 "Mourinho: the certified winner")
How does one judge if a footballer falls in the “world-class” category of talent? It isn’t something, which can really be quantified and is largely based on emotion, bias and perhaps our own experiential interpretations. Liverpool fans might think Martin Skrtel is world class or Manchester United fans could say the same about Juan Mata.
A world-class player is clearly someone who stands out in any team he plays in. Like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Thomas Mueller or Arjen Robben. A world-class player is someone who pushes his team to a higher level and somewhat guarantees victories and championships. Like Xavi Hernandez, Eden Hazard, Luis Suarez or Manuel Neuer. Players are known to divide opinions and perhaps it’s relatively easier to judge their greatness. But how does one judge a manager’s greatness? Does it stem from the number of trophies they win, or the great teams they build? Perhaps its down to how they nurture talent and the kind of legacy they leave behind?
Like players, managers too polarize opinions but no one does it more than Chelsea’s Jose Mourinho. He is often labeled arrogant, brash – some even call him the “enemy of football” – while his teams are called negative, boring and anti-football. These claims are down to a narrative that has stuck with Mourinho because of how he sets up his teams in certain “big” games. His teams are renowned to not concede too many goals and often in the Champions League – the Holy Grail for European clubs – he adopts a cautious and pragmatic approach.
Chelsea have won this year’s Premier League title with remarkable ease and consistency. Yet there have been accusations that they are a boring team and perhaps unworthy champions. Football is as much about style as it is about substance and Mourinho can blend both effectively and efficiently. Mourinho’s teams are relentless and it comes down from his skills as a manager as well as a leader. Most players who play for him are willing to put their bodies on the line for him. A sign of a true leader is when he can inspire his men to actually believe in giving their all for the cause, something which has been a trait of Mourinho’s managerial stints at all his clubs. He now averages a trophy every 34 matches as a manager.
This theory that Chelsea are boring whereas Manchester City perhaps their closest challengers till January are – or rather were -- swashbuckling is a myth. On January 1, when 19 games were left in the season, coincidentally Chelsea and City had identical stats. Both teams had same number of wins, draws and defeats. Strangely, both teams had scored the same number of goals and conceded equal number of goals. But Chelsea since then haven’t lost a single game whereas City have been beaten five times. City have conceded 16 goals and while “entertaining” fans somehow scored only two goals more than City.
It won’t be fallacious to say that if Mourinho was in the manager’s dugout at City, Arsenal or even Manchester United, there’s a good chance that any one of those clubs would be celebrating a league title triumph. All three clubs had their purple patches but didn’t manage to mount a serious assault on the title due to different reasons. All four clubs had extremely strong squads with world-class players dotting their team sheets. But only one club had Mourinho as their manager and it isn’t a surprise that they’ve ended up champions.
A world-class player is clearly someone who stands out in any team he plays in. Like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Thomas Mueller or Arjen Robben. A world-class player is someone who pushes his team to a higher level and somewhat guarantees victories and championships. Like Xavi Hernandez, Eden Hazard, Luis Suarez or Manuel Neuer. Players are known to divide opinions and perhaps it’s relatively easier to judge their greatness. But how does one judge a manager’s greatness? Does it stem from the number of trophies they win, or the great teams they build? Perhaps its down to how they nurture talent and the kind of legacy they leave behind?
Like players, managers too polarize opinions but no one does it more than Chelsea’s Jose Mourinho. He is often labeled arrogant, brash – some even call him the “enemy of football” – while his teams are called negative, boring and anti-football. These claims are down to a narrative that has stuck with Mourinho because of how he sets up his teams in certain “big” games. His teams are renowned to not concede too many goals and often in the Champions League – the Holy Grail for European clubs – he adopts a cautious and pragmatic approach.
More From This Section
Mourinho isn’t a negative or a positive manager. He is, simply put, just a great manager who knows how to win. His ability to read the opposition and prepare his teams is perhaps better than anyone else. Be it tactical ability, motivating his players or managing the media, Mourinho does it better than anyone else around. His record against top rivals during his two stints with Chelsea is nothing short of phenomenal. Out of 40 league games against Liverpool, Manchester United, Manchester City and Arsenal, Mourinho has lost just three times. If God is in the detail, then genius lies in the consistent execution.
Chelsea have won this year’s Premier League title with remarkable ease and consistency. Yet there have been accusations that they are a boring team and perhaps unworthy champions. Football is as much about style as it is about substance and Mourinho can blend both effectively and efficiently. Mourinho’s teams are relentless and it comes down from his skills as a manager as well as a leader. Most players who play for him are willing to put their bodies on the line for him. A sign of a true leader is when he can inspire his men to actually believe in giving their all for the cause, something which has been a trait of Mourinho’s managerial stints at all his clubs. He now averages a trophy every 34 matches as a manager.
This theory that Chelsea are boring whereas Manchester City perhaps their closest challengers till January are – or rather were -- swashbuckling is a myth. On January 1, when 19 games were left in the season, coincidentally Chelsea and City had identical stats. Both teams had same number of wins, draws and defeats. Strangely, both teams had scored the same number of goals and conceded equal number of goals. But Chelsea since then haven’t lost a single game whereas City have been beaten five times. City have conceded 16 goals and while “entertaining” fans somehow scored only two goals more than City.
It won’t be fallacious to say that if Mourinho was in the manager’s dugout at City, Arsenal or even Manchester United, there’s a good chance that any one of those clubs would be celebrating a league title triumph. All three clubs had their purple patches but didn’t manage to mount a serious assault on the title due to different reasons. All four clubs had extremely strong squads with world-class players dotting their team sheets. But only one club had Mourinho as their manager and it isn’t a surprise that they’ve ended up champions.