As you can see I have removed the emoji, so she will see this version
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Manager Jose Mourinho
- Thread starter paddy hotspur
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
We knew about the arrogance and his man management style, and were warned about the tactics. Most of us were hoping to be proved wrong. It hasn't happened, and instead we have a clear answer to the question of whether 'football tactics have moved on'.
We've wasted Poch's foundation, and instead of adapting his tactics to the players at his disposal, Mourinho has tried to play like prime Inter or more recently Athletico Madrid. Arguably the worst possible use of a squad heavily weighted to attacking quality.
I must admit I thought he was a good appointment at the time, but it's turned very sour. We need him out before he does too much more damage.
Same bottling losers failed Poch - facts are facts
I didn’t really want him due to the style of football but I thought well at least we will be a hard team and should pick up an FA Cup and top 4 easily. I didn’t underestimate how bad his football was or that he was a dickhead but I did underestimate how far he has declined as a manager. He is not even a shadow of his Porto former self.
From the Athletic.
Mourinho's tactics look like they're designed to absolve him of blame and put pressure on Tottenham players
Many years ago, there was a lively post-match debate on Sky Sports between Graeme Souness and Gordon Strachan.
The subject was the optimum way to defend corners, because the two Scots had just watched a team using zonal marking concede from a set piece.
Strachan was a proponent of defending zonally at corners, pointing to statistics about its increased effectiveness and explaining that it prevented attacking block-offs. Souness insisted that man-marking was a better approach. His main point, which he repeated on multiple occasions, was that “zonal marking lets players off the hook”.
Souness, whether or not he realised it, was effectively saying that his tactical preference stemmed from wanting to pin the blame for conceding on a player. If a zonal marking approach fails, the system — and therefore the manager who implements it — is considered culpable. But in a man-marking system, if someone gets outjumped by an opponent, you can point the finger directly at them.
And therefore what appeared a tactical debate was, in actual fact, nothing of the sort. It was really a debate about man-management, about the relationship between players and their boss, about the extent to which a manager must carry the can for their failings on the pitch. Strachan focused upon which was best for the team. Souness was about which was best for him.
This decade-old debate came to mind this week, in light of Jose Mourinho’s reaction to Tottenham Hotspur drawing at Newcastle United from 2-1 up with six minutes left, while permitting their highest single-game xG figure of the Premier League season so far. BBC reporter Juliette Ferrington asked Mourinho why his side keep on relinquishing leads, whereas previously his sides were renowned for hanging onto them. “Same coach, different players"
Not for the first time, a revealing answer stemmed from a question framed in light of his previous successes — Mourinho has a habit of giving more detailed answers to questions that begin with things like “Jose, as someone who has won it all…”
It would be quite possible, though, for his players to respond in kind.
To varying extents, the likes of Toby Alderweireld, Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez have previously played in a stern Spurs defence under Mauricio Pochettino. That was an entirely different style of defending, based around pressure in advanced positions and a high line.
When that defensive approach got breached, we tended to talk about the high line rather than the individuals.
It’s the same, for example, for Hansi Flick’s Bayern Munich, who used an extraordinarily high line en route to European Cup success last year. It was impossible to watch them defend against Barcelona in the last eight or final opponents Paris Saint-Germain without almost jumping out of your seat, such was the bravery of their high line. Had they conceded to PSG from a through-ball and a run in behind, Flick would have been blamed. But he would probably have accepted responsibility, for he knows that a high-risk, high-reward strategy is best for his side.
Mourinho once used that approach. Watch his triumphant Porto side throughout the Champions League knockout phase in 2003-04 and you’ll be surprised by how high his defence position themselves. These days, his defences sit deeper, dropping back to their own penalty box quickly, particularly if Tottenham have gone ahead. On multiple occasions this season, that approach has cost them. While Mourinho would explain it forms part of his attacking strategy, attempting to draw the opposition forward and give Spurs space to counter-attack into, rarely have his side constructed regular breaks to justify their deep positioning.
