we are in a bad place - we're vulnerable and brittle. Right now, we need to exercise pragmatism, get our heads down and ride through the storm as best we can. If that means shithousery, so be it; if it means playing grindy football, so be it; if it means we can't celebrate hatfuls of goals every match, so be it. And if it's pragmatism that is the order of the day currently, and it is, then I can't think of a better person to bring that pragmatic approach than Mourinho.

Do you think that Blanchflower would speak glowingly of our also-ran campaigns extending nearly thirty years (the odd beacon of success notwithstanding)? Do you think he'd be waxing lyrical about reaching a Champions League final and losing (that's not an attack on Pochettino before I get dragged over the coals)? No, he wouldn't.

I have little doubt that Blanchflower would have celebrated our dynamic style under our previous manager, but he would also recognise the dire straits we're currently in and I'm sure he'd be devastated by the fact that we've won so little in the last few years.

Blanchflower was considered a true gentleman - witty, urbane, and generous. He certainly wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to be deriding his manager three months into his tenure; he wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to not give someone an opportunity to prove himself; he wouldn't be so ungentlemanly as to abuse someone at a distance (not that I'm accusing you of that, speaking generally).

Perhaps we should follow in the example he would set and remember something else the great man once said: "Ideas are funny things. They only work if you do." Maybe we should put in some work too?
Interesting stuff mate thanks for sharing but he does also say let’s not wait for the other team to die of bordem which at times is exactly what it looks like the plan is under Jose.
 

fishhhandaricecake

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2018
18,702
46,941
Sorry but the first 3 months of this season, bar the Palace game, were utterly hopeless. Each game that passed was another nail in the coffin, yet there didn't seem to be any corner on the horizon. Watching us move the ball around the pitch with no drive or intensity, only to lose it and within two passes we've conceded again. It was all very depressing and the writing was very much on the wall. We did get at least a few weeks of exciting swift attacking play with Jose before injuries set in and performances worsened.

I've said a lot on this matter now so I'm going to stop. If we are still seeing these performances and bad results in November/December then I will be fully on board the 'Jose out' brigade but until then I'm going to support him and hope he gets the tools he needs to make it work.

A lot of these performances we are seeing were similar to Jose's first season at United but he then had a summer to bring in who he needed and they were much better in the second season. Very effective in fact. Scoring something like 12 goals and conceding 1 in 4 games
Yea fair balanced points
 

McFlash

In the corner, eating crayons.
Oct 19, 2005
12,740
45,363
He said we are going to fight but I'd rather fight on the front foot, than the back foot.
I'm still giving him time, until next season at least but I will admit to wanting us to be a bit more aggressive.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,314
11,048
Well for example, is Lucas being told to spin round into the channel when we have the ball deep to provide an out ball? It's the most basic of striker's runs and one of the most valuable for the team. And yet I've literally never seen him do it once. Is it a case that they're drumming this into him in the build up to the game and he's then going out and not doing it? Because if so why is he still being selected?

Or are they just saying 'try and get on the ball and make something happen' - which by all accounts is how Mourinho coaches his forwards - ie let them work it out themselves. My overall point being, given our paucity of attacking resources it falls on the manager to come up with a plan that works for the players we have. The fear being that the accounts of Mourinho are true, and he doesn't actually have any kind of attacking strategy other than have very talented individuals and hope they do something.

Very good questions. I'm not sure I've heard Mourinho described as that kind of coach before so my guess is that Lucas, who is no good at playing how you have described, is not going to be asked to play like that. quite the opposite in fact as he seems to come deep constantly to win back the ball from their midfield.

The problem is when he wins it back, he gives it away by being poor on the ball.

I see plenty of poor passes that have nothing to do with lack of movement.
 

thebenjamin

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2008
12,164
38,545
I think overall with Jose, if he has a squad full of top players and particularly individually talented forwards, everything will be OK. But the moment he detects any kind of weakness in his own side, he will default to his fear based instincts. If you look at the 7 point plan for winning matches that was in his biography, it's there in what we're witnessing on the pitch:

1 The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2 Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3 Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4 Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5 Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6 Whoever has the ball has fear.

7 Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.


I don't know if it's possible for there to be a more different football philosophy than Poch's 'be brave' -- but certainly in appointing Mourinho, DL showed that there is not overarching football DNA in his stewardship of Tottenham. We have lurched from one extreme to the other.
 

Wheeler Dealer

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2011
6,863
12,282
The problem was, GLC, Winks and Ndombele were all awful with the ball on Saturday in the first half. What do you do then?
In their defence, we're a team that is static all over the pitch, so options backwards, forwards or sideways are limited, hence why they were either dispossessed or gave the ball away. We're about as fluid as a block of lard.
 

rez9000

Any point?
Feb 8, 2007
11,942
21,098
Interesting stuff mate thanks for sharing but he does also say let’s not wait for the other team to die of bordem which at times is exactly what it looks like the plan is under Jose.
Apologies for having to criticise again, but I feel you've failed to grasp the point. He was saying it's better to win without waiting for the opposition to die of boredom than to win whilst waiting for the opposition to die of boredom. He wasn't saying it was better to lose well than win badly.

