Jose Mourinho

Metalhead said:

It is him who said that. He's entitled to his opinion but I'm not certain that anyone will particularly miss him or be distraught if he wants to stop going breathing.

Click to expand...

IamSpurtacus said:

unfortunately too many fans - and the club - are ingrained solely with Danny Blanchflower's philosophy:

"The great fallacy is that the game is first and last about winning. It is nothing of the kind. The game is about glory, it is about doing things in style and with a flourish, about going out and beating the other lot, not waiting for them to die of boredom.”

But it ignores Billy Nic's view : “If you don’t win anything, you have had a bad season.”

He also said "It’s no use just winning, we’ve got to win well.”

So it's possible to balance winning, and doing it in style - it showed in results and success on the pitch

Against smaller sides we can play good football ... but Jose is an extreme version of billy nic - and i'm all for it if it means we win close games, and actually win a major trophy

Vincent Kompany said winning the FA Cup was the start of City's transformation, as it gave them the winning feeling - we need the same thing

Click to expand...

Col_M said:

Thanks


Our form this season: LWWWDWWWDWWLWWWWWDDWW

Click to expand...

rez9000 said:

Absolutely.

And the bolded quote is actually very interesting and possibly even ingenious.

What does 'well' actually mean?

Does it mean by playing 'beautiful' football? Some may say that. But can it not also be argued that winning efficiently is also winning 'well'? Can it not mean that hanging back, being predators, and unleashing unbelievable talent to sucker punch the opposition is also winning 'well'?

Billy Nic was a very canny man, by all accounts - sharp-witted and clever. Maybe he was merely trying to gee up the faithful with his quote, knowing that 'winning well' is very very subjective. It's almost like a Barnum statement (the type psychics use to try and convince people they have knowledge they couldn't possibly have), seemingly profound but not actually very specific....

Click to expand...

Gassin's finest said:

It may not have been applicable to spurs for a very long time, but when people talk about the Spurs Way, they're referring to that era of pioneering, passing football that literally changed the game. No McWilliam, then no Buckingham, then no Cruyff, la masia, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Gassin's finest said:

No McWilliam, then no Buckingham, then no Cruyff, la masia, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Gassin's finest said:

Nicholson was a no nonsense Yorkshireman who was trained in the Arthur Rowe push and run side. Playing 'well' back then, as far as he was concerned, was the expansive, passing football that was introduced by Pete McWilliam, refined by Rowe, and then balanced with pragmatism by Nicholson. Alf Ramsay took that same training and won a world cup with England with it.

The first half of the 20th century still saw most of the emphasis on dribbling and the WM formation. McWilliam was one of the first managers to bring the expansive Scottish passing game down South, and from there it spread all over Europe via the likes of Vic Buckingham.

It may not have been applicable to spurs for a very long time, but when people talk about the Spurs Way, they're referring to that era of pioneering, passing football that literally changed the game. No McWilliam, then no Buckingham, then no Cruyff, la masia, etc etc.

Click to expand...

rez9000 said:

That's the historical view. That's what it's considered to be through the prism of looking back.

But the statement itself will change as history changes. Does it lose it's meaning when football changes? Does it gain new meaning when football changes?

And note, I didn't say he did say it to have a double meaning, only that he could have. And the point was that the phrase can mean different things to different people. The fact that he may have merely been referring to the style he wanted Spurs to play shows how subjective it is.

Click to expand...

popstar7 said:

I was only vaguely aware of this link until recently. Would love to see a documentary on the subject but lack of footage from those days probably counts against that happening.

Click to expand...

Gassin's finest said:

Uh... no. Bill was just saying that because we had a fucking great team. I'm not sure he was fussed about prisms, history or subjectivity.

Click to expand...

Gb160 said:

...no Pep, and ultimately, no Arteta.

Click to expand...

Gassin's finest said:

Nicholson was a no nonsense Yorkshireman who was trained in the Arthur Rowe push and run side. Playing 'well' back then, as far as he was concerned, was the expansive, passing football that was introduced by Pete McWilliam, refined by Rowe, and then balanced with pragmatism by Nicholson. Alf Ramsay took that same training and won a world cup with England with it.

The first half of the 20th century still saw most of the emphasis on dribbling and the WM formation. McWilliam was one of the first managers to bring the expansive Scottish passing game down South, and from there it spread all over Europe via the likes of Vic Buckingham.

It may not have been applicable to spurs for a very long time, but when people talk about the Spurs Way, they're referring to that era of pioneering, passing football that literally changed the game. No McWilliam, then no Buckingham, then no Cruyff, la masia, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Brilliant Orange

The Netherlands has been one of the world's most distinctive and sophisticated football cultures. From the birth of Total Football in the sixties, through two decades of World Cup near misses to the exiles who remade clubs like AC Milan, Barcelona, Arsenal and Chelsea in their own image, the...

books.google.com

Joshua said:

This came up in my recommended. Quite interesting to hear Xabi Alonso talk about how Madrid set up under Mourinho. Obviously there are slight differences but his role sounds similar to Højbjerg. Talks about his partnership with Khedira and the energy he had to go back and forth (sound familiar? See one Mr. M Sissoko). Also talks about how they didn’t try to elaborate play and instead favoured quick passes into Ronaldo, Özil and di Maria allowing them to do their individual actions. Does sound awfully similar to how we’re set up. I think if it’s good enough for Madrid with Alonso, di Maria, Cristiano and co. then it’s probably good enough for us if you ask me ??‍

(Madrid talk starts at 3 minutes in btw)

Click to expand...

Reece_Spurs said:

For those that think Mourinho doesn't know what he's doing. Do 90% of these goals look familiar?

Give Jose a solid foundation defensively and a world class attacking 3 or 4 and this is the result..

Click to expand...

spursfan77 said:

Thanks for posting. That sounds a lot like us. “The goals came from nothing almost”. A lot of our goals are like that because of the quick breaks. We don’t have an ozil though. Makes me wonder if he did really want Bruno fernandes as was mooted when Mourinho joined.

Click to expand...

Reece_Spurs said:

For those that think Mourinho doesn't know what he's doing. Do 90% of these goals look familiar?

Give Jose a solid foundation defensively and a world class attacking 3 or 4 and this is the result..

Click to expand...