The thing with defending deep is that you’re asking your defenders to do more traditional defensive tasks. There are more aerial challenges inside your box, more situations where you have to stick tight to a player who is in a goalscoring position, more danger to anticipate and more blocks to be made. It also means that it’s more possible to concede goals that are not, in isolation, attributable to managerial strategy.
When Tottenham lost 2-1 away to Liverpool in December, for example, the goals came from a crazy deflection, and then a late set-piece concession (from, of course, man-to-man marking).
The first goal was unfortunate, but if you allow the opposition 76 per cent of the possession and 17 shots to your eight, there’s more chance of one finding its way into the net almost accidentally. Similarly, if you allow that much pressure, you concede more corners than you win (seven to four in this case), and there’s more chance of one leading to a goal. These things add up over time.
It is sometimes said that Mourinho is antiquated tactically; that his inability to win trophies recently is because he hasn’t adjusted strategically. There’s clearly an element of truth to that, in comparison to Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola, but his primary problem is surely his inability to command the respect of players over a sustained period of time, evidenced by sudden drop-offs in his pre-Tottenham stints with Chelsea and Manchester United.
It came as little surprise that, after Mourinho responded to Sunday’s 2-2 on Tyneside by blaming his players, some of them objected. It’s difficult to imagine many other current managers responding similarly.
But that’s logical if Mourinho’s tactical approach is also out of step with that of his contemporaries. The tactical development of football, particularly over the last couple of decades, is about universality, about particular tasks being done collectively. Modern sides press aggressively from the front and play out from the back, meaning defensive play starts with your attackers and attacking play starts in defence. Every concept is a task for the entire side.
Mourinho’s approach is more old-school. He works less than other contemporary managers on prepared attacking possession routines, preferring to allow playmakers to find solutions themselves. In a world of false nines, Mourinho has always liked true strikers such as Didier Drogba, Diego Milito and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He also likes proper defenders that belong in their own box: John Terry, Lucio, Ricardo Carvalho.
With that approach, it’s more viable to pin the blame on somebody when things go wrong. If a goal is conceded, a defender is more obviously at fault than the system. And this comes back to that Strachan-Souness debate, which demonstrated that tactical decision-making and man-management are not entirely separate concepts.
Mourinho’s reputation has never been lower, which is why he is determined to shift culpability onto his players and protect himself.
It’s entirely possible that his tactical decision-making is also geared towards absolving himself of blame.
Now, he’s fighting to prove he deserves to be in charge of Tottenham, rather than in his previous role: in a Sky Sports studio, nodding along with Souness.
Mourinho's tactics look like they're designed to absolve him of blame and put pressure on Tottenham players
Many years ago, there was a lively post-match debate on Sky Sports between Graeme Souness and Gordon Strachan.
The subject was the optimum way to defend corners, because the two Scots had just watched a team using zonal marking concede from a set piece.
Strachan was a proponent of defending zonally at corners, pointing to statistics about its increased effectiveness and explaining that it prevented attacking block-offs. Souness insisted that man-marking was a better approach. His main point, which he repeated on multiple occasions, was that “zonal marking lets players off the hook”.
Souness, whether or not he realised it, was effectively saying that his tactical preference stemmed from wanting to pin the blame for conceding on a player. If a zonal marking approach fails, the system — and therefore the manager who implements it — is considered culpable. But in a man-marking system, if someone gets outjumped by an opponent, you can point the finger directly at them.
And therefore what appeared a tactical debate was, in actual fact, nothing of the sort. It was really a debate about man-management, about the relationship between players and their boss, about the extent to which a manager must carry the can for their failings on the pitch. Strachan focused upon which was best for the team. Souness was about which was best for him.
