Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The 2022-2023 Football Thread
- Thread starter Scepticalscribe
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He is basically doing the same as what Ralf Rangnick did, pouring scorn on the players after poor performances and look what happened to Rangnick. It's as though Conte is taking pointers from Rangnick playbook, coming to the end of your contract with the club giving no clear sign of what they plan to do so you decide to give it all you've got and that is exactly what Rangnick did with United. The club would not commit early to a new contract so Rangnick told the football press just what he thought of the clubs owners, the directors, the players and how the club was being run. Basically he told the truth as to what was going on behind closed doors and Conte seems to be doing the same.
For all intents and purposes Man United should have lost that game but for some reason Fulham decided to go full ham (short for hammer) and make a right mess of things. As for the sending off, I just goes to show how despicable premier league players have got. It was a deliberate handball by the Fulham player who thought he'd got away with it but when VAR stepped in to tell the ref, the player went all rage towards the ref because it's very obvious the player was angry that the ref changed his decision because he knew the ref had not seen the handball and called for a corner but VAR stepped in, told the ref something else was wrong which the ref looked at, noticed the handball and sent the player off. Disgraceful behavior by the Fulham player in my opinion.
Edit: Grammatical changes made because it was bothering some people.
Edit: Grammatical changes made because it was bothering some people.
Last edited:
Conte is pulling a real Jose Mourinho, blaming everyone but himself on his way (presumably) out the door. There was a sizable chunk of people who wanted United to hire him last season — I was so relieved that didn't happen.
Rangnick's time was pretty disastrous, but he came into an impossible situation where the players had already downed tools, an interim coach would have no real authority over them, and the boardroom wouldn't do anything of note to improve the club under his watch. I think the hard truths he told were actually pretty valuable in the long run.
Fulham really have no excuse for yesterday. In the age of VAR, you can't go all Thierry Henry and clear the ball off the line with your hand. To be fair, Willian knew it and didn't protest his red card himself. Mitrovic is going to get himself a nice, long ban. Luckily, Fulham seems to be sufficiently separated from the relegation fray.
United needs much better midfield depth, and McTominay has to be sold this summer — simply not good enough.
Rangnick's time was pretty disastrous, but he came into an impossible situation where the players had already downed tools, an interim coach would have no real authority over them, and the boardroom wouldn't do anything of note to improve the club under his watch. I think the hard truths he told were actually pretty valuable in the long run.
Fulham really have no excuse for yesterday. In the age of VAR, you can't go all Thierry Henry and clear the ball off the line with your hand. To be fair, Willian knew it and didn't protest his red card himself. Mitrovic is going to get himself a nice, long ban. Luckily, Fulham seems to be sufficiently separated from the relegation fray.
United needs much better midfield depth, and McTominay has to be sold this summer — simply not good enough.
Conte's conduct suggests that he is daring Spurs to fire him, and that, mentally, psychologically, he has already walked away from the club.
Fulham imploded spectacularly, but were the better team until then.
Fulham imploded spectacularly, but were the better team until then.
This is why i've never been sold on Mourinho and Conté. Stubborn and don't adapt to developing circumstance and then mouth off when things don't go their way. Chequebook managers.
Great managers like SAF, Ancelotti, Klopp, Wenger etc adapt to their circumstances and know how to use what resources they have to work miracles. They also develop/improve players.
So it's not the way you wanted it to go. So what, adapt and do your job.
SAF still won the EPL with arguably his weakest Utd squad in his last season
Wenger maintains UCL football whilst working on shoestring budget
Ancelotti has won something in every major division in europe
Klopp basically used the same team to win 7 trophies in 5yrs. Worked with a smaller budget at Dortmund...still won something
Conte and Mou meanwhile leave behind toxic discontent almost everywhere they go after moaning. Mou less so, but similar ilk
Great managers like SAF, Ancelotti, Klopp, Wenger etc adapt to their circumstances and know how to use what resources they have to work miracles. They also develop/improve players.
So it's not the way you wanted it to go. So what, adapt and do your job.
SAF still won the EPL with arguably his weakest Utd squad in his last season
Wenger maintains UCL football whilst working on shoestring budget
Ancelotti has won something in every major division in europe
Klopp basically used the same team to win 7 trophies in 5yrs. Worked with a smaller budget at Dortmund...still won something
Conte and Mou meanwhile leave behind toxic discontent almost everywhere they go after moaning. Mou less so, but similar ilk
Last edited:
Do not blame managers for being 'cheque book managers' because they were hired on the basis of that. Every club that hired Mourinho knew EXACTLY what they were getting and he has done EXACTLY that at every club but when the clubs stopped doing what he asked that is when it all stopped working.
