yourmumsdomain.com

Is he really as good as he seems as a manager or is it that he has the best squad on the planet becuase he has infinite pockets? or a combination of the two.

Discuss

bit of both really, plus he inherited a pretty good squad in pretty good shape.

Yeah

Ranieria had a good squad anyway and he is a
good manager, his team have alot of respect for him
and i think hes got the team like a big family kinda like
how Man Utd were.

And yes big dollar does help as in everything in life.

and if Bill Gates is reading this, BUY NEWCASTLE PLZ THX.

Yeah combination of both.

I don't think he could have achieved the same with a smaller budget. I also think there are plenty of managers who could emulate his success with a budget like he has.
Despite that both factors are important, the money more so obviously.

he is a good manager look at his record at porto
having the most money makes it easier though as he can afford to make mistakes with transfers and not really have a problem

yeah he prob would of turned them into a decent side even without all the money, but the money made them what they are

pain wrote:I don't think he could have achieved the same with a smaller budget. I also think there are plenty of managers who could emulate his success with a budget like he has.
Despite that both factors are important, the money more so obviously.

He had next to no Budget at Porto, still didnt stop him beating Man U on his way to the Champions League final, and eventually the Cup.

I think he's as good as he says he is, knows what he's doing and knows how to get the best out of his best players.

I dont think many managers could have came into Chelsea at that time and did what he did.

Sounds like an item based game, this football thingy that you talk about.
Better items = win

\o/

Angus wrote:

pain wrote:I don't think he could have achieved the same with a smaller budget. I also think there are plenty of managers who could emulate his success with a budget like he has.
Despite that both factors are important, the money more so obviously.

He had next to no Budget at Porto, still didnt stop him beating Man U on his way to the Champions League final, and eventually the Cup.

I think he's as good as he says he is, knows what he's doing and knows how to get the best out of his best players.

I dont think many managers could have came into Chelsea at that time and did what he did.

Maybe not many managers could have done it so emphatically but I think the premiership isn't too hard to win when you have a squad of 22 top class players and the confidence that comes from it. A lot of those players and Mourinho himself probably wouldn't even be at Chelsea if it wasn't for the money they have; the massive fortune ensures they will be competing every year no matter who manages it and that makes the club more attractive. Not to mention the wages. He won only one really notable cup at Portugal, and I wouldn't count man united as a difficult team to get past. Milan, Chelsea or Juventus would have been harder ^_^

Er...

He won the Uefa Cup, the Cup Winners Cup, and the Champions League all within 2 seasons.
Not to mention his league titles and cups.

I really think your looking at it in a different way, Man U and Arsenal have had money for years to buy big names, now that Chelsea have done it on a bigger scale people are taking pot shots at them.

Still, i prefer the new revolution at Spurs over Chelsea ^^

Angus wrote:Er...

He won the Uefa Cup, the Cup Winners Cup, and the Champions League all within 2 seasons.
Not to mention his league titles and cups.

I really think your looking at it in a different way, Man U and Arsenal have had money for years to buy big names, now that Chelsea have done it on a bigger scale people are taking pot shots at them.

UEFA cup is a good cup but not near to the premiership or UCL, cup winners cup is a bit of a novelty.
There's no comparison to the spending of Chelsea and Arsenal/Man United. Arsenal made money through the skilled business attributes of Arsene Wenger and manchester through commercialism and by being a plc. Chelsea became a billionaire club from a bankrupt one overnight with foreign money. If you can point out any other club that spends 100m on players every year go ahead.

Chelsea play to thier strengths which is down to the manager. They don't have many weaknesses which is down to the quality of the squad. The quality of squad is down to the shrewd buys in the transfer market and the quality of the bankroll financing it.

A little bit of both. Anyone writing off Jose's achievments due to the cash behind him need to go and see what some other clubs that spent silly money have achieved (Keegan@Newcastle, Pre-relegation Leeds, Tottenham the entire time David Pleat had anything to do with football), however I think any team he managed would still play to thier strengths and probably close to thier potential reqardless of the intrinsic quality of the squad. I think thats the only way you can really judge him.

I'd have him manage my 5 a side team npnp (Yes Mr Abramowhammovich this is a formal offer: £5 and some pork scratchings, and we'll take him off your hands. Or nearest offer.)

the core of the squad is pre mourinho anyway pain

cudicini/terry/gallas/huth/bridge/lampard/cole/geremi/robben/crespo/c. cole/gudjohnson etcetc

mourinho just polished and aquired abit more quality and made them play to potential. look at the current man utd side...

rio
ronaldo
rooney
nistelroy
ji sung

none of these guys where free now where they.

real madrid squad, assembled at a greater cost than chelsea.

whatever i argue, people will always be bitter at what happened at chelsea because it wasnt there club, and because of how the english public is, hate people with success.

mourinho is a different story, he has won and done, almost everything he could possible win or do, and he's the youngest top manager around. unmatchable and contreversial maybe, the best...definatly.