This decade-old debate came to mind this week, in light of Jose Mourinho’s reaction to Tottenham Hotspur drawing at Newcastle United from 2-1 up with six minutes left, while permitting their highest single-game xG figure of the Premier League season so far. BBC reporter Juliette Ferrington asked Mourinho why his side keep on relinquishing leads, whereas previously his sides were renowned for hanging onto them. “Same coach, different players"
Not for the first time, a revealing answer stemmed from a question framed in light of his previous successes — Mourinho has a habit of giving more detailed answers to questions that begin with things like “Jose, as someone who has won it all…”
It would be quite possible, though, for his players to respond in kind.
To varying extents, the likes of Toby Alderweireld, Eric Dier and Davinson Sanchez have previously played in a stern Spurs defence under Mauricio Pochettino. That was an entirely different style of defending, based around pressure in advanced positions and a high line.
When that defensive approach got breached, we tended to talk about the high line rather than the individuals.
It’s the same, for example, for Hansi Flick’s Bayern Munich, who used an extraordinarily high line en route to European Cup success last year. It was impossible to watch them defend against Barcelona in the last eight or final opponents Paris Saint-Germain without almost jumping out of your seat, such was the bravery of their high line. Had they conceded to PSG from a through-ball and a run in behind, Flick would have been blamed. But he would probably have accepted responsibility, for he knows that a high-risk, high-reward strategy is best for his side.
Mourinho once used that approach. Watch his triumphant Porto side throughout the Champions League knockout phase in 2003-04 and you’ll be surprised by how high his defence position themselves. These days, his defences sit deeper, dropping back to their own penalty box quickly, particularly if Tottenham have gone ahead. On multiple occasions this season, that approach has cost them. While Mourinho would explain it forms part of his attacking strategy, attempting to draw the opposition forward and give Spurs space to counter-attack into, rarely have his side constructed regular breaks to justify their deep positioning.
The thing with defending deep is that you’re asking your defenders to do more traditional defensive tasks. There are more aerial challenges inside your box, more situations where you have to stick tight to a player who is in a goalscoring position, more danger to anticipate and more blocks to be made. It also means that it’s more possible to concede goals that are not, in isolation, attributable to managerial strategy.
When Tottenham lost 2-1 away to Liverpool in December, for example, the goals came from a crazy deflection, and then a late set-piece concession (from, of course, man-to-man marking).
The first goal was unfortunate, but if you allow the opposition 76 per cent of the possession and 17 shots to your eight, there’s more chance of one finding its way into the net almost accidentally. Similarly, if you allow that much pressure, you concede more corners than you win (seven to four in this case), and there’s more chance of one leading to a goal. These things add up over time.
It is sometimes said that Mourinho is antiquated tactically; that his inability to win trophies recently is because he hasn’t adjusted strategically. There’s clearly an element of truth to that, in comparison to Jurgen Klopp and Pep Guardiola, but his primary problem is surely his inability to command the respect of players over a sustained period of time, evidenced by sudden drop-offs in his pre-Tottenham stints with Chelsea and Manchester United.
It came as little surprise that, after Mourinho responded to Sunday’s 2-2 on Tyneside by blaming his players, some of them objected. It’s difficult to imagine many other current managers responding similarly.
But that’s logical if Mourinho’s tactical approach is also out of step with that of his contemporaries. The tactical development of football, particularly over the last couple of decades, is about universality, about particular tasks being done collectively. Modern sides press aggressively from the front and play out from the back, meaning defensive play starts with your attackers and attacking play starts in defence. Every concept is a task for the entire side.
Mourinho’s approach is more old-school. He works less than other contemporary managers on prepared attacking possession routines, preferring to allow playmakers to find solutions themselves. In a world of false nines, Mourinho has always liked true strikers such as Didier Drogba, Diego Milito and Zlatan Ibrahimovic. He also likes proper defenders that belong in their own box: John Terry, Lucio, Ricardo Carvalho.