What you have described is basically no different to human relationships and as to how many relationships fail and that is 'They tried to change me'. When a relationship is fresh, both parties like what they see and like what they are getting. It works well for a year or so and then one of the parties want's things to move forward but to do that they feel then need to change a few things in their partner but their partner does not want to change and why should they. the other person knew what they was getting into when they got together and now as things are progressing they want to change things. Cue, the partner leaves. This is EXACTLY what happened to Mourinho. Each club brought him in for his special skill set, a skill set that the clubs knew worked and it worked at every club he's been at with the exception of Man United which is when he started to lose his special skill set (in my opinion). Mourinho was right in not wanting to change but he did so at United and it did not work. It has not worked at any club that has tried to change him.
Now as for the other managers you mentioned, that is the other side to the human relationships, those that are willing to change to make it work. Those managers changed things to make it work and it did. Mourinho was a short term specialist, give him the money and he will make the team successful. Give it two years and he should be off to another club because he does not have the skills within him to change.
Excellent post @daneoni.
@laptech: Two things come to mind:
Firstly, one of the key issues with both Mourinho and Conte (and yes, of course, the clubs that recruited them knew what they were getting) is not simply that they don't, or won't, or can't change, or cannot adapt to tactical changes in the game - this is also an issue with quite a number of other managers (David Moyes, among others, comes to mind, for example), for, it is also one of character and personality and temperament.
Whatever one might say - or argue - about David Moyes (to take him as an example of an old style manager for whom adapting to change can be a challenge), nobody, but nobody, has ever accused him of departing from a position spewing vitriol and venom at his employers or the footballers in his charge.
People such as Conte or Mourinho never own their mistakes, - and their mental landscape is a world comprised of enemies - while they contrive to depart from every professional setting in a toxic cloud of poisonous negativity.
So, it is not just that they cannot change; it is that their character, personality and temperament is corrosively negative, (a feature reflected in the football played by the teams they manage) and ultimately self-destructive.
The second thing to mention is that I am old enough to remember reading about the arrival - the original arrival - of Jose Mourinho, when he was young, and handsome, an considered a tactical breath of fresh air, and a welcome contrast to both SAF (with whom he used to share a glass of good wine - both keen connoisseurs of good wine, apparently, they took it in turn to supply the wine - after a match where their respective teams had played against one another) and Arsène Wenger.
@laptech: Two things come to mind:
Firstly, one of the key issues with both Mourinho and Conte (and yes, of course, the clubs that recruited them knew what they were getting) is not simply that they don't, or won't, or can't change, or cannot adapt to tactical changes in the game - this is also an issue with quite a number of other managers (David Moyes, among others, comes to mind, for example), for, it is also one of character and personality and temperament.
Whatever one might say - or argue - about David Moyes (to take him as an example of an old style manager for whom adapting to change can be a challenge), nobody, but nobody, has ever accused him of departing from a position spewing vitriol and venom at his employers or the footballers in his charge.
People such as Conte or Mourinho never own their mistakes, - and their mental landscape is a world comprised of enemies - while they contrive to depart from every professional setting in a toxic cloud of poisonous negativity.
So, it is not just that they cannot change; it is that their character, personality and temperament is corrosively negative, (a feature reflected in the football played by the teams they manage) and ultimately self-destructive.
The second thing to mention is that I am old enough to remember reading about the arrival - the original arrival - of Jose Mourinho, when he was young, and handsome, an considered a tactical breath of fresh air, and a welcome contrast to both SAF (with whom he used to share a glass of good wine - both keen connoisseurs of good wine, apparently, they took it in turn to supply the wine - after a match where their respective teams had played against one another) and Arsène Wenger.
Conte is throwing a tantrum. Some of his critiques are accurate....but everything he complains about was plain for all -including him - to see when he took the job. And he's been well paid. So it's pretty hard to have any sympathy.
The flaw in most peoples' approach to looking at these situations is to try and find a 'good guy.' There aren't any....in most cases all the characters are villains.
The flaw in most peoples' approach to looking at these situations is to try and find a 'good guy.' There aren't any....in most cases all the characters are villains.
Surprised it wasn't a lifetime ban, if I am honest...
www.bbc.com
PSV Eindhoven: Fan given 40-year stadium ban for attack on Sevilla goalkeeper Marko Dmitrovic
A pitch invader who attacked Sevilla goalkeeper Marko Dmitrovic during a Europa League tie has been banned from PSV Eindhoven's stadium for 40 years.
www.bbc.com
Surprised it wasn't a lifetime ban, if I am honest...
PSV Eindhoven: Fan given 40-year stadium ban for attack on Sevilla goalkeeper Marko Dmitrovic
A pitch invader who attacked Sevilla goalkeeper Marko Dmitrovic during a Europa League tie has been banned from PSV Eindhoven's stadium for 40 years.