Blanchflower was always about the winning. Given the choice, he would pick winning over losing every time, regardless of style. Winning well was the best outcome, sure, but still winning was most important. Losing well was not what he advocated. At all.

We should also avoid donning the rose-tinted specs when looking back at those times. I didn't get the chance to watch us personally (as I hadn't even been born yet) but I know we didn't win every game playing scintillating football. And we didn't lose every game playing (the now-favourite word on this board), 'turgid' football. We won playing ugly and we won playing silky. We lost playing silky and we lost playing ugly.

Expecting us to play beautiful football in the place we are now is like being stranded in the desert, finding stale water and refusing to drink it and demanding wine instead. It's lunacy.

When you're hungry, you eat. It doesn't matter if it's fast food or haute cuisine.
When you're thirsty, you drink. It doesn't matter if it's water or wine.
When you're cold, you put something on. It doesn't matter if it's a designer label or charity shop bought.

In this situation, the key thing is winning in whatever way we can, not expecting us to tear teams open at will and wowing the world. Win first, show off later.
 

dagraham

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2005
19,115
46,080
I think overall with Jose, if he has a squad full of top players and particularly individually talented forwards, everything will be OK. But the moment he detects any kind of weakness in his own side, he will default to his fear based instincts. If you look at the 7 point plan for winning matches that was in his biography, it's there in what we're witnessing on the pitch:

1 The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2 Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3 Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4 Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5 Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6 Whoever has the ball has fear.

7 Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.


I don't know if it's possible for there to be a more different football philosophy than Poch's 'be brave' -- but certainly in appointing Mourinho, DL showed that there is not overarching football DNA in his stewardship of Tottenham. We have lurched from one extreme to the other.

I’ve said before I’m not going to fully judge him until he’s able to mould the squad to his liking, even if I’m not enjoying what I’m seeing.

The one thing that is both surprising and concerning though is our lack of ability to defend. I can understand the tactics of retreating, conceding possession and playing on the counter, but in doing so you would have expected him to have at least made us more difficult to break down in the process.

We are not frustrating the opposition, in fact we’re giving up numerous chances for them to score no matter who we play.
 
Last edited:

TheCheeseRoom

Well-Known Member
May 14, 2019
314
1,515
Regardless of your side of the argument I think the only thing that can be proven by all of the debate here is that fans and pundits all dramatically oversimplify football management, tactics and transfers. It's so easy as a commentator to draw conclusions where there is a lack of evidence or experience. Mourinho may be in the right or completely out of his depth, but I can't help but feel that we don't currently have the evidence to decide either way.
 

Wheeler Dealer

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2011
6,863
12,282
I think overall with Jose, if he has a squad full of top players and particularly individually talented forwards, everything will be OK. But the moment he detects any kind of weakness in his own side, he will default to his fear based instincts. If you look at the 7 point plan for winning matches that was in his biography, it's there in what we're witnessing on the pitch:

1 The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2 Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3 Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4 Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5 Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6 Whoever has the ball has fear.

7 Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.


I don't know if it's possible for there to be a more different football philosophy than Poch's 'be brave' -- but certainly in appointing Mourinho, DL showed that there is not overarching football DNA in his stewardship of Tottenham. We have lurched from one extreme to the other.
Fuck me, That's frightening!
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,314
Regardless of your side of the argument I think the only thing that can be proven by all of the debate here is that fans and pundits all dramatically oversimplify football management.
Truckloads of this.
It's so fucking easy to say 'he should've played this formation/picked him etc' when you're never going to get proven right or wrong.
 

spursfan77

Well-Known Member
Aug 13, 2005
46,680
104,957
I think overall with Jose, if he has a squad full of top players and particularly individually talented forwards, everything will be OK. But the moment he detects any kind of weakness in his own side, he will default to his fear based instincts. If you look at the 7 point plan for winning matches that was in his biography, it's there in what we're witnessing on the pitch:

1 The game is won by the team who commits fewer errors.

2 Football favours whoever provokes more errors in the opposition.

3 Away from home, instead of trying to be superior to the opposition, it’s better to encourage their mistakes.

4 Whoever has the ball is more likely to make a mistake.

5 Whoever renounces possession reduces the possibility of making a mistake.

6 Whoever has the ball has fear.

7 Whoever does not have it is thereby stronger.


I don't know if it's possible for there to be a more different football philosophy than Poch's 'be brave' -- but certainly in appointing Mourinho, DL showed that there is not overarching football DNA in his stewardship of Tottenham. We have lurched from one extreme to the other.