With that approach, it’s more viable to pin the blame on somebody when things go wrong. If a goal is conceded, a defender is more obviously at fault than the system. And this comes back to that Strachan-Souness debate, which demonstrated that tactical decision-making and man-management are not entirely separate concepts.
Mourinho’s reputation has never been lower, which is why he is determined to shift culpability onto his players and protect himself.
It’s entirely possible that his tactical decision-making is also geared towards absolving himself of blame.
Now, he’s fighting to prove he deserves to be in charge of Tottenham, rather than in his previous role: in a Sky Sports studio, nodding along with Souness.
I don't know what scenario could reasonably exist where Mourinho survives the summer. We have a 1 in 6 change to finish top 4 at this point and a 1 in 5 chance of winning the League Cup.
Finishing in the Europa league places should be a given, so that should not be enough to keep him another year. Winning the League Cup would end the trophy drought but isn't enough to save Mou's job given all the other circumstances.
At this point, I imagine Levy is waiting to fire Mourinho at whatever point is cheapest from a contract standpoint if the clauses that have been batted about online are true. That screams penny wise, pound foolish, but I can't imagine even Levy believes in the Mourinho gambit at this point.
Finishing in the Europa league places should be a given, so that should not be enough to keep him another year. Winning the League Cup would end the trophy drought but isn't enough to save Mou's job given all the other circumstances.
At this point, I imagine Levy is waiting to fire Mourinho at whatever point is cheapest from a contract standpoint if the clauses that have been batted about online are true. That screams penny wise, pound foolish, but I can't imagine even Levy believes in the Mourinho gambit at this point.
What about the NINE player brought in under Jose? That’s over 1/3rd of a squad
That’s been the ENIC motto and that’s why we will continue to have a glass ceiling under them.
however, changing ownership is the hardest thing to do in football, so in the meantime, just give me a product I can somewhat enjoy.
Yep 9 new players. He made the Lo Celso deal permanent. Gave a debut toTanganga. Add in Kane, Son and Lloris who are clearly no trouble he had options not to pick the 'problem players' from Poch's time. Instead Rodon and Tanganga dissapeared for months on end, he never trusted Vini, never picked Bale, Bergwijn now getting the cold shoulder, Gedson gone already, Doherty hopeless. No one to blame but himself.
Half of those weren't his signings
The rest have been found out
It’s very rare in the modern game that a manager gets 100% “his signings” . That nonsense has to stop.
that’s on his shitty eye for talent. The manager should dictate a profile of player for the scouts to find and his is an incoherent mess.
nearly £500million between us and Utd and but he had zero input... do me a favour.
LOL - nice troll attempt
Eye gouging and bullying that lady doc out of Chelsea say otherwise. Not a good guy.
Exactly my thoughts. I was kind of nervous about the appointment and thought it drastic but also that Mourinho should be backed to see what he could do. I was expecting a functional and rather ugly team that would get top four and a cup. Feel like it's failed on its own merits.
For some of you, Jose could slap your wife across the face and you’d just blame your wife for not kneeling down before His Majesty.
He was always an awful appointment. Cheque book defensive manager signs for team with traditions and expectations of playing good football and a chairman who won’t spend and is actually on record saying it is never going to be his approach.
This, although I thought he’d declined big time, his teams always play awful football though so hard to guage. Even though I thought all that, I consoled myself that we’d prob win something, as he always does however bad his teams are.
Even with an impending cup final I'm left thinking there is no chance of that trophy and everything that went before will have been ruined. Think Levy will prob have to go through another 10 year cycle or so to get back to the point where he’s only really unhappy with how much someone wants to pay for us, instead of raging as he must be with our worth and himself now.
Last edited:
I completely agree... but look how far trump got.
Bullying, power, and luck can play a huge role in success just like good qualities like hard work and excellent strategy.
Not saying mourinho is anywhere near as awful as trump but he has some similar luck, bullying and narcissistic tendencies.
I’m sure that they have!!
Agreed but Poch also culpable