I'll be surprised if they are able to actually enforce it for any length of time...
Yeah the article says he got in through using a ticket a friend had bought. Nothing to stop that happening again other than facial recognition. An arrest and custodial sentence might help.
The interesting thing is why Conte's outburst (which, I suspect, was a lot less "spontaneous" than it - initially - may have appeared to have been) occurred now, rather than earlier, or later in the season.
One unkind soul suggested that he stands to receive a considerably larger payout if Spurs are fourth (i.e. challenging for a CL position) when (not if) his contract is terminated, than if they are lying in a lower position in the table.
One unkind soul suggested that he stands to receive a considerably larger payout if Spurs are fourth (i.e. challenging for a CL position) when (not if) his contract is terminated, than if they are lying in a lower position in the table.
Last edited:
I have wondered if he gets a better compensation package if he "achieves" CL football. If he were sacked at the point they are theoretically qualifying for CL, he'd presumably meet that metric.
He definitely appears to be trying desperately to get sacked at the moment though.
That is exactly what I suspect may be the case, and is why I also suspect that he is seeking (very obviously) to be forced out now, rather than later in the season (when Spurs may no longer be lying fourth in the table, but may have slipped down a few places).
Last edited:
Mourinho in my opinion was a 'specialist' manager. If a club wanted to win things he was their man and he has proved it at every club he has been too prior to his sacking at Manchester United. If a club gave Mourinho what he wanted then the club was successful. He would have no doubt won the premier league in his second season with United if it not had been for a very dominant season by Manchester City, with them winning the league and United coming second. The first two seasons at all the clubs he's been too I have called the 'honeymoon' phase because after that phase you have to settle down and adjust to the day to day way of things. When Mourinho comes out of that 'honeymoon' phase is where problems start to arise. The clubs now need him to settle down and work with the players he's got because the club need to balance the books. Suddenly his avenue to get the players he wants is cut off. He begins to argue with the players, the other coaches, the club bosses because he is being asked to do something that he was not originally asked to do when he signed up to be the clubs manager. I will never fault Mourinho because after every 'honeymoon' phase at every club he's been in, he's been asked to change his ways and it just does not work no matter how hard he tries because that is just not how the man works.
History proves it, look at where his successes have come from, within the first two years at all the clubs he's been in prior to Manchester United. Look at his failures, nearly always in the 3rd year of his contract. That speaks volumes for the man's managerial style. Clubs were happy to pay for that style and when it no longer suited them he was gone.
I've edited my post. Apparently all I had to do is send a message and they would have changed it. 
Last edited:
you can delete your post now as I've edited my post. All you had to do is send me message and I would have changed it.Sorry...
Not sorry, it was driving me nuts...
Actually, while I think your analysis may have had (well, okay, did have) validity at one stage, to my mind, it no longer applies, and certainly didn't apply to his stint at Manchester United; under his stewardship, I would argue that they were not in a position to compete for the Premier League.
This is, to my mind, for two reasons: In tactical terms, Mourinho is yesterday's man, the 'pressing' revolution (to which he has failed to adapt) has made him almost obsolete. He was (briefly) a breath of fresh air when he was initially appointed as manager of Chelsea, but he hasn't evolved - neither as a manager nor as a man - since then.
Secondly, it is not simply the unattractive football he insists that his sides play, football that no longer offers anything new to his opponents, and is easily countered by those teams that are genuine title contenders; there is the matter of his toxic and corrosively negative personality.
While managers are routinely dismissed when teams are under-performing, few have left so many managerial jobs in such an explosively toxic and negative manner as Mourinho on a consistent basis. Every relationship ends poorly - and on poor terms, with him, while his reluctance to take responsibility means that he blames everyone else for his failures.
I do fault him.
His "honeymoon" periods are one thing (and, even they have come to an abrupt conclusion earlier and earlier the longer his career continues), but I cannot think of another manager whose departures are so consistently and corrosively negative (which will influence teams, and the atmosphere in the boardroom, let alone the dressing room, where Mourinho's negativity tends to find few fans after his departure), so ill-tempered, so predictably nasty.
Moreover, while Mourinho may have been seen as a "quick fix" manager, not only does he not develop or bring along teams - there is no development of youngsters, for example, - what is worse is that genuinely good players rarely flower or thrive or evolve under his management; he is so corrosively negative that almost every player actually disimproves - as a player - their self belief and confidence undermined, and their capacity to play together as a team fatally compromised. Mourinho leaves teams in a far worse position - psychologically, and, as individual players, and as a team - than they were when he was appointed as coach or manager.
In fact, the fact that the appointment of OGS (who, while a thoroughly decent man, was not really up to the job), was viewed with such manifest relief tells you everything you need to know about the toxic atmosphere and culture cultivated by Mourinho.
