Jose Mourinho

DJS said:

Lamela did well first half but reckon he could have gotten a second yellow way he was going, so was sensible to bring Moura on for him.

Click to expand...

Qualsonic said:

I'm beginning to think that in 20, 30, 40 years Mourinho will be remembered for what he achieved at Spurs.

Click to expand...

Wizzy77 said:

I love the fact Jose has setup 2 players competing for most positions.. do not underestimate the power of 2 guys trying to outplay each other. The team WILL benefit..

Remember the days you and your mate fighting over the same chick? u bring out be(a)st everyday

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

I think the key factor has been Højbjerg fitting himself into the midfield puzzle, after a few games finding his role. Until the Chelsea game, his positioning and destructive work were OK, but his passing wasn't clicking at all. Since then, he has found his confidence that he can reach teammates with ambitious passes, such as the through ball for Aurier's (I think...?) goal yesterday.

With a defensive midfielder they can trust, the attacking players can interact with more abandon, knowing not only that they have someone backing them up if they lose the ball, but that more often than not they'll get it back if they lose it.

We can extrapolate from this to the whole general misdirection about Mourinho's "negative football". His Chelsea team never played negative football and they scored freely. His successful teams are based on a solid and organised defensive foundation and then he largely leaves his attacking players to improvise in front of that.

If the foundation is tough enough and the attacking players are good enough, then his teams play exciting, positive football. If they aren't, or if there is an injury crisis such as we had last season, they can pull back and play a tight game.

The principle is that the solid defence enables the freewheeling attack.

Click to expand...

southlondonyiddo said:

This is not correct. His teams do not play exciting, attacking football. His teams play intelligent, efficient, winning football

His original Chelsea team was probably the most efficient team I’ve ever seen. It was never exciting but the result was always inevitable

Obviously if you’ve got very good players and you’ve ground your opponents into the dirt you’re going to score a few goals

His teams don’t send you to sleep like George Grahams did but if you had to label him either negative or positive in relation to his style then it would most definitely be classed as negative

Click to expand...

SirHarryHotspur said:

Hope Jose is working on keeping Antonio quiet in our next game , he was impressive against Leicester. Looks like Antonio has 2 weeks off while Dier, Toby and Sanchez all away working hard.

Click to expand...

buckley said:

In fairness Poch.s record with signings os not a good read off the top of my head Sessegnon and Foyth pretty average .
As for Jose did I want ? no. Did I think he would be good for us ? no Would I like his style of play? no
Was I supportive of him ? yes 100%
I am now in a position where those four questions are irrelevant because I have to say I have done a 100% turn around because now my opinion is Do I want Jose ? yes Do I think he will be good for us ? yes Will I like his style of play ? yes
I am of course still 100% supportive of him .
Some would say I am a hypocrite I would say I am not to proud to admit being wrong about the man I have not been this exited about what our club could achieve since the Nicholson / Burkenshaw days .

Click to expand...

popstar7 said:

I don't think it's about players competing for the same position so they become an automatic first choice. Obviously everyone wants to start games. It's about the squad recognising that whatever we achieve will be through 18-20 players all playing a substantial role across four competitions and starting on the bench doesn't mean you won't be starting the next game. It's the City approach basically.

Click to expand...

Shadydan said:

DIer kept him really quiet post lockdown

Click to expand...

buckley said:

Lo Celso hardly payed for Poch and Tangz I dont know him but if you mean Tanganga then he is a long time youth product so if I have missed a players name it is not selective amnesia its just that his buys did not make a big enough impact to stay in my memory . I am not having a pop at Poch its just that I feel transfers were not his strong point .

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

I think the key factor has been Højbjerg fitting himself into the midfield puzzle, after a few games finding his role. Until the Chelsea game, his positioning and destructive work were OK, but his passing wasn't clicking at all. Since then, he has found his confidence that he can reach teammates with ambitious passes, such as the through ball for Aurier's (I think...?) goal yesterday.

With a defensive midfielder they can trust, the attacking players can interact with more abandon, knowing not only that they have someone backing them up if they lose the ball, but that more often than not they'll get it back if they lose it.

We can extrapolate from this to the whole general misdirection about Mourinho's "negative football". His Chelsea team never played negative football and they scored freely. His successful teams are based on a solid and organised defensive foundation and then he largely leaves his attacking players to improvise in front of that.

If the foundation is tough enough and the attacking players are good enough, then his teams play exciting, positive football. If they aren't, or if there is an injury crisis such as we had last season, they can pull back and play a tight game.

The principle is that the solid defence enables the freewheeling attack.

Click to expand...

southlondonyiddo said:

This is not correct. His teams do not play exciting, attacking football. His teams play intelligent, efficient, winning football

His original Chelsea team was probably the most efficient team I’ve ever seen. It was never exciting but the result was always inevitable

Obviously if you’ve got very good players and you’ve ground your opponents into the dirt you’re going to score a few goals

His teams don’t send you to sleep like George Grahams did but if you had to label him either negative or positive in relation to his style then it would most definitely be classed as negative

Click to expand...

davidmatzdorf said:

Perhaps the difference here is that I really enjoy watching good defending. It's heart-stirring and exciting, done well.

Click to expand...

Ionman34 said:

That is a fallacy that has been pedalled for years. His style, if you want to label it that, is to win.
If he’s up against a team where a front foot approach is necessary then that is what he adopts. If he’s up against one where a more pragmatic approach is needed then that’s what he will adopt.

It’s interesting you mention his first Chelsea team, as that is the example I use most to shoot down this “negative “ perception of Mourinho. That team blitzed teams early doors, went for the throat from the first whistle with the express purpose of getting a lead, usually with a couple of goals. The strategy then was to keep tight, not make mistakes and pick the opposition off when they did make mistakes.

That isn’t negative, it’s positive to begin with then smart from thereon.

Click to expand...