Thanks for posting that, I didn't know any of that. Point 4 is very concerning!

Can you tell me which book it is, it would be good to put context towards it.
 

Trotter

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2009
2,169
3,312
In their defence, we're a team that is static all over the pitch, so options backwards, forwards or sideways are limited, hence why they were either dispossessed or gave the ball away. We're about as fluid as a block of lard.

The piece on MOTD shows this to be fallacy.
They showed there was always plenty of forward pass easy options to open players, our midfield just made very poor decisions. On one sequence they showed we made 10 backwards passes from their 18 yard box to our keeper to lump it 70 yards upfield to them, where on about 6 or 7 of those occasions a proactive forward pass to open players should have been the choice made
 

ultimateloner

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2004
4,539
2,149
Its so hard to win anything in this country even at your best. Most countries have 2 giant clubs and thats it. We have Liverpool and Man U. Now Chelsea and Man City have bought their way in. And then there's Arsenal as well. 5 likely potential winners before you even start.
I personally will take JMs hoof ball tactics to win but we aren't organised enough to do so.
I think everyone knows and appreciates this season is a right off and that the squad is a bad joke but people want to see a glimmer of hope, that he's getting the best out of what is available or able to see what hes trying to do but thats just not happening.
We all know Levy isnt going to hand a blank cheque in the summer and let him buy whoever he wants (£300m isnt enough, Man U) so he needs to show he can do something with what he has or it'll only end one way.
Again publicly saying you have no players, even if true, isnt a way to get the best out of your squad imo. I guarantee some will already be taking that to heart, rightly or wrongly, and thinking well fk you.
I hoped he had learnt from that. Apparently not.
Going to be painful.

Actually i think the opposite. I think it was clear that he was emphasising that 'We are making do with what we've got, so dont blame the players for shit results'. Surely this is player-protection? The one's who aren't getting sufficient mins despite this (Sess/Parrot) are probably not good enough for this level yet. Only Tanganga could argue he should start, but LB isn't our biggest problem now.
 

The Scarecrow

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2013
5,597
12,201
Thanks for posting that, I didn't know any of that. Point 4 is very concerning!

Can you tell me which book it is, it would be good to put context towards it.
I don't understand this obsession with possession football. Mourinhos Real Madrid played amazing counter attacking football.
 

matthew.absurdum

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
3,732
10,120
Sorry but the first 3 months of this season, bar the Palace game, were utterly hopeless. Each game that passed was another nail in the coffin, yet there didn't seem to be any corner on the horizon. Watching us move the ball around the pitch with no drive or intensity, only to lose it and within two passes we've conceded again. It was all very depressing and the writing was very much on the wall. We did get at least a few weeks of exciting swift attacking play with Jose before injuries set in and performances worsened.

I've said a lot on this matter now so I'm going to stop. If we are still seeing these performances and bad results in November/December then I will be fully on board the 'Jose out' brigade but until then I'm going to support him and hope he gets the tools he needs to make it work.

A lot of these performances we are seeing were similar to Jose's first season at United but he then had a summer to bring in who he needed and they were much better in the second season. Very effective in fact. Scoring something like 12 goals and conceding 1 in 4 games

Actually I remember that we were pretty bad in the second half of that palace game.
 

ultimateloner

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2004
4,539
2,149
Nothing wrong with playing on the back foot. If you do it well keep it tight and have a well drilled counter attack.

Leicester won the league doing it. Simeone has made a career of it taking on the big two of Spain successfully.

The issue is we neither have the players for it or the tactically wherewithal to have a coherent plan of action for when we attack or get the ball. We just basically immediately hoof it to a couple of tricksy lightweight attackers who are immediately dispossessed.

I just don't see how any coach could draw the conclusion given our squad strengths and weaknesses that our current tactics are the right tactics.

Even less so if we have no target man, it's a totally contradictory reaction to respond to having no forwards by hoofing to your nonexistent forward line. You have to build slow and bring in midfield runners.

True in theory but to do what you say requires defenders and MFs who are comfy on the ball (wont lose it). Who do you trust to be able to do that? the only one i trust is Lo Celso and he's not even a nailed on starter. Maybe Winks. But Dier? Our FBs? Our CBs? nah. Hoofing forward beats losing the ball in your own third.
 

dudu

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2011
5,314
11,048
In their defence, we're a team that is static all over the pitch, so options backwards, forwards or sideways are limited, hence why they were either disposed or gave the ball away. We're about as fluid as a block of lard.

That's fair sometimes but its also not true for the entire of the first half. We nicked the ball a fair few times from them in midfield and even a bit further up the pitch but failed to do much with it because of poor passing a lot of the time. Its really not as much down to lack of movement as you are making out.

Here are a few examples where I don't think movement has anything to do with us so cheaply giving the ball away. I know there are more too.

1.gif

2.gif

4.gif

5.gif
 
Top