In any case, I think that he is a toxic individual, playing out-dated tactics, and expecting easy money to solve (or mask) problems on a very short term basis. That approach worked well for a brief period, but other teams are now wise to it, and, tactically, since then, the game has evolved, but Mourinho himself has not.
We shall have to agree to disagree on this because to me, everything your saying about Mourinho fits the mold of a traditional manager and that is what Mourinho never was and thus he should not and never be compared against the role(s) of a traditional manager. This is why in my opinion your view of the man is distorted because of who and what your comparing him against.
Most people only know Mourinho from when he arrived ar Chelsea but at FC Porto, where he won his first CL, he set up a squad with a mix of unknown cheap players from lower teams and already in the club underrated players.
He played a very attacking and entertaining football. Some of his traits were already there like his tendency to find something for the players to rally around. That usually lasts the now common known 2 or 3 years.
I have a friend which was his student when he was a physical education (don't know how you call this in the UK, it's a general subject like Maths, Physics, English or whatever) teacher and he was a very fair and liked teacher. Still today it's not common to find players (his players) that dislike him.
Along the years and starting at Chelsea he became increasingly a budget type manager and a pragmatic defensive coach. His atrocious English didn't help with what would become "the special one" thing. That really stuck.
Nowadays I think he's more or less finished, unable to evolve, seems like a relic from some football museum.
Unfortunately someday he will show up at the Portuguese National Team.
He played a very attacking and entertaining football. Some of his traits were already there like his tendency to find something for the players to rally around. That usually lasts the now common known 2 or 3 years.
I have a friend which was his student when he was a physical education (don't know how you call this in the UK, it's a general subject like Maths, Physics, English or whatever) teacher and he was a very fair and liked teacher. Still today it's not common to find players (his players) that dislike him.
Along the years and starting at Chelsea he became increasingly a budget type manager and a pragmatic defensive coach. His atrocious English didn't help with what would become "the special one" thing. That really stuck.
Nowadays I think he's more or less finished, unable to evolve, seems like a relic from some football museum.
Unfortunately someday he will show up at the Portuguese National Team.
It's no coincidence the 'best' managers also seem to have the biggest budgets. Nor is it a coincidence those same managers experience less success when they have less money to spend. You characterize it as part of Mourinho's 'style,' but 'having a gigantic budget' is not really a footballing 'style,' is it?
Mourinho is a tremendously talented manager who built a reputation on getting short-term results with huge budgets. His primary tactical approach is a carefully constructed negation of the opposition, letting talented attackers take advantage of opponents' mistakes. His approach worked exceptionally well in the 4-4-2 and tiki-taka eras before pressing became fashionable. But tactics have moved on and his era has passed now.
He also has a combative, petty, mean streak a mile wide. He rarely takes responsibility for failure, apart from the occasions he uses it as a vehicle for public self-martyrdom. Just read him in his own words over the years. Calling Wenger a 'Voyeur.' Poking the late Tito Vilanova in the eye after losing El Clasico.
In the end, Mourinho is a complicated figure and one-dimensional judgments about him as 'good' or 'bad' are inadequate. He's a part what makes football interesting I suppose, and he certainly doesn't need acolytes trying to re-write his biography as some misunderstood genius figure...that would be Bielsa.
Mourinho's style of play is now ineffective because other managers have caught up with him and adapted their teams to nullify Mourinho's tactics. No one can deny his football tactics never worked or were not effective because he has a trophy cabinet filled to the brim with evidence that proves those statements wrong. It worked and worked well for many many years across multiple clubs across multiple leagues across multiple countries, a feat only matched by a handful of managers over the generations. Is he past it? yes in my opinion because his way no longer works and when he has tried to change, that has never worked either which results in clubs getting rid of him.
Some of the best managers in the world have continued to manage well into their 70's. Mourinho is in his 60's so would think he still has some years left in him to be considered one of the greats.
I would never argue that his tactics never worked; clearly, earlier in his career, they did. When he first arrived at Chelsea, he was deemed revolutionary (albeit, revolutionary on a bottomless budget funded by an oligarch). His time at Porto is rightly respected.
However, the tactical revolution of recent years has rendered Mourinho obsolete, unless he can adapt, and he has shown few signs of being able to do so.
While that is a professional criticism, my criticism also concerns his character: For, his personality, temperament, and character come with a corrosive and truly nasty negativity, a meanness, a pettiness, and a spiteful and belligerent streak.
While he has enjoyed considerable success, most of his relatively recent departures have been extraordinarily acrimonious. Yes, managers get fired all too frequently, yet few of them leave managerial positions trailing such destructive negativity on a regular basis as does Mourinho.